Democrats & Liberals Archives

Do We Need a Chinese Wall?

Americans are losing some of their fears and Republicans are worried. How could Republicans win in November if people are not afraid? Fear got them into power the last few times. Fear can do it again. So, fearmongers Congressmen Sensenbrenner, Rohrabacher and others decided to raise the fear level by demonizing illegal aliens. They passed a law that made illegal aliens felons and called for building a huge Chinese Wall between America and Mexico.

So eager are these cowboy Republicans to instill fear in the public, that when the senate came up with a more moderate bill that allowed guest workers to eventually earn citizenship, they rebelled. Rather than hold a Congress/Senate Conference to iron our differences, they are holding hearings - a polite name for propaganda dissemination - throughout the country.

Rohrabacher, who unfortunately is my representative, is busy scaring his constituents at these hearings. He called the guest-worker proposals

"..the foul odor that's coming out of the United States Senate."

He is trying to scare us of these illegal aliens. They are criminals and should be incarcerated. We need a wall to keep them out.

It makes no difference to him that these Hispanics are desperately poor and merely want jobs. They are so desperate, no wall, however big, will keep them out.

I've been wondering about this Chinese Wall. Why only a wall on our southern border? Why not a wall on our northern border? Those terrorists who we nabbed before were coming from Canada, not Mexico. And what about the oceans on both sides of the 48 states? Why not build a wall on every shore that faces the Atalantic or the Pacific?

Building walls is a way of not only keeping others out, but of boxing ourselves in. Why don't Republicans take the advice of an enlightened Republican, Colin Powell, who said in the July/August issue of AARP:

"Terrorism is scary. I think we have to put terrorism in context. It's the unknown about terrorism that's so scary. It's not an enemy you can see and attack and defend yourself easily against. And they can come and they can knock down buildings. They can kill some of our fellow citizens. But they can't defeat us as a nation......Only if we start being so afraid that we don't let people come to this country, we don't want any foreigners here, we don't want any Arabs or Muslims running around here, and we take counsel of our fears. We let terrorists scare us so badly that we don't go to football games, and we're afraid to go here and we're afraid to go there, which was something of the case in 2001 in the fall."

We're not that scared that we need a Chinese Wall.

But worried Republicans are persisting. They are drumming up fear every chance they get. Former President Bill Clinton makes clear why:

"It is a way of creating a divided community and distracting people from the real challenges facing the country, whether it is in Iraq and Afghanistan, or homeland security, or how to build a clean energy future, or how to solve the healthcare crisis, or how to create new jobs for America."

America does not need to be boxed in. America prides itself on its openness. Let's keep America open. Let's not build Chinese Walls.

Posted by Paul Siegel at July 11, 2006 4:27 PM
Comments
Comment #166602

Paul, I couldn’t agree more. This illegal immigration argument gained momentum in the nationalism that inevitably follows an attack on our own soil, but is something that racists in this country have long been hoping for. Using fear to push a nationalist agenda is old hat, but is still one of the most difficult things to overcome. In this (and only this) instance, I support the president. His guest worker program does the one thing no one else from his party seems to be willing to do: face reality. Now if we could just get him to do the same on, I dunno, every other issue.

Posted by: David S at July 11, 2006 4:38 PM
Comment #166604

Now I have to agree with making the illegals felons, and kick them out. There are legal ways to come into this country, do it that way. I do not agree with those that are here now get a free ride. I don’t believe in guest worker program either. If keeping them out means a wall, razor wire, military at the borders I am all for it.
Also ENGLISH should be the offical language and no such things a bi-lingual when you vote, drive or even order something at a store(i.e. Sears). If they want to live in the US then let them learn at least passable English. Others have.

Posted by: KT at July 11, 2006 4:46 PM
Comment #166606

This should not be a partisan issue, but some are simply too fond of wallowing in the petty partisan warfare.

Not only do opponents to secure borders try to make a partisan issue of this important issue, but they try to characterize it as some sort of near-impossible undertaking, nothing of the likes that’s ever been seen since the Great Wall of China.

All that is needed is a simple fence and some surveillance equipment, like this.

Not the Great Wall of China.
Characterizing it as the Wall of China is merely a clever form of misinformation.

The U.S. can and should secure the borders and coasts, because national security and defense is the basic purpose of the military. Securing our borders, the right of any sovereign nation, is not isolationism or xenophobia. It is simply national security and defense. Also, it can be done quite easily at a cost of about $8 billion initially, and about $10 billion annually for over 153,000 border patrol (three shifts of 51,000). $10 billion per year is minuscule compared to the $70 billion in annual net losses due to illegal aliens burdening our education, healthcare, hospital, ER, welfare, Medicaid, Social Security, Medicare, border patrol, insurance, law enforcement, prison, and voting systems.
$10 billion per year is less than the $10.5 billion in annual losses for California alone, due to illegal aliens.
$10 billion per year is far less than the $27.3 billion for pork-barrel for year 2005.

IT CAN BE DONE:

The U.S. could easily secure the borders with resources we already have. We could simply position 153,000 border patrol persons (a mere 5.9% of the total of 2.6 million of our active military, guard, and reserves) along the borders where they could be more effective toward the goal of national security and defense.

The U.S./Canada border (about 4000 miles) and the U.S./Mexico border (about 2,000 miles) could both (about 6,000 miles combined) be secured with a fence and 3000 posts (fixed or mobile; each spaced about 2 miles apart; denser in some areas than others) with a maximum of 51 border patrol persons per post (17 persons per 8 hour shift per post). That is one patrol person about every 621 feet (i.e. about the length of two football fields), or 8 patrol persons per mile.

Also, the borders could have a fence and/or road that is patrolled with vehicles and monitored with cameras, thermal, night vision, seismic, and motion sensors. For more details and estimated costs, see: http://WeNeedAFence.com .

We can and should stop allowing illegal trespassers to cross our national borders.

The rights of foreigners, that illegally trespass our borders, do not trump the rights of a sovereign nation to secure their own border. The U.S. is not for the public use of the rest of the world no more than your home is for the public use by anyone that isn’t invited. We must enforce the existing laws and prosecute those that illegally employ illegal trespassers.

Illegal aliens are burdening our educations systems, healthcare systems, law enforcement systems, insurance systems, driving about without automobile insurance, and bringing disease and crime with them.

The primary purpose of government is to provide for the national defense. That is the purpose of the military. But, irresponsible government often misuses the military, and neglects the illegal aliens pouring across the borders. Republicans want cheap labor and Democrats want votes. So the government does nothing.

If you, the voters, want this (or anything, for that matter) to ever get accomplished, you’re going to have to start holding your elected government accountable.

Start doing what you were supposed to be doing all along.
Vote out all irresponsible incumbent politicians, always.
Keep the good ones (if any).
Stop letting both parties take turns using and abusing everyone.
They don’t care about you or the nation.
They only care about gettin’ theirs, fillin’ their own pockets, fillin’ their campaign war chests, selling influence, and securing their own incumbency.

Posted by: d.a.n at July 11, 2006 4:48 PM
Comment #166607

This should not be a partisan issue, but some are simply too fond of wallowing in the petty partisan warfare.

Not only do opponents to secure borders try to make a partisan issue of this important issue, but they try to characterize it as some sort of near-impossible undertaking, nothing of the likes that’s ever been seen since the Great Wall of China.

All that is needed is a simple fence and some surveillance equipment, like that at: WeNeedAFence.com

Not the Great Wall of China.
Characterizing it as the Wall of China is merely a clever form of misinformation.

The U.S. can and should secure the borders and coasts, because national security and defense is the basic purpose of the military. Securing our borders, the right of any sovereign nation, is not isolationism or xenophobia. It is simply national security and defense. Also, it can be done quite easily at a cost of about $8 billion initially, and about $10 billion annually for over 153,000 border patrol (three shifts of 51,000). $10 billion per year is minuscule compared to the $70 billion in annual net losses due to illegal aliens burdening our education, healthcare, hospital, ER, welfare, Medicaid, Social Security, Medicare, border patrol, insurance, law enforcement, prison, and voting systems.
$10 billion per year is less than the $10.5 billion in annual losses for California alone, due to illegal aliens.
$10 billion per year is far less than the $27.3 billion for pork-barrel for year 2005.

IT CAN BE DONE:

The U.S. could easily secure the borders with resources we already have. We could simply position 153,000 border patrol persons (a mere 5.9% of the total of 2.6 million of our active military, guard, and reserves) along the borders where they could be more effective toward the goal of national security and defense.

The U.S./Canada border (about 4000 miles) and the U.S./Mexico border (about 2,000 miles) could both (about 6,000 miles combined) be secured with a fence and 3000 posts (fixed or mobile; each spaced about 2 miles apart; denser in some areas than others) with a maximum of 51 border patrol persons per post (17 persons per 8 hour shift per post). That is one patrol person about every 621 feet (i.e. about the length of two football fields), or 8 patrol persons per mile.

Also, the borders could have a fence and/or road that is patrolled with vehicles and monitored with cameras, thermal, night vision, seismic, and motion sensors. For more details and estimated costs, see: WeNeedAFence.com .

We can and should stop allowing illegal trespassers to cross our national borders.

The rights of foreigners, that illegally trespass our borders, do not trump the rights of a sovereign nation to secure their own border. The U.S. is not for the public use of the rest of the world no more than your home is for the public use by anyone that isn’t invited. We must enforce the existing laws and prosecute those that illegally employ illegal trespassers.

Illegal aliens are burdening our educations systems, healthcare systems, law enforcement systems, insurance systems, driving about without automobile insurance, and bringing disease and crime with them.

The primary purpose of government is to provide for the national defense. That is the purpose of the military. But, irresponsible government often misuses the military, and neglects the illegal aliens pouring across the borders. Republicans want cheap labor and Democrats want votes. So the government does nothing.

If you, the voters, want this (or anything, for that matter) to ever get accomplished, you’re going to have to start holding your elected government accountable.

Start doing what you were supposed to be doing all along.
Vote out all irresponsible incumbent politicians, always.
Keep the good ones (if any).
Stop letting both parties take turns using and abusing everyone.
They don’t care about you or the nation.
They only care about gettin’ theirs, fillin’ their own pockets, fillin’ their campaign war chests, selling influence, and securing their own incumbency.

Posted by: d.a.n at July 11, 2006 4:50 PM
Comment #166608

I love the US and I have travelled there many times and visited many states. The extreme nationalism/patriotism of some on the right of the US is frankly quite scary. In Ireland nobody waves flags around, or positions them outside their houses unless a major international football match is on. Same for the rest of Europe, indeed same for any country I have ever visited including Canada. Only in the US does one encounter such flag waving enthusiasm and it’s not that we don’t love our countries too.

I find American exceptionalism - an idea held by many on the right that the US is somehow extraordinary, incapable of wrong, chosen by God etc. alarming. No nation is without it’s faults or incapable of wrong doing.

The blatant manipulation of the peoples’ fears, and darker weaknesses such as nationalism, racism, exceptionalism and aggression by the current administration is breathtaking.

The presence of so many voices of dissent is comforting to Europeans and others who have in their own histories learned great lessons about the excesses of hyped threats from foreign or alien subversives or agents, xenophobia, nationalism and wars of aggression. The Iraqi people were to be liberated, now it seems that some are to eliminated as “insurgents”, any dead Iraqi must be an “insurgent”. Like Vietnam, where every dead Vietnamese person was considered Viet Cong.

I wonder about American nationalism - we don’t talk about our countries in the fashion common in US media discourse, it so strange to us. As is the use of religious references by the current administration. I wouldn’t happen in any other western nation I can think of…except maybe Poland (even the Pope has rebuked a radio station there for it’s homophobic rants and incitement to violence).

Posted by: abhcoide at July 11, 2006 4:53 PM
Comment #166609

KT -

Have you ever looked at your heritage? How far back do your American roots go back? How did your family come to live in the US?

Also, take a look at these people coming into the US illegally. Ever wonder what it takes to get here legally? Time, money, friends with influence? Do we only want the rich to come to this country?

And why be so crazed about English? Our children will be competing with otheres from around the world who speak 3 or 4 languages easily. Do we seriously want to limit their futures?

Posted by: tony at July 11, 2006 4:54 PM
Comment #166610

Patriotism is fast becoming the new racism of the 21st Century.

Posted by: tony at July 11, 2006 4:56 PM
Comment #166613

Racism?
How in the hell do you people go from building a wall to racism in 5 or 6 posts?

Posted by: kctim at July 11, 2006 5:10 PM
Comment #166615

KT-

I agree with what you said about an official language, but only to a point. The thing most nationalists seem to ignore is practicality. For instance, Sears isn’t required to offer bi-lingual service; they do so to increase sales. they should be free to do so. If it bothers you that much, don’t shop at Sears. Though I think if you took that standpoint you’d find yourself without many shopping options.

The whole fence idea is stupid. Do we really believe that people from Mexico will brave desert heat, border patrol with rifles and possible imprisonment or death to be turned away by a little chain link? Its a stupid symbol meant to gain political capital with people who buy in to stupid symbols (i.e. Republicans). Increase the border patrol, and increase their funding so they can actually patrol the whole border. At the same time, reform the system so that people who want to immigrate here can do so in a reasonable amount of time.

Posted by: David S at July 11, 2006 5:16 PM
Comment #166619

If I thought a 20 foot, a 30 foot, or even a 50 foot wall at the border would protect us from terrorist attacks, or even significantly reduce the chances, I’d be all for it. If I thought such a wall would significantly reduce the illegal immigration of those whose goal is any crime more serious than illegal employment, I’d be all for it. If I thought such a wall would put a serious dent in the attempts of by foreigners to gain entry into our country to take living wage jobs away from Americans, I’d be all for it.

but the fact is that putting up a 2500 mile wall along our Mexican border and leaving our 80,000 mile coastline unprotected is the definition of pissing on a forest fire. Republican congressmen must think that those who would immigrate illegally are as stupid as the republican base… that those who with evil intent will give up their ambitions at the base of a wall on the border with Mexico… that they are too stupid to figure out another way into our counrty. They must think that Mexicans are not as smart as the asian, european, and arab illegal immigrants who enter our country every day through the grossly unprotected ports.

Republicans use the fear factor by throwing the otherwise law-abiding employment seekers in with the potential terrorists. If you want to keep out those seek a job, that’s easy enough… make it prohibitively risky for an American employer to give a job to an undocumented worker. If you want to keep out a potential terrorist, only an idiot would think a wall is going to do the job.

Fortunately, for the terrorists, the US congress has no shortage of idiots.

Posted by: Thom Houts at July 11, 2006 5:37 PM
Comment #166622

“Racism?
How in the hell do you people go from building a wall to racism in 5 or 6 posts?”

That was my add to the conversation. Why not simply ask rather than tossing around broad generalizations?

Posted by: tony at July 11, 2006 5:51 PM
Comment #166624

Actually Tony, David S was the first to try and dismiss this as racist.
And if you want to get technical, Paul hinted at it in his spin by saying Hispanics rather than the correct term Mexicans.

Broad generalization? Hardly.
Just an honest question as to why a solution to a serious problem has to try and be silenced by bringing up racism.

Posted by: kctim at July 11, 2006 5:59 PM
Comment #166626

Paul’s main theme seems to be that America is very near being closed / boxed in.

This seems very intellectually not honest. We have the world’s largest legal immigrant population nearly every recent year and throughout our 230 years.

What might be a better question, is that whenever anyone is the furthest most extreme outlier ~always, maybe pause should be taken to look closely if such extremism is a good thing (are we REALLY so right and everyone else so wrong, or are we possibly ‘wrong’).

When you add to our highest legal immigration the MASSIVELY HIGHER illegal immigration, how about we stop the hyperbole and bad metaphors and call this what it is. Extremely High Immigration.

And how about everyone (including Liberals) respecting others’ opinions of this VERY IMPORTANT topic, without stooping to R-words, saying this is Fear-Mongering, etc. Why are we not allowed to have intellectually honest debate on this point?? Is anyone afraid of this???

OK. I think immigration is part of America’s Heritage and should remain. However, another area Paul and I differ is how we might decide who should become our immigrants: Should we welcome those who have the Best & Brightest minds and bodies in the world VERSUS those who are:
- relative failures in their own country, and
- nearby, so they can walk/hitchhike here

GOOD NEWS: Never before have we been so able to transport the best immigrants to America, and never before have so many potentially great immigrants (educated, hardworking, lawful, etc.) been in existence in Africa, Asia, Eastern Europe, etc. wanting to come here.

BAD NEWS: The current crop of Illegals is arguably the least hardworking, least educated (and least educationally driven), most criminal/gang-focused, and least interested in assimilating immigrant group the US has ever seen. These are BAD IMMIGRANTS … and I don’t believe that wishful thinking or alchemy that by letting in more bad immigrants all will suddenly become as good-as-gold.

C’mon, these are *not* the people we want to let into our country permanently, are they?? Do we really want as new permanent citizens/neighbors (‘spouses’ in a sense, since we and our children will be together forever), those who are sometimes the least capable, & didn’t succeed in Mexico/other by their talents and work ethic? Those who have such low standards? Those who often seem to hate / dislike current Americans due to our race and culture (Mexicans are often v. biased against Whites, and I am fairly certain even moreso against Blacks/others)?

Those who ‘Boo’ the American Anthem at sporting events (Mexico vs. US soccer in LA was ~100% Boos during the SSBanner), or chant Osama! Osama! after 9/11 in Mexico City?

Let’s STOP ILEGAL IMMIGRATION *especially* of poor quality individuals, and let’s START real MERITOCRACY re who gets in. Let’s take the Best & Brightest, right? I think Conservatives can live with bringing in African Model Citizens, if Liberals can live accept E.Europeans if they are the best (could some of you swallow your pride and welcome even Whites or Christians into our country?).

Posted by: Brian at July 11, 2006 6:08 PM
Comment #166627

Paul,

I think we do need much greater border security. That being said, much of what we’re now dealing with has much more to do with a “sub”-human need to demonize some class of people other than “ourselves”. In this case it’s the Hispanic culture. At other points in our history it’s been the Orientals (regardless of nationality), the Jews, the Blacks (regardless of nationality), etc.

What we as a nation and as individuals seem to not comprehend is that our “next door neighbors” are living in horrible conditions. Can you blame a neighbor for not wanting to see his or her family starve? IMO we need to learn how to be good neighbors before we can ever be safe from our neighbors.

I recently read that Colorado passed some new, tough laws and I understand that the majority of the Colorado State Senate and Legislature is Democrat. They severely limited the availability of Medicaid and Welfare benefits to “adult” non-residents which sounds somewhat OK to me but Colorado’s Republicans are saying that the same restrictions should extend to undocumented children.

Well, kiss me where the sun don’t shine! Children don’t choose where they are or what color or nationality they are. What we’re really looking at here is a “new” racial divide. It’s become unpopular to hate the Jews or the Negroes but we now have government sanctioned approval to hate Hispanics.

And if you’re a Hispanic American you can now hate gays and lesbians. Bush & Co. says so! Bush and the current bunch of Neo-Cons have done nothing but create and rejuvinate hostilities inside and outside the USA.

It’s time to take back the Senate and the House this fall and then we can take back the White House in two more years. Then we can begin to rebuild our credibility, both at home and abroad!

Should we fail, we’re not only failing America but we’re failing the world.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at July 11, 2006 6:11 PM
Comment #166628

“Just an honest question as to why a solution to a serious problem has to try and be silenced by bringing up racism.”

It’s not being silenced… but IMO, it is racism (on a broader scale… cloaked as patriotism) but it’s is racist because only a single race of people is being singled out with this solution. No wall to the north where the only known terrorist was caught trying to cross into America. Racist because only Hispanics (because many people here who have their legality questioned are NOT Mexican) are brought into question about being here legally. I have yet to see anyone bring up the large number of Asians here and whether they are all here legally or not. How about the huge number of foreigners here illegally (expired Visas) most of whom are NOT Hispanic.

That’s why it’s called racism. It’s one sided based on race.

Posted by: tony at July 11, 2006 6:11 PM
Comment #166629

—President Reagen said Tear Down This Wall—
I believe we need a wall of communication, that being said, I have noticed communities where little or no English is spoken, with out being able to communicate in general leads to misunderstandings, which inevatability leads to major conflicts as seen in other Countries. How will this future problem along with way too many people, entering this Country, from many places in the World be solved?
I think we need Historians an non Political college Professors along with citizen questioners be given to all voters within the next two years,
an vote on this immigration problem in the 08 election.

Posted by: DAVID at July 11, 2006 6:11 PM
Comment #166632

Paul:

I would disagree with you. I think we do need to secure our boarders. Amnesty will only encourage a continuation of illegals entering our country.

I think we need a multiple approach to reduce this problem to a more managable level. I believe in high walls and big gates.

I also agree with those that say you cannot stop the flow of traffic. You can however channel the traffic. You can make the costs high enough, that it is in the illegal’s interest to obey the law.

First, raise the “cost” of crossing illegal. If a wall works build it. If it takes the military, use them.

Second, beef up immigration so that law abiding immigrants can come here without near the hassle.

Third, crack down on employers employing illegals.

I am against rounding up all the current illegals and moving them across the boarders. What I am for, is making them second class immigrants. By having wide enough gates so that american business can get as many migrant workers as they need “legally”, and then raising penalties high on employers so that it is in their best interest to make sure employees are here legally, I would like to create an environment so that it is in the illegal’s best interest to return to their country and come back through the gate legally.

When illegal aliens cannot get jobs because they are taken by legal immigrants with proper paperwork, the problem should begin to slow down.

Posted by: Craig Holmes at July 11, 2006 6:21 PM
Comment #166633

In very few discussions about Mexican immigration do I ever hear anything about how NAFTA set the Mexican economy back, or the prosecuting of employers hiring illegals in this country.

The onus is always on the Mexicans, to the point of criminalizing them for their economic desperation. If the inequalitiy and unfairness of the Mexican economy is not dealt with, we will have illegals here for a long time to come—especially when there are employers willing to take advantage of their plight and undercut American workers and unions and pocket the profits made off the illegals.

The “guest worker” program is a cover to placate American businesses that make money off of the Mexicans. It is another piece of cheese for the corporate rats that support the GOP.

This wall will never go up, and border security will not stem the tide of immigration. This issue is about money, not only for the corporate wing of the GOP, but for the desperate illegals as well. These are encouraging party grunts to the xenophobes and racists of the GOP, and by next January, the national discussion will be on some other subject.

Posted by: Tim Crow at July 11, 2006 6:26 PM
Comment #166635

“How did your family come to live in the US?”

Tony,

You always ask the right questions. Part of my ancestors came from Sweden thru Canada. the other part came from Germany thru Ellis Island.

Now, given todays standards I guess only half of my ancestors are Americans so maybe I’m only half American. Then I started messing up the “purity” in our “bloodline” so I have a grandson that’s darker than Al Jolson’s best “black-face”.

Would it surprise anyone that racist activity is up by something like 33% since Bush & Co. have been in charge? This IS the absolute WORST ADMINISTRATION I’ve seen in my nearly 55 years of life.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at July 11, 2006 6:32 PM
Comment #166636
abhcoide wrote: I love the US and I have travelled there many times and visited many states. The extreme nationalism/patriotism of some on the right of the US is frankly quite scary.

It’s not just the right.
There are some extremists at both ends.
But, the majority of people are not quite as scary.
But, most are ignorant about government.
And, most are brainwashed to believe they must vote along party lines.

abhcoide wrote: In Ireland nobody waves flags around, or positions them outside their houses unless a major international football match is on. Same for the rest of Europe, indeed same for any country I have ever visited including Canada. Only in the US does one encounter such flag waving enthusiasm and it’s not that we don’t love our countries too.

I would not call that a problem really.
There’s nothing wrong with flag waving in itself.
It’s a freedom of expression.
I don’t see the problem with that in itself.

However, I’ve been to nations where flag waving was even more prevalent. Even required by law (i.e. at places of business).

What I find wrong is those would make flag burning a law. To me, a law against flag burning is worse than flag burning.

abhcoide wrote: I find American exceptionalism - an idea held by many on the right that the US is somehow extraordinary, incapable of wrong, chosen by God etc. alarming. No nation is without it’s faults or incapable of wrong doing.

Yes, unfortunately, there are some like that.
But most Americans are not.

abhcoide wrote: The blatant manipulation of the peoples’ fears, and darker weaknesses such as nationalism, racism, exceptionalism and aggression by the current administration is breathtaking.

Well, yes. That is bad. Not as bad as some nations, but it is quite bad.

abhcoide wrote: The presence of so many voices of dissent is comforting to Europeans and others who have in their own histories learned great lessons about the excesses of hyped threats from foreign or alien subversives or agents, xenophobia, nationalism and wars of aggression.

Well, that’s not an entirely fair assessment.
There’s no place for racism, xenophobia, or extremism.
But, any sovereign nation has the right to secure its borders against massive, uncontrolled, illegal immigration. Perhaps you are not aware of the impact.
Border security is not xenophobia or racist.
The problem is that illegal aliens fruadulently use our social services, schools, welfare, etc. They also bring higher rates of crime and disease, as is often the case with massive, uncontrolled illegal immigration. Illegal aliens cost Americans a net loss of over $70 billion per year. So, trying to chaulk it all up to xenophobia is not a fair assessment.

abhcoide wrote: The Iraqi people were to be liberated, now it seems that some are to eliminated as “insurgents”, any dead Iraqi must be an “insurgent”. Like Vietnam, where every dead Vietnamese person was considered Viet Cong.

Those are war criminals, and they have been arrested. The war itself was based on fault information. That is a huge issue also with many Americans.

abhcoide wrote: I wonder about American nationalism - we don’t talk about our countries in the fashion common in US media discourse, it so strange to us.

Again, like flag waving, I’m not sure I see the problem with true patriotism.

abhcoide wrote: As is the use of religious references by the current administration. I wouldn’t happen in any other western nation I can think of…except maybe Poland …

I have to agree with that to a small degree.
I believe religion is a personal matter, and strongly agree with the 1st Amendment.

In fact, it is scary when a government consists of religious zealots. That’s what you have in many middle eastern nations (e.g. Saudi Arabia), where law forbids worship of any religion other than their religion.

But, that is not really the case in the United States. People of many religions exist in the United States, and I believe most Americans understand the 1st Amendment, and understand the obvious dangers of allowing government to make laws regarding religion.

The 1st Amendment wisely states the following:
____________________________________________
(Year: 1791) Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
____________________________________________

Of course, there are always some that want to reject that, but fortunately, I believe most Americans understand the wisdom of the law.

Now, on the topic of border security and illegal immigration, part of the problem is that our nation has many services that are abused by illegal aliens. 32% of all illegal aliens collect welfare. They burden our schools, healthcare systems, hospitals, ERs, welfare, Social Security, law enforcement, and prison systems. 29% of all persons in prison are illegal aliens.

If it were not for all those freebies, the problem would not be so severe.
But, as it stands now, illegal aliens are costing Americans a net loss of over $70 billion per year.

I don’t think the government will ever address the problem, because Republicans want cheap labor, and Democrats want votes. So, the cost of public education will continue to rise, and property taxes will be raised to pay for it, hospitals will continue to close, taxes will be increased to pay for the increase crime and disease, but our lawns will all look good.

So, the real issue is about theft.

Most Americans would probably not care if it were not for the fact that illegal aliens are costing them (not even including the untold cost of increase homicide and crime rates that often accompanies massive, uncontrolled illegal immigration).

So, not all illegal aliens are coming here just for jobs. For many, it is the welfare and crime.

All the freebies will be eliminated eventually, because those systems will become so abused. Most Americans polled want the theft and abuse of those things stopped, but the government ignores them.

This and many numerous other problems will not be resolved any time soon, because the electorate is quite ignorant about their government (and I used to be one of them), and keeps re-electing (empowering) the very same bought-and-paid-for, irresponsible, arrogant incumbent politicians that use and abuse everyone.

There’s always going to be some corruption in government and differnt organizations, but the corruption is growing in the U.S.

Government is growing too, to nightmare proportions.

And the ignorant electorate does see the problem, because they are too preoccuppied with the petty partisan warfare that is fueled by the incumbent politicians that merely take turns using and abusing everyone, while fillin’ their own pockets and making their incumbency more secure. I’m just wondering how bad it will have to get before Americans revolt or do the one simple thing they were supposed to be doing all along: Vote Out irresponsible incumbent politicians.

Posted by: d.a.n at July 11, 2006 6:32 PM
Comment #166639

Craig Holmes,

You make better sense than most politicians.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at July 11, 2006 6:39 PM
Comment #166641

Craig Holmes,
I agree with that.
None should cut to the front of the legal immigration line though, and the total numbers need to be limited. Otherwise, we will still have many of the problems that often accompany massive immigration (legal or not).

Posted by: d.a.n at July 11, 2006 6:47 PM
Comment #166642

KansasDem,

What most politicians say makes sense.
But they are insincere, and they do not do what they say.
Their words are empty.
And too much (if not all) of their time and energy adds no net benefit to society.

I think it’s more like a disease.
The “Jelly Brain” disease.
Seems like the instant they are elected, they are stricken with the “Jelly Brain” disease, and they forget everything except fillin’ their own pockets, evidenced by their peddlin’ influence, votin’ themselves raises (even makin’ it automatic), the corruption we see, the lies (like “Read My Lips”), crimes forgiven by presidential pardons, pork-barrel, bribes, graft, corporate welfare, selective appliacation of the laws, and their actions every step of the way to secure their cu$hy incumbencies.

Posted by: d.a.n at July 11, 2006 6:56 PM
Comment #166643

Paul,

How is making an illegal alien a felon bad? It’s a felony in Mexico to be an illegal alien. Are they then guilty of what you accuse these congressmen of?

Keith

Posted by: Keith at July 11, 2006 7:00 PM
Comment #166645

And what do you all think the impact would be on our society if all the illegal aliens were suddenly not here?

How about a huge increase in food prices? And perhaps in the cost of construction. Oh, yes and you think it is difficult now to get babysitting, home care for alzheimer patients or house cleaning, or yard care…..

Not the end of the world, of course, but impact on the American life style and cost of maintaining it, none the less.

Or, what impact would there be if the laws became truly draconian and focused almost entirely on the individuals who are here illegally?

How about a reservoir of contageous diseases? Epidemiologically, this has all kinds of impact. (Imagine the theoretical bird flu epidemic with one segment of society not getting treated or getting any preventative care.)

Imagine the uneducated children and the teenagers not in school. What better way to increase gang membership?

With this, the unscrupulous employer takes advantage of his terrified employees. (Some of the Republicans do like that one.) Oh, yes, sex slaves.

Hey, I am sure others can come up with other unintended consequences of both approaches.

Just remember, nothing is as simple as it seems. This is a basic rule of existance in the real world.

Posted by: dana at July 11, 2006 7:05 PM
Comment #166647

Felony vs. misdemeanor

felony - murder, rape, robbery; maximum term of confinement is greater than one year
misdemeanor - assault & battery, petty larceny, disturbing the peace; typically a short term of confinement (about one year or less)


In case anyone really cares what the difference between the two are. What do we gain from raising illegal entrance into this country from a misdemeanor to a felony? Why would anyone want to incarcerate illegal immigrants when one major issue is the cost from them on our society?

Posted by: tony at July 11, 2006 7:10 PM
Comment #166648

>June 7, 2006
>The Honorable Paul S. Sarbanes
>309 Hart Senate Office Building
>Washington DC, 20510

>Dear Senator Sarbanes,

>As a native Marylander and excellent customer of the Internal Revenue Service, I am writing to ask for your assistance. I have contacted the Immigration and Naturalization Service in an effort to determine the process for becoming an illegal alien and they referred me to you.

>My reasons for wishing to change my status from U.S. Citizen to illegal alien stem from the bill which was recently passed by the Senate and for which you voted. If my understanding of this bill #8364 provisions is accurate, as an illegal alien who has been in the United States for five years, what I need to do to become a citizen is to pay a $2,000 fine and income taxes for three of the last five years. I know a good deal when I see one and I am anxious to get the process started before everyone figures it out. Simply put, those of us who have been here legally have had to pay taxes every year so I am excited about the prospect of avoiding two years of taxes in return for paying a $2,000 fine. Is there any way that I can apply to be illegal retroactively? This would yield an excellent result for me and my family because we paid heavy taxes in 2004 and 2005.

>Another benefit in gaining illegal status would be that my daughter would receive preferential treatment relative to her law school applications.

>If you would provide me with an outline of the process to become illegal (retroactively if possible) and copies of the necessary forms, I would be most appreciative. Thank you for your assistance.

>Your Loyal Constituent,

Posted by: Brian at July 11, 2006 7:10 PM
Comment #166649

abhcoide, is that an Irish name? Because it doesn’t resonate with me. Anyway, I thought I was the resident Paddy on this blog! Apologies to blog manager for being off topic.

Posted by: Paul in Euroland at July 11, 2006 7:28 PM
Comment #166651

Brian - That is hilarious. I wonder what the response would be.

Craig Holmes - well thought out - and better said.

On a slightly off topic point, Paul says in the very beginning of his post: “Americans are losing some of their fears…” He in a roundabout way blames the republicans for stirring up (needless) fears, which I disagree, but my broader question to the board is simply - have we lost some of our fears? North Korea, Iran, recent bombings in India, terrorist recently captured with a plot to blow up tunnels in the US, terrorist cells in Canada being captured…etc. I for one havent forgotten 9/11 - or the USS Cole, or the bombings in Madrid and in London. I am scared. I live in San Francisco, and I do wonder if there are attacks in the works when I walk down the Financial District, or when I go across town in our subways, or drive across the Golden Gate Bridge. But I am much more afraid that we have, or will lose our resolve to fight.

my $.02

Posted by: b0mbay at July 11, 2006 7:34 PM
Comment #166652

Paul -

Maybe this will resonate with you (I’m Scotch… with a little Irish…)

“An Irishman in the sun is like a fork in the microwave.”

Posted by: tony at July 11, 2006 7:35 PM
Comment #166653

Dear Brian-

The process for becoming an illegal is very simple. Just take your happy ass to Cuba. I hear the taxes are low, but law school may be a problem. If she need any reccomendations, tell her I’d be happy to oblige.

Sincerely,

Senator Paul Sarbanes

cc: reality

Posted by: Sen. Sarbanes at July 11, 2006 7:35 PM
Comment #166655

Brian,

That BS letter to Sarbanes is just that: BS!

If an undocumented worker is working in this country it is the responsibility of the EMPLOYER to collect taxes. If the employer is not doing so they are violating the law. If they are doing so and not sending that money to the government they are violating the law.


Then to add this garbage:
“>Another benefit in gaining illegal status would be that my daughter would receive preferential treatment relative to her law school applications.”

Please show me one single documented example of that.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at July 11, 2006 7:43 PM
Comment #166657

Tony
It is not about race. It is about keeping foreign citizens, who do not wish to obey our laws, out.
Why just the southern border? Because that is where the vast majority of illegals cross.

Where did my ancestors come from and how did they become American citizens?
I DON’T CARE!
I am an American, born onto her soil. I follow the law and I expect anybody wanting the distinct priviledge and honor of becoming an American to do the same.
If they can’t do that, they don’t belong here.

Posted by: kctim at July 11, 2006 7:50 PM
Comment #166658

“abhcoide wrote: The Iraqi people were to be liberated, now it seems that some are to eliminated as “insurgents”, any dead Iraqi must be an “insurgent”. Like Vietnam, where every dead Vietnamese person was considered Viet Cong.”
____________________________

d.a.n. said, “Those are war criminals, and they have been arrested. The war itself was based on fault information. That is a huge issue also with many Americans.”
______________________________

I say, d.a.n. you’re smarter than that. Many innocents get killed and severely injured in a war and hardly all are due to “war crimes”. But, then wait a minute, if Bush lied (I think he did) then he might truly be a war criminal.

I think I’ll agree with that comment when Bush and Rumsfeld stand in front of a Courts Martial for crimes against America.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at July 11, 2006 7:55 PM
Comment #166659

“I am an American, born onto her soil.”

KC Tim,

Many of these peoples ancestors were too. Then we took up arms and kicked their asses out. I guess we won and now we own it, so they can go to hell, huh?

Oh, unless we need some cheap labor!

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at July 11, 2006 8:01 PM
Comment #166660

—Sen. Sarbanes I am glad you still have a sense
of humor after all these years!


A long time Friend to a very respected Senator.

Posted by: DAVID at July 11, 2006 8:01 PM
Comment #166661

Deaths in the US, 5 year average by:

Lightning strikes = 768

Tick Bites = 618

Dog Bites = 269

House Fires = 6000

Terrorist Activities = roughly 580

Posted by: tony at July 11, 2006 8:01 PM
Comment #166662

I wonder why Americans aren’t so terrified of being burned alive in the own homes? (The above was directed at the REP fear machine…)

Posted by: tony at July 11, 2006 8:04 PM
Comment #166667

Interesting trend from the Bush Administration:

2002, additional $40 million

2006, additional $10.7 billion

This just struck me as interesting…

Posted by: tony at July 11, 2006 8:14 PM
Comment #166668

Sorry - the above post was in reference to INS budget….

Posted by: tony at July 11, 2006 8:15 PM
Comment #166673

Actually, for all of you out there who are anti-illegal immigrant, if you have Irish Catholic ancestery, the odds are pretty good that you are decended from illegal immigrants. Wet Backs who snuck across the Canadian border. In the USA it was dogs and Irish stay off the grass, but Canada couldn’t keep them out (as a part of the Empire). So they just went west to the frontier and snuck across the border. This is history. Check it out.

Posted by: RichardG at July 11, 2006 8:27 PM
Comment #166674

Tony,

I wonder how much of that $10.7 billion goes to Halliburton and freinds?

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at July 11, 2006 8:28 PM
Comment #166675

tony - tell that to the 150 people KILLED and over 500 injured in todays terrorist attacks in Bombay. Im not sure where you live, but Ill be willing to bet my city is on someones radar.

And this is kind of a slippery slope argument. We can go around in circles all day about slipping in bathtubs and getting run over by elephants, but the fact remains that there are people out there that are willing to kill us!

How many people died in pearl harbor? Ill bet it was less than the number of fatalities for car crashes that same year (or house fires). Does that mean that FDR should have sat on his hands and told the american public in one of his fireside chats, to ignore the japanese and german invasions, but be very careful crossing the street????

Come on Tony, you’re smarter than that…

Posted by: b0mbay at July 11, 2006 8:30 PM
Comment #166677

RichardG,

It’s very interesting to take a look at American immigration policy and law. The most restrictive early laws were put in place to prevent the Chinese and others of oriental heritage to immigrate.

I can actually remember the fear that embraced my home community in the panhandle of Nebraska because we were “overcome” by Roman Catholics. Americans will never run out of people to hate, that’s for sure.

Intelligent design my foot, show me some widespread intelligence.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at July 11, 2006 8:36 PM
Comment #166678

b0mbay-

You’re also smart enough to know that Iraq was not involved in terrorism. Certainly not to the extent of Afghanistan, or Bush’s buddies the Saudis. But by playing on people’s fear of terrorism Bush was able to sell a BS war. Maybe if he had spent the time and money actually pursuing terrorists, the Bombay attacks could have been prevented.

Posted by: David S at July 11, 2006 8:37 PM
Comment #166682

Im not going to quibble on the reason that we invaded Iraq was because saddam was sponsering terrorists (although he did offer to pay families of palestinian suicide bombers a cash reward).

Im not sure if ill buy into the argument that if we didnt invade iraq there would be less terrorist attacks either. I think the two are mutually exclusive for the most part. I see your point on using the fear of terrorism to “sell the war” and I suppose Ill have to be pragmatic and say that Im sure any administration would use whtever ammo they have available to acheive their objectives. Is it right? No. But aside from the tactics Bush used to sell the war, I still feel strongly that terrorism is real and a real threat. Im trying not to cloud the lines of one situation with another. Which is way I think using the illegal immigration issue to stir up sentiment for or against something else is tacitly wrong. Illegal immigration is a problem, but a seperate one as it relates to the war on terror. The two become somewhat muddled when addressing border security, but that is it.

Posted by: b0mbay at July 11, 2006 8:50 PM
Comment #166684

“but the fact remains that there are people out there that are willing to kill us!”

AGHHH! AGHH! AGHHH!

Tell me a single country or group of people who have not faced this since the dawn of man. It’s human nature… and it’s really (REALLY!) low on the scale of things that might kill us.

Of course, we should do what we can to prevent future attacks… duh! (Got that one from my 8 yr old.) However, does this issue of terrorism justify the resources and level of fear generated? Does it bother you that one political party has used 9/11 as a political crutch… especially when it happened on their watch. hmmmm…. I wonder why they would want us to be so scared…???

What’s the electorial equivalent of “Ka Ching!”

Posted by: tony at July 11, 2006 8:53 PM
Comment #166686

Tony, I do know where my family came from, and they all came here legally as I do genealogy and have a copy of all their paperwork, plus one is a Native American.
Yes it might take a lot to come to America, but why should those that are doing it right be pushed aside for those that came illegally?
Why should my taxes and everyone else here pay for them? You might say how, well how much money is spent trying to track them down, capture them, house them, feed them and then send them back to where ever they came from, and with some it is more then one time. When does a President of another country (Mexico), can say we are wrong for sending them back. Let’s see another march of the illegal’s in the US and I hope Border Patrol, grabs all of them that don’t have the correct paperwork and kicks them out.

Posted by: KT at July 11, 2006 8:59 PM
Comment #166691

the real wet backs are those that come from across the sea, those coming across the Rio Grande have more rights to be here then the roachs that think it is there right to distroy evething and everybody that gets in there way of there goals.

Posted by: avelino at July 11, 2006 9:11 PM
Comment #166694

Paul,
In the 80’s amnesty was granted to roughly 3 million illegals. Today that number is between 12 to 20 million. If we think its going too end at 20mil we are foolish.

When can we say no mas without being called a racist?

Posted by: j2t2 at July 11, 2006 9:33 PM
Comment #166695

Good post Avalino,
So what part of the United States do you think the “wetbacks” are entitled to?

Posted by: j2t2 at July 11, 2006 9:36 PM
Comment #166717

If Democrats fail to regain one or both houses of Congress in November, I think it will be directly attributable to this issue which finds Democrats out of step with the majority of voters who want no amnesty and do want a barrier erected backed by interdiction and enforcement.

The DNC and the Senate Democrats are being really DUMB on this issue.

Posted by: David R. Remer at July 12, 2006 1:08 AM
Comment #166719

I read about the wasteful spending on NASA on another post, inspite of the advances in microelectronics, satellites and computer technology that have been driven by space exploration, not to mention the satisfaction of the quest of man for discovery and adventure.

Now, I see enthusiasm for building a wall in the desert. I guess the coyotes need to be separated.
No one would figure out how to smuggle aliens on cargo trains or ships or in semi trailers. No one would figure out how to tunnel under the wall or fly over. The advances in masonry could be monumental, not to mention the satisfaction of hiding behind a stoneage invention.

Imagine enforcing a law tha makes it illegal to hire an illegal immigrant with consequences like seizing company assets and jailing executives. Gee actually doing something positive for the working class, instead of winking and encouraging undercutting their wages. Now that’s an idea.

Posted by: gergle at July 12, 2006 1:11 AM
Comment #166721

==j2t2== You must be single digit I Q even racists
usually aren’t that blaytent. you should be banned from this site in my humble opinion!

Posted by: DAVIDd at July 12, 2006 1:18 AM
Comment #166722

—Are armies are all over the world defending other peoples boarders, what pea brain would could not
figure a very quick answer for protecting our own.
It’s very simple to see that the ruling party past and future have no intention of doing so for
what ever reason. So do not blame the people for
coming here when the Government holds the door open for them.

Posted by: DAVID at July 12, 2006 1:43 AM
Comment #166723

Hows that go” Something there is that doesn’t like a wall”..or close anyway.

The reps immigration stance is pure political theater. They would never actually kick out an estimated 5% of the workforce. Their business bosses would never let them. They had 6 years to address the situation. They bring it up now because they are in trouble and know it. It is a time honored strategy. It has worked well many times. A WMD,weapon of mass distraction. I just hope most Americans see through this crap. Judging by several of the post here,I have my doubts…One more thing. If it is not a nice day to be called a rascist,don’t act like one.

Posted by: BillS at July 12, 2006 1:44 AM
Comment #166726

For all of you in non border states how about if we start giving these illegals free bus service to your states. Then you can let them cut your grass and clean your homes for peanuts. Of coarse you will need to add a bunch of schools and teachers to teach in Spanish. And I guess you will need to deal with the free health care you will need to provide since the jobs you are giving them don’t provide benefits. O but you get meanial jobs done for real cheap. Nice trade off.
One other point, if the laws on illegal immigration can just be ignored do I get to choose which laws I ignore or are the laws that get to be ignored just the ones you don’t happen to like?

Posted by: Carnak at July 12, 2006 2:14 AM
Comment #166727

So DAVIDd before you start calling people names (remember its message not messenger here) read the post from avelino I was responding to. BTW it’s blatant.

Posted by: j2t2 at July 12, 2006 2:32 AM
Comment #166729

—j2t2— After skimming down to make a post an saw the word in ” ” quotes did anger me, after reading the other post I find that I do owe you an apology,
an I am truly sorry about my remarks directed at you. DAVID

Posted by: DAVID at July 12, 2006 3:36 AM
Comment #166731

gergle, your argument against the wall in the desert lacks understanding of the broader implications. The fence/barrier/wall may in fact redirect illegal aliens to tractor trailers etc., but, think about that redirection for a moment.

First, it takes illegal aliens, a million of them a year, and redirects them to choke points. Hell, the lines waiting for a false wall in a truck could be spotted by our satellites they would be so long.

Second, the cost for Coyote services would rise dramatically. That means driving up the cost of immigrating illegally, which will make it unaffordable for vast numbers to even get in line.

Third, no one is proposing a stupid fence. The fences/walls being considered are smart, not dumb. They will have cameras, in places where tunneling is even possible, seismic sensors will be in place. And any border barrier will need to be manned at intervals to respond to camera and seismic evidence of breach, making them very smart and highly effective barriers.

The barrier does far more than just sit there. It creates choke points for illegal immigration making control far easier. It dramatically drives up the cost for illegals, causing many to not even try. And many more not to try a second time, instead of this revolving door we have now. And third the border barrier monitors and sends back data about what is going on in places which are not monitored at all today.

So, take in the big picture. The barrier is not a dumb structure unless we were work extremely hard to make it one, which would indicate we don’t really want to halt illegal immigration in the first place.

Posted by: David R. Remer at July 12, 2006 5:04 AM
Comment #166738

David wrote: “Third, no one is proposing a stupid fence. The fences/walls being considered are smart, not dumb. They will have cameras, in places where tunneling is even possible, seismic sensors will be in place. And any border barrier will need to be manned at intervals to respond to camera and seismic evidence of breach, making them very smart and highly effective barriers.”

Just a thought. The (illegal, but never mind) “intelligent” wall created by the Israelis “to keep out terrorists” is considered by many to be nothing more but a unilateral and non-sensible tool to rally the hardline right-wing base. Anyone see any more blatant similarities with the Israeli walling of Palestinians?

Posted by: Josh Grant at July 12, 2006 6:03 AM
Comment #166741

David R. Remer,

I agree that securing the borders is a top priority. I also agree that there needs to be some common-sense restrictions on, and stiff penalties for violations by employers. If there are in fact “jobs Americans won’t do” we should know about it. BTW: field work and meat-packing plants especially come to mind.

Basically there needs to be an exercise of true common sense and most importantly we must remember we’re talking about people. Whatever we do we must apply humanitarian principles at all times, whether it be providing humanitarian aid at the border or providing for basic humanitarian needs during transportation or detention.

Finally, we must keep pressure on Mexico and other Central American countries to improve conditions in their own countries. It’s not going to done overnight. It’s a complex problem and the answer is also complex, but we must be diligent.

Secure boarders are just good common sense though. So is the need to always be humane in our treatment of others.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at July 12, 2006 7:15 AM
Comment #166750

Paul -

Maybe this will resonate with you (I’m Scotch… with a little Irish…)

“An Irishman in the sun is like a fork in the microwave.”
Posted by: tony at July 11, 2006 07:35 PM

Tony, sorry to disappoint, but scotch is a whiskey!!! Unless you mean you’re a scot? As to Irishmen and the sun? Well, tradition in the west of Ireland, where my family has it’s roots, is that out family descended from the survivors of the Spanish Armada - so all I get is a nice, deep tan! Keep your microwave for yourself!

Posted by: Paul in Euroland at July 12, 2006 8:57 AM
Comment #166751

“Many of these peoples ancestors were too. Then we took up arms and kicked their asses out. I guess we won and now we own it, so they can go to hell, huh?”

Their ancestors did not live in the “United States” so they were not US citizens.
And you are correct—-we won, its ours, we own it.
By owning it, we are entitled to make whatever rules we wish concerning it and we should expect other peoples wishing to come here, to respect and obey those rules.

And as far as them going to hell, I believe that was a little harsh there neighbor. Just because our opinions differ, does not mean I wish ill will onto others.
Besides, I don’t even believe in a hell.

Posted by: kctim at July 12, 2006 9:07 AM
Comment #166757

Paul -

You’re correct - I have Scottish heritage, so I am a scot. As far as being scotch, well - that depends on the day of the week.

As far as the ‘being in the sun” goes - my family is fair skinned and true red hair… no choice about the microwave reaction in the sun. personally, I don’t make many sparks… mostly go immediately to the burst into flames mode.

Posted by: tony at July 12, 2006 9:48 AM
Comment #166760
d.a.n. wrote: “Those are war criminals, and they have been arrested. The war itself was based on fault information. That is a huge issue also with many Americans.” ____________________________

KansasDem wrote:
I say, d.a.n. you’re smarter than that. Many innocents get killed and severely injured in a war and hardly all are due to “war crimes”. But, then wait a minute, if Bush lied (I think he did) then he might truly be a war criminal.

KansasDem,

I can’t argue with that. Many innocents suffer from war. And I am in no way trying to let Bush off the hook for his irresponsible actions (possibly lies; certainly irresponsible and flawed intelligence bordering on criminal negligence).

The point behind my statement is that NOT all of our U.S. Troops are criminals. Our troops are victims too, and many have lost life and limb. I just do not like to see all our troops regarded as war criminals. That’s all.

Posted by: d.a.n at July 12, 2006 10:21 AM
Comment #166764

DAVIDd, Thank you.
The problem is illegal immigration, not immigration. It seems some of us cannot see the difference.
A barrier would be costly to install and operate, and would only keep out or slow down those that enter illegally across the border. Those that over stay their visa’s etc. must be apprehended using other approaches. But what choice is there? Sit and do nothing as has happened the last 15 years? This approach obviously doesn’t work. Ignore the problem and except the increased costs of law enforcement, health care and education?
The answer is, of course, to do several things as part of a true comprhensive plan.
1. Go after employers that hire the illegals. Severe penalties and jail time would help to solve the problem.
2. Put up a smart barrier at the southern border to mitigate the flow of illegals into the USA.
3. Revisit Shafta, and change it as required.
4. Use the Eisenhower approach to round up and cause illegals to return to their homeland voluntary.
5. Insist that Countries like Mexico that actively encourage their citizens to cross the border illegally to foot the bill for imprisioned illegals.
6. Stop the Federal government from aiding the illegals by forwarding minutemen locations to the Mexican government.
7. Treat Mexican military incursions into this Country as an act of war. Afterall we are engaging in a war on drugs and this is a related issue.

Posted by: j2t2 at July 12, 2006 10:38 AM
Comment #166765

I will believe that the government’s efforts at putting the National Guard and a big fence/wall on our southern border are NOT racist when the same is done on our northern border.

Posted by: Lynne at July 12, 2006 10:40 AM
Comment #166770

“And as far as them going to hell, I believe that was a little harsh there neighbor.”

kctim,

It was downright harsh. So is lumping Hispanics (mostly Mexicans) into a new category, ie: “illegals”. Labeling is step number one towards dehumanizing fellow human beings. Once dehumanized it becomes much easier to consider “herding them like sheep”, denying them essential humanitarian aid, and ultimately eliminating them by any means necessary.

Just for fun let’s look at another group of “illegals”. People that speed on our highways, allow distractions like cell phones, violate no-passing laws, etc. are breaking the law and this “illegal” action results in many highway fatalities. Based on this I insist we begin referring to unsafe drivers as “illegals”.

I don’t expect you to agree with me, I just want you to understand that I believe we’re headed down a very dangerous path towards what could easily become the third wholesale act of genocide committed by Americans. (Native American Indians being #1 & Blacks being #2) But it’s not too late to turn back and let cooler heads prevail.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at July 12, 2006 11:10 AM
Comment #166771

“The point behind my statement is that NOT all of our U.S. Troops are criminals. Our troops are victims too, and many have lost life and limb. I just do not like to see all our troops regarded as war criminals. That’s all.”

d.a.n.,

I totally agree. Thanks for clarifying your position.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at July 12, 2006 11:13 AM
Comment #166772

Deaths in the US, 5 year average by:

Lightning strikes = 768

Tick Bites = 618

Dog Bites = 269

House Fires = 6000

Terrorist Activities = roughly 580
Posted by: tony at July 11, 2006 08:01 PM

So, Tony does this mean we shouldn’t consider terrorist activities of any importance until they exceed deaths by lightning strikes? I fail to see the relevance of these numbers.

Posted by: Jerry K at July 12, 2006 11:19 AM
Comment #166775

It’s so much easier to claim one’s superiority when you demonize an entire group of people…study what NAFTA has done to the Mexican economy first…American workers are not faring very well, either.

Posted by: Lynne at July 12, 2006 11:28 AM
Comment #166778

“Stop the Federal government from aiding the illegals by forwarding minutemen locations to the Mexican government.”

j2t2,

My opinion of the minutemen is pretty well summed up in these two statements:

“In time when the economy is not doing well or we are at war, we tend to look towards Mexican Immigrants as scapegoats…we can’t have vigilante groups running about the border.” stated U.S. Congressman Bob Filner.

“We do not believe that we must put human right and human worth aside simply because they are undocumented immigrants; First and foremost they are human beings… The Minuteman Project is not simply about national security and terrorism it is about a deep-rooted concern for an ever-shifting ethno-cultural shift in the American population.” Human Rights Coalition of California President Eddie Herrera exclaimed.

http://sandiego.indymedia.org/en/2005/09/110893.shtml

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at July 12, 2006 11:32 AM
Comment #166780

Chinese Wall? What’s with this Chinese wall reference? Are we at war with Mexico? Are we talking about a national border or a military barrier? “Iron Curtain” would have been a much better analogy.

Posted by: DOC at July 12, 2006 11:38 AM
Comment #166786

KDem
“So is lumping Hispanics (mostly Mexicans) into a new category, ie: “illegals”.”

Its not lumping “Hispanics” into a new category called illegals.
It is recognizing that NON-Americans with hispanic background, broke our laws and are in this country illegally.
Americans with Hispanic background are afforded the same rights as all other Americans.

“Just for fun let’s look at another group of “illegals””

There is no comparison between the two.
The unsafe drivers you refer to are Americans and are afforded their Constitutional rights.
If they break driving laws, they then cannot drive anymore. If they continue to drive, then yes, they are driving illegally and if caught, are punished.

We expect Americans to respect and obey our laws or we take away their priviledges.
Shouldn’t we expect non-Americans to do the same?

It has nothing to do with wiping out a race of people. It is about law and order.

Lynne
I’ll believe it is racist when you prove that there is as many Canadians illegally crossing our northern border as there are Mexicans illegally crossing our southern border each day.

Posted by: kctim at July 12, 2006 11:49 AM
Comment #166792

“So, Tony does this mean we shouldn’t consider terrorist activities of any importance until they exceed deaths by lightning strikes? I fail to see the relevance of these numbers.”

OK, can someone please tell me why the REPs always have to immediately go for the worst case/moronic assuptions when considering the suggestions of others.

Jerry L -

If you read the posts… I am pointing out that people have an irrational fear of terrorism related to other real world dangers. I also stated that “Of course, we should do what we can to prevent future attacks… duh!” How the hell did you get the idea that this meant “we shouldn’t consider terrorist activities of any importance”? I know it makes your case easier to argue by taking such black and white assumptions, but it’s obnoxious and doesn’t further the discussion.

Posted by: tony at July 12, 2006 12:04 PM
Comment #166796

Lynne….it’s easy to interpret border security between here and Mexico as racist….and no consideration of doing the same thing on our northern border. The actuality is that there are not millions of Canadians coming in to take away jobs, create drains on our economy through abuse of social programs and medical access, to name a few of the well known negatives. Those intercontinental illegals seem to come in with enough capital to live without assistance. Just ask any ex-owner of your local donut shop or 7-Eleven……… When businesses we call start programming their lines to tell us to press 2 for Arabic, then we might need to rethink some things.
I maintain my stand that unless you ( collectively ) live in a border state, you have no idea how overwhelming this issue has become.

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at July 12, 2006 12:10 PM
Comment #166798

What we are facing is not immigration but migration. The population of Mexico and Latin America is much younger and growing much more rapidly than the population of the United States. The mothers are born to continue fueling this migration. It is demographics. It is a natural occurence. Political borders are not.Nor do they effect it significantly any more than they can effect the migration of tree pollen or butterflys.
It should not be forgotten that these people are the indigenious peoples of much of what is now the United States. This is a special circumstance that does not apply to our past waves of immigration. I am not sure what that means but I know it is different. The notion that we took these regions in war so they are ours is logically the same as accepting the Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe or Saddams occupation of Kuwait. Same logic. It is nothing to brag about.
It is not likely that a wall will significantly impact this migration. It may slow it some. That is all. To stop it would require things like minefields, kill zones,sumary executions and the sinking of passenger laden ships. These are tactics that are unlikely to be allowed by a civilized democracy outside of war. We are not at war with Mexico. The construction of such a wall will probably shunt a few billion more to Halliburton and the like and probably give some illegal aliens some more work.
To actually stop the flow the steps necessary must occur in Mexico and Latin America. The United States has limited impsct there. They are, after all, soverign nations. One of the things we can do is re-negotiate our trade agreements,NAFTA etc., to include strong labor protections. Insisting on independant,democratic trade unions with the unfettered ability to strike for better wages and conditions. Another thing we can do is to contribute to family planning education and access. Population control and economic opportunity are the only way to slow the migration. These are long term solutions,niether of which has any chance of support from this administration.
After all the election hoopla with its race-baiting and fear mongering we can expct the administration to propose and achieve an extensive guest worker program. Beware. They will try and set it up so that employers basically order a given number of immigrants. These people will be tied to that employer. If the employer treats them poorly,unsafe conditions,harassment,brutality etc. or they make any attempt to organize the employer can have them deported. In other words,if they will not have the ability to say,” Take this job and shove it, I am going to work down the street.” This is near slavery and will undermine a basic right of American workers. The guest workers may also be used as strike breakers. A guest worker program is in order but the devil is in the details. Watch carefully. We can expect the worst from this administration.
The simplistic idea of rounding up and returning all the undocuemented people in the US is dangerious and unworkable. We do not have the manpower to do it and if we did it would destroy the economy. Also it would cast a long dark shadow in history greater in its darkness than the trail of tears. It would also de-stabilize Mexico and cause a civil war. If you think we have a problem now how about an influx of war refugees? What would you do to get your family out of a war zone?

Posted by: BillS at July 12, 2006 12:12 PM
Comment #166809

Bill S.,

Excellent job!

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at July 12, 2006 12:39 PM
Comment #166825

Sandra -

I live in Raleigh, NC. We have the highest growth in Hispanic population in the country - and we’re approaching 20% of the population (another way to look at our community growth.) I also live in Cary (pretty much a suburb of Raleigh) which is on the top 10 places to live and work. We have one of the lowest crime rates in the country, and one of the lowest rates of unemployment.

I don’t think this an issue about language or race, it’s about being able to live with growth.

And if you think this place is too perfect - we do have our location problems… the Duke lacross team. (Can we send these drunken frat bastards across our Southern bourder - some sort of exchange program?)

Posted by: tony at July 12, 2006 1:27 PM
Comment #166828

—j2t2- One of the best solutions with the least
serious consequences I have seen so far on
this subject. Why not take your thoughts along
with a few other posts listed here and send them
to some of the Democratic Senators, Senator
Paul Sarbanes for one, there is nothing to loose
and could be a lot to gain. I can’t add anything since I can not find my critical thinking process today.

Posted by: DAVID at July 12, 2006 1:29 PM
Comment #166830

BillS -

Excellent post… won’t happen, though. Too humane… too well thought out. People don’t want long term solutions, they want someone to blame and immediately action - regardless of impact to the problem. What we need are systemic changes… what we want is someone’s head on a pike.

Posted by: tony at July 12, 2006 1:38 PM
Comment #166832

Thank you, Bill S — I’m sure not too many Americans can see how the “guest worker” program is actually a limited term slavery giveaway to corporations.

Posted by: Lynne at July 12, 2006 1:49 PM
Comment #166834

Paul -

You’re correct - I have Scottish heritage, so I am a scot. As far as being scotch, well - that depends on the day of the week.

As far as the ‘being in the sun” goes - my family is fair skinned and true red hair… no choice about the microwave reaction in the sun. personally, I don’t make many sparks… mostly go immediately to the burst into flames mode.
Posted by: tony at July 12, 2006 09:48 AM

Sounds like you could do with a cold shower Tony! But that does sound more like the stereotypical Irisher, what with fair skin and red hair. Mostly the only Irish you see like that nowadays, are the tinkers, AKA these days as travellers. For those who are nonplussed by these descriptions, just think of gypsies, it’s a bit like that. Anyway tony, I’ll have a scotch to your health and protection from melanoma tonight. Slan agus beannacht!

Posted by: Paul in Euroland at July 12, 2006 1:53 PM
Comment #166835

—Lynne— What would you suggest for curring
the “Guest Worker Program”?

Posted by: DAVID at July 12, 2006 2:01 PM
Comment #166837

Thanks…

Now, I might want to talk to you again in 4 years or so when my red headed daughter becomes a teenager… and how the hell to keep all the little bastards off my doorstep. (People love to laugh about how the boys are going to love her… Yea.. ha… funny.)

Bring on the scotch!

Posted by: tony at July 12, 2006 2:04 PM
Comment #166851

A responsible,thoughtful, guest worker program would help bring a measure of control. Sadly again,we cannot expect this approach from this administration however something like it may happen through negotiation if one or more houses of congress are again in Democratic hands.Any way here goes.
A large but limited number of guest worker visas are issued to immigrants that pass a criminal background check and agree to work in industries with a geniune labor shortage ,construction. agriculture,meat processing,etc. Perhaps with employer sponsership,perhaps with just an agreement to work in that industry for a set period. Said immigrants would recieve all the rights and benefits US workers are entitled to including,Social Security,unemployment benefits,workers comp, the right to join unions,workplace safety regulations,protections from sexual or other harrassment,overtime pay and significantly,the right to withhold their services or change empolyers as they wish,provided they stay within the same industry.There should be a sunset to these visas. Perhaps 3-5 years or so with a possible renewal. I am in construction and often work with Latino immigrants,both legal and not so legal. Many of them can and do return to Mexico or whereever after they have been here long enough to earn some money. This would work only in conjunction with stepped up enforcement and increased penalties for employers that hire people illegally including those that pay cash.
The program needs to be large enough to take the pressure off the bordor and the penalties against employers need to be signicicant and enforced enough to make it dangerious. Most of the cost for policing should be born by levied fines for violation.

Posted by: BillS at July 12, 2006 3:36 PM
Comment #166860

Militarize our borders?

Are these undocumented workers or enemy combatants?

These people pick our crops, clean our houses, edge our lawns, and change the diapers on our kids. They ought to get an award, not the back of our hand.

Bush should have recommended that anyone who wants to protest open-borders can do so by paying the adjusted rate on every head of lettuce and every tomato at the grocery store.

That will be $5.50 for that tomato, sir.

The hardships experienced by vulnerable workers who struggle to survive while participating in a system that’s little better than legalized slavery?

Posted by: Sonny at July 12, 2006 4:34 PM
Comment #166875

Bush should also recommended that anyone who wants to support open-borders, can do so by paying for the criminals to live here.

That will be a 500 percent tax increase for you, sir.

Posted by: kctim at July 12, 2006 5:10 PM
Comment #166877

Sonny
Good post. It expresses my views very well but I must say my opinion is also very mixed. We should be grateful for the work they do but the system needs to be changed because immigrants(especially undocumented workers) are treated so unfairly. We need a way to make them just as legitimate as the highly skilled and educated immigrants are. It’s time to end their slavery and make them U.S. citizens if they so desire and legitimate immigrants if do not desire citizenship.

Posted by: mark at July 12, 2006 5:16 PM
Comment #166882

— BillS — Your program appears quiet astute, and would appear to be easily implemented. We just need to convince the congress an senate to get it accomplished.

Posted by: DAVID at July 12, 2006 5:46 PM
Comment #166885

We have thousands of miles of border between us and Canada…do you really think no illegal aliens are coming thru the big holes in that border? Of course they’re not Canadians, they’re Asians, Eastern Europeans, etc…don’t be so naïve to believe this northern border isn’t porous to illegal workers and terrorists.

Posted by: Lynne at July 12, 2006 5:57 PM
Comment #166886

Paul,

Most of the time I agree with your thoguht process. However, on this issue I do tend to disagree a little.

As a Californian (Northern Ca) I live a very high population for Hispanic and East Indian people. Yes, they are for the most part very hard working honest people. Many of them here legally and some not.

I agree that we should not build a wall on the southern border, however, I would like to see us arm the boarder with more federal agents and use the military to controll it. I know that sounds mean spirited but the flow must stop.

What I would like to see is the gov’t place the military on the border and totally shut the border down. We don’t need to spend time running down the illegal aliens and place them in jail. But when they are found during rutine things such as traffic stops or anything else that Law Enforcement would run into them while doing, then you could detain them and contact the border patrol to come and pick them up. They then could be sent back across the border. We don’t need to hunt them down as some are saying. We don’t need to make them felons and place them in jail. But when caught, they should be sent back across the border.

If the need be to close the northern border than so be it. We can use the military there as well.

This situation must be brought under control Illigal aliens cost California tax payers 8 billion dollars last year in gov’t services. They clogg up our health services (emergency rooms) because they get free treatment if they use the emergency room in California. They also send their children to our schools and receive free lunches.

I know it sounds mean spirited, but I for one think we must solve the border crisis. We must stop the flow of people from coming into this country without going through the proper channels.

Mark,

Why make someone who got here by breaking the law a citizen? Should we reward the bank robber with allowing him to keep the money he stole because he got away with the money at first?

I understand the desire people have to come to this country. I do not even balme them, but they also must understand our laws and know that if they are caught, they will not be given citizenship. My grandparents came over in 1907 from Scotland. It took 19 months for my grandfather to to finally get the family to the US legally. Then it took him 8 years before he became a legall US citizen.

Why should illegal aliens be given a free pass? We need to make these people go through the border patrol, get a work visa and then be allowed to come and go as they please. But they need to go through the process.

Posted by: Rusty at July 12, 2006 5:58 PM
Comment #166908

David: Thanks.

Fiensteins plan was not far from this but was voted down in the senate. I had hoped to generate some other ideas,intelligent criticism etc. One sticking point is just who should be eligable for the program. Personally I think it should be restricted to Latin American nationals for reasons I stated in the above post. Also it should include those already in the country. That last will cause many people to object,amnesty,law breakers etc. They seem to have lost track of the goal. If it is to punitive the people here already will not register and simply stay in the underground. That will not solve anything. The question is do they want to solve the problem or are they just looking for people to beat up. I suspect the latter until after November. Then progress may be possible.

Posted by: BillS at July 12, 2006 8:15 PM
Comment #166940

Rusty
I’m not saying we should reward people that come here through nonconventional means but the system is broke and needs fixed. It is weighted against the low skilled worker and they are needed. Just ask any fruit farmer in Michigan. We need a system such as the one outlined by BillS that lets people in fairly and legitimatly.

Posted by: mark at July 12, 2006 10:07 PM
Comment #166951

Bill S. This simplistic idea, as you call it, of rounding up the illegals actually worked back in the 50’s. Of course it was only a couple of million illegals back then.

Posted by: j2t2 at July 12, 2006 10:49 PM
Comment #166952

OK Bill S let me get this straight, we allow the illegals to work legally in this country, while those applying legally wait their turn. We give the illegals social security etc and then they go back home after they earn some money? Then what, a big rainbow appears and everybody is happy?

Posted by: j2t2 at July 12, 2006 10:55 PM
Comment #166956

The fact remains that our naturalization process is one of the most generous in the world. Come to the country legally, get in line, wait your turn. Breaking the law and not getting caught does not make one right.

Posted by: Ken Strong at July 12, 2006 11:18 PM
Comment #166957

One more thought:

I wonder if Mexico businesses have phone recordings which say “Press one for Spanish”.

Posted by: Ken Strong at July 12, 2006 11:21 PM
Comment #166964

David, America hasn’t had walls because the ocean has protected it from invasion. It hasn’t had walls because of it’s expansive borders. If you build a wall across the Mexican border, there is no greater security because of our coastline and Canadian border.

Terrorists will find a way. Desperate and hungry people will find a way.

Internal surveillance will provide some security, but policy will be the most effective deterent. As to the illegal immigrant policy, until we address the undercutting of American labor, there will be no solution to the Mexican immigration problem. Walls will not solve that problem.

Historicallly walls do not work except for relatively short periods. The issue is employer policies in America. The other issue is security. Solve the need for oil and you solve the middle east problem. No money, no foreign control of oil, no terrorists.

I understand the fear and hope for border control. Germany, China and now Israel have believed in it. Israel doesn’t have peace. We must not believe we are an island. We are no longeer immune to the problems of population and cannot believe we are isolated and insulated from the world. The days of empire are numbered, we must learn to live within the world and with our neighbors.


Posted by: gergle at July 12, 2006 11:53 PM
Comment #166974

Well about heritage. I’m a scot-irish O’Hanley- and Wallace. My ancesters came from Ulster Ireland. About the joys of sunburns, It could be cloudy out, and I would still get fried =) I couldn’t resist.

Posted by: Nature at July 13, 2006 12:36 AM
Comment #167008

Gergle, your comments are generally insightful. I was surprised by this obtuse comment of yours: “If you build a wall across the Mexican border, there is no greater security because of our coastline and Canadian border.”

Yes, there is greater security for a number of reasons. First, will help us regulate the flow and observe who is coming across the southern land border. Second, it will drive up the cost of illegal immigration and that will drive down the numbers, making it more effective to interdict and review just who is paying bigger bucks to come in along our sea borders.

Next, radar is far more effective over water than land which has uneven terrain and many animals generating false negatives. Securing our southern border paves the way for securing our Northern border to complete the job. Now our Northern border is very different. The reason is, Canada is not trying to dump its poor on our country nor channel its illegal immigrants through its country on into ours. So we have a cooperative partner for vigilance and interdiction on our norther border, that we DON’T have on our southern border.

Canada has as grave concerns about terrorists entering their country as we do. That is a huge benefit by already making the liklihood of undetected terrorists coming in from Canada far less likely than on our southern border. Canada also has an interest in insuring there is not a wave of illegal immigration coming from the U.S. into Canada as our Soc. Sec. and Medicare crisis looms ahead in just two decades. Canada has a vested interest in sharing the cost of erecting border security measures along their border with ours. Canadians are a bit more forward looking on this Entitlement issue than we are. Many see the writing on the wall, as we abdicate our responsibility and contracts toward our senior citizens under Bush and the Republicans. They see where this will lead, a mass illegal immigration from the U.S. to Canada where health care will be far more affordable and their government does not allow seniors to die in poverty in favor of tax cuts 51% of which benefit the top 1% of the wealthiest in a time of national need.

Posted by: David R. Remer at July 13, 2006 6:53 AM
Comment #167079

212 et al: You can call it amnesty.You can call it unfair. You can call it a codfish if you want. Fact is if you want the people here illegally to come out of the shadows there needs to be some path to legitamcy that is not too punitive or they simply will not step out and the situation will not change. We do not have the ability to eject 12 million people nor is that a prudent course.By offering an achievable path the vast majority that are able to pass a criminal background check will no longer be a problem . then we can concentrate on rounding up the bad element.

Posted by: BillS at July 13, 2006 12:43 PM
Comment #167115

David, I don’t know if you’ve ever been to Canada or the northern border. It’s VERY easy to cross. One of the news magazines did a story in the last few months about a border crossing with a phone and a non-working camera inside a shack. It’s totally on the honor system. The local Shefiff admits he sometimes doesn’t check in as he crosses the border, wven though legally he should.

There are many other roads with nothing monitoring them. The coast line along the gulfcoast is used regularly by drug smugglers. Planes still fly through the mountains below radar from Mexico. They tunnel under in San Diego and El Paso. A wall is a joke. An expensive and wasteful joke. It will only give a false sense of security.

I stongly suspect the next terrorists attack in the US will be by Americans or legal immigrants. The only security we can hope to have is to infiltrate these groups and harden targets.

We cannot have a free society and complete safety.

Posted by: gergle at July 13, 2006 1:55 PM
Comment #167267

Bill S
If we allow this 12 to 20 million to stay when do we stop? 40mil, 100mil when do you say stop the illegal immigration?

Posted by: j2t2 at July 13, 2006 6:42 PM
Comment #167280

Well about heritage. I’m a scot-irish O’Hanley- and Wallace. My ancesters came from Ulster Ireland. About the joys of sunburns, It could be cloudy out, and I would still get fried =) I couldn’t resist.
Posted by: Nature at July 13, 2006 12:36 AM

Always was partial the nature in the raw, Nature!! ;-)

Posted by: Paul in Euroland at July 13, 2006 7:21 PM
Comment #167282

Well about heritage. I’m a scot-irish O’Hanley- and Wallace. My ancesters came from Ulster Ireland. About the joys of sunburns, It could be cloudy out, and I would still get fried =) I couldn’t resist.
Posted by: Nature at July 13, 2006 12:36 AM

Always was partial to nature in the raw, Nature!! ;-)

Posted by: Paul in Euroland at July 13, 2006 7:22 PM
Comment #167331

212: I am not at all sure it is stoppable,at least with short term measures. It might be slowed somewhat.I made a couple of long term suggestions above. Seems to me the only way to really fix it lies in Mexico. Mexico is another one of those countries that baffle me. The have good ports, lots of natural resources,agriculture, a hard working clever people. Why aren’t they thriving?Any thoughts?

Posted by: BillS at July 13, 2006 9:38 PM
Comment #167448

gergle, critics of Kennedy’s boondoggle of a program to put a man on the moon by the end of that decade was also considered impossible.

Sorry, you are just plain wrong. First, illegal immigrants can’t afford to charter planes to fly in under the radar. Second, it has been extremely difficult for drug smugglers to bring drugs in by boat for many, many years. Radar over water is far, far more effective than over land terrain, and our system for identifying water craft potentially smuggling is efficient. Could be better but, liberty and levels of diminishing returns limit maximum efficiency. That said, boating illegals in is also far too expensive for most illegal immigrants.

Our northern border needs security against terrorist infiltration as well, but, as I said, we have a cooperative nation in Canada in that effort, unlike Mexico, who in all liklihood would share the cost of securing that northern border.

And finally, stemming the massive tide of illegals, through barriers that put the cost of crossing out of reach to most, will mean huge increases in efficiency monitoring the much smaller numbers of illegal entrants, allowing us to a much more thorough job of detection, interdiction, and prosecution.

You may ignore these arguments, but, they remain valid nonetheless. It will not be cheap. But border security can be an investment that will pay dividends for a century if not centuries. It is time to bite the bullet and put some locks on our doors and windows and some alarms around our property, like almost all homeowners do who can afford to. There is security in such measures, even though they are not 100% efficient.

Posted by: David R. Remer at July 14, 2006 7:39 AM
Comment #167495

Mr.Remer: Thoughts on the 12-20 million already here?

Posted by: BillS at July 14, 2006 11:24 AM
Comment #168087

There will be no solutions, until voters first get rid of all the corrupt, bought-and-paid-for, irresponsible incumbent politicians, first.

Everything else is futile, until that is accomplished.

And it could be so easy.

Simply stop re-electing irresponsible incumbent polticians, that created this problem; even fostered it along, and now are pitting Americans and illegal aliens against each other.

Then, maybe some common-sense, no-brainer solutions may have a chance.

Until then, thousands of illegal aliens will continue to pour across the border daily, swamping our schools, hospitals, ERs, prisons, welfare, Medicaid, and voting in our elections (the last nail in our coffin to stop us from stopping them).

Posted by: d.a.n at July 16, 2006 6:51 PM
Comment #189424

I consider myself a progressive liberal in favor of building a wall on the US/Mexico border. I think the McCain/Kennedy legislation was realistic and reasonable. If i had it my way, that legislation would have passed AND we’d build a wall ASAP and also beef up security BIG time on the US/Canadian borders. Also, we should be reforming NATO or doing away with it all togather so that it doesn’t oppress Mexico’s economy and workforce anymore, which only encourages more illegals.
Ironic that most of my fellow liberals overlook the fact that if your caught as an illegal alien in Mexico, you get 4 YEARS PRISON TIME.

Posted by: Steven at October 21, 2006 6:18 AM
Post a comment