Illegal immigrants
What’s humane? What’s in this country’s best interest? How’s this for a start?
For those already in the country I say let them stay if and only if they do the following:
2. Swear a loyalty oath to the United States of America. No more flying of the Mexican flag.
3. Pay a fine equal to the cost of establishing each individual’s residency. Make this program self-sufficient.
4. Show proof that the cars they have are registered and insured. Only after proof is given would they be able to get a driver’s license. Also, make them take the driver’s test (in English, of course).
5. All males under age 35 must register with the military. Personally, I would not mind a mandatory 2 years conscription requirement, as well.
If this was done, would we not all benefit from having millions of newly registered and legal residents that we could now call Americans? By the way, a law requiring mandatory jail sentences for employers that hire illegal aliens would be established. I’d say 1 year in jail for each count. For the managers of the Swift plant in Greeley, we’re talking a couple hundred years in jail. Scary, huh? But, what a deterrent!
Just daydreaming on a Springtime day.
This letter has not been edited.
that will NEVER EVER happen, do you honestly think the politicians care about what the people think ?
the DONT, and they NEVER WILL!
get used to that
That's what the politicians do when they go in to vote they day dream(about their money,power, priviledges, sexual encounters, etc) Then they wake up long enough to say yea,or nay, and they don't have a clue what was up for a vote!
Ban Italian flags for Columbus Day, Irish regalia for St. Patty's Day, and prohibit anyone, everywhere in the US from flying any flag other than Old Glory (without the UN-communist-fascist-environmentalist-homosexual gold fringe, of course. Yeah, that's the America I want to live in.
Posted by Bob on May 24, 2007 02:26 PMLOL, Bob. You're right, Old Glory should never be tied to any fringe elements. After all, it never has before, has it?
Posted by anderson on May 24, 2007 02:32 PM[As a courtesy to others who comment here, please choose a single screen name and use it invariably from now on -- the Hall Monitor]
DON'T STEP ON MY FLAG!!! It's the flag of our country!! You want to see the Mexican flag being flown get your stupid a**es down to Mexico City and rent one of the filthy hotels they have down there!
My Gawd, Bob and Anderson you are so anti- America what's your problem?
The Italians, never took over the streets and demanded we support them and give them the entire farm. They came to this country and assimilated!!
The Irish came to this country and assimilated!!
The Mexicans are coming to this country and they are annihilating!! Not assimilating!!
Your both obviously mental midgets!!
Posted by [Jo Jo] A on May 24, 2007 03:40 PMJo Jo
How long did it take the Irish and Italians to assimilate?
It doesn't matter Skank , they assimilated.
like they were supposed to do!
These people hold loyalty to Mexico ONLY and they are arrogant and defiant about it!
Rats...I'm sorry but I keep getting confused. Are we hating Latinos today, and not Muslims? Can someone get me a copy of the right-wing agenda and schedule, so I'll stop embarassing meself?
Posted by on May 24, 2007 05:27 PMOf course it matters Jo Jo.
If it took them some time to change from having their primary allegiance to their countries of origin and learning a new language in the case of the Italians, then you would have to allow the same amount of elapsed time before complaining that the Mexicans haven't.
Why is any one even discussing this issue? This bill is solid proof that we have the best government money can buy. It use to be either the Dems were trying to push something that would destroy the country or the Reps were. They now have an issue that will destroy the country they both can agree upon. This Amnesty bill will destroy the US we have loved and respected.
In 10 years or maybe less our children and grandchildren will be dealing with another 50 million or so illegal immigrates. I sure hope they have learned the lessons from this piece of garbage legislation.
Posted by jgd777 on May 24, 2007 06:03 PMsorry jgd777
they will not learn from it, nor will any politician. in 20 years there will be an uproar about this again and guess what , NOTHING will happen then either!
its our own faults for not taking matters into our own hands.
OUR OWN FAULTS!
Posted by Fresh on May 24, 2007 06:21 PMAnderson,
In the kinder, gentler days of America's past, people like you would have been tried as traitors. Today we make your kind Democratic politicians, evening news anchors and professors at our Universities.
Fresh,
If you want to take things into your hand, you better start praciticing how to "press 2 for english" because "1" will be reserved for Spanish
Posted by jgd777 on May 24, 2007 06:54 PMAnon: "Anderson, In the kinder, gentler days of America's past, people like you would have been tried as traitors."
I love the incongruity of your sentence. Tried for what? For having an opinion I didn't get from the radio or television? I can't say anything about anything without you Pavlov marauders woofing and howling at me.
"Today we make your kind Democratic politicians, evening news anchors and professors at our Universities."
Just what is my kind? Any more villains you'd like to name besides the above? I'm sure you have plenty. In fact, I'm sure just about everyone in the world is against you.
We do have an immigration problem. We need to fix our broken system. Those who oppose this invariably have nothing to offer to fix the problem other the occasional head in the sand solutions that no one in Congress will vote for. You see what's happening on this issue: not only do we blame the immigrants, now we blame Congress. And at the end of the day, what has been accomplished? Nothing other than a lot of blame going round. Oh, and scary prognostications. I for one, am not scared.
I bet a dozen donuts this same kind of scary talk ("they're going to ruin our way of life") and arguments ("Congress won't protect us") were being tossed around the white-only coffee shops of the early 60s.
Posted by anderson on May 24, 2007 07:28 PMLet's not give illegal aliens a thing. They don't deserve it.
Posted by Julie on May 24, 2007 07:29 PMJulie, so you put nationalism ahead of Christianity, that's interesting.
Tell me how you expect your interview with St.Peter to go.
Gonna be hard to do, when draft-dodgers like Tom "nuke'em till they glow" Tancredo and Mitt Romney are hiring them for domestic services.
Posted by JJ Tarheel on May 24, 2007 08:34 PMAnderson,
You keep saying that no one is offering any alternative to this bill, we are just complaining.
Here is an alternative: No Z Visas, no forgiveness for not paying taxes, no amnesty for using false documents, No green cards, Nothing!! Until the borders have been secured, and the proof will be when our border guards can drive along the border without being shot at, stones thrown at them, or having to capture and detain thousands of illegal immigrates everyday.
Then and only then will we address the issues surronding the illegal immigrates.
Posted by jgd777 on May 24, 2007 09:03 PMbango skank
It took my grand no time at all. Yet I heard a woman talk through an interperter of course from the 1980s freeby let em in amnisty from reagan, skank, how long did that take, oh no wait it hasent happened, why? BECAUSE, people like you allow it to go on.
ANYONE SEE THE SPANISH ONLY SIGN ON WEST COFAX FOR GOOD OL BIG MAC?
I DEMAND AN INTERPERTER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
bango
what, are you living off the taxpayer?Is that why you can talk about others not being so generous? What would happen if all who immigrated here spoke only thier home language? I think its time to start, wheres my interperter? I will no longer speak to you in english, and the damm manufactures of goods had best put my language on thier products(all I see is spanish and english) I demand my language be there as well.I just may start a suit against those companies who cator only to the english and spanish reading population.
Anderson
You said
For having an opinion I didn't get from the radio or television? I can't say anything about anything without you Pavlov marauders woofing and howling at me.
Give everyone a break. Your entire thought life is derived from the media.
What in the hell is a Pavlov marauder?
We do have an immigration problem and we have an immigration problem because our government has not enforced the immigration laws enacted with the 1986 Reagan amnesty legislation.
The executive and legislative branches promised that if they legalized 3 million illegals, they would also shut off the flow of illegal immigration. They did the first, but made little or no attempt at shutting off the flow of poor migrant workers.
It is estimated that total immigrants (illegal & legal) in America presently is 45 million - 15% of the total population. The highest the immigrant population has ever been historically in the US is 16%, and with the new senate bill increasing immigration totals, America will have the highest sustained immigrant population ever.
There is little expectation that Congress or the executive branch, will uphold, or have the desire to enforce, any new legislation with any greater degree of success than the laws currently ignored.
As far as a solution... uphold the laws currently legislated which severely punish illegal employers. The reform I view as acceptable is increasing penalties upon employers and instituting the employer identification/verification system.
Posted by Labas on May 24, 2007 09:34 PMActually - at the original author of the thread had several good suggestions. Most of us who are opposed to illegal immigration are equally or more opposed to the illegal employers who provide jobs for them, and many of us have suggested meaningful fines and/or jail time for them - a few years ago, the feds were bragging about the largest fine ever for hiring illegals: $11 million assessed against WalMart, which sounds good until you realize that year WalMart made $285 BILLION dollars - if the fine had been 1% of gross profit, that fine would have been $2.85 BILLION - over 250 times what they were fined. (To put it in perspective - how much of a deterrent would it be to fine speeders a penny for each mile over the posted speed limit? How about $10 for each mile over the limit?) Other suggestions I have seen also include allowing in anyone who has been on the waiting list for every illegal deported, fining landlords for renting to illegals, boycotting companies that have been busted for hiring illegals, mandatory military service for illegals as the ONLY fast-track to citizenship, etc. Or haven't you folks who say we only complain & don't come up with suggestions bothered to READ any of the suggestions that Congress has chosen to ignore. I have also suggested that EVERYONE who thinks that this new piece of legislation is a slap in the face to both middle class US & folks who have been waiting up to 20 years to get here legally and a pat on the back to the illegal employers & illegal immigrants to FLOOD their Senators & Representatives with calls, mails & email with their concerns. Contact information can be found at www.house.gov/ (for representatives) and www.senate.gov/ (for Senators).
Posted by Mary on May 25, 2007 03:11 AMOur current problem is that we have too many who believe the false premise that if we can't deport all illegals then we shouldn't try.
We don't get all the lawbeakers in any area but we still labor to enforce the laws and we also do our best to give the police and others the tools they need to do the job.
Let's let the illegals decide to leave on their own by drying up the jobs.
Fast food industry: Statewide health requirments will include ID checks BEFORE hiring with results being transmitted to the police who will have the power to deport either through federal laws or state statutes which can be passed quickly if the people can convince the state legislators that not doing so will be a career ending mistake. In Colorado we can do this with a ballot initiative.
Construction: Background checks for all employees with a loss of the contractor's license as a penalty for hiring illegals. Also we can impose a surcharge on all building permits of fifty percent to be imposed for a period of not less than one year for all companies caught hiring illegally. That would make the playing field level because the cost of permits added to the fines would make hiring illegals a very risky financial move.
Landscape and agriculture: Here we need to provide an ID check that will allow the employers to verify legal status before hiring. Those caught hiring any illegal not verified would pay the same fines as any other business.
If the government decides they don't want to enforce federal laws, we can pass laws that will allow states to charge and hold anyone who is not here legally and who attempts to obtain government services or a job.
We fine emplyers and impose draconian penaltites both financial, criminal and ongoing which will include a check of social security numbers to determine if the number is legal, if the person is the one identified and if that social security number is currently being used anywhere else. Such a check is possible now but the government won't tell employers if the number is in use elsewhere so some are caught between the law and the threat of a discrimination lawsuit. Eliminate the lawsuit threat by making the information available quickly and many will not apply for fear of being deported. That was the promise of previous immigration legislation and when it was enforced it worked.
Lastly we need to make a simple law that makes it illegal to require any language other than English as a hiring requirement except for those hired specifically as interpreters. Businesses can still hire and be bi-lingual but they can't make it a requirment for hiring. That should encourage many to learn the language.
Most of us who would solve the illegal immgration problem by enforcing laws and making the border secure have no problem with those who are here legally. Those who are not must not be allowed any benefit from their illegal act of entering the country. No jobs is the way to do it and the way to do that is to make the reason for hiring illegals go away. Companies do a risk benefit analysis for most decisons. Make the cost of hiring illegals too high to be profitable and that would include both fines and the loss of all government contracts as well as jail time for managers and others in the "power train". Making the fines high is good. Giving the person who reports the illegals a good share of the fines would make it even riskier for companies because people know when illegals are working for a company. Those tips would be very useful and provide a lot of money to the state. We would probably be able to fund a lot of law enforcement positions just with those fines.
Oh, and one last (I mean it this time) thing. The legal decision that created the anchor baby problem was built on the premise that it was not possible to determine the legal status of the woman giving birth. Technology has made that a moot point as we now have the record keeping ability to determine if a person is a legal immigrant. Send a law up that clearly identifies illegal immigrants as not eligible for citizenshp status for their kids and the court will decide again and this time I bet they raise that "anchor" and cut off the enormous cost those children create.
I know it is heartless to demand that laws be enforced and we think of our own first. Too bad. I'm on the transplant list anyway so call me names. Just let me live in America not little Mexico.
What is scary about this whole ordeal is that your senators appear to care less about what you think.
They just voted Thursday on an amendment to eliminate the amnesty from the bill and voted to keep it 66-29.
When 12-20 million illegals are issued "Z" visas, they will be entitled to all rights of entitlement, including food stamps, welfare and legal public defenders.
They become non-deportable.
Hound your senators nationwide to eliminate this bill now. They will all be coming home for Memorial Day. Hound them.
Posted by DS on May 25, 2007 06:27 AMMae, you must be a mind-reader!
How else would you know all these things about me?
I really thought that I was unobserved doing all this secret stuff of allowing immigrants to speak their native languages, and getting them not to assimilate, and stealing from the taxpayer.
Nice try Madame Mae, I think your crystal ball needs a clean-up.
Perhaps your illegal housemaid can give it a wipe.
This is a capitalist country you dumbass, the Spanish signs, the illegal workers, the messed-up immigration laws are there because it makes money for people who can influence laws and policies.
… and if you don’t like the inconvenience of being a Christian and also a Nationalist, well hey, kick Jesus off the island. He loves you right, so he won’t mind.
P.S. I suggest you check out your own grasp of English before you complain about anybody else’s, beam, eye, splinter, knowwhaddimean?
Bango Skank,
There is nothing inconsistency in a Christian being patriotic.
We shouldn't be thinking about differences, but rather our similarities. We shouldn't be building walls, but rather bridges. We shouldn't be passing laws, but rather finding ways to welcome.
Posted by on May 25, 2007 07:48 AMTo Mr. Jones one can only reply in the words of a REAL Republican: "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel."
Posted by Old Grouch on May 25, 2007 08:11 AMJames, that's quite a big claim.
Care to expand on how that works?
For example, if national interests clash with commitment to scriptures and the parables of Jesus, which wins? Do you help the poor because Jesus said expressly to do so, or do you toss them back over the border because they are here illegally?
Or do you try to weasel on what "help" really means, and what "poor" means, and figure that they are better off someplace else?
My guess is that you cannot square nationalism with Christianity unless you relegate God to being a second-class citizen in your computations.
When those nuns ceremonially poured blood on the rails at a nuclear missile site, did you side with Jesus or with National Security?
I betcha you were a bit torn on that, but found it very easy (and convenient) to pidgeon-hole them as left-wing fanatics, and take the side of Nationalism.
Or do I have you wrong?
Skank and Anderson...With all those voices in your heads did you take votes on your opinions or what??
Posted by [Jo Jo] A on May 25, 2007 09:24 AMthe draft of the immigration amnesty bill:
http://www.heritage.org/research/immigration/im62007.cfm
Jo Jo, what an amazing riposte, truly breathtaking, I would never have thought of implying that somebody was psychotic in order to undermine an argument they had made or to avoid a question they had posed.
I mean the sheer style, elegance, and so, so biting wit that you put on display is just beyond my capacity to answer. You leave my whole approach in tatters with your insight and clear argument.
… or not
Feeble insult boyo, try again when you have sucked down a few smokes and steadied your yellowed fingers with a cup or two of whatever it is that smelly goblins like you drink.
Anyway, how about you unsheathe that rapier-like intellect of yours and try to answer the questions.
You claimed that the Irish and the Italians all assimilated and that the Mexicans haven’t.
How long did it take the Irish and Italians to assimilate?
Is it less time than the Mexicans have already had or not?
If Mr.Able took X units of time to gimble the gonko, then it makes no sense whatever after X-Y units of time to accuse Mr.Baker of being a slowpoke when he has only been at the same task for less time.
Or doesn’t that compute for you? Do I need to cast the example in terms of hits from a crack pipe to put it in more familiar terms for you?
Just say the word boyo, I am happy to oblige you.
Bob, the gold fringe surrounding Old Glory signifies the rule of Maritime Law. This shows that American law is beneath the International Law, you only really see the fringe in courts.
Posted by Holy Reality on May 25, 2007 09:50 AMMexico allows dual citizenship. What Mexican will give up his Mexican citizenship when he can be American as well and travel between countries in privileged style? Not only do we get millions of new American "citizens", we embed in our population millions of people who demand we cater to Mexico's wishes.
Posted by Denise on May 25, 2007 10:18 AMMary: "Or haven't you folks who say we only complain & don't come up with suggestions bothered to READ any of the suggestions that Congress has chosen to ignore."
Yes, I've seen them, and then pointed out that Congress will ignore them. Actually, they seem to be taking border security very seriously. And a lot of other things too.
"I have also suggested that EVERYONE who thinks that this new piece of legislation is a slap in the face to both middle class"
Whatever. I'm middle class. I've felt no taps on my cheek, and I suggest that the only thing you might be feeling comes directly from the volume on your televison set.
Labas, your 45 million figure is bogus and is not supported by any credible source. That means 1 out of every 6-7 people in the U.S. No. I warned you about DCN. What part of "lying to you" don't you understand?
Posted by anderson on May 25, 2007 11:12 AM
You want to make an impact on this issue? Call your Senator Ken Salazar and tell him how you feel about his support in pushing the "Comprehensive Amnesty Legislation" through the Senate. Call the DC Office of Senator Ken Salazar, 202-224-5852 or the Ft. Morgan Office 970-542-9446.
Also, call Senator Wayne Allard and thank him for fighting aganst this legislation, DC Office of Senator Wayne Allard, 202-224-5941.
Posted by David on May 25, 2007 11:18 AMI spent $50 to fill up my little 16 gal. tank the other day. I wonder what all the truckers, and industry whose livelihood is directly affected by the burgeoning gas prices thinks is important these days. Let me try a little hyperbole of my own, since we can't seem to make *any* arguments on this issue without resorting to such. I think all these rants about "amnesty" are a slap in the face to every working American, most whose economic concerns are affected very little if at all by immigration.
Posted by anderson on May 25, 2007 11:41 AMLabas, sorry, I take back my earlier comment to you. I thought you were saying 45 mil. was the undoumented pop. not the total immigrant pop. My error. I suspect you're actually talking about the foreign born pop. and from what I've read it's still not as high as it was at the turn of the 20th century.
Posted by anderson on May 25, 2007 11:54 AMdang jojo. you offer no polite opinion. you just lash out, call people names etc. they should deport you. please don't come on here just to vent your stupid crap.
Posted by against jojo on May 25, 2007 02:54 PM[As a courtesy to others who comment here, please choose a single screen name and use it invariably from now on -- the Hall Monitor]
Blah,blah,blah, Skank and Anderson(AMNESTY LOVERS) anyone who hangs around these threads understand that you both bait people. I am not going to fall into the crap that swirls around with you.
So, save your breath....you'll need it to blow up your next date!
So "discussion" is now called "bait".
I see.
What do you call "rational argument" in your lingo JoJo?
Who said I was in favor of amnesty, eh JoJo?
Nice try though.
I like the insult though, it shows a certain sort of trailer-park mind at work.
Did your Mama say that to you or did you make it up yourself?
[As a courtesy to others who comment here, please choose a single screen name and use it invariably from now on -- the Hall Monitor]
No, Skank twas not my mama. It was YOUR mama who taught me. You remember the old blue trailer you grew up in?? Cmon now don't block it out!!
Your Ma, had more going for her than I thought, especially when she worked so diligently to keep you from consistantly trying to arrange your bags of M&Ms in alphabetical order.
Posted by [Jo Jo] A on May 25, 2007 04:04 PMit is ironic that we can't seem to get our heads around this. the fact that 1 million people cross over the mexican border ILLEGALLY every year is a huge threat to our country. it's not bad enough that we have problems with what we already have. we now compound our problems with those of mexico. more poverty, more crime, a rapidly growing population... the list could go on and on.
the only real way to solve this problem is to deport. yes i said DEPORT everyone who has come over the border illegally or has overstayed a visa. it makes no difference that they have children born here who therefore are considered citizens. their parents knew that when they crossed the border.
it also makes sense to punish those who hire illegals with immense fines. once there are severe repurcussions for breaking the law, both for the illegals and companies thast hire them, illegal immigration will cease to be a problem.
that's not being unchristian or being a bigot, it's the only way to solve the problem.
Posted by ktr on May 25, 2007 04:19 PM"we can't seem to get our heads around this. the fact that 1 million people cross over the mexican border ILLEGALLY every year"
Probably because it's not a fact.
"is a huge threat to our country."
I'm sure don't feel threatened by working people. Why are you? Because of some idiots ranting and raving on TV and radio?
"it's not bad enough that we have problems with what we already have."
Yeah, and it's too bad we don't spend more time and energy on some of those problems we already have.
"we now compound our problems with those of mexico. more poverty, more crime, a rapidly growing population... the list could go on and on."
Our problems have little or nothing to do with "Mexico".
"the only real way to solve this problem is to deport. yes i said DEPORT everyone who has come over the border illegally or has overstayed a visa."
It's funny Congress hasn't leapt to the same conclusion. Neither have I.
"it makes no difference that they have children born here who therefore are considered citizens."
It sure as hell does make a difference. Unless you think some children are worthless.
"their parents knew that when they crossed the border."
Only those who were a family when the crossed the border. And for those who flew in?
"it also makes sense to punish those who hire illegals with immense fines. once there are severe repurcussions for breaking the law, both for the illegals and companies thast hire them, illegal immigration will cease to be a problem."
Fine. Your solution seems to be to spread the maximum amount of punishment around. I doubt you feel that way about other lawbreakers? Why not? There are more illegal drug users in Colorado. What do you propose we do with them? Why don't we run blockades every night on I-25. I'm sure we could catch a boat load of drunks and criminals. Do you have a simple, single solution for these problems as you do for immigration?
"that's not being unchristian or being a bigot, it's the only way to solve the problem."
Thankfully, only a few think that way. And your "only way" won't be "the" way.
Anderson,
The American Indian will be more than happy to tell you what happens if you don't control the borders
Posted by jgd777 on May 25, 2007 10:40 PMandersons family will be murdered by an illegal alien but since he is such a liberal he will take the (undocumented worker )into his home feed him and their family and pay their medical expenses and will speak only Spanish, and will also accommodate them by burning our flag and placing the Mexican flag in its place(like the unpatriotic scum he is ), and when the revolution takes place, cause it will sooner or later , he will be killed by the people he took into his home just because he is white ,
so anderson , why don't you and the aclu go screw each other long and hard with no lube cause that what you are doing to MY HOME COUNTRY, here before you,
and yes , jgd777 , is right us native Americans know what it is like to have our borders infringed, and unfortunately, our people were not organized or prepared for, but America as a country is prepared and could do something about it if we stand together people,
come on people if you want to end illegal immigration stop writing letters and do something about it and someone duct tape anderson and put him in an air tight box and ship to mexico vis regular postage
Posted by hoimaha on May 26, 2007 05:52 AMI believe there should be three types of foreigners entering this country. First there are the people coming in for specific reasons, ie tourist, students. business. Their Visa should clear and precise, set times and places.
Next there are the immigrates who have applied for and have been accepted to enter the path to citizenship. It takes courage and patience to proceed through this process. These people should be welcomed and even assisted through that long journey. Help with learning the langauage and culture.
Last;y there are the ones who "choose" to enter this country illegally or "choose" to violate the conditions of their Visas. These people should be hunted down and prosecuted along with anyone in this country attempting to help them violated the immigration laws.
To me this is not being inhuman or a`bigot,
it is simply being a good citizen who has been taught to respect the laws of the land. Just because you do not like the law does not give you the right to break it.
This country became the greatest country in the world because of the rule of law.
Now I will be wating patiently for the response using the Civil rights movement, or the Women's right to vote as examples of how breaking the law did change the law. I will only make one point regarding this matter, the people protesting and demanding change were "legal"" citizens of this country.
Posted by jgd777 on May 26, 2007 07:12 AMjgd: then you miss the point altogether (of the analogy to the civil rights movement)--because it suits your purpose to do so.
I'm certainly in favor the rule of law and enforcing our laws. But no one's responded to my suggestion that we apply the rule of law in other instances (drugs, for example). I guess because some lawbreakers are more equal than others. And so I come to the inescapable conclusion, that upholding the law isn't really the only issue here.
Posted by anderson on May 26, 2007 09:45 AMhoimaha, this country belongs to me as much as it does you, you sniveling pos. If you were to run around and calling people un-American to their face you would likely get a mouth full of teeth before long. But, no, instead of having any sort of civil discourse, you want to lob grenades from behind the safety of your computer. Get a life, loser.
Posted by anderson on May 26, 2007 09:54 AMjgd: "Anderson, The American Indian will be more than happy to tell you what happens if you don't control the borders"
Please stop mischaracterizing my position about controlling the border in order to diminish the importance of other issues.
As for your analogy to the American Indians of the 19th century--I don't know, but I suspect they would have a difficult time understanding your concept of a border.
Posted by anderson on May 26, 2007 10:01 AMAnderson,
Your position, as I understand it is, immediate protection of the rights and humane treatment of the illegal immigrates. Yet willing to wait and hope the government will do what is neccessary to secure the border.
My position is once the government has secured the border we can start dealing with the issues surronding the illegal immigrates.
I believe the history of our government's actions or inactions regarding their ability and more importantly their willingness to secure the border warrants my distrust. Therefore I should and do demand they meet certain requirements before they even start this amnesty process.
Give the illegal immigrates a TEMPORARY Visa, say two years. Go after companies that are profiting from the illegals, anyone with a TEMPORARY visa would not suffer nor would the company hiring them.
Secure the border, detain, deport, and procecute anyone attempting to enter illegally. If the government is truly serious about the border, two years would be sufficent time
During the two years a background check could be done on the illegal immigrates and decisions could be made on which ones stay and which ones have to leave.
I believe is fair proposal for both sides of the immigration issue.
Posted by jgd777 on May 26, 2007 10:34 AMAnderson,
I sure hope you are not using that old excuse of, because one law is not being enforced than no law should be. Using one bad behavior to justify another bad behavior is an old trick my children use to use. It didn't work for them either.
You will have to come up with something better that
Posted by jgd777 on May 26, 2007 11:18 AMjgd777,
"Borders" are far from being anything even remotely a part of Native American tradition, as is true of the idea of "ownership of land and resources", as conceived in the Western sense.
That aside, your last posting offers some very good ideas for a start to solving the problems. Perhaps I am missing someting there; but are you saying that "two years would be sufficient timme" to complete either a fence or wall? Or how do you see the way to "secure the border"?
Also, I think you got the action sequence a bit reversed, when you say "deport and prosecute". But, again, that's possible to clarify. On the other hand, what amount of cost are we looking at in "prosecution", as well as the effect on the Courts? Those in the country illegally now are already subject to deportation, without trial. Why add prosecution there?
As for the rest, while I might have some reservations aa to the time line - two years is a bit rapid, I think - especially considering the present matter of our Iraq quagmire - the focus is good; and the actions make sense overall.
I commend you for your posting, and hope that others will join me in recognizing that a fair proposal, such as yours, makes a great deal more sense than merely ranting about "militia" and such like.
Posted by Old Grouch on May 26, 2007 11:24 AM"Anderson, I sure hope you are not using that old excuse of, because one law is not being enforced than no law should be. Using one bad behavior to justify another bad behavior is an old trick my children use to use. It didn't work for them either."
Well, I'm not, am I? So while you offer a seemingly fair post about solutions, again you come up with this bs--purposely misconstruing what I say into something different, and willfully ignoring what the analogy to civil rights law is about. You don't have to agree with the analogy, or what it means, but you should at least acknowledge the argument instead trying to twist my position just so you can knock it down.
Posted by anderson on May 26, 2007 11:42 AM"Anderson,
Your position, as I understand it is, immediate protection of the rights and humane treatment of the illegal immigrates. Yet willing to wait and hope the government will do what is neccessary to secure the border."
Okay, that's fair--except for your subtle insinuation that I think the govt won't "secure the border".
"My position is once the government has secured the border we can start dealing with the issues surronding the illegal immigrates.
I believe the history of our government's actions or inactions regarding their ability and more importantly their willingness to secure the border warrants my distrust. Therefore I should and do demand they meet certain requirements before they even start this amnesty process."
Okay. I don't fully agree with your solution, but I think your position is well represented in Congress. So, if you don't get all you want, is that cause for dumping the whole idea of reform in file 13, and letting the status quo (a mess) stand?
Putting aside for the moment the human issue, here are just two complications regarding your proposal: what constitutes "securing the border"? If you were a Congressman, what measure would you use? Secondly, as Old Grouch mentions, how much are you willing to pay for this measure? Is it unlimited? We could probably round up all the illegal drug users in this country too but at what cost? Reality is, we don't, and aren't willing to do this.
Old Grouch,
Thought is was about time someone came up with a reasonable answer to this issue!
Border security, involves increased border patrol, some walls and fences, and some high tech, ie; camera, unmanned planes motion detector. However the main thing will be to take away the reason to cross the border illegally, JOBS. By going after the companies and people hiring the illegals should drop the illegal crossing by 20% That is what I meant when I stated prosecution, not for the immigrates but the companies.
Note, the illegals currently in the country would not have to worry just as long as they register and recieve TEMPORARY permission to stay.
The necessary fences and walls could be built in less than a year, If we can build a multimillion dollar stadium that fast there is no reason we can't the same thing with a fence. As for the cost, there never seems to be a problem coming up with money to build a bridge to nowhere, or to finance a research program to discover the eating habit of some frog or something.
By working together with common goal this country can do what needs to be done. What is stopping this entire immigration problem from being solved is greed. It is time to start thinking of the country as a whole and not just personal motives.
Anderson,
If securing the border first is not represented in the bill, then yes we should throw the entire bill in the trash and start over. The bill as it is written will not solve the issue, it will simply delay it for our children and grandchildren. I only wish my side was represented in Congress, but our own Senator, basically wants an open border.
Without a secure border, this problem doesn't end, it doesn't even slow it down. The illegals will just keep coming so they can be part of the next amnesty
Posted by jgd777 on May 26, 2007 12:15 PMANDERSON , I just want to know why you want Mexico moving into America?we already have a poverty issue here in America, America cannot even take care of its own, what makes you think we should take care of millions of illegal immigrants.you keep ranting about civil rights, they are foreigners , they have no rights if they are here illegally they have the right to go back to Mexico and go through "due process" and come over legally, i do not have an issue with this, if they show patience it gives them the time to learn english, you know the primary language spoken in the United States of America. like i said many times before , i have friends from all over the world and they come here legally and better the community, not drag it down into the ground like roaches and decimate the neighborhood then move on to the next. they fail to assimilate into society , they drain the welfare system, they don't have to have insurance or a license when they drive a car , they kill people and just get deported back to Mexico, if an American does this they are punished to the fullest extent of the law, i want to know why you want them here. just about every night on the news an illegal immigrant has killed someone , and all that happens is deportation to Mexico so they will be back in a week after a bribe to the federally ,
if you like Mexico so much go there , assimilate with the people , live off of their welfare system
and as for the loser part up there , i am a patriot of America, you fly your f'king Mexican flag around me i will wrap you in it and burn it in front of your family
Posted by hoimaha on May 26, 2007 12:24 PM
Anderson,
I was not talking about your analogy regarding your civil rights statement. I was talking about your statement
"I'm certainly in favor the rule of law and enforcing our laws. But no one's responded to my suggestion that we apply the rule of law in other instances (drugs, for example). I guess because some lawbreakers are more equal than others. And so I come to the inescapable conclusion, that upholding the law isn't really the only issue here."
That is what I meant by "Using one bad behavior to justify another bad behavior is an old trick my children use to use. It didn't work for them either."
Okay, jgd, thanks for your explanation. I misunderstood your comment. I think you're still misunderstanding my point, however. I'm not advocating anyone break the law or that we condone breaking the law (and I don't know how many times I have to say this). I'm just pointing out that an extraordinary concern is placed on some people breaking the law, but not others. The whole, "it's the law, period" argument would be much stronger if it were consistently applied. But it's not.
Posted by anderson on May 26, 2007 01:03 PMhoimaha, once again, your comments are filled with hatred and ugliness. If you can't talk like a human being, you should at least stay off these forums with your foulness. There may be children present.
Posted by anderson on May 26, 2007 01:17 PManderson if you are a child you can leave, remember the 1st amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, freedom of speech.
2. you never replied to my question of why you want Mexico here in the united states,
all you see is the negative that i write , you could not even see the question i asked you in the start of my post, i would like to have you reply to that and let me know your point on why.. if you cannot do this then you are the loser ,
Posted by hoimaha on May 26, 2007 01:46 PMI don't respond to loaded, or idiotic questions. Besides, it's clear you don't give a rat's a what I think. Your world is filled with enemies (including ghosts) and that's what you tend to see. So be it. You remind me that I spend too much time on the internet.
"I'm a Duppy Conqueror"--Bob Marley, with The Wailers.
Posted by anderson on May 26, 2007 02:20 PMMind if I dip into this river for a comment.?
Back in the 50`s or 60`s the government broke up the polygamists families and took the children away. Even for these "law breakers" there was a terrible outcry from the American people.
Americans have no love for polygamists but were horrified at the human cost of making a few go to jail and pay a cost .
How do you think Americans today would react to deporting millions of people?
I really don`t know if my neighbors whould hunt down or hide the illegals.
Co-workers and friends would be hidden and protected, I think.
Posted by Sharon B. on May 26, 2007 05:15 PMSharon,
Anyone with any knowledge of this issue knows and understands the 12 million illegals will never be deported. However I don't believe all 12 million should just be given amnesy either. And yes I did use the word "amnesty", because that is exactly what it is. As a nation we have the right and the responsiblity to screen the immigrates entering this country, and that is what we should be demanding from our government.
Even the ones who came here illegally.
Anderson
The law has never been enforced equally.
For twenty some years we have tried to enforce the drug laws, it has failed miserablly but we have tried. During those same twenty some years our immigration laws have only been enforced at the air and sea ports. The southern border enforcement is a joke. I do not blame the border patrol they have been doing the best they could with the resources availble to them. Our government has totally failed the citizens of this country.
Power, greed, and that feel good position
has stood in the way of any enforcement. The time has come to start and I mean start to enforce our immigration laws. It is our governments fault for this mess, but that does not take away some of the blame from the immigrates themselves.
As long as we leave the border open to anyone and everyone that wants to cross the border we are setting ourselves up for a total disaster. We need to send a messge to the next wave of illegals, that they are not welcome. Offering Amnesty sends exactly the opposite message.
Most people want a fair solution, but only after our borders have been secured. I do not believe this is being unfair or inhuman, it is simpily demanding the government, to protect us first. This bill only offers the citizen a promise of what they will do and I am sorry, but that dog don't hunt.
Secure the border, establish a tamperproof ID deport the criminals ie gang members murderers, drug dealers, prosecute companies and people hiring illegals, prosecute the people hiding or assiting them in remaining illegal. Then we can work on a process for the good hard working immigrates.
The point that needs to be stressed is "SECURE THE BORDERS FIRST"
Posted by jgd777 on May 26, 2007 10:19 PMHOW MANY OF YOU HAVE CALLED YOUR REPS. AND TOLD THEM WHAT YOU THINK? IF YOU HAVE NOT DO NOT COMPLAIN.
Posted by Ron on May 27, 2007 09:14 AMI have called, written and emailed many times however Ken Salazar, Congress and President Bush have probably deleted all of my phone messages, deleted my emails and thrown away the letters. Why you say?Because I am not Hispanic, I have a job and was born in the US from a mother and father who were also born in the US.
I am a indepedent voter, a free thinker and I am not rich so I can not send them thousands of dollars to help their parties in the elections, therefore my voice falls on deaf ears.
If you feel the same way as I do maybe if we get together and speak with a louder voice then they we hear us.
Repeat after me "SECURE THE BORDER FIRST"
Posted by jgd777 on May 27, 2007 11:21 AMI see both of Arizona's Republican Senators now support the compromise bill.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070527/pl_nm/usa_politics_kyl_dc
Posted by anderson on May 27, 2007 11:26 AMjgd777,what you say is not true.The Reps do listen to phone calls and e-mails.I have been involved in elections for years and can tell you that even if you do not have money you still can have power in the system.If we lose this battle it will be our own fault.If just 10% of the people call their Reps we will win.That would be 30,000,000 people.The problem is the people not the Reps.
Posted by Ron on May 28, 2007 08:46 AM