FreshFish

Al-jazeera reports on the G20...someone wants the 'infidel' Paulson's head on the chopping block [Literally] I believe he is mostly correct on the robbery aspects, sad you have to hear the truth from Al-Jazeera

Reuters/Forbes Article On the attached link you can find some additional information on what is going on with the G20. Sounds like Washington rolled over and played dead and gave all kinds of concessions. A French negotiator, who requested anonymity, described the result as a "rupture" with the under-regulated, laissez-faire markets approach so long favoured by the United States. All I can say is that free-market capitalism is farther away, and probably death for at least the next decade.

http://www.newsmax.com/morris/g_20_economi.../19/153044.html I by no means a fan of Dick Morris. if this is true, this is outrageous The results of the G-20 economic summit amount to nothing less than the seamless integration of the United States into the European economy. In one month of legislation and one diplomatic meeting, the United States has unilaterally abdicated all the gains for the concept of free markets won by the Reagan administration and surrendered, in total, to the Western European model of socialism, stagnation, and excessive government regulation. Sovereignty is out the window. Without a vote, we are suddenly members of the European Union. Given the dismal record of those nations at creating jobs and sustaining growth, merging with the Europeans is like a partnership with death. At the G-20 meeting, Bush agreed to subject the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and our other regulatory agencies to the supervision of a global entity that would critique its regulatory standards and demand changes if it felt they were necessary. Bush agreed to create a College of Supervisors. According to The Washington Post, it would "examine the books of major financial institutions that operate across national borders so regulators could begin to have a more complete picture of banks' operations." Their scrutiny would extend to hedge funds and to various "exotic" financial instruments. The International Monetary Fund (IMF), a European-dominated operation, would conduct "regular vigorous reviews" of American financial institutions and practices. The European-dominated College of Supervisors would also weigh in on issues like executive compensation and investment practices. There is nothing wrong with the substance of this regulation. Experience is showing it is needed. But it is very wrong to delegate these powers to unelected, international institutions with no political accountability. We have a Securities and Exchange Commission appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate, both of whom are elected by the American people. It is with the SEC, the Treasury, and the Federal Reserve that financial accountability must take place. The European Union achieved this massive subrogation of American sovereignty the way it usually does, by negotiation, gradual bureaucratic encroachment, and without asking the voters if they approve. What's more, Bush appears to have gone down without a fight, saving his debating time for arguing against the protectionism that France's Nicolas Sarkozy was pushing. By giving Bush a seeming victory on a moratorium against protectionism for one year, Sarkozy was able to slip over his massive scheme for taking over the supervision of the U.S. economy. All kinds of political agendas are advancing under the cover of responding to the global financial crisis. Where Franklin Roosevelt saved capitalism by regulating it, Bush, to say nothing of Obama, has given the government control over our major financial and insurance institutions. And it isn't even our government! The power has now been transferred to the international community, led by the socialists in the European Union. Will Obama govern from the left? He doesn't have to. George W. Bush has done all the heavy lifting for him. It was under Bush that the government basically took over as the chief stockholder of our financial institutions and under Bush that we ceded our financial controls to the European Union. In doing so, he has done nothing to preserve what differentiates the vibrant American economy from those dying economies in Europe. Why have 80 percent of the jobs that have been created since 1980 in the industrialized world been created in the United States? How has America managed to retain its leading 24 percent share of global manufacturing even in the face of the Chinese surge? How has the U.S. GDP risen so high that it essentially equals that of the European Union, whose population is 50 percent greater? It has done so by an absence of stifling regulation, a liberation of capital to flow to innovative businesses, low taxes, and by a low level of unionization that has given business the flexibility to grow and prosper. Europe, stagnated by taxation and regulation, has grown by a pittance while we have roared ahead. But now Bush ? not Obama ? Bush has given that all up and caved in to European socialists. The Bush legacy? European socialism. Who needs enemies with friends like Bush? ? 2008 Dick Morris & Eileen McGann

I would normally be in favor of letting unprofitable companies go bankrupt (regardless of size), but in this case I support a bailout because we risk a great depression if we fail to do so. I don't know what to think anymore...this is one of those things that 'damned if you do, damned if you don't'

Anyone think that had this been going on during the GOP primaries, he'd be saying the same thing? not sure...but he did say he wouldn't support government help for auto makers during the primaries and I believe he won Michigan. I think he said he'd help the automakers to win Michigan. I was watching him today in an interview with Neil Cavuto and they put a clip from the primaries where he said Washington money was not the answer to help automakers. I was never a Rommey supporter, so I didn't follow much of what he did.

Anyone think that had this been going on during the GOP primaries, he'd be saying the same thing? not sure...but he did say he wouldn't support government help for auto makers during the primaries and I believe he won Michigan.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/opinion/19romney.html?_r=2 IF General Motors, Ford and Chrysler get the bailout that their chief executives asked for yesterday, you can kiss the American automotive industry goodbye. It won?t go overnight, but its demise will be virtually guaranteed. Without that bailout, Detroit will need to drastically restructure itself. With it, the automakers will stay the course ? the suicidal course of declining market shares, insurmountable labor and retiree burdens, technology atrophy, product inferiority and never-ending job losses. Detroit needs a turnaround, not a check. I love cars, American cars. I was born in Detroit, the son of an auto chief executive. In 1954, my dad, George Romney, was tapped to run American Motors when its president suddenly died. The company itself was on life support ? banks were threatening to deal it a death blow. The stock collapsed. I watched Dad work to turn the company around ? and years later at business school, they were still talking about it. From the lessons of that turnaround, and from my own experiences, I have several prescriptions for Detroit?s automakers. First, their huge disadvantage in costs relative to foreign brands must be eliminated. That means new labor agreements to align pay and benefits to match those of workers at competitors like BMW, Honda, Nissan and Toyota. Furthermore, retiree benefits must be reduced so that the total burden per auto for domestic makers is not higher than that of foreign producers. That extra burden is estimated to be more than $2,000 per car. Think what that means: Ford, for example, needs to cut $2,000 worth of features and quality out of its Taurus to compete with Toyota?s Avalon. Of course the Avalon feels like a better product ? it has $2,000 more put into it. Considering this disadvantage, Detroit has done a remarkable job of designing and engineering its cars. But if this cost penalty persists, any bailout will only delay the inevitable. Second, management as is must go. New faces should be recruited from unrelated industries ? from companies widely respected for excellence in marketing, innovation, creativity and labor relations. The new management must work with labor leaders to see that the enmity between labor and management comes to an end. This division is a holdover from the early years of the last century, when unions brought workers job security and better wages and benefits. But as Walter Reuther, the former head of the United Automobile Workers, said to my father, ?Getting more and more pay for less and less work is a dead-end street.? You don?t have to look far for industries with unions that went down that road. Companies in the 21st century cannot perpetuate the destructive labor relations of the 20th. This will mean a new direction for the U.A.W., profit sharing or stock grants to all employees and a change in Big Three management culture. The need for collaboration will mean accepting sanity in salaries and perks. At American Motors, my dad cut his pay and that of his executive team, he bought stock in the company, and he went out to factories to talk to workers directly. Get rid of the planes, the executive dining rooms ? all the symbols that breed resentment among the hundreds of thousands who will also be sacrificing to keep the companies afloat. Investments must be made for the future. No more focus on quarterly earnings or the kind of short-term stock appreciation that means quick riches for executives with options. Manage with an eye on cash flow, balance sheets and long-term appreciation. Invest in truly competitive products and innovative technologies ? especially fuel-saving designs ? that may not arrive for years. Starving research and development is like eating the seed corn. Just as important to the future of American carmakers is the sales force. When sales are down, you don?t want to lose the only people who can get them to grow. So don?t fire the best dealers, and don?t crush them with new financial or performance demands they can?t meet. It is not wrong to ask for government help, but the automakers should come up with a win-win proposition. I believe the federal government should invest substantially more in basic research ? on new energy sources, fuel-economy technology, materials science and the like ? that will ultimately benefit the automotive industry, along with many others. I believe Washington should raise energy research spending to $20 billion a year, from the $4 billion that is spent today. The research could be done at universities, at research labs and even through public-private collaboration. The federal government should also rectify the imbedded tax penalties that favor foreign carmakers. But don?t ask Washington to give shareholders and bondholders a free pass ? they bet on management and they lost. The American auto industry is vital to our national interest as an employer and as a hub for manufacturing. A managed bankruptcy may be the only path to the fundamental restructuring the industry needs. It would permit the companies to shed excess labor, pension and real estate costs. The federal government should provide guarantees for post-bankruptcy financing and assure car buyers that their warranties are not at risk. In a managed bankruptcy, the federal government would propel newly competitive and viable automakers, rather than seal their fate with a bailout check. Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts, was a candidate for this year?s Republican presidential nomination.

ouch..Martha Stewart II

PHILADELPHIA (Reuters) ? Three major American cities buffeted by the global financial crisis are requesting at least $50 billion in federal funds to help pay for infrastructure improvements, pensions and short-term borrowing. Philadelphia, Phoenix and Atlanta are asking U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson to release funds from the $700 billion financial bailout authorized by Congress last month. Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter will hand-deliver the request to Paulson on Friday, spokesman Luke Butler said. Five or six other cities, including Chicago, may also sign on, Butler added. Congress set up the so-called Troubled Asset Relief Program to help banks and other institutions that were ensnared in the global credit crisis. But since President George W. Bush signed the bill into law, numerous other entities, including the U.S. auto industry, have lined up for help. In recent weeks, some cities have announced layoffs and service cuts as slumping tax receipts create budget shortfalls. Philadelphia, for example, will eliminate hundreds of jobs and shut libraries and swimming pools to close a $108 million gap in its current $4 billion budget. "We who run some of America's larger cities are dealing with the economic damage wrought by the credit and housing crises," the mayors' letter to Paulson said. "The economic contraction precipitated by these twin crises is forcing us, and mayors all over the country, to dramatically reduce programs and services for millions of residents." Participating cities are asking Paulson to set up a $50 billion fund to rebuild infrastructure. The fund would consist of $25 billion in grant money for cities that are unwilling or unable to take on debt, and another $25 billion for loans to cities at an interest rate of 50 basis points above that of 30-year Treasury bonds. In order to fully fund pension obligations, the cities are also seeking loans of an unspecified amount to cover pension liabilities that have become increasingly expensive because of a decline in investments with the slump in global markets. Philadelphia's pension fund lost more than $650 million in value in the first nine months of this year, and the city faces $300 million in increased pension costs between the fiscal years 2010 and 2013, the letter said. Because of the credit crunch, cities are essentially unable to borrow in the private capital markets to meet their pension obligations, according to the letter. The mayors are also asking the Treasury to provide unspecified one-year loans to cities to allow them to meet cash-flow needs resulting from an inability to borrow. "Cities will disproportionately bear the brunt of the dislocations caused by the credit crisis and a contracting economy, unless the federal government steps in to assist us," city officials said. http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081114/us_nm/...ailout_cities_1 :confused :confused :confused :confused :confused :confused :confused :confused Welcome to the new era of bailout stupidity.

I agree..and this is Psychologically at this point...My opinion is that people are living in fear, and they want the comfort of our good ol' big brother Mr Federal Government.

If you or any mod can, you might want to correct the topic title to say billion, rather than million. no big deal...billion is the new million :confused not related to the mistake on the title...but it is frustrating to me how today millions sound like pennies, and the talk of adding trillions and billions to our debt is common and not seen at something that could end the US as we know it today

yahoo finance link Bailout Price Tag: $3.5T So Far, But 'Real' Cost May Be Much Higher Posted Nov 12, 2008 10:16am EST by Aaron Task in Newsmakers, Recession, Banking Related: AIG, FNM, FRE, XLF, ^DJI, ^GSPC, CWhile the government is clearly spending a lot of taxpayers' money to bail out financial firms, the tally is even bigger than most Americans (economists and pundits included) are probably aware or willing to admit. The bailout bonanza has gotten so big and happened so fast it's the true cost often gets lost in the discussion. Maybe Hank Paulson and Ben Bernanke prefer it that way because the tally so far is nearly $3.5 trillion, and that's before a likely handout for the auto industry. Yes, $3.45 trillion has already been spent, as Bailoutsleuth.com details: $2T Emergency Fed Loans (the ones the Fed won't discuss, as detailed here) $700B TARP (designed to buy bad debt, the fund is rapidly transforming as we'll discuss in an upcoming segment) $300B Hope Now (the government's year-old attempt at mortgage workouts) $200B Fannie/Freddie $140B Tax Breaks for Banks (WaPo has the details) $110B: AIG (with it's new deal this week, the big insurer got $40B of TARP money, plus $110B in other relief) Tallying up the "true" cost of the bailout is difficult, and won't be known for months if not years. But considering $3.5 trillion is about 25% of the U.S. economy ($13.8 trillion in 2007) and the U.S. deficit may hit $1 trillion in fiscal 2009, hyperinflation and/or sharply higher interest rates seem likely outcomes down the road. At the very least, the possibility of the U.S. losing its vaunted Aaa credit rating -- which determines the Treasury's borrowing costs -- cannot be discounted. Moody's has already said it's not in jeopardy of being lowered. But we really can't put much stock in what Moody's -- or S&P or Fitch -- say after the subprime debacle, can we? More importantly, the price of credit default swaps on U.S. government debt has been on the rise since the bailout train got rolling, as Barron's reports. all I can say is, ouch..........

Sorry, I guess just fear and outrage don't come through well in text. All the same, we live in scary times. I understand where you are coming from...But at this point, all of these scenarios are hypothetical. We don't know how all of this is going to shake out. So I rather discuss without fear and outrage...we all need to be vigilant, discuss and watch the events in order to take action we deem best to protect ourselves

I gotta say though, it scares the hell out of me how people seem to so casually discuss (and be ok with) the idea of the government confiscating private property like gold (I think that's called theft) or a one-world currency. I don't think I can properly express how bad these things would be if they happened. I don't think anyone is claiming that confiscating private property is OK. My opinion is that it is an outrageous violation of liberties. I put in quote 'for the greater good of the nation', because that's how it is going to be played by the government and the media as an excuse for such atrocity. They will probably tell you that you would be getting an equivalent in treasury bonds paying 5%, and it is a much better deal than exchanging dollars for gold like they did on FDR.... Is not like it hasn't been done before. . .heck, they are discussing the Government taking over and socializing 401Ks with the excuse of giving people their balances as of August 2008..So this is real plausible scenarios that shouldn't surprise anyone. The Government is huge at this point, and people want to cling to their Dollars and houses and want Government to be a solution, instead of staying away. This how the majority of Americans look at their Government today, Government officials know this and they will act accordingly. I don't see a problem discussing these possibilities, so people can protect themselves from their circumstances and the government.

If we have a financial catastrophe the only real similarity to 1929 would be that government meddling caused it. Expect deflation in the short-term but massive inflation over the long scale. I wouldn't call the dollar a good investment right now, unless you are trading severely on the short term. Better currencies to look at would be the Swiss Franc or the Yen. Furthermore, I heard one analyst say the other day that we could be seeing $4000-$5000 gold by the end of Obama's presidency (assuming he doesn't confiscate it, that is). If we maintain, this course, I don't think a one world currency is out of the question. It is incredibly undesirable but since we appear to be completely against letting failing institutions fail and running a balanced budget, it's inevitable. yes..yes..and yes the dollar is a short term play, as the global economy deflates..I think we are going to see more capital into the US treasuries and leaving the more speculative markets (short term). The Swiss Francs is solid, since it is a currency backed by precious metals. Hard currencies such as gold and silver (in moderation) are good method of defense. But on a collapse, the Government has no other choice but to confiscate them ('for the greater good of the nation')

I never expected this new administration to bring less bailouts, I think we are going to see more. I don't think anyone is shocked Agreed. Just think, though, if GM fails: that's 5 million jobs down the drain. Think about the broader consequences. I don't like bailouts, but I think they may be necessary now to avoid a total economic meltdown. Fresh, your predictions about a depression, unfortunately, appear to be starting to come true. The variable in the economy that is not clear to me is the currency (domestic and international). The world is significantly different to 1929, due to globalization and paper currencies (i.e. Euro and Dollar) In the depression era cash was king, due to deflation. We are seeing deflation now on commodities with the dollar getting stronger, but I think heavy government intervention may reverse those variables. We are playing with fire. The dollar is a good investment now, but I just don't know how this is going to play out at the end. Is a total dollar collapse possible? I think it is possible, I'm not sure how probable it is at this point. Our Government is operating in a crisis mode, without regards to long term consequences. Maybe a global collapse will 'unite' the world, ushering a global bank holiday where we end up with new international economic rules and one global currency (probably the dollar?). You better believe the US is going to use their power and be a significant part of the new deal, whatever that may be. I know all of the above sounds crazy, but I think it is closer to reality that most of us may think.

I never expected this new administration to bring less bailouts, I think we are going to see more. I don't think anyone is shocked

http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2008/11/t...f_the_unit.html

You'll be shocked about how much way say is accurate. And I've predicted a military draft under Obama/Biden. I'm honestly interested in knowing why you think a military draft is likely

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081111/pl_nm/...ama_afghanistan Obama seeks new approach in Afghanistan: report WASHINGTON (Reuters) ? President-elect Barack Obama plans to try a more regional approach to the war in Afghanistan including possible talks with Iran, The Washington Post reported on Tuesday, citing national security advisers to Obama. The president-elect also intends to move ahead with a planned deployment of thousands of additional U.S. troops to Afghanistan and refocus on the hunt for al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, the newspaper reported. However, the Obama team is far from working out how to bring bin Laden back to the forefront of the U.S. counter-terrorism agenda, The Washington Post reported. Obama received his first high-level intelligence briefing as president-elect last week. While emphasizing the importance of continuing U.S. operations against Pakistan-based Taliban fighters who attack U.S. forces in Afghanistan, the incoming administration intends to remind Americans about the fight against Islamist extremists and the September 11 attacks, the newspaper said. Advisers told the newspaper that Obama plans to underscore that al Qaeda remains the nation's highest priority. "This is our enemy," on Obama adviser told the newspaper, referring to bin Laden "and he should be our principal target." Iran, on Afghanistan's western border, has been kept at arm's length by the Bush administration, but should be considered in formulating a new Afghanistan strategy, a senior U.S. military official was cited as saying. "As we look to the future, it would be helpful to have an interlocutor" to explore shared objectives, the official told the newspaper. The Iranians "don't want Sunni extremists in charge of Afghanistan any more than we do," the official said. (Writing by Joanne Allen; Editing by Patricia Zengerle)

Part of the Republican strategy is race-based, although that's less the case now than it was two generations ago. Google "Southern Strategy" and "Nixon" and see what you come up with. To make things easier on you, here you go: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy I don't think Republicans steal elections generally - I just think they did in 2000 and 2004 and they regularly use tactics to disenfranchise minority voters. Look up "voter caging". Here you go: http://projectvote.org/index.php?id=355 And look up as many voting rights violation cases and see what comes up. I served as a poll watcher inside a heavily black precinct last Tuesday on behalf of the Obama campaign. And guess what I encountered? A McCain attorney walked inside the precinct and immediately pointed to the first black person he saw and said, "I challenge this voter." He had no basis for the challenge. Since he wasn't on the list of approved poll watchers, I managed to get him kicked out and he was unable to challenge any more voters. Now why would they send out some lawyer to walk into a majority black precinct and have him challenge the first black voter he sees? Do you think it was a benign purpose? If so, I think you're too naive. I'll add this story: http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/330/ Are we to believe that the democrats don't have their fair share of skeletons? The democratic Party, the party that defended slavery I also saw a lot of racist cards being played by the democrats. 1) Obama coming out in a speech about how they "will tell you that I look different, that I'm black?...", BS 2) Community Organizer = Code Word for Black 3) Socialism = Code Word for Black 4) Rep. John Lewis comparing the Republican campaign to the segregationist Democrat Gov. George Wallace - This one really pissed me off 5) heck, even Bill Clinton, Geraldine Ferraro were tagged of racists at one point on the campaign

Oh, and let's not forget all the people calling our President-Elect a terrorist and saying he should be bombed. And the Republican's attempt to make him seem like "other" or "unknown" - which, let's face it, is clearly meant to play up people's fears of a foreigner or a man of color. You should watch some of Sarah Palin's rallies. And there's one particular rally where a woman said, "and he's a n****r" in response to Sarah Palin's list of things that make Barack Obama unacceptable. Care to match that on the Dem side? You can't. That kind of stuff only happens in the Republican party in 2008. this sh*t goes both ways...you are being a hypocrite, pointing fingers. Type Sarah Palin on Google and Youtube and see what you can find. You lose credibility, when you claim that your party is moral and ethically superior How am I being a hypocrite? I asked you to give us an example of the Dems using the same kind of tactics as Sarah Palin and you resort to name calling. Nice. What a way to have a discussion. I apologize if I offended you, but I believe your position comes from partisanship. I'm not in love with either party. I tend to vote Republican, but I despise most of what our government does and how politics are currently played. I believe Gov is not the answer and I don't trust most politicians. I'm not a Republican party apologist neither. I know you think that republicans steal elections and it is the party of the white-racist, both reference that you have made in the past. So don't teach me a lesson on divisiveness

Oh, and let's not forget all the people calling our President-Elect a terrorist and saying he should be bombed. And the Republican's attempt to make him seem like "other" or "unknown" - which, let's face it, is clearly meant to play up people's fears of a foreigner or a man of color. You should watch some of Sarah Palin's rallies. And there's one particular rally where a woman said, "and he's a n****r" in response to Sarah Palin's list of things that make Barack Obama unacceptable. Care to match that on the Dem side? You can't. That kind of stuff only happens in the Republican party in 2008. this sh*t goes both ways...you are being a hypocrite, pointing fingers. Type Sarah Palin on Google and Youtube and see what you can find. You lose credibility, when you claim that your party is moral and ethically superior

I don't think the Democrats run on a platform of dividing people are you serious? "Yes, I believe later on there should be tax increases," Frank said. "Speaking personally, I think there are a lot of very rich people out there whom we can tax at a point down the road and recover some of this money." Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.) says that if Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin ? becomes the first female vice president it will be a "backward step for women." Bitter people clinging to guns and religion rings a bell? Those are not platforms. Senator Biden's comments were not meant to divide women - he was merely pointing out how out of the mainstream Sarah Palin's views are. How is advocating a different tax structure dividing people? We already have a progressive tax system. Your examples are bad. I was thinking more along the lines of the anti-immigration voices in the Republican party (particularly, the Minute Men in the southwest who have taken violent action in many instances), the ads from people like Jesse Helms showing a white hand upset that a black person got a job he deserved, the whole "Real America" comments from Sarah Palin and her ilk, and I can go on and on. I don't ever recall a Democrat talking about the "Real America". The "bitter" comment wasn't meant to divide. It was a gaffe. Are you seriously thinking Obama made such a comment for the purpose of gaining votes?????????? He probably lost votes. I'm not claiming one is more divisive than the other. But, what is the point of an endless debate....divisiveness is very subjective. Both parties are divisive, otherwise they would not be two parties. You talk about the voices of the Republican party, but then said that what those democrat said is not part of the official platform? if you want to talk platform...The Freedom of choice act and the fairness doctrine will PO a lot of people in this country. And sending checks to people who doesn't pay income tax will also divide people.

For the GOP to survive they need to move to the right on fiscal issues by cutting spending and entitlements and by cutting income taxes on those that pay income taxes and by balancing the budget. If minorities share the GOP's principles then they'll join but if they don't share those principles then let them go. The GOP should not compromise it's principles to mine for votes. It's my opinion that if the GOP returns to the principles I mentioned above that the GOP will return to good health. My point was that it's okay being conservative on fiscal issues but that it has to take a dramatic turn in other areas, most notably the party's anti-immigrant platform and inclination to win elections by dividing Americans. It can be fiscally conservative all it wants and it won't get any increased support from important groups if it continues to bash immigrants, etc. If you think the party will thrive simply by staying fiscally conservative you have another thing coming to you. The GOP should oppose amnesty and should be in favor of securing the borders. I guess this is not popular among many hispanics but it's the right thing to do. Again, the GOP should not compromise it's principles for special interest votes. What do you mean by amnesty? I'm all in favor of an end to subsidizing immigration (among other things), but I do think it's rather counter productive to American businesses to deport the labor force for which there clearly is a demand. The anti-immigrant sentiment prevalent in the GOP today appears (to me) to be more a facet of protectionism than any sort of commitment to "the law". After all, we rewrite the law all the time in this country, so I think we need a more sensible argument for why you want to throw non-violent migrant workers out of the country than just saying "it's the law". maybe, he is referring to amnesty without secure borders?