What should be done about illegal immigration?

Bush hopes alot things would go away, like Iraq, the immigration issue, the high cost of fuel, the split in his party - caused by him, etc, etc., etc.

This while his approval rating tanks to new lows.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

If Fox is talking about the over-use of the Reserves for border patrol, she's right. They're already burned out from Iraq.

Then she is as dumb as you.

I'm not impressed with GW's proposed ideas as they are 4 years too late and not immediately "installable". It does not do enough to prosecute employers who are enabeling these people and does not do enough to stop the current flow.

More troops are needed to STOP the inflow and they should be removed from Iraq and stationed here. Employers need to be fined a substantial amount and spend a few days in jail for hiring illegals.

Those are only 2 of my criticisms and altermatives.

Do you have any alternatives or are you just going to continue your babbling?

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Fox, The assumption that we have enough immigration now is a false assumption. To grow the economy, we need to add to our population, but at a sustainable pace.

The problems inherent in Japan and Germany are caused by their aging of the population with fewer workers to support their social benefits decreasing.

The reason the US has continued our economic expansion are two-fold; productivity gains by workers, and addition of new and younger workers through immigration/green cards.

We still have a big problem, because our government continues to spend the social security taxes as our baby-boomers are ready for retirement in a few years. The explosion of families after WWII caused this increase in birth rates.

The size of our country can accommodate more immigration, but it's up to the federal government to control it.

Would you consider 30 million over 30 years to be "sustainable"?

0 Replies

InfraBlue wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
The President's speech was better than I expected it to be though I still think he's missing the point on one or two sub-issues of the big issue.

Which sub-issues are those?

Though I know you are a "Bush-hater" at least you asked a reasonable question related to immigration instead of just Bush-bashing, so I'll respond to this.

I think 6000 National Guard troops on the border 24/7 who will do nothing but observe and report to the border patrol is too little too late. Why use the Guard for that at high cost when we have thousands and thousands of volunteers willing to do that for nothing until we can increase the Border patrol? (The patrol is being trained right here in New Mexico and the training is pretty impressive, but it does take awhile to get somebody through it.l) I wish the President had recognized the volunteers and said he had changed his mind about them being a vigilante group (which he has previously implied.)

He did not address the idea of a wall and, while I personally am still resisting that, I think it should have been mentioned as an option.

Giving the legal temporary workers ID cards is fine and necessary, but this in no way solves the problem of phony documentation used by illegals or how employers can be held accountable for that.

Also he did not address the difficulty of differentiating between those illegals who have been here for years and years and those who will produce phony documentation to say they've been here for years and years.

He disagrees with those of us who say it is amnesty to provide a path to citizenship for those illegals already here, and I accept that as his opinion on the matter. I do think he should have required those who want citizenship to go back to their home countries, however, and re-enter legally to get around the amnesty issue as that one is going to be a problem.

There was no mention of a Constitutional Amendment that would change the law from anyone born in the U.S. becoming a U.S. citizen to anyone given birth by a U.S. Citizen becomes a U.S. citizen.

He is still giving the impression that the opinion of Vicente Fox is more important to him that the opinions of a majority of Americans.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
The President's speech was better than I expected it to be though I still think he's missing the point on one or two sub-issues of the big issue.

Which sub-issues are those?

Though I know you are a "Bush-hater"

You are projecting again, Foxfyre. Just because someone opposes Bush's policy deosn't mean she or he hates him. Does railing obsessively against mexican immigration make you a racist?

0 Replies

I seriously think, you should look at the number of soldiers, the GDR used.
They didn't use so many as I recall, but just had better technical surveillance stuff.

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

I seriously think, you should look at the number of soldiers, the GDR used.
They didn't use so many as I recall, but just had better technical surveillance stuff.

Didn't they also have an ugly high wall topped with barbed wire to help them out?

0 Replies

While I am glad that Bush is not on the whole "lets get immigrants" that seems to be the mantra for some on the right, I personally think the whole thing is another distraction from Iraq and his low approval rating. Even according to a Fox poll, most Americans are not even much concerned with the immigration issue.

Quote:

Overall, more Americans (42 percent) think immigrants generally help make the country a better place to live than think they hurt the country (30 percent). One in five have a mixed view.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,190857,00.html

I guess immigration is going to replace the marriage amendment in this year's election.

0 Replies

The number of Amendments to the Constitution being floated by Christian Conservatives is impressive.

Let's see we have...

- Ban on Flag Burning
- Ban on Gay marriage
- English Official language
- Protection for religious displays
- End of Birthright Citizenship

Sounds like Christian Conservatives think maybe we should just scrap the first 14 amendments (excepting the second of course) and start over again.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
The President's speech was better than I expected it to be though I still think he's missing the point on one or two sub-issues of the big issue.

Which sub-issues are those?

Though I know you are a "Bush-hater"

You, on the other hand, only hate Mexicans.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Didn't they also have an ugly high wall topped with barbed wire to help them out?

That's the wall in Berlin .... and, correct, the walls along the 'normal' state borders.

The border was actively guarded using a variety of often lethal methods. Mines were buried and watchtowers set up. Dogs patrolled the area and automatic firing devices pointing towards the GDR territory could be triggered by movement. The border guards stationed along the route had orders to stop anyone attempting to escape or enter by shooting them.

http://www.army.mil/cmh/documents/BorderOps/photos/figure09t.jpg

http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/documents/BorderOps/photos/figure12.jpg

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

The border was actively guarded using a variety of often lethal methods. Mines were buried and watchtowers set up. Dogs patrolled the area and automatic firing devices pointing towards the GDR territory could be triggered by movement. The border guards stationed along the route had orders to stop anyone attempting to escape or enter by shooting them.

Notwithstanding, many managed to cross the border...

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

Didn't they also have an ugly high wall topped with barbed wire to help them out?

That's the wall in Berlin .... and, correct, the walls along the 'normal' state borders.

The border was actively guarded using a variety of often lethal methods. Mines were buried and watchtowers set up. Dogs patrolled the area and automatic firing devices pointing towards the GDR territory could be triggered by movement. The border guards stationed along the route had orders to stop anyone attempting to escape or enter by shooting them.

The thing is that nobody--or nobody I know of--in America wants to hurt anybody. I am certain that our leadership does not wish to blow up illegals with land mines and I would guess that at least the huge majority of our National Guardsmen would refuse to shoot an unarmed Mexican running the wrong way across the desert. So what's left? Make it as otherwise difficult as possible to get here illegally and, at least in my view, make it so inhospitable for illegals when they get here that they will no longer wish to come illegally and will rather choose legal means.

And to Francis, it is undeniable that many brave souls did manage to escape the prison the Communists made of their countr(ies). But it is also undeniable that the extreme measures used to keep people in were also effective in preventing many who wanted to leave from leaving.

This is a little different I think--keeping people already free OUT rather than keeping people IN.

0 Replies

Walter likes to forget reasons why things are done or the purposes of them. Instead, he just likes to make aggressive comparisons demonstrating some antagonistic position he holds.

It doesn't matter to him why the fence line was built, it was a fenceline. He doesn't care that some fences keep people in, while others keep people out, it's still a fenceline and by using detestable examples, he gets to score "points" with his liberal compatriots.

Why not use the wall being built around Israel to keep suicide bombers out of Israel? That is a much more appropriate example. Also, be sure you demonstrate the effectiveness that wall has had. Suicide bombers no longer have free access to the civilians in Israel and bombings have dropped drastically.

0 Replies

Foxfyre (incessantly) wrote:

make it so inhospitable for illegals when they get here that they will no longer wish to come illegally and will rather choose legal means.

You keep on repeating this phrase as if somehow if you say it enough times it will suddenly make sense.

I don't think the "most Americans" that you keep talking about as if you represent them will be able to stomach what "making things inhospitable" means.

Which of the following is an example of "making things inhospitable"?

- Telling a woman battered by her husband, that she can't expect help from the legal system without being deported.
- Kicking out a high school honors student after discovering she is here illegally.
- Refusing medical treatment to a grandmother with symptoms of tuberculosis.
- Forcibly separating a US citizen from his spouse (and possibly children).
- Refusing immunization to children and pre-natal care to pregnant women.
- Giving added suspician and scrutiny to anyone with brown skin, an accent or a Spanish surname.
- Refusing to hold employers responsible for workplace accidents if their employees are indocumented.

-----
Foxfyre,

You refuse to admit or deal with the deep troubling problem. or the inherent cruelty in your position.

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

Foxfyre (incessantly) wrote:

make it so inhospitable for illegals when they get here that they will no longer wish to come illegally and will rather choose legal means.

You keep on repeating this phrase as if somehow if you say it enough times it will suddenly make sense.

I don't think the "most Americans" that you keep talking about as if you represent them will be able to stomach what "making things inhospitable" means.

Which of the following is an example of "making things inhospitable"?

- Telling a woman battered by her husband, that she can't expect help from the legal system without being deported.
- Kicking out a high school honors student after discovering she is here illegally.
- Refusing medical treatment to a grandmother with symptoms of tuberculosis.
- Forcibly separating a US citizen from his spouse (and possibly children).
- Refusing immunization to children and pre-natal care to pregnant women.
- Giving added suspician and scrutiny to anyone with brown skin, an accent or a Spanish surname.
- Refusing to hold employers responsible for workplace accidents if their employees are indocumented.

-----
Foxfyre,

You refuse to admit or deal with the deep troubling problem. or the inherent cruelty in your position.

If they aren't here, we won't have to worry about such measures, will we?

You should put forth more effort correcting the issues in their home countries making it so they don't wish to leave instead of protesting the US gov't for wanting to send them back?

When are you going to Mexico to protest the conditions there? When is the trip to the other central American countries? When is the band wagon heading south?

0 Replies

There is an excellent museum one block away from Checkpoint Charlie about the ingenuity of those that escaped from East Berlin into the West. The most interesting point made at the museum for me was the simple fact that the wall didn't extend southward all along the border, so people willing to travel south could escape.

0 Replies

Foxy and McGentrix please read...

Quote:

The same conservatives who sacrificed time, energy, and money to push the Republicans into the majority in both houses of Congress and to the presidency have been betrayed. We've suspected it for a long time. And now we know it.

If my circle of acquaintance is any indication, the majority party has lost its foundation. Every one of my Republican-voting friends, from those who have a casual affinity to those who are deeply immersed in conservative circles, are so thoroughly dismayed with our party's performance that they will sit the next election cycle out. - Tom Stump, Human Events Online

I am loving this!

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

Foxy and McGentrix please read...

Quote:

The same conservatives who sacrificed time, energy, and money to push the Republicans into the majority in both houses of Congress and to the presidency have been betrayed. We've suspected it for a long time. And now we know it.

If my circle of acquaintance is any indication, the majority party has lost its foundation. Every one of my Republican-voting friends, from those who have a casual affinity to those who are deeply immersed in conservative circles, are so thoroughly dismayed with our party's performance that they will sit the next election cycle out.

What does that have to do with immigration?

I know that the threads bashing the Presidency are few and far between on A2K, but perhaps you can keep the ADD to those?
I am loving this!

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

What does that have to do with immigration?

I know that the threads bashing the Presidency are few and far between on A2K, but perhaps you can keep the ADD to those?
I am loving this!

Simple,

The Conservative movement has drawn its power over the past decade from a precariously stitched together alliance between corporate interests and Christian conservatives that has held together by a strange combination of greed and self-righteousness.

I have been dreaming of the day that this unholy alliance would fracture. Now it seems that the immigration issue is the one that will start this process.

The Christian Conservatives won't or can't be reasonable on this issue. The non-extremist part of the Republican party is running scared of the obvious political implications of Conservative Christian cruelty.

The big issue is going to be mass deportations. My side is going to be able to be reasonable on issues of border security. The other side is going to insist on clearly cruel measures.

The ending compromise is clear. The only reasonable outcome is border security with a path to citizenship for people here. The polls already support this outcome, and there really isn't any other alternative that makes sense (and that isn't too cruel to be rejected by the average American).

The only question is how much the Conservatives are going to hurt themselves with their harsh rhetoric and racial overtones before we get to that point.

Here is hoping that Tancredo follows through with his threat to run in 2008.

0 Replies

What should be done about illegal immigration?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know