The DREAM bill before Congress is an easy way for our country to redeem, in some small way, the immigration fiasco we find ourselves in. The bill, which failed a crucial test Wednesday in the Senate, would allow eligible children — those who entered the country before the age of 16, have lived here for five years and have graduated from high school — to be granted legal status for six years. At that point, if the immigrant had spent two years in college, he would become eligible for legalization.
This bill wouldn’t open the borders. It simply would open the door of opportunity to young immigrants who were brought here and want to better themselves and their families.
Posted by Kristin Mehler
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/23
- writerdog on Let immigrants run
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- JimJohnson on Let immigrants run
- Heckler on Open thread 11/23
- JimJohnson on Let immigrants run
- okobserver on Let immigrants run
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/23
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/23
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/23
146 Comments
I have no problem with making it possible for these illegal immigrants to get legal status. Hell, they are here now and are unlikely to go back to Mexico after all these years.
Let’s grant them citizenship and add their names to the taxpayer rolls. I’ll bet you we would see alot of layoff slips coming their way because the problem is not the illegal immigrants – it is big business that wants to exploit cheap labor.
Actually most of them work hard, put in a day’s work for a day’s pay, and would continue to do so, because they have families that desperately need the income they provide. “Big business” is an easy target, but most of the products and services that you use are the result of the economics of scale that are possible because of “big business.” And employees of “big business” are definitely on the taxpayer rolls already because of withholding. I agree with Kristin’s perspective here.
Actually most of them do not work for “big business”. Big business is all about their image and they usually do not hire people who they cannot verify as legal. It is usually small business that hires illegals.
I am all for amnesty for anybody brought here as a child so long as it is verified that they attended school here and graduated school here and that they have no police trouble.
The White House statement makes sense and is logical
“…creating a special path to citizenship that is unavailable to other prospective immigrants – including young people whose parents respected the nation’s immigration laws.”
If you do it for Mexicans, you have to do it for Chinese, Arabs, Russians, etc etc.
It was a Constitutionally unsound piece of legislation.
Just another form of racism when you do it for only one race.
Total deportation now.
Draconian penalties for those who hire, house, or help illegals now.
Life Long American Citizens want a dream bill too:
If the immigrant is over 65 they can apply for SSI and Medicaid and get more than my mom gets for Social Security, and she worked from 1944 till 2004, only getting $791 per month because she was born in 1924 and there is a “catch 22″.
It is interesting that the federal government provides a single refugee with a monthly allowance of $1,890.00 and each can also obtain an additional $580.00 in social assistance for a total of $2,470.00/month.
This compares very well to a single pensioner who after contributing to the growth and development of America for 40 to 50 years can only receive a monthly maximum of $1, 012.00 in old age pension and Guaranteed Income Supplement.
Maybe our pensioners should apply as refugees!
Consider sending this to all your American friends, so we can all be tickedoff and maybe get the refugees cut back to $1, 012.00 and the pensioners up to $2,470.00 and enjoy some of the money we were forced to submit to the Government over the last 40 or 50 or 60 years.
“This bill would’t open the borders. It simply would open the door of opportunity to young immigrants who were brought here and want to better themselves and their families.”
No, what it does is reward illegality, presumably done by their parent, but illegal none the less. Continually rewarding illegal activity is counter productive and leads to amnesty and its problems. Seal the damm borders and restrict incoming illegal immigrants. Then the problem of those already here illegally can be addressed.
Showing compassion for those that truly had nothing to do with their parents breaking the law by coming to this country illegally sounds admirable, but it creates a huge problem. Until our borders are reasonably secure, which is not even close yet. And the federal government enforces our immigration laws universally in earnest, including taking action against ’sanctuary cities and state governments’, that includes Kansas for giving in-state tuition to illegals, the DREAM act would only be a magnet, an enticement, for increasingly more illegal entry. This country has to show a united, consistent effort to stop illegal invasion, not a conflicting “no you can’t come here illegally, but here’s a nice reward if you do” attitude.
Is Bush so stupid that he does not understand the meaning of the word ILLEGAL? CRIMINAL?
Does the Congress not realize what they are doing by granting our nations highest priviledge – citizenship, to the children of CRIMINAL’s?
This really does allow people to DREAM. It allows every poor father and mother in foreign lands to DREAM of a better life if they ILLEGALLY can get their children into Americant!
It provides an incentive to break the law and sneak into the USA.
“The Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act, the bill would allow illegal immigrant children who have grown up in the United States the opportunity to apply for citizenship if they graduate from high school and get two years of college or serve in the military.
Candidates could be no older than age 30 and would have to have lived in the United States at least five years before passage of the bill.
A report released by supporters Tuesday projected that the bill would affect 360,000 undocumented high school graduates and eventually would benefit 715,000 more youngsters between the ages of 5 and 17.”
As citizens, can the CHILDREN then turn around and sponsor the ILLEGAL PARENTS to become citizens?
Our congress and president: BASS ACKWARDS LEGISLATION.
Ok,Those of you ‘deportation now’ folks, would you explain to me how that is reasonable to deport a kid whose parents brought them to the us when they were 14, who the went to high school here in Wichita, graduated, and is now going to college or has joined the military?
Please offer an explanation that they should be deported other than ‘they broke the law’, because if they were under 16 and brought by their parents they would be considered minors and not able to make the decision to stay in Mexico.
They are here illegally brian.
What part of “illegally” eludes you?
Lets help those that come here illegally and not fund the S Chip. Sounds about right for this administration. Reward the foreigners and turn the back on the Americans that put them in office. I have not read a post on this thread that I disagree with. We must shut down our borders first. Then and only then can we address those that come here illegally. Deport all undocumented workers and punish the employers that hired them. Either we take this seriously or its an exercise in futility. And for those of you that say “keep you hands out of my pocket” this is a real issue that can really save your money.
OK JR, reread the last paragraph of my question and try again.
Not that kind of open door!
“Six undocumented Mexican immigrants were arrested today by U.S. Border Patrol agents at Qualcomm Stadium, after a report that they were stealing food and water meant for evacuees, according to spokesman Damon Foreman.”
You have your answer.
I’ll go you one further.
Rescind the provision that allows anchor babies. I don’t care if Juanita waddles across the border at 9 months and downloads. She is illegal and the baby is illegal regardless of it being born this side of the border.
BrianThe parents knew exactly what they were doing when they brought their child here. They knew the risks and accepted them. So if the child is caught up in what ever decision the parents made, how is that our fault? Let the parents look their child in the eye and explain it. Its called being held accountable. If I do something that endangers my child and something happens, then I will have to explain to my child why I did what I did.
If the child was able to get and education….congratulations. If the child has graduated high school and has enrolled in college…congratulations. If the child is now serving in the military….congratulations. But they still need to be deported and come back through the proper way. We cannot contiune to encourage this behavior.
JR,Let me see if I can apply your reasoning to an analogous situation:
You would be in favor of putting a kid in prison for taking cocaine to school.
The cocaine was in a stuffed animal.
It was the kid’s parents’ coke which they put in the stuffed animal to hide.
The kid is 8 and had no idea the cocaine was there.
The kid broke the law. The kid should be arrested and put in jail.
“So if the child is caught up in what ever decision the parents made, how is that our fault? Posted by: Mike | October 25, 2007 at 08:27 AM ”
No on said it was ‘our’ fault. Likewise, why is it the child’s fault? Why should they be punished?
Because the parents knew the risk initally. The parents need to be accountable for their decisions. Just like you and I. Parents make bad decisions regarding their children everyday. Those parents don’t get a pass. If I took my son out and I had him start shooting people, would he not be guilty? Does he get a pass because hes a child? No he would not. See Lee Malvo if you have any questions. Being a child does not give you a pass in this country.
No Mike, on some things it does.
I think your bias on the immigration issue is clouding your reasoning on this. Try applying your logic to a non-immigration related topic and it falls apart.
It’s time to circle the wagons again posters and let our voices be heard by congress and the white house. Do it now, before this train hits the station.
MAKE YOUR OPINION COUNT:
One stop shopping. Go to the below site and type in your zip code:
http://www.congress.org/congressorg/home/
And even though George no longer listens to citizens on this issue don’t forget to flood the white house phones. (This at least prevents the defense lobbyists from getting through on their special projects):
http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/
Please email, call, or write and tell them to VOTE NO:
“The Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act”
Further: Remind them you will vote NO in their reelection campaign if they vote YES.
I think you have some bias of your own brian.
Maybe you have illegal workers?
Maybe Jose cuts your grass for $3 when Joe used to ask $20?
Or maybe you are a good intentioned but short sighted.
BrianCrime is crime. A criminal is a criminal. Laws are made not to be broken. Critize my logic all you want. It does not change that they broke the law upon entering the country. Making it across the border does not change that. A child that sells drugs is a criminal. A child that enters the country illegally is a criminal.
Your attempt at redirection does nothing to support the incorrect logic in your posts.
Any response to my 8:32 post?
Mike,Care to address my 8:32 am post(it does not mention selling drugs at all)?
“Crime is crime. A criminal is a criminal. Laws are made not to be broken.”
Is that all laws or just immigration laws?What should happen to law breakers?
What if the laws they break are not immigration related?
Correct me if I’m wrong brian.
If memory serves, you are for an open border. Is that right?
Thats all laws Brian. Do we have laws on the books that are optional to follow? Is there a law that you can break and if caught there is an option whether it is enforced or not? Citizens that break laws are punished in one way or another. If the crime is severe then they go to a place called “jail”. If an illegal immigrant breaks a law that is not immigration related and they are caught not only should they go to that “jail” place, they should be deported upon release. If the immigrant is legally here, then upon release they can go back to their home and resume their life. This is not hard Brian. Its simple logic. Laws apply to everyone. Regardless of age.
See brian if you are for an open border than arguing this little provision of that is a bit dishonest. If you are for an open border you should say so.
The kid is 8 and had no idea the cocaine was there. The kid broke the law. The kid should be arrested and put in jail.Posted by: brian
1. The parents go to jail (you say it was their coke.
2. The child is a minor, and should now go back to child services for further shipment back to his parents original country. Are there no poorhouses in Mexico?
Hey, the SENATE Democrats can’t pass any bill without a super majority?
Then how in heck can the Senate Democrats pass the $200 Billion Iraq funding bill without the help of Republicans?
Those Dems are gonna needs some help to continue the war in Iraq.
If the Dems do NOT pass a funding bill for Iraq, then the Iraq war will end this year!
Minute Man,My example did not say where the kid was from.
How would one reconcile your answer with Mike’s ‘Crime is crime. A criminal is a criminal’Possession of cocaine is a crime. Should the kid go to jail?
Brian:
Re: Your 8:32 post.
As a matter of law, the child, on those facts, committed no crime, as there was no mens rea.
I’m actually with JR on this one, though I’m probably not prepared to go as as drastic as JR is, and I’m very uncomfortable with the tint of racism which pervades this issue and motivates some. I’d certainly crack down on employers hard, and step up deportation. But spending billions trying to put our fingers in the dike of the border is pointless; it is “unsealable,” in any realistic sense. That’s simply geographic reality.
I’d rather spend those dollars developing Latin economies, to reduce the incentive for illegals to come here in the first place. Yes, I know about the corruption problem, and development dollars must be tied to controls on those dollars to ensure they are spent where they are intended to be spent.
This act sends the message to future illegals that once you get here, there will be an amnesty coming your way for you, or at least your kids.
Repealing the “anchor baby” provision would require a constitutional amendment, of course.
Last from me for awhile.
brian your hypothetical is not sound.
You present a child indirectly complicity in an illegal act.
A child in this country because his parents illegallu came here is the RESULT of an illegal act.
And again, all this is moot if you are for an open border.
JR,I do not think a person’s stance on one, albeit related, issue has bearing on the validity of their reasoning on another issue.
I could, with equal validity as your question, ask you if you feel Mexicans are as good quality workers as Americans or even if you think Mexicans in general are as smart as Americans.
Brian:Re: Your 8:32 post.
As a matter of law, the child, on those facts, committed no crime, as there was no mens rea.
Posted by: GMC70 | October 25, 2007 at 09:17 AM ”
With regard to illegally entering the US, is there ‘mens rea’ on the part of a child under 16 if their family illegally crosses the border?
I think there would be a pretty stong case it would not be present in a criminally prosecutable sense.The minor child may know they are coming illegally, but most likely would be found by a court to be powerless to prevent it.
brian:
You’re comparing apples and oranges. Deporting persons not legally in the US is not a criminal sanction, and does not require any mens rea. The child is here illegally.
Even if that child did not commit a crime in coming across the border (and I agree, the child did, though the parents did – there’s no mens rea there), that does not immunize the child from deportation.
Please excuse the ‘cut and paste’ from Wikipedia but I want to make sure I get it right with respect to the 14th. Amendment, and its Section 1, concerning birthright citizenship.I think the U.S. has ample justification for not awarding citizenship to the children of illegal aliens. Please give this consideration.Section 1, written post Civil War:
“This represented Congress’s reversal of that portion of the Dred Scott v. Sandford decision that declared that African Americans were not and could not become citizens of the United States or enjoy any of the privileges and immunities of citizenship.
“The provisions in Section 1 have been interpreted to the effect that children born on United States soil, with very few exceptions, are U.S. citizens. This type of guarantee—legally termed jus soli, or “right of the territory”— does not exist in most of Europe or Asia, although it is part of English common law and is common in the Americas.
The phrase and subject to the jurisdiction thereof indicates that there are some exceptions to the universal rule that birth on U.S. soil automatically grants citizenship. In the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the Supreme Court ruled that a person born within the territorial boundaries of the United States is eligible for birthright citizenship regardless of the nationality of his or her parents. The only exceptions to this rule identified in Wong Kim Ark concern diplomats, enemy forces in hostile occupation of the United States, and members of Native American tribes.[3]
The distinction between “legal” and “illegal” immigrants was not clear at the time of the decision of Wong Kim Ark.[4] Neither in that decision nor in any subsequent case has the Supreme Court explicitly ruled on whether children born in the United States to illegal immigrant parents are entitled to birthright citizenship via the Amendment,[5] although it has generally been assumed that they are.[6] In some cases the Court has implicitly assumed, or suggested in dicta, that such children are entitled to birthright citizenship: these include INS v. Rios-Pineda[7] and Plyler v. Doe.[8] Nevertheless, some claim that Congress possesses the power to exclude such children from US citizenship by legislation:[5] such legislation is often proposed by individual members of Congress but has never been passed into law.”
Loss of U.S. citizenship is possible under the following circumstances:”Fraud in the naturalization process. Technically this is not loss of citizenship, but rather a voiding of the purported naturalization and a declaration that the immigrant never was a U.S. citizen.”
An interpretation of Section 1 could well declare so called ‘anchor babies’ are not citizens of the U.S. as their parents are ‘enemies’ of the U.S. because they violated the law coming here in the first place. Or void any citizenship based on the purported naturalization and a declaration that the immigrant never was a U.S. citizen.”
“Deporting persons not legally in the US is not a criminal sanction, and does not require any mens rea. The child is here illegally.
Posted by: GMC70 | October 25, 2007 at 09:47 AM ”
It is not illegal to be in the US illegally. So a sanction imposed on a person because they are here illegally would not be a Criminal sanction (not related to criminal code.)
If a government affects a person because that person is in some way in violation of a law, that effect is a sanction.
Deporting a person would in effect be a criminal sanction (though not in name) because it is done in result of a criminal act (illegally entering the country)
But spending billions trying to put our fingers in the dike of the border is pointless; it is “unsealable,” in any realistic sense. That’s simply geographic reality.
GMC, I’m surprised. I believe we can effectively police our border. If we cannot – we might as well bring all the troops home. There is no point in policing the world, if we cannot police our own border.
I agree with all the steps you have mentioned to stop illegal immigration. As well as passing consistent legislation at the state and federal level, to discourage illegal immigration.
But I believe we can protect our border. I’m no genius, but from my experience in the military, I saw both the Berlin wall, and the DMZ in Korea.
With the will, we could build a physcial barrier which would stop a very high percentage of the crossings. The technology for security, walls, barriers, and computer software – is amazing.
But if we don’t believe it, of course it cannnot ever happen.
“I believe we can effectively police our border. If we cannot – we might as well bring all the troops home. There is no point in policing the world, if we cannot police our own border.”
Effectively policing our border and effectively policing the world would certainly entail different kinds of ‘policing’
Just because a city police department does not focus on speeders does not mean it cannot have a helluva great bomb squad.
Certainly Brian.
But there is no point in declaring a “war on terror” around the world, if we cannot prevent individuals to walk across our border at will and we cannot identify and kick them out once they are here.
I believe GMC’s comments on “sealing” the Southern border are well taken. I will raise the following question; if American Way is correct in the assertions posted, what do we then do about the Northern border? I feel that so long as there is demand for the “illegals”, they will find a way to get here. Thus, it seems reasonable to me that if the Southern border is effectively “sealed”, there will be an influx from the North. Do sufficient resources, etc., exist to do the same thing on the Canadian border that are proposed for the Mexican border?
what do we then do about the Northern border?
Can we cross that bridge when we get to it? :-)
You are saying that physically, it will be cost prohibiting to wall up both borders? And to take it step further, what about all those container ships coming to our shores?
Have to start somewhere. Greater demand is south? If your dike is leaking, do you fill the holes that are allowing water in now first?
Thus, it seems reasonable to me that if the Southern border is effectively “sealed”, there will be an influx from the North.Posted by: Vaughn Tolle | October 25, 2007 at 11:01 AM
Not really, VT. Illegals can and do walk from all points south to cross the southern border. If we effectively seal the southern border (may I suggest land mines?), they’ll have a tough timt walking around the U.S. to get to Canada. Boats anyone? A lot of them will drown.
Boats anyone? A lot of them will drown.
Posted by: Blue Maxx
They do coming from Cuba. And it makes zero sense to me, that we discourage Mexicans from sneaking in, but grant assylum to Cubans.
But then, much of what we do with Cuba doesn’t make sense to me.
Blue Maxx, true to a point. However, given the number of “smugglers”, is it unreasonable to think that the individuals who are trafficking in these folks would not raise their fees a bit, then procure appropriate water craft and then transport them to a point where they could walk into Canada, e.g., and then South into the U.S.? Yes, this will definitely result in higher danger to the folks trying to get in, but if the demand persists and the situation in the Central American countries remains unchanged, who can say that risk would not be deemed unacceptable?
AmWay:
Yea, technologically, we could probably mine the border, install automatic machine gun nests, and have a policy to shoot border crossers on sight.
But we both know that such a policy will NOT take place. The first time video is shown of machine-gunned body floating in the Rio Grande, that policy would be over.
Absent that, given that the border is almost 2000 miles long (longer than the largest combat front in written history, Operation Barbarossa), unless we are willing to commit several dozen combat DIVISIONS to use whatever force is necessary to “seal” that border (and we’re not – we’re Americans, and we don’t summarily shoot civilians, women, children – nor should we), we cannot seal that border.
Wouldn’t the money spent to try to accomplish the impossible be better spend addressing the reason they come here in the first place – i.e., no jobs at home?
For the record, I never promoted mine fields, or killing anyone.But I do believe an effective barracade can be built which would discourage attempts, increase efficiency of the border patrol agents (less spread out), and take advantage of the latest technologies to include unmanned aircraft and stations (UAV,UCAV, Predator, Global Hawk).
I think it would be cheaper in the long run, than providing benefits to the illegals or trying to chase them down once they are here.
AmWay, I believe that of which GMC posts would also be significantly less costly in the “long run”; perhaps even less costly than the steps you propose.
As to “reinterpreting” the 14th amendment:
Here’s the relevant language:
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.”Sec. 1, 14th Amendment.
Just how does one “finess” that language? It seems pretty clear, definite, and plain to me. I don’t think even the most adamant “living constitution” proponent can read around that language. Unless we are able, with a straight face to say that the words don’t mean what they mean unless we want them to, it says what it says.
If language this clear and unequivocal can simply be “interpreted” away, look out. Your constitutional protections are not protections at all; they are suggestions, subject to the whims of reinterpretation.
(And yes, in many ways, that’s the “living constitution” approach NOW!. Which is exactly why the TEXT – not penumbras and other invented BS, etc. MATTERS. Whether we like it or not.)
Folks, the language is what it is. Want to change the “anchor babies” problem? It will take a constitutional amendment. You still have the ex post facto problem – are you gonna strip citizenship from those who have it, some of whom have been here for decades (since their birth), and have always been fully US citizens?
What about our eastern and western borders?
To fight a war on terror, physical enterance security is but a small part of the war.
Realistically, we will never be able to physically seal our borders. The mice will get smarter as the mousetrap gets better.
Given that we have limited resources, shouldn’t we assess where those funds would be most effective?
Trying to merge two slightly overlapping goals (preventing illegal immigration and preventing terrorist acts in America) is usually not the best solution for either.
GMC, I entirely agree with your 11:35 post.
It is much wiser to identify the source of the problem and allocate resources to fix that than to keep patching holes in a fence.
AmWay:
“But I do believe an effective barracade can be built . . .”
You’re dreaming. They will poke holes in it, around it, under it, over it, etc. faster (and cheaper) than you can build it. Destroying is always easier than building.
Look at the Soviet example. They built a barrier using all you’ve proposed, and more, to keep their subjects in East Berlin in. Thousands crossed anyway; and that was a very short border. We have 2000 miles, much of it desert, with almost no one there. Other parts are very urban. In BOTH cases, closing that border, physically, is all but impossible, unless we are willing to take drastic measures (mining, machine gun kill zones, etc). We’re not willing to take those measures, nor should we.
Why send billions of dollars after a pointless pursuit, which will kill people, when less money could be spend on economic development to lessen the need to come here in the first place?
You’re dreaming. They will poke holes in it, around it, under it, over it, etc. faster (and cheaper) than you can build it. Destroying is always easier than building. GMC70
You and Vaughn offer sound opinions.
But I can dream can’t I?If illegal criminals in our midst can DREAM, so can I.
I am more willing to see my tax dollars spent securing our border, than providing illegals benefits. I said initially, I agree with the other approaches mentioned. But I think a strong border patrol would go a long way to slowing the mess. I think we could afford it and must. But I like to pay for prisons too.
“I am more willing to see my tax dollars spent securing our border, than providing illegals benefits. I said initially, I agree with the other approaches mentioned. But I think a strong border patrol would go a long way to slowing the mess. I think we could afford it and must. But I like to pay for prisons too.Posted by: American Way | October 25, 2007 at 12:03 PM ”
So, let me get this straight…you would rather pay a bill in the hundreds of millions of dollars for something that in reality will not work, than to pay, maybe, something in the tens of millions for something that probably will work?
Is it just the principal of the deal?
Don’t put words in my mouth Brian.
I believe it will work.
But to stay on subject: This bill is a bad bill and anyone who agrees should do as I did during lunch:
EMAIL or CALL your representatives.
Don’t wait until after it passes.
I most assuredly know we need strong border control, but I also agree we need much more.We need to extend NO BENEFITS to any illegals. No education, no health care, except acute lifesaving care, no employment, no housing, ‘no nothing’. If there is nothing to come here for illegally of any benefit and all they experience once here is misery and the legal system’s harassment they will not bother entering illegally in the first place.Of course NONE of this applies to LEGAL immigration.
So, American Way, would the border you dream of be cement and steel, or something else?
I suppose we would have to dig down several hundred feet below the ground to start it so it could not be tunnelled over, and build it at least 25 feet tall. This would just be a starting place for it to be effective.
Imagine how much that would cost!
If I had to choose between knowing a few hundred thousand illegal immigrants snuck through our current border system this year or spending severl tens of billions of dollars to build some sort of inpenetrable wall between the US and Mexico, I am going the cheap route. Hola!
We need to seal both borders as best we can. The is no guarantee that the people coming across the borders are only Hispanics or any other ethnicity seeking work. There is an inherent danger of terrorists or other criminal elements entering for their own purposes, being far more dangerous than people merely seeking employment.
One big reason I didn’t see mentioned as a reason to seal the border – National Security.
If terrorists put an A-bomb into a semi-truck and drive it across the border from Mexico, can we stop it?
Can we stop 1,000 Al Queda from crossing over from Mexico.
Today the answer is no.
We need to seal the border to:
1)Protect National Security2)Prevent Illegal Immigration3)Slow down the drug flow
We can have rapid response teams manned every 10 – 20 miles on the border, which can quickly respond to electronic/aerial surveillence identified threats and illegal immigrants.
Every 20 miles we can have 150 troops (3 shifts of 50, plus another group of 50 for weekends/leaves) stationed to respond to threats. That’s 20,000 US Troops and/or Border Guards to man 3 shifts along the 2,000 mile Mexican border.
Round intruders up on trucks or helicopters and take em back.
No land mines needed. Only when fired upon would we shoot back. But then, that happens on every police department in the country. A few will get shot.
In a very short period of time, the illegal immigrants will learn they do not have an easy walk into the USA. And terrorists will have to try to enter elsewhere.
Does anyone else find it odd that the same cons who think Mexican citizens should stay in Mexico to make it better…
…are the same ones who are always telling libs to “love it or leave it”?
Here is a step in the right direction, which sends the correct message to illegals.
State and federal lawmakers are calling for tough action against “sanctuary cities,” reflecting a backlash against communities that they say break the law and encourage illegal immigration.At least three states are considering taking the path of Colorado, which adopted an anti-sanctuary law last year. It denies some funding to communities that prevent police and other municipal employees from cooperating with immigration authorities. Similar measures are pending in Michigan, New Jersey and Wisconsin.
Nationally, members of Congress are proposing federal legislation and presidential candidates are urging sanctions.
USA Today
Taxpayers are paying for illegal immigration now.
The cost of border defense is no argument to use for open borders.
“There is an inherent danger of terrorists or other criminal elements entering for their own purposes, being far more dangerous than people merely seeking employment.
Posted by: gster | October 25, 2007 at 01:24 PM ”
Hey, life is full of risks -
love it or leave it”
Can you stop those same trucks from coming through the Canadian-U.S. Border?
Why focus on Mexico? I think they caught more potential “terrorists” coming over the Canadian border than Mexican, no?
Where will the wall building end? How much will it cost? Is no cost too great?
Dontchya love those who propose fiscal conservatism, until they dont?
Does Halliburton want the contract to build the wall while Blackwater provides security?
“The cost of border defense is no argument to use for open borders.
Posted by: Max | October 25, 2007 at 01:29 PM ”
Of course it is. Cost is used all the time as an arguement for many equally important things.
If I had to choose between knowing a few hundred thousand illegal immigrants snuck through our current border system this year Brian
You should NOT have to choose. It is totally unacceptable to me, and I’ll bet MOST Americans to knowingly “ALLOW A FEW HUNDRED THOUSAND ILLEGALS” to sneak across our border.
Our anti-terror efforts are all for naught if we accept this.
Dreaming?
I think you would be dreaming if you think the USA can solve the economic problems of Mexico and all of Central America, when we can’t even solve our own economic problems at home.
Forcing Mexican people to stay in Mexico might just provide the political force needed to effect real positive reform in Mexican Government and their economy.
Like the Socialists within America, the Socialists in Mexico rely on the working American taxpayer to solve their problems today.
Of course it is. Cost is used all the time as an arguement for many equally important things.
Posted by: brian | October 25, 2007 at 01:31 PM
Ok Brian, what’s the cost of allowing 20 million illegal immigrants into this country?
So… love it or leave it applies only to your fellow Americans?
For Mexicans it’s hate it and stay there?
Got it.
AmWay,There is no such thing as ’should.’
We DO have to choose. Acceptable or not, facts is facts.
Hmmm… costs matter with social security and schip, but not with border control or bush’s excellent adventure in iraq.
Got it.
If you do not want hundred of thousands of illegal entering the US each year it will cost money.
Which tax do you want to raise to generate that money?
Income tax, fuel tax, social security tax, a national sales tax, AMT, tortilla tax, corporate sales tax, captial gains tax…..
Looks like immigration here is an issue that ranks right up there in importance with god, guns and gays!
Maybe we should call it ‘gration and it could be the fourth G!
“Ok Brian, what’s the cost of allowing 20 million illegal immigrants into this country?
Posted by: Max | October 25, 2007 at 01:33 PM ”
As an accountant, I can tell you with reliability that ‘cost’ can be anything you want it to be.
I know I’m partial to “g” words!
TIC
“Maybe we should call it ‘gration and it could be the fourth G!
Posted by: ksfarmgrrl | October 25, 2007 at 01:36 PM”
Then the schools, indoctrination camps, and Fox News could preach the 4 R’s!
lmao
Well Brian, if your Dem buddies would bring the troops home from Iraq, we’d save $200 billion a year, and be able to man the border with existing troops.
Ok. My last post would have been better if I had actually managed to type ‘4 G’s’ instead of ‘4 R’s’
Oops.
hee hee hee gster!
I like the key of G too…
“Well Brian, if your Dem buddies would bring the troops home from Iraq, we’d save $200 billion a year, and be able to man the border with existing troops.
Posted by: Max | October 25, 2007 at 01:38 PM”
Any buddies of mine would have already done so.
Then lowered taxes by $200B rather than spending it elsewhere.
Income tax, fuel tax, social security tax, a national sales tax, AMT, tortilla tax, corporate sales tax, captial gains tax…..Posted by: brian
You are saying we have to increase taxes. May be true. Maybe not. Let’s get it as policy instead of lip service on illegals.
“hee hee hee gster!
I like the key of G too…
Posted by: ksfarmgrrl | October 25, 2007 at 01:39 PM”
OK OK, enought with this -
we do not want to turn this into the g-spot
“Then lowered taxes by $200B rather than spending it elsewhere.”
OUCH!!!!!!!!!!
Heheheheheh.
It seems to me the simple and cheap solution would be for the government to do away with the red tape involved in getting visa’s for work. Make the ones here pay a fine and then get a visa, if you dont then you get deported, commit a crime get deported and even legal immigrants get deported of they commit a serious crime. And dont allow visa holders access to social programs. As for going after business that hire illegals, do we really want to go down a path where the government is always investigating and fining businesses, many will out of businesses or drive up costs then those cost pass to the consumers do we really want to pay 4-5 dollars for apples and tomatoes or 100$ to be a cheap hotel room? Or drive more businesses and jobs overseas? I dont.
“Clean kill and point awarded to Mr. Brian.”
If we have a budget deficit now, and spend more money on a major construction project, how can we ‘Maybe not’ need to increase taxes?
How about before we have any policy we (the gov’t) research then have real facts for schmucks like you and me to debate.
gracias kfg ;)
“we do not want to turn this into the g-spot”
:(
hey, if we did that, KFG, most of us guys could not find our way back
… or THERE from my experience.heheheheheh!
heheheh. I seem to remember a whizinator conversation with Julie and I…..
Sorry for the distraction. You all may resume fighting.
How much would one terrorist attack cost? One A-bomb coming across the border from Mexico, what’s the cost of that?
How about before we have any policy we (the gov’t) research then have real facts for schmucks like you and me to debate.
Posted by: brian | October 25, 2007 at 01:42 PM
The answer to all problems is NOT increasing taxes. Cut spending. I’d start with whatever you were planning on spending on FREE healtcare. Hillary’s plan 125 Billion. 5000 per child, 20 Billion. 1000 401 K. 20 billion.
I’d stop the EIC 40 Billion.I could go on.
But it’s all an effort on your part to muddy the water. It’s like you told Max, you are an accountant and you can make it “cost” whatever you want.
Most Americans want a wall. Survey and polls.
A big muther of all walls.
Or, Max, the cost on one A-bomb coming across the border from Canada? Seems to me that I recall two of the 9/11 highjackers coming into the country from Canada right before the fateful day, and the arrest of the guy with the plans, etc. to blow up the Golden Gate Bridge in Washington state after crossing from Canada. Shouldn’t the Canadian border be equally, if not more, important?
Or one A-bomb coming from Canada, or Oregan, or South Carolina, or any other state with a border.
We cannot physically protect them all.
If I recall, last year, several men we picked up at the Canadian border with bomb making supplies. I have not heard of this happing at the Mexican border
Vaughn,Looks like we were thinking the same thing.
I suppose we would have to dig down several hundred feet below the ground to start it so it could not be tunnelled over, and build it at least 25 feet tall. This would just be a starting place for it to be effective.
Brian
Brian, we have already built portions of new border security which is working effectively in SDIEGO, Ca, parts of NM, and AZ.
It can be done.
Anyone can debate how many cubits it should be and never get anywhere. It will be costly, and it’s a price if you asked most Americans – they are willing to pay.
Oh I SEE now.
brian is an accountant.
One way or another, he likely profits from the illegals being here.
Well brian? For those of us who are not accoutants, just how low would you like to see wages go? And working conditions and all the other things American workers have fought and even died for this last century? Well let’s just piss that into the wind too! All so brian can either feel all noble and humane or collect at the bottom line?
Thanks no.
Mine the border.
They would be willing to pay it because the Bushies have made them so scared of terrorism and illegal aliens they would feel their life and liberty depends on it.
It does not.
So JR,How has illegal immigration personally affected YOUR bottom line?
(BTW, whether you like it or not, YOU have benefited from illegals being here.)
the Bushies have made them so scared of terrorism and illegal aliens Brian
And there is the crux of Brian’s entire problem.
Wondering, brian, if the debate on sealing the Northern border would be at the same level it currently isn’t if there were thousands of Quebecois unlawfully crossing it to obtain low paying jobs in the U.S.?
Benefited from illegals brian?
No not hardly.
And I asked you a question.
How low are you prepared to lower the American standard of living as these illegals come to work for slave wages?
JR, you’ve just made my argument in your latest post about lowering the American standard of living; while sealing the border, etc., sounds like a good thing to do, until the demand for the “illegals come(ing) to work for slave wages” is dried up, it is at best, an expensive exercise in futility. I know you advocate for harsh measures against those employing the illegals, too; I really think that unless or until something can be done to either better enforce existing laws against those who employ these folks or even tougher laws enacted together with a method of enforcement of the same, any other measures attempted will not be successful. Just my two pennies on this.
jr,you question was based on faulty assumptions about my employment, intentions, and motives.
It is akin to asking ‘have you stopped beating your wife’
thousands of Quebecois unlawfully crossing it to obtain low paying jobs in the U.S.?
Posted by: Vaughn Tolle
I believe the answer is yes. I have nothing against race or nationality. I don’t believe there is as great a NEED at this time to seal the north. I’m for it, for the terror campaign. But not as urgently as the southern border. I don’t think most people are looking at this as a race issue.
It’s an American issue.
“Benefited from illegals brian?
No not hardly.
Posted by: J R | October 25, 2007 at 02:05 PM ”
Maybe I was mistaken. Before assuming you have benefitted from illegals, I should have found out if you:-price shop for veggies,-have stayed at a non-luxury hotel,-shop at wal-mart,-buy packaged meat from wal-mart or dillons (-buy any fresh meat that has been through a processing plant or feedlot (i.e. not slaughtered and sold by a local butcher from local beef)
The queston is valid brian.
And yes I understand the source. My first post this thread referenced “draconian measures against those who hire, house or help illegals.
I’d like to see policy similar to drug enforcement. If you are caught hiring illegals you lose your business and all its assets.
But they will STILL come.
Again, how much of Americas progress in wage and work conditions are you prepared to sacrifice?
Those darn Canadians! So pesky! :)
I’m prepared to pay more for goods and services….made and provided by AMERICANS brian.
Guess my love of country concerns me more than the bottom line. I know you numbers folks tend to get lost on that.
brian,
You’ve identified the issue that to me underlies much of this debate. I know I’ve benefited from the presence of illegals for some of the reasons you list. No question there.
For the additional edification of all, I don’t do immigration law in my practice, so if by “benefiting from illegals” is to mean I reap a financial reward directly by reason of fees paid by them, I don’t. To the best of my knowledge, neither do any of my clients through direct knowing employment of those so classified as well.
Oh and brian? Cheaper prices for goods and services are very little consolation for Americans who have had their wages sublimated by illegals.
Vaughn,I am not a public practicing accountant, the company I am at does not to my knowledge employ illegals, and to my knowledge no illegals can afford to buy our products.
I know that I benefit by the cheap labor illegals allow. I do not directly encourage it, but my price shopping and patronizing of businesses that sell things based on price does encourage it.
To prevent illegal immigration, we must first stop shopping based on price. Then it will become unprofitable to employ illegals. Then the inflow stream will dry up.
It is like drugs – as long as there is demand, there will be supply. Regardless of the consequences for buyer or seller, regardless of how difficult it is get them in, there will be supply.
Sure a wall, a moat, a dragon with lasers, ungodly fines for employers, and death to infidels will slow some of the immigrant inflow but it will not stop.
JR,Do you personally know anyone whose wages have been ’sublimated’ by illegals?By how much?
Well count me for whatever it takes to stop them.
JR,Do you personally know anyone whose wages have been ’sublimated’ by illegals?By how much?
Posted by: brian | October 25, 2007 at 02:31 PM
Is me, myself and I personally enough for you?
I’ve had jobs where any other American and I might bid $400-$1000
That’s for me. Just me.
I see the same jobs go to 4-10 illegals for 200 and less.
Almost all illegal immigrant labor is manual labor.
I don’t know of any accountants that are illegal aliens. Or lawyers, or engineers, or doctors, or judges, or insurance agents, or car salesmen, or teachers, or pilots, or nurses, etc
Do you support hammering nails by hand rather than using an air nailer? Allowing air nailers on construction sites eliminates construction jobs.
JR, I don’t know what you do. I will guess, arbitrarily tile work.
If Home Depot started offering tile installation and was able to undercut you by 25% because they are much larger and can get by with a smaller margin, what would you do?
In other words. the problem doesn’t affect you. Hey you even benefit from it.
The folks it does affect. Well too bad for them huh?
They’d likely be using illegals.
I’d report them.
And it would do absolutely no good.
“I see the same jobs go to 4-10 illegals for 200 and less.
Posted by: J R | October 25, 2007 at 02:34 PM ”
This reiterates my point that as consumers we must first stop price shopping before illegal immigration will ever stop.
The cheapest is not always the best. If the goal is to keep jobs and pay with Americans, as consumers we need to ask our subcontractor who they employ and if they have visas.
Why wouldn’t it do any good?Who do you report them to? Are they unwilling to do anything?
And what about the other end of this issue.
Mexico NEEDS a revolution. They will not have it if all the potential revolutionaries are here.
By accepting the status quo, we are keeping Mexico broken and corrupt.
And I have to go.
To let this problem continue is harmful to our country and harmful to Mexico.
To the original point. I’m sorry illegals chose to come here and bring their kids. I’m sorry they come here to have kids. But if America is going to remain anything close to what we have known, we are going to have to act.
A lot of the illegals, are corn farmers that have been run out of business by large factory Corn farmers, because of nafta we have set up. It’s partially our fault.
“By accepting the status quo, we are keeping Mexico broken and corrupt.
Posted by: J R | October 25, 2007 at 02:44 PM”
We meddle in too many countries’ business already. If they want a revolution, they should start (and finish) one all by themselves, without our goading.
We need to quit bullshitting around about jobs, terrorism, and revolution.
We need to have one goal then find ways to accomplish it.
The wrong way is to have Getting Rid of Illegals as the goal and saving American jobs, preventing terroris and helping Mexico start a revolution as reasons to do it.
The right way would be to have a goal of saving American jobs, then figuring out how to do that. Maybe a key area of focus would be stemming the flow of illegals, and maybe not. But each decision should be weighted against the correct goal.
For those concerned about wages for Americans, would you not want to stop illegal immigration?
The world is more complicated then what you propose Brian.
There’s multiple goals to be accomplished by securing the border:
1)Improve national security2)Stop illegal immigration3)Reduce number of criminals coming illegally to America to reduce crime4)Slow drug imports5)Increase wages for Americans6)Decrease government expenses incurred to support illegal immigrants7)Help reduce health care costs for Americans8)Encourage Mexico to make effective changes in their Government and their economy to support their own people
Note to self: do not ask Max for advice on project management
“For those concerned about wages for Americans, would you not want to stop illegal immigration?
Posted by: Max | October 25, 2007 at 03:03 PM ”
I certainly think the average household income is too low compared to the cost of living.
I think low wages, and the weakening of the middle class in America is one of the leading problems we will need to address in the next 25 years.
I do not think illegal immigration is a material factor in either of the above things. I know it has an effect, but it is not the root of the problem, nor even a large factor in the problems I listed.
“But Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff has said a wall running the length of a border would cost too much. A 2,000 mile state-of-the-art border fence has been estimated to cost between four and eight billion dollars. Costs for a wall that would run the entire length of the border might be as low as $851 million for a standard 10-foot prison chain link fence topped by razor wire. For another $362 million, the fence could be electrified. A larger 12-foot tall, two-foot-thick concrete wall painted on both sides would run about $2 billion. Initially it was estimated that the San Diego fence would cost $14 million — about $1 million a mile. The first 11 miles of the fence eventually cost $42 million — $3.8 million per mile, and the last 3.5 miles may cost even more since they cover more difficult terrain. An additional $35 million to complete the final 3.5 miles was approved in 2005 by the Department of Homeland Security — $10 million per mile.”http://www.globalsecurity.org/security/systems/mexico-wall.htm
how much does it cost for medical care and education for all the illegal aliens in this country now.. If we pass the Fair tax plan the illegals would pay taxes everytime they bought something and with as little as they were payed they would’nt be able to afford staying here.. then you wouldn’t have to depot them they would just leave.. do like history has taught us.. tax them until they leave on their own..
Or we could say bienvenidos, give them social security cards (not so they could get social security, but so they could file a tax return and legally work) and make them pay income tax. We could even give them a higher tax rate than legally present people.
That would probably bring in enough money to cover most of what they cost the country.Sure filing compliance would be low, but many would file and pay their taxes, and the income that brought in would offset a lot of the costs incurred because of illegal immigration.
FYI: the budget for INTEREST on our national debt is nearly 6 times higher than the budget for the justice department, which includes the FBI, DEA, ATF, and US Marshals. The Interest budget is about 5 times higher than the Homeland Security Budget.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/mexico/20070430-0915-mexico-farmers-.html
Most Americans want a wall. Survey and polls.
A big muther of all walls.
Posted by: American Way | October 25, 2007 at 01:52 PM
Do we call it:
The Great Wall of America?
The Great Wall of Mexico?
The Great Muther of All Walls?
I remember my older brother when we used to have to share a bed, if I crossed that invisible Maginot line, then BAM! The Great Arm would come crashing down on that elbow or toe that might have intruded 1/10 of an inch across the border.
We need that on the Mexican border.
Need to call my brother about that. It’d be a good job for him.
Oh, I get it, Max’s problems are due to his brother’s abusiveness. I thought jerks like him were into the personal responsibility mode. You know, they are responsible for their behavior. Guess not.
10-29-07
U.S Representative Todd Tiahrt,
Your overall record on illegal immigration is among the best in our state. We support your continued efforts to improve our overall system through vehicles other than Amnesty for those who have come illegally.
Our major concern has been that the current laws are not being enforced because there is neither the will nor the resources allocated to control FUTURE immigration once the MAGNET of Amnesty is again out there attracting illegal immigrants like it did following the 1986 version.
Heath Shuler is sponsoring a bill called the “Save act” in the U.S. House of Representatives. Our understanding of this bill is that it is an enforcement only measure that requires all employers to use the currently available E-Verify system. We understand that there are some phased in controls, which in 4-5 years would require verification of all current workers by all employers.
We have always maintained that very few businesses actually want to hire illegal aliens. And we believe that of the minority of businesses that do hire illegal aliens, most do so without knowing it or do so because they feel forced to do it to keep from being run out of business by competitors who ARE hiring illegal aliens.
We encourage you to investigate this bill and consider co-sponsoring this common sense approach. Sometimes it is better to let someone else think it is their idea, and support it than get their support for yours. (Especially when you are in the minority).
At first look, this bill gives businesses a tool they can rely on, and assures them that their competitors won’t get by with hiring illegals, very few illegal aliens will get hired anywhere.
There aren’t enough odd jobs and off-the-books jobs in the underground economy to soak up the estimated 7 million illegal workers in the country. Most illegal aliens will no longer find enough work to support them and their dependents, and most of them will eventually give up their lives of illegality and go home.
There is no better word of mouth advertising than having some return to their homeland and tell their friends and family that they have to use the legal immigration system to work in the USA.
Thanks for your consideration,