But, as you say, then we get a Democrat who will cut the funds and personnel needed, catering to special interest groups, and the wall will be as good as nothing.
Unfortunately, Sen. McCain's record is not very good when it comes to illegal immigration. He has sided with Democrats on that issue. But then seeing Guliani (who actually helped get a mafioso appointed to serve as Homeland Security chief for a couple of months before his shady past was made public), I am not very encouraged by the people McCain is surrounding himself with.
Here is the scoop: cut down the demand, and the supply will dwindle. In order to cut down the demands the unethical businesses that hire illegals must be punished by existing laws.
For that to happen, the president can exert pressure on local governments to enforce the law of face consequences. Immigration is a federal matter and those who break the immigration law, either by hiring or abetting those who hire illegal aliens, are subject to federal prosecution.
It would take a very resolute and moral person in charge to have the "mf" to do that. i can see Mike Huckabee being that person, but not McCain. Unfortunately, we don't have one such frontrunner who could or would do that.
Thus our soldiers are dying in Iraq to keep the enemy at a distance, and our governments are doing nothing to prevent the insurgents from creating a Trojan Horse in the heart of America!
Never mind, in addition, risking potential epidemic outbreaks since the illegals are not checked for communicable diseases when they enter the country and could be caryring anything from the plague to the Ebola virus.
We are also sending a mixed, and hypocritical, if not schizophrenic message to the world, on the one hand on the other we are the first to break our own laws for dubious reasons, endangering our own national security and health in addition to that.
If the supply dried out because the demand disappeared, the remaining illegals could be handled by existing institutions without enlarging any of them. In fact, all that would be left, save for a few die hards, would be drug traffickers and terrorists.
We could go after them with impunity, but who is going to find them in a sea of 13 million current (estimated) illegeal aliens today? That's the population of some medium-sized European countries!
We created illegal immigtation and we refuse to fix it. Both the legislative and executive branches of the government carry a bi-partisan responsibility for this failure.
It's time to hold someone accountable! When politicians become liable for their mistakes, like every other citizen, perhaps we will have responsible (better) politicians. Imagine that!
Just think, if I park on the sidewalk because I can't find parking, and the cops don't give me a ticket or haul my car away (along with a monetary penalty that goes along), people would be parking all over sidewalks! Pretty soon we oculdn't alk on them.
If cops stopped pulling over people for speeding or drunk driving, going to work would be like a shooting gallery. If doctors couldn't be sued for their mistakes, what would be the incentive to practice ethically? If business are allowed to break federal laws, what is purpose of having laws that are not enforced?
At this point we can't afford to abrogate our responsibilities, ignore the laws that protect us, and give unethical businesses free reign. It is as good as handing terrorists an open invitation! Wake up America!
For some reason, every time I make a slight correction in the HTML window it tends to erase letters and even whole sentences. I am switching to a standalone HTML editor.
Ann Coutier made the comment on Bill O'Reilly that we could solve the illegal immigration problem tomorrow, cheaply and efficiently, if we simply gave illegals the right to sue their employers for not paying them minimum wages and benefits.
Smart woman that Ann.
But, as you say, then we get a Democrat who will cut the funds and personnel needed, catering to special interest groups, and the wall will be as good as nothing.
In my opinion, that would be politically untenable. With an unmanned and unfunded wall there will certainly be several tunnels and workarounds, etc. However, conservative groups that care about border security such as the Minutemen will YouTube all the exit tunnels they can find and show America the waste of the money spent on the fence. That would leave the Democrat (or McCain) to either officially justify an open borders policy or shut up. Most Americans want a secure border, or else McCain-Kennedy-Bush would have passed.
In addition, just on technical terms I really do think an existing wall WOULD deter SOME of the traffic, even if it was unmanned. Gaping holes would form but video crews would be there too. It would be a nightmare for any disinterested President who inherited a wall.
Unfortunately, Sen. McCain's record is not very good when it comes to illegal immigration. He has sided with Democrats on that issue.
I totally agree.
But then seeing Guliani (who actually helped get a mafioso appointed to serve as Homeland Security chief for a couple of months before his shady past was made public), I am not very encouraged by the people McCain is surrounding himself with.
Kerik is a real wise guy? I didn't know there was a reasonable showing of that. I know he's in all kinds of hot water, but are any of the charges related to organized crime?
Here is the scoop: cut down the demand, and the supply will dwindle. In order to cut down the demands the unethical businesses that hire illegals must be punished by existing laws.
Yes, I think that is a large part of it. Unfortunately for all of us, none of Bush, McCain, Obama, or Clinton(s) have the slightest interest in doing that. :(
For that to happen, the president can exert pressure on local governments to enforce the law or face consequences. Immigration is a federal matter and those who break the immigration law, either by hiring or abetting those who hire illegal aliens, are subject to federal prosecution.
I'm not sure that a president really has the clout to pressure local law enforcement anymore. Possession of, sales of, and consumption of marijuana is a federal crime, yet in a few states, most notably California, it is done "legally" in broad daylight under state law. How could any majority of any state legislature, with a Governor's signature, pass something in categorical contradiction to federal law? They must have correctly foreseen that any president would do nothing. Also in the same category I would include euthanasia and gay marriage laws (either already existing or likely in the future).
Never mind, in addition, risking potential epidemic outbreaks since the illegals are not checked for communicable diseases when they enter the country and could be carrying anything from the plague to the Ebola virus.
I agree that this is a very valid concern.
We are also sending a mixed, and hypocritical, if not schizophrenic message to the world, on the one hand ...
Yup. It is hard to justify defending the borders of other nations if we refuse to defend our own. It is a travesty.
It's time to hold someone accountable! When politicians become liable for their mistakes, like every other citizen, perhaps we will have responsible (better) politicians. Imagine that!
Absolutely. That's why I intend to vote for pure conservatives with any chance I get. :)