What should be done about illegal immigration?

Are you two really too stupid to understand, or are you playing with me? Illegal alien crime rates are included in foreign born rates... and in the example I made clear enough for a 7 year old to understand; you can could increase the crime ratio for illegals to the point where legals committed no crime at all; and the ratio still wouldn't support your argument.

At Last a step in the right direction!!




Fence firm hired illegals
By Jerry Seper
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
March 30, 2007


The head of a California company hired by the U.S. government to help build a fence along the Southwest border to curb the flow of illegal aliens into the United States has been sentenced on charges of hiring illegals for the job.
Mel Kay Jr., 64, founder, chairman and president of the Golden State Fence Co., pleaded guilty in December in federal court in San Diego to felony charges of hiring the illegals and was sentenced Wednesday to six months home confinement, three months probation and 1,040 hours of community service.
Michael McLaughlin, 42, manager of the company's Oceanside, Calif., office, who also pleaded guilty in December to charges of hiring illegals, was sentenced to six months home confinement.
U.S. District Judge Barry Ted Moskowitz in San Diego also ordered Kay to pay a $200,000 fine as part of a plea agreement, while McLaughlin was fined $100,000.
"Prosecution is long overdue in this area," Judge Moskowitz said at sentencing. "Honestly, the government's efforts have been at the border, not with the employer. Obviously, the government has signaled a change with this case."
Judge Moskowitz, in explaining his decision not to impose a possible maximum sentence of five years in prison, said a company "that pays top dollar and did not get a competitive advantage, should receive different treatment."
He said the court could not ignore the background of "hardworking people who treated others fairly. Contrary to the vast majority of people who hire illegal immigrants, there was no abuse [here]."
The company, which built more than a mile of a 15-foot-high fence near the Otay Mesa border crossing in the San Diego area to protect against illegal immigration, agreed separately to pay $5 million on a misdemeanor count -- one of the largest penalties ever imposed on an employer for immigration violations.
Golden State Executive Vice President Gary Hansen said the company was "grateful" the judge chose probationary sentences rather than incarceration.
"Mel and Mike are hardworking men who have worked all their lives to make a better life for themselves and the people around them," Mr. Hansen said. "Their acts were not egregious, nor were they exploitive to the undocumented workers. We believe the court recognized the strength of their character when making its decision."
Golden State was notified in writing in July 1999 that at least 15 of its employees at its Oceanside office were discovered to be illegal aliens following a visit by agents from the now-defunct U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service. At that time, Golden State executives said they were terminating the illegal workers, but in September 2004, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents found that 49 Golden State employees at the Oceanside office were illegal aliens.
Three of those employees were identified as being among the illegal workers listed in the 1999 notice.
In November 2005, ICE agents seized evidence at the company's offices in Oceanside and Riverside, Calif., showing that the two offices had engaged in a pattern of hiring illegal aliens. From September 2004 to September 2005, agents said, Golden State hired more than 10 illegal workers listed in the 1999 and 2004 notices.
The guilty pleas followed a multiyear investigation by ICE.
"This settlement and guilty plea clearly show that employers who knowingly and blatantly hire illegal workers will pay dearly for such transgressions," Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Julie L. Myers, who heads ICE, said at the time.
Golden State currently employs more than 700 workers at eight locations throughout Southern California.

And possibly another. By Jerry Seper
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
March 30, 2007


Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff will meet next month with members of the Southwestern Border Sheriff's Coalition, who have vigorously called on the federal government to include state and local law-enforcement authorities in efforts to secure the border.
Representing 28 counties along the 1,951-mile border from Texas to California, the coalition has asked for federal help in combating rising illegal entry and drug smuggling, saying the federal government's failure to control the border has put the lives of border residents and law-enforcement officials at risk.
"The Southwestern Border Sheriffs Coalition was formed for just this purpose: to support our law-enforcement partners as we address those issues particular to the international border," said Yuma County, Ariz., Sheriff Ralph Ogden, the coalition chairman. "This meeting will provide firsthand information to those in Washington who are making the decisions on how to secure our borders."
The meeting was arranged by Sen. John Cornyn, Texas Republican and ranking member of the Senate Judiciary subcommittee on immigration, border security and refugees.
"Fighting crime, securing our borders and ensuring legitimate trade and travel require strong partnerships throughout government," Mr. Cornyn said. "This meeting will allow those on the front lines to discuss these and other issues directly."
Sheriff Ogden, whose 5,520-square-mile county has become a popular alien-smuggling corridor with more than a 50 percent jump in apprehensions last year, has argued that law-enforcement agencies along the border face not only immigration issues but border-security concerns.
"These meetings and the meetings we hold regularly with our federal partners are part of the strong partnerships that Senator Cornyn has spoken about: securing our border by getting the input from the sheriffs on the front line," he said.
The coalition has urged the federal government to work with state and local law-enforcement authorities to address the issue of border security, saying that while federal officials have been "doing a lot of talking" about securing the nation's borders, the Southwest continues to be overrun by illegal aliens, illicit drugs and rising violence.
"Maybe the time has come to do some listening," the coalition said in a statement.
Overwhelmed by a flood of illegal aliens and drugs along with increasing border violence, the coalition formed to seek funding from federal and state officials to help pay for rapidly escalating border-enforcement costs.
While Mr. Chertoff has touted a reduction in apprehensions of illegals and a decline in drug seizures as signs the government is gaining operational control of the border, Zapata County, Texas, Sheriff Sigifredo Gonzalez Jr. has described the assertions as misleading.
"The reduction of apprehensions and seizures that Mr. Chertoff talks about comes as a result of transferring many agents away from Texas to other states," said Sheriff Gonzalez, the coalition's founder. "When you have less vigilance, obviously you are going to have less apprehensions and seizures."
Sheriff Gonzalez said much of the coalition's concerns focus on rising violence on the border, much of which targets U.S. law-enforcement authorities.
He said it seeks to bring "one voice" to agencies along the border to help combat border crime, but has described the organization as only a temporary fix "until the federal government figures out what it is going to do on a national level to develop a policy or law to control not only illegal immigration but border violence."

Perhaps the good of the country is precisely why they're leaving well enough alone. Our current policy fulfills the needs of business and the economy, while not overpopulating us too quickly. Seems to be working pretty well thus far.

Full WaPo report online

Path to citizenship. Get knocked up in the US.

And that's one I'm torn on too, Au. I hate meddling with the Constitution on that issue, but changing the Constitution to read that persons born to a U.S. citizen obtain automatic citizenship would eliminate the anchor baby problem. Nobody in any emergency room in the country would be mean enough to turn away a woman in labor no matter who she is. But when they allow her to have the baby in the hospital, voila, that baby is a U.S. citizen. That apparently is a powerful lure for women about to deliver to somehow make it across the border before the baby comes. We can't deport a U.S. citizen and it is so heartless to separate a mother from her child.

That is one of many of these thorny little issues that we'll have to deal with in any kind of comprehensive and workable immigration policy.

This is a highly complex problem and will not be solved on a case by case basis. Whatever the solution, some individuals will suffer. A solution that requires zero tolerance for individual suffering will never be achieved.

I've actually spent the last week studying Jus Solis, or birthright citizenship; and I can tell you that there is no serious move in America to get rid of it at all.

I honestly can't see any sector other than the Tancredo right supporting this, and that's not enough to get bills passed.

Cycloptichorn

That's jus soli (without the 's') (actually it is "ius soli" but you American don't write it like in Latin) :wink:

Path to hell (for people who believe in such): Demonstrate this level of disregard for you your fellow human being.

Anchor baby problem? You've raised the bar on disgusting with this, Foxfyre. It takes a heart of stone to look at a newborn and see an "anchor baby". As if it wasn't racist enough to want to deny the brown man the right to live on the land of his forefathers; now you want to pitch children into poverty for the so-called sins of the father? Unbelievably. So much for you bullshit about only being concerned about Security… or do you fear the potential terrorism from "anchor babies" as well?

Thorny little issue? WTF is wrong with you? There is nothing little or thorny about it. A child born on America soil should not be pitched into some foreign country for the crime of having the wrong parents. And if that truly becomes an American Issue; I'll be ashamed to call myself an American.

Tell me Finn; do you have any reservations about the "anchor baby" inclusion in our constitution? (I ask because I know if there's any possibility of hearing a coherent argument against it; it will come from you).

Bill, your passion on this is remarkable, but your denial is even more so. Surely you are not ignoring all the testimony of border hospitals receiving the illegal mother in hard labor and delivering her baby. Do you deny that emergency rooms have closed because they could no longer afford to accommodate this kind of nonpaying traffice? Why would she bypass the hospitals in Juarez or Nogales or Tijuana and hazard a trip across the border when she is in labor? Because nobody will immediately remove a mother in labor and once the baby is born, it becomes too traumatic to remove the mother from her baby who is a U.S. citizen. And voila, her baby becomes an anchor baby for her.

If you need to educate yourself here is one source that is not unbiased but which is telling it like it is. There are many more:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48161

Now if you could just knock off drinking the koolade long enough to look at the situation objectively, you might be less inclined to continue this constant, and quite annoying petty, mushy headed, leftwing kneejerk response of RASCISM that you attempt to attach to anybody who doesn't agree with your mantra of throw open the borders and let anybody in who wants in.

If reasonable people cannot include ALL the issues in reasonable discussion on this, we will be unable to have reasonable discussion about anything.

so far, it appears that "reasonable" and "OCCOM BILL" do not coincide on this issue.

You want the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution to be changed, Foxfyre.

Why not the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act of 1985?

What denial? I'm ignoring nothing. If hospitals need more government funding for government guaranteed services, then we need more government funding. Where do you imagine denial?
One need not drink Koolade, be mushy headed, or leftwing to recognize the inherent wrongness in punishing children for the sins of the father.

You claim your border concerns stem from security. Do you suppose Terrorists are attempting to smuggle themselves into the country in wombs? You have now demonstrated your dishonesty about your motivation quite thoroughly and obviously. You pretend that it isn't Mexicans you're worried about, but rather terrorists, yet, in the above scenario that simply isn't true. Surely you're not foolish enough to now pretend that expecting Mexican Mothers aren't precisely who your concern relates to, are you? So why don't you just admit it?

Say "I, Foxfyre, oppose sharing the land my forefathers stole from Mexicans with the Mexican decedents of the victims of this crime. I feel so strongly about this; I would have the constitution of the United States changed to facilitate the exile of unborn babies upon birth, should those 'anchor babies' have the audacity to be born on the soil my forefathers rightfully stole" (stole to perpetuate racism, no less).

Reasonable people view newborn babies as something to be cherished and cared for... not something to cast away for the sins of the father. The term "anchor baby" is an abomination to decency. You should be ashamed of yourself for referring to something as precious as a newborn baby with such callous disregard for human life. No baby born on American soil is a threat to you, or your way of life. No argument to the contrary is reasonable.

Hmm, I don't know. I don't believe that most of the land was 'stolen' any more than any other piece of land which currently has humans residing on it can be considered 'stolen.' Texans (for example) engaged in armed conflict with Mexico for the land and won the right to call it their own. I guess we could refer to the US and other major countries as land which was stolen as well; and there's an argument that could be made that it was. But in this context, is that the appropriate way to look at it? I don't think excluding that language hurts your point one bit.

I agree with your points, and you know that I am anti-illegal immigration myself, but I don't think racist arguments are needed to fight against it, but practical ones.

Cycloptichorn

O'bill, you should be ashamed of yourself for your inability to be rational in the discussion. Also for adopting the most despicable liberal mantra of demean, insult, denigrate, embarrass, and/or destroy the opposition by making inferences that were never said, implications that don't exist, and accusations even if you have to make up the crime.

I said I wasn't going to continue in a pissing match with you. But based on my experience of you being one of the most level headed and insightful members on other topics, I thought surely you were just drunk or wiped out due to no sleep or something on this issue. Guess not though. The second chance produced a more irrational point of view from you than before.

If you followed me around for a couple of weeks, I think you would be apologizing for every ugly inference you have made.

It's nice to see that Fox is willing to make idiotic statements about anyone who attacks her position, regardless of their political orientation.

Commendably balanced mendacity. Bravo!

Cycloptichorn

Ah, and again the little dog just couldn't resist bravely barking from safely behind the big dog.