Question for PCL128 and Rez O Lewshun....

[XJohXJ]

Because they aren't capable of it. How do YOU propose they do this?

Either way, I'm done with the argument.

I support my union and pilot group. You do not support your union or pilot group. Bye bye.

 

[JoeMerchant]

Because they aren't capable of it. How do YOU propose they do this?

Either way, I'm done with the argument.

I support my union and pilot group. You do not support your union or pilot group. Bye bye.

How about our union stop advocating that we make them legal...

How about we send ICE to all locations that employ illegal aliens.... Restaurants, farm fields, construction sites, etc.....

Total left wing cop out..... "we can't" therefor we should just let them all come here..... then we will make them become union members and vote Democratic....

I'm done too, but don't be surprised when the majority of your fellow "union brothers" disagree and don't support the PAC.... We don't agree.....

 

[PCL_128]

Practically speaking, yes.

How in the world is our government going to round up and process and deport MILLIONS of people? Maybe they should, but they CAN'T.

XJohXJ, you're making the mistake of trying to use logic and common sense with Joey. You have to remember that Joey is a crazy idealist who doesn't understand the meaning of the word "pragmatic." Whether something is workable or realistic doesn't matter to him. All he can do is rant about how things "should" be.

 

[JoeMerchant]

XJohXJ, you're making the mistake of trying to use logic and common sense with Joey. You have to remember that Joey is a crazy idealist who doesn't understand the meaning of the word "pragmatic." Whether something is workable or realistic doesn't matter to him. All he can do is rant about how things "should" be.

So we shouldn't argue from a point of "how things should be"? What would you prefer PCL? How things "shouldn't be"?

If I made fun of ALPA for pontificating about "how things should be", you would be on me like white on rice.... however if I argue about "how things should be", you make fun of it.... tell me PCL, as a former "conservative", how do feel about the illegal invasion and the stance of the AFL-CIO.....

 

[PCL_128]

So we shouldn't argue from a point of "how things should be"? What would you prefer PCL? How things "shouldn't be"?

I prefer to be a realist and look at how things actually can be done. It's logistically impossible to deport all of the illegals in this country. Yes, that's what "should be" done, but it simply can't be done.

how do feel about the illegal invasion and the stance of the AFL-CIO.....

We need to put a stop to the illegal invasion by stationing troops at the border and using any level of force necessary to keep the illegals out. The AFL-CIO's stance is counter-productive in my opinion because it only encourages more illegals to enter our country since we haven't first secured the border. If we give blanket amnesty to illegals before securing our borders, then we'll just have 8 million more of them coming across and the whole process starts over. If we actually secured the borders and were able to keep anymore illegals out, then I might support an amnesty bill to grandfather in the current illegals that already reside in America, simply because deporting them is a logistical impossibility. However, amnesty without secure borders is asinine.

 

[XJohXJ]

I prefer to be a realist and look at how things actually can be done. It's logistically impossible to deport all of the illegals in this country. Yes, that's what "should be" done, but it simply can't be done.

We need to put a stop to the illegal invasion by stationing troops at the border and using any level of force necessary to keep the illegals out. The AFL-CIO's stance is counter-productive in my opinion because it only encourages more illegals to enter our country since we haven't first secured the border. If we give blanket amnesty to illegals before securing our borders, then we'll just have 8 million more of them coming across and the whole process starts over. If we actually secured the borders and were able to keep anymore illegals out, then I might support an amnesty bill to grandfather in the current illegals that already reside in America, simply because deporting them is a logistical impossibility. However, amnesty without secure borders is asinine.

Boy, thanks for putting it better than I was able to.

Unfortunately, our government wants to spend millions on technology and hates to think of actually hiring people to put feet on the ground (just another aspect of being anti-labor. Troops are labor, too).

A secure border requires people there to do the job, with tech as a backup, not primary.

The AFL-CIO are probably getting a bit ahead of things, but they can only address the labor issue. The AFL-CIO can not address border security.

 

[JoeMerchant]

I prefer to be a realist and look at how things actually can be done. It's logistically impossible to deport all of the illegals in this country. Yes, that's what "should be" done, but it simply can't be done.

Using your logic, then we shouldn't enforce any of our laws.... Is it possible to to stop all speeders? Is it possible to stop all DUI's? Is it possible to stop all robberies? Is it possible to stop all murders? NO it isn't! Does that mean we stop trying? NO it doesn't.... I can help ICE find many illegal aliens if they need help, and I sure as he!! don't need my union promoting that they be left alone....

We need to put a stop to the illegal invasion by stationing troops at the border and using any level of force necessary to keep the illegals out. The AFL-CIO's stance is counter-productive in my opinion because it only encourages more illegals to enter our country since we haven't first secured the border. If we give blanket amnesty to illegals before securing our borders, then we'll just have 8 million more of them coming across and the whole process starts over. If we actually secured the borders and were able to keep anymore illegals out, then I might support an amnesty bill to grandfather in the current illegals that already reside in America, simply because deporting them is a logistical impossibility. However, amnesty without secure borders is asinine.

I agree.... and our union's stance is counter productive to that goal..... it is trying to protect itself at the cost of our country and our citizens....

 

[JoeMerchant]

Boy, thanks for putting it better than I was able to.

Unfortunately, our government wants to spend millions on technology and hates to think of actually hiring people to put feet on the ground (just another aspect of being anti-labor. Troops are labor, too).

A secure border requires people there to do the job, with tech as a backup, not primary.

The AFL-CIO are probably getting a bit ahead of things, but they can only address the labor issue. The AFL-CIO can not address border security.

I thought you were done..... I agree that troops should be on the border, but you liberals (including the unions) don't want that....

Let's put troops on the border and enforce our immigration laws.... including deporting those who are here illegally.....

 

[PCL_128]

Using your logic, then we shouldn't enforce any of our laws.... Is it possible to to stop all speeders? Is it possible to stop all DUI's? Is it possible to stop all robberies? Is it possible to stop all murders? NO it isn't! Does that mean we stop trying? NO it doesn't.... I can help ICE find many illegal aliens if they need help, and I sure as he!! don't need my union promoting that they be left alone....

Not analogous. Fining speeders, throwing robbers in jail, executing murderers, and charging DUI offenders provides a large deterrent affect. Wasting copious amounts of resources on trying to deport illegals provides no deterrent affect. They'll just try again after you deport them and you'll end up sending them back time after time.

I agree.... and our union's stance is counter productive to that goal..... it is trying to protect itself at the cost of our country and our citizens....

The AFL-CIO isn't responsible for border security. Other special-interest groups deal with that issue. The AFL-CIO deals with labor issues. I don't expect them to be commenting on whether we need troops on the border or not. That being said, I do agree that their stance on this issue in premature, as amnesty before secure borders will not provide any protection for labor. Your assertion that this is fueled by self-interest is absurd. The AFL-CIO stands to gain nothing from jobs being lost to illegals because they will only drive down incomes of blue-collar workers. That will cause the AFL-CIO's revenue to go down. This isn't about self-interest for the AFL. This is just bad policy. But I'm not a fan of Sweeney, anyway.

 

[JoeMerchant]

Not analogous. Fining speeders, throwing robbers in jail, executing murderers, and charging DUI offenders provides a large deterrent affect. Wasting copious amounts of resources on trying to deport illegals provides no deterrent affect. They'll just try again after you deport them and you'll end up sending them back time after time.

Your argument was that

"It's logistically impossible to deport all of the illegals"

That is true, but is logically impossible to arrest or stop any illegal activity... that doesn't stop us from pursuing any other illegal activity... for some reason, illegal invadors get a free pass....

The AFL-CIO isn't responsible for border security. Other special-interest groups deal with that issue. The AFL-CIO deals with labor issues. I don't expect them to be commenting on whether we need troops on the border or not. That being said, I do agree that their stance on this issue in premature, as amnesty before secure borders will not provide any protection for labor. Your assertion that this is fueled by self-interest is absurd. The AFL-CIO stands to gain nothing from jobs being lost to illegals because they will only drive down incomes of blue-collar workers. That will cause the AFL-CIO's revenue to go down. This isn't about self-interest for the AFL. This is just bad policy. But I'm not a fan of Sweeney, anyway.

Cop out argument... The AFL-CIO stands to benefit by organizing these illegal aliens.... Everyone realizes that....

The harm it does is that alienates the conservative members of ALPA and other unions.... In terms of ALPA, conservatives are the majority.... Supporting illiegal aliens and Hillary Clinton won't exactly get the PAC contributions flowing.... but keep on defending it and complaining about why ALPA pilots don't contribute.... you just don't see the disconnect.... much like the union leadership....

 

[PCL_128]

Your argument was that

"It's logistically impossible to deport all of the illegals"

That is true, but is logically impossible to arrest or stop any illegal activity... that doesn't stop us from pursuing any other illegal activity... for some reason, illegal invadors get a free pass....

It is possible to deter certain crimes with fines, jail time, etc... It is not possible to deter illegal immigration by trying to deport illegals. Therefore, deporting illegals is useless.

Cop out argument... The AFL-CIO stands to benefit by organizing these illegal aliens.... Everyone realizes that....

No, they don't. A constant flood of illegals drives down wages. If they replace current blue collar workers at lower wages, it doesn't matter if you organize them because the dues revenue goes down.

The harm it does is that alienates the conservative members of ALPA and other unions.... In terms of ALPA, conservatives are the majority.... Supporting illiegal aliens and Hillary Clinton won't exactly get the PAC contributions flowing.... but keep on defending it and complaining about why ALPA pilots don't contribute.... you just don't see the disconnect.... much like the union leadership....

ALPA-PAC is in no way related to the AFL-CIO. ALPA-PAC only gets involved in issues that directly affect pilots.

 

[JoeMerchant]

It is possible to deter certain crimes with fines, jail time, etc... It is not possible to deter illegal immigration by trying to deport illegals. Therefore, deporting illegals is useless.

So it's useless to deport any illegals? What about the cost of those illegals? What if an illegal goes to the emergency room? Who pays for that? Sorry, but you are sounding more like a liberal...

No, they don't. A constant flood of illegals drives down wages. If they replace current blue collar workers at lower wages, it doesn't matter if you organize them because the dues revenue goes down.

Then why is the AFL-CIO supporting illegal aliens and amnesty? Even some of your cohorts admit that unions are business's.... why is that so hard for you to admit.....

ALPA-PAC is in no way related to the AFL-CIO. ALPA-PAC only gets involved in issues that directly affect pilots.

Continue to tell yourself that, and continue to wonder why ALPA members shun the PAC.... ALPA supports the AFL-CIO and vice versa.... both are liberal organizations politically..... most ALPA members are conservatives.... the disconnect will continue.... so deal with it....

 

[PCL_128]

So it's useless to deport any illegals? What about the cost of those illegals? What if an illegal goes to the emergency room? Who pays for that? Sorry, but you are sounding more like a liberal...

It's useless because the guy will just cross the border again and you'll end up not only paying for his medical bills and other costs, but you'll end up paying to deport the guy time after time. It might make sense to deport them after the border is secured, but even then the cost would be astronomical to try to find and deport millions upon millions of these people.

Then why is the AFL-CIO supporting illegal aliens and amnesty?

You'd have to ask the AFL-CIO. The policy is self-defeating as far as I'm concerned. Amnesty without secure borders is a recipe for lower dues revenue and a further diminished labor movement.

Continue to tell yourself that, and continue to wonder why ALPA members shun the PAC.... ALPA supports the AFL-CIO and vice versa.... both are liberal organizations politically..... most ALPA members are conservatives.... the disconnect will continue.... so deal with it....

I agree with some of what you're saying. I've talked with various ALPA reps and staffers about this, and I've always maintained that officially endorsing liberal candidates is a faulty policy for ALPA. ALPA should let the PAC focus on contributions to pro-pilot candidates and forget endorsements that turn off conservative members.

 

[JoeMerchant]

It's useless because the guy will just cross the border again and you'll end up not only paying for his medical bills and other costs, but you'll end up paying to deport the guy time after time. It might make sense to deport them after the border is secured, but even then the cost would be astronomical to try to find and deport millions upon millions of these people.



You'd have to ask the AFL-CIO. The policy is self-defeating as far as I'm concerned. Amnesty without secure borders is a recipe for lower dues revenue and a further diminished labor movement.



I agree with some of what you're saying. I've talked with various ALPA reps and staffers about this, and I've always maintained that officially endorsing liberal candidates is a faulty policy for ALPA. ALPA should let the PAC focus on contributions to pro-pilot candidates and forget endorsements that turn off conservative members.

I'm going to end it here.... we mostly agree on this...

As far as deportation, I would combine it with stronger border security.... It's not an either/or situation...

Strengthen the boarder, with troops, and send the illegals back home.....

On the rest we agree....:beer:

 

[N2264J]

Re: Question for PCL128 and Rez O Lewshun...

If this country can't enforce it's borders and it's laws, then we need to find leaders who can...

That's not going to happen because big business relies on the non-union, cheap, seasonal labor they get form Mexico to do the back breaking, low paying jobs Americans refuse to do and the corporations fund both parties enough to keep the border patrol looking the other way.

Think about it: this is always a "poor brown people" problem while the conservative business tycoons who hire them are seldom, if ever, held accountable.

So tell me, you want to pay $9.00 for a quart of strawberries?