Reader: America Can't Afford the Billions it Would Take to Halt Illegal Immigration

By Pete Kotz in homicide, organized crime, serial killers

Tuesday, June 22, 2010 at 10:00 am

Reader Joe responds to Jose Saenz: A Cunning American Boy Grows Up to Execute His Friends & Family. He says there's no way we can afford the walls, the manpower, and the crackdown on employers to ever stem the tide...
"The drug cartel members already have forged docs good enough to get them past the border. If you put up a wall you just give the coyotes more business; there's already tunnels from Mexico here and people are still going to want to come over here so they'll need to talk to someone that knows how.

"Sure we can spend billions to erect a massive wall and man it with even more thousands of border patrol but where is that money coming from? AZ gov Brewer just had a lengthy battle with the legislature to get a penny increase on sales tax in a state that rarely ever approves any tax increases.

"Maybe a federal tax increase? Good luck convincing a nation mired in a recession of that. Or maybe we as a nation can just plunge further into debt. Realistically if you spend more money on the border it's gonna come from funds marked for things like transportation and education.

"I don't think spending billions to conduct a manhunt for illegals earning a living working honest jobs and the people that employ them will cure border violence. I highly doubt your average gang member is bussing tables at applebees or some restaurant.

"40% of Mexico is in poverty. The minimum wage is $4 a day. Depending on who you believe, unemployment is either 2-3% or upwards of 40%. 26,000 have died in the last 4 years due to drug violence. Even the tourist towns are being hit by drug violence, the police chief of rocky point was critically injured in an ambush recently. Yeah, wonder why anyone would ever want to leave?"

Tags: Arizona, California, Comment of the Day

More links from around the web!

Sandy, it's basically a chest for storing funds. J just doesn't want to be confused by the facts. He wants us to suddenly realize how foolish we are and just admit that he's right and now we can all relax and doesn't it feel better. Funny, I was thinking the same thing about him.
Gangs, Drugs Smuggling, Human Trafficking, Assassinations, SS, Tax, Welfare Fraud is not petty nor is it whining. And that's just to name a few. I want to pay for my own children and my neighbors children. All US citizens. Not Illegals, I don't want my taxes going towards Any illegal endorsing. And what is a Coffers?
Like someone said, "if you're a speeder, you're a criminal." Please give the speeders and the illegal border crossers citations and move on. Really, to me, this should be treated not a lot differently than someone driving on a suspended license. If they are pulled over for a crime, document them and continue penalizing them until they get their immigration status resolved, make it impossible for them to drive and feed our coffers. Above all, stop whining about the problem and posting long diatribes with a hundred reasons people should assume illegal immigrants, in commiting a singular crime or 2 or 3 petty ones, are inherently evil. This idea that the fact that you can shout "I can prove you commited a crime, criminal!" as ironclad evidence they are bad people is a farce.
Ccccc, I wasn't exactly addressing you. I just mean that whenever someone speaks out against illegals, they are usually classified as a rascist. I have had that term tossed in my face a few times. I just don't get why I'm a rascist if I don't want illegals here.
Oh you do not.....alexa kim you know, I voted for and love President Obama, but this is too much even for me. Arizona is right in what there doing and the rest of the Country needs to follow. It's like someone said if you're an illegal you're a Criminal..........
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/06/24/source-administration-weighing-unilateral-legalization-illegal-immigrants/ Sometimes, I hate being right. More Kris Eggle's are what the barking moonbats demand so they may behold daily the color of face and accent of speech that will assuage their guilty consciences. The rest of the country be damned. And they call us the racists. Wow. Get a gun people, we have been betrayed at the worst possible time.
ccccc people like you give me hope that the US can still be the standard bearer of freedom, justice and equality.
Is Illegal Immigration Raising AZ's Crime Rate? NY Times Says No; Relevant Figures Say Yes By Clay Waters Tue, 06/22/2010 - 16:04 ET On Sunday, New York Times reporter Randal Archibold offered up more of his slanted reporting on Arizona's pending new immigration enforcement law, suggesting that supporters of tough immigration enforcement are fostering fear by exaggerating the problem of violent crime on the border with Mexico: "On Border Violence, Truth Pales Compared to Ideas." But does his evidence stand up? Two conservative writers say no, pointing to FBI statistics that show crime has increased substantially in towns outside major metropolitan areas and rural counties. When Representative Gabrielle Giffords, Democrat of Arizona, announced that the Obama administration would send as many as 1,200 additional National Guard troops to bolster security at the Mexican border, she held up a photograph of Robert Krentz, a mild-mannered rancher who was shot to death this year on his vast property. The authorities suspected that the culprit was linked to smuggling. "Robert Krentz really is the face behind the violence at the U.S.-Mexico border," Ms. Giffords said. It is a connection that those who support stronger enforcement of immigration laws and tighter borders often make: rising crime at the border necessitates tougher enforcement. But the rate of violent crime at the border, and indeed across Arizona, has been declining, according to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, as has illegal immigration, according to the Border Patrol. While thousands have been killed in Mexico's drug wars, raising anxiety that the violence will spread to the United States, F.B.I. statistics show that Arizona is relatively safe. That Mr. Krentz's death nevertheless churned the emotionally charged immigration debate points to a fundamental truth: perception often trumps reality, sometimes affecting laws and society in the process. Archibold again pompously implied fear-mongering on the part of supporters of immigration enforcement: Moreover, crime statistics, however rosy, are abstract. It takes only one well-publicized crime, like Mr. Krentz's shooting, to drive up fear. .... Crime figures, in fact, present a more mixed picture, with the likes of Russell Pearce, the Republican state senator behind the immigration enforcement law, playing up the darkest side while immigrant advocacy groups like Coalicion de Derechos Humanos (Human Rights Coalition), based in Tucson, circulate news reports and studies showing that crime is not as bad as it may seem. For instance, statistics show that even as Arizona's population swelled, buoyed in part by illegal immigrants funneling across the border, violent crime rates declined, to 447 incidents per 100,000 residents in 2008, the most recent year for which comprehensive data is available from the F.B.I. In 2000, the rate was 532 incidents per 100,000. Nationally, the crime rate declined to 455 incidents per 100,000 people, from 507 in 2000. Reporter Jennifer Steinhauer seconded Archibold's assertion about crime dropping on the Arizona border in her Tuesday front-page profile of Sen. John McCain on the campaign trail in Arizona: While border crime has decreased in this state in recent years, the killing of a prominent rancher in the south by what the police suspect was an illegal immigrant set off rage across the state, and helped fuel a tough new state law directed at immigrants. But Tom Maguire researched the actual FBI statistics and came away with the opposite result, though his results are not definitive: ...the stats reprinted below tell a different story -- measured by violent crimes per 100,000, the non-[Metropolitican Statistical Area] portion of Arizona has seen a dramatic increase in crime....these numbers do not support the case that the rural and border areas of Arizona are getting safer. Quite the contrary, actually. Maybe the Times can turn a reporter loose on that. Taking off from Maguire's spadework, Mark Hemingway at the Washington Examiner explained: ...essentially, the FBI crime stats are broken down by region and while crime has fallen 20 percent in cities from 2000 to 2008, in towns outside major metropolitan areas and rural counties crime is up 39 and 45 percent, respectively. In other words, it sure looks like crime is way up in the border regions of Arizona. http : / / newsbusters . org /blogs/clay-waters/2010/06/22/illegal-immigration-raising-arizonas-crime-rate-ny-times-says-no-releva
Wait, I have just one last thing to add that I think is quite important. This is not addressed to anyone in particular but it does spring from my exchange with ccccc. Re: We don't have to compromise because we're not law-makers, just citizens with ideas. I must respectfully and gently disagree. Law-makers are drawn from the citizenry. If We The People do not send upward the living signs of our working compromises, almost always successful when it occurs naturally in the wild, so to speak, then our law makers will not think that we have decided what we will or won't support or allow. I think America works best when our law makers get their marching orders from the "small" people (and I actually resemble that remark). Otherwise, then they tend to start ruling from the top down and that usually goes badly. Thatisall. ============= News Flash: It would appear Obama One is considering doing a Reagan on us. The dilution of the opposition vote is in full creep. Wish I could say I was surprised.....
@ccccc, I demand no deaths. I'm opposed to violence except when defending yourself from immediate harm. But, with all due respect ccccc, truly, you do. When you refuse to participate in helping the rest of us to defend ourselves. You wait for us to suffer first before you'll believe a threat exists. Only when the assailant reaches your door do you then think it's time to act. This is an example of a fundamental difference in how we see the world that will never be resolved. And so it goes. There is no order to whom receives my compassion. I have compassion for most, in no particular order. Including you. We are, at last, in accord concerning each other. I believe that is a good feeling. I have had a hard life. I do not feel sorry for myself though. My life provided me with skills and insight that I wouldn't otherwise have had. Thoughts of gratitude are what I have when I reflect upon the life I've been blessed with. I don't feel guilty very often, because I act in a way as to minimize the necessity for it. Last, my thoughts on death row were not revealed to you and don't pertain to this discussion. I, too, have had a hard life, and still do. When I said feel sorry for themselves, I did not necessarily mean you in particular, I did not use your name. However, there are too many persons in the liberal camps who think, seriously, that they are the martyrs in whatever dispute they engage in. That is what I meant. The guilt is what many in the liberal camps feel when they see someone else less fortunate than they, and they believe that the reason such persons are in trouble is because of a sin committed by our fathers. And so, they feel a tug to make amends. Where I get baffled is when they do so without checking first if what they assume is in fact the case. Again, re death row convicts, I know you haven't, which is why I did not use your name, or anyone else's, either. But you're not the boss of discussions. Either am I. Sometimes people need to respectfully disagree. We don't have to compromise because we're not law-makers, just citizens with ideas. Compromises are cool when they happen, but not mandatory. I wasn't demanding it and I'm sorry that's what you think. I wanted to discuss compromises, and I was hoping for it. I kept making that offer and suggestion in the hopes that we would stop repeating our positions to each other in order to stop feeling bad about each other, in order to explore ideas, in order to get past a point of contention to reach a point of agreement. Clearly, the invitation was not enticing enough for anyone. Which is a sad state of affairs. Which is not making anything better. I considered it, and still do consider it, the act of someone wishing to do something constructive. Usually, that's seen as kind and generous. I agree that everyone's suggestions were being either ignored, or glossed over, or simply left unread or overlooked because of the flurry. Perhaps I should make a particular matter more clear, for the sake of future debates. I severely detest the use of the Nazi comparison to make a point. It is not a friendly, polite or tolerant way to advance a position. It is far, far too often completely unnecessary and inapplicable. It's use is too often meant to sting the opponent into shocked silence, and then the silence or denial is seen as tacit admission that you've got their number. Unless a bona fide Nazi is in fact making Nazi arguments, that analogy must stay outside of the debate. I just won't see it with an open heart. You are not the only person feeling like they had to defend themselves. You did a fair amount of being less than polite, though I realize you just don't think so. Again, something we will never agree on. Last, no one owes you the courtesy of considering your comments. No one owes me that courtesy either. We aren't owed compromises or an audience. It happens or it doesn't. Yes, everyone does owe each other the courtesy of considering what they say. Courtesy is not optional. Either as a sign of consideration or as a form of kindness. As for an audience or compromises, that's a different fettle of kitsch. Be well and until another post, regards.
Alexa kim: Your last comment has been noted, and I am willing to let this go. And just so you know, I wasn't aware of the last comment when I posted a moment ago, although I don't think it should change things much.
Alexa: "deaths that Joe and ccccc demand" I demand no deaths. I'm opposed to violence except when defending yourself from immediate harm. "I hate the order of who gets their compassion first." There is no order to whom receives my compassion. I have compassion for most, in no particular order. Including you. "It's always the persons they feel sorry for (themselves), then the persons they feel guilty for (anyone without an American accent), and very often for people they think are innocent in spite of being found guilty via due process (criminals on death row). " I have had a hard life. I do not feel sorry for myself though. My life provided me with skills and insight that I wouldn't otherwise have had. Thoughts of gratitude are what I have when I reflect upon the life I've been blessed with. I don't feel guilty very often, because I act in a way as to minimize the necessity for it. Last, my thoughts on death row were not revealed to you and don't pertain to this discussion. "All I wanted was a discussion of compromises, because we all have our firm ideas and beliefs." But you're not the boss of discussions. Either am I. Sometimes people need to respectfully disagree. We don't have to compromise because we're not law-makers, just citizens with ideas. Compromises are cool when they happen, but not mandatory. "But, no one would step up to the plate. What's really demoralizing, is that neither Joe nor ccccc would even try. They just kept reiterating their arguments. Granted so did I, debating their points, while waiting for someone to say "Hey, how about your suggestion of no citizenship ever, maybe after 10 years of keeping themselves in good order and acting firmly in good faith?" I offered several suggestions myself. I don't need you to agree with them though. You didn't say much about my ideas either. That's okay too. I did try. Like I said, my words are all here, spread out over 2 days and 2 posts. Look for yourself. Like I've before, it's a lot easier to have a discussion with someone with whom you disagree when everyone is being polite. I've already had countless debates with people who support the wall that were respectful, and I learned something- those debate never degenerated to this ugliness. Perhaps I would have noticed some of your more workable (in my mind) solutions if I wasn't too bust defending myself. Last, no one owes you the courtesy of considering your comments. No one owes me that courtesy either. We aren't owed compromises or an audience. It happens or it doesn't. ................................... And again: Alexa, I am willing to accept that perhaps emotions were running high yesterday. I would ask, once again, that we both accept the responsibility of ending this conflict peacefully. Sincerely, ccccc
@ccccc, indeed, emotions on this subject can run very high. Believing very strongly in what we believe can cause each of us to dig in rather than reach out, when we sense a discussion is not toward a meeting ground, but away from it. Another aggravating factor in such discourse is we are doing this on the interwebs. That does not lend itself to better intuition of nuance or manifold meanings. I appreciate it whenever anyone tries, with their words, to indicate that they are not intending to be unpleasant. I do that too. My comments across this site, on a variety of posts, make clear that I am as nice a person as anyone else, at a minimum. That I will fight for my point of view, often for longer than others can stomach, is an indicator of how committed I am to my position. When persons arguing with me (in a good way) do not offer any alternatives to my positions, in order to reach a rapprochement, in a friendly and respectful way, I pick up on that and respond in kind. So, in the same spirit of starting a new Day One on this topic, and to seek harmony amongst us again, I too would like to set aside any hard feelings from yesterday. I am still willing to discuss compromises with anyone who would like to do that too. Otherwise, I am fine with walking away and trying again some other day farther down the road.
@ccccc, in the same spirit as you offer your words this morning, I will offer my reply separately in just a moment, but first I need to explain something: just before reading your comment, I had posted a new comment a few minutes ago (which I do not yet see at this very moment, but I am about to hit F5), so, it is not in response to your newest comment of today, just fyi.
@MarieHeck, Sandy, HyenaKiller, Let's Have a Free For All, JohnJ, AJ, Lex, LovinMyKids, angry grandma, you folks are seriously swell. Just FYI, the comment with the several links finally got released from the site's spam guard, so it's up now (above; search "Turmoil"). It includes a brief write-up from the memorial site for Kris Eggle, one of our homeland guardians tasked to protect our land, killed by Mexican invaders. As long as people like Joe and ccccc refuse to see what is happening all around them, refuse to honor or protect the fellow Americans protecting us from the invader's deadly attacks, and dying for it -- deaths that Joe and ccccc demand, that they DEMAND, for they find illegal aliens much sexier, nicer, and better than our own guardians -- then, this struggle for America's body will continue. I hate the order of who gets their compassion first. It's always the persons they feel sorry for (themselves), then the persons they feel guilty for (anyone without an American accent), and very often for people they think are innocent in spite of being found guilty via due process (criminals on death row). All I wanted was a discussion of compromises, because we all have our firm ideas and beliefs. That's why I bothered to create a list of suggestions that one of them could have picked, changed it to be more to their liking and counter-offered. Then we would have been in business. But, no one would step up to the plate. What's really demoralizing, is that neither Joe nor ccccc would even try. They just kept reiterating their arguments. Granted so did I, debating their points, while waiting for someone to say "Hey, how about your suggestion of no citizenship ever, maybe after 10 years of keeping themselves in good order and acting firmly in good faith?" Compromises, where they take what they like, change it so I might like it, not as much as my suggestion but, it would sound workable. And I would do the same. And like that. Instead, they just want to think their fellow citizens are the bad guys. Really, too bad......
Secure our borders, punish companies that hire illegals and the illegal will self deport. "If you always do what you've always done, you'll always get what you always got!!"
Fortunately, with words, they leave a trail of evidence. If you resort to insults, eventually you will reveal your own character. The same is true for trying to be polite- which I have tried to be. My words on this site will reflect that, if anyone cares to recall. I try very hard to treat people well. This isn't the first time someone has been nasty to me on this site, and it isn't the first time I refused to fight dirty. Marie, for example, I defended you and your right to Christianity and stood with you when people were picking on "bigger" people. I did not call someone racist, and I wouldn't call you racist. None of what she said happened went down like that. Sandy, you ask me to lighten up but I repeatedly have. Alexa has been gunning for me for 2 days now. I haven't resorted to the name-calling. Just read my words from any post. It's all very clear. I would ask all of you to be polite. I know that tensions run high, especially when discussing issues that we're passionate about. But we need to recognize that just because someone strongly disagrees with you, that does not make them a bad person, incorrect, or deserving of verbal battery. Guys. We're all people and we're all adults. Can't we be mature and just calmly and respectfully disagree? Alexa, I am willing to accept that perhaps emotions were running high yesterday. I would ask, once again, that we both accept the responsibility of ending this conflict peacefully.
Actually Marie our ancestors did go through a Court process to become US citizens. And you are sooooo correct, illegals are criminals. That's why their called illegals. These illegals need to go through the court process to become legal US citizens. But they won't. Crime, money sent back to Mexico and yes money made in the US for Mexicans is easy money. Work the seasons here and live like a kings and support other family members in Mexico. It happens all the time. The majority of a Mexicans earnings goes back to Mexico. This is the land of the Rich. When they can steal it without working to pay for it, live couldn't get any better. As a general rule, naturalization was a two-step process that took a minimum of five years. After residing in the United States for two years, an alien could file a "declaration of intent" (so-called "first papers") to become a citizen. After three additional years, the alien could "petition for naturalization." After the petition was granted, a certificate of citizenship then was issued.
Why put people in jails or prisons? Why even have police officers out there doing their job? We shouldn't have to spend billions every year to house criminals! Why recycle or encourage recycling programs?! It's a waste of our money and time, aimrite? Why should we care about endangered species? Who gives a fuck if a few hundred thousand animals disappear off the face of the planet? The oil spill? It's not affecting us all that much! I mean, my water is still clean, fuck the seagulls and turtles! There are even more things that cost us a lot of money, things we could do without or ignore. America can afford to fix the illegal immigration problem. Just because you have a problem with our want of an end to this crime, doesn't mean it's okay to make up a bunch of reasons why America "can't" do something. Because it's "too expensive" isn't even a good excuse. It's expensive either way! Change isn't free.
Ok, I just have a question for all the people who say that not all illegal aliens are criminals. Can you please explain the definition of ILLEGAL? I find it funny every time I hear an argument for illegals saying that not all of them are criminals, but yet, they all are. I find it even funnier when they have their protests DEMANDING they be treated equally and they are holding signs saying that they arent criminals. Well, im sorry, but if your here illegally, you are in fact a criminal. And yea the majority of people in this county aren't originally from here. The difference for most of us? There weren't laws against immigration when most of our ancestors came here. Did people steal the land? Yea, you could look at it that way. Do I feel bad that some of my ancestors had a part of that? Yea, I do. But, when I see my hometown being destroyed instead of improved with the surge of illegal immigrants, it ticks me off. When I see in the paper that there is upwards of $11 million being sent from my hometown to Mexico from wal-mart alone, it makes me wonder why my town is going to shit. Well, it doesn't make me wonder really. More like baffles me. When I know several people who have gone to school for something and apply for a job and be passed up for someone with no other education than high school, yet the are bilingual, it ticks me off. When I have people laugh, yes literally LAUGH, and spit in my face because I don't speak Spanish, it pisses me off. Yet, if I do that to someone else, no matter their race, I'm rascist. If I speak my mind and say, no, I don't want illegals here, I'm rascist. Why is that? Because I don't want to give illegals a free pass? Or because I'm tired of America taking care of others before our own? Exactly how does my opinions towards illegals make me rascist? It just means I'm tired of it and I want change. I don't know the right answers. I suspect no one does. All I know is something is going to have to happen before this gets even more out of hand. Call me a rascist all you want. I have a lot of Spanish friends who feel the same way I do. One even lived in Mexico for about 15 years. She says that if your not born here, or if you do come here but don't do anything to better your life/become a legal citizen, then you don't belong here. Actually, she is worse than most people who openly speak out about illegals. But what she, and a lot of other people find funny, is every time someone says anything about illegals, its always just about Mexican illegals. And its funny. I don't care who they are. Black, white, Japanese, Australian, purple and pink stripped with baby blue polka dots!! Illegal means illegal. Oh, and my half Mexican/half Irish husband agrees with me. Just throwing that out there in case people still wanna call me rascist. I'm not rascist, I dislike everyone equally!!! Alexa, I have said it since I first started coming here. Don't let the haters get ya down!!!
Oh Shit I'm sorry Pete or should I say Mr. Kotz. But I did mean what I said about ccccc. Lighten up ccccc.
Sandy, no, I made the same slip up: our comments are on the thread for the original story about Jose Saenz. We got waylaid by Pete's reply to us over there. I need another beer. This keeping track of these two threads is thirsty work. D'oh!
alexa kim, I had posted some information to support your comments. I also posted that ccccc was picking in the dirt at everyone. Mr. Kotz seemed to think that comment was to offensive for ccccc. Mr. Kotz took my post down. He wasn't spam filtering my comments?
@Joe, like I said, you offer no compromises of your positions. If you aren't willing to find the compromises that do exist in everyone's positions, yours, mine, anyone's, then I can't even invent a compromise of one of my positions to get the ball rolling. You don't think anything is wrong. So what else is there to discuss? You didn't have to get personal Joe, to make me ask and wonder and marvel at you. I know that there is a lot wrong, a lot. Once a person meets another who just doesn't see it, then incredulity is a natural reaction. You don't believe me. About anything. So, I'm going to discuss this now with persons who do believe me about something and/or about most things. At least insofar as to disagree with me enough to actually attempt a compromise. A place where persons of greatly divergent beliefs agree to find convergence. Because if we never do that, this issue will only continue to get worse. And many innocent lives will be lost.
@Pete, yeah, I pretty much figured. So... should I re-post it, breaking the linkage, or will it get released much later? Just checkin', thanks.
@alexa kim I "cherry-picked" your comments to disprove your statement that: "I don't insult persons who disagree. I insult persons who insult me first. Discuss something with me respectfully and take me seriously, and nary a discouraging word will be heard." If you can find a point before the "rabble-rouser" that I even once got personal feel free to enlighten me. I was trying to keep things civil and focus on the issues at hand but you repeatedly dismissed me as having "hackneyed" ideas and then as being "close-minded". I realize it's not the most belligerent internet flaming, but "nary a discouraging word" was indeed heard from your direction. As for my close-mindedness, I did concede that "I'm not completely against a wall, I just feel anyone with a shovel and enough time can get around that and it would just be sending more people into the hands of coyotes." And I read your comment starting with "I recently had a conversation with a former Department of Justice investigator....". I do realize you used the words compromise and spoke of bi-partisanship but you'll have to excuse me if that still looks like the alexa kim way or the highway to these eyes (that some would argue need glasses).
The spam filter just sometimes flags things that have a lot of links, Alexa.
@Pete, I hate to be a nag here but the comment I posted that started with "Turmoil in Tulsa: The illegal immigration wreck" and includes more than one link is still not visible here. (I mentioned it first at the original post this tangents off of, by mistake--sorry.) Is it lost and should I try again? Plz adv thx.
@JohnJ, I just may have to further your gene pool.
@Joe said: "Is that so? When did I cast the first stone that resulted in your following responses?" "Honestly Joe, so many of your arguments are so tired and worn out that I am wondering if you have been paying attention lately. That's an honest question." Joe, that is an honest question. I am wondering if you are using indeed, now hackneyed arguments that are no longer effective, because you've been out of the loop or something. That's why I said "that's an honest question." I was not insulting you, I was asking. "I cannot help but wonder if Joe has been in a time capsule, trotting all the tired and ineffective talking points that he did. LOL! I really don't want him to kill my wine buzz, ya' know." So you decided to eavesdrop, so to speak. That I marvel at your overused arguments with a friend may hurt your feelings, but I did not direct an insult at you. "No Joe, I have a LOT of arguments against yours, but that would require a very, very lengthy comment. And I do not know if you have the attention span for it. Seriously." Really? So this is about you taking a tally of every thing I've said that you didn't like and are now trying to characterize as a direct insult to you. You, noticeably, are not posting your contemptuous comments to me that this example is in response to. "No, Joe, I think you are either an open borders fan or an illegal alien or related to an illegal alien. You make rationalizations based on emotions. Emotional people cannot be reasoned with." Seriously Joe, now you're being silly. Oops, sorry, was that an insult of tally-worth proportions? Again, you fail to include what you said that I am responding to. "You are close-minded and intractable. Thanks for nothing." Sorry, but it's true. You still have not offered any compromises of your position at all. I still haven't seen anything that convinces me there's a crisis being brought about by illegal immigrants in the country, so I'm sorry if any of your subsequent calls to solve this problem, that I don't feel exists, haven't swayed me. If you had said that a long, long time ago, then we wouldn't be hogging all this bandwidth needlessly. That you don't think there's anything wrong also says everything we needed to know. Obviously, a large number of people besides me disagree with you. Cherry-picking out quotes is a very Saul Alinsky Rules for Radicals maneuver. Are you a fan of his?
@alexa kim "I don't insult persons who disagree. I insult persons who insult me first. Discuss something with me respectfully and take me seriously, and nary a discouraging word will be heard. " Is that so? When did I cast the first stone that resulted in your following responses? "Honestly Joe, so many of your arguments are so tired and worn out that I am wondering if you have been paying attention lately. That's an honest question." "I cannot help but wonder if Joe has been in a time capsule, trotting all the tired and ineffective talking points that he did. LOL! I really don't want him to kill my wine buzz, ya' know." "No Joe, I have a LOT of arguments against yours, but that would require a very, very lengthy comment. And I do not know if you have the attention span for it. Seriously." "No, Joe, I think you are either an open borders fan or an illegal alien or related to an illegal alien. You make rationalizations based on emotions. Emotional people cannot be reasoned with. " "[...]these very hackneyed and unsubstantiated claims in support of open borders." "You are close-minded and intractable. Thanks for nothing." I still haven't seen anything that convinces me there's a crisis being brought about by illegal immigrants in the country, so I'm sorry if any of your subsequent calls to solve this problem, that I don't feel exists, haven't swayed me.
@ Kody BTW why did one of your premiers have to come to the U.S. for medical treatment. He could have stayed up in the Canadian paradise I like how pols have special rules like in Animal Farm. we have some here. One, a party switching opportunist (apostate twice over) jumped the line to get a transplant. I am sure political influence had nothing to do with not having to wait for a transplant.
@ Joe if illegals cost 10 billion a year & contribute 9 billion a year than that is a 1 billion drain every year. Look at ancient Rome. They needed soldiers. They couldn't recruit enough natives. Too many libs I suppose. they recruited Germans, Gauls, Syrians and others. So far no problems. These soldier were incorporated into Roman legions and Romanized and given opportunity. Later these same barbarians were recruited to serve under their own chiefs and were not Roamanized. Big Effing problem. Rome fell. While we could have amnesty. While we could have a guest worker program. IT IS NOT WORTH WHILE, because the political left would take that (as well business & unions taking the workers) but the wall would not be built. Comprehensive means everything but a wall (effective border). That is the truth. The left just in time to stab everyone else in the back.
@Joe, for you to feature a quote of me speaking to the you who had not read my suggestions and who offered none in return, is a weak slight of hand. Like poor schmucks coming over to better themselves are the only ones crossing our borders. Those poor schmucks have a country in which they can better themselves. It is a country they claim to be proud of. It is the country of their citizenship. You have not bothered to read any of the rest of my arguments concerning these very contributing factors, so I'm not going to take up more bandwidth repeating them here. I'm not sure I'm the one who "points out" that illegals cost $10 billion but it is likely cited in one of the articles I posted above. I won't be trusting anything @ccccc cites until she retracts her Nazi nonsense. If we put armed forces on both sides of the border, that would be funding in support of the war on drug cartels like we've never done before. How does a refund for new home buyers help control our borders? I don't see how that fits here. I don't insult persons who disagree. I insult persons who insult me first. Discuss something with me respectfully and take me seriously, and nary a discouraging word will be heard. So, rabble-rouser, sounds like you've offered all the discussion you care to. Oh well.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=14632 Mexico's Immigration Law: Let's Try It Here at Home by J. Michael Waller 05/08/2006 Mexico has a radical idea for a rational immigration policy that most Americans would love. However, Mexican officials haven't been sharing that idea with us as they press for our Congress to adopt the McCain-Kennedy immigration reform bill. That's too bad, because Mexico, which annually deports more illegal aliens than the United States does, has much to teach us about how it handles the immigration issue. Under Mexican law, it is a felony to be an illegal alien in Mexico. At a time when the Supreme Court and many politicians seek to bring American law in line with foreign legal norms, it's noteworthy that nobody has argued that the U.S. look at how Mexico deals with immigration and what it might teach us about how best to solve our illegal immigration problem. Mexico has a single, streamlined law that ensures that foreign visitors and immigrants are: * in the country legally; * have the means to sustain themselves economically; * not destined to be burdens on society; * of economic and social benefit to society; * of good character and have no criminal records; and * contributors to the general well-being of the nation. The law also ensures that: * immigration authorities have a record of each foreign visitor; * foreign visitors do not violate their visa status; * foreign visitors are banned from interfering in the country's internal politics; * foreign visitors who enter under false pretenses are imprisoned or deported; * foreign visitors violating the terms of their entry are imprisoned or deported; * those who aid in illegal immigration will be sent to prison. Who could disagree with such a law? It makes perfect sense. The Mexican constitution strictly defines the rights of citizens -- and the denial of many fundamental rights to non-citizens, illegal and illegal. Under the constitution, the Ley General de Poblacion, or General Law on Population, spells out specifically the country's immigration policy. It is an interesting law -- and one that should cause us all to ask, Why is our great southern neighbor pushing us to water down our own immigration laws and policies, when its own immigration restrictions are the toughest on the continent? If a felony is a crime punishable by more than one year in prison, then Mexican law makes it a felony to be an illegal alien in Mexico. If the United States adopted such statutes, Mexico no doubt would denounce it as a manifestation of American racism and bigotry. We looked at the immigration provisions of the Mexican constitution. [1] Now let's look at Mexico's main immigration law. Mexico welcomes only foreigners who will be useful to Mexican society: * Foreigners are admitted into Mexico "according to their possibilities of contributing to national progress." (Article 32) * Immigration officials must "ensure" that "immigrants will be useful elements for the country and that they have the necessary funds for their sustenance" and for their dependents. (Article 34) * Foreigners may be barred from the country if their presence upsets "the equilibrium of the national demographics," when foreigners are deemed detrimental to "economic or national interests," when they do not behave like good citizens in their own country, when they have broken Mexican laws, and when "they are not found to be physically or mentally healthy." (Article 37) * The Secretary of Governance may "suspend or prohibit the admission of foreigners when he determines it to be in the national interest." (Article 38) Mexican authorities must keep track of every single person in the country: * Federal, local and municipal police must cooperate with federal immigration authorities upon request, i.e., to assist in the arrests of illegal immigrants. (Article 73) * A National Population Registry keeps track of "every single individual who comprises the population of the country," and verifies each individual's identity. (Articles 85 and 86) * A national Catalog of Foreigners tracks foreign tourists and immigrants (Article 87), and assigns each individual with a unique tracking number (Article 91). Foreigners with fake papers, or who enter the country under false pretenses, may be imprisoned: * Foreigners with fake immigration papers may be fined or imprisoned. (Article 116) * Foreigners who sign government documents "with a signature that is false or different from that which he normally uses" are subject to fine and imprisonment. (Article 116) Foreigners who fail to obey the rules will be fined, deported, and/or imprisoned as felons: * Foreigners who fail to obey a deportation order are to be punished. (Article 117) * Foreigners who are deported from Mexico and attempt to re-enter the country without authorization can be imprisoned for up to 10 years. (Article 118) * Foreigners who violate the terms of their visa may be sentenced to up to six years in prison (Articles 119, 120 and 121). Foreigners who misrepresent the terms of their visa while in Mexico -- such as working with out a permit -- can also be imprisoned. Under Mexican law, illegal immigration is a felony. The General Law on Population says, * "A penalty of up to two years in prison and a fine of three hundred to five thousand pesos will be imposed on the foreigner who enters the country illegally." (Article 123) * Foreigners with legal immigration problems may be deported from Mexico instead of being imprisoned. (Article 125) * Foreigners who "attempt against national sovereignty or security" will be deported. (Article 126) Mexicans who help illegal aliens enter the country are themselves considered criminals under the law: * A Mexican who marries a foreigner with the sole objective of helping the foreigner live in the country is subject to up to five years in prison. (Article 127) * Shipping and airline companies that bring undocumented foreigners into Mexico will be fined. (Article 132) All of the above runs contrary to what Mexican leaders are demanding of the United States. The stark contrast between Mexico's immigration practices versus its American immigration preachings is telling. It gives a clear picture of the Mexican government's agenda: to have a one-way immigration relationship with the United States. Let's call Mexico's bluff on its unwarranted interference in U.S. immigration policy. Let's propose, just to make a point, that the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) member nations standardize their immigration laws by using Mexico's own law as a model. This article was first posted at CenterforSecurityPolicy.org. 1. "Mexico's Glass House," Center for Security Policy Occasional Paper, April 3, 2006. Dr. Waller is vice president for Information Operations at the Center for Security Policy. A journalist and author, he brings expertise in terrorism, intelligence, the former Soviet Union and the Americas. He previously served as a consultant to the U.S. Department of State.
@alexa kim My defeatism? Were you not the one that stated, "@Joe, you refuse to make any compromises whatsoever. You are close-minded and intractable. Thanks for nothing." Was that your form of compromise and continued debate? Tax the country of origin? Does Mexico currently want their citizens to emigrate and further reduce the workforce? Could they be doing more to prevent people from emigrating possibly, but I think you can excuse them if they have more pressing matters. Would you really want them to divert funds and manpower from fighting the war on drug cartels and poverty to sitting them on the border arresting poor shmucks trying to better themselves and yes, crossing the border illegally. If you haven't caught the gist of my argument it's to take a few breaths and relax with this whole "invasion of america" rhetoric which Hyenakiller argued so eloquently above. You point out that illegals cost $10 billion a year, but if you'd refer to ccccc's comment in the jose saenz article, "One rough estimate puts the amount of Social Security taxes alone at around $9 billion per year." So where's the huge financial strain they put on America I'm hearing so much about? My argument is to take the funds you propose for erecting walls and deploying troops to further bolster our war on the drug cartels. Stimulate the economy with more programs like the refund for new home buyers program that's going on currently. Or you can just keep rabble-rousing and insulting anyone that disagrees.
@ Kody - You are a piece of work. We just loaned a State- owned company Petrobras of Brasil 2 billion dollars. It makes 15 billion dollars year in net profit. Not to mention the billionaire Soros has or had a 900 million stake in the company. So we're lending easy money to a company that doesn't need it and starving ourselves. foxbusiness . com /story/markets/industries/energy/brazil-petrobras-q-net-profit--year-brl-billion/ So if the wall takes 3 billion, we have the money. But we are in a fight between the mandarins in power versus the people. They pad the budget and then when cuts are necessary try to cut vital services first, like policeman and teachers. I have worked in state government. There is a lot of padding. So we don't have to raise taxes. Obviously you have not read Alexa's Kim's post on crime or have shrugged it off and blamed it merely on guns. Whatever, I can't think of anything Canada has done since WWII.
@JohnJ, did or did not @ccccc hurl the Nazi slur? Why yes, she did. And I called her on it. And she is claiming that I owe her an apology for what I have no flippin' idea. But, I am willing to discuss this topic further with you, if you care to.
No @Joe, my suggestions are here in this thread. Above. It starts with "I recently had a conversation with a former Department of Justice investigator....
John J: If you don't like that particular metaphor, there are many others. I'm simply referring to the slanderous terms used to describe groups of people suspected of ruining our livelihoods, throughout history. I'm talking about mob mentality, rhetoric, and nationalism used to justify slander and dislike toward these particular groups of people. And all of you know darn well what I meant. Shame on anyone who says otherwise.
@Joe, you did not read my draft of suggestions because if you did, you'd know that I did not suggest raising OUR taxes. BTW, the tunnels you keep bringing up have been found and filled with cement. And with more and more modern detection technology being deployed there now, that is now a waste of time and money. But you believe that your positions are completely perfect as they are and are clearly not willing to come away from them at all in any way. You do not offer alternatives, you just think there are not compromises to be achieved. Heck, you don't even bother to ponder my suggestions, countering with a compromise for any of them. With that defeatism, well then, you're right. So clearly, you don't care.
My apologies I just now noticed the continuing discussion in the previous thread, it's probably in there. So far all I've seen is I have a short attention span, an open borders fan, illegal or related to an illegal and an emotional person that cannot be reasoned with. Clearly I'm the one being unjudicious and close-minded.
@ alexa kim Yes I missed your comment about a draft, upon looking back I still don't see it. Maybe I'm just dense, care to enlighten me? So far all I see from you in response to my comments is your border patrol document checking procedures which you and ccccc have already hashed out and I will admit is not as black and white as my original comment may've inferred. About raising a wall to stop the coyotes, I already mentioned the numerous tunnels. And about raising taxes to pay for it all... Frankly it's an option but I don't see it being passed in the middle of a recession, which I already mentioned. And then your columns I already responded to, but apparently not to your liking? That my comment was featured is irrelevant, Pete is just promoting discussion, what's it matter where the discussion starts? Maybe we can just agree that our fundamental arguments are far apart and we're at the proverbial immovable object/unstoppable force point.
Having read through quite a bit of this, I find that everyone is all talk. I live in Canada so I can't really understand your problem. Anyway I have a list of solutions for you all, let me list them: 1) Just kill all the illegals. I think this explains itself, anyone crossing illegally, shoot them, and if you find illegals in the country(even kids) shoot them. It isn't like the illegals are people or anything, at least that's the impression I get from the ones opposing the illegals. 2) Build a large wall on the border. This also explains itself. Raise taxes and build the wall. Of course someone has to pay for it, which means higher taxes. But if you don't want to pay for a solution, then just shut up about it. In any case, to me it just seems like you guys are whining. You talk about how terrible it is, yet do nothing to fix the problem. Even if someone came up with the perfect solution, but it raised taxes 1%, you would oppose it and cry. What I'm saying is, if you don't want to pay for this problem, then shut up about it and go on with your life. Also, side note, every single member of your country is either an immigrant or the descendant of one. Know your place. You might argue that there were no laws against what you did (which is simply take the land), but that doesn't mean it wasn't wrong. Another way of putting it is that you didn't belong there and had no business being there, but no one kicked you out and you were allowed to stay and live your lives, much like how illegals are trying to do now, and yet you tell them that they don't belong and try to kick them out. Like I said before, know your place. Anyway to finish this off, I know that Canada pretty much did the exact same thing. But you know what, who cares? At least we apologized for it.
Cartels threatens U.S. COPS. No doubt in Nogales a good percentage of these U.S. cops will have hispanic surnames. So this is not a race issue. It is an EFFING Crime issue. national terror alert.com police-chief-cartels-threaten-u-s-law-enforcement-in-arizona fox news . com mexican-cartel-threatens-target-officers-arizona-border-town Also, no doubt the GOLFER-in-CHIEF will play another round of golf in two weeks and not help the COPS in Nogales. He plays a round of gold every 2 weeks on average. He is a very busy, busy man. That and dinner dates with Paul McCartney .... We can have comprehensive immigration reform tomorrow, but only if we do it his way.
We were betrayed in the 80s. Janet Napolitano has no desire to build an effective border. To have effective border enforcement you need physical barrier and people. The fewer barriers you have the more people you have. They both cost. Those who say that wall is to expensive are throwing a red herring. They are in effect saying don't enforce the border. The same people would say you have to many Border Patrol agents and they cost too much. I am willing to compromise. BUT not with this president. His handling of McChystals surge request, the oil spill and the border problems shows that he lets a crisis to "percolate". He uses half measures to not garner too much opprobrium,while holding out for his COMPREHENSIVE plan that is no compromise on his part. If there is an agreement for a border fence and amnesty, he will slow the fence down and then stop building it after a year or two like the missile shield in Europe. This is what he would do unless Soros told him to do otherwise.
@Joe, why yes, you did. Re-read my draft suggestions. But since you got your comment featured, I thought that it would be, I dunno', maybe at least gracious, possibly a sign of serious wish to reach a resolution, and a teeny bit proactive of you to offer compromises first. But, you didn't. So, I did.
Why would you accept any form of amnesty? Look how the one in 80's turned out! All it did was have 20 million more illegal breeders beat feet to the boarder... At this rate, invading and taking over Mexico would be a more viable and sound solution, rather than 'amnesty'..
The longer they refuse to build a wall, the less likely I am to accept any type of amnesty. They are trying to break us like a dog trying to get us to heel. I have news for them. They will be broken at the ballot box.
@alexa kim And did I miss the part where you've budged an inch?
I posted a comment previous to the just above that was caught by Pete's spam guard because of the several links in it. I expect it will post within an hour. @Joe, you refuse to make any compromises whatsoever. You are close-minded and intractable. Thanks for nothing.
Illegal Immigrants Crime Spree in WA. June 1, 2010 - 11:32 AM by: Dan Springer FoxNews.com One woman is dead and two others were raped recently and police say each crime was committed by a different illegal immigrant. One of the sexual assaults happened just hours before the Seattle city council passed an ordinance boycotting Arizona over its new immigration law. Gregorio Luna Luna had a history of beating up his live-in girlfriend Griselda Ocampo Meza. He was also in the U.S. illegally. On May 1, Luna Luna was deported to Mexico. Three weeks later Meza was murdered in her apartment in a violent knife attack. Franklin County prosecutors say Luna Luna slipped past the border again and killed Meza in front of their five year old son. He's in the county jail awaiting trial. A suspected rapist in Edmonds, Washington has been deported at least 4 times according to Snohomish County prosecutors. Jose Lopez Madrigal has been charged with raping a woman next to a dumpster behind a Safeway store. A witness to the attack alerted police and Madrigal was taken into custody. An illegal immigrant just convicted of his possible 3rd strike in Whatcom county- a rape of a homeless woman- has been deported to Mexico five times. Washington State ranks 11th in the nation in the number of illegal immigrants with an estimated 150,000. They make up 2% of the state's population, but account for 4.5% of those in Washington prisons. In Franklin county, 14% of the jail bookings are illegal immigrants. Currently, over half of the individuals on the Washington State Patrol's Most Wanted List are suspected illegal immigrants. 18 of the 26 on the list are Hispanic with no place of birth identified. Most are wanted for vehicular homicide and they have languished on the Most Wanted list for several years. There are about 50,000 felony warrants currently issued in Washington State and according to a source in the U.S. Marshal's office between 30-40 percent are believed to be illegal immigrants. We asked the State Patrol about the immigration status of the most wanted suspects and they told us they didn't know. Officials say that information is not important in trying to locate the individuals. The U.S. Marshall's Service disagrees. Leaders of the region's fugitive task force say knowing immigration status can be very important to an investigation. In fact, the Marshall's have an office in Mexico to help with cross-border cases. Last week, the city of Tacoma joined Seattle in admonishing Arizona for its immigration law. While the council did not go so far as passing a boycott, the ordinance does criticize Arizona for its stand against illegal immigration.
Turmoil in Tulsa: The illegal immigration wreck For reader, accident with apparent illegal migrant crystallized city's change By Kari Huus msnbc.com updated 7:31 p.m. ET July 17, 2007 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19466978/ns/us_news-gut_check// --- http://www.judicialwatch.org/immigration-problems --- http://www.kriseggle.org/kris.htm Kristopher William Eggle (August 15th, 1973 - August 9th, 2002) Kris was a young man of amazing accomplishments. Raised in the small town of Cadillac, Michigan, Kris became an Eagle Scout, a National Honor Society Student, and graduated from Cadillac High School as Valedictorian in 1991. Kris was a member of the cross-country and track teams at Cadillac High School where he won numerous awards at the local and state level, then went on to run for the University of Michigan cross-country team. Kris was aiming for a future with the National Park Service, and in 1995, he accepted a Student Conservation Association position at Great Smoky Mountains National Park tracking wild boar and bears. He served as a US Park Ranger at Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore and Canyonlands National Park before arriving at Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument in 2000. He was elected president of his class at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center where he graduated in June of 2002 at the top of his class and was awarded the National Park Service Director's Award for outstanding achievement. He always took great pride in his daily work providing for visitors' needs and protecting our Nation's heritage. In the wake of 9/11, Kris protected his country by intercepting thousands of pounds of illegal drugs, many weapons, and hundreds of illegal lawbreakers from foreign countries, and by guarding a 31-mile stretch of our nation's southern boundary. Kris Eggle was shot and killed in the line of duty at Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument on August 9, 2002, while pursuing members of a drug cartel hit squad who fled into the United States after committing a string of murders in Mexico. He was 28 years old. As a fellow Organ Pipe ranger commented, "Kris died serving his country and his death has great value and meaning. But the life of Kris Eggle, even more than his death, continues to set the standard." --- http://www.immigrationshumancost.org/text/crimevictims.html
Correction: remove the "are" before "might" and it makes sense.
You guys are might say the first part of that last one was emotional maybe- it wasn't. It's my very calculated sense of what I reason is right from wrong.
Really alexa kim your first two stories are what I'm talking about. Clearly cartels are either able to pass the border unbothered or already have plenty of american citizens to do their bidding. So what is putting up a wall gonna do to them? They're already firmly entrenched here. We should be spending those resources on bigger task forces to weed out the cartels in the border states. And your third makes many good points. * With nearly two-thirds of illegal aliens lacking a high school degree, the primary reason they create a fiscal deficit is their low education levels and resulting low incomes and tax payments, not their legal status or heavy use of most social services. So what do we do? Make it necessary to be legal to get into az state universities and call for schools to be english only and further hinder their advancement in education. * The fact that legal immigrants with few years of schooling are a large fiscal drain does not mean that legal immigrants overall are a net drain -- many legal immigrants are highly skilled. * The vast majority of illegals hold jobs. Thus the fiscal deficit they create for the federal government is not the result of an unwillingness to work. My points exactly. Currently the US national debt is at 13.04 trillion. So kicking out illegals will alleviate 10 billion. A whole .0008% change a year. And this is worth the manhunt and money and effort required?
LovinMyKids: Some of you know that my mom died young, when I was young. She needed medical care that, despite her insurance, we could not afford. My great aunt wrote an op-ed piece to the local paper lamenting the fact that illegals were getting free medical care while my mother was allowed to die. She thought I would be enthused and- while I love her to death and know she meant well- I was horrified. I felt that way because I knew intrinsically what it felt like to lose a loved one. I knew that no one should have to go through that, no matter where they're from. So no, I don't begrudge the illegals their medical care or an education for their children (future citizens, after all). That said, I DO think there's a problem & I do NOT think it can go unchecked. Do I think building a giant wall is the answer. No. I already offered up one suggestion. Here's another: Fine the crap out of American companies who hire illegals so as to out-compete the similarly skilled American worker. Another suggestion: Make it easier to for illegals to become legal. Let them become full-status tax-payers. Let them buy our stuff, rent from us. Make them part of the economy.
I recently had a conversation with a former Department of Justice investigator, now retired. He is of Hispanic lineage, with a Hispanic surname and was not only bilingual but a polyglot. A very intelligent overachiever. He mentioned that he was called back into service to help investigate immediately after 9/11. He and I also discussed the truly dangerous nature of our open borders. He served time at the border in his capacity of law enforcement. I used to live near the border in Texas and watched what was happening there day in and day out. This much the three of agreed on: we do not have border control, at all, and we must control our border before we do anything else. We can sit around blaming both political parties, with lots of good cause, for weeks, easily. We need to move past it and deal with the problem decisively and with as little self-serving politicality as possible. We must stop insisting on just our way or the highway. We must both make compromises and we must both be eager to make compromises in order to solve the problem. Something that we all kicked around in various conversations was manning the order with the National Guard. That is what our National Guard is for. Guarding our nation in our nation (not jockeying desks, not soaking up oil spills). Just the act of not allowing a person to cross our border would save huge sums of money and manpower. If they aren't in our hands, we don't have to process them. Keeping out invaders -- persons who insist on jamming themselves into our country are invaders -- is what our armed forces are precisely meant to do. Now, there are some who will immediately mistranslate that to mean a version of the DMZ, complete with patrolling dogs, shoot to kill orders and threats of nuclear annihilation. An armed (with bullets) presence at our side of the border, along with an armed presence on the Mexico side of the border (by Mexican soldiers, of course), preventing persons from entering or exiting either country without full documentation and express permission would bring the hemorrhage to a grinding halt. Under no circumstances are our National Guard to be prohibited from firing on persons who do not obey orders to return to their country instantly. It would send the necessary message loud and clear to all persons immediately. This will stay the case unless and until Mexico launches an ad campaign of epic proportions denouncing and prohibiting the illegal immigration of its own citizens into America. It must emphasize having pride in their own nation. It must insist that persons must stay to fight to make Mexico better. Non-stop, without equivocation. For at least 20 years. We must denounce and prohibit any municipality from declaring itself a sanctuary for illegal aliens. Doing so will be considered an act of sedition and will incur full prosecution by Congress, forfeiting any and all federal monies. Any church that attempts to offer sanctuary to illegal aliens will forfeit their tax exempt status for no less than five years per illegal alien. If they do it again, they permanently lose their tax exempt status. If they do it yet again, their pastor/reverand/priest will be prosecuted for sedition and sent to jail. Yes, to jail. Any person here illegally who proceeds to commit a crime against persons or property will be given the following choice: agree to surrender all rights to a trial in exchange for immediate deportation back to their country. Once returned, if they ever set foot back in America, regardless, they will have already agreed to be immediately incarcerated for no less than 10 years. Their native country will pay America for their incarceration costs. All businesses here that have added a "Press 1 for English" option to their phone menus will remove it. If they have call centers in America that service other countries, the menu better say so and it better be true. All states and the federal government agree to work together to fight this problem. Not just one or the other. The federal government agrees to accept help from the states. All voting materials will be printed only in English. All driving tests will be in English only. All businesses will use the SSN verification system, and will not employ anyone who doesn't pass first. No persons can be paid payroll in cash, ever. No persons can be paid less than minimum wage, for any job, including waiting tables or picking cabbage. (I can hear the agri-combine whining now.) Any business that hires someone here illegally will pay a very heavy fine and will lose their license to operate for no less than three years. If they do it again, the company president will go to jail for no less than three years and pay an even heavier fine. The mother of a child must be an American citizen before their child is born. If they are not, their child is a citizen of their mother's country. Their country of citizenship will reimburse America for the cost of the child's birth here. Persons here illegally now are to never receive a chance at citizenship. No. That is the price for not being immediately deported. They do not get what their fellow country men fought for and did correctly. No. They may stay, under a provisional green card IF first: -They agree to forfeit all social security benefits they may have "earned" using someone else's identity. Money you earn illegally does not suddenly become accumulate retirement benes for you on someone else's number. That collected tax now goes into a trust lock box that is for the benefit of all retirees who may come up a little short because they dare to live a little too long. -They agree to get a provisional SSN in order to work and collect their legally earned social security. -They agree to pay an additional fee on every transaction sending money earned here back to their family in their native country. -They agree that they will not receive the right to vote in American elections of any kind. -They may never run for elected office of any kind. They may never be employed by any government agency of any kind. -They may not work in public schools. They may work in private schools. They agree to never advocate for another country over America. -They may send their children to public school and get an American education that values America. But they must pay what the rest of us pay. They must never get preferential access to tuition, scholarships or grants ahead of Americans. No more of this nonsense of American property owners paying school taxes to educate the children of persons who do not live in America and so do not pay school taxes. If your child is in our schools, you must pay for it like we do. -They MUST learn English and use it like the rest of us do. They must be able to speak, read and write it, no matter their age. Yes, they must. They must be able to get around safely, able to read warning signs, able to follow instructions from a fireman. They will pay for it and they will obtain a diploma from an accredited school within three years of receiving the provisional green card. They will speak English to fellow persons first, before trying to speak to them in their original language. -They agree to obey all laws better than anyone else as an act of good faith. -They agree to defend America in any conflict with their home country. If they cannot agree to do so, then they are still loyal to their home country and should live in their home country. -They agree to be medically cleared of all communicable diseases and parasites. I mean treated and cleared to be out among the rest of us. If they are not curable, but still contagious, they must go back and their country agrees to take them and administer medical care to them without regard for their ability to pay. If they fail to meet any of the above, then we will deport them but allow them to try again in a reasonable amount of time. Those are the conditions under which I am willing to tolerate the presence of persons here illegally before the date of enactment. After enactment, any persons here illegally will not get a slip to come back later to trudge through our bloated, overworked, under-resourced immigration courts. They will be immediately photographed, fingerprinted, DNA'd, given a permanent non grata status slip, shipped back to their country of origin where the authorities there do the same and they agree to punish them if they ever try it again. Now we make sure we institute new policies and procedures concerning entrance to America, staying in America, working in America and leaving America. Our immigration policies must be for the benefit of America, as a nation, not as a consumer group. For our safety, for our sakes, first. Nowhere is it guaranteed that anyone who wants to become a citizen and applies MUST become a citizen. No. There are some people we don't want here. We have the right to decide who we invite into our house. New citizens must surrender their original citizenship before becoming Americans. That is not the case right now. The umbilical must be cut and dual citizenship should be reserved for very rare and specific purposes. My lengthy first draft of suggestions.
@ ccccc "No one is saying to let them all come through, unchecked." Really? You say build no wall. Building no wall is the same as letting anyone and everyone in. It just is. You say a wall couldn't work. Then even less would allow even more in. Just remember that when some Jihadi starts taking people out in your city. I am for a guest worker program. I have stated so before. But if you allow too many people in you DEPRESS wages. That is unless cccc is going to wave her magic wand and suspend the law of supply and demand. Second if you allow people in at every request it is a distinction without a difference of allowing business to hire illegals. Illegals have hurt people badly. They drive wages down. LovinMyKids does not sound as much as a NAZI as you do cccc. Throw around the NAZI remark a little more & you'll permanently tear it and will have no credibility.. I've seen Germans born in the last year of the war called NAZIs by college educated DOLTS. I guess when you get an education degree you get a lobotomy as well. Calling someone a NAZI is an easy way to summarize what someone has said or may jut be a way for a someone to shut someone up. So just keep throwing it.
A Shifting Tide: Recent Trends in the Illegal Immigrant Population By Steven A. Camarota, Karen Jensenius July 2009 Monthly Census Bureau data show that the number of less-educated young Hispanic immigrants in the country has declined significantly. The evidence indicates that the illegal population declined after July 2007 and then rebounded somewhat in the summer of 2008 before resuming its decline in the fall of 2008 and into the first quarter of 2009. Both increased immigration enforcement and the recession seem to explain this decline. There is evidence that the decline was caused by both fewer illegal immigrants coming and an increase in the number returning home. However, this pattern does not apply to the legal immigrant population, which has not fallen significantly. Among the findings: * Our best estimate is that the illegal population declined 13.7 percent (1.7 million) from a peak of 12.5 million in the summer of 2007 to 10.8 million in the first quarter of 2009. * If we compare the first quarter of 2007 to the first quarter of 2009, the implied decline is 1.3 million (10.9 percent). In just the last year the decline was 5.7 percent. * By design, these estimates produce results similar to those from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). DHS estimates of the illegal population show a 1.5 percent decline between January 1, 2007, and January 1, 2008. Our estimates show a 1.6 percent decline over the same time period. DHS has not yet estimated the illegal population for January 2009. * There is evidence that the number of new illegal immigrants arriving has fallen by about one-third in the last two years compared to earlier in this decade. * There is also evidence that the number of illegal immigrants returning home has more than doubled in the last two years compared to earlier in this decade. * While migration patterns have fundamentally changed, it must be remembered that the overwhelming majority of illegal immigrants have not left the country, and tens of thousands of new illegal immigrants continue to settle in the country each year. * Our analysis shows that only the illegal immigrant population has declined. The legal immigrant population does not show the same decline. This is also true for Mexico, the top illegal-immigrant-sending country. * The fact that the legal immigrant population does not show the same decline is an indication that stepped up enforcement has played a role. * Another indication that enforcement has played a role in the decline is that the illegal immigrant population began falling before there was a significant rise in their unemployment rate. * While the decline began before unemployment among illegal immigrants rose, unemployment among illegal immigrants has increased dramatically and must now be playing a significant role in reducing their numbers. * There is evidence that the illegal population rose in the summer of 2007, while Congress was considering legalizing illegal immigrants. When that legislation failed to pass, the illegal population quickly began a dramatic fall. * There is no way to know if the current trend will continue. Given President Obama's stated desire to legalize illegal immigrants and his backing away from enforcement efforts, it seems likely that when the economy recovers, the illegal population will resume its growth.
http://www.cis.org/node/54 The High Cost of Cheap Labor: Illegal Immigration and the Federal Budget By Steven A. Camarota August 2004 Executive Summary This study is one of the first to estimate the total impact of illegal immigration on the federal budget. Most previous studies have focused on the state and local level and have examined only costs or tax payments, but not both. Based on Census Bureau data, this study finds that, when all taxes paid (direct and indirect) and all costs are considered, illegal households created a net fiscal deficit at the federal level of more than $10 billion in 2002. We also estimate that, if there was an amnesty for illegal aliens, the net fiscal deficit would grow to nearly $29 billion. Among the findings: * Households headed by illegal aliens imposed more than $26.3 billion in costs on the federal government in 2002 and paid only $16 billion in taxes, creating a net fiscal deficit of almost $10.4 billion, or $2,700 per illegal household. * Among the largest costs are Medicaid ($2.5 billion); treatment for the uninsured ($2.2 billion); food assistance programs such as food stamps, WIC, and free school lunches ($1.9 billion); the federal prison and court systems ($1.6 billion); and federal aid to schools ($1.4 billion). * With nearly two-thirds of illegal aliens lacking a high school degree, the primary reason they create a fiscal deficit is their low education levels and resulting low incomes and tax payments, not their legal status or heavy use of most social services. * On average, the costs that illegal households impose on federal coffers are less than half that of other households, but their tax payments are only one-fourth that of other households. * Many of the costs associated with illegals are due to their American-born children, who are awarded U.S. citizenship at birth. Thus, greater efforts at barring illegals from federal programs will not reduce costs because their citizen children can continue to access them. * If illegal aliens were given amnesty and began to pay taxes and use services like households headed by legal immigrants with the same education levels, the estimated annual net fiscal deficit would increase from $2,700 per household to nearly $7,700, for a total net cost of $29 billion. * Costs increase dramatically because unskilled immigrants with legal status -- what most illegal aliens would become -- can access government programs, but still tend to make very modest tax payments. * Although legalization would increase average tax payments by 77 percent, average costs would rise by 118 percent. * The fact that legal immigrants with few years of schooling are a large fiscal drain does not mean that legal immigrants overall are a net drain -- many legal immigrants are highly skilled. * The vast majority of illegals hold jobs. Thus the fiscal deficit they create for the federal government is not the result of an unwillingness to work. * The results of this study are consistent with a 1997 study by the National Research Council, which also found that immigrants' education level is a key determinant of their fiscal impact.
Mexican Gangs Maintain Permanent Lookout Bases in Hills of Arizona By Adam Housley Published June 22, 2010 FOXNews.com Mexican drug cartels have set up shop on American soil, maintaining lookout bases in strategic locations in the hills of southern Arizona from which their scouts can monitor every move made by law enforcement officials, federal agents tell Fox News. The scouts are supplied by drivers who bring them food, water, batteries for radios -- all the items they need to stay in the wilderness for a long time. "To say that this area is out of control is an understatement," said an agent who patrols the area and asked not to be named. "We (federal border agents), as well as the Pima County Sheriff Office and the Bureau of Land Management, can attest to that." Much of the drug traffic originates in the Menagers Dam area, the Vekol Valley, Stanfield and around the Tohono O'odham Indian Reservation. It even follows a natural gas pipeline that runs from Mexico into Arizona. In these areas, which are south and west of Tucson, sources said there are "cartel scouts galore" watching the movements of federal, state and local law enforcement, from the border all the way up to Interstate 8. "Every night we're getting beaten like a pinata at a birthday party by drug, alien smugglers," a second federal agent told Fox News by e-mail. "The danger is out there, with all the weapons being found coming northbound…. someone needs to know about this!" The agents blame part of their plight on new policies from Washington, claiming it has put a majority of the U.S. agents on the border itself. One agent compared it to a short-yardage defense in football, explaining that once the smugglers and drug-runners break through the front line, they're home free. "We are unable to work any traffic, because they have us forward deployed," the agent said. "We are unable to work the traffic coming out of the mountains. That traffic usually carries weapons and dope, too, again always using stolen vehicles." The Department of Homeland Security denies it has ordered any major change in operations or any sort of change in forward deployment. "The Department of Homeland Security has dedicated unprecedented manpower, technology and infrastructure resources to the Southwest border over the course of the past 16 months," DHS spokesman Matt Chandler said. "Deployment of CBP/Border Patrol and ICE personnel to various locations throughout the Southwest border is based on actionable intelligence and operational need, not which elected official can yell the loudest." While agents in the area agree that southwest Arizona has been a trouble spot for more than a decade, many believe Washington and politicians "who come here for one-day visit" aren't seeing the big picture. They say the area has never been controlled and has suddenly gotten worse, with the cartels maintaining a strong presence on U.S. soil. More than ever, agents on the front lines are wearing tactical gear, including helmets, to protect themselves. "More than 4,000 of these agents are deployed in Arizona," Chandler says. "The strategy to secure our nation's borders is based on a 'defense in depth' philosophy, including the use of interior checkpoints, like the one on FR 85 outside Ajo, to interdict threats attempting to move from the border into the interior of our nation." Without placing direct fault on anyone, multiple agents told Fox that the situation is more dangerous for them than ever now that the cartels have such a strong position on the American side of the border. They say morale is down among many who patrol the desolate area, and they worry that the situation won't change until an agent gets killed.
Mexican Drug Cartel Warns Police Officers in Arizona Border Town to 'Look the Other Way' By Joshua Rhett Miller Published June 22, 2010 AP One expert said the threat likely came from the Sinaloa Cartel, which is headed by Joaquin "El Chapo" Guzman-Loera, who is being sought by American and Mexican authorities. Police officers in a small Arizona border city are on heightened alert following a tip that a Mexican drug cartel will put them in its crosshairs if they conduct off-duty busts. The threat stems from a marijuana seizure made this month by two off-duty police officers riding on horseback in an unincorporated area east of Nogales, a city of roughly 20,000, Police Chief Jeffrey Kirkham told FoxNews.com. "The word was that these particular officers would be targeted if they were ever in that area again and were not on duty and intercepted any drug trafficking," Kirkham said. "It said they should look the other way." The unidentified officers were able to confiscate roughly 400 pounds of marijuana during the seizure in early June at a known smuggling corridor along the U.S.-Mexican border where there is "relatively no fencing," Kirkham said. No arrests were made, and the smugglers were able to retreat into Mexico. Kirkham said his department, which employs 62 officers, learned about the threat through informants and has been unable to determine which Mexican drug cartel is behind it. Kirkham noted that two drug trafficking organizations -- the Los Zetas and the Sinaloa Cartel -- are currently trying to gain a foothold in the Nogales area. "Which one, we can't establish," he said. "They're not ones to advertise who's behind this. It's difficult to establish." In response to the threat, Kirkham said everyone in the department was advised to be armed while off-duty. Officials at the Drug Enforcement Agency and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement also were notified, he said. "We let them know that if they are to go out there, they are to be armed," Kirkham said. George Grayson, a professor at The College of William & Mary who specializes in Mexican politics and international affairs, said the threat likely came from the Sinaloa Cartel, which is headed by Joaquin "El Chapo" Guzman-Loera, who is being sought by American and Mexican authorities. The U.S. State Department is offering a reward of up to $5 million for information leading to his arrest. "This is quite credible that the cartels would threaten police officers, on-duty or off-duty," Grayson told FoxNews.com. "They, in fact, are more likely to threaten local police than to go after the [Drug Enforcement Agency] or FBI, which really raises hackles in Washington when you have your federal law enforcement agents threatened." The Los Zetas criminal organization -- a rival of the Sinaloa Cartel -- had previously operated in the Nogales area, Grayson said, but the area is now probably controlled by "El Chapo," which is Spanish for "shorty." Grayson said Sinaloa is believed to be one of the biggest suppliers of cocaine to the United States, and its members are known to be well-trained and well-armed. "These officers should get medals for bravery, either on- or off-duty, because I doubt they have the firepower these cartels have," he said. "It's logical that as there are episodes involving U.S. law enforcement [with Mexican cartels], that the threats against American police officers at various levels will also increase."
Oh but you are wrong cccccc. It is a contest, a contest to save the soul of this country. Illegal immigrants are spitting in the faces of every citizen in this country. They are spitting in the faces of the MILLIONS of people world wide that are attempting to come to this country LEGALLY. They have no loyalty to this country, and if it was not for our money would they not give a shit about this country. We know that, because they march proudly in our streets waving the Mexican flag. We know that, because they steal our jobs and send that money back to MEXICO, tax free. We know that because they tell us so. This is a contest, a contest to stop this INVASION.
@Lex: I like the way you think! ;) @ccccc: You've done your fair share of attacking those of us who haven't agree with you today. You've ran in circles, said many things against me personally, which is fine, it's what we're here for in a way. You have portrayed yourself as a person who leadd more by emotion, which I am too at times, but the difference is that I can admit it. (which I beleive I did in a previous post?) Perhaps you can answer me a question, one that was taken from one of my post that you copied, pasted and attacked... but failed to answer the question directly above what you copied... "Do you believe that all LEGAL Americans should be given jobs, housing, healthcare, education, etc. before we start giving handouts to people who don't belong here?" If you don't feel that every LEGAL American deserves those things before someone from another country does, someone who wasn't asked to come here, certainly not invited to be here... then maybe you should seek out another country to reside in???
Lex, Hyenakiller: You'd be right if that's what Alexa was talking about with the nazi stuff, but that's not what went down. If it had, like I said, you'd be right.
Alexa: Also, this isn't a contest. I have no need to concede. This is an exchange of ideas. I'm not trying to best anyone or prove anything. This discussion isn't about me.
This was my first suggestion. I can keep reposting or you could just read previous commentary. If everyone is really concerned about crime, then this isn't the way to combat it- building a wall, manning the borders. Who is going to pay for the wall or fund the National Guard to man the divide? Furthermore, WHY pay for an expensive folly that keeps the working poor out while failing to target dangerous criminals? Targeting the dangerous criminals means addressing our ignorant war on drugs. The black market we've created coupled with long stretches of unguarded border has provided drug czars with the perfect opportunity. People balk at legalizing drugs. To me, it makes infinitely better sense than sending a bunch of working stiffs packing- especially when some of them are just trying to escape drug violence too. I suppose that some are concerned that, if you can buy cocaine legally, that everyone will become a coke-head. Not true. As it is, anyone who truly wants a specific drug knows how and where to get that drug. If they don't know, they'll figure it out. On the black frickin' market. When I say "black market", I'm not referring to some shady, clandestine thing. I'm talking about the transactions that occur even in high school parking lots. The hand-offs that occur between acquaintances. People already have access to these drugs. Access doesn't suddenly make them stupid. All kinds of people wouldn't suddenly be thinking "you know, I think I'll try shooting-up today." If that were the case, everyone would be an alcoholic because they can buy beer at the supermarket. Make it legal. Monitor dosage. Tracks sales if you want. TAX IT. Target the actual criminals by taking away the only thing they're killing to protect: their business. Leave the working poor out of this. And heck, after all that has been implemented, if you still feel that you need a wall, the government might actually be in a position to pay for it.
alexa kim: You always say you're done when you owe someone an apology. Please reread the context in which I implied that our current fear of illegals mirrors the old fear of nazi-era jews. Once again, I didn't call anyone racist.
HyenaKiller, "Racism" and "You're a Nazi" are the battle cry of the ignorant. When ALL else fails and they have no other argument, can't debate within reason, those are the 'fall backs'... It means they know they are WRONG...know when you read someone using those two phrases, you're dealing with the stupid and move on...
Fine employers, fine the owners of the places they rent, do away with birthright citizenship, abolish welfare benefits to anyone not born ( or to, American citizens) in this country, Make English our official language and conduct EVERYTHING from Drivers licensees, courts and everything else in English only, do away with public benefits (like school, WIC, Hospitalizations and all) to anyone who's not a legal resident or citizen and a they will self deport. If you can't work, have a place to live or suck of the public teet (US THE TAXPAYERS), then there is no reason to stay...We can get rid of them and it would hardly cost US at all...
Anytime anyone on the "right" shoots down someone on the left's arguments they bring up the same ol reliable go to defense mechanism. RACIST or NAZI!!! Guess what, we are not buying it anymore. Most of you on the left are filthy liars that are nothing more then useful idiots for the commie pigs attempting to take over this country. We are going to fight you, tooth and nail. We will remain free, whether or not you like it.
Ok @ccccc, since you seem fixated on SOME people doing SOME things you claim makes them not Neo-Nazis but their comments are Nazi-proximate so it scares you silly that you want to discuss that instead of the actual issue, then go ahead. You're on your own. You have offered no suggestions, just complaints and fears. Retract entirely your nasty suggestions of Nazi anything and we can return to attempting to debate. Otherwise, I'm done.
I'm not swapping insults. This is just rudeness.
alexa kim: What the hell is going on? Seriously? If I bring up anything from the past, it's only to shine light on something current. Whether it's past events or something you've said. It's a fairly common & sound thing to do. Just because you don't like the Nazi analogy doesn't make it less true. I've been on here enough that people know I'm not throwing a racism bomb. I'm making a valid point. I haven't offended anyone intentionally, yet you're attacking me just the same. What gives? I'm emotional? You're the one calling me "oh wise one."
Also don't forget. We have Canada right above us. Which is a country in it's own rights. You think they have a problem with illegals? maybe or maybe not. I know when i go to Canada, i have to show my proof of citizenship (birth certificate) my ss card, my license and some kind of major credit card. Not sure why the credit card though. I actually lost my license in Montreal a few years ago. I don't never travel with handbag! Mother nature gave my a purse that hase no handles!! anyways, I had brought out my license to purchase a adult beverage at a hockey game. as i reached for it back, someone grabbed it and took off running. They never got him. So i didn't think to much about it as i figured i wasn't driving. So i called my home state to report the stolen license. (as well as i filed a report with the CRM Police)As we were in line to go thru the border, we were stopped and asked all kinds of questions. When they asked for id ect. I pulled all i had out. I told them i had my license stolen and i had made a report. They told me to get out of car and put me in holding cell! BF had to drive 45 minutes back to Montreal to police station to get copy of report then drove back. I was told that as long as i needed to go into USA i have to have the report on me. Now maybe we can learn something from the Canadians? Not saying we need to be like other countries with borders. But something needs to be done about the leak we seem to have. We need to plug the flow somewhere somehow.
Alexa: The similarity exist in that we are in economic trouble and SOME people want someone to blame. SOME people find a scapegoat in the illegals as SOME people found a scapegoat in the Jews. SOME people are saying the same thing about the illegals that were said about the Jews at that time. I don't think that LovinMyKids is a neo-nazi. I think that it's easier to accept rhetoric and to not reason through issues. I think it's easier to have a scapegoat. I don't think LovinMyKids is intentionally cultivating the image of one who dislikes blindly, but that's how they're coming across. I am still proud of my country. I get a little freaked when we start moving in a negative direction however. You were the one saying you weren't the cheerleader of capitalism anymore (in commentary on another story around the time we were discussing torture-dad). Once again, I'm talking about illegal workers rather than violent drug lords. I suggested a method for dealing with the latter. You said "You are far too emotional about this issue. You just pretend to discuss it." Thanks for letting me know how I feel & for being condescending. I am pretending nothing. I'm not emotional. I've offered up plenty of suggestions. Some of your supporters here, on the other hand, have been emotional. Is that problematic for you? Lastly, you say "You want it all your way and you will not give an inch." Is this an adult discussion or a contest? I didn't enter any contest.
Alexa: The similarity exist in that we are in economic trouble and SOME people want someone to blame. SOME people find a scapegoat in the illegals as SOME people found a scapegoat in the Jews. SOME people are saying the same thing about the illegals that were said about the Jews at that time. I don't think that LovinMyKids is a neo-nazi. I think that it's easier to accept rhetoric and to not reason through issues. I think it's easier to have a scapegoat. I don't think LovinMyKids is intentionally cultivating the image of one who dislikes blindly, but that's how they're coming across. I am still proud of my country. I get a little freaked when we start moving in a negative direction however. You were the one saying you weren't the cheerleader of capitalism anymore (in commentary on another story around the time we were discussing torture-dad). Once again, I'm talking about illegal workers rather than violent drug lords. I suggested a method for dealing with the latter. You said "You are far too emotional about this issue. You just pretend to discuss it." Thanks for letting me know how I feel & for being condescending. I am pretending nothing. I'm not emotional. I've offered up plenty of suggestions. Some of your supporters here, on the other hand, have been emotional. Is that problematic for you?
@ccccc, I've already told you that the Nazi comparison is bogus, mean-spirited and flat out wrong. Low blow. You can and should do better. This is where I have a nicer heart than you. I did not assume LovinMyKids was being a Nazi when she expressed her frustration. I don't do that. It's not necessary. She is talking about people here ILLEGALLY. As in don't belong here. As in do belong in their own country. As in they have a country, a perfectly serviceable country all their own. We do not need to nor are we required to share our country with them. Especially when they won't do the same in the return. Their race and everything else is not the point. But again, like I said, when you make that very unfriendly and very uncalled for emotionally desperate taunt, because you are out of decent and persuasive arguments, you show me you are done.
As a educated older woman. I have worked many part time jobs at/below minumum wage. And this is also while i was working full time job. I have worked under and over the table (years ago). That being said... I live in a state that has the highest taxes (in New England) , the almost highest unemployment rate and the gangs and Mafia (no not NYC or NJ) I have been unemployed off and on for going on 10 years now. I have to work thru temp companies because no one wants to hire anyone up here straight out. I have been known to travel 2 states over just to work a decent job for decent wages. And while there, drive back and forther everyday so i can be home with my kids (single parent) Now the job i am in now, is a temp position. I have worked it for almost 10 months now. I make a little above minmumu wage. But for the same job in say, CT i would make $5-$8 more an hour. I work in accounting. Anyway, 20 years ago we had mega factories and anyone could get a job if they just got up off their butt and applied (applied themself as well). I worked in a paper factory for almost 12 yrs. I made the highest pay in the place as a machine operator. Now? There is NO work anywhere. no one wants to leave their jobs so many work into their 70's. Believe it or not, in my city- I'm a minority. I'm white, female, single and older. Last job i had i got laid off 2 yrs ago. I had to sign a paper saying i wouldn't sue them for laying me off due to my age. got a little kick back on it but nothing to live on. There are no jobs here. A whole town has been reduced to homeless, poor, state aided people. Winter is bad up here. No one can afford oil to heat. So we have at least 1 house fire a week during the winter. Where am i going with this? All of the factories that were here are now in Mexico. middle east, India. Anywhere where low wages can be paid and quality isn't a issue. So we have no work. then a big store comes into our region 3 or 4 yrs ago, and the lines to work there were miles long. I know i applied. Sleep in my car to be closer to the front of the line. Anyways. About 2 yrs later, we notice that alot of people in the store working are now mexican's. I honestly can't remember seeing many mexican's here before. Maybe 1 or 2. But not like this. It was bad enough with the Russian influx in the 90's. I would boycot the store, but we don't have very many department stores around here anymore. I think we should change the plack on Lady Liberty to not say "give me your tired your weak your homeless" We didn't learn from the Cuba influx in the 80's. sending the sick and criminals to FLa. So maybe we should send our sick, criminals, mentally ill scum bags to mexico or any other country. Think they would like it? Not really. We need to some how police this issue and not attach one and an other. Instead, our boarder patrol officers are being shot at, attacked and killed. I vote we Assist them (as citizens of the USA) and keep the unwanted out. And gather up the illegals who are here now and put them in a camp somewhere. Like what happened to the japanise in the 40's. (not saying i'm racist. only using what happened as an example)then find out if these people are legal to be here or now. If they can show 100% proof they are legal, turn them loose. if they can't, send them back! It will end up being a shooting match not to much longer. They will try to get back in and someone on our side (American) will be sitting there shooting them like at a carnival. That's wrong. Lets help fix the problem and come up with valid assistance. Not have anymore American's die.
Let's be nice to each other, ladies. You're all much too smart to be swapping insults. Honest and open debate is a wonderful thing.
@Alexa Kim: Well said! I was so thrown off by the Nazi comments from ccccc it rendered me temporarily speechless... which doesn't happen often! I really couldn't have said it better myself... kudos to you!
alexa kim: If you don't think the Nazi analogy applies, check out this statement courtesy of LovinMyKids: "I want our country back! I'm tired of seeing our people do without while illegals take all the things many of us have worked so hard to acquire! I've watched my family, friends, & neighbors lose their homes, their jobs, everything they've struggled to get in life... just so we can support others who have no right to be here?"
@ccccc, not to be offensive, but for you to bring up the case I was making about a completely unrelated case to try to paint me as the emotional arguer is pretty weak. How about you set the example, oh wise one, and provide some proof of your position. You have conceded that I am far more persuasive about this issue by doing something quite telling: you are now drawing in unrelated past items, referring back to items previously discussed and either settled or ignored by you because you didn't have a good comeback, and you are offering "matching" examples of personal experience to attempt to neutralize my standing. Yeah, that's right, people who are logical, who write well and craft sound arguments are not in fact informed. Nope, just some sort of sorcerer, that's me. I didn't "attack" Joe. I argued against his arguments. It's called a debate. Yet more evidence of your tacit retreat.
Sorry, I live on the west coast and go to school in the mornings so I'm a bit late arriving at the discussion. I'm not saying we should open our borders and welcome everyone with open arms or provide amnesty to all illegals. I'm all for deporting illegals if they commit a crime. I'm saying the hyperbole thrown around is, well hackneyed and unsubstantiated. And I'm saying we're misdirected in attacking illegals for crime rates, lack of jobs and everything else we love to blame them for. People like Lovinmykids love to state " Illegals are to blame for a spike in violence and drug issues this country had already struggled with" when in reality crime rates in the border states have been declining. Wouldn't make much sense if illegal immigration is spiking out of control and more immigrants means more crime. http://mediamatters.org/research/201004290029 People love to state how much money illegals cost but they don't live in a vacuum. They're also consumers. They buy homes. They buy cars. They buy gas. They buy groceries, etc. If you take out 30 million consumers many businesses will be hurt and not just businesses of illegal immigrants. My point isn't that their isn't a problem, it's that the problem is grossly exaggerated and it shouldn't be our main priority to conduct a witch hunt for illegals. And btw, according to the Center for Immigration Studies, there was 11 million illegal immigrants in 2008 so unless 19 million have come over in the last year and a half, even the number of illegals is exaggerated. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_immigration_to_the_United_States#Complications I'm not completely against a wall, I just feel anyone with a shovel and enough time can get around that and it would just be sending more people into the hands of coyotes. As of June 10, 21 large tunnels have been found from Mexico to the US, most of which were used for drug trafficking but could just as easily be used to transport people for the right price. http://www.turnto23.com/news/6483953/detail.html So excuse me if I don't grab my pitchfork and join your mob alexa kim, hyenakiller and others but I think I'll stick to my hackneyed and ubstantiated guns. If you can find me some stats to show that illegals are increasing crime and costing exorbitant amounts of state/federal funds for things that the typical american doesn't, I'd maybe be inclined to change my mind but right now all I see is the American people scapegoating illegal immigrants for all their problems.
@ccccc, if you don't like how we're dealing with illegal workers getting paid less (have you heard the news today, BTW?), and exactly the way you don't detail, then how would you like for it to be dealt with? I am really very sorry you have thrown the Nazi card. Really sorry. It was completely unnecessary. Our situations are UTTERLY different. There is no similarity between what Germany went through, and what we are going through. NONE. I would really appreciate it if in the future, when you are unhappy with someone else because you are certain they are Neo-Nazis, and you hate what they've said, please, devote your comment to them and leave me out of it. But because some of what you've said is flat out wrong, I will say this much: -America is not being led by a little man with a little moustache -Though I don't like Obama One, I don't think he hates Jews or Mexicans -America is not reeling from being soundly defeated at war -None of our ruling political parties, none, advocate for singling out a specific race for genocide. NOT EVEN CLOSE. -None of us is trying to convince anyone that in order to protect your nation, which is NOT the same as the "nationalism" practiced by the broken, demoralized, desperate Germans at the end of WWI, you must supersede humanistic ANYTHING. -Being proud of your country is ESSENTIAL to protecting our humanity, not exclusive of it -The German Jews were CITIZENS of Germany -America was indeed isolationist through most of WWII up until Pearl Harbor -You conflate the Berlin Wall with a border of protection, for reasons that are completely unfathomable If you can't be proud of your country, then that is your fault, not America's. America is a benevolent protector, and we're the only benevolent protector every country in trouble turns to first. That's not going to change because we want to keep trespassers, especially violent trespassers, of any make or model, OUT OF OUR HOUSE. We are sending so much money into Mexico right the hell now, while we are crying for money to pay for things like extending unemployment benefits to our own citizens. We're subsidizing Mexico's war on the drug cartels. How about we stop handing out our tax dollars to other countries for a little while so we can get back on our economic feet? Would that be ok with you? You are far too emotional about this issue. You just pretend to discuss it. You want it all your way and you will not give an inch.
John J: No one is saying to let them all come through, unchecked.
alexa kim: Not to be offensive, but if you want to say I'm arguing from an emotional standpoint, I'll let you know how I also feel. I think you have a tendency to come across as someone who knows what they're talking about since you are well spoken and can craft an argument. Unfortunately people mistake that for being informed. You haven't offered any more proof than the guy who authored the comment that started this. Furthermore, you're the one who argues from an emotional standpoint. Remember the dad who tortured the guy for sending a penis pic? That was an emotional argument. Of course I think I'm right too. I have personal experience with those that are legal & illegal. I'm a woman of above-average intelligence (not proud- just stating the facts) and I see way more sense in Joe's argument than yours. It doesn't make me correct though. I'm just suggesting that you attacked him for something you're quite guilty of yourself.
@John J and @LovinMyKids, exactly. The open border fans don't want the rest of us to keep returning to a the REALLY BIG elephant in the room. Sad fact of the matter is, people of Arabic/Yemeni/Egyptian/Iranian/Iraqi/Afghani lineage can pass for Mexican. Just like most people can't tell the difference between a Korean and a Japanese, even with them standing next to each other, most Americans just won't detect the subtle distinguishing features. Some people will call them raaaaaacists for it. I promise, most black, red and purple people wouldn't be able to tell the difference, either. Mexicans and Asians would know. Because they look at each other all day, every day. It's in their muscle memory. IT'S OK. But, see, I'm not the one taking advantage of the lack of experience most people have at spotting an out of place Arab. The Arabs are. Arab terrorists, you know, those who are famous, sorry, infamous for blowing up things. Unlike the Swedish terrorists infesting the land who are notorious for hating... uh, hating... hating... dark finished furniture! Racists.
LovinMyKids: What do you mean? We didn't lose our country. It's still here. Did your neighbors specifically lose everything to immigrants? No. Guess what you sound like? Nazi frickin' Germany. They aren't the bulk of our problem. Try the housing bubble. It's too easy for you to pin this on a group of people that couldn't possibly have taken your neighbor's homes from them. It was our own screw-up. We need to own it.
Alexa: This is in response to your comment posted at 1:00. I don't feel that American companies should be able to pay illegal workers less than they would an American. I've said before that I think they should be penalized for doing so. But in the meantime, we have a reality to contend with. And I don't like how we're dealing with it. When unemployment was rampant in Germany, a certain little mustachioed man said "why should the Jews have the jobs that should be filled by Germans?" He thought, with Germany in economic trouble, why should Jews benefit at all, as any of their gains were at the expense of the Germans. Using nationalism (which you have advocated for both the US and Mexico) he managed to convince people that pride in their their origin of birth superseded all humanistic concerns. I've been trying all morning to address this without mentioning Hitler, but I just need to be blunt, apparently. And considering it didn't take too long before someone (not you)called group of people worthless, I don't think my concerns are unfounded. I could list the other names illegals have been called on TCR if you think I'm out of line. You say "Persons who need to work for a living should be able to do so in their own country, just like the entire planet's worth of workers in their own countries." That would be nice. In the meantime, we have a situation and the ability to help. Let's make it easier for these people to become legal. Let's make it affordable. Let's make an effort to target criminals- not workers. Building a wall is not helping. It's turning our back on those we could instead choose to assist. Frankly, even if the wall were affordable- and I don't believe it is- I don't like what it represents. The image of America that I would like to cultivate is that of us as benevolent protector. I want to be able to be proud of my country. This isn't China. We were never isolationists. I'm not saying leave the Mexican government out of this. We have been quite happy to assist governments in the past, and should continue that tradition.
@John J: Thanks for sharing the link! I'm not surprised at all by others trying to pass thru the Mexican border. It's become painfully obvious that our government can't/won't secure the border!
Lets let the non-Mexican illegals come right on thru. MORONS. http://www.nationalterroralert.com/updates/2010/06/21/are-terrorists-crossing-arizona-border-into-u-s/ http://www.abc15.com/dpp/news/region_central_southern_az/other/terrorists-crossing-az-border-into-u.s.%3F
@ccccc, how do you know that our trained professionals definitely do not spot forged documents? Does it not follow, logically, that a trained law enforcement official would be better, and more successful, at spotting a forgery than persons who work for-profit, and are thus not motivated to try to spot forgeries, and who are not trained? And exactly, how does that matter, overall? I could substantiate everything I argue but that would take up a lot of comment room. I could post links galore, truly, but that tends to trip spam guards. I've been holding back only because this discussion has not intensified to the point that doing so would be a tie-breaker. Joe's arguments are hackneyed and they are unsubstantiated. He's using arguments that were trotted out early in the national debate and have lost any persuasive value they did at first. He too has not provided the substantiation that we could use to reconsider his arguments. Maybe for the same reason I haven't. But if he were to, then great. Then I will too. Do any of us have to be a chicken to know an egg? Are you suggesting that we all have to be experts at something before the issue can be well-discussed and ideas explored? Of course I think I know what I'm talking about, for a lot of pretty frikkin' good reasons. My mother is a legal immigrant from Mexico. I lived near the border most of my life. I am a first generation American. I speak fluent English, a language I love. I speak fluent Spanish, a language I enjoy. I have worked with illegal immigrants. I have worked lived around illegal immigrants. I have seen first hand the problems associated with illegal immigrants. Or does any of that personal, up-close, real life experience mean anything in informing my beliefs? I am sensing a certain amount of topic fatigue in you because now you're saying things that aren't logical and don't advance the discourse. That's not a slam, just an observation. You do tend to approach the issue from an emotional standpoint and that does not lend itself to working out solutions logically and fairly. I understand and I am not criticizing you for it. Truly, I am not. It's just that it makes reaching compromise points between us more difficult. I imagine you might be finding my approach to be pedantic and unyielding. But perhaps I overstate how you see me, perhaps I understate it. I only say so to acknowledge here and now that we, clearly, approach this subject very differently. We are both right, if we are both wrong. Be that as it may, differing philosophies and POVs can, and do, reach middle ground. For this issue to receive the attention and problem-solving it so richly merits, for the good of America and of Mexico, we must not act like a compromise is impossible. Because it isn't.
@ccccc: I'm blown away by Americans such as yourself who are trying justify our goverments inability/refusal to get the illegal immmigration issue under control with flimsy excuses. Do you want our country back or not? Do you believe that all LEGAL Americans should be given jobs, housing, healthcare, education, etc. before we start giving handouts to people who don't belong here? My answer is YES YES YES!!!! I want our country back! I'm tired of seeing our people do without while illegals take all the things many of us have worked so hard to acquire! I've watched my family, friends, & neighbors lose their homes, their jobs, everything they've struggled to get in life... just so we can support others who have no right to be here? People who refuse to learn our language? To learn what has made America great to begin with? Do I need to go on? I realize illegal immigration is not this country's only problem, but I believe it's the bulk of it. If we would stand together and take our country back, I think non-believers such as yourself would see that we can not only survive without the illegals, but that our economy, moral & well being as a whole will improve greatly!
@ccccc, responding to your comment at 12:13, I agree that illegal aliens without a trained skill set do present a lovelier profile to an employer than an American without a high school diploma because they are willing to work, under the table, for less than minimum wage. That says more about the scruples of our employers than anything else. As in too many businesses consider it perfectly good to force employees to offer themselves for less in order to have anything. That's disgusting. Borders are better than convenient, they are essential. Do you think Mexico or Canada want to erase their borders and that doing so is mandatory to recognizing a person's intrinsic worth? I don't. We can value persons without giving up our sovereignty quite nicely, we are smart enough and resourceful enough. We just need to find the compromise point to make it happen. I used to work for minimum wage, long ago. Actually, it was for less than minimum wage, as a waitress, who had to make up the difference with tips. Another loophole in our American Greed Business Model. If only minimum wage was truly for everyone in America. Persons who need to work for a living should be able to do so in their own country, just like the entire planet's worth of workers in their own countries. It is well-accepted that a lot of our existing infrastructure was built thanks to the programs created under the New Deal, critics notwithstanding, and most of those workers worked for pennies. The railroads were built with near slave labor. Modern restaurants, construction, home and lawn care are falsely kept affordable by suppressed wages. What would be more humane would be for humans at the top of the company to take less in giant salaries, keeping the services affordable. But do we really want to perpetuate the practice of creating, expanding and supporting any business or industry at the expense of its workers? The one-up-by-one-down method of getting ahead means someone must go without what the other is getting. For reasons I don't quite understand, you sound certain, absolutely certain, that Mexico will never provide for its citizens what we, and other countries, provide for ours. You sound like you think Mexico is hopeless. In which case, why don't we just annex it and make it America, versus letting Mexico annex us, a state at a time? If Mexico is so foul, and it does have large, large problems, as I have readily acknowledged, why should we let the Mexican model of governance take the lead? And the Mexican immigration policies are considerable stricter than ours. The Mexican people, apparently, need to reach being on an island with only one cache of food before they will demand that their government make the fundamental and essential changes to make their country better, proud of itself, self-sustaining, no longer a third-world cousin. Isn't that we are doing with America? Aren't we fighting to make America better (constantly fighting I might add)? Are we just giving up and making a mass exodus to Canada because America is too hard to run?
How do you know that they definitely spot a forged document? There wouldn't be much of a way to track the failure rate, if you don't know that you've haven't spotted said document. I'd feel a lot better accepting this "fact" if there were a study I could reference. I don't want a fence. I wasn't asking for fence facts. I was saying that Joe thinks a fence would be ineffective and you're saying it wouldn't be. You said Joe's claims are "hackneyed and unsubstantiated". I was merely pointing out that your comments are also unsubstantiated. Unless that website can prove people can't tunnel, which I could not find. I don't mean this offensively. None of us are experts. You are no more armed with facts than Joe is. I don't have the answers either. However, you make it sound like he doesn't know what he's talking about and you do. We can cite sources and reference realities, but a lot of this discussion is (and will continue to be) unsubstantiated.
@ccccc, having a background in working for law firms and once for a bank, I have some personal experience with the issue of forged documents and stolen identities. Without using specific names, for obvious reasons, I know that as long as we rely entirely on employees of for-profit businesses, they should not be trusted to detect forgeries. There is no training. But once a trained law enforcement agent looks at a forged document, they do spot it. Here's a link to the DHS section about the Southwest Border Fence: http://www.dhs.gov/files/programs/border-fence-southwest.shtm I have referenced this site before and have read it for specifics, but I have not read every word nor memorized it, ok. Just sayin'. If you are demanding a fence that stops every single person before you will you consider it effective, then your standard is inhumane. It helps. It is not an impermeable net, nor, frankly, should it be. A suitably imposing fence, that cannot be climbed over, cannot be cut through and cannot be driven around is demoralizing on its own. That does deter a large number of people from even trying. The fence, right there, is effective. Perhaps, you may not think so because we don't have a study wherein X number of Mexican citizens are asked "are you not immigrating to America because of the fence?" And honestly, do you think they'd be honest? A finite number of jobs is better than no jobs. And right now, the number would be pretty high, there's a lot of work to do. Why does enforcing our laws and controlling our border have to create an industry? Would you be willing to compromise if so? Those are sincere questions, nothing else. And... Who here thinks it is a good idea for AZ to have to close off to AMERICANS access to huge swaths of our national wilderness areas because they are in full use by violent smugglers and Mexican drug dealers? If that does not infuriate and alarm you, then why not?
Dave: Last I checked with the US dept of labor, there were roughly the same amount of unemployed people as there would be job openings if the illegal workers were to suddenly disappear. However, most of the American unemployed were professionals, who make more money collecting unemployment while searching for a job in their field, than they would suddenly becoming a laborer with no benefits. The last figures I saw for yearly income for illegals was between $7000 and $16,000 annually. That figure could have increased by now.
Alexa: Guess whose jobs illegals directly compete with? Those without a high school diploma. Guess who fits that profile? Me. Want to know why I'm not going ape-shit about it? Whether you like my rationale or not, I believe that a poor Mexican and a poor white person are equally deserving of jobs. I realize that borders are convenient for governing, but it doesn't change the intrinsic value of a person and what they deserve. If I was stuck on an island with someone else and I had the only key to the cache of food, would I share? Yeah. I'd rather starve to death sharing than harm someone else for my benefit. Do you work for minimum wage, Alexa. If not, maybe you don't have as much of an investment in this particular argument. Because if jobs are your concern, they're most likely not competing with you anyway. I am making an incorrect assumption regarding your pay scale please excuse my mistake. You misunderstand a few things I think. Illegals didn't take just these jobs from people. Cheap illegal labor actually allowed some companies to expand, creating positions that didn't previously exist. It could be argued that illegal workers have promoted growth of industry.

TotalComments: 100

Keyword
Age	Race
Gender	Type
State	Year

Reader: America Can't Afford the Billions it Would Take to Halt Illegal Immigration

More links from around the web!

About Us

Recent Comments

Search Unsolved Murders

Most...

Search by...

Daily Murders

National Blogs

Reader: America Can't Afford the Billions it Would Take to Halt Illegal Immigration

More links from around the web!

About Us

Recent Comments

Search Unsolved Murders

Most...

Search by...

Daily Murders

National Blogs

Crime Reader