What should be done about illegal immigration?

At least, you're at a "30-day amnesty" by now.

A year ago you thought that "without still another amnesty in my opinion is the only way to go to be fair to everybody" :wink:

Ironic.

If you were paying attention at all, Walter, I have been consistent in wanting folks to have time to go home and come back legally. It wouldn't be an amnesty as much as a short reprieve to give people time to get their affairs in order. I have even thought up to six months to do that would be better than a blanket amnesty.

A few thousand of these strategically placed could pretty much end illegal immigration as we know it.



Too bad it can't fix the damage already done.

looks like a true hero of the fatherland.

Mr. Barrett is a hero of the 2nd Amendment.

Seems, I've a different understanding of amnesty.

Sorry for not looking those differences.

rightttt... blut und boden commarade !!

so lookee, if "mr. barrett" is such a hero of the 2nd amendment and such a tough motherlovin' defender, why isn't "mr. barrett" in the army or the marines killin' some "terrorists" over in afghanistan or eye-rack ?

what? they shoot back ? as opposed to a bunch of s.a.s climbin' over the fence?

i'm not at all in favor of illegal immigration, but "your" assertion that "mr. barrett" would be doin' america a favor by mowing down a bunch of nationals is not only emotion driven, but really effin' stupid.

note to "mr. barret" : get a *frackin' grip.

---

*p.s., i just found the dirty word eraser. hopefully, "mr. barret" gets my drift...

I'm quite sure he's providing hardware to the military and Blackwater. I used to make things that still serve as the deterrent that allows folks like you to have a free place to post. The grip is yours to be gotten.

it's not what ya got, it's what ya do with it.

Browne and the rest of the illegal aliens advocates.

Are these the hardworking law abiding people you keep crowing about?


Courts swamped by flood of cases in alien crackdown



By Jennifer Talhelm
ASSOCIATED PRESS
April 28, 2007



Illegal alien-related felony cases are swamping federal courts along the southwest border, forcing judges to handle hundreds more cases than their peers elsewhere.
Judges in the five, mostly rural judicial districts on the border carry the heaviest felony caseloads in the nation. Each judge in New Mexico, which ranked first, handled an average of 397 felony cases last year, compared with the national average of 84.
Federal judges in those five districts -- southern and western Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and Southern California -- handled one-third of all the felonies prosecuted in the nation's 94 federal judicial districts in 2005, according to federal court statistics.
While Congress has increased the number of border patrol officers, the pace of the law enforcement has eclipsed the resources for the court system.
Judges say they are stretched to the limit with cases involving drug trafficking or illegal aliens who have also committed serious crimes. Judges say they need help.
"The need is really dire. You cannot keep increasing the number of Border Patrol agents but not increasing the number of judges," said Chief Judge John M. Roll of the District of Arizona.
A bill by Sen. Pete V. Domenici, New Mexico Republican, would add 10 permanent and temporary judges in Arizona, New Mexico, and southern and western Texas. Proposals like it have gone nowhere in the past two years. The bill is co-sponsored by Republican Sens. Jon Kyl of Arizona, and John Cornyn and Kay Bailey Hutchison, both of Texas.
"I can't even tell you how much we need that," Judge Roll said.
The entire federal court system is affected, from U.S. marshals to magistrate judges. The bottleneck has even derailed enforcement efforts.
During a push to crack down on illegal aliens last fall, Customs and Border Protection floated a plan for New Mexico that would have suspended the practice of sending home hundreds of illegal aliens caught near the border with Mexico. Instead, these people would be sent to court.
The idea, called Operation Streamline, was to make it clear that people caught illegally in the U.S. would be prosecuted.
Then New Mexico's federal judges reminded the Border Patrol that they lacked the resources to handle the hundreds of new defendants who would stream into the court system every day.
"We said, 'Do you realize that the second week into this we're going to run out of [jail] space?' " Martha Vazquez, chief judge for the District of New Mexico, recalled telling Border Patrol chief David Aguilar.
"We were obviously alarmed because where would we put our bank robbers? Our rapists? Those who violate probation?" she said.
Border Patrol eventually dropped the idea. Officials said they could not get all the necessary agencies to agree to it.
It is estimated more than 1 million people sneak across the southwestern U.S. border and illegally enter the country every year. In Arizona, the busiest entry point for illegal aliens, state officials believe almost 4,000 people attempted to enter every day in 2006.
Many lawmakers, advocates and President Bush favor overhauling guest worker programs and rules for businesses that hire illegal aliens. The intent is to eliminate the incentive for workers to sneak into the country. Mr. Bush promoted his latest proposal for new worker visas this month in the border community of Yuma, Ariz.
In recent years, however, Congress has focused on increased enforcement.
The Border Patrol has almost 2,800 more agents than the 9,821 it had in September of 2001. An additional 6,000 National Guard troops have provided logistical support to the Border Patrol since May.
Congress has made available more than $1.2 billion for reinforcements, including fences, vehicle barriers, cameras and other security equipment.
Homeland Security officials say the increased security is working. In Yuma, Mr. Bush said that the number of people apprehended for illegally crossing the southern border into the U.S. has declined by nearly 30 percent this year.
Court officials, however, say they are in a crisis trying to deal with all the defendants.
Rep. Darrell Issa, California Republican, a staunch opponent of illegal aliens, has urged U.S. attorneys and courts to prosecute more illegal aliens and pushed for more resources for both. But he has discovered that while his colleagues who do not represent a border district are eager to add Border Patrol officers, many do not realize the effect that will have on the court system, his spokesman said.
Even lawmakers from border states say they cannot justify adding judgeships in one district when other districts also need them.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, California Democrat, says her state needs 12 judges, not just help on the border.
"I'd be happy to support any bill that gives California its fair share," Mrs. Feinstein said. "And I will seek to amend any bill that does not."
Court officials say they have had to be creative just to try the cases they have. Visiting judges help out in some districts. In Arizona, magistrates hold sessions on the weekends and have seen as many as 150 defendants in a day.
In New Mexico, Judge Vazquez and former U.S. Attorney David Iglesias went on a Spanish-language radio station broadcast in Mexico this winter to warn people about the penalties for illegally entering the United States.
Court administrators have trouble keeping employees, such as interpreters, because of the grind. Judges' staffs struggle with burnout. Court staffers fight to keep up morale as they hear countless sad stories from illegal aliens who broke the law searching for a better life in the United States.
"It'd be swell to have another judge or two," said Judge George Kazen, who is based on the border in Laredo, in the Southern District of Texas. "It would mean a little more time to spend on civil stuff, and a little more time to reflect. We have to make quick calls and move on."

No Au,

I am talking about the millions of undocumented immigrants who have never commited a crime worse than overstaying a visa or crossing the border.

I have never been against proper punishment (after a trial with due process) for people who have commited a violent crime.

It is your side that is trying to spring people who have been convicted of violent crimes (i.e. the use of deadly force) from jail.

My concern is that the honor roll students who have worked hard and have great potential, are given the chance to get a full education will contribute to society.

My concern is that mixed status families will be able to stay together in the country that they have roots in.

My concern is that all workers that our economy depends on have the rights to change jobs, demand rights and negotiate higher salaries... because I understand that it is the workers without rights who are the biggest threats to American workers-- since they can be taken advantage of.

Lock the felons up if they are American citizens (or Border Guards). Deport them if they are immigrants.

But let the good decent people who aren't hurting everyone and contribute to our economy become part of society. Punishing (or defaming) all for the violent acts of a few is wrong.

OK,which country?
If they have roots in both countries,then if they are deported they will still

Mystery,

Many "illegal" immigrants have been here for many years and have very strong roots and connections in the US. This is why they are so eager to be given a path to US citizenship.

A kid I know came here when he was 3 or 4 and is now graduating high school. His connections are here. His culture (from clothing, to likes/dislikes, to music, to his accesnt are here. His friends and his family (of which some are US citizens) are all here.

Incidently, the "illegal" adults in his family have been here for years, speak English perfectly and pay taxes.

If you met this kid, you would have no idea that he is someone deserving of your hatred since in every way... except for his papers... he is indistinguishable from any other American kid.

His friends (including myself) are pitching in thousands of dollars in to get him through college.

We are hoping for the in-state tuition bill to go through... since kids like this really deserve a chance at college and will end up making great citizens in the future.

The education these kids get now will end up helping Massachussets, and this is the reason for in-state tuition in the first place. Massachusetts needs people with deep roots in the state to be educated so they can contribute to the economy.

Brown
Pay taxes you say. How many work off the books, or have forged papers, which I believe is a deportable felony.

As for paying the tuition for an illegal would you do the same for a needy American kid. There are plenty who need it.
Charity IMO begins at home.

To expand the subject what should we do about the illegals that arrive on a daily basis or who have no ties here in the states and do not have "Anchor " children to lean on.
I would march them to the border and boot them across.

In addition first and foremost what needs be done is to seal up the leaking sieve of a border.

At least you wouldn't shoot them Au. I kind of respect you for that.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,186876,00.html

Doesn't surprise me that e-brown-p is advocating for yet more breaches of law - and federal law supersedes Massachusetts law, btw.

In-state tuition means tuition for people who live in the state. If the in-state tuition bill passes, any US citizen who lives in the state gets it, and any immigrant (regardless of their status) who lives in the state will get it.

Illegal immigrants who don't live in the state, or US citizens who don't live in the state have to pay out of state rates-- that is because they don't live in the state.

Several states already offer in-state rates to everyone who lives in the state (including illegal immigrants). This legal challenge will fail.

Don't be so sure :wink:

I rather think most of us here can manage basic English, e-brown-p, though considering your friends and acquaintances you may feel you need to explain the simplest terms.



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/27/AR2007032702146.html

This will be the tenor of the Massachusetts House discussion, presumably?