joether
Posts: 5195
Joined: 7/24/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: jlf1961
I disagree with everything else you said simply because if you are going to give amnesty to illegal aliens, you might as well give it to drug dealers and other less violent criminal offenders.
An THAT is why conservatives will NEVER get an immigration bill through to Congress. An they have tried several times; and they all end like the 40-50 times to defund the ACA. Unlike drug dealers whom break a score of federal laws for profit, power, and control over Americans; those that skip the border were, for the most part, trying to make a better life for their families. Have you ever sat down and chatted to these people in a frank and honest manner? I'll take the educated guess of 'NO'.
You didn't bother to read the McCain/Kenney law either, did you? That was about as 'middle of the road' as it gets for Congress these days. Conservatives, moderates and liberals each had a fair say on the document, with no one side gaining everything they demand. But, the 'low information voter' to which you seem to be a new resident of, were conditioned to believe that all the illegal aliens would get amnesty. The only ones that applied to were the ones that had lived in this country and never got so much as a parking ticket! That's a cleaner criminal record than most conservatives in this country at present! So they hopped the border...what have they done since? Raised families, kept their communities clean of drugs and crime, paid taxes, and taken the jobs US Citizens couldn't take as the pay was well below the Federal Minimum Wage leave. Yes, 5-8% hopped the border for criminal reasons and those should be prosecuted to the full extend of the law.
So here is the question, jfl1961. Should we treat one group of people differently then all the other groups in the United States under the US Constitution?
quote:
ORIGINAL: jlf1961
Now to burst your bubble, Federal agents do not need prior authorization from states to make arrests, detain suspects or any other action they may decide to undertake in the carrying out of their duties. Check the superiority clause in the constitution.
Burst my bubble?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA....
You don't even know what it MEANS! The Supremacy Clause ONLY applies at the FEDERAL LEVEL. In that the states could not have a law that supersedes Federal Law. Nor State Legislators creating a situation in which rules or laws surpass federal rules and laws. So a Federal Agent could not arrest a murder in a direct law enforcement capacity...UNLESS...the person murdered would have fallen under federal law (i.e. the murder killed another federal agent). The most they can do is hold the suspect until the local or state troopers arrived for the actual arrest. That said, a Federal Agent could arrest someone that hopped the border ONLY on the federal charges but not state charges. While the state could press charges, the suspect would normally go to federal court first.
I'm sure the FBI is well aware of the location of many of these illegal aliens right now. But forcing them out of their locations would be a huge operation, costing the country a huge amount of money, with numerous lawsuits and class action suits following. Not to mention the price of produce grown in this country rising above imported (effectively placing more US businesses in the 'financial lose' category). An making the clashes of the 1960's civic rights era look like an afternoon picnic. Is it really worth it in the long run? Unlike you, the FBI understands that keeping a low level criminal in place really does help catch the bigger fish preying on Americans.
quote:
ORIGINAL: jlf1961
Putting military patrols on the border would not turn them into a police force, they were not a police force when they patrolled the border in the first part of the 20th century, they were there to prevent Mexican bandits from raiding inside the US. Now we have drug cartels in Mexico moving drugs across the border. Maybe if they (drug smugglers) ran into a company of troops and a few hundred drug runners were killed in fire fights, it might deter them from crossing the border.
An if you actually READ the history books, immigration wasn't a problem back then! It only became a problem when the Republican/Tea Party made it one! They hate all the minorities (as observed in the last Presidential Election), with special hatred of anyone with Mexican decent. Particularly those southern states along the border. I pointed out of one study that stated five in six illegal immigrants would become Democrats if they could become US Citizens. That just fuelled the hatred even further. At this point, I give the Republican/Tea Party Immigration bill as much chance of passing as Sarah Palin of becoming President.
The second part of your statement is just a wild fantasy. Do you really think the 'brains' of these drug cartels would sent the bulk of their product directly in the path of the soldiers? How many US Soldiers would we need to deploy across that border to make sure nothing gets by? We Pay $18,378/year plus benefits to privates in the US Army. An whose going to pay for all of this jfl1961? Why should the states far north pay for security in the southern states like Arizona? A state that demands the Federal Government pay for most things so they (the Republican/Tea Party) can have free lunches. I do not see any of those states raising their taxes to pay for armed, well regulated militias in a sign of good faith that the federal government should 'chip in'.
As I said, when the Democrats were formulating the Affordable Care Act, that was the perfect time to negotiate a real deal on the subject of border security. The problem was that Republicans didn't way to pay for border security of blue states. Like California.....
quote:
ORIGINAL: jlf1961
I know the most secure border in the world is the one between North and South Korea, and since people are screaming for a secure border, maybe we should look there to get an idea on what to do with the southern border.
That's because the regime in North Korea is plain crazy enough to invade against superior numbered of defenders with superior technology. Mexico maybe a lot of things, but they are NOT crazy enough to start a war with the United States. Placing those troops there would send the wrong message that we do not trust the citizens of Mexico. Yeah, that maybe PC, but it is helpful to this country politically. Now, if the Mexican government allowed US special forces to operate in the areas those drug cartels tend to operate in....
If we are to place US Soldiers along the United States/Mexico line to ward against illegal aliens, drugs, and evil doers; then its fair we do the same at ALL Airports, Shipping Ports, and roads leading into this country (including along the USA/Canada border. How much money would that cost? How much security would it really give us as a nation? An since the 'enemy' can sneak across that border, we'll need to layer our defenses well inland to places like Kansas. Also, we'd have to give the FBI and NSA more powers to snoop on anyone in the USA....since anyone could be helping those drug dealers directly or indirectly, right? After that, we'd have to limit the roadways not just between states, but, but counties. An we'd need to have unannounced searches of people's property....just to make sure, right? This is your wild fantasy taken to its logical conclusion.
You want to talk about making a good immigration policy and/or law? I'm for that conversation.
|
RE: An gentler way.... bullshit - .gif){kind=avatar}
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread