What should be done about illegal immigration?

Quote:

Thus, from a practical standpoint, we are left having to allow them to stay and work toward citizenship. And I think most Americans would at least grudgingly accept that. But as Cy has stated, we must then also take away the incentive for others to come here illegally, which means enforcing employment laws, including huge fines for those caught breaking them and doing whatever it takes to secure our borders to minimize greatly the influx of future illegals.

I don't understand why anyone would have objections to this solution.

This is probably where we (by 'we' I mean the US) is going to end up. There are a couple of obvious issues to work out. The humanitarian issues are the most important for me.

1. The present immigration law is very anti-family. Legal residents, and even US citizens are separated for years because of a very slow process and an arbitrary system of "bars", which prevent a foreign national from applying for a visa or even entering the country. There are spouses of American citizens who have been given lifetime bars for only immigration violations (i.e. they commited no other crime).

Of course, many mixed-status families are advised by lawyers to not even try to become legal because the outcome (which could include being banned for life) is too uncertain and depends only on the whim of the judge.

2. The phrase "whatever it takes" will have to be more specific. Minefields and shooting people will probably stop most illegal immigration. It is possible that nothing less than that will (you know how well the war on drugs is going).

The measures we will take-- including their costs and their moral implications will have to be fully explored and agreed on.

I personally have a problem with a policy that will cause the deaths of any human being-- even an illegal one.

0 Replies

SierraSong wrote:

I don't think anyone is suggesting the corporations guilty of hiring illegal aliens should get a pass, but I do think it's unrealistic to think that punishing them will stop those wanting to come here - either legally or illegally.

Which is better? Starving in that sinkhole of corruption known as Mexico or starving in the U.S.?

Yes, we should apply the rule of law equally to those breaking it, which definitely includes the companies that are guilty. However, unless we address the issue of securing our southern border, this issue will not diminish.

And again, the last two attempts at making the employer responsible for enforcement failed. We cannot do that the same way again and expect success. It is unrealistic to expect a Mom & Pop organization to have the time to wait for a background check and/or verify documentation when they need somebody to start to work today, so the documentation itself needs to be more foolproof. If an illegal uses phony documentation, and most do, then the employer should not be criminalized because he put an illegal to work that morning. When it becomes obvious the person is illegal then yes, he should be sent packing or the employer is subject to penalty of law; however it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that employers who want to hire illegals will then just utilize day labor and/or pay under the table to get around the documentation issue.

I don't understand how some think enforcing existing laws on this issue is unfeasible but continue to think policing the nations millions of employers on this issue is.

I do think employers must be persuaded to hire legal employees, so if we do devise a reasonably foolproof system of positive ID available only to legal personnel, then we can put greater pressure on the employer to be responsible to hire only legal personnel.

I do not think it unfeasible to implement a policy that only those who go home and return legally will be considered legal. If you provide a large enough carrot to entice them, the ones we want to keep will be more than happy to comply voluntarily without us having to do anything else. Hopefully that will be a substantial majority of the 12 million illegals who are here. Those unwilling to comply we don't want anyway.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

SierraSong wrote:
I don't think anyone is suggesting the corporations guilty of hiring illegal aliens should get a pass, but I do think it's unrealistic to think that punishing them will stop those wanting to come here - either legally or illegally.

Which is better? Starving in that sinkhole of corruption known as Mexico or starving in the U.S.?

Yes, we should apply the rule of law equally to those breaking it, which definitely includes the companies that are guilty. However, unless we address the issue of securing our southern border, this issue will not diminish.

And again, the last two attempts at making the employer responsible for enforcement failed. We cannot do that the same way again and expect success. It is unrealistic to expect a Mom & Pop organization to have the time to wait for a background check and/or verify documentation when they need somebody to start to work today, so the documentation itself needs to be more foolproof. If an illegal uses phony documentation, and most do, then the employer should not be criminalized because he put an illegal to work that morning. When it becomes obvious the person is illegal then yes, he should be sent packing or the employer is subject to penalty of law; however it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that employers who want to hire illegals will then just utilize day labor and/or pay under the table to get around the documentation issue.

I don't understand how some think enforcing existing laws on this issue is unfeasible but continue to think policing the nations millions of employers on this issue is.

I do think employers must be persuaded to hire legal employees, so if we do devise a reasonably foolproof system of positive ID available only to legal personnel, then we can put greater pressure on the employer to be responsible to hire only legal personnel.

I do not think it unfeasible to implement a policy that only those who go home and return legally will be considered legal. If you provide a large enough carrot to entice them, the ones we want to keep will be more than happy to comply voluntarily without us having to do anything else. Those unwilling to comply we don't want anyway.

The ACLU will never go for it, which is a big part of why the amnesty of 1986 failed.

0 Replies

Note to MysteryMan:

Verifying the social security numbers through the government website seemed plausible at first blush. However, in a recent profession as an insurance adjuster, I worked a lot of work comp claims, and a lot of work comp claims are filed by illegal workers. It was not unusual to dig up two, three, four or more aliases for these people and numerous social security numbers. Some of these I never did figure out what the worker's real name was. Yes, we were obligated to pay the claims anyway.

If verifying social security numbers does become a requisite for employment, in no time at all the phony document industry will be selling names that do have social security numbers. The name won't be the worker's name of course, but it will be verifiable at the government website.

So, I think it's back to the drawing board. There's always a solution for every problem that must be solved. We just haven't discovered it yet for this problem.

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

2. The phrase "whatever it takes" will have to be more specific. Minefields and shooting people will probably stop most illegal immigration. It is possible that nothing less than that will (you know how well the war on drugs is going).

The measures we will take-- including their costs and their moral implications will have to be fully explored and agreed on.

I personally have a problem with a policy that will cause the deaths of any human being-- even an illegal one.

Again, it's probably best to ignore someone with an obvious mental illness (and only someone mentally impaired would suggest "a line of death".)

We may seem impatient to some to get this matter settled (and consequently blame and chastise the politicians who seem to be "deadlocked" on the issue), but we have to remember that we are one of the most generous and compassionate countries on the planet. It's just going to take some time to arrive at a solution that benefits all the parties involved.

It's probable that no one is going to favor whatever solution is decided upon 100%, but hopefully wisdom will prevail and most of us will be able to accept whatever the final outcome turns out to be.

If the solution arrived at now proves to be unworkable in the future, then it's back to the drawing board. The sane among us will keep trying until we get it right, but "shooting" and "mining the border" will have no place in that future dialogue.

0 Replies

Of course it will. Who are you to define the terms of the dialogue? Just another person with an opinion.

I guess I should feel insulted that you seem to believe that suggesting an idea on a political forum is a sign of 'mental illness'; but I don't.

I have yet to see anyone provide a compelling and workable plan for closing the border that does not imply some threat to people's lives or livelihood. I invite you to do so, SierraSong; since other ideas are obviously a sign of 'mental illness,' then presumably you can enlighten us with your sane and humane plan to close the border, something we all agree must be done to one degree or another.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Of course it will. Who are you to define the terms of the dialogue? Just another person with an opinion.

I guess I should feel insulted that you seem to believe that suggesting an idea on a political forum is a sign of 'mental illness'; but I don't.

I have yet to see anyone provide a compelling and workable plan for closing the border that does not imply some threat to people's lives or livelihood. I invite you to do so, SierraSong; since other ideas are obviously a sign of 'mental illness,' then presumably you can enlighten us with your sane and humane plan to close the border, something we all agree must be done to one degree or another.

Cycloptichorn

You are simply wrong and more delusional than I first thought.

Although I can envision one or two extreme circumstances (self-defense of a border patrol agent or face-to-face confrontation between law enforcement and drug runners), those who speak for this country will never threaten our neighbors to the South with death for simply crossing the border. Never.

0 Replies

Shrug. I understand that this is your opinion. You don't need to repeat your opinion to me.

But why don't you go ahead and present me with your plan to close the border, since you obviously know better than I do what the right and wrong way to go about doing it is.

If you can't provide an alternative, you have no place whatosever unilaterally declaring any idea 'delusional.' Not that I would care if you did. Declaring me 'delusional' on an internet message board isn't going to change anything; not your opinion of me, not our policies, not other people's opinions of me, not their opinions of you. I'm sure it makes you feel nice to put me in my place though, with your incisive and devastating critique of my argument.

Do you disagree that a portion of the plan to control illegal immigration must include controlling access across our border?

Do you disagree that without strict penalties, there is no deterrent whatsoever to keep crooks, thieves, criminals, and potential terrorists from coming across the border?

What is your plan for solving the problem? I don't favor killing anyone. I've said many times in this thread that my original example was taking the argument to its logical conclusion, ie, answering the question, what is the most effective way to keep people from crossing the border?

I still have yet to hear anyone, including you, present a compelling argument for a way to close the border without some sort of threat to their personal wellbeing.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

You're nuts. Pure and simple.

0 Replies

I guess nuts is better than being unable or unwilling to form a coherent argument, or being unable to come up with ideas of one's own.

But yaknow, whatever will make you feel better, I want you to go ahead and say. It doesn't matter to me in the slightest, as I don't base my opinion of myself on what people on the Internet think of my arguments or mental status.

If you don't have anything to add to the discussion, then why do you bother responding? To score points off of me? Is that why you are posting here, or are you here to discuss politics and policy?

To anyone else, I would like to hear alternate plans and ideas for closing the border. I even thought of one myself that I would like to ask people about: satellite surveillance. How good is our satellite technology? Can it penetrate clouds? How expensive is it? Are there privacy issues for those who live close to the border? All of the questions, I don't know the answer to, but it does seem to me that a combination of satellite surveillance, drone surveillance, and human intervention (border patrol) could be effective in stopping illegal immigration without harming people. Is such a situation workable? Would we just deport people again and again, detain them, fine them, or what?

I would much rather discuss solutions than kvetch back and forth about your opinion of my mental status, thank you very much. Can anyone help me answer the above questions?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Note to MysteryMan:

Verifying the social security numbers through the government website seemed plausible at first blush. However, in a recent profession as an insurance adjuster, I worked a lot of work comp claims, and a lot of work comp claims are filed by illegal workers. It was not unusual to dig up two, three, four or more aliases for these people and numerous social security numbers. Some of these I never did figure out what the worker's real name was. Yes, we were obligated to pay the claims anyway.

If verifying social security numbers does become a requisite for employment, in no time at all the phony document industry will be selling names that do have social security numbers. The name won't be the worker's name of course, but it will be verifiable at the government website.

So, I think it's back to the drawing board. There's always a solution for every problem that must be solved. We just haven't discovered it yet for this problem.

Then lets make it mandatory that everyones fingerprints be on file.
You can fake your name,your age,your SS#,but you cant fake your fingerprints.

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
Note to MysteryMan:

Verifying the social security numbers through the government website seemed plausible at first blush. However, in a recent profession as an insurance adjuster, I worked a lot of work comp claims, and a lot of work comp claims are filed by illegal workers. It was not unusual to dig up two, three, four or more aliases for these people and numerous social security numbers. Some of these I never did figure out what the worker's real name was. Yes, we were obligated to pay the claims anyway.

If verifying social security numbers does become a requisite for employment, in no time at all the phony document industry will be selling names that do have social security numbers. The name won't be the worker's name of course, but it will be verifiable at the government website.

So, I think it's back to the drawing board. There's always a solution for every problem that must be solved. We just haven't discovered it yet for this problem.

Then lets make it mandatory that everyones fingerprints be on file.
You can fake your name,your age,your SS#,but you cant fake your fingerprints.

I say we require SS#s be tatooed on everyone's arm.

I really love how the sheeple morons are so easily ready to give up their freedom. It really is quite amazing.

0 Replies

Roxxxanne wrote:

mysteryman wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
Note to MysteryMan:

Verifying the social security numbers through the government website seemed plausible at first blush. However, in a recent profession as an insurance adjuster, I worked a lot of work comp claims, and a lot of work comp claims are filed by illegal workers. It was not unusual to dig up two, three, four or more aliases for these people and numerous social security numbers. Some of these I never did figure out what the worker's real name was. Yes, we were obligated to pay the claims anyway.

If verifying social security numbers does become a requisite for employment, in no time at all the phony document industry will be selling names that do have social security numbers. The name won't be the worker's name of course, but it will be verifiable at the government website.

So, I think it's back to the drawing board. There's always a solution for every problem that must be solved. We just haven't discovered it yet for this problem.

Then lets make it mandatory that everyones fingerprints be on file.
You can fake your name,your age,your SS#,but you cant fake your fingerprints.

I say we require SS#s be tatooed on everyone's arm.

I really love how the sheeple morons are so easily ready to give up their freedom. It really is quite amazing.

Do you have a SS#?
Do you use it?
I can find out anything I want about you,all I need is your SS#.
Why doesnt that bother you?

Since you seem to be able to do nothing but make stupid comments,why dont you go away and let the adults talk.

Better yet,why doesnt someone take you up on your offer and shoot you.

0 Replies

Why don't you runoff, child, you are are late for your Hitler Youth meeting.

0 Replies

When I was a kid, my family was very devout evengelical Christians (actually I was too).

I remember these movies in the 70's about the prophecies in the book of Revelations-- except they were current movies, how the things in the end times would have taken place in "modern times".

Evangelical Christians at the time greatly feared the "mark of the beast" (from the bible) which they intepreted as a mark that the government would use to identify you, which would allow them to control you in this conspiracy. In the movie this mark were bar codes that of course looked something like a stylized 666.

As a young impressionable member of the Religious Right, these movies... and the idea that Americans would fall for a clearly evil scheme that would allow the government to mark each of its citizens was unthinkable.

Frankly these movies (although in hindsight they were actually quite campy) scared us to death.

Even the adults took them seriously. I remember my sunday school teacher warning about the evil UPC symbols that were by that time ubiquitous on grocery store products and how this was a sign that forced ID's were upon us.

Revelations 13 wrote:

He also forced everyone, small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on his right hand or on his forehead, so that no one could buy or sell unless he had the mark, which is the name of the beast or the number of his name.

This calls for wisdom. If anyone has insight, let him calculate the number of the beast, for it is man's number. His number is 666.

Maybe there is something to this prophecy after all.

0 Replies

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

Quote:
There's lots of good reasons to kill people
By chance this was the first and only sentence I read on your post Bill.

Then your comment is idiotic, as my point lies 180 degrees from that excerpt.

jpinMilwaukee wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:

jpinMilwaukee wrote:
Do you doubt that there has been a rise in such diseases and the origin of them? Should we just not worry about who comes across our borders or what diseases they carry? MTB... come on down. Polio... come on down. malaria... come on down. Bird Flu... come on down.

Do you honestly believe we wouldn't be better off to eliminating such diseases from the entire rock? Could there be a better example of "what goes around, comes around"? This is yet another impossible desire for isolationism.

How is letting illegal aliens into our country going to solve the problem of "eliminate such deseases from the entire rock"? That is a foolish idea. The entire statement is foolish as a matter of fact.

Agreed. Which is why I haven't and wouldn't make such a statement. Confused

It was you who suggested we block illegal's as protection from disease. I posited a better solution to "protecting us from disease" would be to work towards ridding the planet of the disease. Would this not be our best protection from it?

jpinMilwaukee wrote:

People with disease spread disease. Allowing them to enter our country unchecked perpetuates the spread of disease... not eliminate it. Here is an idea, how about the Mexican government helps rid disease from their citizens instead of our citizens footing the bill to cure illegal aliens without insurance or the funds to pay for medical care.

For the record; I'm not even a big fan of National Health Care, let alone International Health Care. However, certain strains of disease are a threat to us all and it's in our mutual best interest to combat them out of existence for the good of us all. Like many subjects; those with a greater ability to help, so too have a greater responsibility to do so.

jpinMilwaukee wrote:

As far as your inane statement about isolationism... pure BS. I favor making it easier to enter the country legally and harder to enter illegally. Hardly the definition of isolationism.

JP, you suggested further isolationism as a way to reduce the spread of disease. It matters not, how much lipstick you put on that pig; that is an ugly way of dealing with disease... and one that ultimately equates to "who cares if my neighbor's dying from it; as long as he doesn't bring it here". Aside from your obvious apathy, you've also failed to recognize that "MTB, Polio, Malaria and Bird Flu" will likely not play by your rules.

Personally, I couldn't much care less which country a 5 year old dying of a preventable disease is from or in. The ability to change this bears a responsibility to do so, IMO, and YES... I'll gladly pay my fair share (and in many ways; already do). My inability to share your apathy in no way constitutes inanity.

Foxfyre wrote:

I am one who thinks we should allow an opportunity for legal status for those who are already here. But I think we have to do it through a process that everybody else, especially those waiting for legal admission, have to follow. Give them an opportunity to return home voluntarily and make it easy for their employers to bring them back immediately with legal guest worker permits, and then for those who want it, let them put their name on the list (behind those who are already there) for permanent status.

Those unwilling to do that should continue to be illegal aliens subject to arrest and deportation and ineligible to apply for either temporary or permanent status.

Why go home first? How can they afford that? Who benefits by that? I know this is our current idiotic policy for status change, but why is that? And why is it important to you?

Cycloptichorn wrote:

This truly is an 'us and them' problem. You deny this? Tell me then, in the end, will it not be Americans who vote on the solution to this problem? No matter how much we debate what the right course of action is or isn't, in the end, it will be us, American Citizens, who decide how to handle the problem of them, Illegal Aliens in our country.

I categorically deny this as an 'us and them' problem. Were that the case; I'd be with them... and that's not what my birth certificate reflects. Your solution offends me to the core, and it is as absurd as it is disgusting. Your "us" couldn't include more than a tiny fraction of United States' citizens, so any delusions you have about speaking for "us" are just that; delusions.

Solution: National ID or print scans are a fine idea, which frankly is overdue. I can buy a lock for a couple of bucks more than the old fashion model that can memorize a dozen prints and eliminate the need for a key. An international ID or print base would be even better. Coupled with amnesty for those with gainful employment and/or strong community ties would make a fine solution, to slowing the flow of the tap. I've little doubt our legislators could fashion a bill making it illegal for the database to be used for purposes not consistent with our bill of rights. I've little doubt our courts could police this as well as any other amendment to same. Using technology to identify and apprehend known criminals is in all of our best interest. Abuse of same could easily be criminalized, as a protection of innocents.

Such a system would make it a simple matter to identify, track and apprehend "new" illegal's, while providing a fair, humane solution to those who've for too many years been encouraged (by lack of discouragement) to violate our immigration policies.

0 Replies

Obill writes

Quote:

Why go home first? How can they afford that? Who benefits by that? I know this is our current idiotic policy for status change, but why is that? And why is it important to you?

Because it is the only way to turn off that flashing neon sign over America: "Ya'll come and if you make it in, the Americans won't enforce the law and they'll let you stay forever." We've tried the amnesty route coupled with stricter enforcement twice before and it has at least quadrupled the number of illegals here.

It is important to me because I worked with legal immigrants for so many years and saw how hard they worked to get here legally, and how hard they worked to obtain their citizenship, and how proud they are to be Americans and what blessings they are this country. There are many many thousands if not millions out there now patiently waiting for their number to be called so they can be Americans. To allow law breakers to cut in line in front of them violates my sense of fairness and justice. I think it should violate everybody's sense of fairness and justice.

It is important to me because I think we should have the ability and power to control who enters the country and that if we do not control the numbers that can be productively assimilated into the population, we will lose much of what makes us the country where so many people want to be.

It is important to me because while it isn't politically correct to say so, and while probably most illegals here are people we would be proud to share a country with, many are not. Some are here to freeload, milk the system, rob, burglarize, steal, mug, murder, and commit mayhem. They need to be somebody else's problem, not ours. Any folks we would want to be here should be willing to do it legally. So lets make it easier for them to come back easily and quickly but everybody should volunarily go home and come back legally.

And as for the expense, that has traditionally been the responsibility of the immigrants who came here or the respnsibility of the sponsors who brought them here. If they can't afford a round trip busfare or other transportation home, they are probably freeloading here anyway. Those work comp patients I mentioned before certainly didn't have any trouble getting home to recuperate and we gave them permission to go just so long as they were back for their doctor's appointments. So lots of them made several round trips home.

For the few who might really not have the price of a bus ticket or whatever, then surely those who are their strongest advocates will be willing to pitch into the kitty to help them out. Are you willing to shell out some money to be a sponsor? Do you think all those who don't want any of the illegals to go home are willing to be sponsors? The Catholic Church is one of the strongest advocates for illegals staying--let them sponsor those they want to bring back. Maybe the employers will be willing to help out those workers they can't do without. Or do you think the U.S. taxpayer should continue to be responsible for everybody?

It is important to me because I think anybody who is here should respect our laws, our culture, the qualities that make America what it is. I want to separate out the good guys from the bad guys. The good guys will go home voluntarily and come back legally and we'll know who they are. That leaves a much smaller number of bad guys to round up and forcibly eject.

From a purely pragmatic point of view, any proposals to allow people to stay based on how long they've managed to avoid obeying the law just doesn't wash. If they broke the law and lied to be here in the first place, what makes anybody think they won't lie about how long they've been here especially if amnesty is granted on some kind of tenure system?

Remember that many of the illegals have operated under various names, various social security numbers, and have cited very fluid addresses. Determining tenure is going to be a procedural nightmare and personally, I don't think it can be done. Far better to implement an efficient guest worker program and send everybody home to start over by coming back legally. Once they're back legally they of course can put their name in the pot to be considered for permanent status, but they should not be allowed to cut in line in front of everybody else who have been doing it legally from the beginning.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

JP, you suggested further isolationism as a way to reduce the spread of disease. It matters not, how much lipstick you put on that pig; that is an ugly way of dealing with disease... and one that ultimately equates to "who cares if my neighbor's dying from it; as long as he doesn't bring it here". Aside from your obvious apathy, you've also failed to recognize that "MTB, Polio, Malaria and Bird Flu" will likely not play by your rules.

Personally, I couldn't much care less which country a 5 year old dying of a preventable disease is from or in. The ability to change this bears a responsibility to do so, IMO, and YES... I'll gladly pay my fair share (and in many ways; already do). My inability to share your apathy in no way constitutes inanity.

Bill, You are putting words in my mouth I never spoke. I never suggested that not letting illegals with diseases in this country is a way of dealing with disease. The point is to protect our citizens against that disease and has nothing to do with plans of dealing with the disease. If you want to talk about the merits of an international plan of eliminating disease from other countries I would be more than happy to join in such a thread... here we are talking about illegal immigration and the effects it has on our country. My, so claimed, "apathy" is misguided and patently false. Just because disease "won't play by my rules" doesn't mean we should take steps to try to protect ourselves Idea

0 Replies

Quote:

I categorically deny this as an 'us and them' problem. Were that the case; I'd be with them... and that's not what my birth certificate reflects. Your solution offends me to the core, and it is as absurd as it is disgusting. Your "us" couldn't include more than a tiny fraction of United States' citizens, so any delusions you have about speaking for "us" are just that; delusions.

Solution: National ID or print scans are a fine idea, which frankly is overdue. I can buy a lock for a couple of bucks more than the old fashion model that can memorize a dozen prints and eliminate the need for a key. An international ID or print base would be even better. Coupled with amnesty for those with gainful employment and/or strong community ties would make a fine solution, to slowing the flow of the tap. I've little doubt our legislators could fashion a bill making it illegal for the database to be used for purposes not consistent with our bill of rights. I've little doubt our courts could police this as well as any other amendment to same. Using technology to identify and apprehend known criminals is in all of our best interest. Abuse of same could easily be criminalized, as a protection of innocents.

My 'solution' was a proposed idea purposefully taken to it's logical extreme in order to prove a point. If you had bothered to read the goddamned thread, you'd know that, but of course you haven't done so.

Your national ID card system is useless if the border is not more secured. It doesn't solve the problem of Illegals who are not going to sign up for the ID card. And you know it. So what's your solution for controlling access into the country? Hmm?

By saying 'us' I am not saying that the country will implement my solution; I'm saying that the country will implement a solution, one that is probably not satisfactory to anyone, but represents a compromise between the interests of security, law enforcement, and civil rights. This is the part of the conversation where I think you must be being puposefully dense, because no matter what the solution is - your National ID system, criminalization in the House Bill manner, Deportation, legalization of citizens - it will be decided by us, the legal citizens of America, and not them, illegal aliens who have come into our country in contravention of our immigration laws and do not have a say in the matter!

So yes, it is an us vs. them matter. The fact that not everyone on our side agrees as to the correct way to solve the problem doesn't change this in the slightest. The fact that you are an advocate for granting rights to illegals doesn't change the fact that you are a member of us, that is, the voting US Citizen population.

I really shouldn't have to explain this concept to you, Bill. I believe you are being argumentative for the sake of being argumentative because the concept of closing the border somehow offends you, no matter what fashion it is done in.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Today is Cinco de Mayo. If five Mexicans or other illegal aliens are deported today I'd be really surprised. In the meantime, approximately 1000 more will have streamed into the U.S. How do you say "1000 de Mayo"?

0 Replies

What should be done about illegal immigration?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know