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

[SteamWake]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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

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]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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.

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.

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

Fine... I'm done here.

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.

That must be the worst description ever.

[Zachstar]

Originally Posted by 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.

"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.