Illegal Aliens Murder 12 Americans Daily

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
maycocksean said:



So, in that spirit, what do you mean when say that closing the border is the first step? Are you talking about stopping ALL immigration between the U.S. and Mexico? Because halting legal immigration certainly wouldn't do anything to stem the tide of illegal immigration.

I am referring to illegal immigration.

Or are you referring to building a wall? I think the effectiveness and appropriateness of such a measure can be debated without returning to the "you want an open border" nonsense.

I am referring to a wall, fence, drone planes...I don't think the American public will accept any form of amnesty and business enforcement unless the flood of illegal immigrants is stopped. Then I think the public would be more likely to discuss amnesty and a path to citizenship for those already here. I know I would be. Unless we stop the illegal immigrants at the border, most Conservatives will think it is just another 1986 smoke and mirrors legislation.

And another question? Why do YOU think we can't get Congress and the President to do actually do these things?
This is a bit of a mystery. I am sure it has to do with the corruption of both parties (payoffs from those execs and private financiers that benefit the most from all of this...always follow the money...or power). It may also have to do with equating a fence to the Berlin Wall and INS to the Gestapo.

I tend to think to think this debate is so heightened with emotion and aspersions (sometimes well founded, sometimes not) about the "true agenda" of the opposing side. I don't know that the answers are easy but I have a feeling people tend to oppose some of the ideas on immigration reform not on the merits of the ideas but on assumptions about the "real motives" and attitudes of those promoting the various reforms.

True, when I occasionally discuss this issue in Northern California, those that wanted to stop illegal immigration are often assumed to be some sort of racist.
 
Last edited:
Well, I have to admit my knowledge about the immigration problem from Central America via the Mexican border isn't deep enough to grasp the complexity entirely, and I'm sure such a long border is hard to be overseen on its whole (we can't do it here in Europe either, but als wouldn't ever plan on building walls again), so I can just express my view that I feel that a wall or fence is the worst possible thing a country can do to its neighbours and itself.

I would say that a wall/fence wouldn't be the answer to the problem as the people who organise the illegal immigration will find ways to get the people though anyways. Also the costs of building this wall surely could be invest in measures to tackle the problems your neighbour economies are struggling with, though it of course can't be done by the US itself, that's for sure.

Is there any reliable source on an estimate how much it would cost to secure the border that way. Such data for example would be helpful for a serious discussion, though my personal reluctance for accepting a wall would certainly remain. (Not any "think tank" or minutemen propaganda website or any other source with its own political agenda would be nice).
 
AEON said:
True, when I occasionally discuss this issue in Northern California, those that wanted to stop illegal immigration are often assumed to be some sort of racist.

One must watch what one says if one doesn't like being called racist. Posting propaganda like the kind that started this thread, continually calling out "Mexicans" as the major problem (when one has been repeatedly reeminded that illegal immigrants are from many other countries) can make others suspect one's motives.
 
AEON said:


True, when I occasionally discuss this issue in Northern California, those that wanted to stop illegal immigration are often assumed to be some sort of racist.

Maybe it's the way you discussed it...
 
I don't believe a fence/wall is practicable for a border of that length (or that terrain). It may be useful to bridge some short spans (although this raises the question of whether you want the Berlin Wall in your backyard). I don't know that I'm particularly opposed to some sections of the wall, even if I do think it would be preferrable not to have one at all.

So if it's impractical in its entirety, then the question is what else can you do? I'm by no means an expert as to what kind of manpower would be necessary to patrol the areas and so on, but these are things that should all be looked at.

And if you want to close the border, then I would not support any of it unless you also, at the same time, repealed the laws which permit Cubans to be given exile once they land on your shores. Frankly, the double standard smacks of political expediency.
 
I would like one day for some Native American tribe to stand up, pick a really nice piece of real estate and erect a big, fat wall around it, to prevent anyone else from coming in. Then maybe they can consider what to do with the 300 million already here.
 
anitram said:
I would like one day for some Native American tribe to stand up, pick a really nice piece of real estate and erect a big, fat wall around it, to prevent anyone else from coming in. Then maybe they can consider what to do with the 300 million already here.
 
Probably the most effective solution would be to cut off the motivation for coming here illegally. . .in other words cracking down on the businesses that hire illegal immigrants. This is one thing, I think left and right can agree on.


The problem is. . .this will almost certainly never happen. Too many powerful people (people who frankly may despise the very illegals who they make money off of) have too much to lose to allow that to happen.

But, I think it would be the most effective solution and one I think Americans should be lobbying for (even if our produce is more expensive as a result). It's what should happen and would be for more practical and far more effective than a fence.
 
maycocksean said:


The problem is. . .this will almost certainly never happen. Too many powerful people (people who frankly may despise the very illegals who they make money off of) have too much to lose to allow that to happen.

But, I think it would be the most effective solution and one I think Americans should be lobbying for (even if our produce is more expensive as a result). It's what should happen and would be for more practical and far more effective than a fence.

Exactly, a fence won't do shit... people will find a way to come here. What AEON never addressed is that not everyone here is from Mexico.

A fence is useless, and actually probably more destructive than productive.

Take steps that make risking your life to come over here obsolete...

Why is it that conservatives are only interested in long term goals when it comes to wars?:huh:
 
Illegal immigration laws are in effect. They are not enforced. There is insufficient political will to enforce them and insufficient manpower to do so. The Republicans talk a good game to get votes, but they have no real interest in it beyond an election tool.

Actually, in a lot of ways, I liked the President's ideas on the topic.
 
Here's an interesting addition to the debate

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationw...ers7oct07,0,7492249.story?coll=la-home-center

The effort, urgently underway at the departments of Homeland Security, State and Labor, is meant to rescue farm owners caught in a vise between a complex process to hire legal guest workers and stepped-up enforcement that has reduced the number of illegal planters, pickers and middle managers crossing the border.

"It is important for the farm sector to have access to labor to stay competitive," said White House spokesman Scott Stanzel. "As the southern border has tightened, some producers have a more difficult time finding a workforce, and that is a factor of what is going on today."
 
Hi Martha

I don't think many will take the time to read the link

I was going to post the whole article


people just seem to want information that fits with what they would like to see done

here is another piece of the article

The current program, managed by all three agencies, is famously dysfunctional.

Farmers have to apply for workers about a month in advance, but the agencies often fail to coordinate their response in time for the harvest, which farmers can't always predict. At Hallstrom's farm, where tidy rows of tomato plants run almost to the ocean's edge, half of the 1,000 workers are in the H-2A program. (Nationally, about 60,000 H-2A applications a year are usually filed, compared with more than 3 million farm jobs to be filled. There is no cap on the number of H-2A workers allowed into the U.S.)

She remembers submitting an emergency request for H-2A workers one year and getting the visas 60 days later. She said the laborers spent two weeks pulling rotten fruit off the vines, and the farm lost $2.5 million. "Devastating," Hallstrom said.

Growers also complain about paying for workers' housing, transportation, visas and other fees. Harry Yates, a North Carolina Christmas-tree grower, estimates that his labor costs for H-2A workers are $14 an hour, compared with a competitor whose illegal laborers cost about $7.50 an hour. Like other farmers, Yates said using the H-2A program was an invitation to lawsuits from worker advocates and frequent government investigations.

"I understand why so many growers are afraid to use this program. It is too expensive, too complicated, too slow and too likely to land you in court," Yates said.
 
Back
Top Bottom