Third Party & Independents: Archives

Any amnesty prior to securing the porous border and enforcing existing laws, will only act as a magnet for even greater numbers of illegal immigrants into this country.

Yes, those must come first. And not doing that first makes it very obvious that some politicians want those millions of new votes.

Everything else takes a back seat to winning seats in Congress. The majority of Democrats behind these attempts for another shamnesty BILL could be losing their party more votes than the new ones they might gain with another shamnesty BILL. But, maybe not, since Congress has enjoyed a 96.5% seat-retention rate for the last 28 years.

Posted by: d.a.n at October 24, 2007 06:49 PM

The operative question here is what was gained by this obstruction. We’re punishing people who broke no law, dooming people who might make something of themselves otherwise to be more dependent on undocumented work and government assistance.

This law would only have come into effect for a person if they had lived here for several years first.

It’s this kind of B.S. we don’t need, really. Folks are getting so radicalized about this, they’re going after people who’ve done nothing wrong, in hopes of discouraging those who would.

I agree we need better immigration enforcement, but with the unwillingness of some to face the hard realities of the fact that we have made border crossings steadily more intimidating efforts, without successfully discouraging people. We also have to deal with the fact that we have millions of undocumented workers here who aren’t really going anywhere either. People turn their nose up at amnesty, but they’ve got no solution, either, besides more fearmongering and more focus on a border that most of these people are long past.

When will people step down from the pedestals of ideological purity, and address the problem at hand? Nobody’s really asking for unconditional amnesty. Plenty of people, are willing to see a strict, conditional means of regularizing these people, coupled with better enforcement.

I look at all this, and I get the sense that this issue has become an excuse to get into shouting matches, like so many others, rather than a problem to be dealt with.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 24, 2007 08:12 PM

We’re punishing people who broke no law

Erm, who would that be?

Posted by: Rhinehold at October 24, 2007 09:34 PM

Stephen Daugherty, the article stated:

They’re all in college (one’s a grad student), and their status has already been recognized by government agencies.

What does “recognized” mean?
They are here legally? Or illegally? Neither? Somewhere in between?

So, you want to give amnesty BEFORE securing the borders and enforcing existing laws?

Posted by: d.a.n at October 24, 2007 10:22 PM

“Erm”, that would be the children. Or are we now holding children responsible for the crimes committed by their parents.

The argument that we don’t address the illegal immigrants already here until we start enforcing our laws that we have already in place is a ludicrous one. It means that we will never be able to address this problem, because we will never be able to secure our borders absolutely. This problem is a complex one that is going to have to be addressed in a piecemeal fashion, because no comprehensive bill is going to be acceptable to the majority.

Yes we need to enforce the laws we have in place, compassionately. We also need to construct new laws to make our present laws enforceable. But I don’t see the need to punish the children for the decisions of their parents.

Posted by: Cube at October 24, 2007 11:56 PM

Presumably, Democrats in Congress will relent on trying to bring Amnesty up again before the 2008 elections.

I wouldn’t count on it David.

Stephen said: We’re punishing people who broke no law,

Sense when are we punishing legal aliens? They’re the only aliens that aren’t breaking any law by being here. They sure as hell don’t need amnesty.
And if as you claim illegal aliens aren’t breaking any laws by being here then why do y’all want to give them amnesty? The only kind of folks that I’ve ever heard of needing amnesty are folks that have broke or are breaking the law.
An illegal alien is an illegal alien. They’re breaking the law just being here. It don’t matter if they just got here or been here 50 years.

Posted by: Ron Brown at October 24, 2007 11:59 PM

The most (if not only) innocent victims in this are the illegal aliens that were brought here as minor children by their parents, and can not or do not want to leave with their parents the same way they came here.

I’d consider a path to citizenship only for the innocent.

I’d also like to consider jail sentences for Congress persons for creating (even fueling) this mess. Our Congress persons behavior is despicable.

But we FIRST need to stop the illegal employers, and SECOND, we need to secure the borders. Do those things first!

Then we can start the long and costly process of determining who is really an innocent victim of our screwed up Congress’ and law enforcement that won’t enforce the laws.

The Solution

Posted by: d.a.n at October 25, 2007 01:01 AM

Rhinehold-
The children of illegal immigrants. They get brought over by their parents, who don’t really give them the choice. Meanwhile, they grow up in our land, our culture.

Dan-
They’re here on the proper Visas.

Here’s my thing: some folks think they can bring justice and reduce crime simply by becoming tough and unforgiving.

That, though, doesn’t work. Society cannot maintain laws on disincentives alone.

A conditional amnesty is what we need, conjoined with ramped up efforts. Give people a path to citizenship, and a pitfall behind for those who stay illegal.

And in the meantime, when a minor comes of age and decides they want to be American, like they’ve been in some fashion for at least a third of their lives, grant them the boon. God knows we shouldn’t be discouraging people from letting us know that they are there and coming forward to cooperate.

In the end, a tough law which does nothing is a joke, a gimmee to the anxious, and a disservice to the public. A tough, conditional amnesty, coupled with better enforcement would do the trick, along with relaxations on legitimate immigration. And no, don’t give me overpopulation, because these people will have fewer children in a rich country than they would in a poor. It’s a known tendency of population dynamics the world over.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 25, 2007 08:57 AM

Ron Brown-
I was refering to the minor dependents of the illegal aliens, who can’t exactly run back towards the border on their own, who are too young to make such decisions for themselves.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 25, 2007 08:59 AM

Stephen:

So, these children. When they come forward for this conditional amnesty, are we going to send the rest of the family back? It’s only the children, right? Or are we then going to extend this to the whole family? If so, it’s the same thing all over again. Is this even addressed?

Posted by: womanmarine at October 25, 2007 09:06 AM

It seems to be “All about the children”. I have an idea. Lets not deport the children of illegals. We just deport the parents and if the parents want to abandon their children here, I’m sure we could find the compassion to accept them.

Posted by: tomd at October 25, 2007 09:30 AM

Stephen Amnesty was tried in the 1980’s. That is why we are where we are today. Amnnesty is the problem not the solution.

Posted by: j2t2 at October 25, 2007 09:47 AM

Stephen, what provisions does America make for the children when one of their parents is sent to prison for years or life? What provisions does America make for the children who have no father or mother to grow up under because their father or mother died in war, accident, or illness.

Should America not send adults to prison because it would negatively impact their children? Should America compensate the spouse of an incarcerated parent for having incarcerated them?

Democrats in Congress are pulling out all of the emotional stops to plead their greed for power through expanding the Democratic base with former illegal immigrants given amnesty. But, this emotional appeal based on the children, does not hold up as a precedential or rational argument.

We should not subvert or abandon our Constitution and laws because abiding by them will have a negative impact on some young people. Assuring law and order and Constitutional provisions benefits vastly more young people than would be harmed by their enforcement and abidance.

There is no action any government can take which will not negatively affect someone. But, that is absolutely no justification for eliminating government, or actions of government, which seek the greatest good for the greatest number. Protecting and defending our national borders against intrusion by millions of persons without due processing under our laws, has far more beneficial consequences than not protecting and defending them.

The public health consequences of allowing 10 to 20 million people into this country without vaccinations and medical review, are potentially enormous. And that is but one of the potential threats amongst many.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 25, 2007 09:51 AM

j2t2, not exactly correct. Amnesty was tried in the 1980’s and that legislation called for measures to halt the further incursion by illegals, which both the Executive and Congressional branches of our government completely failed to follow through on.

That is why we must get this right this time, by securing our borders FIRST and halting 95% or more of the illegal immigration traffic. Then and only then, address amnesty for those deserving and meeting certain beneficial criteria, afterward. Our politicians have already proven their promises to secure the borders after amnesty aren’t worth the ink to print the promises in the Bill.

The American people trusted politicians on this, once, as you said in the 1980’s. Our mistake. We must not allow ourselves to be made Fools by falling for the same politician assurances again. And we aren’t. Their mistake.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 25, 2007 10:00 AM

Stephen Daugherty wrote: A tough, conditional amnesty, coupled with better enforcement would do the trick,

No blanket amnesty. A path to citizenship ONLY for the truly innocent. A process that will get more difficult as we allow this problem to grow in size and severity. We must first …:

• (1) Stop illegal employment; provide pre-paid transportation for illegal aliens volunteering to self-deport.
• (2) Secure the borders.
• (3) Then provide a path to citizenship only for the truly innocent persons (persons brought here as minors by their parents and have lived here N years, and can’t or don’t want to depart with their parent(s)).

If you declare an amnesty first, watch millions try to flood across our border to take advantage of it.

Stephen Daugherty wrote:… along with relaxations on legitimate immigration. And no, don’t give me overpopulation,

The U.S. Population is over 300,000,000 . Population is a serious issue. If you don’t think so, ask China and India about all of the wonderful advantages of over-population. The U.S. already legally admits 1 million immigrants per year. 2 million more come illegally per year. Population is most certainly a serious issue. So I do not understand why we must make “relaxations on legitimate immigration”. Why do some people seem to think we’re in some sort of population race? We can’t make the pie any bigger. This nation already has many pressing problems growing in number and severity.

U.S. Population and World Population

I spent 4 hours watching CNN’s Planet in Peril. You should see what over-population is doing to the planet. Houston (your home) is one of the most polluted cities in the U.S.

We can’t let everyone come here.
Who and why wants that?
Cheap labor has a lot to do with it.
Our bought-and-paid-for politicians (puppets for their big-money donors who want a steady source of cheap labor) are despicably pitting American citizens and illegal aliens agsinst each other.
In 1959, there were 12.16 acres per person, world-wide (i.e. 36.48 billion acres / 3 billion people).
In 2006, there were 5.46 acres per person, world-wide (i.e. 36.48 billion acres / 6.68 billion people).
By 2039, there may be only 2.81 acres per person, world-wide (i.e. 36.48 billion acres / 13 billion people).

The U.S. has 3.794 million square miles, of which 3.54 million square miles is land area (for 300 million people as of the end of year 2006).
That is only 8.09 acres per person in the U.S.
However, only about a quarter of that is arable land.
That means there are only about 2.02 acres per person of arable land in the U.S.

And if we don’t start enforcing laws to punish illegal employers and secure the borders BEFORE trying to sort out who is an innocent victim of our sloppy immigration policies, there will be a huge surge of million more illegal aliens. That makes no sense.

Lastly, I think the Democrat politicians are pandering for the illegal alien vote, instead of first doing anything to enforce existing laws to punish illegal employers, and securing the borders. That’s not like to change the minds of many hard-core Democrats, but a lot of former Republicans that didn’t vote in the last election may be back in force in the next election.

So, the Democrat politicians have it backwards (by design), and most Americans see this. The Democrat politicians position is forcing people to get obstinate. If the Democrat politicians would change the order and priority of the steps (see above), and actually carry through with it, they might get a lot of support and a lot of votes too.

womanmarine wrote: So, these children. When they come forward for this conditional amnesty, are we going to send the rest of the family back? It’s only the children, right? Or are we then going to extend this to the whole family? If so, it’s the same thing all over again. Is this even addressed?

If they have illegal alien parent(s), there’s no reason they can’t be deported with their parent(s). And we can even provide pre-paid transportation. It’s unlikely many would children want to stay here without their parent(s), and that many parent(s) would want that either. There’s no doubt it will be a huge, difficult task, and many will lie about all of it.

Lastly, the paradox is this.
Most Americans are opposed to another amnesty.
Most Americans are upset about many things, as evidenced by Congress’ dismal 11% to 18% approval ratings.
But the paradox is that they then reward Congress with 96.5% re-election rates since year 1980.

Average Seat Retention rate for last election: 07-Nov-2006: 93.1%

Average Seat Retention rate between 2000 and 2006: 97.6%

Average Seat Retention rate between 1996 and 2006: 96.4%

Average Seat Retention rate between 1980 and 2006: 96.5%

So, it’s no wonder Congress ignores the voters, since most voters reward them for it.
Until enough voters discover that isn’t working, they can expect Congress to grow more arrogant, incompetent, and corrupt.

Posted by: d.a.n at October 25, 2007 10:30 AM

d.a.n
I agree that we have to stop those that employ illegals and secure our borders.
And I hear our politicians saying this now and again. But like usual I don’t hear them saying how they’re going to go about it, or see them doing it.
They did pass a law requiring a lot of paper work before employers can hire a new employee. But that hasn’t stopped the unscrupulous from hiring illegals. That’s because the law really doesn’t have any teeth for enforcement against those hiring illegals. All it has are fines for not having the paper work on file.
There are fines for hiring illegals. But fines alone won’t stop the hiring of illegals. The employer will just right them off his taxes.
What we need are prison terms and lose of profits while in prison for anyone knowingly hiring illegals. Repeat offences could lead to revocation the company’s business license.
Securing our borders is going to be the real problem. And that’s only because it’s so long. But putting a wall along it and then using our military to guard it should help cut down on the flow of illegals.

Posted by: Ron Brown at October 25, 2007 12:31 PM

Democrats just got caught lying in their attempts to sneak SCHIP coverage in for illegal immigrant children. The leadership said the SCHIP Bill in the House would not cover illegal immigrants. Yet, upon a reading of the Bill last night by Representatives, it turns out the Bill contains NO, I repeat, NO citizen qualification for SCHIP benefits.

Of course, if this Bill passes, and word gets out that SCHIP (children’s health insurance coverage through the government) will cover children of illegal immigrants, the incentive for parents in Mexico, S. America and beyond with ill or tramatized children to come to the U.S. illegally to obtain coverage and treatment will be great. What parent in those countries with an ill or injured child who can’t afford or get quality care in their own country, would not consider bringing them illegally into this country to obtain that care?

At every turn it appears, Democrats are intent on increasing the magnet effect of illegal immigration across our borders. Tax payers and voters who believe America should be a sovereign nation which first and foremost spends its tax dollars on its own children’s health, education, and safety, should be appalled at these Democratic efforts to worsen our illegal immigration problem instead of solving it.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 25, 2007 01:39 PM

Ron Brown wrote: What we need are prison terms and loss of profits while in prison for anyone knowingly hiring illegals.

Yes. Start out with:

• 1st offense: a fine equal to 5% of annaul profits.
• 2nd offense, increase the fine to 10% of annaul profits (you need to use a percentage since a $1 million dollar fine for Walmart is miniscule).
• 3rd offense, jail for 1 year , plus a fine of 15% of annual profits.
• 4th offense, jail for 2 years, plus a fine of 20% of annual profits.
• 5th offense, jail for 3 years, plus a fine of 25% of annaul profits, etc., … i.e. increase jail term and fine by 1 year and 5% (respectively) per conviction.

Securing our borders is going to be the real problem. And that’s only because it’s so long. But putting a wall along it and then using our military to guard it should help cut down on the flow of illegals.

Yes, it’s a big job, but the cost (about $10 Billion per year) would probably fall significantly over time as internal enforcment improves. And if illegal immigration causes net losses of $70 Billion annually, we’ll be saving $60 Billion per year. Internal law enforcement will do more to stop the inflow and encourage many to self-deport. We need both internal law enforcement and border security. I’d forgo the fence for any form of border security that is effective. A fence would probably help, but it would still need to be patroled.

But, with this problem, as with so many problems, we still have a paradox:

• Most Americans are opposed to another amnesty. Most Americans are upset about many things, as evidenced by Congress’ dismal 11% to 18% approval ratings.


• But most voters then reward Congress with 96.5% re-election rates since year 1980 ! ?

It just doesn’t seem likely that our FOR-SALE, Do-Nothing Congress will ever enforce existing laws, or secure the borders, or much of anything else as long as too many voters complain about it, but then reward Congress with 96.5% re-election rates.

Posted by: d.a.n at October 25, 2007 01:41 PM

Stephen,

If a squatter moves into my storage shed and brings his minor child along the child, by virtue of his minority has committed no crime. But when the constable comes to evict the parent the child is not granted a right to live in my storage shed by default.

Same thing here.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at October 25, 2007 01:45 PM

David R. Remer wrote: Tax payers and voters who believe America should be a sovereign nation which first and foremost spends its tax dollars on its own children’s health, education, and safety, should be appalled at these Democratic efforts to worsen our illegal immigration problem instead of solving it.

It is despicable. Our own politicians are selling us out faster than you can say “bend over”. Our own politicians are pitting American citizens and illegal aliens against each other.

I don’t think most Americans hate illegal aliens.
But they may be developing a hatred for the despicable politicians that pit Americans citizens and illegal aliens against each other.

Posted by: d.a.n at October 25, 2007 01:46 PM

Lee Jamison wrote: If a squatter moves into my storage shed and brings his minor child along the child, by virtue of his minority has committed no crime. But when the constable comes to evict the parent the child is not granted a right to live in my storage shed by default. Same thing here.

Good point!

We’ve got to enforce existing laws and secure the borders first.

No automatic amnesty for anyone.
Minor children can depart with their parent(s) the same way they came. We can even give them pre-paid transportation to deport.

The only truly innocent persons that might be given a path to citizenship would be minors or adults that are no longer dependent on parents and have already resided in the U.S. for N years. That is, there are some cases in which a person has lived here most of their life, were brought here when much younger by their parents, and now their parents are gone or they are no longer in touch or dependent on their parents.

This will be a HUGE mess, but it will only get worse as long as the problem is ignored, and we should try to help those that are truly innocent. But ONLY the truly innocent. It won’t be easy or cheap to determine who is lying, but there should be ways to prove residence. Some of the burden of proof must reside with the illegal alien. The process will be complicated by the fact that many will be lying. But think about it. Schools should have records. Banks should have records. Employers should have records. It’s hard to live here and not leave some trail. It’s difficult. Some cases will be very difficult borderline cases. This should be a lesson as to why it is necessary to enforce the laws and secure the borders. As long as illegal employers are allowed to break the law, they will be a magnet for illegal aliens. Especially with politicians pandering for votes by giving illegal aliens education, healthcare, Medicaid, welfare, and jobs in which half don’t pay taxes, and voting in our elections where showing ID is not required, etc.).

But, we wouldn’t arrest a crack-baby for drug abuse, or other illegal actions of their parents. It will be a long, painful, costly process, but the only way around it is to show ZERO compassion for the small majority that fall into this innocent category, or give everyone amnesty. There’s going to have to be some comprimise, or the we’ll continue to have grid lock, and the borders will remain open, and illegal employers will continue to violate the law.

But first: law enforcment, and secure the borders ASAP !
Especially since the Democrat politicians are pandering for the illegal alien vote, which will probably increase the numbers coming here hoping for an amnesty.

Posted by: d.a.n at October 25, 2007 02:08 PM

Both, the war in Iraq and illegal immigration are issues which make it obvious that government by the people is unacceptable to the government of the people.

Posted by: jlw at October 25, 2007 03:17 PM

If a squatter moves into my storage shed and brings his minor child along the child, by virtue of his minority has committed no crime. But when the constable comes to evict the parent the child is not granted a right to live in my storage shed by default.

First this child would have to have spent 5 years in that shed and started living there before the age of 16. Second this isn’t your shed, it is our shed and so if your lack of compassion allows you to eject this child out on the street, perhaps mine doesn’t.

This child also must finish High School and achieve at least two years of college and/or serve in the military for two years.

Posted by: Cube at October 25, 2007 04:37 PM

Cube, I really believe these student’s futures would not be in jeopardy IF this lame brained Congress, especially the Democrats, would get their ass in gear on border security and stemming the flow of illegal aliens. To date they allocated funding for 700 miles of barrier border but, less than 100 miles has been built. They are dragging their feet as is Bush on this issue.

Republicans didn’t want the illegal immigration to stop either which is why except for a handful of them in Congress, they didn’t act either when they had the power to. Halting the flow is the first priority. What happens to those already here is secondary. Any attempts to spend money on those here only diverts money from impeding the flow of a 3/4 to 1 million more each year.

Any attempts at amnesty BEFORE the border is made secure against the mass crossings only increases the crossings. It’s not a matter of compassion, it is a matter of national priorities. The taxpayers got screwed by this amnesty crap in the 1980’s and are still paying for it. They have a right to insist they not be screwed again by upside down and backwards priorities by the duopoly parties with political interests being made first priority.

If our politicians and political system can’t get this one right, there is absolutely NO hope for saving Soc. Sec. and Medicare, that’s for damned sure.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 25, 2007 05:53 PM

SEC. 211. VERIFICATION OF DECLARATION OF CITIZENSHIP OR NATIONALITY FOR PURPOSES OF

ELIGIBILITY FOR MEDICAID AND CHIP.

`(IV) VERIFICATION OF CITIZENSHIP OR NATIONALITY STATUS- The State shall satisfy the requirements

of section 1902(a)(46)(B) or 2105(c)(10), as applicable for verifications of citizenship or

nationality status.

This is a paragraph in the SCHIP bill not only a requirement that potentially eligible children

should be American citizens, but there is verification needed prior to authorizing eligibility. The

text following Sec 211 is clear about the citizenship requirements for this bill, I would have

pasted the following text but it was quite long. But feel free to look it up, evidently this wasn’t

a conspiracy conspired by the Democrat’s as was alleged. I found no new bill introduced since 976

ENR was vetoed, so unless there is a new bill being introduced these lines address concerns that

were brought up.

Posted by: Cube at October 25, 2007 06:08 PM

We do indeed need to find a solution that will stop the flow of illegal aliens. I don’t necessarily believe that a border fence is even a part of the solution. But I don’t necessarily oppose building a fence. I do believe a physical barrier is just going to provide another opportunity for organized crime. Unless we address what draws people illegally within our borders, I don’t believe a physical barrier will stem the flow.

Also we need to consider the sound bites associated with the pictures of children being ripped from their parent’s arms prior to the parents being deported. This is not only about priorities, but it is also about who we are as Americans.

Some here would want to deport all the illegal aliens that are here already. Our economy would become adversely affected if we attempt this. Our economy would become engulfed with inflation and we could eventually go into a recession. Removing 12 million people from the employment rolls would force some business owners out of business and force the legal remaining employees out of a job. As we remove 12 million illegal consumers and force millions of legal consumers out of a job, then the legal residents who had provided these aforementioned consumers with services and goods could then also become unemployed. Meanwhile as agriculture is dependent on cheap/illegal labor, food prices will go up as we become more dependent on foreign imports. This is only one facet of how removing a large segment from our community could adversely affect our economy. We could go on and consider how the lending industry could be adversely affected for instance? Or how foreign food imports affect the nations we are importing from? I am not pleased by this situation, but we must be practical.

Now address these concerns and I am more than willing to listen. And yes, Congress, the President and we the voters present and past are responsible for this mess. But until we remove nationalistic fervor from this discussion, no solution will be found.

Posted by: Cube at October 25, 2007 08:41 PM

Secure the borders, stop the influx. Shut down the whole immigration/border crossing system if necessary to accomplish this. Put all the border agents on border patrol and close the gates. Once the influx is totally stopped, then figure out what to do with those here illegally. But first stop the influx.

Start with everyone here on any kind of passport having to update their status or they have to leave when found, even fined. That might help the economy of the solution. Get the tracking system for those on passports and any kind of work program up and running efficiently.

Until the borders are secure, keep enforcing the laws we have.

It’s tiresome to see folks posting about moving out all the illegals in one batch. Common sense tells you that isn’t going to/can’t happen, so it’s a red herring. Give us, and yourself some credit.

Don’t preach about what kind of country/people we are. Charity begins at home. Lets take care of our own first. When they are all good, then expand and help others. Get our own house in order. That’s the kind of people we are/should be, take care of our own people. It’s hypocritical to want to help all the poor of other countries before we take care of our own.

Posted by: womanmarine at October 25, 2007 11:13 PM

Cube wrote: This child also must finish High School and achieve at least two years of college and/or serve in the military for two years.

I don’t know if the law is still on the books or not but when I first went into service if an alien served an enlistment in the military an got an honorable discharge they were given citizenship regardless of how long they had been in country. I served with few of these folks during my first enlistment. But after the draft was suspended I didn’t serve with any. So I don’t know if the law was dropped with the draft or not.
But here’s an idea. If an illegal wants amnesty let them honorably serve say 4 years in the military. If after they get amnesty they want citizenship let them honorably serve 4 more years.
Kinda wonder how many takers we’d have.

Posted by: Ron Brown at October 26, 2007 12:01 AM

CUBE, you may be reading the House Bill. Check the Senate Bill underlying the DREAM Act cloture vote taken yesterday at this Thomas Link.

Of note are sections: 3 (a) 2 which will permit the Secretary to waive all conditions and in 14 months, that Secretary is likely to be a Democrat.

SEC. 6. EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION.

(a) Secretary- Except as provided in subsection (b), the Secretary shall have exclusive jurisdiction to determine eligibility for relief under this Act.

(b) Attorney General- Notwithstanding subsection (a), if an alien has been placed into deportation, exclusion, or removal proceedings either prior to or after filing an application for relief under this Act, the Attorney General shall have exclusive jurisdiction and shall assume all the powers and duties of the Secretary under this Act until proceedings are terminated. If a final order of deportation, exclusion, or removal is entered for the alien the Secretary shall resume all powers and duties under this Act with respect to the alien.

These conditions and waiver authority give carte blanche to the Secretary to waive qualifications for many more millions of illegal aliens never meeting the conditions specified in the bill. This is legal chicanery at its worst. And a gross deception attempted on the American public. The law would subject to the whim of the President and their appointee for Secretary of Homeland Defense and the Att. General.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 26, 2007 12:49 AM

Cube said: “Removing 12 million people from the employment rolls would force some business owners out of business and force the legal remaining employees out of a job.”

Of the 12 million illegal aliens here (low ball estimate), there is no way of knowing how many are employed and how many are dependents of employed, but, it is reasonable however to estimate that only 1/3 to 1/2 of those here illegally are employed full time. In the American population only 146 million of 300 million are employed full and part time.

So the impact you speak of would not be nearly as dire as your assumption that all illegals are employed would suggest.

Second, your argument fails in that it leads to the conclusion that America must continue in perpetuity increasing its population with low wage imported labor as a means of fighting inflation. That is not economically sound, by any means. America has reached the point some time ago where the cost of population increase exceeds the GDP growth and wealth distribution capacities engendered by that growth. When the costs of impact of continuous population growth on environment, government services, ever expanding infrastructure needs, congestion, public health and others are brought into the equation, importing population growth costs American taxpayers more than the revenues the employable portions of that population increase generate in economic activity. This is part of the reason why real wages for the middle and lower classes are dropping because of imported population growth, and therefore, the unit of tax revenue per increase in population unit continues to fall, even if Bush’s 2001-2003 tax cuts are rescinded.

It is not sustainable and takes America in the wrong direction economically, especially for the children born here today in terms of their quality of life during their working lives.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 26, 2007 01:26 AM

womanmarine, from what I have read and heard, you sum up the thinking of most of those opposed to amnesty at this time, very accurately.

On principle, I am not opposed to amnesty to qualified illegal immigrants. But, amnesty BEFORE halting the influx will only grow the influx, as has been evidenced by the consequences of the 1980’s Amnesty law, which was not preceded by securing the borders against most illegal entry.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 26, 2007 01:32 AM

“(A) In General.-No payment may be made under this section with respect to an individual who has, or is, declared to be a citizen or national of the United States for purposes of establishing eligibility under this title unless the State meets the requirements of section 1902(a)(46)(B) with respect to the individual.

p.54 976 ENR Section 211

With all due apologies, I don’t see the passage you are referring to, and I read all of Section 211. I did find the above passage amongst many indicating a requirement for citizenship in order for a child to be eligible for this medical assistance. Now if you could kindly refer me to a section and or page number I would gladly review and rescind any wrong comments that I made.

Posted by: Cube at October 26, 2007 01:55 AM

Cube, I gave you a link to the Senate Bill in my comment. Thomas link. Just click on it.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 26, 2007 08:16 AM

A wall, some would suppose, would lessen the amount of attention required to patrol the border. Not true. It would only serve to slow the transit of folks over it. Such fortifications have always been meant to slow people down. Once people learn to get by it, it’s not of much consequence.

Nobody in medieval times, during a seige, would just simple throw up a wall and wait behind it while they were attacked. No, they’d have people up there on the wall, protecting it, keeping the enemy from scaling it and bringing it down with seige engines.

The thought we could just ignore large sections of the border if we put up a border fence is silly. No, at best, the fence would not relieve requirements for observation. In fact, it might stretch them thinner.

Meanwhile, those who could find ways around it, would, and a substantial percentage, 30 to 40%, don’t even break the law in order to cross, doing so on visas which they later violate or overstay.

What we need is better interior enforcement. It’s a lot easier to get results in this regard through a distributed network of Immigration enforcement agents which has depth, rather than trying to hold the tide of motivated illegal immigrants at the border.

It’s only insecurity about our own security that has us so concentrated on the border.

Meanwhile, we have to do this with literally millions of illegal immigrants already here.

I’ll pick up on this issue later, but let me ask you a question before I go: if a person is an illegal immigrant, what do they have to lose by helping other illegal immigrants across?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 26, 2007 09:38 AM

Stephen,

I see a wall pretty much as I see a lock on my door. Do you lock your doors? A lock will not stop a dedicated thief, but it will serve to make it harder to get into your house and keep MOST of the bad guys out. I think the same will happen with a fence. Why such a strong objection to a fence?

Posted by: tomd at October 26, 2007 10:27 AM

Stephen

“The thought we could just ignore large sections of the border if we put up a border fence is silly. No, at best, the fence would not relieve requirements for observation. In fact, it might stretch them thinner.”

i don’t believe anyone is suggesting a wall is the sole answer, but it would help to slow the traffic, and funnel more of it into fewer areas. this also needs to be accompanied by many more agents or military personnel at the border.

the biggest and most important piece of the puzzle IMO is prosecuting employers who hire illegal aliens, stiff fines and prison time if convicted more than once, would end this practice in short order. if there are no jobs for them, they will not come in the first place. lets face it employment is the main attraction.

cube said

“First this child would have to have spent 5 years in that shed and started living there before the age of 16. Second this isn’t your shed, it is our shed and so if your lack of compassion allows you to eject this child out on the street, perhaps mine doesn’t.”

this is nonsense. first, unless the parent had permission to live there, it’s not our shed, it’s still my shed. simply squatting there undetected for 5 years does not make it our shed.

second,the child is not going to be ejected into the street, unless the parents just vacate, and leave the child behind. the child can go with the parents, or stay with relatives who legally occupying a shed.

i get so tired of the constant shrill whinning of, you’re mean, and heartless. the parents of these children knowingly created this situation. they are the responsible ones, not me. a lack of planning on thier part does not constitute an emergency on mine. trying to shame americans, and those who have played by the rules into accepting this crap will not fly.

Posted by: dbs at October 26, 2007 10:46 AM

tomd, most of the majority of those kept out would be potential Democratic voters if allowed in and given Amnesty. Like Republicans, political power trumps the needs and welfare of the nation for Democrats. There is no other rational explanation for Democrats refusing to address the American people’s vulnerability to unchecked disease, terrorists, criminals, and swamping the legal and underground labor markets with illegal wage cutting workers.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 26, 2007 11:01 AM

dbs, quite right. Stephen continues to throw out that red herring about border security. The plan has always been to erect barriers where natural ones don’t exist, and monitor the borders for intrusion with cameras, infra-red detection, and seismic detectors ( for tunneling where the earth permits the postential), in ADDITION to border patrol.

He also reiterates the argument that it would not stop 100% of illegal entries, as if that meant stopping 95% is not worth the effort or expense. But what can one expect from someone who attempts to defend the indefensible?

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 26, 2007 11:05 AM

Stephen Daugherty wrote: A wall, some would suppose, …

A fence is not a wall. Whatever it is, it must be monitored and patroled. In my home, I have a security system that is monitored. We also have locks on the doors. And should someone get past that, they may be shot.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: The thought we could just ignore large sections of the border if we put up a border fence is silly. No, at best, the fence would not relieve requirements for observation. In fact, it might stretch them thinner.

No one is suggesting the border can be secured without being patroled.

Characterizing it as such is what is silly. Fences, ditches, and barriers are only delay factors, and limit entry points
to a specific location as opposed to crossing anywhere along the border. It’s a funnel and a delay factor. Getting past a barrier means it must first be breached. That location is fixed, as opposed to crossing anywhere along the border. But a barrier is not necessary if the border is adequately patroled.

But the government won’t even do that. The Do-Nothing Congress, despite the $2.6 trillion in annual tax revenues, is failing miserably at one of its most fundamental duites: to protect our borders. Like this administration that would not even take simple steps (despite many specific warnings; e.g. Rick Rescorla and Dan Hill) to stop jet planes from flying into the Pentagon and other buildings, they won’t stop thousands of illegal aliens from illegally crossing our borders daily, despite 3.6 to 12 Americans murdered every day by illegal aliens.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: Meanwhile, those who could find ways around it, would, and a substantial percentage, 30 to 40%, don’t even break the law in order to cross, doing so on visas which they later violate or overstay.

Yes, that is why both are required: (1)borders must be patroled, and (2)internal enforcement is required too.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: What we need is better interior enforcement. It’s a lot easier to get results in this regard through a distributed network of Immigration enforcement agents which has depth, rather than trying to hold the tide of motivated illegal immigrants at the border.

Both are needed because deported criminals continue to return by crossing the borders. Thousands of illegal aliens are illegal crossing the borders every day! And not all illegal aliens are coming here to find a job.

For exmaple, consider Jorge Hernandez, a.k.a. Jorge Soto, who killed Min Soon Chang, an 18-year-old college freshman, in a terrible head-on wreck while Hernandez was driving drunk.
Jorge Hernandez had been arrested 3 previous times for drunk driving in 3 other states, and he had been deported 17 times!

To ignore the borders is to ignore the criminals crossing it, the human trafficking, the drug smuggling, etc.
In GAO 5646 Report (year 2005) for illegal alien arrest offenses of a study group population of 55,322 illegal aliens in Texas, California, and Arizona (between 1947 to 2005):

• Total number of arrests: 459,614


• Total number of criminal offenses: 691,890


• Total Homicide: Number: 5,992
  
• Total Drug related offenses: 166,722


• Total Traffic offenses: 55,060


• Total Assault offenses: 50,958


• Total Burglary offenses: 38,883


• Total Larceny/Theft offenses: 31,883


• Total Fraud, forgery, and Counterfeiting offenses: 25,773


• Total Weapons Violations Offenses: 22,263


• Total Motor Vehicle Theft Offenses: 20,950


• Total Sex Offenses: 11,833


• Average number of criminal offenses per illegal alien: 13


• Median number of criminal offenses per illegal alien: 10


• In 1995, 11% of prisoners (state and federal) were illegal aliens.


• In 2002, 17% of prisoners (state and federal) were illegal aliens.


• In 2003, 25% of prisoners (state and federal) were illegal aliens.


• In 2004, 29% of prisoners (state and federal) were illegal aliens.


• In 2004 (Aug), 25% of prisoners (state and federal) were illegal aliens.


• In 2005 (May), 25% of California’s state prisoners are illegal aliens.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: It’s only insecurity about our own security that has us so concentrated on the border.

“insecurity about our own security” is of no conern? ! ?

Is this going to be another famous stretching and twisting to prop up a weak arguemnt?
So, do you leave your door to your home unlocked?
Do you not lock the doors on your car?
If you had children, would you not want the doors locked?

Stephen Daugherty wrote: Meanwhile, we have to do this with literally millions of illegal immigrants already here.

Both are important. If the border security will be such a failure, why worry about it?

Stephen Daugherty wrote: I’ll pick up on this issue later, but let me ask you a question before I go: if a person is an illegal immigrant, what do they have to lose by helping other illegal immigrants across?

Nothing. Internal enforcement is needed too, but most governments (state and federal) are not enforcing the laws. Part of the problem is that government offices (judges, mayors, etc.) are now held by persons that do not want either border security or internal enforcement. Some are out-right defying federal law and refusing to enforce employee IDentification.

B_O_R_D_E_R_S___101:
First, enforce exiting laws, and secure the borders.
Mass deportation is not the solution.
Many will self-deport once illegal employers are stopped from employing illegal aliens.
But that does not mean they deserve AMNESTY (the amnesty of 1986 quadrupled the problem).
It does not mean they can cut to the front of the line and be rewarded for trespassing our borders and disrespecting our laws.

Secure the borders immediately (with 153,000 border patrol; a number equal to a mere 5.9% of the total 2.6 million military, guard, and reserves).

Require enforcement of all immigration laws. Enforce the existing laws with one exception: Provide a path to citizenship ONLY for the truly innocent persons, which are some persons that were brought into the U.S. illegally by their parent(s) when young and have lived over N years of their life in the U.S., and are no longer dependent on their parents. This will be a painfully difficult and costly process, but one that will only get more costly and difficult until the borders are secured and the illegal employers are stopped from employing illegal aliens. Another broad amnesty is not the solution. Our politicians already failed to secure the borders and enforce existing laws after the last amnesty of 1986, so they can not be trusted again, and must first secure the borders and enforce existing laws before considering a path to citizenship ONLY for the truly innocent persons.

Require deportation of ALL illegal entries and visa overstays currently within our jails and prisons (i.e. within our custody).

Require ALL employers to use the Social Security Verification System for ALL hires. Prosecute violators.

Pass an amendment to the Constitution to eliminate automatic citizenship for illegal alien births. Stop the abuse of anchor babies to acquire Blue Passports.

Deny ALL illegal aliens ANY and ALL public benefits (welfare, Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, etc.), except Emergency healthcare.

Deny ALL illegal aliens driver’s licenses.

Verify ALL voter’s citizenship, before permission to vote. Biometrics could be helpful.

Provide pre-paid transportation to each illegal alien volunteering to leave the U.S.

With no more magnets (no jobs, welfare, etc.), most illegal aliens will self deport. Allow all illegal aliens to leave on their own, with their own property. Those wishing to immigrate to the U.S. must get in line behind those already seeking to immigrate legally (which is 1 million per year).

Lastly, voters must recognize that Do-Nothing Congress won’t do anything as long as too many voters reward irresponsible incumbent politicians with 95%-to-99% re-election rates and empower irresponsible incumbent politicians to despicably pit American citizens and illegal aliens against each other.

Posted by: d.a.n at October 26, 2007 11:07 AM

tomd-
A lock has a good chance of keeping somebody from just walking into your house and stealing stuff. The Border Fence stands little chance of preventing people from just walking across the already existing crossings we ourselves maintain. Already, about thirty to forty percent of illegals use legal methods to enter the country, and simply overstay it. Some even walk across along with those who legitimately cross everyday to work, and just blend in with the folks transiting out of there.

We’re not truly creating security with a fence, we’re reassuring ourselves we have control over the border. Yet when and if the fence closes off the border, what will stop people from employing more of the methods discussed above?

We’ve become very good at wasting billions of dollars on such empty reassurances. I’d rather save the money, or use it to improve internal security. We’ve got millions of people in this country on violated visas, and fifty people whose job it is to track those folks down. We’ve piled heeps of money on border security, heaps of resources. I think we’d get much more bang for our buck if we strengthened internal enforcement. There’s a good reason why many burglars prefer houses where nobody’s at home. Even the best burglar is not immune to a homeowner behind them with a shotgun.

dbs-
Walls must be watched. If nobody’s watching, a wall simply becomes a structure to hang ladders on or dig tunnels under. They found several tunnels under the San Diego wall, one that even had electric lighting and concrete walls.

David R. Remer-
I never threw out any red herring. I just was disabusing folks of the notion that they could simply plop this thing down in the middle of the desert and focus more attention on entry points.

As for all that wonderful technology? Not necessarily working that well. Technology cannot replace eyes on the ground or a human presence, only supplement it. One of the big problems with biometrics and computerized identification of intruders is the tricky nature of distinguishing what should be attended to from what shouldn’t. As of this point, you can supplement people with technology, but you can’t replace them. The main difference, in the end, is the white elephant you’re left maintaining.

But what about this notion you keep on throwing out that Democrats would let people through for political reasons. Who fed you that B.S.?

Argue the issue, not the politics.

What I want is better internal enforcement, not illegals voting for Democrats. Before you accuse me of being that kind of opportunist, ask me what I actually believe. Maybe if you asked, you would see that a willingness to compromise would serve you better than the quickness to insinuate negative things about your opponent. Can you agree with an approach that improves internal enforcement, even if it doesn’t include this border fence? Can you agree with me that 50 agents chasing millions of those who have overstayed their visas are too few?

Well, if you can, you can have a constructive conversation with me and others like me without the need to bleed people dry just for not agreeing with something you want.

Dan-
A fence, a wall, what difference does it make, especially if we’re talking concrete barriers?

As for slowing people down? It won’t slow down those who enter the country on visas. It won’t slow those who walk across with those heading to work.

The border is already heavily attended to. The trouble is, we’ve got two of the longest geographical borders in the world between countries. They also happen to be with our top trading partners. an orientation towards internal security would make more sense, economically speaking. When dealing with flows of anything, it’s easier to filter out in progressive stages than to try and stop things dead at the interface. Filter out people progressively as they get deeper in the country. Make sure illegals don’t stay.

We don’t have much hope of removing the people already here, but if we couple conditional forgiveness with tough enforcement, we’ll see progress.

On the subject of the GAO report, I recall its saying that the study wasn’t designed to provide a typical picture of illegal immigrants.

On the subject of insecurity? I meant emotional insecurity. Or to be more explicit, fear. We won’t be the first or the last people who got hit, and decided to make our country a fortress to defend ourselves. Doesn’t tend to work, though.

We will be safer for being more clever, not more paranoid. Our paranoia has already cost us a great deal. It will cost us more if we don’t learn to operate from a calmer mentality.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 26, 2007 01:39 PM

Stephen

“Walls must be watched. If nobody’s watching, a wall simply becomes a structure to hang ladders on or dig tunnels under. They found several tunnels under the San Diego wall, one that even had electric lighting and concrete walls.”

maybe you need to re-read my post. i think i mentioned added presence as one component to making a wall effective. even so, a wall will slow the progress. tunnels take time to dig, and most will not allow even close to flow that an open desert with no wall will. eliminate the incentive, by locking up the employers, mentioned that one too.

“But what about this notion you keep on throwing out that Democrats would let people through for political reasons. Who fed you that B.S.?”

no one fed it to him, it’s obvious to any one with a lick of common sense. all you have to do is observe the democrats trying to stop any legislation that would actually be effective. ICE was going to start sending out letters to employers where soc. sec. #s didn’t match employees. this was stopped by a judge who just happened to be a clinton appointee. do you think this was a coincidence?

Posted by: dbs at October 26, 2007 03:38 PM

Stephen Daugherty wrote: tomd- A lock has a good chance of keeping somebody from just walking into your house and stealing stuff.

Not true. It also protects the inhabitants. It may provide enough delay to arm oneself for protection. And a barrier is like a funnel, since it reduces entry-points (as opposed to anywhere along the border).

Stephen Daugherty wrote: The Border Fence stands little chance of preventing people from just walking across the already existing crossings we ourselves maintain.

That’s a separate issue, and should also be addressed. Just because something isn’t 100% effective is no reason to give up.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: Already, about thirty to forty percent of illegals use legal methods to enter the country, and simply overstay it. Some even walk across along with those who legitimately cross everyday to work, and just blend in with the folks transiting out of there.

Excuses, excuses, excuses …

Again, That’s a separate issue, and should also be addressed with internal enforcement. Unfortunately, Do-Nothing Congress isn’t doing much of anything, and by doing nothing, they are essentially pitting American citizens and illegal aliens against each other.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: We’re not truly creating security with a fence, we’re reassuring ourselves we have control over the border.

A fence by itself is insuffient. The border must also be patroled and monitored. Is that so hard to understand?

Stephen Daugherty wrote: Yet when and if the fence closes off the border, what will stop people from employing more of the methods discussed above?

Again, that is a separate issue, which can be addressed with law enforcment.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: We’ve become very good at wasting billions of dollars on such empty reassurances.

More excuses.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: I’d rather save the money, or use it to improve internal security.

Laws already exist to do that.

So why doesn’t Do-Nothing Congress at least do that?

Stephen Daugherty wrote: We’ve got millions of people in this country on violated visas, and fifty people whose job it is to track those folks down. We’ve piled heeps of money on border security, heaps of resources. I think we’d get much more bang for our buck if we strengthened internal enforcement.

False. Little is being done on either. Both border security and law enforcement are important. Not all illegal aliens are simply looking for a job. If you look at GAO-5646, a study of 55,322 illegal aliens had an average arrest rate of 13 per illegal alien.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: There’s a good reason why many burglars prefer houses where nobody’s at home. Even the best burglar is not immune to a homeowner behind them with a shotgun.

That’s why many people (like myself) have monitoring systems, and neighborhood watches.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: dbs- Walls must be watched. If nobody’s watching, a wall simply becomes a structure to hang ladders on or dig tunnels under. They found several tunnels under the San Diego wall, one that even had electric lighting and concrete walls.

That’s for drug smuggling, human trafficking, and other things too aside from merely a way to come here to look for a job. And it was discovered. Siesmic sensors could help detect those. There are ways to detect such things.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: David R. Remer- I never threw out any red herring. I just was disabusing folks of the notion that they could simply plop this thing down in the middle of the desert and focus more attention on entry points.

No one was arguing that an unpatroled and unmonitored fence was all that was needed.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: As for all that wonderful technology? Not necessarily working that well. Technology cannot replace eyes on the ground or a human presence, only supplement it. One of the big problems with biometrics and computerized identification of intruders is the tricky nature of distinguishing what should be attended to from what shouldn’t. As of this point, you can supplement people with technology, but you can’t replace them. The main difference, in the end, is the white elephant you’re left maintaining.

Technology can help. Just because some early trials have failed does not mean it is impossible or unaffordable.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: But what about this notion you keep on throwing out that Democrats would let people through for political reasons. Who fed you that B.S.?

The Democrat politicians are pandering to the illegal alien vote. They are doing their best to get another amnesty.

See the bottom of these ILLEGAL-IMMIGRATION REPORT CARDs.
Look at these pamphlets being passed out in Dallas, Texas.
Look at these voting records.
Yeah, it’s a total myth, eh?
Almost everyone knows it.
Constantly trying to make excuses for the inexcusable is a daunting goal.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: Argue the issue, not the politics.

What the Democrat politicians are doing is very germane to the issue. Or is anit-anything-Democrat forbidden?

Stephen Daugherty wrote: What I want is better internal enforcement, not illegals voting for Democrats. Before you accuse me of being that kind of opportunist, ask me what I actually believe. Maybe if you asked, you would see that a willingness to compromise would serve you better than the quickness to insinuate negative things about your opponent.

Hmmmmm … nobody we know would ever do such a thing.

So, why is the IN-PARTY doing anything to enforce existing laws? At least until they are changed? Local governments are now having to do what the federal government won’t.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: Can you agree with an approach that improves internal enforcement, even if it doesn’t include this border fence? Can you agree with me that 50 agents chasing millions of those who have overstayed their visas are too few? Well, if you can, you can have a constructive conversation with me and others like me without the need to bleed people dry just for not agreeing with something you want.

I’m sure any effective border security would be acceptable. The fence is just an excuse for Do-Nothing Congress to continue to do nothing while working to sneak through another shamnesty in piecemeal.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: d.a.n- A fence, a wall, what difference does it make, especially if we’re talking concrete barriers?

The structure may vary depending on location. Again, I’d settle for whatever it takes to secure the borders (barriers or no barriers). The term wall is used to describe what is mostly a fence (not a concrete wall). A 2000 mile concrete wall is excessive and unnecessary.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: As for slowing people down? It won’t slow down those who enter the country on visas. It won’t slow those who walk across with those heading to work.

That’s a separate law enforcement issue and another excuse (of many) to cloud the issues, obscure the facts, and change the subject.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: The border is already heavily attended to.

What? ! ? With thousands crossing it daily?

Stephen Daugherty wrote: The trouble is, we’ve got two of the longest geographical borders in the world between countries.

2000 miles along the U.S./Mexico and 4000 miles along the U.S./Canada border. Both are not so long that they can not be secured.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: They also happen to be with our top trading partners. an orientation towards internal security would make more sense, economically speaking. When dealing with flows of anything, it’s easier to filter out in progressive stages than to try and stop things dead at the interface.

More excuses. What does securing the border have to do with legal trade through legal entry/exit points?

Stephen Daugherty wrote: Filter out people progressively as they get deeper in the country. Make sure illegals don’t stay.

That too. But border security is needed too, because not everyone crossing the borders are merely looking for a job. What good does it do to deport someone 17 times …

• For exmaple, consider Jorge Hernandez, a.k.a. Jorge Soto, who killed Min Soon Chang, an 18-year-old college freshman, in a terrible head-on wreck while Hernandez was driving drunk. Jorge Hernandez had been arrested 3 previous times for drunk driving in 3 other states, and he had been deported 17 times!

… if they will keep walking right back across unsecured borders?

Stephen Daugherty wrote: We don’t have much hope of removing the people already here, but if we couple conditional forgiveness with tough enforcement, we’ll see progress.

Compassion and path to citizenship only for the truly innocent (e.g. persons brought here as a child, have lived here N years, and are no longer dependent on the person(s) that brought them here illegally). No blanket amnesty. Tough enforcement? Absolutely. Where is it? Existing laws are not being enforced.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: On the subject of the GAO report, I recall its saying that the study wasn’t designed to provide a typical picture of illegal immigrants.

False. It clearly states in GAO 5646:

Scope and Methodology—Analysis of Arrest Data:
• * For the 55,322 illegal aliens in our study population, we obtained and analyzed the arrest history information contained in IAFIS as of October 2004.

And notice the words “illegal aliens” also at the very top of the report:

This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-05-646R entitled ‘Information on Certain Illegal Aliens Arrested in the United States’ which was released on May 9, 2005.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: On the subject of insecurity? I meant emotional insecurity. Or to be more explicit, fear. We won’t be the first or the last people who got hit, and decided to make our country a fortress to defend ourselves. Doesn’t tend to work, though.

It does not have to have anything to do with 9/11/2001.

The issue is not just terrorism. There are also massive net losses due to illegal immigration.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: We will be safer for being more clever, not more paranoid. Our paranoia has already cost us a great deal. It will cost us more if we don’t learn to operate from a calmer mentality.

Trying to mischaracterize it as paranoia is insulting to the survivors of crime and 3.6-to-12 Americans murdered every day by illegal aliens.

The study group (reported in GAO-5646) of 55,322 illegal aliens in TX, CA, and AZ committed 5992 homicides between 1947 to 2004 (57 years).
That study group of 55,322 is not the entire number of illegal aliens.
Still, that study group averaged 105.12 homicides per year.
29% of all incarcerated in federal prisons are illegal aliens.
That study group is only a small portion (about 8.7%) of the total number of incarcerated illegal aliens (average time federal jail = 21 months).
Those are crimes that should not have happened.
Take a look at: ImmigrationsHumanCost.org

Posted by: d.a.n at October 26, 2007 03:44 PM

Stephen, arguing the issue of illegal immigration is not possible in any way without taking into account the politics of it. There are many gainers and losers to the situation, which makes it a, dare I say it, political issue.

Your arguments just get weaker and weaker. I look forward to the day you cross over and acknowledge the indefensibility of your previous position against a border barrier and border security as a net positive for America and her people.

But, perhaps it will take an upset for Democratic Party in 2008 or 2010 at the polls to finally convince you and it that there is a wrong side to this issue and y’all have been on it. Like the Republicans and the war on Iraq and for control of the Middle East.

As for the Democratic incentive to keep the borders open and offer amnesty to those crossing the Southern Border, I am surprise at your ignorance in asking what I base it on, since I have been throwing this fact at you for months. Pew research data found here.

Registered Latino Democrats in 2004: 45%
Registered Latino Republicans in 2004: 20%

Registered Mexican Democrats in 2004: 47%
Registered Mexican Republicans in 2004: 18%

That’s a huge incentive and motive for the Democratic Party to 1) leave the borders open, and 2) grant amnesty and citizenship to illegal alien Latinos, given that we are talking 12 to 20 million illegals here the vast majority being Latinos. And this is precisely what every Democratic Bill on this issue sought to do.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 26, 2007 03:47 PM

David:

Then what’s the Republican incentive and motive? Oh, that’s right, cheap labor.

Posted by: womanmarine at October 26, 2007 04:41 PM

womanmarine

“Then what’s the Republican incentive and motive? Oh, that’s right, cheap labor.”

this is absolutely correct, and as a republican it really pisses me off. i must say though that when it comes to pandering to illegal immigrants the democrats seem to be leading the charge. i don’t have the #s in front of me, but i think you’ll probably find that the majority of support for last 3 or 4 amnesty bills was mostly democrats.

Posted by: dbs at October 26, 2007 04:53 PM

but i think you’ll probably find that the majority of support for last 3 or 4 amnesty bills was mostly democrats.

Yes. Look at the results of these BILLs. The illegal aliens understand VERY well which party is looking out for them.

It’s a stretch to insist such pandering does not exist.

Yes, Republicans had 6 years to do something about illegal immigration, and didn’t do anything until the very last minute in the Nov-2006 election when they realized their poll numbers were in the toilet.

However, the Republicans are picking up a HUGE number of votes by convincing voters by opposing these SHAMNESTY BILLs. Just look at the endorsements and Immigration Report Cards (see bottom of list) at NumbersUSA.com and ALIPAC.US.

Based on the dismal 11% to 18% approval ratings (all time record lows), it appears that the voters are getting very unhappy with ALL politicians.

Posted by: d.a.n at October 26, 2007 05:56 PM

dbs, just to keep the perspective wide, Republicans had been pressured on illegal immigration and border security by border states especially since 9/11/2001. And they did even bring up a bill to address it, let alone debate it. It was only AFTER Democrats won control of the Congress, that Republicans decided to make border security and illegal immigration a priority issue higher than cheap wages. Easy enough to do, since, they know their Corporate lobbyists won’t mind their championing clamping the border as Democrats won’t allow it to happen.

Works out conveniently for both parties. It’s a political game in which both parties win by leaving the issue deadlocked. And America and Americans lose and continue to pay the ever steepening costs which will culminate in public health emergencies, or terrorist attacks, and of course the increasing drain on economic resources as we process millions more through the revolving door on our Southern Border.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 26, 2007 06:18 PM

Here’s something to look forward to under a Hillary Administration:

Maria Echaveste, Boalt Hall School of Law lecturer and Deputy Chief of Staff under President Clinton from 1998-2001, said yesterday after the defeat of the Democrat’s Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act (DREAM):

Legal status has become a proxy for discrimination. We live in a society where we can’t discriminate on race or ethnicity but we can use legal status. How do you determine legal status? We’re going to use what we’ve always done, race, ethnicity, language, accent, someone who looks different.

And her compatriot, State Senator Gilbert Cedillo, D-Los Angeles, who supported the state version of the DREAM Act recently vetoed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, said:

Studies show that we don’t have enough educated workers. That’s why we have to import workers. A substantial portion of the young population is undocumented, and we have to educate them for the future.

He went on to say that that the current immigration debate is often irrational, much like the widespread fear of communists in the 1950s and radicals of the 1960s.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 26, 2007 07:04 PM

Hillary’s compatriot, State Senator Gilbert Cedillo, D-Los Angeles stated:

Studies show that we don’t have enough educated workers. That’s why we have to import workers. A substantial portion of the young population is undocumented, and we have to educate them for the future. He went on to say that that the current immigration debate is often irrational, much like the widespread fear of communists in the 1950s and radicals of the 1960s.

Interesting.

In Los Angeles (in 2004), 95% of all outstanding warrants for homicide (which total 1,200 to 1,500) are for illegal aliens. Up to two-thirds of all fugitive felony warrants (17,000) are for illegal aliens. Who knows what the numbers are now with Democrat politicians pandering to the illegal immigrants?

Maybe this helps explain why Congress’ approval ratings are 11%-to-18% (record lows).

Do-Nothing Congress doesn’t get it.

Posted by: d.a.n at October 26, 2007 08:39 PM

dbs-
Tell me: where’s your priority? If you couldn’t do both, if you had to pay for a border fence, or for greater internal security, which would be the better investment?

Our greatest deficiency is not on the border. We’ve been dumping billions into securing it. Our greatest deficiency is internal. When these people make it past the border, we have very little capability to seek them out, to deport the illegals.

But that isn’t currently politically glamorous. And right now, you’re pushing a movement that focuses even more tax dollars on a place where substantial increases in tax dollars have not solved the problem. The Wall to me is a sign of desperation on this count.

The problem is not people coming into this country, it’s them coming into this country without our having the capability to find them and take them back.

As for the ICE matter? It’s a restraining order, and you don’t know the legal basis. Good or bad, I won’t comment in ignorance, much less back an insinuation of political chicanery on that count. Frankly, I think the better angle to take would be on the front end, requiring verification of SS information from the start.

As for who politically opposes this among the parties? Do we really have to give a crap? Last I heard it was our country. If the politicians, maybe it’s because we don’t ask them as if their jobs depended on the answer.

Dan-
You know, I could say the sun rises int the east, and your next words would be “false”.

You’re missing my point. the lock provides a real impediment, the wall doesn’t. As for funnelling? We already have ourselves funnelling tons of people and materials through those border checkpoints already.

People will figure out ways around it. It’s the security behind the borders we need to prioritize, because it’s where we’ve fallen most short.

What good does it do to deport somebody 17 times, you ask. I’d say your border fence won’t solved the problem, so you’ll still have to deport them.

As for that GAO report, I distinctly remember there being a disclaimer at the start relating to intepretation. One, arrest does not mean conviction. Two, it wasn’t meant as a generalized survey, just of those arrested. Survey just the people who get arrested in your community, and you’ll find a very distorted picture of what your community is like.

For my part, I don’t see the fricking use in these scare tactics. One, I’m already against immigration outside of normal channels. Two, the illegal immigration is all the cause you need to deport, and third and finally, this kind of xenophobia and fearmongering is neither becoming of us as a nation, nor contributes to real solutions to the problem. In my experience, these kinds of attitudes generally lead to a bunch of panicked handwaving and jingoism and ineffective means chosen for their perceived toughness. It’s also used to drain all the consideration of real human nature out of the projects, as people try to manifest ideological fantasy on an unwilling reality.

It’s difficult to get you guys to listen, and God knows I’ve had enough of that kind of behavior from others concerning the war to last me a lifetime. For once, I’d like people to discuss matters with me on subjects like this as if I am a ration human being who wants to see to the best interests of his community, not some corrupt lowlife partisan who wants to betray his country. I know it’s fun to chunk that rhetoric my way, makes people feel good, but in case we haven’t notice, all the problems we’ve talked about in this manner have gotten worse, rather than better.

David R. Remer-

Your arguments just get weaker and weaker. I look forward to the day you cross over and acknowledge the indefensibility of your previous position against a border barrier and border security as a net positive for America and her people.

You look forward to the day when I magically accept your argument, right? You can tell me my arguments are getting weaker, but that’s about the least convincing argument you could send my way. As for the numbers?

The argument presumes that immigration is a major issue. Your own poll, though, ranks it at the bottom. I’ve seen polls that show that Latino attitudes pretty much mirror the rest of the country. So why do Democrats have an advantage?

We’re not fearmongering. That’s about it. But it’s important. It’s very annoying to be treated like you don’t share interests or have a stake in the country. When you see somebody scaring folks as to all the brown people coming to get their jobs, it’s not going to make you look too good to a Demographic that gets collateral damage from such xenophobia. That will especially be true if you’re somebody who’s legally immigrated, and still has many of the supposed hallmarks of being an illegal- that is, being a manual laborer, having English as a second language, being brown-skinned.

It’s easy to get caught up in a political argument and get so busy opposing people that you fail to stop and notice what they’re actually saying, who they actually are, or even what their past is.

I argue politics out of the belief that I need to be involved, need to inform myself and inform others. I don’t argue it out of any great love for the kind of misunderstanding that people bombard me with. I’m a young Texan who doesn’t like to live in fear or stew in anger. I’m not at all interested in a porous border. It’s easy for people to accuse me of that, for I am a Democrat, and Democrats are supposed to be weak on everything, right?

I think at this point, you’ve bought into more politics here than you’ve found your way out of. I have not interest in weak immigration security, but I’m willing to go beyond what seems to be correct at first blush to something better. I get the idea of the wall, but my reading of history is that such defenses rise and fall with the human defenses associated with them, and sometimes good use of human resources, which we’ve been lacking of, is better than fixed emplacements.

We’re following years of neglect by the Bush Administration on the matter, and to my mind it’s important to repair that neglect first. If our people in Washington are unwilling, we have ways of making them come around. To give up and assume that this is just what they will do is to continue the kind of political resignation that’s contributed to the systemwide degradation of politics.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 26, 2007 10:18 PM

womanmarine: Then what’s the Republican incentive and motive? Oh, that’s right, cheap labor.

Ya got it!
The Republicans want the cheap labor. The Democrats want the potential votes. And folks like you and me will get the shaft.
If the Republicans can get enough illegals for cheap labor then they can force lower wages on the American citizens. And make sure that only the elite (their cronies) have enough to get by on.
If the Democrats can get enough potential voters they can give them citizenship just before an election (kinda like Clinton did in 96) and assure themselves more seats in Congress and the White House. With this power they can then force their social programs and outrageously high taxes to pay for them on the tax payers of this country.
This is just one more reason why starting with this next election the voters need to start cleaning house and get rid of both major parties.

Posted by: Ron Brown at October 26, 2007 11:56 PM

Stephen Daugherty wrote: d.a.n- You know, I could say the sun rises int the east, and your next words would be “false”.

False. That word is reserved for false statements, which you are famous for.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: You’re missing my point.

False. You are missing many points.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: … the lock provides a real impediment, the wall doesn’t.

False. Locks are barriers, as would be a fence. They are delay factors. They limit breaches to specific locations as opposed to merely crossing anywhere.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: As for funnelling? We already have ourselves funnelling tons of people and materials through those border checkpoints already.

So? Exit/Entry points exist for a reason. That is the first and logical place to check to see if those entering have the right to. Are you suggesting open entry points too?

Stephen Daugherty wrote: People will figure out ways around it.

Excuses, excuses, excuses. Never mind that border security and internal enforcement will stop MOST illegal immigration.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: It’s the security behind the borders we need to prioritize, because it’s where we’ve fallen most short.

We need BOTH (border security and internal enforcement. Not politicians trying to pass a SHAMNESTY BILL ever other day. Democrats are crashing and buring and the disaml 11% to 18% one year since the last election is not a good sign for either party in Do-Nothing Congress.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: What good does it do to deport somebody 17 times, you ask. I’d say your border fence won’t solved the problem, so you’ll still have to deport them.

False. If you stop them at the border, there’s no need to re-deport them. Your statement has no credibility.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: As for that GAO report, I distinctly remember there being a disclaimer at the start relating to intepretation.

False. A mere reading of GAO report 5646 (see the very first line) reveals that the report is about “illegal aliens”.

Read it for yourself. Look at the very first line of the report:

This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-05-646R entitled ‘Information on Certain Illegal Aliens Arrested in the United States’ which was released on May 9, 2005.

I think if I said the sun rises in the east, you would argue about it.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: One, arrest does not mean conviction. Two, it wasn’t meant as a generalized survey, just of those arrested. Survey just the people who get arrested in your community, and you’ll find a very distorted picture of what your community is like.

Excuses, excuses, excuses.

But how about 13 arrests on average per illegal alien?
What about 29% of all incarcerated in federal prisons are illegal aliens.
And they are not merely arrested for the 1st tresspass of our borders, because that is a misdemeanor.
Yes, the report admits that not all arrests necessarilty lead to convictions.
Your arguments are weak and obvious reaching, stretching, and circular in nature.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: For my part, I don’t see the fricking use in these scare tactics.

Many Americans murdered every day are scare tactics?

Trying to mischaracterize it as paranoia and scare tactics is insulting to the survivors of crime and 3.6-to-12 Americans murdered every day by illegal aliens.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: One, I’m already against immigration outside of normal channels.

Really? Sure could have fooled me.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: Two, the illegal immigration is all the cause you need to deport,

False. As I stated, there are some truly innocent people. That can be sorted out.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: and third and finally, this kind of xenophobia and fearmongering is neither becoming of us as a nation, nor contributes to real solutions to the problem.

Are appearances all you are concerned about?

Tell it to the survivors of crime and 3.6-to-12 Americans murdered every day by illegal aliens, the millions whose jobs were displaced, and the Americans paying net losses of $70 Billion (or more).

Stephen Daugherty wrote: In my experience, these kinds of attitudes generally lead to a bunch of panicked handwaving and jingoism and ineffective means chosen for their perceived toughness.

Nonsense. Again, that is insulting to the survivors of crime and 3.6-to-12 Americans murdered every day by illegal aliens.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: It’s also used to drain all the consideration of real human nature out of the projects, as people try to manifest ideological fantasy on an unwilling reality.

Excuses, excuses, excuses.

What is fantasy is trying to make any and every excuse possible for getting more seats for the PARTY, while everything else takes a back seat to the blind partisan warfare.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: It’s difficult to get you guys to listen, and God knows I’ve had enough of that kind of behavior from others concerning the war to last me a lifetime.

People are listenting. But to use your own words …

Stephen Daugherty wrote: … the world is not meant to salve the egos of those who recognize no authority but their own.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: For once, I’d like people to discuss matters with me on subjects like this as if I am a ration[al] human being who wants to see to the best interests of his community, not some corrupt lowlife partisan who wants to betray his country.

Let me get my violin.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: I know it’s fun to chunk that rhetoric my way, makes people feel good, but in case we haven’t notice, all the problems we’ve talked about in this manner have gotten worse, rather than better.

Whose chunking rhetoric?

And who is trying to get another SHAMNESTY BILL passed despite MOST Americans oppose it?

As for blame, there’s plenty go to around.
There’s a paradox in this nation:

• Most Americans are opposed to another amnesty. Most Americans are upset about many things, as evidenced by Congress’ dismal 11% to 18% approval ratings.


• But most voters then reward Congress with 96.5% re-election rates since year 1980 ! ?

Until enough voters figure it out, they have the government that they deserve.

Posted by: d.a.n at October 27, 2007 12:18 AM

Stephen

“Tell me: where’s your priority? If you couldn’t do both, if you had to pay for a border fence, or for greater internal security, which would be the better investment?”

why can’t we do both?

“Our greatest deficiency is not on the border. We’ve been dumping billions into securing it.”

we’ve done jack to secure it. until there’s a political will to do so, i don’t care how many billions you dump into it. put the military on the border, and give orders to stop and detain as many as possible.

“The Wall to me is a sign of desperation on this count.”

it’s not a sign of desperation. it’s one tool needed in conjunction with other tools to help get the job done.

“As for the ICE matter? It’s a restraining order, and you don’t know the legal basis. Good or bad, I won’t comment in ignorance, much less back an insinuation of political chicanery on that count. Frankly, I think the better angle to take would be on the front end, requiring verification of SS information from the start.”

how do you know, what i do or don’t know? i don’t give a damn what it is. why should ice not be able to sent out those letters? if you don’t see the political aspect to this, i can’t help you, and the democrats don’t want verification of soc. sec. #s.

“As for who politically opposes this among the parties? Do we really have to give a crap? Last I heard it was our country. If the politicians, maybe it’s because we don’t ask them as if their jobs depended on the answer.

i watch how my congressman votes, and so far he supports cracking down, and votes the way i believe he should. as far as my senators go, they’re boxer and fienstien,and they’re both IMO worthless.

Posted by: dbs at October 27, 2007 01:35 AM

Stephen Daugherty wrote: “The Wall to me is a sign of desperation on this count.”

dbs wrote: It’s not a sign of desperation. It’s one tool needed in conjunction with other tools to help get the job done.

dbs, Yes, it is part of the total solution.

Stephen ignores the illegal aliens that have been deported 17 (or more times), and that not all illegal aliens come here merely to find a job.
For exmaple, consider

Jorge Hernandez, a.k.a. Jorge Soto, who killed Min Soon Chang, an 18-year-old college freshman, in a terrible head-on wreck while Hernandez was driving drunk. Jorge Hernandez had been arrested 3 previous times for drunk driving in 3 other states, and he had been deported 17 times!

Stephen said: We’re punishing people who broke no law,

Ron Brown responded: Sinse when are we punishing legal aliens?

Ron, some people have more compassion for illegal aliens than their fellow Americans.

Pandering for votes might have something to do with it?

• Where is the compassion for U.S. citizens that go without healthcare and access to ERs because ERs and hospitals are over-flowing with illegal aliens (of which many don’t pay)? Is this fair to U.S. tax payers? 84 hospitals closed in California due to Illegal Aliens:


• Where is the compassion for the truly needy U.S. citizens that can not get help because of limited resources, because 32% of illegal aliens receive welfare ?


• Where is the compassion for the illegal aliens being lured here for sub-minimum wage jobs, creating an under-paid, under-class (practically slavery) ?


• Where is the compassion for displaced American workers and the outrage at the greedy employers of illegal aliens ?


• Where is the compassion for the U.S. victims and survivors of crimes perpetrated by illegal aliens and tax payers the pay the high costs of incarceration, deportaiton, law enforcement, and trials (29% of all incarcerated in federal prisons are illegal aliens), and the crime rates are rising? Are all illegal immigrants sexual predators or murderers? No, of course not. Most just see better opportunities offered by America. But, per capita, illegals commit a disproportionate number of violent crimes. We also shouldn’t fail to mention their contribution to illegal drug and gun trafficking, adding to America’s crime problem.


• Where is the compassion for U.S. Americans who’s lives have been changed forever by illegal aliens that spread disease ? One illegal alien in Santa Barbara, California infected 56 other people with tuberculosis as reported on April 24, 2004, by the Santa Barbara Press-News, “Anatomy of an Outbreak”. Because illegal alien migration into the USA continues unabated for the past 20 years, we now have 16,000 new cases of incurable MDR tuberculosis in the past five years. We suffer 7,000 new cases of leprosy. We tolerate 100,000 new cases of hepatitis “A” in our society. Chagas Disease, which affects 14 million South Americans and kills 50,000 annually, streams across our borders as unchecked thousands of them enter our society. If your child goes to public school, they could be exposed, as thousands already have been?


• Where is the compassion for the people murdered every day by an illegal alien (Source: GAO-05-646R based on study group of 55,322 illegal aliens over a 57 year period)?


• Where is the compassion for all of the people that do not want to see a repeat of 11-Sep-2001, which was perpetrated by several illegal aliens ?


• Where is the compassion or all the victims in South Carolina which had the highest rate of violent crime (excluding D.C.) of any state in the U.S. and it is largely due to illegal aliens. in fact, South Carolina is submitting a Constitutional amendment with regard to illegal immigration.


• Where is the compassion for the U.S. tax payers net losses of over $70 billion per year due to all the numerous problems stemming from illegal aliens?


• Where is the compassion for the 2.3 million displaced American workers?


• Where is the compassion for all of the U.S. policemen murdered by illegal aliens? On 13-Nov-2005, Brian Jackson, a Dallas policeman was shot and killed by an illegal alien, Juan Lizcano. Lizcano had become drunk and went to the home of his ex-girfriend to threaten her. As the police pursued Lizcano after he fled the woman’s home, he shot Officer Jackson, who died later in the hospital. Officer Jackson was remembered by his fellow police as someone who loved his job and always went the extra mile. In Denver, Colorado, an illegal deliberately ran over a Denver polceman in a school cross walk “breaking his legs along with severe internal injuries. This is not anectdotal. This tragedy has occurred over and over in many cities across the U.S. These are crimes that should have never happened.


• Where is the compassion for Min Soon Chang, killed by Jorge Hernandez, aka Jorge Soto. He killed Min Soon Chang, an 18-year-old college freshman, in a terrible head-on wreck while Hernandez was driving drunk. He had been arrested 3 previous times for drunk driving in 3 other states, and he had been deported to Mexico 17 times! Don’t you wonder why illegal aliens aren’t deported instantly after being arrested for drunk driving?


• Where is the compassion for Debbie Thomas, who was the mother of three, was killed in a head-on collision on Christmas Eve 2003 when her car was struck by a car being driven in the wrong direction by illegal alien, Narciso Garcia-Jimenez. He later escaped from his hospital bed and is still at large. The car he drove had no inspection sticker and was registered to another person. When Debbie’s mom learned that her daughter’s killer survived and escaped after being treated at the hospital, she said she felt “angry, bitter and sad, all at once.”


• Where is the compassion for female victim in Atlanta,GA. who was raped by Miguel Carrasco in front of her four year old child and two minors.?


• Where is the compassion for a child under age 14 who was a victim of lewd acts by Zacarias Camacho ?


• Where is the compassion for the 16 year old sodomized and murdered by El Salvadoran Oswaldo Martinez raped?


• Where is the compassion for every fathers nightmare like illegal alien Jose Ramirez who beat up a 15-year-old girl after whistling at her? He broke her nose, fractured a bone in her face and produced cuts requring 30 stitches. The man worked in construction in Spotsylvania, Virginia, where the attack occurred, and resisted arrest to the point where police had to taser him.


• Where is the compassion for the child used by illegal alien Jose Raul Pena (earlier deported for cocaine possession), his own daughter, as a human shield in an hours-long Los Angeles shootout with police? Pena and Suzie were both killed. During the incident, Pena used a 9-millimeter Beretta pistol which had been stolen last year in a burglary in Oregon. His office at the car dealership contained a bag of cocaine and a half-drunk bottle of Tequila — consistent with the illegal Pena’s previous deportation for cocaine possession. Videotape captured images of Pena shooting at the police while holding his daughter, yet his relatives are questioning not only whether he used his daughter as a shield, but whether he was even armed at all, according to the Los Angeles Times.


• Where is the compassion for Esmerelda Nava, age 4, was recently strangled, molested and killed by an illegal alien who had been deported in 2003. The accused killer is Cornelio Rivera Zamites, who had been residing in Gainsville, Georgia. Esmerelda went with her parents to visit the 24-year-old Zamites. At some point late Saturday night, the child’s mother realized the girl was missing. A police officer found her body early the next morning in nearby woods. An article of Zamites clothing was close by and he was gone. Zamites had been deported for driving under the influence, as well as having no license or insurance. At least his illegal status was duly noted.


• Where is the compassion for victims killed on the nation’s highways every year? Our highways have become far more dangerous since they have been turned into smuggling thruways for criminals.


• Where is the compassion for 19 year old Travis Smith of Mesa, Arizona, was killed in 2002 by a carload of illegal aliens being smuggled to Pennsylvania? The accident occurred near Monticello in southeastern Utah, as the car driven by illegal alien smuggler Isidro Aranda-Flores plowed head-on into Smith’s 1966 Mustang. The smuggler apparently fell asleep at the wheel.


• Where is the compassion for all those murdered in L.A. where 95% of all warrants for homicides are for illegal aliens?


• Where is the compassion for the 16 year old girl gang raped by an MS-13 gang member Reinaldo Ramos?


• Where is the compassion for all of these thousands of victims ? (estimated 3.6 to 12 to 25 homicides per day (the number keeps rising)!). Even if the lowest estimate (3.6) is used, the rate is twice the norm. If it is 12 homicides per day, that is 6.7 times more homicides. This is why border security and enforcement of existing laws is important.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: … this kind of xenophobia and fearmongering is neither becoming of us as a nation, nor contributes to real solutions to the problem …

That is an insult to the survivors of the 3.6 to 12 people murdered every day by illegal aliens. Also, to Americans who are tired of the $70 Billion in annual net losses, and the many things listed above. NOTE: This does not mean illegal aliens should be persecuted. It just means they need to leave, and only the truly innocent should be considered for a path to citizenship (i.e. persons who were bought here as minors, have lived here N years, and are no longer dependent on their parent(s) or persons that brought them here illegally).

Posted by: d.a.n at October 27, 2007 02:05 AM

Dave

Your link to the Dream Act doesn’t work, not that it matters. While your posts have been convoluted my response to your accusation that Democrats were attempting to create benefits for illegal aliens in the proposed Children Health bill, not the Dream Act. I merely pointed out that there was sufficient language in the Children Health Bill that would deny illegal aliens coverage as you claimed. So while the link to the Dream Act was appreciated it had no bearing on your follow up posts or my rebuttal.

Next I never opposed a fence nor do I propose that we should allow the flow of illegal immigration to continue unchecked. You tried to make that my opinion by association, but while it may have made it easier for you to make your point, it was never my contention. I did say that I prefer that we create laws that would make hiring illegal aliens an enforceable crime. If we stop what attracts illegal aliens here we do not need to build a fence or needlessly bloat the INS bureaucracy. Fence or no fence, illegal aliens will continue to be a problem until it is no longer profitable for them to come here.

Furthermore your dynamics of what constitutes an illegal alien family here in the U.S. is clearly wrong. You try to contend that an illegal family unit is comprised similarly as a U.S. family unit. And thus you try to extrapolate how many in an illegal household work. While a UCLA study I read indicates that an illegal alien overwhelmingly comes here alone and is in “his” early twenties. If they are married they leave their family behind and will send money back to support their family. Not that some illegal aliens do not have families here, but it is not in the same proportion as our general population. Your saying that my figure of 12 Million as too low gives further credence to my contention that by trying to remove all of them at one time would adversely affect our economy.

While I believe that the children that would have been covered by the Dream Act should be provided a path to citizenship if they so choose, that does not necessarily extend to the other 12 million or more illegal adults that are here. Nor have I ever offered a possible solution for the majority of the illegal population here. I do believe the criteria that many here would impose make it plausible that this problem will continue for some time.

Dan’s figures about criminal activity amongst illegal aliens are disconcerting and very suspect. The numbers of arrested does not indicate the number that were convicted nor does it indicate the number of transient illegal aliens were involved during thi