I meant yuan not yen in referring to the Chinese currency @ 143.

You have a yen for Yuan?

Daylight come and yuan go home!

Down on the Yuannie River, long long ago.

anangryoldbroad @ 62

I could be wrong about this,but I think the only cushion we’ve had in America against this sort of thing happening is the middle class.

I think that’s exactly it, myself. The middle class is the key to economic prosperity and stability. Mexico has only a tiny sliver of a middle class, if that. We’ve lost our middle class at alarming rates.

We might do well to recall that immigrants tend to send a large portion of their incomes back to their home countries and that helps them to build their middle-classes. As that happens and perhaps as a Progressive Democratic US government helps Mexico and others to improve their economies, then there will be less natural pressure to come to America to have a good life.

Also, allowing immigrants into America legally to work would require companies to pay at least the minimum wage to ALL their workers. That changes a lot. If they can’t hire illegals for lower-than-minimum-wage, then maybe they wouldn’t be so quick to hire them at all. Of course, those who speak American English would still do well, but those who don’t would really have to compete with American workers.

Well, call me crazy but I don’t want the immigrants punished for wanting to work. I instead want employers and corporations fined for hiring illegals. I want that money then to be earmarked to help those in the country have access to the things they need. Corporate america needs to pay for them to be here. There is no free lunch…But they seem to think there is. One way or the other corporate america needs to foot the bill that having them here in america costs us. (health care, social services). The people do not need to be punished at all. Perhaps those with criminal records should go home. But it’s not the human beings fault for wanting a job. It is corporate america’s fault for wanting to hire slave labor and then refusing to pay for any of the costs of housing them.

I think you’re buying into the current situation and not using your imagination to dream up another sensible way for us to handle the whole issue.

For example, why should immigration be tied to ‘border security’? Aren’t they really two separate issues? If we’re concerned about somebody bringing drugs or nukes over the border, then that’s definitely a security problem. But, individuals and families who want to immigrate to America(?), is that a ’security’ problem?

Separate the two and you get a much better basis for thinking about our real options.

On security, our response should relate to our perceived risk. Do we guard every inch of the Canadian border, the North Atlantic border? No. We guard at road entry points and ports and we might want to guard the ports more carefully (container shipping).

On immigration we have to decide where to set the rate of in-flow for people from different parts of the globe or we have to accept anyone who wants to come and then regulate them differently when they’re here.

I suggest the latter: it’s our traditional American ideal to let the tired and down-trodden to come here for a better life. Let them work and contribute to America. We’re a big country. We can handle it.

Language?

Many people are freaked-out by non-English-speaking foreigners. Can we or should we require English-language-only for entry? I think it’s entirely debatable and with merits on both sides.

Broken down this way, isn’t it easier to handle the issues?

I say we should solve the problem and take the issue from Repubs, but Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-Illinois) of the House leadership says it should be put off for a while. Eh.

Guess history can (and will) repeat itself unless we work to change…

I respectfully disagree here.

I agree the employees need jobs and I am sympathetic to people who want a better life for their families. However, the employers who need workers and resort to hiring illegal immigrants are just unwilling to pay a living wage and as a result are creating a demand that is being filled to a great extent by those in the country illegally.

Illegal immigration is not an issue limited to border states. It is a local issue. In my town in MA it manifests itself in a growing supply of substandard housing, public school classrooms with large percentages of non-English speaking children, crowded hospital emergency rooms, drivers without auto insurance, and assorted other burdens on local services.

We are not a racist community. By and large most people in my town understand that the immigrant population is being exploited. However, my town, like many others is being left to fend for itself without any acceptable level of federal assistance.

I believe enforcement of immigration laws is a federal responsibility and the federal government has failed to carry out its responsibility in large part due to the desire of corporations to cripple organized labor. I also believe progressives need to be careful about labelling those who want our laws to be enforced as racists.

Thanks for such a clear statement. I agree completely.

Although i’ve always been a “bleeding heart liberal,” this is one issue on which I tend to bleed less.

Nearly everyone who’s an “illegal immigrant” [and sorry, if they came here illegally, they’re illegal, not “undocumented’] has a compelling story for being here. But so does the individual with a compelling story who’s stuck in Sudan or Bosnia or Gabon or Tibet.

We CAN’T be the welcoming soft place to land for everyone on the entire planet — heck, we can’t even take care of those who need help who are here already. There are other ways of helping our fellow citizens of the world without a big “c’mon down.”

While the “good” side of allowing unlimited immigration [responding to the stories of individual need] is always cited, the “down” side, as articulated by the poster, is often skipped over.

It’s tempting for the Dems to try to “capture the expanding Hispanic vote” by not taking action against illegal immigration, but more leadership, more long-term thinking and less pandering are what’s needed — and a repeal of CAFTA.

A retired Navy admiral with an almost academic demeanor, McConnell, 64, has spent most of his six months in the nation’s top espionage job making quiet internal changes in the sprawling intelligence community. Among his priorities have been giving agencies more incentives to work together and fixing problems in procurement systems for spy satellites.

But last week he plunged into what became a fierce political debate with significant implications, both for the war on terrorism and for the civil liberties of American citizens. After lobbying for the legal changes for more than a year, McConnell maneuvered himself into the position of passing judgment on each proposal that surfaced during the week, angering Democrats by declaring their bills inadequate.

He also engaged in extensive negotiations with Democrats, during which his apparent changes of position left some members suggesting on the House floor that the intelligence director had become a puppet for the White House.

At one point, House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) expressed bewilderment that McConnell had issued a statement rejecting the Democrats’ approach one day after he had told members that their measure “significantly enhances America’s security.”

Referring to McConnell’s subsequent criticism of the Democrats’ bill, Hoyer said, “I will tell you, it doesn’t sound like the Adm. McConnell with whom I have talked over the past few weeks.”

A spokesman for McConnell rejected assertions that he had changed his position or been used for political purposes by the White House. “The White House did not play any part in rejecting that bill,” said Ross Feinstein, a McConnell spokesman. McConnell “made his own decisions. He was clear all along on what he needed in the bill.”

In handling those negotiations, McConnell was thrust into a delicate position. By tradition, the nation’s top intelligence official is supposed to be insulated from political pressure or from debates over policy. But at the same time, the director is appointed by the president and serves as his top intelligence aide.

“He is the president’s senior intelligence advisor, not Congress’ senior intelligence advisor,” said Mark Lowenthal, a former top CIA official and intelligence historian. But, he added, “I don’t think McConnell would ever allow himself to be put in the position of doing the bidding of the White House. It’s just not who the guy is.”

There were signs Tuesday that some Democrats still regarded McConnell as a trusted figure. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, defended her vote for the Republican version of the spy bill in part by circulating a letter she had received from McConnell describing the ways that the intelligence community would safeguard U.S. citizens’ privacy under the new espionage authorities.
Other congressional officials said McConnell’s negotiations left Democrats feeling blindsided. These officials said McConnell had initially agreed to certain provisions — including a sunset clause that would cause the legislation to expire in six months — and then abruptly changed position. In the end, Democrats fought to get the sunset clause attached to the final Republican bill.

Thanks. :o)

Hi, Liberty!:

The next republican meeting you attend, could you ask them, as good goopers, what makes them think that, after 4 and a half years (and counting) that $2.5 billion a week that’s going down the Iraq urinal, is off-the-table when we talk about “wasteful government spending”???

Most Republicans believe that Iraq is the Central Front in the Global War on Terror and therefore does not constitute “wasteful government spending”, but in the nature of “billions for defense, not one cent for tribute”.