TANCREDO, IMMIGRATION REFORM CAUCUS TO CALL FOR TROOPS ON BORDER

Immigration Reform Caucus ^ | 6/17/02 | Immigration Reform Caucus

[Tancredo Fan]

STEIN REPORT XXXXX Monday, June 17 2002 14:53:17 EDT XXXXX

TANCREDO, IMMIGRATION REFORM CAUCUS TO CALL FOR TROOPS ON BORDER

Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO) and other members of the House Immigration Reform Caucus will announce a new border security initiative at a press conference tomorrow. See the Immigration Reform Caucus release for more information.

[PRND21]

Bush's relationship with Fox has raised a lot of eyebrows around here.

Logic shows the importance of the Hispanic vote in all future US elections.
Ignoring that fact because it troubles or is scary is political suicide.
Therefore, Dems and disruptors will do their darndest to turn Hispanics from the GOP. I hope they fail.
And I hope Fox can improve his economy. As we all should. Yet many seem to pine for the PRI/Easy target days.

[sharkdiver]

It absolutely blows me away that we were able to man the borders between East and West Germany for over four decades. We have over 50,000 troops stationed in Korea effectively shutting down a border many hundreds of miles long. The total cost for these two efforts have cost the American taxpayers tens of billions of dollars over the years and yet our elected officials look at controlling the borders with Mexico as an impossible task. PULEEZE.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Ok, then tell me exactly how we could remain a free people, and give the government the power to keep track of each and every one of us, as they would need to do in order to know that every single person that was here, belonged here?

There's never been a time in the history of this, or any other free country in the world for that matter, that there were no illegal aliens. That's impossible. It will never happen.

We could formulate every scenario, expound on every law, and every duty of everyone from the president right down to my great-aunt Maria (God rest her soul), and it wouldn't change that fact.

We couldn't succesfully evict everyone who didn't legally belong here, without all of us having to prove that we did.

And we'd have to allow the government to check that, at any time, and for whtever reason they thought it necessary.

Let me tell you something, if some one can come here ilegally, survive without welfare, and just claw their way into some decent sort of a life without breaking a law other than being here, I'd be nearly willing to boot out some native who's been on welfare for most of their life without any visible signs of change, to make room for them.

Call it a soft spot.

[usadave]

Right on dave!

Thanks. The one thing that we should all keep in mind as we "debate" the issue of illegal immigration is that we all seem to agree that this is a major problem that needs to be addressed, for the future well-being of the U.S. We just don't all agree on the best way to go about attacking the problem. But the important thing is that we are talking about it, and that is always a very important first step, because before you can attempt to solve a problem, you have to both identify the problem and the cause of the problem. Then you can start to work on trying to solve the problem. I know that sometimes things can get a little heated on these threads, but that is not necessarily a bad thing because that tends to get us to really open up and express our true feelings on this subject.

Just remember that Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Hamilton, Paine, Adams, Hancock, and Madison didn't agree on every point when deciding how the new U.S. government should be set up, or what should be included in or excluded from the Constitution that they were penning. Yet they still managed to pull off one of the greatest achievements in the history of mankind because their collective belief in what they were trying to accomplish was a force that couldn't be deterred by their political differences.

[healey22]

We have over 50,000 troops stationed in Korea effectively shutting down a border many hundreds of miles long.

Boggles the mind doesn't it? We were attacked on U.S soil, but god forbid that we actually try to protect ourselves because we may offend our jealous neighbor to the south or a bunch of criminal illegal aliens.

Sorry, Mr. President, but I am not willing to sacrifice my childrens future and safety at the alter of political correctness.

President Bush and FBI Director Mueller tell us every day that we are at war and expect to be attacked again. Protecting it's citizens is one of the few legitimate functions of the federal government, but it seems to be the one function that they do not comprehend. Pathetic isn't it?

[Texasforever]

Because you are not well enough informed to understand the distinctions.

[Texasforever]

President Bush and FBI Director Mueller tell us every day that we are at war and expect to be attacked again

We are NOT at war with Mexico. That is the distinction. If you want to go to war on the border look to Canada. They protect more potential terrorists than Saudi Arabia.

[Sabertooth]

Ok, then tell me exactly how we could remain a free people, and give the government the power to keep track of each and every one of us, as they would need to do in order to know that every single person that was here, belonged here?

OK.

There's never been a time in the history of this, or any other free country in the world for that matter, that there were no illegal aliens. That's impossible. It will never happen.

We could formulate every scenario, expound on every law, and every duty of everyone from the president right down to my great-aunt Maria (God rest her soul), and it wouldn't change that fact.

There's also never been a time with no murderers or no burglars.

Therefore... what? Don't enforce the laws?

We couldn't succesfully evict everyone who didn't legally belong here, without all of us having to prove that we did.

Well first, you've started with a false premise. While law enforcement would hope to eradicate all crime, realistically they can't. So in a free society, we strike a balance between maintaining our civil liberties and preventing as much crime as possible.

When we take the directions of the Left, the balance tips toward criminals and our liberties are threatened anyway.

While too much law enforcement can threaten our liberties, inadequate law enforcement can as well.

And we'd have to allow the government to check that, at any time, and for whtaever reason they thought it necessary.

That's really kinda hyperbolic, don't you think?

Adequate law enforcement doesn't automatically entail a police state. There are plenty of opportunities to apprehend Illegals... from the IRS cross-referencing false Social Security numbers to routine traffic stops. From setting up stings at "day-laborer" sites to deporting Illegals on release from prison.

Would any of these things put an undue burden on you?

Let me tell you something, if some one can come here illegally, survive without welfare, and just claw their way into some decent sort of a life without breaking a law other than being here, I'd be nearly willing to boot out some native who's been on welfare for most of their life without any visible signs of change, to make room for them.

Call it a soft spot.

Well, I'm just going to call it wrong.

You're forgetting that part of your solution was to get rid of welfare, so that wouldn't be an issue. And getting rid of welfare is going to be a lot smoother without a lot of Illegals undercutting wages.

You're also forgetting that you said that you would penalize employers who hire Illegals. I'm having a hard time seeing the consistency in doing that and letting Illegals stay.

Unless you're talking about "regularizing" or "normalizing" Illegals so that they are no longer Illegal?

Setting aside the lack of ethics involved in any more Amnesty programs, you need to keep in mind that when Illegals come and stay, it's not welfare citizens who are displaced... It's would-be legal immigrants who're waiting in line and trying to play be the rules to enter the country legally. Do you realize tht under various phases of Section 245(i), more than a million Illegals have gotten "change of status" since 1994? And since none of them were political refugees, every one of those million counted against immigration caps, thereby displacing a million of the kind of immigrants we'd rather have.

That's the real-world effects of your "soft spot."

You stated above that if your list of solutions were encacted, many Illegals would leave on their own. Probably true to some extent.

But if so, then how many more Illegals would deport themselves if we added a reasonable and responsible deportation plan into the mix?

[healey22]

No were are not techically at war with Mexico, but they sure are pushing their luck with our kind nature and their hordes of drugs, illegal aliens and Mexican military incursions over our side of the border. By the way have you seen this update on who exactly is crossing that southern border?

'Arab Terrorist' Crossing Border-Middle Eastern Illegals Find Easy Entrance Into U.S. From Mexico

[usadave]

It absolutely blows me away that we were able to man the borders between East and West Germany for over four decades. We have over 50,000 troops stationed in Korea effectively shutting down a border many hundreds of miles long. The total cost for these two efforts have cost the American taxpayers tens of billions of dollars over the years and yet our elected officials look at controlling the borders with Mexico as an impossible task. PULEEZE.

I don't doubt for a second that putting our military personnel on the U.S.-Mexico border could be helpful in slowing the flow of illegal immigration from Mexico. But the important question is whether or not this is the best way to address this particular problem. Unlike the situations in Germany and Korea, there are other means available to us in trying to repel the flow of illegal aliens over our borders. I feel that it is important to determine what is causing illegal aliens to want to come to the U.S., and then work to remove those incentives.

[Texasforever]

Yep, we are NOT at war with Mexico. Now address the Canadian border.

[healey22]

Yep, we are NOT at war with Mexico. Now address the Canadian border.

I want the north and south borders secured by whatever means necessary. Period.

[Texasforever]

LOL

[E.G.C.]

BTTT!!!!!

[Dante3]

Yes, about time.

I sure would not want to die or have my children die for perverted political correctness. Or to enrich the pockets of drug dealers and businesses using illegals.

[Poohbah]

I havent read this book but is the author hoping for more apathy?

No. He talks to DEA agents and everyone else involved in the War on Drugs, and the one refrain that comes through--sometimes from literally nowhere, the person he's talking to just starts ranting--is "the American people need to get serious about this."

On this issue most Americans do want something done to stop illegal immigration.

They want something done in the sense that they are against sin and for motherhood. It's an abstract. When you actually start talking specific ideas, enough splinters are opposed to one or another idea--for both noble and base reasons--that nothing gets done.

Like I said earlier, the first time I saw a pickup truck full of day laborers with an americanpatrol.com bumper sticker on the back, it was funny. It wasn't funny the second time.

[Poohbah]

We have over 50,000 troops stationed in Korea effectively shutting down a border many hundreds of miles long.

Boggles the mind doesn't it? We were attacked on U.S soil, but god forbid that we actually try to protect ourselves because we may offend our jealous neighbor to the south or a bunch of criminal illegal aliens.

The situation is very different. Armies are good at keeping out other armies. Armies have distinctive signatures (like a huge number of tanks and APCs) that are simply not present on the US-Mexican border.

Second, sharkdiver, your border figure simply isn't accurate--it's actually just under 150 miles, not "many hundreds of miles." We also have the assistance of the ROK Army in this mission, which is the majority of the manpower. We have 37,000 troops from all services in Korea--most of these folks are not on the DMZ. The ROK has 600,000 from all services. Based on historical patterns, we can conclude that the ROK has 60,000 troops on the border, along with 3,700 troops from the US (assumption is that for every trigger-puller on the border, there's 9 guys behind him to feed him, maintain his weapons, or work in supporting arms).

63,700 troops for 150 miles of border. Let's round it down to 60,000. That's ONLY 4,000 troops per mile. I leave the extension of this example to the 2,000-mile-long US-Mexican border as an exercise for the reader.

[blackie]

I don't have the answe either, it's a real dilemma !!

Freedom Is Worth Fighting For !!

Molon Labe !!

[janetgreen]

American men not serving in the military can be trained to assist the Border Patrol in some sort of supervised support capacity

Hey Saber, how about American women? I'll volunteer for this good cause!

[4Freedom]

"4,000 troops per mile."

Even you have to admit that it doesn't take 4,000 troops to guard each mile of Korean border. Those soldiers and equipment are there to counter an armed invasion, if it comes.

We've had this discussion before. We agreed it would only take about 70,000 troops to guard a 30-foot-tall wall on the border. That's 42,000 to guard the border working 3 shifts with an extra 28,000 for days off, sick leave, etc..

Just double that number for the Canadian border. It's not that big a deal.

The $70 billion we'll save in dollars spent on social services for illegal aliens and the $9 billion that illegals send home to Mexico, yearly, will more than pay for all of this security with money left over.

Simultaneously, we go after employers of illegal aliens and start mass deportions.