Posted on 01/08/2004 3:34:13 PM PST by kellynla
Nor is it a violation of anyone’s rights to park marked INS cars and vans outside the criminal business. When the illegal aliens show up for work and see uniformed INS agents and marked INS vehicles, most of them will turn around and leave. A few days of this will put a real dent in the criminal employer’s productivity.
We don’t have to trash what’s left of the Bill of Rights to solve this problem. All we need is an administration that believes in the rule of law.
I agree, and that's why I support the candidacy of Michael Peroutka for president.
The suggestion that the American economy would stall and crash if the 10 million+ illegal alliens were to return to Mexico tomorrow, is garbage. Cheap manual labor tends to mask grossly inefficient practices in dire need of an overhaul. It's the easy way, the lazy way. But America didn't become great--it didn't set the standard for worker productivity--by taking the lazy route. I can think of nothing that would better jolt our prodictivity and make us even stronger than to eliminate the underground cheap labor market. Industries reliant on cheap manual labor would be forced to innovate and cut fat. Marginal companies would go under; their assets would be bought by more competent survivors. There would likely be well-paid spin-off jobs generated for US citizens who would effectively be outproducing cheap laborors 10 or 20 to one or more. Robotics (as you alluded to) is just one example.
Now, Mexico's economy might well collapse--and that's likely what's driving this. The present setup is perfect for Fox. He doesn't have to implement any substantial changes in the corrupt and woefully inefficient Mexican infrastructure. He pushes 10 million laborers across the border where American citizens in general (not the employers in particular) pick up the social and external costs (medical care, schooling, criminal prosecution and incarceration). In return untold billions of US dollars flow back into Mexico. Mexico bears no costs and picks up a windfall in greenbacks.
SUSSA has focused in on what seems to be several considerations on some very key weak points in the present immigratoin control system that merit further consideration.
Wonder why they didn't try a stunt like that when Ronald Reagan was president?
No, I asked what the overall approval polls for PRESIDENT BUSH were.
I think we can all agree that they consistantly run in the 70 percentile against "Illegal" Immigration and has held steady for at least a decade.
And, in my experience, polls like that are like asking if someone's against sin and in favor of motherhood--it's like asking Democrat voters how a "generic Democrat" (whom they can project their ideal candidate onto) does against Bush. In this case, the respondent can simply say that they oppose illegal immigration. That's an easy answer.
Start asking questions such as "Do you support requiring all citizens and legal residents to carry identification papers on their persons at all times, on pain of imprisonment?"
The answer to THAT question will be interesting.
No. I'm saying that it's going to take a LAW ENFORCEMENT approach to solve, and that a military approach is off-limits unless you're proposing to invade Mexico and remove the kleptocracy that runs that country. (An interesting idea, actually.)
Do you mean to say that an invading "hostile military" can only be regarded as such if they are wearing fatigues and carrying arms?
Yes. That is what "hostile military" means.
HEAR, HEAR! (Hey -- I'm sure Vicente Fox and his cohorts CAN technically be construed to be encouraging an "unarmed" invasion)
Quite frankly, until we get a handle on the current crisis, suspending or re-adjusting the fine print of 'posse comitatus' under the circumstances IS warranted.
Realistically, and until then, can any "civilian" BP ever be large enough to be a deterent OR effective?
The attitude that the laws of the land are "fine print" is not a good one. Changes to the Posse Comitatus Act should not be undertaken lightly. Right now, there is an exemption for drug-related cases. That exemption led to military support at Waco--all the BATF had to do was say that they'd heard a rumor that there was a meth lab at Mount Carmel. In the future, all they'd have to say is that they'd heard "F16Fighter" was smuggling illegal aliens.
Realistically, and until then, can any "civilian" BP ever be large enough to be a deterent OR effective?
I have very bad news for you: the military can't be large enough to be effective, either, unless you start mass conscription just for the purpose of patrolling the border. BTW, you'd probably have to start drafting women of child-bearing age into a "Maternity Corps" and only discharge them after they've birthed four kids--because absent that, you start running out of draft-age bodies in about 20-30 years. American citizens and legal residents have fertility figures that are BELOW replacement rate. As America's demographics shift more towards the older end of the spectrum, that problem will get worse.
Then you're ultimately suggesting that we kill all those who attempt to cross our border. Pretending that you're not is right up there with Clinton saying that his willie in Monica's mouth didn't equal sex.
And, incidentally, you'd also make America's first capital misdemeanor.
While I agree with you in principle Poob, shall we have a little talk with the Commander-In-Chief AND our Legislators about this one?
There has been a selective enforcement and upholding of Constitutional Law of everything from deficit spending to this issue of border enforcement -- due to chronically ignoring the "fine print."
"The military can't be large enough to be effective, either, unless you start mass conscription just for the purpose of patrolling the border."
Fine then -- then let's give BP priority and realistic resources in which to enforce to borders. Better late than never, but WHEN?? At the present -- even after 9/11 -- it's painfully obvious that for whatever reason, our government has still regarded the Southwest invasion as a triviality. Rhetorically speaking --why??
Upon posting a clear and concise warning, "a few shots fired in their direction" might not only be "cost effective," but America's right to do so in order to protect it's sovereignty AND have it's laws enforced.
For that we owe NO ONE an explanation.
Because the hijackers came in legally via other Western nations--they didn't hop across the Rio Grande.
There's a reason that they opted to not do that.
Not gonna mention that 15 of 19 were Saudis -- NOT courtesy of "Western" nations, however, they could just as well have brought in a small army through the southwest border, aka The Securty Sieve.
Another interesting point: In your opinion, shall Homeland Security have the right to "racially profile"?
Guess again, they came to other western nations before coming to America. They'd be subject to more scrutiny coming direct from Saudi or Egypt.
however, they could just as well have brought in a small army through the southwest border, aka The Securty Sieve
And they opt to not do so for specific reasons that actually make sense.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.