quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

quote:

ORIGINAL: Charles6682

It depends on what any President is using the Executive Powers for. In President Obama's case on immigration, he is doing the right thing. Republicans certainly have no intent on passing any immigration bill beyond "trap them in a net and send them all home", which is inhumane and won't work. O, that and build the new "Berlin wall" on the U.S.-Mexican border. Maybe if Republicans had tried to pass something, instead of just trying to fight Obama on everything, then maybe Obama would not have had to use "Executive Powers" on this. There's a different between using Executive Powers for something humane like this, and using Executive Powers for starting wars based on false knowledge.

Think about your grotesquely flawed analogy for just one second and if you have half a mind you might realize your mistake

Here's a clue for you

Leftist regimes need walls to keep people in

Capitalist countries need walls to keep people out

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

quote:

ORIGINAL: Charles6682

It depends on what any President is using the Executive Powers for. In President Obama's case on immigration, he is doing the right thing. Republicans certainly have no intent on passing any immigration bill beyond "trap them in a net and send them all home", which is inhumane and won't work. O, that and build the new "Berlin wall" on the U.S.-Mexican border. Maybe if Republicans had tried to pass something, instead of just trying to fight Obama on everything, then maybe Obama would not have had to use "Executive Powers" on this. There's a different between using Executive Powers for something humane like this, and using Executive Powers for starting wars based on false knowledge.

Think about your grotesquely flawed analogy for just one second and if you have half a mind you might realize your mistake

Here's a clue for you

Leftist regimes need walls to keep people in

Capitalist countries need walls to keep people out

And just why does this particular capitalist country need to build such a wall or need to keep people out ?
This is a country of immigrants,over the years they have helped build this Republic....why do you hate them so ?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
We don't need a Northern border wall. Canadians don't want to come down here. Their beer is better.

Well, some might say that Mexican beer is also better than ours, but that may be another topic.

Another topic? You mean where we talk about how wrong some people can be? lol

quote:

quote:


If it was easy to get across legally, then there wouldn't be very many people crossing illegally. What strikes me is that, at least around here, it's not simply a matter of climbing a fence or getting around (or under) some sort of barrier. It also involves trekking through miles and miles of desert, rocky terrain, over mountains. They risk heat exhaustion, dying of thirst, rattlesnakes and other hazards. It's not exactly a walk in the park out there. The logistics of actually securing the border can be difficult as well, mainly due to the terrain, along with the distances and wide area involved. Not to mention all the tunnels that they find. We're talking 2000 miles (3218.69 km) of border through mostly inhospitable terrain. The Border Patrol has to cover quite a range of territory, not just at the border but quite a significant area inside the border as well - some of which is also private property, which can be an irritant for the some of the ranchers. I've talked to some who say that the illegal border crossers will just pass through and be on their way; they cause very few problems compared to the Border Patrol who come in like gangbusters, knocking down fences, scaring cattle, etc.

And, there are some who don't just "pass through and be on their way." We completely agree that if it were easier to gain legal entry, there would be less illegal entry. That's also why I'm all for immigration reform to make it easier, quicker, and more efficient.

quote:

quote:

I agree that we have a right to know who is coming into our country, but does anyone really stop to consider what a monumental undertaking it would be to build a Berlin Wall along the border? A lot of conservatives talk it up about how incompetent and wasteful government can be (a point which I actually agree with), and yet, they want to add a task like this for the government to do? It doesn't seem practical or cost-efficient.

What is the cost to preventing illegals from crossing the border?

The Secure Fence Act of 2006 passed the Senate 80-19 (25 D's in support) and the House 283-138 (64 D's in support). That bill would have built 700 miles of fencing at a cost of $1.2B, though some critics claim it would have taken $6B to fund. So, maybe it would cost $20B to build it 2000 miles.

quote:

Obama (earlier in the year) wanted $3.7B to help deal with the flood of child immigrants coming across. That wouldn't have been a one-time thing, either. Building the fence would have been a one-time thing (with more money for repairs), and would likely reduce the amount of illegal immigration (reducing the amount of money it would cost to deal with illegal immigrants). That would also make it easier for the USBP to do their jobs, too.

quote:


Sure it will. There are "bad guys" who do sneak across the borders. It won't be perfect, or 100%, but aren't we told that just because something isn't perfect doesn't mean it shouldn't happen?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

If it was easy to get across legally, then there wouldn't be very many people crossing illegally. What strikes me is that, at least around here, it's not simply a matter of climbing a fence or getting around (or under) some sort of barrier. It also involves trekking through miles and miles of desert, rocky terrain, over mountains. They risk heat exhaustion, dying of thirst, rattlesnakes and other hazards. It's not exactly a walk in the park out there. The logistics of actually securing the border can be difficult as well, mainly due to the terrain, along with the distances and wide area involved. Not to mention all the tunnels that they find. We're talking 2000 miles (3218.69 km) of border through mostly inhospitable terrain. The Border Patrol has to cover quite a range of territory, not just at the border but quite a significant area inside the border as well - some of which is also private property, which can be an irritant for the some of the ranchers. I've talked to some who say that the illegal border crossers will just pass through and be on their way; they cause very few problems compared to the Border Patrol who come in like gangbusters, knocking down fences, scaring cattle, etc.

And, there are some who don't just "pass through and be on their way." We completely agree that if it were easier to gain legal entry, there would be less illegal entry. That's also why I'm all for immigration reform to make it easier, quicker, and more efficient.

I'm for immigration reform, too, and I even think that most of the politicians in government want immigration reform, but can't seem to agree on how it should be done.

quote:

quote:

quote:

I agree that we have a right to know who is coming into our country, but does anyone really stop to consider what a monumental undertaking it would be to build a Berlin Wall along the border? A lot of conservatives talk it up about how incompetent and wasteful government can be (a point which I actually agree with), and yet, they want to add a task like this for the government to do? It doesn't seem practical or cost-efficient.

What is the cost to preventing illegals from crossing the border?
The Secure Fence Act of 2006 passed the Senate 80-19 (25 D's in support) and the House 283-138 (64 D's in support). That bill would have built 700 miles of fencing at a cost of $1.2B, though some critics claim it would have taken $6B to fund. So, maybe it would cost $20B to build it 2000 miles.

Keep in mind that we're talking about the same organization which typically overspends for what they provide.

quote:

quote:

Obama (earlier in the year) wanted $3.7B to help deal with the flood of child immigrants coming across. That wouldn't have been a one-time thing, either. Building the fence would have been a one-time thing (with more money for repairs), and would likely reduce the amount of illegal immigration (reducing the amount of money it would cost to deal with illegal immigrants). That would also make it easier for the USBP to do their jobs, too.

I don't know if building a fence would be a one-time thing, though. It might be something analogous to an Interstate highway - something constantly under construction and always in need of repair. We also have to assume that there will be those on the other side of the fence working to get under, through, or over it - and they've gotten quite good at that. Those who have powerful financial incentives to ensure illegal access across the border will use any and all means at their disposal to maintain it. They also have billions of dollars at stake.
If the primary issue here is cost, then you'd also have to factor in a number of other costs as well. Even some conservative economists believe that undocumented immigrants provide a benefit to the economy by filling jobs in industries which have seen labor shortages because they're too damn cheap to pay a decent wage. Since the companies save money on labor costs, those savings are presumably passed on to the consumer, or so the argument goes.
I think we should also look at the long-term costs versus the short-term costs. I don't see it as a problem with border security or that we don't have a good enough fence. This is an issue which also involves what's on the other side of that border, and ultimately, that's what we'll have to come to terms with.

quote:

quote:

Sure it will. There are "bad guys" who do sneak across the borders. It won't be perfect, or 100%, but aren't we told that just because something isn't perfect doesn't mean it shouldn't happen?

Well, "bad guys" can sneak across the Canadian border, too. Or they can just float in and enter our country at any point along thousands of miles of coastline. Or they can just enter through Customs with fake ID. Lots of ways of getting around the system.
I'm not expecting it to be perfect, but there may be other ways of resolving the issue at hand, other than taking a heavy-handed approach along the border. Besides, if we both agree that immigration reform is needed and that it should be made easier to cross the border legally, then that would significantly reduce the number of illegal border crossings and reduce the need for tight security at the border.

quote:

The money used to build a fence and all the equipment could be used to help Mexico secure their own country from the "bad guys," as Mexico also has a shared interest in stabilizing the border and securing the region around it. If we invest in Mexico, improve their infrastructure, build better housing, improve their standard of living - then they will stabilize and there won't be as many "bad guys" crossing the border and not as much need for a border fence - at least not any more of a need than we currently have at the Canadian border or along any of our coastlines.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
That's exactly the problem, as usual. I've said it before, that the difference between the Democrats and Republicans isn't the desired outcomes, it's the method of getting to those outcomes.

quote:


Right. The bill was to cost $1.2B for 700 miles. At that rate, 2100 miles ends up costing $3.6B. Adding in the Gub'mint Fudge Factor®, I calculated it to cost around $20B.

quote:


Most of the arguments point out how much a benefit to the economy an immigrant is. While it's true, the straw man part of that whole argument is that the GOP (who are usually the target of arguments taking this tack) doesn't want to get rid of immigrants; just the illegal ones.

quote:


Illlegal immigrants are adding to the economy, but they would be doing more if they were legal. I don't know if companies already pass on the employee pay savings from hiring illegals to consumers. Even if they did, I'd rather pay the true cost for those products without illegals being employed.

quote:


Heavily fining companies that use illegals just gets passed down to consumers, too (increasing the price consumers have to pay), but that doesn't mean we shouldn't hold those companies liable for their crimes.

quote:


I disagree that it would reduce the need for tight security at the border. It might end up increasing the need for tight security, since a higher percentage of those people crossing illegally will likely have criminal intent, rather than wanting to come to America to work for a better life for them and theirs.

quote:


An example using purely made up numbers: 100 people cross illegally per day, 25 of whom are involved in drug/gang activities. 25% have criminal intent. If we make it easier for immigrants to gain legal access, the drug/gang-related ones are less likely to be able to get through the new process, meaning they'll still be crossing illegally. The only thing that will have changed is a reduction in the number of people who are looking to improve their lives by coming to America. 25 out of 50 is 50%. Tight security will still be needed, and, as a benefit, a lower percentage of people caught crossing illegally will be those we'd like to immigrate naturally.

quote:


We aren't supposed to be in the business of building other nations up (unless we've destroyed them via war, imo). Why should the American taxpayer fund improvements in Mexico? If we're going to spend money fixing up infrastructure, building better housing, and improving standards of living, shouldn't it at least be here in the US?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Right. The bill was to cost $1.2B for 700 miles. At that rate, 2100 miles ends up costing $3.6B. Adding in the Gub'mint Fudge Factor®, I calculated it to cost around $20B.

True, although I'm not entirely convinced that all the details have been adequately worked out. A mile of fence in Ohio farmland seems to be far simpler matter than a mile of fence across rocky, mountainous terrain. I'm not an engineer, but I would surmise that there would be significant logistical problems in building a fence in some of these areas, not to mention how deep they'll have to go to prevent tunneling.
The final bill could end up being much higher.

quote:

As of January 2010, the fence project has been completed from San Diego, California to Yuma, Arizona.[dubious – discuss] From there it continues into Texas and consists of a fence that is 21 feet (6.4 m) tall and 6 feet (1.8 m) deep in the ground, cemented in a 3-foot (0.91 m)-wide trench with 5000 psi (UK/Ireland:345 bar; 352 kg/cm²) concrete.

quote:

quote:

Heavily fining companies that use illegals just gets passed down to consumers, too (increasing the price consumers have to pay), but that doesn't mean we shouldn't hold those companies liable for their crimes.

Perhaps giving out prison terms instead of just fining these companies might be a stronger disincentive. Companies just look at fines as the cost of doing business. A hefty fine might get their attention, but they're obviously willing to take the risk that they won't get caught. And if getting caught just means another fine, then that's not a strong enough consequence to cause them to avoid taking that risk.
And the fact that they haven't punished companies with any consistency or severity makes it crystal clear that the government has no real interest in solving this problem. It's just like the war on drugs; they go after street users while leaving the bankers and lawyers who launder the money to operate with impunity. It's all a big scam.

quote:

quote:

An example using purely made up numbers: 100 people cross illegally per day, 25 of whom are involved in drug/gang activities. 25% have criminal intent. If we make it easier for immigrants to gain legal access, the drug/gang-related ones are less likely to be able to get through the new process, meaning they'll still be crossing illegally. The only thing that will have changed is a reduction in the number of people who are looking to improve their lives by coming to America. 25 out of 50 is 50%. Tight security will still be needed, and, as a benefit, a lower percentage of people caught crossing illegally will be those we'd like to immigrate naturally.

Well, again, the problem here is the war on drugs and our society's obsession with controlling substances. The GOP is especially brazen about this, since they go on and on about "free trade" and "global markets," but only on their terms, which are selective and wildly inconsistent.
So, if we legitimize the process of workers crossing the border and decriminalize the drug trade, the problems with border security will evaporate very quickly.

quote:

quote:

We aren't supposed to be in the business of building other nations up (unless we've destroyed them via war, imo). Why should the American taxpayer fund improvements in Mexico? If we're going to spend money fixing up infrastructure, building better housing, and improving standards of living, shouldn't it at least be here in the US?

Yes, that too, although I think since Mexico is right next to us - along with the push for NAFTA and the desire to integrate our economies, then whatever we invest in Mexico could bring about a favorable return which would be beneficial to our own economy. We've done far more for other nations on other continents while getting very little in terms of any real return. We would also be saving on border security, since we would be reducing the need for having that security there in the first place.
This isn't really my first choice, but I think we're stuck ourselves in a box. The conservatives and capitalists who supported NAFTA put us in this box, and now I don't see that we have any other real choice - unless we withdraw from certain treaties and totally revamp our trade and foreign policies. But the conservatives would be the last ones to go along with that, so what are we to do? My main criticism of liberals and Democrats is that they pretty much caved in to the conservatives on NAFTA and global free trade.
I didn't like it, but at this point, if that's what we're stuck with, then that's what we're stuck with. If we're so afraid of whatever "boogiemen" might be on the other side of the border that we have to build a Berlin Wall, then something seems terribly incongruous about wanting to integrate the North American economy with a country we apparently fear so much.
My point here is that I don't think there's that much to fear, and the primary source of many of the problems we're facing with illegal immigration and border security involves the immense widespread poverty in Mexico and Central America. To some extent, the US business community should consider their own role in our relationship with Latin America, considering the history of companies like United Fruit. I can't, in good conscience, just sit here and pretend that we're just these innocent townsfolk trying to guard against wild "banditos" and "desperados." I don't think it's simply a matter of enforcing an ordinance about people crossing an imaginary line.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

The bill wasn't priced on Ohio farmland, but for the actual terrain. Granted, the 700 miles might have been primarily flatland and not rocky mountainous, but still.

The Wall/Barrier:

quote:

As of January 2010, the fence project has been completed from San Diego, California to Yuma, Arizona.[dubious – discuss] From there it continues into Texas and consists of a fence that is 21 feet (6.4 m) tall and 6 feet (1.8 m) deep in the ground, cemented in a 3-foot (0.91 m)-wide trench with 5000 psi (UK/Ireland:345 bar; 352 kg/cm²) concrete.

Granted, tunneling more than 6' is still possible, but the deeper you go, the more risky it is, usually.

quote:


There is a threat of up to 6 months of jail time for employers who show a pattern of hiring illegals. Other than that, it's all fines. I thought there was a greater threat of jail time than that, but no.

quote:

You're preaching to the choir about decriminalizing drugs. The biggest issue I see with doing that, though is that the druggees are going to have to be taken care of, and it's going to end up costing the US taxpayers shit tons of money to do that. Those that fuck themselves up by abusing drugs aren't going to be held responsible, so the US taxpayer is fucked, either way.

quote:


NAFTA has all but ruined much of Mexico's corn growing with our cheaper production. Free trade isn't limited by building walls separating countries.

quote:


Widespread poverty South of the US isn't our fault, though. That's part of the problem. It's more likely been caused by the governments of those countries than not. That's not our problem.

quote:


And, sadly, I highly distrust most countries we aid. Look at how Haiti has fared from our $2B+ in aid over the years. Their corrupt government hasn't used the aid as it was intended. The people of Haiti have suffered (and continue to do so) even though we've sent a lot of aid their way.

quote:


How much do we already send to Mexico? $207M for 2014. (Cool interactive map here) According to the map, $290M went to Haiti in 2014.

quote:


Improving our immigration process, making it more difficult for people to cross, and jacking up the penalties to employers who employ illegals, should be part of reform.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
The bill wasn't priced on Ohio farmland, but for the actual terrain. Granted, the 700 miles might have been primarily flatland and not rocky mountainous, but still.
The Wall/Barrier:

quote:

As of January 2010, the fence project has been completed from San Diego, California to Yuma, Arizona.[dubious – discuss] From there it continues into Texas and consists of a fence that is 21 feet (6.4 m) tall and 6 feet (1.8 m) deep in the ground, cemented in a 3-foot (0.91 m)-wide trench with 5000 psi (UK/Ireland:345 bar; 352 kg/cm²) concrete.

Granted, tunneling more than 6' is still possible, but the deeper you go, the more risky it is, usually.

The barriers in California are adequate as they are now. In fact, part of the reason immigrants go through Arizona at all is because the barriers in Texas and California are better and more effective. In Arizona, it's still a bit spotty. Even where there is a fence, it's not exactly a very strong barrier. They once found a fence along the border which had ramps built over it to allow passage of vehicles. Sure, they eventually found it and dismantled it, but this is the kind of stuff they'll be dealing with on an ongoing basis.
And some of the tunnels they find are not built by amateurs. They've found some which are makeshift, but others which have clearly been professionally built, with steel reinforcement, lights/electricity, ventilation. And even if the border fence does become too large and insurmountable, then they also have boats and hundreds of miles of shared coastline with California and Texas. Remember the Cuban "freedom flotilla"? We could see more of that.

quote:

(Speaking of that, don't you find it interesting that Cubans who enter illegally are given the red carpet treatment and allowed to stay, whereas those from other countries are given the bum's rush out? Why do you suppose that is?)

quote:

quote:

There is a threat of up to 6 months of jail time for employers who show a pattern of hiring illegals. Other than that, it's all fines. I thought there was a greater threat of jail time than that, but no.

Then it seems the way to go would be to increase the amount of jail time one receives for hiring illegals. That would probably work far better than building another fence. (And if drugs are decriminalized, then there will be tons of extra room in the prisons.)
I would also suggest that the drug seizure laws could also be applied here. That is, if a Home Depot store in Yuma is found to be hiring undocumented workers, then the property and assets of that store will be seized by the government. Perhaps even the entire company could be seized, which would cause the management to reevaluate the risk. Are they really going to risk losing a billion-dollar nationwide company just to save a few pennies on labor costs per hour at a single store? I doubt it. Right now, the risk just isn't great enough to act as a disincentive, and that's why the problem continues.
Undocumented workers could also be offered rewards (such as automatic citizenship) if they turn in their employers.
There are lots of different ways this problem can be approached, but the government isn't doing anything outside the usual status quo, and the politicians aren't proposing anything new. I think we have to think outside the box and come up with new and better ways of solving the problem.

quote:

quote:

You're preaching to the choir about decriminalizing drugs. The biggest issue I see with doing that, though is that the druggees are going to have to be taken care of, and it's going to end up costing the US taxpayers shit tons of money to do that. Those that fuck themselves up by abusing drugs aren't going to be held responsible, so the US taxpayer is fucked, either way.

You're talking about expenses the taxpayers are stuck with already. We're already having to take care of the "druggees." There wouldn't be any new expenses, and in many ways, the costs will probably go down since prisons are more expensive than outpatient drug treatment.

quote:

quote:

NAFTA has all but ruined much of Mexico's corn growing with our cheaper production. Free trade isn't limited by building walls separating countries.

Not necessarily, but it's still an incongruity which sends out mixed messages and could affect our international reputation. It most definitely affects our relationship with Mexico. It creates friction with a country which might otherwise be a close friend and ally of the United States.

quote:

quote:

Widespread poverty South of the US isn't our fault, though. That's part of the problem. It's more likely been caused by the governments of those countries than not. That's not our problem.

I don't think it's something we can easily dissociate ourselves from. Our history and relationship with Latin America is well-documented - not one of the more glorious pages in our history. The governments of these countries have been commonly viewed as under the influence of US hegemony, if not outright puppets altogether. And our government gets very angry if any of our puppets get out of line. We've been nursing a 50+ year butthurt and grudge against Cuba for that very reason. We've had people like Somoza and Pinochet as "friends," who are mass murderers who killed their own people just so their puppet masters could earn greater profits. Our invasion of Panama to get Noriega was another example of a former puppet getting out of line and having to be punished for it.
Like it or not, the US does bear some responsibility for the actions of the governments of Latin America, especially since we've been so actively involved down there ever since the Spanish Empire fell into receivership. Maybe it's not entirely our fault, as those governments also have to take some responsibility as well, but it would be dishonest for us to just sit here and pretend like our government had nothing to do with it. I'm not saying that we should feel guilty about it or pay reparations, but I think the problems under discussion here could be resolved more smoothly and could potentially be a win-win if we were more honest in our dealings with our neighbors to the south.

quote:

quote:

And, sadly, I highly distrust most countries we aid. Look at how Haiti has fared from our $2B+ in aid over the years. Their corrupt government hasn't used the aid as it was intended. The people of Haiti have suffered (and continue to do so) even though we've sent a lot of aid their way.

Haiti is another example of countries where we've supported tyrannical governments.

quote:

quote:

How much do we already send to Mexico? $207M for 2014. (Cool interactive map here) According to the map, $290M went to Haiti in 2014.

Interesting map, although I can't help but notice how lopsided it is in terms of how much we've sent to countries like Egypt, Iraq, and Afghanistan, while sending much less to countries in our own region.

quote:

quote:

Improving our immigration process, making it more difficult for people to cross, and jacking up the penalties to employers who employ illegals, should be part of reform.

In general, I agree with this statement. But I also think we need to look at this from a big picture point of view, encompassing both the historical perspective, the current geopolitical situation, as well as an eye to the future of our own country and region. Our government is so worried about global terrorism, as well as potential threats in the Middle East, North Korea - and even China and Russia seem to be getting a bit ornery these days. If we're not careful how we handle Latin American countries and their citizens, it could come back to haunt us.

quote:

I have entertained notions of tighter security and options more along the lines of "Fortress America." There are some people around here who think up ways of securing America as their favorite pastime, and even they seem to believe that a fence is not enough. Their proposals tend to involve machine guns and minefields. And then there are those who want to take things into their own hands and actively patrol the border zones and smuggling corridors - which has led to a few ugly incidents over the years. Having lived in this state for the past 35 years, the topic of securing the border has been much on the minds of a lot of people around here.
But by the same token, there are also a lot of people around here who have close friends and family in Mexico. They see it from a very different perspective because whatever our government does on immigration and border security could very well affect their families and loved ones. I'd like to think that our government could be more humane about some things and not unnecessarily cruel. But there is quite a divide to consider here.
A while back there was a traffic stop and the cops called the Border Patrol to check on the person's immigration status, and as soon as the Border Patrol vehicle pulled up, a lot of other people around started gathering and had the makings for a small riot. We also have to consider that if we get too gung-ho about immigration laws and border security, there could be a counter-reaction which could be problematic, to say the least. For me, I'd prefer that things remain peaceful and friendly. There's already a rather strong police presence as there is, with the Border Patrol and all the state and local law enforcement. And there are those who say even that's not enough that we need even more force along the border. There's always the occasional suggestion that the military be used.
But the more we push, the greater the risk of someone pushing back, and that could be even more costly - not just in dollars but also in lives. I think it's a fair question to ask ourselves: Is it really worth it in the long run?

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Yeah, I do recall the articles about well built tunnels. Most of those are built along the Cali border with Mexico. While there's no guaranteed way to prevent them from being built, that shouldn't be used as an argument to not build the walls, should it?

Yes, more do go through AZ because of walls built in other States. But, doesn't that speak towards the improved border protection provided by the fence?

quote:


I can only guess, but economic benefits probably isn't the main reason; political asylum is probably the main reason. So, comparing illegals from Cuba and those from Mexico isn't really an apples to apples comparison; I do believe most illegals from Mexico aren't looking for political asylum, but for economic reasons (and, those that are looking to come here and make a life for themselves by working should be the ones we're looking to let in).

quote:

quote:


Then it seems the way to go would be to increase the amount of jail time one receives for hiring illegals. That would probably work far better than building another fence. (And if drugs are decriminalized, then there will be tons of extra room in the prisons.)
I would also suggest that the drug seizure laws could also be applied here. That is, if a Home Depot store in Yuma is found to be hiring undocumented workers, then the property and assets of that store will be seized by the government. Perhaps even the entire company could be seized, which would cause the management to reevaluate the risk. Are they really going to risk losing a billion-dollar nationwide company just to save a few pennies on labor costs per hour at a single store? I doubt it. Right now, the risk just isn't great enough to act as a disincentive, and that's why the problem continues.
Undocumented workers could also be offered rewards (such as automatic citizenship) if they turn in their employers.
There are lots of different ways this problem can be approached, but the government isn't doing anything outside the usual status quo, and the politicians aren't proposing anything new. I think we have to think outside the box and come up with new and better ways of solving the problem.

I don't see the seizure laws applying to a National company for one branch hiring illegals. That seems a bit extreme.

quote:


Allowing any illegal to gain citizenship by turning in their employer also places a great risk on the part of employers.

quote:


As you've mentioned, some illegals are employed via fake identification documents, so the employer may not actually know that worker just hired is an illegal.

quote:


I think that would lead to an awful lot of "brown-skin" discrimination across the SW, especially.

quote:


While it may be illegal to discriminate based on race or skin color, those penalties might be more equitable than hiring an illegal with falsified documentation. One penalty would likely include having to hire that worker, and that process would likely identify the worker either as a Citizen or as a legal immigrant. Yeah. I don't think that idea, as much as I do understand where you were coming from with it. Too much risk for abuse.

quote:

quote:


You're talking about expenses the taxpayers are stuck with already. We're already having to take care of the "druggees." There wouldn't be any new expenses, and in many ways, the costs will probably go down since prisons are more expensive than outpatient drug treatment.

I'm willing to bet there would be an increased cost for treatment of druggees, as more people will become druggees. There isn't any backing to that, just an honest opinion.

quote:

quote:

quote:

NAFTA has all but ruined much of Mexico's corn growing with our cheaper production. Free trade isn't limited by building walls separating countries.

Not necessarily, but it's still an incongruity which sends out mixed messages and could affect our international reputation. It most definitely affects our relationship with Mexico. It creates friction with a country which might otherwise be a close friend and ally of the United States.

Mexico doesn't like that we won't allow wanton abuse of our border policies? Am I really supposed to give a fuck about the Mexican government's feelings? Seriously?

quote:


Their immigration policy is more stringent and harsh than ours is now. Should we complain about it and make them change it?

quote:


FFS, their consternation is probably because they'd have to deal with or take care of those that couldn't cross into the US illegally. They'd probably rather have more people immigrate to reduce the burden on themselves.

quote:


Free trade and immigration aren't the same thing, and can be exclusive to one another. Does our economic, information, and investment trade with Canada flourish because there isn't a wall? Would it flourish less if there was a wall?

quote:

quote:

quote:

Widespread poverty South of the US isn't our fault, though. That's part of the problem. It's more likely been caused by the governments of those countries than not. That's not our problem.

I don't think it's something we can easily dissociate ourselves from. Our history and relationship with Latin America is well-documented - not one of the more glorious pages in our history. The governments of these countries have been commonly viewed as under the influence of US hegemony, if not outright puppets altogether. And our government gets very angry if any of our puppets get out of line. We've been nursing a 50+ year butthurt and grudge against Cuba for that very reason. We've had people like Somoza and Pinochet as "friends," who are mass murderers who killed their own people just so their puppet masters could earn greater profits. Our invasion of Panama to get Noriega was another example of a former puppet getting out of line and having to be punished for it.
Like it or not, the US does bear some responsibility for the actions of the governments of Latin America, especially since we've been so actively involved down there ever since the Spanish Empire fell into receivership. Maybe it's not entirely our fault, as those governments also have to take some responsibility as well, but it would be dishonest for us to just sit here and pretend like our government had nothing to do with it. I'm not saying that we should feel guilty about it or pay reparations, but I think the problems under discussion here could be resolved more smoothly and could potentially be a win-win if we were more honest in our dealings with our neighbors to the south.

You are, in effect, talking about "paying reparations" by talking about fixing their infrastructure, etc. If we destroyed it, I'd agree we should help fix it. But, we didn't really destroy it, and all those countries are getting aid from us already.

quote:

quote:

quote:

And, sadly, I highly distrust most countries we aid. Look at how Haiti has fared from our $2B+ in aid over the years. Their corrupt government hasn't used the aid as it was intended. The people of Haiti have suffered (and continue to do so) even though we've sent a lot of aid their way.

Haiti is another example of countries where we've supported tyrannical governments.

Supported, or attempted to aid the populace through? There is a difference.

quote:

quote:

quote:

How much do we already send to Mexico? $207M for 2014. (Cool interactive map here) According to the map, $290M went to Haiti in 2014.

Interesting map, although I can't help but notice how lopsided it is in terms of how much we've sent to countries like Egypt, Iraq, and Afghanistan, while sending much less to countries in our own region.

Yes, it is quite lopsided. But, so what? Israel is getting $3.1B (DAYUM!), but a lot of that is defense-related. Which country in Latin America is under the same amount of hate from it's neighbors? No one said we have to dole out aid evenly, or even at all.

quote:

quote:

quote:

Improving our immigration process, making it more difficult for people to cross, and jacking up the penalties to employers who employ illegals, should be part of reform.

In general, I agree with this statement. But I also think we need to look at this from a big picture point of view, encompassing both the historical perspective, the current geopolitical situation, as well as an eye to the future of our own country and region. Our government is so worried about global terrorism, as well as potential threats in the Middle East, North Korea - and even China and Russia seem to be getting a bit ornery these days. If we're not careful how we handle Latin American countries and their citizens, it could come back to haunt us.

So, we should knuckle under to them so they don't get upset?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Yeah, I do recall the articles about well built tunnels. Most of those are built along the Cali border with Mexico. While there's no guaranteed way to prevent them from being built, that shouldn't be used as an argument to not build the walls, should it?
Yes, more do go through AZ because of walls built in other States. But, doesn't that speak towards the improved border protection provided by the fence?

It's not just the fence, though. It's also more heavily populated in Texas and California. The Border Patrol has more personnel, more equipment.
Arguments related to costs, logistics, and efficacy are most definitely relevant to anything we might want to build or do, especially if it's a large project. Why go to the trouble and expense of building something if we don't have adequate assurances that it's going to solve the problem at hand?

quote:

quote:

I can only guess, but economic benefits probably isn't the main reason; political asylum is probably the main reason. So, comparing illegals from Cuba and those from Mexico isn't really an apples to apples comparison; I do believe most illegals from Mexico aren't looking for political asylum, but for economic reasons (and, those that are looking to come here and make a life for themselves by working should be the ones we're looking to let in).

From the US point of view, should it really matter to us whether they're coming for political or economic reasons (especially if they're entering illegally)? (I realize that current immigration law makes such distinctions, but why is it there at all? What's it to us?)

quote:

quote:

quote:

Then it seems the way to go would be to increase the amount of jail time one receives for hiring illegals. That would probably work far better than building another fence. (And if drugs are decriminalized, then there will be tons of extra room in the prisons.)
I would also suggest that the drug seizure laws could also be applied here. That is, if a Home Depot store in Yuma is found to be hiring undocumented workers, then the property and assets of that store will be seized by the government. Perhaps even the entire company could be seized, which would cause the management to reevaluate the risk. Are they really going to risk losing a billion-dollar nationwide company just to save a few pennies on labor costs per hour at a single store? I doubt it. Right now, the risk just isn't great enough to act as a disincentive, and that's why the problem continues.
Undocumented workers could also be offered rewards (such as automatic citizenship) if they turn in their employers.
There are lots of different ways this problem can be approached, but the government isn't doing anything outside the usual status quo, and the politicians aren't proposing anything new. I think we have to think outside the box and come up with new and better ways of solving the problem.

I don't see the seizure laws applying to a National company for one branch hiring illegals. That seems a bit extreme.

It depends on how one defines "extreme." Some would say that a Berlin Wall along the border is pretty extreme. All they'd have to do is do it once, and I would bet that a lot of problems with companies hiring undocumented workers would disappear overnight. I think my proposal would be far more effective than a wall.

quote:

quote:

Allowing any illegal to gain citizenship by turning in their employer also places a great risk on the part of employers.

They already took a risk by hiring the undocumented to save money.

quote:

quote:

As you've mentioned, some illegals are employed via fake identification documents, so the employer may not actually know that worker just hired is an illegal.

There's a Federal verification program in place which employers are required to use. As long as the employer makes a good faith effort and an applicant is cleared through the program, they're covered.

quote:

quote:

I think that would lead to an awful lot of "brown-skin" discrimination across the SW, especially.

Well, that's what some people would say about the motives behind building a bigger wall on the border, as well as calls to deport all the undocumented immigrants. They perceive an underlying racist motive, especially since we treat our brown-skinned neighbors to the south far differently than we treat our white-skinned neighbors to the north. Something like that is difficult not to notice.

quote:

quote:

While it may be illegal to discriminate based on race or skin color, those penalties might be more equitable than hiring an illegal with falsified documentation. One penalty would likely include having to hire that worker, and that process would likely identify the worker either as a Citizen or as a legal immigrant. Yeah. I don't think that idea, as much as I do understand where you were coming from with it. Too much risk for abuse.

Actually, I think there's already a Federal hotline one can call to report anyone hiring undocumented workers, although I have no idea how much it's actually used or abused, whatever the case may be.
Still, even if you don't like that one particular idea, I think that the enforcement should be directed at the source(s) of the problem. The old adage of "follow the money" should come into play here.

quote:

quote:

quote:

You're talking about expenses the taxpayers are stuck with already. We're already having to take care of the "druggees." There wouldn't be any new expenses, and in many ways, the costs will probably go down since prisons are more expensive than outpatient drug treatment.

I'm willing to bet there would be an increased cost for treatment of druggees, as more people will become druggees. There isn't any backing to that, just an honest opinion.

Even if there was increased costs in treatment (and I don't think there's any concrete support for that view), with reduced enforcement and prison costs, it might still work out as an overall cheaper option. But as it relates to border security, the product would then be shipped through normal, legitimate channels - without it turning into a smugglers' bloodbath with different cartels violently competing with each other.

quote:

quote:

quote:

quote:

NAFTA has all but ruined much of Mexico's corn growing with our cheaper production. Free trade isn't limited by building walls separating countries.

Not necessarily, but it's still an incongruity which sends out mixed messages and could affect our international reputation. It most definitely affects our relationship with Mexico. It creates friction with a country which might otherwise be a close friend and ally of the United States.

Mexico doesn't like that we won't allow wanton abuse of our border policies? Am I really supposed to give a fuck about the Mexican government's feelings? Seriously?

In keeping with a Good Neighbor policy, then...yes. Seriously. Why would you think otherwise?
Of course, we don't really have to give a fuck about their feelings. We've taken that approach with Mexico in the past. It's in our history, so we can always revert back to our old ways. But we didn't really need much of a wall back in those days.

quote:

quote:

Their immigration policy is more stringent and harsh than ours is now. Should we complain about it and make them change it?

If it creates unnecessary difficulties for US citizens, then it might be warranted. Mexico has balked about State Department warnings to travelers to Mexico due to the cartel violence. They want US tourists to enter the country and spend money there. My uncle used to have a house in Manzanillo, and it was his plan to retire down there (although those plans went awry for reasons unrelated to immigration policies).
Just as we care about the well-being of US citizens in Mexico (such as those who have been jailed), they care about their citizens in the United States.
The way I see it, we have a shared border with Mexico, so essentially, this is a shared problem we're dealing with. So, we can either work together in cooperation with their government...or we can tell them to fuck off and accept the consequences for doing so.

quote:

quote:

FFS, their consternation is probably because they'd have to deal with or take care of those that couldn't cross into the US illegally. They'd probably rather have more people immigrate to reduce the burden on themselves.

Interestingly, I was reading today that for the first time ever, the majority of those apprehended at the border are from countries other than Mexico, mainly Salvadorans and Guatemalans. So, they're crossing all the way through Mexico to the United States (which is not a short trek).

quote:

Free trade and immigration aren't the same thing, and can be exclusive to one another. Does our economic, information, and investment trade with Canada flourish because there isn't a wall? Would it flourish less if there was a wall?

No, I'm not saying free trade and immigration are the same things, however both might have an impact on the overall relationship we have with a given nation. We didn't always have a friendly border with Canada, although whatever disputes we've had with Canada were in actuality disputes with Great Britain. Our relationship with Canada got better over time, with improved political, economic, and cultural ties, just as our relationship with Britain also greatly improved.
The reasons we feel the need to have a wall on our border with Mexico and not Canada is because our relations with Mexico haven't been quite so close. Plus, there's an enormous economic disparity and widespread poverty in Mexico and Latin America which makes one wonder if we're even ready for a free trade agreement with a country with which we've had such a lopsided relationship and checkered past with. You seem to want to dismiss these issues and say that you don't give a fuck how they feel about our border security, but then you still want to open up the lines of commerce and act like everything is hunky-dory? I don't see how we can have it both ways for very long.
It's not that the wall itself will worsen our relationship with Mexico. It's that the wall is a symptom indicating that our relationship with Mexico has never been very good. It indicates that we have no trust or confidence in their ability to secure their side of the border. Nor do we seem to have much faith in their ability to secure their own country from the flow of narcotics (such as South American cocaine, which is what the cartels are fighting over), nor do we seem to trust their ability to keep terrorists out of their country or to keep them from possibly crossing over into the United States. It's not that our relationship with Mexico is "bad" or overtly "hostile." They are technically a friend and ally of the United States.
But it's still complicated. There's still lingering resentment over the circumstances how the current border was originally established and set. It's not that I'm saying the border shouldn't be secured, but even our best efforts will only be a stopgap measure, not a long-term solution. It might be more beneficial for us to invest in long-term solutions to the wider problem, as opposed to throwing money away on something that will only work for a little while - or (in a best case scenario) become a totally irrelevant and unneeded expense - just like a wall along the Canadian border would be.

quote:

quote:

quote:

quote:

Widespread poverty South of the US isn't our fault, though. That's part of the problem. It's more likely been caused by the governments of those countries than not. That's not our problem.

I don't think it's something we can easily dissociate ourselves from. Our history and relationship with Latin America is well-documented - not one of the more glorious pages in our history. The governments of these countries have been commonly viewed as under the influence of US hegemony, if not outright puppets altogether. And our government gets very angry if any of our puppets get out of line. We've been nursing a 50+ year butthurt and grudge against Cuba for that very reason. We've had people like Somoza and Pinochet as "friends," who are mass murderers who killed their own people just so their puppet masters could earn greater profits. Our invasion of Panama to get Noriega was another example of a former puppet getting out of line and having to be punished for it.
Like it or not, the US does bear some responsibility for the actions of the governments of Latin America, especially since we've been so actively involved down there ever since the Spanish Empire fell into receivership. Maybe it's not entirely our fault, as those governments also have to take some responsibility as well, but it would be dishonest for us to just sit here and pretend like our government had nothing to do with it. I'm not saying that we should feel guilty about it or pay reparations, but I think the problems under discussion here could be resolved more smoothly and could potentially be a win-win if we were more honest in our dealings with our neighbors to the south.

You are, in effect, talking about "paying reparations" by talking about fixing their infrastructure, etc. If we destroyed it, I'd agree we should help fix it. But, we didn't really destroy it, and all those countries are getting aid from us already.

I'm not talking about paying reparations. I'm talking about investing in their infrastructure just as we have invested in our own infrastructure. That certainly has business-related, private sector benefits as well, so there can be a return on the investment. It's not as if we're just giving away money or paying reparations. We sent tons of money to Europe under the Marshall Plan when it was someone else who did all the destroying. That wasn't reparations; in the long run, it turned out to be a good investment.

quote:

quote:

quote:

quote:

And, sadly, I highly distrust most countries we aid. Look at how Haiti has fared from our $2B+ in aid over the years. Their corrupt government hasn't used the aid as it was intended. The people of Haiti have suffered (and continue to do so) even though we've sent a lot of aid their way.

Haiti is another example of countries where we've supported tyrannical governments.

Supported, or attempted to aid the populace through? There is a difference.

Are you referring to legal technicalities or the actual conditions people had to live under? We knew these regimes are/were corrupt and oppressive, yet we just kept sending them money just the same. We still send them money. If not for US aid/intervention/interference, it's hard to say how many of these regimes would still be left standing. We've been screwing around down there for a long, long time. We help finance them, we train and supply their military forces - which are in practice little more than domestic police forces to put down peasant uprisings should the need arise (and it has).

quote:

quote:

quote:

quote:

How much do we already send to Mexico? $207M for 2014. (Cool interactive map here) According to the map, $290M went to Haiti in 2014.

Interesting map, although I can't help but notice how lopsided it is in terms of how much we've sent to countries like Egypt, Iraq, and Afghanistan, while sending much less to countries in our own region.

Yes, it is quite lopsided. But, so what? Israel is getting $3.1B (DAYUM!), but a lot of that is defense-related. Which country in Latin America is under the same amount of hate from it's neighbors? No one said we have to dole out aid evenly, or even at all.

Some might justify military aid for the purpose of drug interdiction and/or anti-communism. Back during the Cold War, just after the Sandinistas took over Nicaragua, there were a lot of Americans who were quite fearful that communism would spread through Central America, into Mexico, and then the United States - like some kind of Zombie Apocalypse. I remember a video shown in my high school which outlined that very scenario.
I didn't exactly see it that way myself, but I will concede that for a long time in our history (at least since the Monroe Doctrine), the US government has considered its own security interests to be tied in with those of the rest of the hemisphere. Some apologists might view our policies in that light, believing that exerting our hegemony over the region was a necessary evil for our own defense. Some might debate whether it was wrong or right, but looking at it a certain Machiavellian way, there might have been a certain geopolitical "logic" at work, however cold-blooded it may have turned out to be.
When it gets to the Middle East or East Asia, then it goes beyond logical regional defense and takes on an air of "imperial defense," mainly because these areas are so far away from our actual territory.

quote:

quote:

quote:

quote:

Improving our immigration process, making it more difficult for people to cross, and jacking up the penalties to employers who employ illegals, should be part of reform.

In general, I agree with this statement. But I also think we need to look at this from a big picture point of view, encompassing both the historical perspective, the current geopolitical situation, as well as an eye to the future of our own country and region. Our government is so worried about global terrorism, as well as potential threats in the Middle East, North Korea - and even China and Russia seem to be getting a bit ornery these days. If we're not careful how we handle Latin American countries and their citizens, it could come back to haunt us.

So, we should knuckle under to them so they don't get upset?

Knuckle under to whom? Our Latin American friends and allies? Or should we regard them as our enemies against whom we must stand up at all costs and never, ever knuckle under?

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
So, if it doesn't "solve the problem at hand," it shouldn't be done? You realize, don't you, that pretty much all the laws of this country shouldn't exist at all since they don't "solve the problem at hand?"

quote:


Maybe, just maybe, we build the fence - which I think we can agree helps reduce illegal immigration - AND improve USBP (increase numbers, resources, etc.) and reform immigration to make it easier to legally immigrate.

quote:

quote:


From the US point of view, should it really matter to us whether they're coming for political or economic reasons (especially if they're entering illegally)? (I realize that current immigration law makes such distinctions, but why is it there at all? What's it to us?)

Of course it should matter to us. It's one thing to shelter people that fear their own government, and an entirely different thing to "shelter" people from their economic situation. You can't escape your government, especially if it's coming after you. You can, however, improve your economic situation without leaving your country.

quote:


The "Berlin Wall" isn't really the same thing we're talking about. We aren't talking about separating a country by building a wall. This is more akin to the Great Wall of China.

Your proposal should be part of overall immigration reform. I think the wall should be part, too. The wall alone won't "solve the problem," but neither will your proposal.

quote:


But, that program isn't perfect, either. That's my point.

quote:


That might have some traction with some, but if you consider that the vast majority of our illegal immigration is crossing at the southern border, that might support a southern border wall's construction over a northern border wall's construction.

quote:


I'm not concerned with drug gang members killing other drug gang members. I do have a problem with drug gang members killing innocents (Mexican and US Citizens alike) in their trafficking of drugs.

Here's a problem I see, though: I don't see the "War on Drugs" ever coming to an end in my lifetime, nor in my kids' lifetimes, regardless of whether or not it should happen.

quote:


Maybe they should include changing the economic environment so the opportunities for their citizens increase so they aren't trying to flee the country as part of their "Good Neighbor policy?"

quote:

That we care about our Citizens in Mexico, and they are about theirs in the US, we aren't talking about the same thing. There isn't a near-constant flood of US Citizens illegally entering Mexico. Mexicans want US tourists. The illegal immigrants in the US aren't tourists.

quote:


The illegal immigration problem isn't just on the Southern border, but the vast majority is. That's a big part of why it's more of a Southern issue.

quote:


There's quite a difference between aiding war-ravaged countries to help them return to functioning economies and aiding a country from it's own economic policies.

quote:


We aren't sending aid to Israel or Egypt for our own National Security, directly. We are sending aid to help them provide for their own national security directly.

quote:


Why do we need to concern ourselves with how they might perceive our immigration laws when we aren't harming their citizens? Apparently, they aren't concerned enough to improve conditions in their own countries to reduce the desire for their citizens to come here.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
So, if it doesn't "solve the problem at hand," it shouldn't be done? You realize, don't you, that pretty much all the laws of this country shouldn't exist at all since they don't "solve the problem at hand?"

Well, there's already a law against unauthorized border crossings, isn't there? We're not talking about the law itself, but about implementation and enforcement, along with how best to carry out the law.
There's a law against murder, but if someone proposed solving murders by using psychics and holding séances, I would probably be critical of that, too. That doesn't mean the law shouldn't exist, but there might be more sensible methods of enforcement.
Sometimes it's a matter of priorities, how severe the violation is, how much damage to society it causes, and whether it's worth going all out in trying to enforce it. Jaywalking is against the law, but that doesn't mean it would be reasonable to put large walls along every street to prevent it.

quote:

quote:

Maybe, just maybe, we build the fence - which I think we can agree helps reduce illegal immigration - AND improve USBP (increase numbers, resources, etc.) and reform immigration to make it easier to legally immigrate.

I agree that if it was easier to legally immigrate, illegal immigration would be reduced. But think about what you're saying for a moment.
All you're really talking about is a piece of paper. The only real difference between a legal immigrant and an illegal immigrant is a piece of paper. It doesn't really say anything about the quality of the human beings, whether they're "good guys" or "bad guys." There have been legal immigrants who have committed crimes and acts of violence, whereas there are illegal immigrants who are quite honest, decent, good-hearted individuals who would never harm anyone.

quote:

quote:

quote:

From the US point of view, should it really matter to us whether they're coming for political or economic reasons (especially if they're entering illegally)? (I realize that current immigration law makes such distinctions, but why is it there at all? What's it to us?)

Of course it should matter to us. It's one thing to shelter people that fear their own government, and an entirely different thing to "shelter" people from their economic situation. You can't escape your government, especially if it's coming after you. You can, however, improve your economic situation without leaving your country.

I'm not sure if it's that much different, at least from the US point of view. We might also look at their profession, what skills they have, whether they have money and can start a business - things that would benefit the US (in addition to filling labor shortages in key sectors). Whether or not they're here for political or economic reasons wouldn't be all that relevant from that perspective.
As for your assertion that one can improve one's economic situation without leaving one's country, I can't believe that would be true in every country. Their economic situation would more than likely be tied in with their political situation, so if your view is that the US should shelter people for political reasons, then it all comes down to the same thing.

quote:

quote:

The "Berlin Wall" isn't really the same thing we're talking about. We aren't talking about separating a country by building a wall. This is more akin to the Great Wall of China.
Your proposal should be part of overall immigration reform. I think the wall should be part, too. The wall alone won't "solve the problem," but neither will your proposal.

I think that my proposal would be aimed at the primary sources of illegal immigration - namely, where they're coming from and where they're going to. The route they actually take to get here is immaterial. Putting up a barrier on one of many possible routes will not necessarily deter those who wish to come here, if they want to come here. Build a wall, and they will still keep trying. They will not stop, as long as they have a reason to come here, i.e. someone to employ them.
So, if the problem is to be stopped, then stop them with the employers. Then, we can also look at where they're coming from and how to improve their situation so they won't have much of a reason to illegally cross over into the United States.
The Great Wall of China was actually to deter military invasions, although it didn't really help them in the long run.
I don't actually know what their border security is like today. I think the Chinese-Soviet border had a strong military presence, but I don't know if they had a wall.

quote:

quote:

But, that program isn't perfect, either. That's my point.

No, it's not perfect, but at least it would take the liability off the employer, which is what you were suggesting would happen.

quote:

quote:

That might have some traction with some, but if you consider that the vast majority of our illegal immigration is crossing at the southern border, that might support a southern border wall's construction over a northern border wall's construction.

Still, the point would come up as to why there's such a difference here. That's why the issue has so many different angles which many people seem reluctant to discuss.

quote:

quote:

I'm not concerned with drug gang members killing other drug gang members. I do have a problem with drug gang members killing innocents (Mexican and US Citizens alike) in their trafficking of drugs.
Here's a problem I see, though: I don't see the "War on Drugs" ever coming to an end in my lifetime, nor in my kids' lifetimes, regardless of whether or not it should happen.

It's tragic that all those innocent people have died in the crossfire between despicable scumbags. But this also happened during Prohibition, which was deemed a complete failure due to all the crime. But after Prohibition was lifted, things stabilized and crime went down.

quote:

quote:

Maybe they should include changing the economic environment so the opportunities for their citizens increase so they aren't trying to flee the country as part of their "Good Neighbor policy?"

They've been making some economic reforms. They've been making progress against the drug cartels; they've had some large-scale operations, from what I've been reading recently. There's still a lot of corruption and poverty. They're not unreasonable people; they've been trying to cooperate with the United States, just as we've been trying to cooperate with them. It's a two-way street

quote:

quote:

That we care about our Citizens in Mexico, and they are about theirs in the US, we aren't talking about the same thing. There isn't a near-constant flood of US Citizens illegally entering Mexico. Mexicans want US tourists. The illegal immigrants in the US aren't tourists.

Understood, but the bottom line is that if a country has citizens in another country, the way that they're treated by the host country is a matter of public interest for any government. You asked if we should complain about Mexico's policies towards Americans, and the fact is, we do - if and when such complaints are warranted and valid.
Mexicans could reasonably argue that the US wants undocumented workers from Mexico and Latin America, since there are so many businesses all too eager to hire them.
They could also argue that the drug smuggling problem really originates in the US, since we're the ones creating the demand for it and supporting a multi-billion dollar industry.

quote:

quote:

The illegal immigration problem isn't just on the Southern border, but the vast majority is. That's a big part of why it's more of a Southern issue.

That still doesn't answer anything.

quote:

quote:

There's quite a difference between aiding war-ravaged countries to help them return to functioning economies and aiding a country from it's own economic policies.

But it's our economic policies at work as well.
What's your basis for making this distinction here anyway? Are you suggesting that if a country has bad economic policies, it's their fault and therefore don't deserve any aid? If that's true, then why isn't equally their fault if they had bad foreign or domestic policies and plunged into war? Why should we aid one and not the other?
That is, if we're going to decide to aid any countries at all (which we're not under any requirement to do under any circumstances).
I think the standard we should use in regards to foreign aid should also be based on whether it helps us and our position in the world. Strictly speaking, it's more important for US security to keep Mexico within our fold than it is for us to keep European nations in NATO. If the Soviets had taken all of Europe during the Cold War, that still would not have been as bad than if they had taken all of Mexico, because then they'd be right off our borders.
It's not their policies that are relevant, but their geographical position.

quote:

quote:

We aren't sending aid to Israel or Egypt for our own National Security, directly. We are sending aid to help them provide for their own national security directly.

So, you favor sending aid to other nations when there's no return or direct benefit to the United States, but you're against sending aid when there would be a direct benefit to the United States?
I'm not necessarily against aid to Israel or Egypt, especially since previous policies have put us in a situation over there where we're stuck and can't easily extricate ourselves out of without causing a lot of consternation and chaos. However, a slow, incremental withdrawal from Middle Eastern affairs (with a concurrent curtailment of aid) might be the best course for us in the long run.
Overall, I think our best bet is to slowly withdraw from the Eastern Hemisphere and concentrate more heavily on the Western Hemisphere.

quote:

quote:

Why do we need to concern ourselves with how they might perceive our immigration laws when we aren't harming their citizens? Apparently, they aren't concerned enough to improve conditions in their own countries to reduce the desire for their citizens to come here.

Others might take a different view regarding the question of whether we're harming their citizens or not.
As I said, they are working to improve conditions in their own countries, but they can't just wave a magic wand and fix everything overnight. You seem to think that America can just wash its hands of the situation and pretend like we had nothing to do with how these countries turned out or had any influence over their governments.
Apparently, we aren't concerned enough with improving conditions in our own country and region to reduce the incentives for people to come here.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Reducing the ability for drug mules and gang members to get here isn't quite the same as preventing jaywalking.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
When we catch people who commit murder, we, for the most part, penalize that person, don't we? When a murder has been committed, don't we, also, attempt to catch the murderer? While illegal border crossings aren't on the same level as murder, we still should be trying to prevent it and take action against those who cross illegally.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Think about what you're saying for a moment. If all immigrants went through the legal channels to immigrate, we'd have a much better idea of which quality of human being has entered.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
I would even go so far as to say that the majority of illegal immigrants are decent, good-hearted individuals that we'd actually prefer to be here legally.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
You're equating a person who doesn't like the way his government to run to a person who is being persecuted by his government. That's not the same thing. If we make the assumption that all governments are not evil and malicious, poor government policies resulting in shitty economic conditions aren't really persecution.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Through the election process, people can change their governments.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
People on this site mention revolt if things get too bad, economically, in the US. While they may be correct, don't you think that's something that will happen in countries where the options aren't nearly as good?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Yes, go after the employers of illegal labor. On that, we agree. Putting up a barrier won't deter everyone, but it will deter more than not having a barrier. How do you propose to improve the situations of those willing to come here illegally?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
But, that's already in place, isn't it? Even if that would shield an employer, it's still not going to end the employment opportunities for illegals.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Actually, we, sorta, are discussing it. But, are we really going to discuss making changes in another sovereign country? Do we have that authority? I might be wrong, here, but won't that be a crossing of a "Good Neighbor" policy?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Good, then the flow of illegal immigrants should start to slow to a trickle, right?

quote:

The flow of unauthorized immigrants has decreased in recent years. Part of that is due to better security, but most of it is due to the bad economy: "The best estimate available to date," the report notes, "is that enforcement increases explain approximately one-third of the recent reduction in the flow of undocumented migrants, and economic factors the remainder."

quote:

— The U.S. government doesn't provide good data on whether border security is actually working. Government agencies have plenty of stats like how many miles of fence they're building or how many guards they've hired. But they don't always report results and actual outcomes, such as the apprehension rate at the border.
As a result, little is known about the effectiveness of various enforcement measures. For example, some experts have argued that it's easier to prevent employers from hiring illegal immigrants than it is to guard the border. Yet, the report notes, "analytical work that attempts to understand the relative effectiveness of workplace enforcement versus border enforcement in increasing behind-the-border deterrence has been limited."

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Sure it does. Will building a wall on our northern border reduce illegal immigration as much as building a wall on our southern border? I think not. No sense in damming up the streamlet when you have a river flowing in, is there?

quote:


We aided Europe because it was ravaged by Germany. Something tells me that the UK's and France's economic policies weren't what caused Germany to attack. I could be wrong, but, I don't think that's really what was the driving force there.

quote:


I'm surprised you can't differentiate between a war-torn country and one ravaged by shitty economic policy. Blows my mind.

quote:


Again, there is a difference between aiding a country for their defense purposes (ie, Israel, Egypt), and aiding a country for humanitarian purposes. If a country like Mexico isn't taking care of their own people well enough to keep them there, isn't it upon the people there to make the governmental changes necessary? Would you prefer the UK, France, Germany, etc. coming over here and making changes to our government and infrastructure according to what they deem correct?

quote:


We aren't harming their citizens by preventing them from coming into our country illegally. Deporting those we catch that have come here illegally is the penalty for breaking our immigration laws.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

Zonie, this is getting ridiculously long. I know it's my fault as much as anybody's.

quote:


We aren't going to come to any agreement on the wall. I'm okay with that. We are in agreement, and have been in agreement since before this thread, about going after employers and decriminalizing drugs.

quote:


Preventing people who do not have legal presence in the US from entry into the US is not in conflict with the UN's Declaration of Human Rights. The way we treat those who are here illegally isn't in conflict with it either.

quote:


Why can't we deport all of them? It's not going to be a mass deportation event. It's going to be deport them as we find them.

quote:


I'll read whatever else you write in this thread, but I'm done responding. I do enjoy our discussions. Thanks for that.