More border thoughts

[longeyes]

We make it nigh impossible to enter legally, and painfully easy to come illegally.  You can't come through a border crossing station, but you can easily trespass across some poor landowners private property.  It should be no wonder why people break the law and hop the border.

You do realize that we permit a million legal immigrants a year, far more than any other nation.  HiB Visas: a lot of those too.  Student Visas?  Asylum seekers?  Refugees? 

What this comes down to is restoring control of who comes to America to the American people and removing it from the agendas of the State Dept. and special interests. 

Border control, employment strictures, and termination of public benefits are all part of the "solution," but, frankly, though some don't want to hear this, so is a temporary moratorium on ALL immigration until we get a grip on this situation.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

how many do we allow legally from mexico a year  i know  do you?

[longeyes]

I think, frankly, that's a moot question.  Mexico has fulfilled its rightful "quota" many, many times over already.  Whatever we do with immigration slots from here on out, part of what we do needs to be to apply "diversity" intelligently.  Geographic proximity should not be priority one.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

that number is a part of the problem  and it being "moot" might be another component.  for some in the debate its moot for different reasons

[longeyes]

I stand by what I said: Mexico is dramatically over-represented.  Ditto the rest of Central America.  Time for them to "get to the back of the line."  Anyone who looks at the demographic allocation of today's America cannot seriously make an argument for admitting more people from Mexico and Central America unless they have a clear bias.  I'm not even going to get into the cultural issues, which are critical, just appeal to your notions of "diversity."  You know as well as I do what the '65 immigration bill (Ted Kennedy's) promised and what it failed to deliver in terms of equity and oversight.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

what you seem to not want to address is the quotas as they stand now.  its a simple first question.  whats the current quota for mexico?  is it you don't know or want to know?  or that you know this is a bad direction for your position in the debate

[dogmush]

what you seem to not want to address is the quotas as they stand now.  its a simple first question.  whats the current quota for mexico?  is it you don't know or want to know?  or that you know this is a bad direction for your position in the debate

The question that interests me more is how many mexicans are there that 1. want to come here and 2. have a skill set that will make America stronger?

Our imigration policy shouldn't be driven by who wants to come here, but rather whose coming here will make us better.

It doesn't really matter how many Mexicans we let in legally per year, if all Mexico has to offer us is field workers and maids (note the word if in that sentance) then we're full up, and don't really need any more mexicans.  What are these folks offering America in exchange for the good life?

[longeyes]

Why don't you tell us?

My point was that it's IRRELEVANT with 25 million illegals and their kids here already.  Or do you not want to count all that?  Please do not tell me about how many more we need to bring north, including their relations through "family reunification."  That's social madness as far as I'm concerned, not to mention blatantly unfair to every other immigrant group.

Not counting illegals + progeny already here is like not counting the trillions spent on welfare in the last four decades against "reparations."  (Yes, that's another topic, but you get the idea. Liberals count what they want to count.)

[longeyes]

Yes, the issue is not provenance, it's what they bring that enhances the nation.  And the corollary issue is that who enters legally is up to American citizens, not to anyone else.  There is no "right" to come to America.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

the current quota is 65k has been there a while.  as has been observed they come here because they can get work . its like hunting over bait

[longeyes]

If you live in a city, as I do, that has two million illegals, most from Mejico and Central America, the legal quota is not only irrelevant it's outright laughable.

The issue is not how can we increase legal quotas for Mexicans, it's how do we get them to leave.  There, I said it.

You talk about jobs they need and jobs they fill.  Try talking about how society is changed by their presence and what the real cost of it has been.  Perhaps you think it's an accident that my city, county, and state are all going belly-up.  Illegal immigration is a major element in that, as is the massive governmental bureaucracy that directly and indirectly feeds off the invasion.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

The issue is not how can we increase legal quotas for Mexicans, it's how do we get them to leave.  There, I said it.

bout time  i won't think less of you for it , nor are you wrong imho

the hey here is as you said "how"
and identifying the gov as the problem is probably good too. i think you can't solve this problem froma single point or ens.  we prove that with the war on drugs

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

The issue is not how can we increase legal quotas for Mexicans, it's how do we get them to leave.  There, I said it.

Well, that turns the discussion in entirely creepy directions.  If you want to talk about societal problems, root causes, and possible solutions then I'm right there with you.  But if you want to operate from a blanket assumption that all of those people are bad and shouldn't be here, should be made to leave, I'm not at all comfortable with that. 

Certain individual people may take specific actions that are harmful, and when they do we ought to address them and their actions.  But to condemn an entire group, especially when most of them haven't done anything truly bad?  Nuh uh.  I'm not going to go there.

A sense of morbid curiosity compels me to ask how you plan to convince those 25 million people to leave? 

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

get the kids outa the room

[red headed stranger]

i think you can't solve this problem froma single point or ens.  we prove that with the war on drugs

True. however, I believe that if the feds enforced immigration law with half the zeal that they enforce drug law, there would be a lot fewer than 25 million illegal immigrants. 

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

since longeyes doesn't like the question  whats your read on a quota of 65k?

[freakazoid]

Assimilate or GTFO.

So should we be assimilating with the Native Americans or should they be assimilating with us?

[longeyes]

Who says I don't like the question?

As for "creepy," yeah, I think watching my country wink at a huge influx of people committing illegal trespass qualifies in spades.  No one said all Mexicans, latinos, or "Hispanics" are intrinsically bad, but all illegal aliens are law-breakers and, in the opinion of most, are net minus for the society in the ways that count most.  If you want to condone law-breaking and fiscal parasitism, THAT is creepy.  Also "creepy" is ignoring gangs, street crime, identity theft, drunken driving, drain and strain on resources and infrastructure.  Yeah, we can talk about "creepy" if you really want to.

How to get them to leave?  Begin by cutting off employment and public benefits--penalizing employers, stopping welfare payments, barring "free" education, and abolishing "anchor babies"--then we'll see where we stand and what we do next.  

I realize what you want me to say, and, to be honest, I think your sanctimony is more repulsive than any draconian methods I might propose.  Sanctimony is going to kill America sure as hell.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

So should we be assimilating with the Native Americans or should they be assimilating with us?

assimilation isn't in the bill of rights?

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

i guess i'm saying it since i've asked it 3 or 4 times and you avoid it

[longeyes]

Assimilating means agreement on our basic founding principles, beginning with the protection of individual rights under law and the acknowledgement that these rights do not inhere in government largesse.  

It's not about whether I prefer tofu to tostadas.  (For the record, I favor the latter.)

[longeyes]

Who are you talking to?

[sanglant]

True. however, I believe that if the feds enforced immigration law with half the zeal that they enforce drug law, there would be a lot fewer than 25 million illegal immigrants. 

treat it exactly like drug law, hire an illegal lose you car, house and every dime in your bank accounts. the aclu would explode. be fun to watch.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

do you imagine thats how drug laws work?

[sanglant]

imagine?

http://www.erowid.org/freedom/law/forfeiture/forfeiture_media1.shtml
http://www.houmatoday.com/article/20100405/ARTICLES/100409721
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/drugs/special/forfeiture.html
http://attorneygeneral.state.wy.us/dci/das.html
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-179es.html
http://www.drugpolicy.org/docUploads/Asset_Forfeiture_Briefing.pdf
http://www.liberty-lawyer.com/drugcrimecharges/forfeiturelawminnesota.html
http://www.waynecounty.com/mygovt/prosecutor/docs/Forfeiture.pdf
http://reason.com/archives/2010/01/26/the-forfeiture-racket
http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2010/1/14/nation/20100114204938&sec=nation
http://www.drugwarrant.com/2010/03/civil-asset-forfeiture/
http://www.justice.gov/dea/programs/af.htm
http://www.hwylaw.com/lawyer-attorney-1489447.html

did i hallucinate all of that? remember i said drug law, not less than 1/2 an ounce of pot drug law.