Gary Varvel by Gary Varvel

Gary Varvel

Comments (15) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. ODon

    ODon said, over 3 years ago

    Hey don’t be modest and leave yourself out of that group.

  2. ossiningaling

    ossiningaling said, over 3 years ago

    Missed it by THAT much.

  3. Wraithkin

    Wraithkin said, over 3 years ago

    Do you honestly think the conservatives are going to get much (if any) of the hispanic vote, even with this bill? If history teaches us anything, it’s that those who are here legally (i.e. allowed to vote) are upset at the prospect of amnesty for illegal immigrants. They went through a lot of hard work to become legal immigrants/naturalized, and this is throwing that hard work back in their face.

    I can’t see how any legal immigrant is okay with amnesty.

  4. jack75287

    jack75287 said, over 3 years ago

    @Wraithkin

    Hey President Bush got 35% & 43% of the Hispanic vote. Still I have met in recent years legal immigrants from Mexico, Israel, Croatia, India and they all hate amnesty.

  5. jack75287

    jack75287 said, over 3 years ago

    Rubio’s plan does not give citizen ship, it only sets a standard for making people legal with work visas and finishing the first 700 miles of wall.

  6. pirate227

    pirate227 said, over 3 years ago

    Will Rubio pull a McConnell and filibuster his own bill…

  7. braindead08

    braindead08 GoComics PRO Member said, over 3 years ago

    Boy, it’s really encouraging all the wonderful ‘reform’ about immigration. None of it will discourage illegal immigration.
    -
    If a state like Arizona wants fewer illegals, why don’t they prosecute those who hire them?
    Or, maybe…. they really want that supply of cheap labor to keep Business from having to pay higher wages.
    -
    And maybe… they can just keep illegal immigration as a political football so they profess how much they’re against it, with righteous indignation of course. That way they can stir up hatred by making up crap about headless bodies in the desert, but not have to address even a small part of the issue.

  8. Wraithkin

    Wraithkin said, over 3 years ago

    “The reality is that the people are here. They have families and friends and homes (in areas you wouldn’t live in)and they contribute to the community and its economy. They are here. Just make them legal. Make their employers pay them a minimum wage and let whoever wants to come, come (so long as they pass a criminal background check). We did it for the Irish. For the Germans, For the Jews, for the Italians, but now we won’t do it for the Mexicans?”

    I’m gonna pick on you for a moment on your last paragraph. Yes, they are here. Yes, they have families, friends, and homes. Their contribution to the total community and economy is questionable, because we know we aren’t collecting income taxes from them, and we know they are receiving state and federal benefits without paying in.

    I’m all for paying legal workers minimum wage. But they aren’t legal (i.e. they are committing a crime just for being here, because they broke our federal laws regarding entrance to our country). They shouldn’t be here at all. Yes, the employers should be punished (severely) for employing illegal immigrants. But the illegal immigrants should be punished as well for braking our sovereign nation’s laws and crossing our border illegally.

    This isn’t about Mexicans. This is about the rule of law. We are a land of laws. And they somehow feel those laws don’t apply to them? How is that fair to those who did follow those laws to come here legally?

    You say “passing background checks.” How would you possibly perform that on someone who is here illegally? Are you going to get records from Mexico, a borderline third-world country? I highly doubt their criminal database is as comprehensive, modernized, or up-to-date as ours is. So you’re only going off what they tell you. That’s to be trusted, because I’m certain they aren’t going to lie (right).

    You can’t compare this to the immigrants of yore from Ireland, Germany, Poland, etc. Why? Because our ancestors were either forced here (original immigrants or slave trade) or came here through Ellis Island and were documented accordingly. All those immigrants followed the law. So they aren’t comparable, because Mexicans are breaking the law by coming here illegally.

    I give a LOT of credit to the Mexicans that came here legally, because they took the proper and just route of coming here. They didn’t try to cheat the system, like the illegals are doing now.

    So how do you explain to those who came here through the proper channels why it’s okay for those who cheated the system and broke the law to be here and be treated the same as them? How do you rationalize to all those people who have been nationalized, and now illegals are given the same benefit with none of the hard work? It’s morally bankrupt and is a slap in the face to those who came through the proper channels to live the American Dream.

  9. Wraithkin

    Wraithkin said, over 3 years ago

    Vent: It’s interesting how you utilize the “what is” application of logic when it suits your argument. My “punishment,” to which you are quoting is deportation. I’m not looking to imprison them, lashings, or canings. Send them packing. That’s punishment enough.

    Let me ask you this: Would you expect the kind of treatment if you were an illegal immigrant in Mexico, Austrlia, or China? You could expect it, but you wouldn’t get it. They would evict you with extreme prejudice.

    You are effectively saying that the US should announce to the world, “We have no borders!” After all, what is the purpose of a border if we don’t keep people out that we don’t want? Borders serve a purpose, and keeping illegal immigrants out is one of them. Why do we have border patrol and customs if we don’t want borders? Why do we even want to be called a sovereign nation if we don’t have borders? Without borders, we effectively don’t exist.

    Let me ask you this: If you have someone come onto your property without your permission, what’s that called? Trespassing. Is it a crime? Yes. What’s the punishment? Fines and/or prison, and absolutely eviction off your property. If someone breaks into your home, what are you permitted to do? Kill them, under castle laws (liberty of this is dependent on the state). In every circumstance of an individual’s property lines, you are allowed to defend what’s yours. So why, as a nation, are we not?

  10. Hawthorne

    Hawthorne said, over 3 years ago

    @braindead08

    Oh, you are so, so, right. That is exactly the way we are being played.

    Illegals aren’t the only ball they have in the air, either.

    They’ve got GW/CC.

    They’ve got gay marriage, which is now going to turn into a cat fight in states like MO, where a gay couple, married in a ‘legal’ jurisdiction or not, would be able to file a joint Federal tax return, except … uh oh. MO wouldn’t accept a joint return from two same gender persons. I’m sure similar or different issues may turn up in at least some other states.

    A particularly ugly division is created by the focus on abortion-as-homicide. It is particularly vitriolic because so many women lack direct, unobstructed access to contraception.

    I’m sure everyone here can add to the list, if they care to. We are all polarized to some extent on a number of issues, though they are not the same for everyone.

    I find it both interesting and alarming that so few people are concerned with the various food issues facing the country – but then again, there are a good many concerns which are being ignored but which merit our full scrutiny.
    Bet we could solve them if we bowed out of the divide-and-conquer engagement.

  11. Hawthorne

    Hawthorne said, about 3 years ago

    @Wraithkin

    “So why, as a nation, are we not?”

    Right you are. Agreed.

    Keep ’em coming!

  12. Hawthorne

    Hawthorne said, about 3 years ago

    “Perhaps you should be more aware that my argument rests on “what is” which is otherwise known as “reality”. "

    Reality, however, is a neutral concept. What you are really talking about here is ‘status quo’.

    Reality is neutral, neither good nor bad, but in fact can be either. When a situation in ‘reality’ is wrong, it needs to be corrected.

    The current immigration/illegal worker situation is wrong, and therefore needs to be corrected.

    What you are arguing for maintaining is the status quo. Except that opening the borders to foreign workers would immediately make everything very much worse for everyone. Everyone except the oligarchs, of course. Temporarily at least – my personal belief is that if you did that, it would bring the country down in short order.

  13. Hawthorne

    Hawthorne said, about 3 years ago

    @Wraithkin

    “I’m gonna pick on you for a moment on your last paragraph.”

    And I’m going to point out to both of you that there is an additional consideration: the existing legal, American workforce.

    For their sake, we should come down hard on employers who hire illegals (from anywhere), and deport illegals when we discover them. They are here legally, by whatever route.

    We all know that our unemployment and homeless stats are pure fantasy on the part of the government. They don’t bother counting anyone who has fallen off the unemployment rolls, which pretends all those who are unemployed and getting no income at all – unless they qualify for welfare, which many would not, without destituting themselves first. Assuming they haven’t run out of employment too long ago, at least.

    The government is always whining about how hard it is to count the homeless, but they don’t want to know. Many of the homeless are unemployable, but all are not. That’s where you end up if you can’t find anything at all after you run out of unemployment, or can find only such marginal part time jobs they won’t come near covering the overheads.

    So I’m actually with Wraithkin, and in fact, mostly agree with his/her post. I would question the validity of comparing today’s illegals with the European migrations, (that was RV’s post) not because they were in some way more ‘deserving’ (though they came in through legal channels), but because if you start looking at the historical situation, we’d better return the country to the Natives who were here when our ancestors arrived.

    I couldn’t support opening the borders to foreign labor from any other country, because we already have a severe jobs deficit, in spite of lots of rhetoric from both sides of the aisle about job creation. Clearly it is not a priority, nor is bringing the jobs back that have been offshored.

    Charity begins at home. We are in a terrible state, and in no position to be pointing fingers at Mexico, or any other third world country. Before we open our borders to foreign labor, we need to employ the workforce we have now, with enough family wage jobs to sustain families. Minimum wage jobs are fine for entry level positions for those without dependents, but we really must get those family wage jobs back. If we don’t, we will be a third world country.

    So – how do we get enough jobs back to employ the work force we already have?

  14. Hawthorne

    Hawthorne said, about 3 years ago

    @Wraithkin

    “I’m gonna pick on you for a moment on your last paragraph.”

    And I’m going to point out to both of you that there is an additional consideration: the existing legal, American workforce.

    For their sake, we should come down hard on employers who hire illegals (from anywhere), and deport illegals when we discover them. They are here legally, by whatever route.

    We all know that our unemployment and homeless stats are pure fantasy on the part of the government. They don’t bother counting anyone who has fallen off the unemployment rolls, which pretends all those who are unemployed and getting no income at all – unless they qualify for welfare, which many would not, without destituting themselves first. Assuming they haven’t run out of employment too long ago, at least.

    The government is always whining about how hard it is to count the homeless, but they don’t want to know. Many of the homeless are unemployable, but all are not. That’s where you end up if you can’t find anything at all after you run out of unemployment, or can find only such marginal part time jobs they won’t come near covering the overheads.

    So I’m actually with Wraithkin, and in fact, mostly agree with his/her post. I would question the validity of comparing today’s illegals with the European migrations, (that was RV’s post) not because they were in some way more ‘deserving’ (though they came in through legal channels), but because if you start looking at the historical situation, we’d better return the country to the Natives who were here when our ancestors arrived.

    I couldn’t support opening the borders to foreign labor from any other country, because we already have a severe jobs deficit, in spite of lots of rhetoric from both sides of the aisle about job creation. Clearly it is not a priority, nor is bringing the jobs back that have been offshored.

    Charity begins at home. We are in a terrible state, and in no position to be pointing fingers at Mexico, or any other third world country. Before we open our borders to foreign labor, we need to employ the workforce we have now, with enough family wage jobs to sustain families. Minimum wage jobs are fine for entry level positions for those without dependents, but we really must get those family wage jobs back. If we don’t, we will be a third world country.

    So – how do we get enough jobs back to employ the work force we already have?

  15. Wraithkin

    Wraithkin said, about 3 years ago

    “Deportation… So Juan has been here for 20 years, he has family (born here and hence US citizens) here and those community ties we talked about. You’re going to throw them all out or are you going to split up the family and throw away some but not the others?”

    This is why the 14th Amendment should be changed. This is why people claim there are “anchor babies” so they can dissuade the deportation of the parents. Because they tug at the heart strings of the people doing the deporting. These “anchor babies” exist for this exact reason. This is a reality. So they are using our Constitution against us.

    Of course, the answer would be both. Let the person being deported decide: Either your children go to foster care and you get kicked out, or you leave of your own free will with your entire family. Because that family was born under the illegal premise of Juan coming here in the first place. Had Juan followed the law, this wouldn’t have happened. The fruit of the poisoned tree, if you will.

    This is the next one that really stood out for me:

    “He wants your wife and he forces his way onto your property and into your home with the intent of having his way with her. You can shoot him dead. Regardless of what that means to the greater good of the community.”

    So you’re saying that if the guy employs half the town I should just let him rape my wife? You are out of your mind if you think I would ever let anyone lay a hand on my wife or kids, regardless of their stature in the community. I don’t care if it’s the President of the World, you touch my wife (especially in my own home), and I promise you that I will be calling the coroner, not the police. My home is my castle. You come into my home, you are invading my castle, and be prepared to deal with what is on the other side of that door. The door is locked for your protection, not mine.

    What you are suggesting I take into consideration is the breeding ground for tyrannical rule by those in power. It’s what went on by the Lords and Barons during Medieval Europe, where they would come and have their way with your wife, specifically because they knew you wouldn’t/couldn’t do or say anything. Are you suggesting we return to that practice? And you’re calling me barbaric?

    I am accepting reality that, like Hawthorne said, we have an obligation first and foremost to our citizens. Liberals love to treat the federal government like our sugar momma/daddy. Okay, so if the government is the parent, then the citizens are the children. The primary obligation and duty the government has is to protect its citizenry. Wait a minute… I remember seeing that somewhere.

    Oh, right. The US Constitution… something along the lines of “provide a common defense.” So if the government is the parent, and the legal citizens are the children, the US our Home, what does that make illegal immigrants? Well, that would make them the home intruder.

    The only reason illegal immigration is tolerated in this country is because bleeding heart saps like to say, “They just want a better life.” Well, then do it legally, or find somewhere else to go. Our government’s duty is to us, first and foremost, not to some illegal migrant who decided that (s)he’s above the law and can ignore it when it’s expedient to do so. They are operating under a morally-bankrupt premise: that they are entitled to the “riches” of another country simply by virtue of coming here.

    I recognize what currently is. I realize there are people out there like you who just toss up their hands and say, “it doesn’t matter any more, you aren’t going to stop them.” That’s like giving your teen the keys to your Camero, because they’re just going to drive it anyway. Hell no!

    I pray you don’t have any kids, Vent, because they must get whatever they want out of you. “No,” is not a 4-letter word that shouldn’t be used around people. Sometimes, you just need to put your foot down to protect those you care about. This is one of those instances. The government should put their foot down, kick all the interlopers out, fine the bejeebees out of employers who hired illegal labor, and seal the border. Then, and only then, should we begin processing new requests to legal immigration.

  16. Refresh Comments.