Posted on 02/02/2006 1:50:05 PM PST by FerdieMurphy
Two years ago, Border Patrol agents began to voice what many believed were legitimate concerns about "armed incursions" into the United States from Mexico-based assailants. Now these invasions occur routinely putting federal agents' and law enforcement officers' lives in jeopardy.
They reported that heavily armed Mexican army units and federal police, called federales, had infiltrated US territory and fired upon them, in some cases because –- federal agents would later discover –- Mexican drug lords had put prices on the heads of American law-enforcement agents strung out along the border. Where was the outrage by our political leaders and the mainstream media over this blatant violation of our national sovereignty?
Many of our political leaders and most in the news media ignore these violent attacks on our national sovereignty while more and more Americans are saying, "This has got to stop!"
While tens of millions of Americans watched and listened to President George Bush's much anticipated State of the Union speech, many were disappointed at the lack of emphasis on the biggest threat to national security today: unmitigated illegal immigration and porous US borders.
President Bush continues to maintain a contradictory and perilous position regarding illegal immigration, claiming his plan does not amount to amnesty. Standard American language usage contravenes the President’s specious explanation in that his plan clearly overlooks the offense of illegal aliens who entered this country in violation of law and would not seek prosecution; a full amnesty within contextual and explicit meaning.
The current position of the Administration on illegal immigration is demonstrative of a flawed public and enforcement policy which undermines national security by encouraging future mass illegal immigration. Additionally, the intention of the President sends contradictory signals to agencies tasked with securing our borders as well as police commanders across the nation.
In a recent Washington Times article in which the President attempted to justify his position on illegal immigration, the President stated the current immigration situation is a “bureaucratic nightmare” and the Border Patrol is “overstressed” due to “people [illegal immigrants] streaming across [the border].”
Further evidence of the Administration’s contradictory position on illegal immigration are statements made by political appointees charged with protecting the public. In September of 2004, in an effort to build support for the Administration’s Amnesty proposal, Asa Hutchinson, former Homeland Security Undersecretary, publicly stated it is “not realistic” to arrest or deport illegal aliens already in the country.
More recently, budget problems within the Department of Homeland Security further called into question the priorities of the Administration as agents are forced to release illegal aliens and curtail operations due to ongoing financial constraints. These circumstances all contribute to a “bureaucratic nightmare” and “overstressed” Border Patrol.
The position of the Administration on illegal immigration has had a profound and negative effect not only on law enforcement operations, but also border patrol agent morale. The impact on agent morale was measured in a survey conducted by independent Hart Research Associates during the summer of 2004.
The survey found a majority of agents were demoralized and were not getting the full support needed to protect the country, clearly indicating a conflict between the view of professional field agents and the Administration in regard to national domestic security. The Administration’s current immigration plans will exacerbate, not alleviate, that problem.
For those tuning in to hear President Bush address the problems faced as a result of rampant illegal immigration and Mexican military incursions, the speech was a major disappointment.
There wouldn't be any difference. Many employers would continue to turn a blind eye and keep their illegal employees. The only way to fix the problem is to make it very difficult for illegals to work here.
And, BTW, I don't know if we have a problem with illegal workers from Bangladesh, but we sure do get a lot of Chinese coming here in container ships.
I still think we have to concentrate on the employers, not the illegals. Without employers, the whole stream of illegals - from whatever country - would dry up pretty fast.
What about on the border? If people have a way of coming here legally to work, they wouldn't be jumping the border, right? And that would be the case regardless of whether or not this same status was extended to illegals in the U.S., because they've already crossed the border.
And, BTW, I don't know if we have a problem with illegal workers from Bangladesh, but we sure do get a lot of Chinese coming here in container ships.
How does that compare to the numbers coming across the Mexican border?
Right.
And that would be the case regardless of whether or not this same status was extended to illegals in the U.S., because they've already crossed the border.
No. It's not likely that we would accept everyone who applied. People with criminal records, for example, would not get accepted in a legal program. If they could work here illegally, they would still find a way to come.
I don't know how many come here in container ships. Our MSM only prints the occasional story. But we know they do, and it isn't pc to worry about it.
Of course we wouldn't. But those who did get accepted wouldn't have to come here illegally, and that would reduce the pressure on the border, right?
And those who didn't get accepted would still come as long as they could get jobs when they did.
The only way to stop them is to cut off the reward - a job.
Yes, I am. As long as it's profitable to enter illegally, people will do it. If 1 or 2% decide to take a legal path, it won't make enough difference to matter.
Until we take away the reason for illegal crossings, we will get them.
Now, that really is getting nit-picky. You know as well as I do that we don't know how many of the illegals would be acceptable, nor do we know how many would apply for a legal program.
My support is for a program that would admit only the worker, and not the dependents. That qualification would make many who could be admitted legally take the illegal route, as long as they could still get a job anyway.
Anyway, my point is that the only way to stop illegal migration is to stop rewarding the people who do it.
All I can say is what I've been saying all along; globalists made really really bad presidents.
Without control of your borders, you are not a Sovereign nation.
This issue alone could very well be the GOP & America's undoing.
I haven't seen the Democrat (save maybe one, Zel Miller) that I'd vote for POTUS. I will, however, be keen to any alternatives next go'round.
You've basically acknowledged that passing a guest-worker program available only to foreigners in other countries would have at least some beneficial effect at the border, even if you say it'd only be a small one. I personally think that if you accompany it with some respectable reinforcements at the border, you will improve it quite noticeably. I can really think of no other explanation why so many inside the Beltway are refusing to do so. They're not reluctant to do it because they don't think it would work, but because they do.
By the way, as regards illegal entry from China in container ships, I did find something that will put things in perspective:
"But in what is becoming a wave of illegal Chinese immigration on board container ships bound for the West Coast, authorities Tuesday found 19 more stowaways at the Port of Seattle. The arrests, coming just one day after the shipment that left three men dead, brought to" - (Here it comes, I hope you're sitting down for this) - "203 the number of people smuggled in containers over the past year into the U.S. and Canada."
If only we could be cursed with a similar "wave" of illegals coming from Mexico.
So seriously, I think a guest-worker program that's closed to illegals could be made to work rather well if it's combined with enforcement (actually I'm inclined to think that good enforcement alone could do a subtantial job, but we'll go with the guest worker idea for the sake of discussion). If at the same time we institue the program, we conduct a major show of force at the border, it would send the right message to foreigners that attempting to enter illegally will not profit them. As more and more people in Mexico and elsewhere see their friends and neighbors fail in their attempts to jump the border, it will get the message across loud and clear, while at the same time holding out the hope of a legal means of getting in.
I give up. You don't get my point at all. As long as employers will hire illegals, all of your fancy border control schemes are just a waste of taxpayer money.
Then you didn't read what I wrote, at all. You want employers dealt with. You don't want to drive them out of business for the illegals they've hired in the past. You want to make sure that they face heavy consequences for hiring illegals who come in after a guest-worker program is enacted. In order to do that, there has to be a distinction between those illegals who've arrived before vs. after the program is enacted. Therefore, you say, illegals who've been working here should get a chance at participating in the program, and then we'll be able to enforce the law against employers. I understand all that.
You just don't get my point: It. Ain't. Gonna. Happen.
We tried this before with the '86 amnesty, and now we have a President who's even more indulgent towards illegals than the one we had then. What will happen is just like before. We'll get the amnesty, and enforcement will be shelved. And in the meantime, holding out the promise of amnesty has markedly increased the number of people trying to jump the border.
You've acknowledged that a guest worker program that's not made available to illegals won't make the problem worse, and will even make it slightly better. If the Republicans who are currently pushing to have a program for illegals were to instead show a willingness to accept a guest-worker plan that exludes illegals, then such a plan would pass Congress with flying colors, and then we'd be able to see for sure what effect it would have. They know that it's their insistence on amnesty that's holding up the works. There's simply no explanation for their stance other than that they know that this strategy will be effective at reducing illegal entry, and they don't want that.
And combined with enforcement, it will reduce it that much further. Look at it this way: if we had no Border Patrol at all, how much worse would the situation be? Deterrence clearly does have an effect on some people. Increasing the size of the BP (say, doubling it) will have a deterrent effect on even more people, probably a lot more people. I think the President recognizes this fact, which is why he does everything he can (underfunding BP budgets for agents that Congress authorized, calling Minutemen "vigilantes", etc.) to undermine border security. There's no other rational explanation for this kind of behavior.
No. I want to make employers face heavy consequences for having any illegals of whatever duration working for them.
And I never said anything about "amnesty". Amnesty implies that we just let any illegal immigrants stay. I never said that. That's what the '86 amnesty was. I would allow employers who wanted to sponsor their long term employees to apply for guest worker status for them, but that is in no way "amnesty".
You've acknowledged that a guest worker program that's not made available to illegals won't make the problem worse, and will even make it slightly better.
No, I haven't. I've said repeatedly that as long as illegals can find jobs here, guest worker programs, fences, border patrols, etc. don't matter a bit.
We disagree on whether that specific word applies, but the general principle is the same in both cases. Illegals get legalized (to whatever degree) along with some vague promise of enforcement afterwards, which never materializes.
[You've acknowledged that a guest worker program that's not made available to illegals won't make the problem worse, and will even make it slightly better.]
No, I haven't. I've said repeatedly that as long as illegals can find jobs here, guest worker programs, fences, border patrols, etc. don't matter a bit.
You speculated about a 1-2% reduction at #107. I myself would give a somewhat higher number, especially with increased enforcement, but even using your figure, it would still be a move in the right direction. If we make the program unavailabe to illegals, it would have a much easier time passing Congress. Then we'll see who's right. If you're right, and there's no significant effect, there'd be nothing stopping Congress from then moving to make the program available to illegals. And in pushing for it, you'd have hard numbers to back up your case with, instead of mere speculation. But since enacting the program without illegals won't make the situation worse, and would remove a significant roadblock to its passage in Congress, there's no valid reason not to do it as an initial step, at least from the perspective of those who are in favor of guest-worker programs at all.
GWB has completely sold this country down te third world rat hole by giving in to FOX and signing on to the CFR North Atlantic plan. Read about it.
Even worse, his failures and refusals to enforce the law has had the defacto effect of making people view the law as being no law at all and any attempts at enforcing it as being racist.
How about not grantng welfare benefits to illegals as a first step? How about arresting and deporting illegals who give phone social security numbers? How about deport illegals who ae arrested for DWI? How about deport illgals who can't get an employer or citizen to sign a waiver and financial guaranty with say 180 days?
There are dozens of ways to fix this invasion. It takes will and determination to do it. GWB has the priority of allowing cheap labor to his corporate buddies. The RATS want more voters. So basically we are screwed either way.
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.