Dredging back up the immigration thingy with an editorial

[Terry S]

A lady wrote the best letter in the Editorials in ages. Even Liberals
should be able to grasp this message.

------------

Recently large demonstrations have taken place across the country protesting
the fact that Congress is finally addressing the issue of illegal
immigration. Certain people are angry that the U. S. might protect its own
borders, might make it harder to sneak into the country and, once here, to
stay indefinitely. Let me see if I correctly understand the thinking behind
these protests.

Let's say I break into your house. Let's say that when you discover me in
your house, you insist that I leave. But I say, I've made all the beds, and
washed all the dishes, and did the laundry and swept the floors. I've done
all the things you don't like to do. I'm hard working and honest (except
for when I broke into your house).

According to the protesters, not only must you let me stay, you must add me
to your family insurance plan, educate my kids and provide other benefits to
me and to my family. My husband will do your yard work because he too is
hard working and honest (except for that breaking in part).

If you try to call the police or force me out, I will call my friends who
will picket your house carrying signs that proclaim my right to be there,
Its only fair, after all, because you have a nicer house than I do, and I'm
just trying to better myself. I'm hard working and honest, um except for,
well, you know.

And what a deal it is for me! I live in your house, contributing only a
fraction of the cost of my keep, and there is nothing you can do about it
without being accused of selfishness, prejudice and being an
anti-housebreaker. Oh yeah, I want you to learn my language so that you can
communicate with me.

Is it a little easier to see how ridiculous this situation is now?

-----------

Terry S

[Absinthe]

terry I am as hawkish as they get on immigration but that article is a farcicle piece of crap, the analogy is off on about 100 different levels and it makes people who are anti-illegal imigration look like the same stupid backward fucks that really believe sadam hussien is boys with osama.

[4G63 FEVER]

^ Seems to me to be a reasonable analogy. I notice you say it's a pos but yet don't point out why.

Seeing how you seem to be the proclaimed master what is exactally off base about it? Looks pretty good to this old boy.

[Blak94GSX]

Nothing a few fences, minefields, and motion-sensing machine guns can't fix at the border...

[speedracer2169]

too tired to rebuttle wait for my response on sunday

[Chris in SD]

That analogy is dead-on. You know, once they teach Mexican history in schools, have areas of Los Angeles, Texas, and Miami that are 100% Spanish print advertising, and penalize businesses that don't have bilingual staffs, things will have really gone to hell.

Oh, wait, those things have already happened.

[Mokaone]

first off, i concider myself a liberal. and second, i dont see anything wrong with securing our borders even more.

with that said, the letter was well written i gotta give the writter that. but i think its a pretty extreme example of wats going on in this nation. you try to compare an illegal immigrant comming into this country to someone invading ur house.

for example, if an extra hundred immigrants come into his country, i dont see a difference. im not gonna loose my job cuz an extra immigrant came in, im not gonna get an extra 10bucks cut from my paycheck (tax). i agree that its a problem, numbers dont lie and it is true that alot of money is spent that shouldnt be at the cause of immigrants.

im not stupid, i understand that these numbers work slow... few dollars here, few dollars there. at the end of the day it all adds up. but i think its stupid how people say that this country is spending thousands / millions (watever it be) of dollars because of these immigrants. they try to portray it as if thats your money, and your money only that they are spending. that isnt your thousands of dollars they are taking away. its not like these people just took this months car payment away from you. after its all said and done, thats only a handfull of cents that they are taking away from you. a handfull of cents taken away from millions of people.

[Blak94GSX]

It is MILLIONS not hundreds, but yeah.

[Mokaone]

It is MILLIONS not hundreds, but yeah.

your right.. 25-30 million.



so i did a little homework to try and find out around how much is really taken away from us. number may be wrong, but i got all my info from legit looking sites. i know, "legit looking" isnt enought, but its better than from some random blog. so here it goes...

ammount of money spend on illegals every year: 25-30million
average yearly salary: 51k
days in a year: 365
weeks in a year: ~52 (therefore ~104 weekends)
weekdays in year: 365 - 104 = 261
average work day length: 8hours
average ammount of hours worked per year: 261days x 8hours = 2,088
average hourly pay: 51k / 2,088 = 24.50 (24.4252874)

average number of americans in America: 295,734,134
average number of americans who work: 49,289,022 (1 in 6 work).. pulled number out of my ass. thats means hat 16% of the population works. (also remember, the smaller the number, the better number results for you, not me)

money spent on illegals: 30,000,000 / 49,289,022 = 0.608654803 p/year p/working citizen

money spent on illegals: 0.608654803 / 0.00233201074 (working days) = 0.00233201074 per day
money spent on illegals: 0.00233201074 / 8hours = 0.000291501342 per hour

so that means that every hour u work, 0.003 cents contributes to that 30million. 60cents per year/per person contributes towards illegals.

i agree, thats 60cents that shouldnt be taken away from ur paycheck. but i just wanted to make a point, that these people try to make it worst that it really is. again.. triying to make it seem like its your 30million that your loosing. think about it, you could probably look under ur couch and find more that 60cents. only reason people make a big deal about it is, cuz they dont want people to come into our country, money is only the 2nd reason.

[Chris in SD]

You aren't counting the emergency room visits with no insurance, the car accidents with no insurance, the violent and drug crime they bring, the cost of incarcerating them, the cost of additional to police to prevent or catch said crooks, etc. ad nauseum.

Enough for you? It sure as fuck is a lot more than $0.60/per person/per year.

[Blak94GSX]

Well your numbers are all wrong, but that's fine.

Here are some still old numbers from 2002, but that's the most recent I could find in the 3 seconds I spent with Google. Obviously the costs are higher today.

"#

Households headed by illegal aliens imposed more than $26.3 billion in costs on the federal government in 2002 and paid only $16 billion in taxes, creating a net fiscal deficit of almost $10.4 billion, or $2,700 per illegal household.

#

Among the largest costs are Medicaid ($2.5 billion); treatment for the uninsured ($2.2 billion); food assistance programs such as food stamps, WIC, and free school lunches ($1.9 billion); the federal prison and court systems ($1.6 billion); and federal aid to schools ($1.4 billion)."

The full article is here: http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html

These are federal numbers. The real costs are more regionalized, meaning those of us in California, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, and other border states, pick up more than 60% of the total tax burden since the states pick up most of the costs. Federalized it doesn't look too bad, only $29 billion, but for the few states where illegal immigration is a problem, the cost per taxpayer, and worse yet, the depletion of funds to improve roads, schools, and healthcare, are much higher.

[EVOL EDO]

i think the analogy works. Â*if you dont see america as your home you should get out. Â*again the whole thing is retarded no one has a problem with the people that come here legally. Â*so its not about immigrants its about illegal immigrants. Â*like chris said its more than .60/ per year. Â*emergency room costs from hospitals alone is more than that. Â*then you figure schooling which is getting overcrowded as it is. Â*police enforcement. etc. Â*you cant just make up numbers to support a point. Â*and that money has to go to those things which adds to the state budgget deficit which does affect people personally more than their 60 cents a year. Â*then they also have the nerve to say they deserve to be here after coming illegally. and they deserve to be able to speak their own language, and deserve to learn mexican history. Â*if all that is so great why not stay where you came from.

[Blak94GSX]

Some numbers for California specifically, in 2004, of course the number is higher now.

$10.5 Billion annually. Cost per taxpaying household is $1200 per year.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20041206-102115-6766r.htm

"Illegal immigration costs the taxpayers of California — which has the highest number of illegal aliens nationwide — $10.5 billion a year for education, health care and incarceration, according to a study released yesterday.
A key finding of the report by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) said the state's already struggling kindergarten-through-12th-grade education system spends $7.7 billion a year on children of illegal aliens, who constitute 15 percent of the student body.
The report also said the incarceration of convicted illegal aliens in state prisons and jails and uncompensated medical outlays for health care provided to illegal aliens each amounted to about $1.4 billion annually. The incarceration costs did not include judicial expenditures or the monetary costs of the crimes committed by illegal aliens that led to their incarceration. "

[Mokaone]

my numbers may be wrong, i checked other sources (reliable sources), and im getting diff numbers. but either way, the point i was triying to make was that the media tries to portray this as a huge problem. it is a problem, but its not as huge as people try to make it seem. but ill stop before EvoEdo gets ethug with me about getting out of his country. O0

[EVOL EDO]

my numbers may be wrong, i checked other sources (reliable sources), and im getting diff numbers. but either way, the point i was triying to make was that the media tries to portray this as a huge problem. it is a problem, but its not as huge as people try to make it seem. but ill stop before EvoEdo gets ethug with me about getting out of his country. O0


:2funny: :2funny: :2funny: i wasnt e thuggin and i was talkin to absinthe who said the analagy was way off. i see the US as my home and so do most of the other people that live here. i was simply saying if you dont see it as you home then y be here. just like if speaking spanish and learning mexican history is so important and great. and they are so proud of it why dont they stay in their country.

[speedracer2169]

blah blah blah all i is still talk but no action on how to solve the problem. To solve the problem you need to go to the source. And they can secure it as much as they want. Oh wait why all the focus on the mexican border and not the canadian border. I would rather support and have an illegal here than a terrorist

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=w060605&s=kurlantzick060706

Since September 11, U.S. counterterrorism experts have suddenly realized that one of America's closest allies may actually be a haven for terrorist cells. Islamist groups have raised money there with impunity. Dangerous men with alleged links to Al Qaeda pass in and out of the country seemingly unchallenged, and some parts of the nation even have considered enacting sharia law. Citizens of this ally seem largely unconcerned about the threat of Islamic radicalism.

That nation is not Saudi Arabia--it's a place that produces much finer comedians and rock bands: Canada. America's northern neighbor, which sits across a largely unguarded 5,000-mile border and conducts some $1.3 billion in trade every day with the United States, has quietly become a meeting place for terrorists--a threat underscored by last week's arrests in Toronto, where 17 terrorism suspects were detained. As the U.S. Congress's research service has warned, Canada has become "a favored destination for terrorists and international criminals." David Harris, a former top official with the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, the country's combination of the FBI and CIA, is more blunt: "Canada has everything for the discriminating terrorist," he told "60 Minutes."

Though Canadian intelligence services are the equal of any in the West, the Canadian government historically devoted only limited law enforcement resources to battling terrorism, as Sikh, Tamil, and other types of terror groups set up cells in Canada to fundraise and recruit in major cities. Stewart Bell, an investigative reporter for the National Post newspaper, found that the Tamil Tigers, the Sri Lankan terror group that popularized suicide bombing, established numerous front organizations in Canada to raise millions of dollars; many Canadian politicians said little or even praised the Tamil organizations.

Â*



Meanwhile, Canada, which prides itself on having a more tolerant society than the United States, created one of the world's most generous systems of asylum. In the Canadian asylum system, few refugees are turned away, the interpretation of political asylum is extremely broad, and, until very recently, the government almost never detained refugees who could not prove their identity. This generosity has allowed undocumented migrants to stay in Canada, without government surveillance, for years before a status hearing. As a result, Canada takes in roughly twice as many refugees and immigrants, on a per capita basis, as the United States. Once in Canada, these refugees can take advantage of the generous welfare system.

In the past decade, that hospitality has become more generous--and more dangerous. Since the early 1990s, as the Canadian government has sought to increase and diversify its population, Canada has witnessed a surge in immigration from the Middle East and Southwest Asia, with the number of immigrants rising tenfold between 1961 and 2001. Today, working-class neighborhoods in Toronto and other cities are mélanges of Lebanese restaurants, Thai noodle houses, and Arab coffee shops. In French-speaking Quebec, meanwhile, where the government has tried to maintain a majority francophone population, the province has actively encouraged immigration from French-speaking North Africa, leading to large Algerian, Moroccan, and Tunisian communities. And even as immigration has brought many law-abiding citizens to Canada, radical Islam has arrived as well. Canadian intelligence and police identified this threat, and started watching mosques in Ontario and elsewhere. But the Canadian government passed no counterterrorism laws designed to weed out dangerous men from legitimate refugees, and the Canadian public, which did not see Canada as a potential terror target, hardly seemed to care about the jihadi threat. Amazingly, the province of Ontario even considered allowing local Muslim groups to start implementing sharia law for some civil disputes--a change violently resisted by liberal Canadian Muslims.

Ottawa also appeared frightened of offending immigrant groups, especially as they gained political clout. While the United States established a list of proscribed terrorist groups and made it illegal to raise funds for them on American soil, the Canadian government until recently lagged behind other Western nations in its anti-money laundering and fundraising laws. In 2002, Canada's National Post revealed that Hezbollah alone had created a vast fundraising and recruiting apparatus in Canada. Yet even after September 11, Canada's then-Prime Minister Jean Chrétien attended meetings in Lebanon alongside a leader of Hezbollah, and then-Foreign Minister Bill Graham praised Hezbollah's social welfare wing as working for peace in the Middle East.

With generous refugee policies, a sizable welfare state, and its proximity to the United States, Canada became a favored location for Islamist terror networks. In 1994, an Algerian man named Ahmed Ressam immigrated to Canada, using false documents. After entering the country, Ressam plotted to destroy Los Angeles airport and other targets on the eve of the millennium. Though Ressam left Canada several times between 1994 and 1999 (at least once to travel to Afghanistan to learn how to manufacture bombs), never showed up for his refugee status hearings, and was the subject of an explicit warning from French terrorism investigators to the Canadian government in 1999, he was never kicked out of Canada or arrested.

Ressam's plot, supported by a cell in Canada, was broken up only when an astute American customs officer, who thought Ressam looked nervous, stopped his car as he tried to cross the U.S. border from British Columbia. Ressam tried to prove he was a Canadian citizen by giving the officer a supermarket membership card; when this (unsurprisingly) did not placate the customs officer, Ressam sprinted from his car. Caught a few blocks away, Ressam had the phone numbers of top Al Qaeda members on him and, inside his trunk, some 100 pounds of explosives. Shortly after Ressam's arrest, American newspapers revealed that U.S. officials long had privately complained about Canada's lax immigration.

Ressam's story was hardly unique. By 2004, journalists like the National Post's Bell had discovered numerous other cases of suspected terrorists in Canada, including men who'd allegedly been involved in the horrific 2002 Bali bombing, bombings in Riyadh, and many other attacks. Indeed, last March Canada's security and intelligence director informed the Canadian Senate of "a number of instances where Canadians or individuals based here have been implicated in terrorist attacks or plans in other countries."

After September 11, Canada did allocate some $7 billion in new spending on security. It also tightened its asylum laws, strengthened its prohibitions on terror fundraising, and passed its first real counterterrorism statute, which allowed police to detain terrorism suspects for up to 72 hours without obtaining a warrant. But new laws mean little without enforcement. For a time it maintained the fiction that organizations like Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Tamil Tigers had social-service wings independent of their terrorist networks that were deserving of funds. Canada resisted more radical changes to its immigration and refugee policies, such as close harmonization between Washington and Ottawa on refugee policy.

That Canada did not radically alter its approach to terrorism is not so surprising. Canadians define themselves in large part by what they are not--Americans--and some continue to think that, because they are so different from Americans, they will be protected from terror. Under former Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, who had an icy relationship with George W. Bush from the start--Chrétien all but endorsed Al Gore in 2000--Ottawa remained wary of losing an identity separate from its powerful southern neighbor, threatening the open economics of the U.S.-Canada border, or abandoning its tolerant refugee policies. As Congress's research service noted, even Canada's new, tougher refugee law was actually called "The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act," presumably so as not to offend refugee advocates. And shortly after September 11, Chrétien denied that there were terror cells at all in Canada.

Even under a more conservative new government, Canada's fear of Americanization continues to make Ottawa hesitant about law enforcement and intelligence cooperation with Washington, and about enforcing its own tougher antiterrorism laws. In the State Department's 2005 Country Report on Terrorism on Canada, State took a far more negative tone than in its previous reports. The report says that, four years after September 11, Canada's liberal immigration and refugee system still makes it easy to "enjoy safe haven, raise funds, arrange logistical support, and plan terrorist attacks."

Washington clearly is to blame as well. Focused on the Mexican border, the United States has hardly paid enough attention to security at the northern border. Worse, even before his first election, George W. Bush showed disdain for Canada, confusing Chrétien's name with poutine, a Canadian "delicacy" made of French fries, gravy, and cheese curds. After that initial slight, the White House paid little attention to Canadian concerns, and the Bush administration seemed to go out of its way to anger Ottawa.

Indeed, when U.S. troops mistakenly killed several Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan, the Bush administration did little to placate the angry Canadians. And the White House often allowed minor economic issues to poison the relationship. The administration let a U.S. ban on potatoes from eastern Canada fester for months, though there was no real scientific reason for the ban. Chrétien privately fumed about the tater tussle, and even served Bush eastern Canadian spuds during a dinner for the two leaders, only telling Bush after the meal what he'd actually eaten. More recently, last year Bush appointed a new U.S. ambassador to Canada, South Carolina politician--and major Bush fund-raiser--David H. Wilkins, who knew virtually nothing about the country, a sharp contrast from the previous ambassador, a former governor of Massachusetts who had worked closely with Canadians on many issues.

Most important, since September 11, Washington has not gone far enough in helping Ottawa understand that it can rethink its immigration and refugee policies without abandoning its democratic values and concern for privacy rights. In the worst example, in 2002, U.S. customs officials detained Maher Arar, a Syrian-born Canadian citizen, accused him of terrorist ties, and sent him to Syria, where he was allegedly tortured. The United States only informed Canada about Arar's arrest and deportation three days after the event had already happened, a move that infuriated most Canadians and made them wary about sharing intelligence information with Washington.

Now, terror has started to strike closer to home in Canada, potentially sharpening Canadians' minds. Perhaps these arrests will finally wake up our northern neighbor--and the Bush administration. But don't bet on it.

[speedracer2169]

http://www.fairus.org/site/PageServer?pagename=research_research4f21

Terrorist Caught on Northern Border; Congress Waffles on Taking Security Measures


Source: Immigration Report




Since an Algerian terrorist with bomb-making materials was apprehended trying to enter the U.S. via the Canadian border in December, all 301 U.S. points of entry have been on ‘high-security’ alert against terrorist attack. The terrorist, Ahmed Ressam, had been in Canada illegally since 1994. Despite being arrested several times for theft, Ressam remained because Canada stopped deporting Algerians in 1997. By 1999, he had obtained identification documents through fraud, and attempted to enter the U.S. with 32 ounces of nitroglycerine, 118 pounds of urea, a volatile fertilizer, and numerous timing devices.

Experts say there are several hundred Algerian gangster-terrorists in Montreal alone. As reported previously in Immigration Report (November 1998), the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) is actively investigating 50 terrorist groups in Canada. According to the head of the CSIS, “the nature of our society and the related policies concerning refugees and immigrants makes us particularly vulnerable to terrorist influence and activities.� He also warned Congress in a hearing last year that “Most of the world’s terrorist groups have established themselves in Canada, seeking safe haven, setting up operational bases and attempting to gain access to the U.S.A.�

The Ressam incident revived Congressional debate over Section 110 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, which requires the INS to develop a system for recording the exits and entrances of foreigners. Under pressure from Canada and some northern border states, the Senate voted three times to repeal Section 110, but the House has refused to allow it. Implementation of the exit-entry system, originally slated to be in place in 1998, has been delayed until March 2001.

“If any Americans are harmed because of the failure to implement Section 110,� said Dan Stein, executive director of the Federation for American Immigration Reform, “let it be on the heads of INS Commissioner Doris Meissner, who chose not to act on 110, hoping Congress would repeal it, and of Senator Spencer Abraham, who has lead the charge for its delay and repeal.� Worried about the effects on commerce, Canadian governmental officials are also fighting efforts to strengthen U.S. controls on the northern border.

Length of the U.S.-Canadian Border (excluding Alaska) - 3,987 milesU.S. Border Patrol Agents on the Canadian Border - 306Ratio of Miles Per Agent on the Canadian Border - 13:1 Length of the U.S.- Mexican Border - 1,933 milesU.S. Border Patrol Agents on the Mexican Border - 7,761Ratio of Miles Per Agent on the Mexican Border - 1:4

[speedracer2169]

yes indeed illegal immigration is a problem but are we looking for terrorists or someone who just wants to work

[speedracer2169]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/03/AR2006050302199.html


Last week Senate Republicans passed an amendment diverting $1.9 billion from securing Iraq to securing Arizona. The new money for border security, explained New Hampshire's Judd Gregg, will pay for "the unmanned vehicles, the cars, the helicopters which are a critical part of our fight in the war on terrorism." Senate Democrats generally opposed the diversion. But they wholeheartedly agreed that defeating terrorism requires more enforcement along the Rio Grande. As Massachusetts's Edward Kennedy recently put it, America's immigration problems "directly threaten U.S. national security."

Rarely have the two parties been so united in a belief that is so wrong. Stopping terrorists from coming across America's southern border would be an urgent concern -- if any were actually coming. So far, however, there is little evidence they are. Using newspaper reports and government documents, Robert S. Leiken and Steven Brooke of the Nixon Center have painstakingly compiled a database of 373 known or suspected terrorists in North America or Western Europe since 1993. In a forthcoming essay in the journal Terrorism and Political Violence, they disclose their findings: Not one terrorist has entered the United States from Mexico. And they're not the only ones who have reached that conclusion. As a recent paper published by Syracuse University's Institute for National Security and Counterterrorism notes, "it does not appear that authorities have apprehended even a single terrorist trying to cross over the southern border into the United States."


Immigration scaremongers like to note that more than 150,000 OTMs -- "other than Mexicans" -- were caught crossing the southern border in fiscal 2005. What they generally don't say is that the vast majority of them -- as much as 99 percent -- come from other Latin American countries. The number hailing from "countries of interest," i.e., Islamic countries that produce a lot of terrorists, is in the hundreds, if not the tens.

Does that mean it's impossible for a terrorist to enter the United States from Mexico? Of course not. But consider the odds. The United State posts more than five agents per mile across our southern border. By contrast, we post less than one agent every five miles across our northern border. What's more, as the United States has cut off urban crossing points in places such as El Paso and San Diego, it has forced many illegal immigrants to go through the Arizona desert -- a brutal journey, particularly for someone with no knowledge of the terrain. Would-be terrorists coming from Canada are not only less likely to be caught, they are less likely to die along the way.

There also happen to be many more potential jihadists in Canada. Unlike Mexico, with its negligible Arab and Muslim population, Canada in recent decades has welcomed large numbers of immigrants from the Middle East. And while the vast majority are law-abiding, Canadian authorities estimate that roughly 50 terrorist groups operate in the country. In their study, Leiken and Brooke identify three suspected terrorists who have tried to enter the United states from Canada, including Ahmed Ressam, an Algerian native arrested in December 1999 on his way to blow up Los Angeles International Airport.

On national security grounds, then, if America wants to build a wall along one of our borders, it should be our border to the north. More practically, the best way to prevent terrorists from entering the United States, according to experts such as Richard Falkenrath, a Brookings Institution scholar and former deputy homeland security adviser, would be to invest in a state-of-the-art terrorist watch list complete with biometric screening. After all, terrorists are most likely to enter the United States the same way the Sept. 11 hijackers did -- through airports.

Over the past four years, politicians have tried to fold every issue imaginable into the "war on terror." The temptation is understandable. It would be wonderfully convenient if America's disparate problems all had the same solution -- if the government could ease Americans' economic and cultural anxieties about illegal immigration at the same time it safeguarded them against the jihadist threat. Unfortunately, it can't. And when politicians conflate immigration and terrorism, they not only subtly tar illegal Mexican immigrants as violently anti-American, which they are not, but they also give Americans a false sense of security. Sinking billions into enforcement along the southern border may or may not safeguard American culture and American jobs, but it will do precious little to protect American lives.

[speedracer2169]

what is the real purpose of securing the border? stopping illegals? they will still come. Rather than making the objective of focusing on illegals we should be focusing on terrorism. when was the last time a beaner walked around and committed a suicide bomb other than taking a shit after eating a burrito? we have one agent every 5 miles along the southern border and but not on the north.

[speedracer2169]

yeah they are here so what? how many billions of dollars it will cost to kick them out just so that they can come back in? you wanna make a difference go join homeland security and patrol the borders rather than bitching about it.

[speedracer2169]

anyone? waiting for a rebuttle here?

[EVOL EDO]

sure i think its impossible to actually fully secure the borders. my main problem is with the people that feel like they are being wronged like they deserve to be here even when they came illegally. then they are here illegally and still act like they should have all the rights of the people that are here legally. i have a problem with the people that come here dont want to learn the language and act like they have a right to only speak their own langauge. the people that feel mexican history should be taught in classes because they are proud of their heritage when this is the usa not mexico. i have a problem with the people that want the national anthem to be adopted in spanish because they want to keep their own language. do i have a problem with people that still speak their native language and english. no. do i have a problem with people that come her legally and are trying to learn the langauge and make a better life for themselves and their families? no. do i have a problem with people that that refuse to adapt to the country they say they want to be a part of and would rather have the country adapt to them. absolutely.

[Blak94GSX]

Minefields are pretty inexpensive.

[EVOL EDO]

i think posting sniper towers in the middle of the minefields would dissuade some people from coming over also

[Chris in SD]

This is a lot like most counterterrorist initiatives (not saying this is terrorism-related, just making a point) - people want to avoid problems, make people feel "good", and say what they think people want to hear.

Border security (on both borders) is a HUGE PROBLEM. To say otherwise is very ignorant...

[Terry S]

what is the real purpose of securing the border? stopping illegals? they will still come. Rather than making the objective of focusing on illegals we should be focusing on terrorism. when was the last time a beaner walked around and committed a suicide bomb other than taking a shit after eating a burrito? we have one agent every 5 miles along the southern border and but not on the north.


Whats the purpose of keeping illegal immigrants out (from anywhere)? To keep our costs down. Period.

If we spend more and more money on allowing illegals to stay here then we have less and less to spend on national security. Simple as that.

Terry S

[Terry S]

Minefields are pretty inexpensive.


Dont forget the tunnels and boats they use to come across... We need ocean and land based depth charges too. O0

Terry S

[Absinthe]

sorry I have been gone for a while, I objected to terry's original analogy becuase it was oversimp-lified and does not take into account the conditions, complexity and legal climate that exists in the immigration issue.

Simply put B&E not eqaul to Border hoping.

I refute none of the associated costs discussed by others, however I do take issue with the fact that any percived benifits are ignored in order to present one side of the argument.

[Blak94GSX]

I don't feel a benefit for my $1200 a year I spend to subsidize the illegals. I'd rather spend that $1200 on hiring people here legally that contribute to our society.

[Chris in SD]

I'd rather $1200/year goes toward the social security benefits I've been paying for 18 years.

[Absinthe]

I'd rather $1200/year goes toward the social security benefits I've been paying for 18 years.


thats cause your old, I'd rather not pay any SS at all and junk the whole system

[Absinthe]

I don't feel a benefit for my $1200 a year I spend to subsidize the illegals. I'd rather spend that $1200 on hiring people here legally that contribute to our society.


yeah I think it would vary from person to person, i likely would feel it more becuase I eat out a lot and stay in a lot of hotels two industries I think are pretty reliant on the border hoppers

[x[corwyn]]

Yea that .60 cent per person per year is WAY off base. Maybe if you are earning and paying the taxes that illegal immigrants do. Even the $1200 per household is smaller than I think it really is.

If we want ways to get our healthcare costs back down the 2 things that are driving them up are our old people, and our illegal immigrants. One of those is going to need to be curtailed and quite honestly I'm not much in favor of shooting our old people into the sun. Thats my first thought.

My second thought is, that Mexico is encouraging and sending their undesirables to our country. People who do well in Mexico don't want to leave for here. Why would they? So Mexico's solution is to instead of fix their issues, send their problems to us. Since they rely on us so much for money, I think maybe a rather large bill for services rendered might be in order. No one EVER mentions this. And Mexico's southern border is guarder far more closely than ours. Remember that you Meixcan flag waving hipocrates.

So after an analysis of what we pay per year.... $1200 per year on top of the minimum wage is kinda steep for gardening services, no? Imagine what $1200 a year would do for our roads... We don't have enough money to build our freeways, so we have to have toll roads that are half assed at best... Or our education system, which if anyone hasn't experienced public school caters to the lowest common denominator. Our students that are the best and brightest drop out because the challenge isn't there, or at best are so bored that what they get our of school is a babysitting service. ESL is BS. Whatever happened to people that wanted to succeed here learned the language of the country they came to? We sacrifice the education of our children so that we can hand hold those that can't be bothered to hold themselves accountable. If you want to speak spanish? Great!!! There are many MANY countries whose primary language is such. That might be a much better solution for you.

I watched the level of my schooling drop dramatically when I moved to California. I didn't have to try throughout Junior High and High School to do well. I got extremely bored. I watched programs that were beneficial to real life, go away because we had expanded our ESL departments and had less teachers per class also. The level of education and skills I saw in 6th grade in Texas were superior to the level of education here in High School. Now that my daughter is going to the same schools I did, I see its worse.

I believe what will do more good than building walls, and laying minefields will be to simply remove the laws that the illegals find so attractive. Let them come. They will recieve no medical care for free. If medical care is rendered and is a proper emergency, bill Mexico. It CAN be done. Whether its paid or not is a different story, but if if they are affected economically it will not be pimping out the American lifestyle to their undesirables.
Also sanctions and jail time for employing illegal workers. Once upon a time emlpoyers worried over such practices. Nowadays its too commonplace.

Also for F$#@SSAKE don't give them green cards after they broke the law. Felons can't get one, and that is what they did. And WTF is this about wanting to hand out Drivers Licenses?! SONOFABITCH!!!! Pack them into a tight truck and ship their asses back to Mexico! How hard is it?! They come here illegally, they get caught, game over, they go home. No more laws protecting them from INS. If they are found they go home.

Why don't we just give them a pipe, some bunny slippers, and a nice terry cloth robe to help them stretch out and enjoy the free handouts that proper citizens cant get. That is wrong. We should take care of our own first and foremost. Help when we can and when it is prudent for others. Mexican citizens being shipped over because they can't work there isn't my idea of them needing help. Unless by help needing a swift kick in the ass.

[x[corwyn]]

I don't feel a benefit for my $1200 a year I spend to subsidize the illegals. I'd rather spend that $1200 on hiring people here legally that contribute to our society.


yeah I think it would vary from person to person, i likely would feel it more becuase I eat out a lot and stay in a lot of hotels two industries I think are pretty reliant on the border hoppers


The hotels CAN afford to pay regular workers. What do you think they do in the midwest or other areas of the country that don't have mexican workers? Import them from other countries? Using illegal workers is always an excuse, and a poor one. There will always be people willing to do those jobs. I worked Hotels, parking lots, and all kinds of menial jobs for years. I worked hard as well, and made the same money as any of the other people on my teams and was damned glad to have a job. I know of plenty people that would feel the same way.

Or another way to explain it is, the costs to the consumer is the same. The price will be what the market can bear at all times. What goes up is the companies profits when they use illegals. Once the incentive to use them is removed you may see profits go down, but the price for the consumer will remain. Perhaps it will encourage making their process more efficient and utilise machinery instead in strawberry picking camps, and spwan new growth industries similar to what happened with the industrial revolution and the removal of slaves as cheap labor.

[x[corwyn]]

BTW I just want to publically encourage more walkout days like the one they had a few months back. The lack of traffic, and slow drivers in the fast lane was remarkably low. I think Mexico sends us their shitty drivers also... That day I arrived 20 minutes early to an appointment I thought I was going to be late for that was really only 10 miles away. It was a great day for driving. So please MORE of those walkout days and I will be happy. I'll even send out a few bucks for you guys to do that again.