Posted on 06/17/2005 9:18:36 PM PDT by bayourod
That's why I support President Bush's guest worker plan. But your anti-illegals friends aren't going to accept any plan that results in the same number of immigrant laborers working here, legal or illegal.
Now you're crawfishing. If the only thing you say that counts is whether they are legal then you have to like them whether they became legal by reason of amnesty or otherwise.
The fact is that the antis will never support a new law that allows for the same number of immigrant laborers. What they have always really wanted is 9 million Mexican laborers kicked out and none allowed to return.
"Nevada's legislature has voted more of the largess of her legal citizens to support illegal aliens, ensuring that more will flock there, further indebting the lawful citizens of the state."
It is time we non-Nevadaians took note of this and stopped supporting this by patronizing all those glitzy casinos.
I'll take that as a "no" and a polite version of "pound sand". Thanks. We'll get back to you.
The only difference is their legal status? That's the whole point, that there's a difference between legal and illegal! The day after a foreigner's visa expires, that person is now in the country illegally, meaning that they are now a lawbreaker. But for a person like you who scoffs at the law, the difference between legal and illegal apparently means nothing.
Amnesty does absolutely NOTHING to solve the ongoing problem of illegal immigration. The majority of Americans seem to understand this simple fact but apparently you don't.
The fact is that the antis will never support a new law that allows for the same number of immigrant laborers. What they have always really wanted is 9 million Mexican laborers kicked out and none allowed to return.
You know this is strictly your opinion and can't be backed up by any type of FReeper poll or survey.
Thank you JH for stating the obvious without the essay filled with "where to for's" and etc.
Common sense can show one, even through the rhetorical speak, that if one breaks the law in this way, they at the most, are guaranteed a ticket back to from whence they came.
bayourod is fixated with the idea that "law and order" is a bad thing and apparently feels that "law breakers" are to be treated the same as anyone else. Especially if lawbreakers are not legal citizens.
That's not the issue. You're personalizing it for purely emotional reasons.
This is the issue: why do you favor trespass laws to protect your home, but you are opposed to border controls to protect your country?
I'm not opposed to border controls. In fact I've posted numerous articles about how good Homeland Security is doing.
I have pointed out the reality that it is impossible to seal our borders. The reason I have pointed out that illegal laborers can never be stopped from crossing the border is because some people have drunk the kool-aide that President Bush is a traitor because he hasn't sealed our border, or refuse to support any Republicans or any legislation until the border is first sealed.
Will Rogers said the solution to German Submarines was to heat the oceans up to 210%. People laughed because they understood that such a feat was impossible. But some people actually believe that we can "seal the border", and accordingly blame Bush for not having already done so. Do you believe we can seal all 105,000 miles of land and shore surface borders plus air entry? And of course you know that 50% of all illegals now in the country originally entered legally?
Well, then do you support Tancredo's guest worker plan?
Making our borders secure would require a comprehensive effort, but I believe it could be done. It's probably not possible to shut down all border crossings, but I would imagine with even a modest effort we could reduce the flow by 80 percent. That would be a great start.
A big part of the effort would require cracking down hard on businesses and employers who use undocumented or falsely documented migrant labor. What's happening is, they're getting cheap labor and passing all the social costs onto the American taxpayer. Until and unless we get serious about that part of it, we're going to fight a losing battle.
At the same time, we further doom our efforts if we regularize the trespassing by paying for the trespassers' children's educations and such. We cannot send the message that good things come to those who ignore the law and squat on our land long enough.
That could have been said about Will Rogers' proposal to heat up the oceans to 210%. Have you ever seen a serious study (or hearings) about sealing the borders.
We tried our best on a 66 mile stretch in "Operation Gate Keeper". Double fences (some concrete and steel), guard towers, flood lights inferred cameras, ground sensors, patrol roads, horse patrols, ATV patrols, 16 helicopters, fixed wing aircraft, unmanned aerial vehicles, trucks, and a ratio of 25 guards per mile were incorporated.
It was successful in reducing the number if immigrants crossing at that sector. Most just went further East to cross, but still about two hundred thousand are caught each year trying to cross, and another estimated 30 to 40 thousand make it across undetected. They dig under, climb over and break through the fences. That’s an average of 454 to 606 per mile per year.
Extrapolate to the 105,000 miles of U.S. land and sea borders and it equates to 2and1/2 million guards with over 40 million illegals still getting through each year.
Take the time to read the Inspector General's report on Operation Gate Keeper and you will never again respect the intelligence of anyone who says that we can "seal the border".
"Take the time to read the Inspector General's report on Operation Gate Keeper and you will never again respect the intelligence of anyone who says that we can "seal the border"."
I invite any and all to read that report. I was surprised to see a less than flattering portrait of the seriousness of that Clinton enacted program.
With tweaking it could be workable.
You didn't even read the Inspector General's Report report did you? I was so conservative in my estimate of effectiveness that I used the propaganda in the press showing how successful it was.
The Inspector general found that the actual daily reports of effectiveness ranged from 10% to 30%, and that the experienced guards estimated a 5% to 15% rate of effectiveness. That means that they were only catching 5% to 30% of the border jumpers.
If Steel and concrete fences with a ratio of 25 guards per mile can only catch 30%, a person would literally have to be a complete idiot to think that we could come anywhere close to ever sealing the border.
Michael Savage might get away with fooling the Neanderthals into believing the border could be sealed, but any candidate who ran on a "sealing the border" platform would be laughed into obscurity.
If you look closely you will notice that "With tweaking it could be workable." was my reply to your question about Tancredos guest worker program. If you would like to find my response to your post about Op Gatekeeper you can look to the post directly above the "tweaking" post.
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.