50
   

What should be done about illegal immigration?

 
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Jun, 2007 01:40 pm
CI, please read more carefully. I favor legal immigration, but feel that we should be more selective and should not allow relatives to follow them.

With our porous borders, here is a description of some of the wonderful IAs coming into the country.


DEROY MURDOCK: As immigration bill stalls, U.S. border invites terrorists

Scripps Howard News ServicePublished: June 14th, 2007 01:48 PM


"America is still the land of opportunity," Sen. John McCain recently said. "And we're not going to erect barriers and fences."
Unlucky us.

Along with Massachusetts Democrat Ted Kennedy, the Arizona Republican co-sponsored immigration legislation currently stalled in the Senate. McCain should recognize that without a barrier or fence, the U.S./Mexican frontier will keep welcoming Islamic extremists pledged to America's doom.

This is not hypothetical.

"Members of Hezbollah, the Lebanon-based terrorist organization, have already entered the United States across our southwest border," declares "A Line in the Sand," a January report of the House Homeland Security subcommittee on Investigations, then-chaired by Texas Republican Michael McCaul.

The study cites FBI Director Robert Mueller's March 2005 congressional testimony confirming that "there are individuals from countries with known al Qaeda connections who are changing their Islamic surnames to Hispanic-sounding names and obtaining false Hispanic identities, learning to speak Spanish, and pretending to be Hispanic immigrants."

Zapata County, Texas, Sheriff Sigifredo Gonzalez told House members last July: "If smugglers can bring in tons of marijuana and cocaine at one time and can smuggle 20 to 30 persons at one time, one can just imagine how easy it would be to bring in two or three terrorists or their weapons of mass destruction across the river and not be detected."

In fiscal year 2005 alone, 3,308 aliens got caught sneaking into America from nations the State Department considers state-sponsors of terrorism: 3,262 Cubans, 25 Iranians, four North Koreans, four Sudanese and 13 Syrians. Assuming the Cubans all were pro-American anti-communists, 46 people remain from terror-supporting nations. A group that size could staff another Sept. 11 twice over, or populate seven more Lackawanna Six Islamic-fanatic conspiracies.

Others who were collared that year departed nations in which terrorists thrive, though without government assistance: three Saudis, seven Lebanese, seven Yemenis, 11 Algerians, 15 Afghans, 17 Egyptians, 22 Somalis, 25 Indonesians, 27 Jordanians and 101 Pakistanis. Let's hope these 235 individuals tried to break into America to harvest broccoli.

Of course, these are folks the Border Patrol arrested.

"Federal law-enforcement entities estimate they apprehended approximately 10 to 30 percent of illegal aliens crossing the border," that House report states. If true, aliens from terrorist-laden nations successfully penetrated America's perimeter in numbers three to 10 times those above.

May those we have missed be unlike those we have caught:

-- Mahmoud Youssef Kourani pleaded guilty in March 2005 to providing terrorists material support. After bribing a Mexican diplomat in Beirut for a visa, Kourani and another Middle Easterner's Mexican guides shepherded them into America. Kourani settled in Dearborn, Michigan's Lebanese-immigrant enclave, where he raised cash for Hezbollah.

-- Federal agents arrested Neeran Zaia and Basima Sesi in September 2004 for smuggling more than 200 Middle Easterners -- mainly Iraqis, Jordanians and Syrians -- through Latin America into the United States. Zaia previously was convicted of alien-smuggling.

-- Tijuana cafe owner Salim Boughader Mucharrafille was arrested in December 2002 for smuggling into America more than 200 Lebanese, including suspected Hezbollah associates.

-- Beyond Islamic prayer mats among the cacti, Jim Hogg County, Texas, Border Patrol agents found a jacket with Arabic-language patches. One reads "martyr" and "way to immortality." The other depicts a jet flying into a skyscraper.

Despite Congress' September 2006 vote to fence off 700 miles of the southern border, the Senate now backs only a 370-mile partition. This is especially discouraging, since that frontier's condition is, officially, dismal:

"DHS does not as yet have a wholly satisfactory methodology of determining whether a portion of the border is considered under control from a system-wide, defense-in-depth, and continuously enforceable perspective," laments a May 1 Homeland Security congressional update. "In the end, gaining control of the border requires gaining control of the entire border, so that as illegal immigration is stopped at one location along the border, it can find no alternate crossing point."

In the end, Congress quickly must stitch the gaping wound across America's underbelly. While the U.S./Canadian boundary is worrisome, 1/24 as many illegals traverse it, versus its southern counterpart. While most illegals come here to work, which presents its own challenges, others endure extreme heat and dodge Gila monsters to come here and kill us.

It remains Washington's solemn duty to stop them.
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Jun, 2007 01:50 pm
And yet the immigration supporters are worried about the Minutemen shooting some poor little Mexican, when they are out there with nothing more than a handgun, facing Hezbollah?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Jun, 2007 02:00 pm
Advocate, I was responding to your "...I think would-be legal immigrants should be screened to determine that they will be assets to our country..." I disagree. Reread my post.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Jun, 2007 02:35 pm
cjhsa wrote:
And yet the immigration supporters are worried about the Minutemen shooting some poor little Mexican, when they are out there with nothing more than a handgun, facing Hezbollah?
Just another frickin idiot shooting some poor little Mexican
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Jun, 2007 04:55 pm
ebrown_p wrote:
mysteryman wrote:
ebrown_p wrote:
You do understand what compromise means, don't you mysterman?

By definition, a compromise contains something for each side of the debate.

mysteryman wrote:

You are right,a compromise will be good for the country.


Quote:

So,I wont support a new plan that allows amnesty.


'nuff said.


So,should you compromise?
What if that requires the part about a "path to citizenship" to be given up for the bill to pass?
Would you be OK with that?
After all,to compromise means to give up something.

So,would you be willing to give up the parts of the bill you like to get rid of the parts you dont like?

If you answer no to any of those questions,then you are unwilling to compromise,arent you?


Sure. I am open to compromise -- as long it is fair (i.e. I am getting as much out of the deal as you are).

What do you suggest?


First,we secure the border.
We enforce the existing laws,ALL OF THEM,regarding illegal immigrants.
Once that is done and the flood of illegals becomes a trickle,then we work on what we are going to do about those already here.

I think you are missing that point.
Most of the people against the bill want the current laws enforced first.
There are already enough laws on the books,lets enforce them.

And since the govt has never shown any willingness to enforce the current laws,do you really think they will enforce new ones?
I dont.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Jun, 2007 05:03 pm
I don't either, mm, and I actually think they have no intention of doing so.
0 Replies
 
Doowop
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Jun, 2007 05:11 pm
Here's an interesting exercise. Following a TV report I saw the other day about big companies moving their production from India and China to Mexico because of cheaper labor costs, I tried googling for more information.

Try putting "production to Mexico" into the advanced google search and see what comes up.

GM, Sony, Whirlpool and many others seem to be moving production there. Has anyone else heard about this trend?
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Jun, 2007 05:25 pm
Here's something curious. If an illegal alien has a kid in school and that kid joins the military they can become a citizen. Anyway that's what the military wants. So they want illegals to stay and have their kids in school so they can recruit them because they can't get enough of our citizens to join the army and die or get maimed in Iraq or Afghanistan.

So while the gung-ho law and order conservatives want to expel all the illegals the military wants some of them to stay so they can get their kids to fight in Iraq. The military wants to give them amnesty in return for service. If conservatives support the military do they support this type of amnesty?

If a couple comes into America illegally are their children illegal immigrants?

Quote:
A senior defense official expressed hope today that a provision in the stalled immigration bill that would have allowed some undocumented aliens to join the military won't fall off the radar screen.

The Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors, or DREAM, provision in the immigration bill was expected to help boost military recruiting, Bill Carr, acting deputy undersecretary of defense for military personnel policy, said today during a telephone conference with veterans' group representatives.

The DREAM provision offered a way for high-achieving children of undocumented or illegal residents to join the military and, ultimately, become citizens, Carr explained.

"In other words, if you had come across (the border) with your parents, yet you were a minor child and have been in the U.S. school system for a number of years, then you could be eligible to enlist," he said. "And at the end of that enlistment, then you would be eligible to become a citizen."

http://www.defenselink.mil//news/newsarticle.aspx?id=46369
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Jun, 2007 06:13 pm
xingu, As the laws stands now, any baby now born in the US is considered a US citizen - even if the parents are illegal immigrants. At least that's my understanding of the law.
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Jun, 2007 09:30 am
Uncontrolled immigration equals segregation. Personally, I prefer the melting pot of olden days.

http://www.city-journal.org/html/eon2007-06-13jl.html
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Jun, 2007 09:32 am
Graduation ceremonies at UCLA has become ridiculous! What more can we say?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Jun, 2007 11:33 am
Interesting information, considering the issue of more Hispanic immigration into the US.

Africans in U.S. caught between worlds
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Jun, 2007 11:39 am
Funny thing....

The arguments Advocate is making against "illegals" are the exact same arguments the segregationists used to stop civil rights.

Integration, it was said, would lead to increased crime, Disease, loss of jobs, attacks on American values... these are the arguments for segregation all over again.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Jun, 2007 11:41 am
e-brown, That's the reason I thought the article I posted above would confuse the heck out of those "segregationists" within our midst.
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Jun, 2007 08:59 pm
Quote:
In the 1800s, marijuana (also referred to as cannabis) was legal in most states, as hemp to make items such as rope, sails, and clothes, and was used for medicinal purposes; however, after the Mexican Revolution of 1910, a flood of Mexicans immigrated to the United States and introduced recreational marijuana use. A public misconception that Mexicans and other minorities committed violent crimes while under the influence of marijuana, which caused many states to criminalize marijuana, was promoted by Harry J. Anslinger's media interviews, faulty studies, and propaganda films that claimed marijuana caused violent, erratic, and overly sexual behavior.

Anti-drug campaigners claimed that terrible crimes were a result of Mexicans who used marijuana. In the 1930, during the Great Depression, research linked the use of marijuana with violence and crime primarily committed by minorities; growing unemployment increased resentment and fear of Mexicans and 29 states had outlawed marijuana by 1931.[1]

Harry J. Anslinger, the nation's first drug czar, publicly spoke about marijuana's effects; for example, Anslinger claimed, "[African American]s' satanic music, jazz, and swing, result from marijuana use. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers and any others"[4]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_history_of_marijuana_in_the_United_States
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Jun, 2007 09:02 pm
Somebody actually said THAT? No end to ignorance.
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jun, 2007 05:47 am
Some things never change.

Quote:
Pat Buchanan's Anti-Hispanic Rhetoric Echoes Earlier Anti-Immigrant Hysteria
In his new book and in numerous media appearances, Pat Buchanan has been trying to make the case that Mexican immigrants are fundamentally unlike past immigrant groups. Buchanan, who is of Irish ancestry, argues that Germans, Irish, Italians, etc were different because they were willing and able to assimilate. Last night on Hannity and Colmes he stated, "[T]he guys I went to school with in the '50s and '60s and the '40s, they were the sons of immigrants. They'd all been completely assimilated, Americanized. We were marinated in the same culture."

But Buchanan's statements against Hispanic immigrants mirror the charges that German, Irish, Italian, Jews, and other immigrant groups also faced. Some examples:

Immigrants will not be able to assimilate:
Where the Italians wanted to be part of our family, millions of Mexicans are determined to retain their language and loyalty to Mexico. They prefer to remain outsiders. They do not wish to assimilate and the nation no longer demands that they do so. [Buchanan, p. 28, 2006]

VERSUS

Why should Pennsylvania, founded by the English, become a Colony of Aliens, who will shortly be so numerous as to Germanize us instead of our Anglifying them, and will never adopt our Languages or Customs, any more than they can acquire our Complexion. [Benjamin Franklin, 1751]

Immigrants are responsible for crime: Immigrants plan to commit treason against America:
Mexican-Americans can now become citizens of Mexico again. The whole idea is to create this giant fifth column in the United States which can leverage the American government in elections and pressure them to do what is in the interest of the nation of Mexico. [Buchanan, 8/22/06]

VERSUS

[A] set of citizens, German and Irish, wanted to get the Constitution of the U. S. into their own hands and sell it to a foreign power. [Theme of an American Nativist Party rally, 1844]

Immigrants come from inferior cultures:
[A]lmost all immigrants today, legal and illegal, come from countries and cultures whose peoples have never before been assimilated into a First World nation. [Buchanan, p. 221, 2006]

VERSUS

Today, instead of a nation descended from generations of freemen bred to a knowledge of principles and practice of self government, of liberty under the law, we have a heterogeneous population, no small proportion of which is sprung from races that throughout the centuries have known no liberty at allÂ… In other words our capacity to maintain our cherished institutions stands diluted by a stream of alien blood, with all of its misconceptions respecting the relationships of the governing power to the governed. [Rep. Albert Johnson, 1927, justifying the 1924 National Origins Act]

Immigrants will dilute the white race:
If we do not get control of our borders, by 2050 Americans of European descent will be a minority in the nation their ancestors created and built. No nation has ever undergone so radical a demographic transformation and survived. [Buchanan, p. 11, 2006]

VERSUS

The number of purely white People in the World is proportionally very smallÂ…in Europe, the Spaniards, Italians, French, Russians and Swedes, are generally of what we call a swarthy Complexion; as are Germans also, the Saxons only accepted, who with the English, make the principal Body of White People on the Face of the Earth. [Benjamin Franklin, 1751]


http://thinkprogress.org/2006/08/23/buchanan-nativism/
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jun, 2007 06:36 am
A2K is getting to be like a giant traitor convention.
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jun, 2007 06:57 am
"If this be treason, make the most of it!"
Patrick Henry
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jun, 2007 06:59 am
xingu wrote:
"If this be treason, make the most of it!"
Patrick Henry


Are you suggesting we all run construction crews?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 08/25/2025 at 07:31:07