More than Mexicans crossing the border (Maybe AZ has the right idea)

[swdw]

Actual, honest to God, investigative journalism.

http://www.wsbtv.com/video/23438021/index.html
http://www.wsbtv.com/video/23438712/index.html

Should pass this on before the links expire.

Besides the mid east personnel captured, they briefly mention 20% of the
people caught have criminal records. And yet, people are talking about
blanket amnesty for illegal immigrants??? Bet the cartels would love for that to happen.

[AVGWarhawk]

This is a long time coming swdw. Eventually we need to say stop. The folks in AZ have had enough. The Fed has turned a blind eye to drugs, murder and weapons filtering over the boarder. Not to mention the kidnapping. The real icing here is the others who cross the boarders looking to commit terrorist acts.

Please note that Obama's Rose Garden speech with the President of Mexico was less than enthusiastic....in short..Obama knows this is a problem.

[SteamWake]

What gets me is that this has been going on for 20 years or more.

All of a sudden its an 'issue' because Arizona took steps to be able to enforce existing federal law and now it's a huge shocking issue.

[AVGWarhawk]

Well, that is part of it SW. More recently though the drugs, weapons and kidnapping have really gone haywire...not to mention the murders of the US citizens that live close to the boarder. In short, the illegals who are doing these activities are getting much more bolder. These are cartels now. Not good.....

You are correct, the law has been around....start enforcing it and get in trouble. Makes no sense. I'm glad AZ finally took a stand...it makes DC wake up to the problem that is growing in leaps and bounds.

[Tchocky]

Please note that Obama's Rose Garden speech with the President of Mexico was less than enthusiastic....in short..Obama knows this is a problem.
Mm, some in the WH weren't too happy with the choice of healthcare as legislative priority #1. Immigration reform was seen as something a lot less risky, easier to get broad support on, and quicker to produce results.
I'd say there'll be a move on immigration reform before long.

EDIT - just saw your last post. AZ's move will definitely put the urgency level up.

[SteamWake]

I'd say there'll be a move on immigration reform before long.

I've been saying that only using another word for a while now.

[Weiss Pinguin]

In short, the illegals who are doing these activities are getting much more bolder. These are cartels now. Not good.....
That's the bit that scares me (not the other others aren't a big concern). If we just let them do as they please, who knows what kind of bullcrap will be going on at the border (or not even that far south) in five, ten, fifteen years?

[FIREWALL]

This is a long time coming swdw. Eventually we need to say stop. The folks in AZ have had enough. The Fed has turned a blind eye to drugs, murder and weapons filtering over the boarder. Not to mention the kidnapping. The real icing here is the others who cross the boarders looking to commit terrorist acts.

Please note that Obama's Rose Garden speech with the President of Mexico was less than enthusiastic....in short..Obama knows this is a problem.

What gets me is that this has been going on for 20 years or more.

All of a sudden its an 'issue' because Arizona took steps to be able to enforce existing federal law and now it's a huge shocking issue.

Well, that is part of it SW. More recently though the drugs, weapons and kidnapping have really gone haywire...not to mention the murders of the US citizens that live close to the boarder. In short, the illegals who are doing these activities are getting much more bolder. These are cartels now. Not good.....

You are correct, the law has been around....start enforcing it and get in trouble. Makes no sense. I'm glad AZ finally took a stand...it makes DC wake up to the problem that is growing in leaps and bounds.


Something to think about.... If you were a Judge, Prosecutor, in Law enforcement or Ran or worked in the Prison system...

Would you want a Crime Free America ? :hmmm:

These's days it makes you wonder.

[Snestorm]

When a nation looses control of it's borders it ceases to be a nation.
Just something to think about.

[GoldenRivet]

When a nation looses control of it's borders it ceases to be a nation.
Just something to think about.

100% correct.

this has already happened, and i fear it may be too late.

[Tribesman]

I've been saying that only using another word for a while now.
Yes, you was on about a secret plot to grant instant citizenship so Obama will get millions of magic votes for his party in the upcoming mid terms.
So the other word was two words...... conspiracy theory.

I'd say there'll be a move on immigration reform before long.

Wasn't the current President pledged to a comprehensive reform of the current ineffective programs if he got elected.

[Ducimus]

100% correct.

this has already happened, and i fear it may be too late.

For CA it is already too late.

[Weiss Pinguin]

For CA it is already too late.
As if there was ever any hope for California ;)

[FIREWALL]

As if there was ever any hope for California ;)


Easy to insult another persons home when, You don't have the balls to put under your Avatar where your from. :roll:

[Ducimus]

Guess i should change my location to "Upland Ca" instead of davy jones locker. :haha:

[Weiss Pinguin]

Easy to insult another persons home when, You don't have the balls to put under your Avatar where your from. :roll:
Don't see what that has to do with it, but fine.

[Ducimus]

Texas! Oh that explains everything! :haha:

[Weiss Pinguin]

Texas! Oh that explains everything! :haha:
Indeed :D

[tater]

The proper solution to people coming across the border illegally is lethal force.

Won't take many killed before they line up and fill out paperwork like civilized people.

There is simply zero excuse for allowing people to come across at will. Zero. An illegal guy here in ABQ—who had been arrested for other crimes and never deported because APD wasn't supposed to ask— raped a SIX YEAR OLD a couple weeks ago. If you are in favor not enforcing the border, you are in favor of that rape. That was an "excess" crime. Had the border been enforced, it would not have happened. One such crime is too many. Are illegals more likely to commit crimes? No, not from what I've heard. Doesn't matter, since ANY crime they commit would otherwise not have happened.

Am I in favor of more LEGAL immigration? Sure, I have no problems with that. Lock the doors FIRST, and shoot to kill is fine with me.

[SteamWake]

Texas! Oh that explains everything! :haha:

Please elaborate. :06:

[Tribesman]

The proper solution to people coming across the border illegally is lethal force.

So how would that work ?
Do you just kill anyone near the border who you think might be illegal or kill everyone just in case they are illegal or do you have to stop them, check they really are illegal and then kill them?

[GoldenRivet]

Border security is not an easy proposition.

You're talking about over 1500 miles of border. Almost all of which is open desert or rough terrain.

the answer here is not as backwards as placing machine gun nests every quarter mile.

there are multiple things that could be done here.

Why do illegals come to America? to secure employment which may not be available in their own country... so...

1. United States National ID - Similar to a passport but roughly the size of a driver's license. Contains all of the latest in anti-counterfeiting technology. They are valid for a 36 month period at which time they have to be renewed (much like a driver's license) They are numbered much like your driver's license has a DL number... any LEO enters the number into his computer and within minutes he will know if you are a legal US Citizen in possession of a valid NID or whether you are a person in possession of a forgery. These are not issued by states, but are instead issued on a federal level.

In order to be qualified to apply for a national ID you must meet all of the natural born or legally immigrated citizenship requirements. This is applied for at birth and is valid until your 16th birthday, and expires thereafter every 36 calendar months. The only personal information retained is whatever information would naturally be expected to appear on a Birth Certificate / Driver's license or passport.

Though this card does not have to be carried with you or readily accessible, it should be made available to a law enforcement officer upon his request assuming such a request was made after lawful contact (ie you broke some other law)

2. Employee Identity Numbers - Your United States National ID card number IS your employer ID number. If you apply for ANY job... your EID number, and your National ID card must be presented during the time of application.

3. Harsher laws for hiring or harboring of illegal immigrants - For example: If a corporation - say a construction contractor - during a random inspection is found to have employed illegal immigrants the company will be fined $250,000 for each of the first 10 illegal immigrant in employment, and $500,000 for each illegal immigrant beyond 10 in employment.

if a property owner or appartment complex or the like has been found renting property to an illegal immigrant, the property owner / complex etc in question is subject to a first offense fine of $10,000 for each illegal immigrant occupying the property furthermore, the property may be seized by the state and sold at auction (much like an impounded automobile).

if an individual, or dealer sells a car to any illegal immigrant, the entity must pay a fine of $25,000 or 5 times the appraised value of the vehicle whichever is greater. Furthermore, dealerships who have sold a car to an illegal may be seized by the state and their inventory and other assets sold at auction.

4. Streamline the LEGAL immigration channels - There are some immigrants who are here illegally because of the burdens associated with legal immigration. I know one young man who has been trying since he was 19 to become a legal citizen... he went to college on a student visa, he is 25 years old and still awaiting confirmation. :doh:

The state could even set up a list of "Nations in favorable standing for expedient immigration processing" if your nation is on the list... your immigration application is fast tracked.

5. Too many illegal immigrants jump the border to give birth - fine. Send The Federal Government of Mexico a f*ckin bill at the end of every quarter. "so what happens when they refuse to pay it?" thats cool... embargo all travel to Mexico.

[tater]

So how would that work ?
Do you just kill anyone near the border who you think might be illegal or kill everyone just in case they are illegal or do you have to stop them, check they really are illegal and then kill them?

Overwatch on the border, someone crosses by more than a few hundred yards, and you drop them.

There is no legal way to cross at a spot that is not defined as an entrance. Anyone crossing is illegal there.

The anti-employer stuff I'm fine with too, but we need to lock down the border to stop these criminals. AZ has been catching over 30 bad criminals with the new law per week. Meaning robbery, rape, and murder suspects who are illegals. That's 1500 per year in AZ alone.

Let a million in legally, but ZERO in illegally. I'm fine with Apaches taking them out, frankly. That poor little girl at the gym here (she was in daycare while mom was in gym).

[Blood_splat]

We need thousands of predator drones to patrol the border.:rock:

[Sailor Steve]

Please elaborate. :06:
Geez! People are joking about each others' states, and some are getting offended. My own 'Location' note changes on a whim, but I've never made any secret that I live in Salt Lake City, Utah. Balls had nothing to do with WP's 'Location'. It's fun to put something 'cute' there. And neither one of the wisecracks were meant as insults, they were obviously jokes.

Anybody want to insult Utah? Good, so do I.:rotfl2:

[UnderseaLcpl]

Texas! Oh that explains everything! :haha:

What you mean to say is "Texas! Oh, that explains everything in the best, biggest, and most badass fashion possible!:yeah:"

[Tribesman]

Overwatch on the border, someone crosses by more than a few hundred yards, and you drop them.

So like a policy a very extreme totalitarian dictatorship would adopt then.
How many thosands of extra people would you have to employ?
How much land would the government have to purchase to accomodate all those people and all their posts?
How many extra extra people will you have to employ to protect the coastline when they shift to that route instead?
How many more vessels will have to be purchased and maintained?
How many more shore facilities will have to be built to accomodate those?
Then of course you will have an increase in the already existing tunnels, how far back from the border are you going to have to maintain a free fire zoner thats closed to everyone?
How much land will have to be purchased for that?

What you put forward is a typical knee jerk proposal aimed at a problem that may sound tough and pro-active but is unrealistic, damn expensive and most importantly ineffective.


AZ has been catching over 30 bad criminals with the new law per week.
I hate to break it to ya but the new law isn't in force yet:har:
The only State and local people in Arizona doing that job are those who already have the delegation of authority from ICE under federal law.

[AngusJS]

The proper solution to people coming across the border illegally is lethal force.How about kids being brought along by their parents? How about pregnant women?

Kill them too?

[tater]

I hate to break it to ya but the new law isn't in force yet:har:
The only State and local people in Arizona doing that job are those who already have the delegation of authority from ICE under federal law.

OK, heard the 30 figure yesterday, I thought it was AZ, but it might have been the new procedure here in ABQ where ALL detainees caught by APD are now checked with ICE. SO maybe that was last week here in ABQ (I was driving when I heard it (local show) and my 3 YO was of course talking the entire time ("hey, daddy, what was that thing over there?" (repeat every 10 seconds for entire trip)).

Regardless, even if it was just extant law (again, the US federal law is far more harsh than the AZ law anyway), 1500 per year is too many—they've ALREADY COMMITTED THE CRIMES WHEN CAUGHT. That's 1500 excess crimes, and that's just those ICE got, and there is no way they catch 100%.

So, instead, lock the border down.

You said it was totalitarian. Nonsense. Totalitarian states point the guns INWARDS. If there were shoot to kill orders for LEAVING the US you';d be right. Stopping INVADERS is what the military is for. Illegal crossers are invaders.

As for women and children, I'd avoid taking them out—there is no shortage of men coming across, kill them first.

Or take out these guys first:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGZoOKBEggI

[Ducimus]

What you mean to say is "Texas! Oh, that explains everything in the best, biggest, and most badass fashion possible!:yeah:"

Nah uh! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyFSdj1J5Vw) :O:



Somewhat on topic, im kinda in agreement with tater. I think if we pulled some overseas bases that do nothing but support the local economy of foreign countries and bring them back home and park them on the border... it would be a wonderful thing.

Oh yeah, and Meg Whiteman practically won my vote for governor with this radio commercial. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVheLuooLUw) Though i seriously doubt ANYONE could pull it off.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Yah-huh!:stare:

[V.C. Sniper]

should be legal to hunt drug cartels down like deer or some dangerous game.

[Weiss Pinguin]

As my dad suggested, 'Just rotate Marine/Army units along the border for training exercises, and see what happens.'

[Ducimus]

My guess......


Hash marks. :haha:

[GoldenRivet]

Unfortunately gentlemen - none of these recommendations will ever happen.


You have a president and a congress in power who LOVE to bend to the will of these illegal's "plight".

Your president is more likely to push through an emergency amnesty bill than he is to sign tougher immigration laws.:nope:

Without a hot war - California is LOST. she ceases to be a State in any regards other than inclusion on our maps... it is a territory of Mexico now and that is a sad fact we must all face.

If you tried for mass deportations etc the entire Mexican Republic of California would erupt into violence.

The United States Military... and i do mean virtually every branch, would be involved in an 18-24 month campaign of enforcement in a land mass slightly larger in land area than Germany.

There are enough illegal Mexicans in the Los Angeles area alone (and legal Immigrants sympathetic to their situation) to burn that entire city to the ground from end to end.

Combine this with the fact that there are untold scores of legal and illegal firearms and a populace of desperate people... there will be blood.

Lets look at some history here.

Prior to the mid 1800s much of the present day Southwestern United States was Mexican Territory.

TEXAS- when the Mexican government removed almost all restrictions to legal immigration into its Northern Territory known as Texas there came a great deal of white settlers into the region. Within a matter of just a couple of years those white settlers were the majority, they held the population majority and they represented the majority of land owners, business owners etc.

One day, these men felt like they were being treated unfairly by Mexico, and fought for their independence - an independence which they eventually won. Texas formed it's own independent republic, and eventually accepted statehood into the United States. many argue that this acceptance of statehood was formed because Texans felt it would help protect them from future Mexican aggression.

California shares a very similar history as do much of the areas of the Southwest.

now... these illegal immigrants dont feel like they are breaking a law.

many of them probably feel like they are "taking back what is rightfully theirs"

problem is - they lost it all in a number of political gambles and wars and insurrections - fair and square.

The question is - what sort of leadership must we elect and what sort of things do we need to do to keep this from happening to Arizona, New Mexico and Texas?

Arizona is headed down the right path.

will we follow her?

we should, lest we place ourselves in a position to lose everything.

No i dont know how most Texans feel... But i'll be massacred in Goliad, Texas and gunned down in San Antonio or fight tooth and nail in San Jacinto before I'll willfully see the Mexican Flag (or the French or Spanish flags) fly over this land ever again.

[Ducimus]

Yeah, ive been saying for awhile now that the treaty of Gauadlope Hiledalgo is null and void. California is indeed irrecoverable, on many fronts. Not just immigration.

[GoldenRivet]

treaty of Gauadlope Hiledalgo

LOL

as if millions of illegal immigrants would even honor it. :88)

[Ducimus]

Well, in another couple years i might end up in Utah. Maybe i'll go say hello to sailor steve or something. :O: Never thought id see the day when i wanted... wanted to leave what i consider my native land. But, it's just not the same anymore. This isn't what home once was. I'll miss the sierra's and local mountains the most i think. That and a good chinese fast food joint. :haha:

[CaptainHaplo]

Last estimates I saw were 12 Million illegals in the country...

Figure 1/3 of them are actually employed. The rest may be women watching the kids at home - who knows - lets just use the number for now.

Thats 4 Million Jobs.....

Pack em all up, ship em home - you not only save truckloads of money on welfare/medicaid costs, you also now have 4 million jobs that need filling. You'd have the citizens of this country asking "what recession?"....

Just sayin.

[Ducimus]

>>The rest may be women watching the kids at home

Kids who will be voting later on if not already because they were born here.
How LA can call a "boycott" on arizona me thinks.

[Platapus]

Last estimates I saw were 12 Million illegals in the country...

Figure 1/3 of them are actually employed. The rest may be women watching the kids at home - who knows - lets just use the number for now.

Thats 4 Million Jobs.....

Pack em all up, ship em home - you not only save truckloads of money on welfare/medicaid costs, you also now have 4 million jobs that need filling. You'd have the citizens of this country asking "what recession?"....

Just sayin.


And where are you going to find an American willing to do this type of work? In my neighbourhood all I see are "help wanted signs" and businesses can't find anyone willing to do entry level/ labour work.

You think any of The Frau's kids will be willing to, gasp, work for a living? :har:. A few years ago, I literally could not pay a kid in our neighbourhood to mow a lawn. Kids in my neighbourhood don't want to work.

So these immigrants may be taking jobs, but I wager they are taking jobs American's don't want to do.

I don't see too many American's lining up to pick carrots these days. :nope:

[Platapus]

Unfortunately gentlemen - none of these recommendations will ever happen.


You have a president and a congress in power who LOVE to bend to the will of these illegal's "plight".

Your president is more likely to push through an emergency amnesty bill than he is to sign tougher immigration laws.:nope:



Good point, for history shows us that there were no problems with immigration when we had a Republican President. :yep:

If only we could go back to what President Bush did concerning immigration during the eight years he was in office, with six of them with a Republican Senate, all these problems would be............. ignored?

[GoldenRivet]

And where are you going to find an American willing to do this type of work? In my neighbourhood all I see are "help wanted signs" and businesses can't find anyone willing to do entry level/ labour work.

You think any of The Frau's kids will be willing to, gasp, work for a living? :har:. A few years ago, I literally could not pay a kid in our neighbourhood to mow a lawn. Kids in my neighbourhood don't want to work.

So these immigrants may be taking jobs, but I wager they are taking jobs American's don't want to do.

I don't see too many American's lining up to pick carrots these days. :nope:


I have no appreciation or respect for this point of view. :nope:

If a person is destitute... they WILL do any job you put in front of them

you act like there are no Americans willing to do any of this work, when i know flat out that what you are saying is BS.

I know personally several men who will install plumbing, drywall, roofing, do minor electrical work, dig ditches - the list goes on - problem is these mexicans come in and get 5 of their brothers and cousins on the job and get it done in an hour and charge $100 flat... then they split it 5 ways and they can afford to eat for the remainder of the day.

If the jobs were available, and they needed filling... you would have workers.

The primary reason you have a sense of entitlement in this country is because your government wants you to need it desperately... we have too many effing entitlement programs and welfare BS.

do you think that single mother or that single dad or that family with 5 kids would continue to sit on their asses if the government cheese stopped oozing into their mailboxes every month????

they would HAVE to go out and work - like a human being is supposed to do in this world

pull your own weight... im done pulling it for these people :stare::stare::stare::stare:

[Snestorm]

You said it was totalitarian. Nonsense. Totalitarian states point the guns INWARDS. If there were shoot to kill orders for LEAVING the US you';d be right. Stopping INVADERS is what the military is for. Illegal crossers are invaders.

Exactly! Put the army down there, and let them do what armies are supposed to do . . .

Defend the nation's borders!

[Ducimus]

I know personally several men who will install plumbing, drywall, roofing, do minor electrical work, dig ditches - the list goes on - problem is these mexicans come in and get 5 of their brothers and cousins on the job and get it done in an hour and charge $100 flat...

You know, i spent 7 years in the military as an engineer, trained as "Structural Specialist". That encompasses sheetmetal fabrication, weilding, masonry, concrete, and carpentry. What i know best is wall framing, sheetrock, mudding and taping, floor tile, drop ceilings, stuff like that. Mainly industrial construction (don't do alot of residential in the service).

Great job skills to fall back on, (in theory) and i wouldn't mind doing it. Infact, some of it I ENJOY and miss doing, and the sense of job satisfaction it brings. But i also know its pointless because nobody would hire me to do that work over an "migrant worker", and even if i were, i'd only be offered "migrant worker's" wages.

[Platapus]

you act like there are no Americans willing to do any of this work, when i know flat out that what you are saying is BS.




First lesson: Just because you don't agree with someone's opinion does not make it BS. Why can't you have a simple discussion with different viewpoints with out the emotions?

I can only report what I observe in my neighbourhood. That is why I did not make any blanket statements about all Americans. The observed fact is that our local businesses can't find Americans to apply for these jobs as they seem to think these jobs are "beneath" them. The reason I know this is because I talk to them and I interact with them in my volunteer work.

If American's are willing to hustle in your neighbourhood, that's great. You live in a good area for that. But your observations do not invalidate my observations.

[CaptainHaplo]

Platypus - your ignoring one major factor in GR's comment that is not in place....

The stopping of government handouts.

Sure, as long as someone can sit on welfare and get food and shelter - why should they work? Right now - the results you see in your neighborhood is exaclty because of this. Stop the government breast feeding - and you will have plenty of employees.

Ducimus - yes - you have a valid point - but if the work was there - and more AMERICANS were employed - more work would be there - so without the migrant workers - and the migrant worker pay being shipped to mexico - but instead being spent in the US - you get a beneficial cycle. More people buying more widgets, homes, cars, whatever, and thus more employees are needed. Wait - they won't work for peanuts - damn - corporations suddenly have no workers - they up their wages - Ducimus gets a decent wage - everyone wins. Sure - its not perfect and isn't going to always work that way - but let me ask you - is it not better than where we are today?

[SteamWake]

You know, i spent 7 years in the military as an engineer, trained as "Structural Specialist". That encompasses sheetmetal fabrication, weilding, masonry, concrete, and carpentry. What i know best is wall framing, sheetrock, mudding and taping, floor tile, drop ceilings, stuff like that. Mainly industrial construction (don't do alot of residential in the service).

Great job skills to fall back on, (in theory) and i wouldn't mind doing it. Infact, some of it I ENJOY and miss doing, and the sense of job satisfaction it brings. But i also know its pointless because nobody would hire me to do that work over an "migrant worker", and even if i were, i'd only be offered "migrant worker's" wages.

Yes those jobs that americans wont do now... like hanging sheet rock. :stare: :doh:

[GoldenRivet]

All i can say is that i shoveled my fair share of sh*t and dug my fair share of ditches.

its not a job specifically reserved for mexicans like the Democrats would have you think... Leftist racism aside, I think you might be surprised how many people would be willing to do that work if it werent dominated by borderline slave labor.

we have a minimum wage... there are individuals and companies out there who exploit illegal immigrants so they dont have to pay minimum wage.

lets go after these exploiters and boost the GDP at the same time by deporting these illegals.

[Iceman]

How about kids being brought along by their parents? How about pregnant women?

Kill them too?
That logic is flawed....so what your saying is if a person "Has" a child in tow they should not be killed?

What is closer to the truth would be "if" such a law was in place by a country then the parents or whomever has said child should be shot almost or at least have they're parental rights taken away for "endangering" said child....


No matter how you try to slice this bread is is really simple cut and dry.

Enter in through the front door else your a thief and a robber and your taking your chances and rolling the dice.

You may as well free every criminal in the system right now...if this is the logic to be applied....or is it if you just look pitiful enough or whatever then that makes it ok or I did it because i was poor or that a crime is committed....sell that to the judge next time you get a traffic ticket even.

This is where i do not understand and was offended recently by Obama for the first time...he seems to make light of the situation and laughed at Arizona for trying to enforce a law that "HE" should be making be upheld...AZZhole...that really pissed me off.

Sherrif Joe for Pres. :):salute:

[Iceman]

I don't see too many American's lining up to pick carrots these days. :nope:

That's an assinine assumption there...ship em back to where they came from and see who go's for the jobs...a ****ty balance was created and perpetuated by just that kind of thinking...tell you what...if i lost my job today you bet your ass I'd be lining up to pick dog **** up if I had to to feed my kids.

[Iceman]

But i also know its pointless because nobody would hire me to do that work over an "migrant worker", and even if i were, i'd only be offered "migrant worker's" wages.

HELLO....??? Anybody in there?...That's the whole point....wages have been driven so low ...dry up that supply of slave labor and them farmers or whomever will have to pony up and pay fairer wages....or go out of business and be swallowed up by other compnaies such is the way of a free economic society....wages would increase....here's another thing ....is Mexico that ****ty that no one wants to live there or can earn a living...seems to me the smarter thing would be to help them dorks stand up on theyre feet better and raise theyre own standard of living so maybe I would want to move there... wow what an idea.?

[Platapus]

lets go after these exploiters and boost the GDP at the same time by deporting these illegals.


Now that is something I think we can all agree on. :yeah:

The government (state and Federal) needs to be going after the US businesses that hire undocumented aliens and start throwing them in jail. Enough of these piddly fines. Make it so that US companies won't want to hire illegals.

Right now, there is still an advantage for US companies to hire illegals -- profit. The fines may be considered simply a "cost of doing business". Let's start putting the CEOs/owners in the slammer and then see if their attitude changes.

In other words, lets enforce the already existing immigration laws before we start making new ones.

[Platapus]

That's an assinine assumption there...


No that is not an assumption (asinine or not), it is an observation.

Now if I had written "No Americans are lining up to ..." that would be an assertion (not an assumption) and it would probably be asinine.

But that is why I did not write that. I wrote what I observed and I made it pretty clear that I was talking about what I, as an individual, was observing.

Please don't change my words to fit your argument.

[CaptainHaplo]

We so rarely agree on things - but so far no one has said that businesses should be getting a free pass for hiring illegals.

So why is that the laws that do hold employers accountable are not enforced?

And no - this is not just a democrat or republican problem - both sides have done absolutely nothing to insure the law is upheld. So no pointing fingers at its this "side" or that "side" that is responsible. They all are.

[tater]

I'm 100% behind jailing business owners/officers who hire illegals.

We still need to lock the border down, 100% (or as close to 100% as is humanly possible, including ANY MEANS to do so). Why? Because there are States like my stupid state (that you endless democrat control of the roundhouse) that give illegals official documents like DLs. In AZ right now, you can show a DL as proof of ID, even assuming you meet the tough standard of in effect probable cause that you are illegal. Show your NM DL, and you're fine.

BTW, there has been a rash of ID theft here in ABQ by illegals using the addys to obtain a DL with a false address. Since they can get a DL with their real address, and suffer no consequences, this means it's only for nefarious purposes, or perhaps for illegals out of state to have a legal US ID.

1. Lock the borders down, even with shoot to kill if that is what it takes.

2. ARREST employers that hire illegals, and massively fine the business. The goal here should be to set the fines such that if all employers of illegals were caught at once, it would 100% offset the total cost to the government of illegals (going back to the 80s, perhaps). HUGE fines. Might mean the business is liquidated and sold to raise the fine. Needs to scare employers enough to instantly have them all fire all illegals. Call it many 10s of thousands of $ per illegal caught in your employ, maybe 100s of thousands.

3. Set up a new immigration system with more (MANY more, again, I like mexicans, they work hard, I don't care how many come, I just want them to fill out a form first and be checked) mexicans allowed legally. The only place to get in line is IN MEXICO. Illegals here need to LEAVE, then reenter. Have the form in english ONLY, and have a language test for all applicants. Scoring higher puts you to the head of the line. New system includes guest workers, those can have lower english requirements.

[CaptainHaplo]

Tater - don't forget that we need to also deny Illegals welfare/social aid.

[AVGWarhawk]

We so rarely agree on things - but so far no one has said that businesses should be getting a free pass for hiring illegals.

So why is that the laws that do hold employers accountable are not enforced?

And no - this is not just a democrat or republican problem - both sides have done absolutely nothing to insure the law is upheld. So no pointing fingers at its this "side" or that "side" that is responsible. They all are.


The state of MD has the law stating employers hiring illegals will be arrested and most likely loose their business. The problem is whenever the law is exercised there is an outcry of human rights yadda yadda yadda.

[tater]

Tater - don't forget that we need to also deny Illegals welfare/social aid.

True, that goes without saying for me. Note that I don;t think it is possible or practical to refuse medical care. If they show up in the ER, however, they should be stabilized, and in the course of deciding how they will pay (lol) if they are illegal, they get deported (by medivac if need be—I said "stable," not completely better :) ).

[Tribesman]

Regardless, even if it was just extant law (again, the US federal law is far more harsh than the AZ law anyway),
It isn't an issue you can just say "regardless" to, you made a claim about the increased effectiveness of a new law in relation to the old law but used the actions under the old law and said how good it was.
Also how on earth can the Arizona laws be less harsh when their penalties are to be applied in addition to the federal penalty? Plus of course with their financial clawback they put in how do you think the penalty can ever be served?

You said it was totalitarian. Nonsense. Totalitarian states point the guns INWARDS.
You miss the point entirely tater, you are proposing summary execution without trial for what is legally a rather minor offence. That is what makes it like a policy in a crazy dictatorship.

I notice you avoid entirely the questions of cost and effectiveness, you didn't do the eminent domain angle either or the increasing power of the evil feds.
Does that demonstrate that you didn't think your proposals through much?

[tater]

It isn't an issue you can just say "regardless" to, you made a claim about the increased effectiveness of a new law in relation to the old law but used the actions under the old law and said how good it was.

Also how on earth can the Arizona laws be less harsh when their penalties are to be applied in addition to the federal penalty? Plus of course with their financial clawback they put in how do you think the penalty can ever be served?

Easy. The federal law is more "harsh" (from a civil rights standpoint) in that it requires zero suspicion of illegality. An INS guy can ask anyone for papers merely to determine their status with no probable cause.

The AZ law can add effectiveness for the simple reason that THE FEDERAL LAWS ARE NOT ENFORCED.

It's not that the fed rules are bad, it's that the feds are not doing their job. If they did their jobs, zero illegals would cross, and the States would not be left with huge bills to pay for them.

The baseline should be that all illegals have to show proof of ID at some point or get kicked out. So the fact that millions NEVER get asked is a bad starting point. That the feds fail so miserably (demonstrable given the 12 million illegals here) is proof that actual enforcement is needed. The AZ law in fact will only marginally improve enforcement, I think the net impact will be near zero—proof is the fact that CA's laws are already very similar to AZ's new law, and look at all the problems caused by illegals there.

You miss the point entirely tater, you are proposing summary execution without trial for what is legally a rather minor offence. That is what makes it like a policy in a crazy dictatorship.

I notice you avoid entirely the questions of cost and effectiveness, you didn't do the eminent domain angle either or the increasing power of the evil feds.
Does that demonstrate that you didn't think your proposals through much?

Armed men crossing the border have a name—invaders. Would you arrest and Mirandize Soviets coming across the German border in the Cold War (turned hot)? No, you'd shoot them.

My preference would not be shooting, I think the border could be secured without it, but fear of death would go a long way to stop what is extremely casual crossing right now. Pick and choose, and shoot armed invaders first. There are countless secret cam videos online of armed men crossing in the desert. I call armed me "invaders."

IMO, one of the few, legitimate powers of the federal government is defense. People coming across our sovereign border without permission are invaders and should be dealt with as such. As far as eminent domain, presumably you mean taking land for a fence and road alongside. That's certainly an issue, but I know land owners are not permitted to defend their property vs the illegals, either. If I owned border land and people were ruining my property, leaving trash, etc, I'd love to pick them off from my portal with a beer in one hand ;) (yeah, I'd shoot people for littering, too, I'm sort of a radical "environmentalist" in that sense, I always pack out every thing I hike in with when I hike, I ****ing hate litterbugs).

Might be worth asking the land owners what they think first, however. I suppose they could be given the option of securing their length of border themselves to some standard—not sure if they're even allowed to do so on their own, frankly.

[Tribesman]

The AZ law can add effectiveness for the simple reason that THE FEDERAL LAWS ARE NOT ENFORCED.

Caps Lock strikes again, it was the federal law you were using as an example of just how effective enforcement was.
You cannot cite an example of how good the enforcement of immigration law is then suddenly change your mind because its not the law you thought it was.

If they did their jobs, zero illegals would cross
:har::har::har::har::har::har:
That has to be the most ridiculous claim ever.
Take Israel as an example, they do some really serious border enforcement, they go all out on military, Border force and police deployment, they still get piles of illegal immigrants crossing the border.
Look at Britain, they do border control in their own ports, around the coast and on mainland Europe and still get loads of illegals.

Armed men crossing the border have a name—invaders.
What has that got to do with the price of cheese?
Though if you want to explore that angle how many hundreds of recent incidents of armed men crossing the border happened, meaning of course Mexican and American border patrols accidentally crossing the line as it was discussed by your government and the Mexican government last week.

My preference would not be shooting, I think the border could be secured without it, but fear of death would go a long way to stop what is extremely casual crossing right now.
Has the threat of a death worked well in the past?

As far as eminent domain, presumably you mean taking land for a fence and road alongside.
No the question I posed was about a very wide strip of land nearly 2000 miles long, which I am sure you can grasp is one hell of a lot of land.
A fence and a road alongside would be completely ineffective for what you proposed.

[SteamWake]

Miami buisness finds a way to profit from the situation. "Gringo Masks"

http://www.nbcmiami.com/news/weird/Miami-Company-Creates-Gringo-Masks-for-Arizona-Illegals-94782694.html

Here is the bill... read it (unlike our senators/president)

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf

Actually I do think they have read it but deny that they have so that they can plead ignorance of the bills content.

[Tribesman]

Here is the bill... read it (unlike our senators/president)

That is no longer the actual bill.
Actually I do think they have read it but deny that they have so that they can plead ignorance of the bills content.
Perhaps they read the new version instead so they wouldn't be ignorant of the content, after all when Brewer signed 1070 she did say it wouldn't last in that form.
Its good that they realised the financial clawback wouldn't work, but by only diluting it they are just showing that despite knowing it isn't going to work they are at present unwilling to admit they are going to have to saddle the States taxpayers with very hefty bill in the end.....unless they change their much publicised really popular "populist" law again, and again and again in which case they may as well have never bothered in the first place and should just taken more of the already existing option and let the federal government pick up most of the bill.

[SteamWake]

That is no longer the actual bill.

Perhaps they read the new version instead so they wouldn't be ignorant of the content, after all when Brewer signed 1070 she did say it wouldn't last in that form.
Its good that they realised the financial clawback wouldn't work, but by only diluting it they are just showing that despite knowing it isn't going to work they are at present unwilling to admit they are going to have to saddle the States taxpayers with very hefty bill in the end.....unless they change their much publicised really popular "populist" law again, and again and again in which case they may as well have never bothered in the first place and should just taken more of the already existing option and let the federal government pick up most of the bill.

If you will take a moment and look at it you will see that it contains the amendments.

But just to make sure for you...

http://azgovernor.gov/documents/SB1070AmendedByHB2162.pdf

[GoldenRivet]

If you will take a moment and look at it you will see that it contains the amendments.

But just to make sure for you...

http://azgovernor.gov/documents/SB1070AmendedByHB2162.pdf

they wont

[Tribesman]

If you will take a moment and look at it you will see that it contains the amendments.

So you don't understand English then as your first link to the Arizona legislation is the unamended version.
http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf

You will note that it says 1070, if you run that through a reliable translation it reads 1070
Your second link however is the amended version
http://azgovernor.gov/documents/SB10...edByHB2162.pdf (http://azgovernor.gov/documents/SB1070AmendedByHB2162.pdf)
A quick translation should show you that it says 1070 as amended by 2162 though I can understand that 1070 as amended by 2162 is quite hard for some to translate.

So take this slowly and try with some help if you get stuck.
If you write "Here is the bill..." and someone says "That is no longer the actual bill." you cannot make the bill suddenly transform by posting the new bill and claiming its what you already posted.

[SteamWake]

Most of the amendments were added to make the bill even more difficult to refute not to bend to the wishes of the liberals. :rock:

The actual law has changed very little so hey lets get back on topic shall we?

Obama reads the bill, decides to send 1,200 troops to the border.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/05/25/obama-deploy-national-guard-troops-mexico-border/

[Tribesman]

The actual law has changed very little so hey lets get back on topic shall we?

Are you sure you bothered to read it? your seemingly obvious lack of ability to tell the difference as shown by your two links does suggest otherwise.
Those are rather major changes, though they won't be the last , Arizona is going to have to water down the bill so far to try and make it workable it isn't even going to be worth the paper its written on.

Obama reads the bill, decides to send thousands of troops to the border.

Thousands????? up to 1200 until they train more border agents to add to the over 17000 they have already(not counting local and state units already with delegated authority).
But hey its a great idea, the military is already overstretched out foriegn, NG personel are being regularly taken from their usual employment for deployment so why not add another expensive yet ineffective measure with a few hundreds doing immigration patrols for a while.

[SteamWake]

Yea actually thought I had edited that :doh:

But yea protecting the security of the nation is usually a good idea.

[AVGWarhawk]

Obama reads the bill, decides to send 1,200 troops to the border.



Don't believe everything you read when it comes to what the WH or the government has done. More then likely a few guys with pop guns were deployed. :shifty:

[SteamWake]

Don't believe everything you read when it comes to what the WH or the government has done. More then likely a few guys with pop guns were deployed. :shifty:

Well Obama says he is going to send troup 'up to 1,200' when its all said and done he might send like 20 probably.

[Tribesman]

But yea protecting the security of the nation is usually a good idea.
Yes security is a good idea, but ineffective legislation and actions are not a good idea or a good way to spend tax revenue.

[SteamWake]

Yes security is a good idea, but ineffective legislation and actions are not a good idea or a good way to spend tax revenue.

Nope but evidently its a way of life.

Which is why Arizona did what they did.

[Tribesman]

Nope but evidently its a way of life.

Which is why Arizona did what they did.

So Arizona knows its a waste of time and money but did it anyway.
And most of those who rail against government waste and ineffective enforcement of immigration laws suddenly come out strongly in favour of Arizonas government wasting money and doing ineffective enforcement.

Priceless:har:

[SteamWake]

So Arizona knows its a waste of time and money but did it anyway.
And most of those who rail against government waste and ineffective enforcement of immigration laws suddenly come out strongly in favour of Arizonas government wasting money and doing ineffective enforcement.

Priceless:har:

No ... I know you know what I meant but here I will spell it out for you.

They (arizona) saw how ineffictive the federal goverment was wasting time and mony, busy surfing porn and smoking crack so they decided to enforce the laws themselves.

I hope that clears things up for you.

[tater]

Yes security is a good idea, but ineffective legislation and actions are not a good idea or a good way to spend tax revenue.

That is Arizona's choice.

Their taxpayers elected their state representatives who passed the bill a substantial majority of Arizonans wanted.

Why do you care, exactly?

Caps Lock strikes again, it was the federal law you were using as an example of just how effective enforcement was.
You cannot cite an example of how good the enforcement of immigration law is then suddenly change your mind because its not the law you thought it was.

Huh?

I said that any increase in enforcement is an increase in enforcement. The AZ law is very restrictive, but SOME perps will be asked, and some caught. Every one caught is one that would not have otherwise been caught. Perhaps they'll catch a guy like the man here in NM who was arrested a couple times, never deported, and went on to rape a 6 year old here in ABQ a few weeks ago. Stopping one violent crime would "pay for" the law IMO.

In short, the poorly enforced federal law catches X% of illegals in AZ now, and the new AZ law might catch Y% more. Under the nez AZ law, the feds will still catch some %, we'll call it Z%. If Y+Z > X, then the law is effective. If Y+Z=X (the State catches a few, but the feds catch fewer as a result) then the law is a wash. If Y+Z< X, then it is a failure.

As for "doing their jobs" resulting in a sealed border, yeah, there would always be SOME leakage, but it would require far more effort to get in. Given the fact that literally millions cross now, the number could be effectively zero if it was a priority. Simply walking across as it is easy to do now, should be impossible.

I live in a border State, I've been to the border, and if I lived on that border, I'd want a fence.

What has that got to do with the price of cheese?
Though if you want to explore that angle how many hundreds of recent incidents of armed men crossing the border happened, meaning of course Mexican and American border patrols accidentally crossing the line as it was discussed by your government and the Mexican government last week.

We are not equals. Mexico is our inferior as a nation. That Texas belongs to the US is proof, were we equals, the border would have moved back and forth (like the Rhineland, for example). It doesn't because the US is grossly more powerful. If they accidentally shoot our guys, they should be afraid. If we do it? <shrug> We apologize and move on.

I was not referring to border patrols, I was referring to armed mexican CRIMINALS. Drug smugglers, general criminals, coyotes, etc. Those are the armed men I refer to, not men in uniform. Ciudad Juarez (next to El Paso) is now the most violent city on Earth (and people thought it might be Baghdad, lol).

No the question I posed was about a very wide strip of land nearly 2000 miles long, which I am sure you can grasp is one hell of a lot of land.
A fence and a road alongside would be completely ineffective for what you proposed.

All you said was eminent domain. The fence is not a very wide strip of land. We're talking 40-50 yards wide for the doubled fence with a road in the middle type (others use less land).

Note that the feds already "own" the 60 feet north of the actual border anyway in most all cases.

Not seeing an issue here.

[Tribesman]

Huh?

I said that any increase in enforcement is an increase in enforcement.
You had said the arrests under the new law showed how effective it was, but they were arrests under the old law which you say is ineffective.
You used an arguement that actually contradicted your arguement.

The AZ law is very restrictive,
So what, most laws are very restrictive.

We are not equals. Mexico is our inferior as a nation.
:doh:Mexico is just a country like America is just a country.

All you said was eminent domain.
I asked a series of questions, all were linked to each other and the topic in hand.
For example....We're talking 40-50 yards wide
you mentioned a free fire zone for shooting people who had crossed more than a few hundred yards into America, so you are not talking 40-50 yards you are talking probably half a mile as a minimum. That would require a government purchase of about 1000 square miles wouldn't it.


[QUOTE][No ... I know you know what I meant but here I will spell it out for you.

They (arizona) saw how ineffictive the federal goverment was wasting time and mony, busy surfing porn and smoking crack so they decided to enforce the laws themselves.

I hope that clears things up for you. /QUOTE]
No they saw how ineffective the feds were, knew how ineffective their own version will be, but put it through anyway because its worth a few votes in the upcoming elections.

[SteamWake]

No they saw how ineffective the feds were, knew how ineffective their own version will be, but put it through anyway because its worth a few votes in the upcoming elections.


Yes of course the violence, murder, kidnappings were not the motive of course it was only a purely political aspiration.

It's amazing, a conservative takes real concrete positive steps to try to combat a problem and he is considered a political hack.

As opposed to the feds whom are afraid to do anything lest they be seen as racisist or offend someone and then they are lauded for their inaction.

Talk about seeking votes :nope:

Fine... I'm done here.

[Tribesman]

Yes of course the violence, murder, kidnappings were not the motive of course it was only a purely political aspiration.

What does the new legislation do to combat those which could not already be done with existing legislation?

It's amazing, a conservative take
s real concrete positive steps to try to combat a problem and he is considered a political hack.

How is unworkable legislation a real positive concrete step?
It is simply a bread and circus show for the locals before the election.

As opposed to the feds whom are afraid to do anything lest they be seen as racisist or offend someone and then they are lauded for their inaction.

:har::har::har::har::har:
That must be the worst description ever.

[Zachstar]

The proper solution to people coming across the border illegally is lethal force.

Won't take many killed before they line up and fill out paperwork like civilized people.

There is simply zero excuse for allowing people to come across at will. Zero. An illegal guy here in ABQ—who had been arrested for other crimes and never deported because APD wasn't supposed to ask— raped a SIX YEAR OLD a couple weeks ago. If you are in favor not enforcing the border, you are in favor of that rape. That was an "excess" crime. Had the border been enforced, it would not have happened. One such crime is too many. Are illegals more likely to commit crimes? No, not from what I've heard. Doesn't matter, since ANY crime they commit would otherwise not have happened.

Am I in favor of more LEGAL immigration? Sure, I have no problems with that. Lock the doors FIRST, and shoot to kill is fine with me.

"You are with me or you are my enemy!" & "You are with us or you are with the terrorists"

Are you raving mad? You want to shoot people for daring to cross the border? You have any idea what that would do? No its just a Right Wing fantasy that sounds cool until you see the blood on CNN.