To all those who said a virtual fence is the answer …

[BeAChooser]

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/texassouthwest/stories/DN-borderfence_18tex.ART.State.Edition1.414dbb9.html


WASHINGTON – Taxpayers have shelled out at least $15.1 million per mile for 53 miles of "virtual fence" built to secure the U.S.-Mexico border, more than 12 times the original estimate.


Just build a real, high walled, double fence and be done with it.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/texassouthwest/stories/DN-borderfence_18tex.ART.State.Edition1.414dbb9.html



Just build a real, high walled, double fence and be done with it.

With automated thermo-imaging, motion sensing chain gun turrets.

[BeAChooser]

http://techdailydose.nationaljournal.com/2010/06/dhs-official-says-virtual-fenc.php


The Homeland Security Department likely will cancel a program to install sensors and cameras to detect illegal immigrants entering the United States from Mexico, and possibly pursue projects that are tailored to specific areas along the border, the head of the Secure Border Initiative told Congress Thursday

Mark Borkowski, executive director of SBInet at the Homeland Security Department, told a joint meeting of the House Subcommittee on Management, Investigations and Oversight, and the Subcommittee on Border, Maritime and Global Counterterrorism that the original plan to deploy the program along the entire border is unlikely, Nextgov.com reported.


And replace it with what? Because you are going to replace it with something, aren't you?

Might I suggest a REAL fence? A double layered one. A tall one. Maybe even the kind of fence the Israelis have built along their border? Why I bet we could even subcontract the work out to them and be reasonably certain it would be completed on time and within budget. Wouldn't that be a first for our government. :D

[kevinquinnyo]

Why build a fence at all?

Why not just ease up and let people flow into the country?

The more, the merrier

[BeAChooser]

Why not just ease up and let people flow into the country?

Out trolling? :D

[Random]

Why build a fence at all?

Why not just ease up and let people flow into the country?

The more, the merrier

Or if you want want to keep illegal workers out, eliminate the market for illegal workers. If illegal laborers can't get jobs in the US, they won't come to the US, and a wall becomes unnecessary.

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

With automated thermo-imaging, motion sensing chain gun turrets.

Finally, someone who is serious about immigration reform! ;)

[BeAChooser]

Or if you want want to keep illegal workers out, eliminate the market for illegal workers. If illegal laborers can't get jobs in the US, they won't come to the US, and a wall becomes unnecessary.

This is an even emptier promise than the virtual fence because we already know that the federal government doesn't enforce the existing laws designed to prevent illegals from holding jobs.

[MikeMangum]

With automated thermo-imaging, motion sensing chain gun turrets.

Maybe not chain guns, but those sticky foam turrets from The Incredibles would be awesome.

[funk de fino]

America would not be the great place it is today if they had not managed to keep out all those pesky immigrants.

Thank God the USA bloodline is as pure as snow.

[MikeMangum]

Or if you want want to keep illegal workers out, eliminate the market for illegal workers. If illegal laborers can't get jobs in the US, they won't come to the US, and a wall becomes unnecessary.

That's what the Federal government said it would do the last time they declared an amnesty. "We'll grant an amnesty, but in addition, we'll tighten up border security and employment eforcement...honest!"

On this particular issue (moreso than others) DC has a credibility problem.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

America would not be the great place it is today if they had not managed to keep out all those pesky immigrants.

Thank God the USA bloodline is as pure as snow.

Hmm, strawman has a point! What if we kept out all of those immigrants? I'm sure the natives would be much happier and have 100% less small pox for starters...

[Random]

That's what the Federal government said it would do the last time they declared an amnesty. "We'll grant an amnesty, but in addition, we'll tighten up border security and employment eforcement...honest!"

On this particular issue (moreso than others) DC has a credibility problem.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

But that's the problem isn't it? There are powerful interests who want to keep their access to cheap undocumented labor. The politicians in DC don't want to anger them, so they don't really do what they need to do to fix the problem (go after the employers).

Instead, we get pointless posturing about borders and walls and keeping illegal immigrants out. I mean, we haven't been able to keep illegal drugs from coming into the country after over half a century of trying, do you really think we can keep out illegal immigrants with a magic fence?

Go after the employers, eliminate the market, and illegal immigrants just won't want to come here.

[BeAChooser]

I would ask posters to stick to the topic of the thread ... that of the virtual fence versus a real fence. In my opinion, the virtual fence solution was offered by those just trying to keep something effective, like a real fence, from being built. Many of them weren't really serious about it working. And now that it's clear, in any case, that one can't be affordably built, are there any other solutions you wish to offer in lieu of a real fence? Or can we all finally agree to try building a real fence?

[kevinquinnyo]

Out trolling? :D

No. I support open immigration.

[kevinquinnyo]

I would ask posters to stick to the topic of the thread ... that of the virtual fence versus a real fence. In my opinion, the virtual fence solution was offered by those just trying to keep something effective, like a real fence, from being built. Many of them weren't really serious about it working. And now that it's clear, in any case, that one can't be affordably built, are there any other solutions you wish to offer in lieu of a real fence? Or can we all finally agree to try building a real fence?

I agree, I guess I'm highjacking your thread. Just wanted to suppose that the premise itself might be BS to begin with.


Hot air balloon or motor car sort of debate I guess

[BeAChooser]

I support open immigration.

You hear that America? Kevin is for open borders. Freely admits it. Now do you really want his philosophy to prevail? Do you think that won't negatively affect your life? Because if you don't agree with him, you'd better get out there and vote out the people who are for open borders ... and that would be the democrats ... in coming elections. As is, it may already be too late. Because it's now the Rule of Obama, not the Rule of Law.

[kevinquinnyo]

You hear that America? Kevin is for open borders. Freely admits it. Now do you really want his philosophy to prevail? Do you think that won't negatively affect your life? Because if you don't agree with him, you'd better get out there and vote out the people who are for open borders ... and that would be the democrats ... in coming elections. As is, it may already be too late. Because it's now the Rule of Obama, not the Rule of Law.

ah, shut up

[Wildy]

This is an even emptier promise than the virtual fence because we already know that the federal government doesn't enforce the existing laws designed to prevent illegals from holding jobs.

So the government needs to take a more active role in the regulation of the workforce?

[BeAChooser]

So the government needs to take a more active role in the regulation of the workforce?

Nah, the government just needs to build a REAL fence.

Then we won't have to depend so much on the whims of Federal and State governments to keep things to a manageable and tolerable level. :D

[DC]

Socialized fences? i dunno, ain't that Stalinist?

[MikeMangum]

Socialized fences? i dunno, ain't that Stalinist?

You have it exactly backwards. This would be a fence to keep people out. ;)

[T.A.M.]

Build it wide, high, and long...oh and if you need help, you can ask Germany how to build it...;)

ones step forward, 2 steps back...the conservative way.

TAM:D

[Frank Newgent]

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/texassouthwest/stories/DN-borderfence_18tex.ART.State.Edition1.414dbb9.html



Just build a real, high walled, double fence and be done with it.


Didn't know fat out-of-shape Mexicans were such a problem.

[T.A.M.]

Didn't know fat out-of-shape Mexicans were such a problem.

Exactly. A fence designed to keep "Fat, out of shape" people out, unfortunately, would hurt Americans more then almost any other country (look up obesity statistics). It will definitely cut down on illegal immigrants pouring into Mexico from the USA....oh wait...lol

TAM;)

[Safe-Keeper]

America would not be the great place it is today if they had not managed to keep out all those pesky immigrants.

Thank God the USA bloodline is as pure as snow.I don't think anyone has proposed the US shuts out all its immigrants.

Hmm, strawman has a point! What if we kept out all of those immigrants? I'm sure the natives would be much happier and have 100% less small pox for starters...Is that the Noble Savage nonsense I see coming this way again? Someone build a wall.

Build it wide, high, and long...oh and if you need help, you can ask Germany how to build it...;)

ones step forward, 2 steps back...the conservative way.

TAM:DAnyone reminded of the Onion episode where the Mexicans built their own wall alongside the existing one to keep out stupid US tourists?

[GreNME]

Anyone reminded of the Onion episode where the Mexicans built their own wall alongside the existing one to keep out stupid US tourists?

Didn't we pay Mexicans to build the wall sections we already have up? Funny how the Onion imitated life there.

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

Is that the Noble Savage nonsense I see coming this way again? Someone build a wall.

....I see I went over a few heads

[T.A.M.]

So this Gigantic fence that some are proposing, is is also going to go deep into the ground so they cannot dig a tunnel under it? Is it going to extend to cover all of the sea coast near mexico, so they can't take a quick boat ride across?

When is the American/Canadian Fence coming?

TAM:D

[Random]

So this Gigantic fence that some are proposing, is is also going to go deep into the ground so they cannot dig a tunnel under it? Is it going to extend to cover all of the sea coast near mexico, so they can't take a quick boat ride across?


It will be so deep that no man can burrow under it, so wide that no man can go around it, so thick that no man can dig through it, so high that no man can climb over it, and it will be made of magical cotton candy and moonbeams.

[KoihimeNakamura]

And the password is 'mellon'.

[Frank Newgent]

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/6754c1cbabac8113.jpg

[Dorian Gray]

You hear that America? Kevin is for open borders. Freely admits it. Now do you really want his philosophy to prevail? Do you think that won't negatively affect your life? Because if you don't agree with him, you'd better get out there and vote out the people who are for open borders ... and that would be the democrats ... in coming elections. As is, it may already be too late. Because it's now the Rule of Obama, not the Rule of Law. Why not install an invisible fence? Then we just do a catch, tag and release with illegals, and the shock when they try to cross keeps them out!

Oh, um, are you planning on putting a fence along our border with Canada? Because if not, then you are for open borders too. I like illegal immigrants. They keep prices low. It's better for them, and better for me. Pretty much every capitalist big business owner likes it too, because the less you have to pay your workers, the more money you get to keep. You know who doesn't like it? People who actually want to build houses, dig ditches, babysit, housekeep, landscape, pick fruit or clean pools, but who won't work for wages as low as the illegals will.

But that would be the unions. Surely you aren't supportive of unions, BAC, big honking conservative like you? But it sounds like you are not only supportive of unions and protectionism for American workers, but against letting the free market decide what wages a job will pay.

Why, it almost sounds like...... OMG, you're a socialist! Gasp! :jaw-dropp :eye-poppi

[Newtons Bit]

When is the American/Canadian Fence coming

Just as soon as drug-trafficking from Canada to the USA results in more violence than there is in Iraq.

[T.A.M.]

Just as soon as drug-trafficking from Canada to the USA results in more violence than there is in Iraq.

well I guess our immigrants to the US are not drug traffickers like the Mexican Immigrants...lol.

Seriously though, I realize their is a problem with drug trafficking across the border, and I suppose that is a bit of a better reason to suggest a barrier (though I still think it is foolish. Think of the rest of the world, the drug trafficking, and whether they use "big bad walls" to fix the problem) then trying to stop illegal immigration.

For illegal immigration erecting such a wall might slow the immigration down a little, but nothing more.

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

Why not install an invisible fence? Then we just do a catch, tag and release with illegals, and the shock when they try to cross keeps them out!

Oh, um, are you planning on putting a fence along our border with Canada? Because if not, then you are for open borders too. I like illegal immigrants. They keep prices low. It's better for them, and better for me. Pretty much every capitalist big business owner likes it too, because the less you have to pay your workers, the more money you get to keep. You know who doesn't like it? People who actually want to build houses, dig ditches, babysit, housekeep, landscape, pick fruit or clean pools, but who won't work for wages as low as the illegals will.

But that would be the unions. Surely you aren't supportive of unions, BAC, big honking conservative like you? But it sounds like you are not only supportive of unions and protectionism for American workers, but against letting the free market decide what wages a job will pay.

Why, it almost sounds like...... OMG, you're a socialist! Gasp! :jaw-dropp :eye-poppi

nice! very nice.

TAM:)

[BeAChooser]

A fence designed to keep "Fat, out of shape" people out

Nice try as mischaracterizing the effectiveness of double fence systems. Just more dishonesty from your side of the political aisle. But then that's expected nowadays. Here's the real story ...

http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA493726


The Secure Fence Act: The Expected Impact on Illegal Immigration and Counterterrorism

December 2008

... snip ... The study suggests that fences can prove effective in curbing illegal immigration


This video has a lot on fence effectiveness:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KdvnWmgySrE

It shows that where the fencing is properly done, it clearly works. Two fences in the same sector, one properly done (double layered, no breaks, etc) and one improperly done (we'll call it Obama/democrat fencing) shows that crossings plummet at the properly designed fence and hardly decrease at the Obama fencing.

You want evidence that fences work? Even Napolitano must think they do because she said in November that the building of 600 miles of fence (even though that's actually an untrue figure) had helped make the borders so secure that we could now proceed with immigration reform (meaning turn illegals aliens into democrat voting citizens in time for the next election) (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-11-13-napolitano-border-security_N.htm).

As to statistics of what happens when properly designed fences are built, look at the experience in San Diego along a 14 miles stretch. In 1993, prior to building a multiple layer fence system they deployed a significant border guard presence to stem the tide. In 1993 they caught over 100,000 illegals in that one small stretch (with hundreds of thousands more making it past the guards). After they built a multiple fence system, the number apprehended dropped to just 5000 a year with very few actually getting past the three fence system (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5326083).

The fact is walls and fences do work. And keep in mind that the goal is to SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCE (not totally eliminate) illegal immigration ... just reduce it to manageable levels. Walls have worked in that context in Israel and elsewhere ... even in San Diego.

And it's pretty clear that building a double fence/wall across the entire border would be much less costly over time than the tens of thousands of border guards, soldiers and law enforcement personnel, and all the equipment they will need, and all the detention and hearing facilities that will be required, plus the detention facility staff, lawyers, judges, public relations officers, interpreters, bus drivers, etc etc etc that ANY alternative requires. And I didn't even mention the $15 million per mile cost of the virtual fence promoted by the no real fence crowd. Even a high-side estimate of $5 million a mile (the Israeli's built their 25 foot high concrete wall for well under that) would allow us to block our 2000 mile border for about $10 billion ... peanuts compared to the long term cost of ANY alternatives.

And how can any of the alternatives to a physical barrier be more reliable? How often do we hear about people in the government being bribed or being found incompetent? And the border is 2000 miles long. What are you going to do ... line border guards up shoulder to shoulder that entire stretch? The fact is smugglers will study border guard patterns and outsmart them ... study electronic fences and outsmart it. Without a major physical barrier, it will take only minutes to disappear into the crowd or the wilds. What then?

Would any of the alternatives you folks suggest (and I notice you haven't suggested any so far) be more easily tested? No. A barrier you can build anywhere and test anytime. You can easily put your best and brightest (and leanest) against it and see what they do. Testing humans against humans or electronics is always much more complex. You can improve a barrier. Improving human guards is not all that easy. And improving electronics can be extremely expensive (or difficult).

And would any of your alternatives have less impact on those in the border areas? I doubt it. Since you are not going to stop illegals at the border, you must be going to try and catch them after they may have traveled tens or even scores of miles inside the border. How can putting thousands of armed personnel who will have to operate in America's backyards, on America's highways, in Americas border cities, in Americas wild, many miles inward from the border and in the middle of those very big cities that are near the border ever be less impactful than simply stopping 99% of the flood between two or three fences built right at the border? You are literally talking about militarizing the southwest if you hope to catch a sufficient fraction of those who will violate an unfenced/unwalled or even virtual fenced border.

Will your alternatives be more humane to the illegals? No. You are going to allow illegals to go on risking their lives in the millions because they will think they can beat your armed border guards at their own game. Because they can't see a virtual fence and will try to beat it too. Many will die in American deserts, just as they do now. Many will be killed by smugglers who will take their money and lead them to nowhere, as they do now. Or rape and hold them hostage while demanding more money from relatives. Some may be killed by border agents trying to intercept them. What if the illegals make it to a church? Are you proposing we go in and get them? What if they fire on those trying to enforce your alternative to a fence? Is it humane to allow pregnant women and small children to face the dangers they do now? What if a woman crosses the border and then immediately has a baby? That happens now. A pregnant woman would have a problem scaling a fence. But a few additional guards and some electronic sensors aren't going to stop this scenario. So what will our government do then under your unnamed alterative ... since the child automatically becomes a citizen and an anchor baby? You won't see pregnant women and 3 year olds scaling well designed fences or walls. The humane thing is not to allow these people the hope of beating the system by putting a larger barrier in their path ... one not easily crossed. One that will deter folks from giving thousands of dollars to smugglers but instead spend that money on improving their lot in their own country.

Will your alternatives be less subject to the whims of the current administration? No. There already is a governor and mayors in California who are not enforcing immigration laws ... who are openly hostile to the notion of stopping the flow. Even boycotting any state does try to stem the flow. The governor isn't even a Hispanic or a democRAT (at least on paper). Wait till that governor is both. Look at the whims of the Bush administration ... a republican administration. They promised us 10000 new guards in 2004's budget and gave us 210. Look at Obama. A bill was passed and signed into law requiring the constuction of hundreds of miles of double fence. When he became President he immediately stopped all construction of double fences. The politicos can change or not enforce laws year to year. It will be much harder to unbuild or ignore a REAL fence. A few years back we watched them catch over 1000 illegals in one day ... and promptly release 80 percent of them into our society. If THAT is what we can expect under your alternative, leave me out.

Would your alternative cause less harm to our relationship to Mexico? No. A fence will reduce contacts that may lead to confrontation. A fence will make it less likely that Mexico will see America as a dumping ground for its poor. A fence will return the focus to LEGAL immigration between the two countries. A fence will force Mexico to look to its own solutions to its economic and social problems. A fence will even help fight Mexico's drug cartels which are wrecking that country.

So T.A.M, you are not only wrong but dishonest to characterize the sort of fence systems that are proposed as you have.

[Harpyja]

What if the illegals make it to a church? Are you proposing we go in and get them?

As opposed to any other building?

[Sword_Of_Truth]

When is the American/Canadian Fence coming?

TAM:D

If the US border problems were as severe on the northern side as on the south, the yanks would have a better olympic hockey team. ;)

[Travis]

In my opinion trying to get a handle on immigration problems with fences is like trying to hermetically seal your house with screen doors. It won't work and at a certain point you might want to step back and ask yourself, "why am I trying to hermetically seal my house?"

[Wildy]

Nah, the government just needs to build a REAL fence.

Then we won't have to depend so much on the whims of Federal and State governments to keep things to a manageable and tolerable level. :D

So you don't like the fact that the government doesn't regulate the workforce enough when it comes to illegal immigrants, but you don't want them to actually regulate the workforce?

A fence won't solve the problem since it doesn't take away the incentives to immigrate illegally. But I get the feeling that you don't want to solve the problem, you just want a stopgap that makes it look like the government is doing something about illegal immigration.

[BeAChooser]

In my opinion trying to get a handle on immigration problems with fences is like trying to hermetically seal your house with screen doors. It won't work

I'd say your "opinion" isn't worth much when I can offer real sources (and actual examples of fences working) that prove you are wrong. :D

[BeAChooser]

A fence won't solve the problem since it doesn't take away the incentives to immigrate illegally.

You can have all the incentive in the world but a well designed fence will keep you out. As the Israeli wall has proven against folks willing to martyr themselves to kill Israelis. Incentive doesn't get any better than all those promised virgins in paradise. :D

But I get the feeling that you don't want to solve the problem

No, clearly you are the one who doesn't want to solve the problem. :D

[T.A.M.]

Beachooser:

That was an awefully long winded reply to me, given i have not expressed my solution to the border problem, only that i think a fence will not work. Likely, in typical fashion you are assuming my thoughts and pov based on that.

1. Some of my problem with the wall is the message it sends. Go back a couple of decades and you have the collapse of the berlin wall...what a wonderful moment...and now you have americans wanting to build their own to keep people out.

2. I am not saying you should just have people flowing freely and illegally iinto your country, i am just saying i Do not think a wall is the right answer.

3. A wall might work in reducing the problem...for a while, but where there is a will there is a way, and they have the will.

IMO a wall sends the wrong message to everyone, but then again, from this forum and my other contacts with americans i have learned that a subset of americans could give a flying **** about what the rest of the world thinks.

TAM:)

[Frank Newgent]

A fence won't solve the problem since it doesn't take away the incentives to immigrate illegally.

You can have all the incentive in the world but a well designed fence will keep you out.


Seems likely a well-designed fence will, however, up profit incentives via an increase in smuggling prices.

[kevinquinnyo]

Seems likely a well-designed fence will, however, up profit incentives via an increase in smuggling prices.

Well, it would increase the price of border crossing, because it increases the cost of human smuggling. yes.

The coyotes already charge thousands of dollars for assistance in crossing.

They also accept getting raped as a form of payment.

[dtugg]

I don't know that a wall is the correct solution but these Berlin Wall comparisons are just ridiculous. The Berlin Wall was to keep people from leaving, this fence would be to keep people from ILLEGALLY coming in. Apples and oranges.

[Random]

Frankly, I find all these calls for a border fence to be racist. Not because of the intention of keeping out foreigners or illegal workers, but because of the tacit assumtion that the average Mexican is not smart enough to get to the other side of the fence.

[T.A.M.]

I don't know that a wall is the correct solution but these Berlin Wall comparisons are just ridiculous. The Berlin Wall was to keep people from leaving, this fence would be to keep people from ILLEGALLY coming in. Apples and oranges.

not really. The concept of a wall to keep people from getting from one location to another is one issue. If you are talking about motivation (ie leaving germany versus getting into america) then that is a different issue. One could have a serious debate about which might have bigger motivation or desperation behind it, and hence push people farther.

The merits of the fence, or the lack of, as a deterrent are the same regardless of which direction the people are going...

TAM:)

[Rikeln]

Why build a fence at all?

Why not just ease up and let people flow into the country?

The more, the merrier

There must be some limit as to how many we can sustain though.

[Wildy]

No, clearly you are the one who doesn't want to solve the problem. :D

My country already has a pretty good solution to the problem. It's called being an island. Perhaps the US should try it?

Although it still hasn't stopped illegal immigration, just the way they get into the country.

[dtugg]

I honestly cannot understand how somebody could think that a wall built by an oppressive country to keep people from leaving is equivalent to a free country building one to keep people from illegally coming in. But you're right about one thing TAM, what the rest of the world would think about this does not factor in at all to whether I think it is a good idea.

[marplots]

Quote from the plaque on "Mother of Exiles":
"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

When the choice is noble and hard verses ignoble and easy, think long and hard.

[KoihimeNakamura]

That was so 18th century. (19th, actually.)

[MikeMangum]

In my opinion trying to get a handle on immigration problems with fences is like trying to hermetically seal your house with screen doors. It won't work and at a certain point you might want to step back and ask yourself, "why am I trying to hermetically seal my house?"

What a great analogy! Let's compare illegal immigrants to germs.

That was your point, right?

[BeAChooser]

1. Some of my problem with the wall is the message it sends. Go back a couple of decades and you have the collapse of the berlin wall

LOL! So you think this wall would be like the berlin wall? Don't you folks ever listen to yourselves? :rolleyes:

and now you have americans wanting to build their own to keep people out.

Keep out ILLEGAL immigrants. We're not against legal immigration. Get in line. And by the way, we wouldn't need to build a wall if our government would just do what every other government in the world seems to do with illegals. Catch them and kick them out. In fact, why don't we just pass laws that are identical with Mexico in this regard. Would you be against that?

2. I am not saying you should just have people flowing freely and illegally iinto your country

Sure you are, because you aren't offering any other workable solution. You're apparently content with the status quo.

i am just saying i Do not think a wall is the right answer.

You can *think* it all you want, but you haven't proven that it's not.

3. A wall might work in reducing the problem...for a while, but where there is a will there is a way, and they have the will.

Nonsense. You can have all the incentive in the world but physics is physics. And unlike any other solution you might suggest, a wall can actually be tested.

[BeAChooser]

Frankly, I find all these calls for a border fence to be racist.

:rolleyes: Tell us, Random, if we passed and enforced laws identical to those in Mexico regarding illegal immigration, would we be racist?

Not because of the intention of keeping out foreigners or illegal workers, but because of the tacit assumtion that the average Mexican is not smart enough to get to the other side of the fence.

Physics is physics. And I tell you what ... just to defuse you "racism" argument, we'll let *smart* caucasians(?) like you and T.A.M. test the wall design. Let's see if you can get past such a system without getting caught. :D

No, personally, I think the real racists here are those content to let thousands of illegal immigrants (just because they are Mexican) be killed, raped and kidnapped each year rather than stop it by building a fence/wall system.

[BeAChooser]

My country already has a pretty good solution to the problem. It's called being an island. Perhaps the US should try it?

That's exactly what a fence is meant to do. Force any potential illegal immigrants from the south to come in from the sea or by plane. Just like in your country.

Although it still hasn't stopped illegal immigration

And the fence/wall solution isn't meant to completely stop it either. Just reduce it to a more manageable level. We'd be happy if it cut it by just 90%. Or better yet, just reduce our illegal immigration problem to something comparable to Australia's. :D

[BeAChooser]

I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

And there will no doubt be doors in that fence/wall.

[BeAChooser]

That was your point, right?

Actually, he just missed the fact that a house needs walls. It's the doors you are supposed to enter through.

[Dorian Gray]

Something tells me BAC has me on ignore. This is because he has mistaken JREF for a choir he can preach to. So will someone quote my last post and make a comment so BAC can see it?

[Frank Newgent]

You hear that America? Kevin is for open borders. Freely admits it. Now do you really want his philosophy to prevail? Do you think that won't negatively affect your life? Because if you don't agree with him, you'd better get out there and vote out the people who are for open borders ... and that would be the democrats ... in coming elections. As is, it may already be too late. Because it's now the Rule of Obama, not the Rule of Law. Why not install an invisible fence? Then we just do a catch, tag and release with illegals, and the shock when they try to cross keeps them out!

Oh, um, are you planning on putting a fence along our border with Canada? Because if not, then you are for open borders too. I like illegal immigrants. They keep prices low. It's better for them, and better for me. Pretty much every capitalist big business owner likes it too, because the less you have to pay your workers, the more money you get to keep. You know who doesn't like it? People who actually want to build houses, dig ditches, babysit, housekeep, landscape, pick fruit or clean pools, but who won't work for wages as low as the illegals will.

But that would be the unions. Surely you aren't supportive of unions, BAC, big honking conservative like you? But it sounds like you are not only supportive of unions and protectionism for American workers, but against letting the free market decide what wages a job will pay.

Why, it almost sounds like...... OMG, you're a socialist! Gasp! :jaw-dropp :eye-poppi


For some reason I hear the sound of ducks.

[BeAChooser]

For some reason I hear the sound of ducks.

The only ducks I hear, Frank, is the sound coming from those ignoring news like this:

http://www.nextgov.com/nextgov/ng_20100617_9865.php?oref=rss?zone=NGtoday


SBInet has been troubled almost from the moment DHS awarded the initial $2.5 billion contract to Boeing Co. in September 2006. Delays, cost overruns and performance issues mounted until January 2010, when DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano ordered an assessment of SBInet to determine if it should continue. ... snip ...

In March, Napolitano froze spending on the project until the assessment could be completed, and she reallocated $50 million of Recovery Act funding earmarked for SBInet's first phase in the Tucson and Ajo, Ariz., areas to technologies that have a better track record.


Did she mean real fences? Nope. So what were those technologies? Just curious.

More from the above source:


Although Borkowski did not reveal results of the assessment, a Government Accountability Office report released in May, which was referenced during the hearing, stated the capabilities of the first incremental phase of SBInet "have continued to shrink from what the department previously committed to deliver."

For example, the geographical footprint for the initial phase was reduced from about 655 miles to about 387 miles, and the technology performance standards were loosened to require the systems be able to detect and identify suspicious border crossings 49 percent of the time, instead of the original 90 percent rate.


LOL! I guarantee that a REAL fence built for $15 a million a mile (or even a third of that) would do far more than just detect and identify 49% of border crossings. It would prevent more than that number entirely. Anyone foolish enough to disagree that that assertion? You, Frank?

[BeAChooser]

http://azstarnet.com/news/local/border/article_81b08384-0b8e-5d38-acd1-476f0a1e88ca.html


June 18, 2010

... snip ...

A Government Accountability Office official questioned the cost-effectiveness of the SBInet program that has been allocated about $1 billion over the past five years and has yet to produce a working system.

[Frank Newgent]

Fence installed in the middle of nowhere is easily destroyed. Might that have something to do with this?

[BeAChooser]

Hey Frank,

Four years ago, a bill was passed, with support from Senator Obama, to build 700-miles of double-layer border fence. So why has only 34 miles actually been built (13 miles in Texas, 12 miles in California and 9 miles in Arizona)? In fact, under Obama only 2.3 miles has been built. In July of 2009, Senator DeMint offered an amendment to the DHS spending bill forcing Obama to finish the fence. It passed with 21 democrats supporting it. Of course democrats later removed the amendment from the bill in closed session at the behest of the Whitehouse. Because it doesn't want anything that might effectively slow the flow of would be democrats across the border. Janet Napolitano boasted that "We can shore up our border gaps with ground-based sensors, radar and unmanned aerial vehicles,” she said. “Any combination of the above will work far better than any 10 or 20 or 50 miles of wall.” Well clearly she was wrong. (As she has been about so many things.) We now have the proof. So let's stop being stuck on stupid and build a fence. We know they work and they cost a fraction of this virtual pipe dream that democrats pushed.

[Frank Newgent]

1. Mojados can't vote.

2. Fence is expensive.

3. Fence in the middle of nowhere, generally, develops holes.

.

[BeAChooser]

Fence installed in the middle of nowhere is easily destroyed.

LOL! All you are proving is that you don't understand the operation of a real fence system and aren't even interested in understanding it. Nor do you apparently understand the virtual fence.

First, a real fence is no more in the middle of nowhere than a virtual fence. Both must still have quick reaction forces (people) to intercept and detain anyone who broaches the system. But the task of penetrating a virtual fence and the time needed to do it is much smaller than the time and effort needed to penetrate a real multi-fence system. And because of that, the manpower demands of a virtual system are much higher if it's going to have anywhere near the same effectiveness. And the false alarm rate of a virtual system will also be much higher than with a real fence. That too drives up manpower demands. Unless you intend to close off a region several miles deep along the border to the public, animals and wind. :rolleyes:

And why do you think a virtual fence isn't vulnerable to costly damage or destruction, Frank? Don't be silly. All those highly sensitive sensors? LOL!

Towers like these

http://www.csmonitor.com/var/ezflow_site/storage/images/media/images/0317-virtual-border-fence/7587782-1-eng-US/0317-virtual-border-fence_full_600.jpg

http://files.myopera.com/Ravo/blog/Border%20fence2.jpg

and sensors like these

http://i.zdnet.com/blogs/update-boeing-virtual-fence-unusable.jpg

will be very vulnerable, and are all you have to damage or destroy to effectively bring the system down. Not so with a real fence, the barrier is the prime obstacle. You could destroy the sensors and communication on those virtual fence towers with a high powered rifle, possibly while standing in Mexico. Never mind the real possibility of simply jamming them. Something you can't do to a real fence/wall. One like this:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_ZxKAf8oOwtI/R2H7ycd1tCI/AAAAAAAAJIg/yu0QSZpaGMs/s400/wall-barrier-fence-tower.jpg

which, btw, cost a fraction of the so-called "virtual fence" demonstration projects. In fact, how would illegals fire over that wall to take out the sensors on the other side? Even the sensors are more secure with a real fence system. :D

[BeAChooser]

1. Mojados can't vote.

Don't kid yourself. There have already been irregularities in elections in California involving illegals. And you know as well as I that Obama and the democrats are pushing for another amnesty that will make them eligible to vote, just like the last bunch now are eligible.

2. Fence is expensive.

But apparently far less expensive than the virtual fence. You did read the OP article before opening you mouth, didn't you?

3. Fence in the middle of nowhere, generally, develops holes.

Like I said, you don't understand the proposed real fence systems at all ... or for that matter the virtual fence systems. You are just throwing out red herrings hoping that will suffice in this debate. But you really are only embarrassing yourself, Frank. You look a little desperate. :D

[Damien Evans]

You can have all the incentive in the world but a well designed fence will keep you out. As the Israeli wall has proven against folks willing to martyr themselves to kill Israelis. Incentive doesn't get any better than all those promised virgins in paradise. :D



No, clearly you are the one who doesn't want to solve the problem. :D

Then why does Australia get Illegal immigrants when we have a natural fence of several hundred kilometres of ocean?

[quixotecoyote]

Then why does Australia get Illegal immigrants when we have a natural fence of several hundred kilometres of ocean?

I dunno, you seem to be having some luck combining that with artificial fences:http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/breaking/7358009/leonora-asylum-seekers-arrive/

[Frank Newgent]

Don't kid yourself. There have already been irregularities in elections in California involving illegals. And you know as well as I that Obama and the democrats are pushing for another amnesty that will make them eligible to vote, just like the last bunch now are eligible.



But apparently far less expensive than the virtual fence. You did read the OP article before opening you mouth, didn't you?



Like I said, you don't understand the proposed real fence systems at all ... or for that matter the virtual fence systems. You are just throwing out red herrings hoping that will suffice in this debate. But you really are only embarrassing yourself, Frank. You look a little desperate. :D



Don't know why you assume I defend building a virtual fence. Waste of money as far as I'm concerned.

How would non-virtual fence be protected from becoming compromised?

[BeAChooser]

Then why does Australia get Illegal immigrants when we have a natural fence of several hundred kilometres of ocean?

You never heard of a thing called a boat? :rolleyes:

[BeAChooser]

I dunno, you seem to be having some luck combining that with artificial fences:http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/breaking/7358009/leonora-asylum-seekers-arrive/

From that article:


This morning a green screen was visible between dongas inside the central compound, about 80 metres inside the facility' outer fence.

Why that implies they use at least a double fence. :D

[BeAChooser]

Don't know why you assume I defend building a virtual fence. Waste of money as far as I'm concerned.

Well then that begs the question. Do you favor anything at the border to try and deter/detain illegals crossing it?

How would non-virtual fence be protected from becoming compromised?

Ask the Israelis. Their fence system faces a much more determined and well equipped opponent than what ours would face. And it's still standing and working.

[DDWW]

Double fence.

The Pima County Animal Control is overflowing with pit bull mixes. Give these dogs a job of patroling between the fences. win-win.

Back them up with officers (with real guns and ammo).

Works very well in some US prisons.


DDWW

[BeAChooser]

The Pima County Animal Control is overflowing with pit bull mixes. Give these dogs a job of patroling between the fences. win-win.

How about "you catch it, you get to eat it"? I'm sure that will deter attempts.

[marplots]

Keep out ILLEGAL immigrants. We're not against legal immigration.

Well, there's your answer right there. No wall at all. Just change the laws. Allow a worker visa for whomever wants one. Problem solved.

And why does the, "Just build a wall" solution sound to me so much like the, "Just nuke the oil leak" solution? Oh, I know... because of the remark from H.L. Menken, "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."

[Davidlpf]

I am half tempted to go down to Mexico to teach the Mexicans how to build trebuchets.

[Frank Newgent]

Don't know why you assume I defend building a virtual fence. Waste of money as far as I'm concerned.

Well then that begs the question. Do you favor anything at the border to try and deter/detain illegals crossing it?


You misuse the term "beg the question". That aside, I think any border fence in a remote area is a waste of money.

How would non-virtual fence be protected from becoming compromised?

Ask the Israelis. Their fence system faces a much more determined and well equipped opponent than what ours would face. And it's still standing and working.


I know nothing about this aside from what I just googled. Not difficult to find stories about fence breaches though.

Bound to happen in very very sparsely populated areas.

[SOdhner]

Two fences in the same sector, one properly done (double layered, no breaks, etc) and one improperly done (we'll call it Obama/democrat fencing) shows that crossings plummet at the properly designed fence and hardly decrease at the Obama fencing.

I can't view the video right now - do they take into account the fact that since the "good" wall is only in one area people can (and presumably would) just go around to another area? THat seems like a difficult problem to work around in this kind of study. Certainly when the "good" wall is the only option that would change the approach.

I do know (second-hand from a fairly reliable source) that there are a lot of holes in areas where there are walls. Some of these are tunnels, some just holes. They spring up pretty quickly.

I'm not saying that a wall is a bad idea, but they'll still come through if they feel like it. We'll stop some people, but not the ones we're most concerned about. The ones we stop will be the indivisuals trying to cross on their own, and those are also the ones that (in my personal experience) tend to work hard to contribute once here and would make great citizens if given the chance.

Smuggling of drugs or people wouldn't change much, from what I've seen.

I don't like the "virtual" fence better, though I won't rule out all forms of a virtual fence. This particular attempt seems to be a disaster. I think the problem with most border efforts is that we do not have the manpower to properly patrol that much real estate. In that sense some level of electronic surveilance may be better than physical fences since that helps us to properly distribute our security.

But really, I just don't ever think we'll have true border security.

[BeAChooser]

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/07/02/immigration-costs-fair-amnesty-educations-costs-reform/


The cost of harboring illegal immigrants in the United States is a staggering $113 billion a year -- an average of $1,117 for every “native-headed” household in America -- according to a study conducted by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR).


Wow. At that cost, surely we could build a proper fence/wall from coast to coast and still save billions and billions each year. So why don't we?

[kevinquinnyo]

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/07/02/immigration-costs-fair-amnesty-educations-costs-reform/



Wow. At that cost, surely we could build a proper fence/wall from coast to coast and still save billions and billions each year. So why don't we?


Maybe because immigrants are actually good for the economy.

Would you agree, or do I need to pick apart this stupid argument in detail?

[BeAChooser]

Maybe because immigrants are actually good for the economy.

Well do you have sources that prove that ... like the study I just referenced which concludes illegal (why is it you folks ALWAYS forget that term? :rolleyes:) immigrants cost the nation $113 billion a year? And keep in mind, that's just the direct costs. Things like the cost of educating the children of illegals. The medicaid and other medical aid they receive for free. The cost of incarcerating them when they commit crimes or get detained. The cost of providing them with lawyers. The public assistance (free meals, etc) they get.

And that number assumes only 13 million illegals when some estimates put that number closer to 20 million (http://ohmygov.com/blogs/general_news/archive/2008/04/10/number-of-illigral-immigrants-in-u-s-may-be-closer-to-20-million.aspx ). In which case the direct costs to the country would be $173 billion a year.

That doesn't include the indirect and opportunity costs to the country. For example,

- From the overcrowding of transportation systems that has resulted (in certain states/cities costing billions).

- The cost to society from the thousands of murders they commit each year (what's the life of an American citizen worth now days?).

- Their connection with drug cartels, gangs and drug smuggling (would our drug and crime problem be anywhere near as serious if illegals weren't so involved in it?).

- The cost of the rapes they commit (some estimates put the number of sex offenses caused by this group in the hundreds of thousands each year).

- The cost of the traffic accidents they cause (see http://www.usillegalaliens.com/impacts_of_illegal_immigration_traffic_accidents.h tml ).

- The disruption they cause to what was once a primarily english speaking culture in terms of its cohesion and values.

- The detrimental impact that non-english speaking students are having on the education system and the progress of other students' learning.

- The money they take out of our economy and send back home (some estimates put that at over $45 billion a year in 2006 alone).

And don't forget the long term costs of caring for them in the future when it turns out they have neither the language or other skills necessary to succeed at more than menial jobs in the US. And when we give them amnesty on top of that. As is, we are just beginning to understand how big and unsustainable those costs will be for our own citizens. Imagine also having to take care of millions of what were illegals (thanks to amnesty … and don't think the one democrats now want would be the last) who decide to not learn much english during their lifetimes, because we allow them not to learn, and who as a result basically remain unskilled their entire lives without much in the way of savings. Here's an article on a study done by the Heritage Foundation that concluded each illegal would result in a $100,000 net annual cost to taxpayers: http://www.10news.com/news/9620142/detail.html . As they put it, the US has effectively imported "10 million high school dropouts". And that will mean the future cost of illegals will reach half a trillion dollars a year. That dwarfs any possible positive effect illegals might have on our economy.

[GreNME]

- The disruption they cause to what was once a primarily english speaking culture in terms of its cohesion and values.

:dl:

This is comedy gold.

[BeAChooser]

This is comedy gold.

I fully realize that some around here don't care one iota about the culture and values that made this country great.

[CORed]

I would ask posters to stick to the topic of the thread ... that of the virtual fence versus a real fence. In my opinion, the virtual fence solution was offered by those just trying to keep something effective, like a real fence, from being built. Many of them weren't really serious about it working. And now that it's clear, in any case, that one can't be affordably built, are there any other solutions you wish to offer in lieu of a real fence? Or can we all finally agree to try building a real fence?

In my opinion, the whole stupid idea that a fence will do any good at all is being offered by those who want to keep something effective, like really cracking down on people who employ illegal aliens from being done. A fence without people -- a whole lot of people -- to guard it is worthless, and will last about as long as the Berlin Wall did after the East Germans and Russians quit guarding it Even if we fence the whole border and hire tens of thousands of border guards, they will come in boats. So we fence the coastline, and they come in through Canada, then we fence the Canadian border, and they come it planes, so we build a roof over the whole country ...

[Juniversal]

I fully realize that some around here don't care one iota about the culture and values that made this country great.Ah, yes. Slavery, racism, segregation and the withholding of womans rights. The good ole days. :)

[CORed]

I fully realize that some around here don't care one iota about the culture and values that made this country great.

Racism and xenophobia?

[marplots]

Doesn't the 'cost' argument ring hollow? I'm guessing it has less to do with illegal aliens than it has to so with what is perceived as 'slackers' and 'gold-brickers'.

How can they simultaneously be stealing jobs and on the dole? And what happens to the public funds anyhow? Don't these people pay rent, buy food and transportation, shop at Wal-Mart and pay sales taxes?

My guess is that one single oligarch who decides to move his manufacturing facility offshore is doing more economic harm than ten busloads of illegals. At least that part could be changed, the 'illegal' moniker. Let's change some laws already and quit making families into criminals.

[kevinquinnyo]

Well do you have sources that prove that ... like the study I just referenced which concludes illegal (why is it you folks ALWAYS forget that term? :rolleyes:) immigrants cost the nation $113 billion a year? And keep in mind, that's just the direct costs. Things like the cost of educating the children of illegals. The medicaid and other medical aid they receive for free. The cost of incarcerating them when they commit crimes or get detained. The cost of providing them with lawyers. The public assistance (free meals, etc) they get.



Your solution is to build a fence. Why not legalize them? (http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/01/raising_the_floor.html)

Of course, that's a link from a progressive think tank, so if you are in the habit of ignoring those types of sources, how about the earlier Cato study (http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10438) that came to almost identical conclusions?

Cato, Restriction or Legalization? Measuring the Economic Benefits of Immigration Reform, Dixon, Rimmer

The positive impact for U.S. households of legalization under an optimal visa tax would be 1.27 percent of GDP or $180 billion.

And that's based off earlier population estimates that, like you said, debatably much higher. (The more the better.)

[kevinquinnyo]

[...]

That doesn't include the indirect and opportunity costs to the country. For example,

- From the overcrowding of transportation systems that has resulted (in certain states/cities costing billions).

show me how you figure this


- The cost to society from the thousands of murders they commit each year (what's the life of an American citizen worth now days?).


Between 7 - 8 million dollars per person, IIRC based on the Statistical Value of Life calculations. So if we take your "thousands" at face value, then that's between 7 billion and 16 billion dollars. How much wealth is created by illegal immigrant labor? And how many murders are committed each year by legals? Are we taking this into account, or just picking and choosing the statistics we like? :D


- Their connection with drug cartels, gangs and drug smuggling (would our drug and crime problem be anywhere near as serious if illegals weren't so involved in it?).

But wait, homicide rates have clearly gone down (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0873729.html) since about 1993, and in fact, violent crime and property crime have gone down since the early 90s, while illegal immigration has clearly been accelerating starting about 1993.

The Pew Hispanic Center estimates that

[....]
per year from 1990–94, and further increasing to 750,000 per year from 1995–1999,

[...]
as of March 2005, the undocumented population had reached 11 million or more including more than 6.5 million illegal Mexicans (~60% of all illegal immigrants).
[...]

By September 2006 the illegal population is thought to be about 13 million.

We can all play with numbers, it's fun!


- The cost of the rapes they commit (some estimates put the number of sex offenses caused by this group in the hundreds of thousands each year).


See above, and let's see some statistics.


- The cost of the traffic accidents they cause (see http://www.usillegalaliens.com/impacts_of_illegal_immigration_traffic_accidents.h tml ).

Legalize them!


- The disruption they cause to what was once a primarily english speaking culture in terms of its cohesion and values.

Yeah I don't care about that. What's the cost? Give me the figure that shows the cost of companies printing bilingual signs, instruction manuals, etc, and then we'll just deduct that from the increased revenue they get from the now higher population buying their products. Hint: those companies have already done that research, which is why they do what they do.

cohesion and values...

You should argue also that the introduction of other operating systems and coding languages disrupted the technology culture in what was once primarily BASIC and MS-DOS.


- The detrimental impact that non-english speaking students are having on the education system and the progress of other students' learning.


I don't know, that could be a legitimate issue. But I imagine it's at the bottom of your list because it was at the bottom of the barrel.


- The money they take out of our economy and send back home (some estimates put that at over $45 billion a year in 2006 alone).

Well, legalize them. Then they are free to do whatever they want with their money. They do earn their income after all.


And don't forget the long term costs of caring for them in the future when it turns out they have neither the language or other skills necessary to succeed at more than menial jobs in the US. And when we give them amnesty on top of that. As is, we are just beginning to understand how big and unsustainable those costs will be for our own citizens. Imagine also having to take care of millions of what were illegals (thanks to amnesty … and don't think the one democrats now want would be the last) who decide to not learn much english during their lifetimes, because we allow them not to learn, and who as a result basically remain unskilled their entire lives without much in the way of savings. Here's an article on a study done by the Heritage Foundation that concluded each illegal would result in a $100,000 net annual cost to taxpayers: http://www.10news.com/news/9620142/detail.html . As they put it, the US has effectively imported "10 million high school dropouts". And that will mean the future cost of illegals will reach half a trillion dollars a year. That dwarfs any possible positive effect illegals might have on our economy.

Let me ask you this. Would you or any fellow Americans oppose caring for them if they were unskilled and helpless and elderly in Mexico? Personally I mean? Would you help them?

I don't care one way or the other. I'm just wondering if you're talking about mandatory welfare measures that we would pay for through taxes, or do you mean private charity?

[BeAChooser]

Ah, yes. Slavery, racism, segregation and the withholding of womans rights. The good ole days. :)

Racism and xenophobia?

Of course, that's not at all what I was talking about, but you go ahead and continue creating your red herrings and strawmen as your sole arguments, rather than actually face the issue of illegal immigration and what it is doing to this country. Because I think you only help my side of this debate.

And by the way, the only racists I see around here are the ones currently running the DOJ, Whitehouse and the DNC. The only people I see trying to keep people enslaved are those running the democrat party, who are now so desperate that they may lose two, or perhaps even three, of their major voting blocks that they are lying to them almost continually. And they think race baiting and accusations of race can be used to intimidate the rest of us. Well the times they are indeed a changing and I think the majority of ordinary Americans are about to prove it come November.

[Juniversal]

My statement had no pertinence to this immigration debate. Only your yearning for the good ole days of yore.

[BeAChooser]

Your solution is to build a fence. Why not legalize them?

Why not do both? The cost of the fence/wall from coast to coast would be a fraction of the numbers both of us are talking about in terms of benefits and costs. And a fence can have gates, so nothing prevents allowing Mexicans (or others) into the country ON A WORK VISA (which is what the CATO study at least means by "legalize"). But at least then you get the opportunity to make sure that person doesn't have a known criminal record, isn't involved in gangs or drugs, isn't pregnant and trying to create an anchor baby, isn't bringing a bevy of kids, isn't smuggling, and you have at least some documentation that he/she has arrived, what he/she looks like and where he/she is going. What we have now is totally uncontrolled. Furthermore, under a work visa program, we could dispense with these continued calls by the democrat party that we make them all citizens. And, should they violate our laws or otherwise cause trouble and we catch them, we'd have a chance of deporting them and then not having them run right back across the border as they now do over and over.

[kevinquinnyo]

Why not do both? The cost of the fence/wall from coast to coast would be a fraction of the numbers both of us are talking about in terms of benefits and costs. And a fence can have gates, so nothing prevents allowing Mexicans (or others) into the country ON A WORK VISA (which is what the CATO study at least means by "legalize"). But at least then you get the opportunity to make sure that person doesn't have a known criminal record, isn't involved in gangs or drugs, isn't pregnant and trying to create an anchor baby, isn't bringing a bevy of kids, isn't smuggling, and you have at least some documentation that he/she has arrived, what he/she looks like and where he/she is going. What we have now is totally uncontrolled. Furthermore, under a work visa program, we could dispense with these continued calls by the democrat party that we make them all citizens. And, should they violate our laws or otherwise cause trouble and we catch them, we'd have a chance of deporting them and then not having them run right back across the border as they now do over and over.

If you make crossing the border completely easy, safe, and efficient, by allowing them to come over legally, then why do we need to build the fence?

Who would jump the fence when the gate is wide open?

If you're against murderers, junkies, pregnant opportunists, and the like, then why aren't you arguing that we deport the perfectly legal, naturally born, or legally immigrated United States citizens who are exactly that?

[kevinquinnyo]

Another way of saying this:

If the gate was wide open, and any and all Mexicans or people from other countries were allowed to enter, why do you seem to think we would get a disproportionate amount of criminals?

I know you don't think Mexicans are inherently more criminal in nature than Americans, right?

So wouldn't the ratio of criminal/deadbeat be the same coming in from Mexico as what's here in the U.S.?

[Corsair 115]

So we fence the coastline, and they come in through Canada, then we fence the Canadian border, and they come it planes, so we build a roof over the whole country ...


Perhaps it's my sarcasm detector on the fritz, but how exactly would illegal immigrants get from Mexico to Canada to then cross into the United States? It's going to require either an airplane or ship ticket, and the consequent expense, passport, and visa, in order to get to Canada from Mexico.

[CORed]

Why not do both? The cost of the fence/wall from coast to coast would be a fraction of the numbers both of us are talking about in terms of benefits and costs. And a fence can have gates, so nothing prevents allowing Mexicans (or others) into the country ON A WORK VISA (which is what the CATO study at least means by "legalize"). But at least then you get the opportunity to make sure that person doesn't have a known criminal record, isn't involved in gangs or drugs, isn't pregnant and trying to create an anchor baby, isn't bringing a bevy of kids, isn't smuggling, and you have at least some documentation that he/she has arrived, what he/she looks like and where he/she is going. What we have now is totally uncontrolled. Furthermore, under a work visa program, we could dispense with these continued calls by the democrat party that we make them all citizens. And, should they violate our laws or otherwise cause trouble and we catch them, we'd have a chance of deporting them and then not having them run right back across the border as they now do over and over.

For a change, you are making some sense here. But why are you so dead set against allowing Mexican immigrants to become citizens, if they want to? Wouldn't that give them more incentive to assimilate into our society? I'm not suggesting that citizenship be automatic, but if a legal immigrant on a work visa is productive and law-abiding, why shouldn't they have the opportunity to apply for citizenship? Besides, do you really think you can prevent people who come here to work them from having "anchor babies"?

[CORed]

Perhaps it's my sarcasm detector on the fritz, but how exactly would illegal immigrants get from Mexico to Canada to then cross into the United States? It's going to require either an airplane or ship ticket, and the consequent expense, passport, and visa, in order to get to Canada from Mexico.

Well, I'm being a little bit sarcastic, but it's my understanding that a significant portion of illegal immigrants in this country already come in legally and overstay their visas. They don't all come from Mexico, even though Mexicans are the largest group and the group that certain people seem to get the most upset about. I just think that "securing the borders" is probably one of the least effective ways to limit immigration, if limiting immigration is even a desirable thing to do.

[BeAChooser]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
- From the overcrowding of transportation systems that has resulted (in certain states/cities costing billions).

show me how you figure this


Well, the logic is obvious. Significantly increasing numbers of illegals in an area can cause overcrowding of the transportation network in that area. So you need more highways to carry the people efficiently from one place to another. Or if you don't build those highways/freeways, more time will be wasted by people trying to get from place to place … and that has a significant economic and quality of life cost, too.

Look at the country as a whole. The Pew Hispanic Center estimates that in the 1980s, the illegal population started out increasing at 130,000 a year and was increasing by nearly half a million a year by 1990. Then it increased to 750,000 a year by 1995, and has stayed between 700,000 - 850,000 a year ever since. Based on those estimates, between 1980 and 1990, illegals added about 3 million total to the population and between 1990 and 2000 illegals added another 6 million. And other sources put the number of illegals flowing into the country even higher. For example, Time magazine published an estimate in 2004 that nearly 3 million illegals entered the country that year alone.

Now the population of the US grew between 1980 and 1990 by about 22 million people and between 1990 and 2000 increased by about 33 million. So at least 14% of the increase in the 80's was due to illegals and at least 20% of the increase in the 90's came from illegals (and of course that's not counting the children of illegals born here as legals). And in certain localities, the percent increase was dramatically higher than that.

Look at Los Angeles. It's population in 1980 was 2,970,000. In 1990 it was 3,500,000. That's a 12% growth rate. And in 2000 it was 3,700,000. Now Los Angeles was a major destination for illegals entering the US in the 80s. So of the 3 million that entered the country, the majority of the 500,000 increase in LA population was undoubtedly due to illegals. Likewise, of the 200,000 increase in the 90s, the majority of it was due to illegals.

This has had a profound impact on the LA transportation network. Average rush hour speeds decreased from 26 mph in 1980 to about half that today. The average LA commuter now spends over 70 hours a year in peak hour traffic. There is a cost to that. According to http://www.newgeography.com/content/001318-reducing-traffic-congestion-and-improving-travel-options-los-angeles , "considering the value of wasted time and fuel, TTI estimates the annual cost of traffic congestion in greater Los Angeles at close to $10 billion." Yet LA already has by one of the highest number of lane miles per square mile of any major city in the country.

And here's a whole article on how immigration is affecting traffic congestion: http://www.fairus.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=16917&security=1601&news_iv_ctrl=1009 . Note that it states the cost of traffic congestion in 2005 was estimated to be $78 billion dollars, up 7 percent from 2004. So I think my statement that congestion of the transportation network caused by illegal immigration is costing a few billions a year is entirely fair and probably on the low side.

And how about the added public utilities infrastructure (sewage, electricity and gas) needed to accomodate all the extra illegals? I didn't mention that before. And illegals are creating congestion not only on our roads, but in our schools, our hospitals, our prisons, our national and state parks, our beaches and other entertainment venues. And look at some of the other direct infrastructure costs not included in that $113 billion estimate.

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=86243


January 15, 2009

The United States will need $1.6 trillion to repair damage to its infrastructure from a massive influx of immigrants, a new report reveals.
In his report titled, "The Twin Crises: Immigration and Infrastructure," prominent researcher Edwin S. Rubenstein examines 15 categories of infrastructure: airports, border security, bridges, dams and levees, electricity (the power grids), hazardous waste removal, hospitals, mass transit, parks and recreation facilities, ports and navigable waterways, public schools, railroads, roads and highways, solid waste and trash, and water and sewer systems.


Surely of that amount, you would agree that illegals will be responsible for many, many billions every year. Surely.


Quote:
- The cost to society from the thousands of murders they commit each year (what's the life of an American citizen worth now days?).

Between 7 - 8 million dollars per person, IIRC based on the Statistical Value of Life calculations.

Oh please. Aren't democrats always saying every life is priceless. :rolleyes: But ok, let's use that figure.

So if we take your "thousands" at face value, then that's between 7 billion and 16 billion dollars.

No need to take my figure at face value.

Representative King concluded that 12 people are murdered a day by illegals in the US. He based his estimate on two GAO reports (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05337r.pdf and http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05646r.pdf ) on the number of incarcerated illegal aliens and the total number of incarcerated prisoners, applying the resulting percentages to the FBI's reported number of crimes in different catergories. Based on that, illegal aliens would be responsible for about 31% of the murders. A figure of 12 per day would total 4380 in a year.

Now I've previously been challenged about the reasonableness of that figure. Well, regarding murders, according to the FBI (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_03.html ), there were 17,029 offenders *identified* and 5,452 of those offenders were identified as white, while another 4,899 offenders were listed as of unknown race. If those of unknown race also had the same proportion of white/hispanic to blacks as those of known race, that would leave about 7700 white/hispanic offenders … plenty of room for less than 4380 offending illegal aliens (remember, some of these people commit multiple homicides) to have murdered 4380 people that year.

And there are other facts that suggest the estimate of 12 illegal murders a day by illegals might not be inaccurate.

According to Steven Camorata, director of research for the Center for Immigration Studies, in 2004 "roughly 17 percent of the prison population at the federal level" were illegal aliens. That is a huge percentages considering that illegals only account for about 3-6 percent of the total population.

Heather McDonald of the Center for Immigration Studies, in testimony before Congress in 2005, said that about 95% of the outstanding warrants for murder in Los Angeles targeted illegals. According to a DOJ funded study (http://www.cis.org/ImmigrantGangsAnnounce ) in Los Angeles about 60-90% of the notorious MS-13 gang are illegals. And that gang is not just in LA. MS-13 is active in 48 states and according to the same source, in one jurisdiction that was studied, Northern Virginia, some 30 to 40 percent of the gang task force case load involved illegal aliens." And gangs are one of the largest contributors to the murder rate in this country.

So if we accept that illegals kill about 4000 people a year, and used your $7 million per person figure, we're looking at an opportunity cost, just for murders alone of about $30 billion a year to out society. That's not peanuts.

How much wealth is created by illegal immigrant labor?

You already gave us an estimate for that. I'm not even challenging your estimate. What I'm doing is proving that it's but a fraction of the total costs that illegals create for our society.

Quote:
- Their connection with drug cartels, gangs and drug smuggling (would our drug and crime problem be anywhere near as serious if illegals weren't so involved in it?).

But wait, homicide rates have clearly gone down since about 1993, and in fact, violent crime and property crime have gone down since the early 90s, while illegal immigration has clearly been accelerating starting about 1993.

But not the proportion of crime due to illegals. That has been increasing, Kevin. For example ...

http://www.urban.org/publications/410366.html



Between 1991 and 1995, how and why has the number of illegal aliens entering the criminal justice system changed?

USSC (BAC - US Sentencing Commission)

- The number of illegal aliens sentenced in federal courts increased by 167 percent , compared with 13 percent for citizens. The number of legal aliens declined by 18 percent over this period.

- The share of defendants in federal courts who were illegal aliens rose from 4 percent to 11 percent while the share who were legal aliens declined from 12 percent to 9 percent.

- The number of illegal aliens sentenced increased for 89 of the 94 federal district courts, for all major offense categories, and for all major country of citizenship groups.

… snip …

- The sharp increase in the number of illegal aliens sentenced is responsible for more than half of the overall increase in the number of defendants sentenced in federal courts and 44 percent in the growth in costs of federal post-sentencing incarceration and supervision.


http://www.newswithviews.com/Kouri/jim62.htm


June 23, 2006

… snip …

after a steady annual reduction in crime, the annual FBI Uniform Crime Report reveals a slow but sure yearly increase in crime, especially violent crime. Some criminologists attribute the rise in crime to illegal aliens who come into the United States with a criminal background.


Even in places like Illinois, illegals make up a sizeable fraction of murderers. For example (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_immigration_to_the_United_States ) , in 2008 "an audit done by agents of Immigration and Customs Enforcement found that 122 of the 637 jail inmates in the Lake County, Illinois jail were of questionable immigration status. … snip … According to Lake County sheriff Mark Curran, illegal immigrants were charged with half of the 14 murders in the county.

How big is the problem?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/1738432/posts


November 12, 2006

INS/FBI Statistical Report on Undocumented Immigrants

2006 (First Quarter) INS/FBI Statistical Report on Undocumented Immigrants

CRIME STATISTICS

95% of warrants for murder in Los Angeles are for illegal aliens.

83% of warrants for murder in Phoenix are for illegal aliens.

86% of warrants for murder in Albuquerque are for illegal aliens.

75% of those on the most wanted list in Los Angeles, Phoenix and Albuquerque are illegal aliens.

… snip …

53% plus of all investigated burglaries reported in California, New Mexico, Nevada, Arizona and Texas are perpetrated by illegal aliens.

50% plus of all gang members in Los Angeles are illegal aliens from south of the border.

71% plus of all apprehended cars stolen in 2005 in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada and California were stolen by illegal aliens or “transport coyotes"

47% of cited/stopped drivers in California have no license, no insurance and no registration for the vehicle. Of that 47%, 92% are illegal aliens.

63% of cited/stopped drivers in Arizona have no license, no insurance and no registration for the vehicle. Of that 63%, 97% are illegal aliens


At the end of 2003, over a quarter million illegal aliens were being held in US jails and prisons. The GAO released a report in 2005 (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05646r.pdf ) that studied a little over 55,000 illegals who were incarcerated in US facilities in 2003. They found that those 55,000 illegals represented nearly half a million arrests. What would our crime statistics look like if you took illegals out of the picture?

And one more thing for you to consider. There is a correlation (not perfect, but good) between the size of illegal populations and crimes rates in various states. Here were the crime rates (highest is in red and note that Southern California would also be red if you split California in half) in 2002:

http://www.usillegalaliens.com/images2/image018.jpg

And here is a chart of estimated illegal (unauthorized) population as a percent of the total foreign-born population in each state (and again, if California were split in two the Southern part would be dark blue):

http://www.usillegalaliens.com/images2/image020.jpg


Quote:
- The cost of the rapes they commit (some estimates put the number of sex offenses caused by this group in the hundreds of thousands each year).

See above, and let's see some statistics.

Deborah Schurman-Kauflin of the Violent Crimes Institute of Atlanta estimated there were about a quarter million illegal immigrant sex offenders in the US between 1999 and 2006, who had an average of four victims EACH. Here's her study and what she concluded:

http://www.drdsk.com/articles.html#Illegals


After conducting a 12 month in-depth study of illegal immigrants who committed sex crimes and murders for the time period of January 1999 through April 2006, it is clear that the U.S. public faces a dangerous threat from sex predators who cross the U.S. borders illegally.

There were 1500 cases analyzed in depth. They included: serial rapes, serial murders, sexual homicides, and child molestation committed by illegal immigrants. Police reports, public records, interviews with police, and media accounts were all included. Offenders were located in 36 states, but it is clear, that the most of the offenders were located in states with the highest numbers of illegal immigrants. California was number one, followed by Texas, Arizona, New Jersey, New York, and Florida.

Based on population numbers of 12,000,000 illegal immigrants and the fact that young males make up more of this population than the general U.S. population, sex offenders in the illegal immigrant group make up a higher percentage. When examining ICE reports and public records, it is consistent to find sex offenders comprising 2% of illegals apprehended. Based on this 2% figure, which is conservative, there are approximately 240,000 illegal immigrant sex offenders in the United States.

This translates to 93 sex offenders and 12 serial sexual offenders coming across U.S. borders illegally per day. The 1500 offenders in this study had a total of 5,999 victims. Each sex offender averaged 4 victims. This places the estimate for victimization numbers around 960,000 for the 88 months examined in this study.


Here's more on that study: http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=36410 .


She found it especially disturbing that in 22 percent of all sex crimes committed by illegal immigrants, victims with physical and mental disabilities were targeted.


So how do you value the cost of that crime, Kevin? To paraphrase a Free Republic poster, how much cheap lawn care or pennies off the cost of a tomato cancel out one brutal rape by an illegal?

Here is one estimate of the cost of sexual assualts in the US overall (back in 1996):

http://www.svfreenyc.org/media/factsheets/fsht_9.pdf


“The National Institute of Justice estimates that rape and other sexual assaults of adults cause an annual minimum loss of 127 billion dollars … snip … This figure makes sexual assault the costliest crime; even higher than murder.” US Department of Justice, Victim Costs and Consequences: A New Look, 1996; Summary by Virginians Aligned Against Sexual Assault


Must be higher now. So how many of those billions can be laid on the door step of illegals? Surely more than just a few billion. Even if the rate of sex crimes by illegals is the same as the populace at large (and some contend it is higher), that would be 6% of that cost … more than $70 billion A YEAR.


Quote:
- The cost of the traffic accidents they cause (see http://www.usillegalaliens.com/impac...accidents.html ).

Legalize them!

According to that source, http://www.usillegalaliens.com/impacts_of_illegal_immigration_traffic_accidents.h tml , 5% of the population on the East Coast is Hispanic, but they are involved in 25% of fatal traffic accidents. What does legalizing them do to change this, Kevin? And how does that magically get them auto insurance? How does that magically change their personalities so they don't drink and drive as much? Again, that source notes that Hispanics have a much higher rate of DUI. How does legalizing (what you think that really means) change that?


Quote:
- The disruption they cause to what was once a primarily english speaking culture in terms of its cohesion and values.

Yeah I don't care about that.

Of course you don't. Few liberals do nowadays. What the founders set out to create in this country means nothing to you.

What's the cost?

What do you think is the eventual cost of Balkanizing a country? I assure you, it's more than a few billion. It can even spell the end to that country as history has proven time and again. There will be consequences to what is happening even if you don't want to acknowledge that. There always are.


Quote:
- The detrimental impact that non-english speaking students are having on the education system and the progress of other students' learning.

I don't know, that could be a legitimate issue. But I imagine it's at the bottom of your list because it was at the bottom of the barrel.


The order of my list had no significance. And since the future of our country rests with our children (democrats keep pontificating about that when they ask for more and more and more money for teacher unions … which just happen to be amongst the largest contributors to the democratic party), this actually is probably the most serious problem of all. Too bad you don't recognize that. But then liberals have been content with a public education system that only graduates 50% of students in the 50 largest school districts for decades. :D


Quote:
- The money they take out of our economy and send back home (some estimates put that at over $45 billion a year in 2006 alone).

Well, legalize them.

And how will that change the amount of money they send out of the country every year? Or are you planning to let all those dependents they are sending the money to into the country as well? See … that's one of the little dark secrets of the amnesty you people keep pushing.


Quote:
And don't forget the long term costs of caring for them in the future when it turns out they have neither the language or other skills necessary to succeed at more than menial jobs in the US. And when we give them amnesty on top of that. As is, we are just beginning to understand how big and unsustainable those costs will be for our own citizens. Imagine also having to take care of millions of what were illegals (thanks to amnesty … and don't think the one democrats now want would be the last) who decide to not learn much english during their lifetimes, because we allow them not to learn, and who as a result basically remain unskilled their entire lives without much in the way of savings. Here's an article on a study done by the Heritage Foundation that concluded each illegal would result in a $100,000 net annual cost to taxpayers: http://www.10news.com/news/9620142/detail.html . As they put it, the US has effectively imported "10 million high school dropouts". And that will mean the future cost of illegals will reach half a trillion dollars a year. That dwarfs any possible positive effect illegals might have on our economy.

Let me ask you this. Would you or any fellow Americans oppose caring for them if they were unskilled and helpless and elderly in Mexico? Personally I mean? Would you help them?

So you don't want to address this problem either. I see.

Tell me Kevin … is the only thing that is important to you, getting as many people into the country as soon as possible that will vote democrat in future elections? Because that is exactly what it looks like from where I'm standing. :D

[BeAChooser]

If you make crossing the border completely easy, safe, and efficient, by allowing them to come over legally, then why do we need to build the fence?

For precisely the reasons I stated. Or can't you read?

if you're against murderers, junkies, pregnant opportunists, and the like, then why aren't you arguing that we deport the perfectly legal, naturally born, or legally immigrated United States citizens who are exactly that?

Kevin ... meet .... Red Herring. And probably a few other fallacies as well.

This is a sure sign you are getting desperate in this debate. :D

[BeAChooser]

But why are you so dead set against allowing Mexican immigrants to become citizens, if they want to?

I have no problem will allowing legal Mexican immigrants to become citizens. I have no problem with legal immigration. What I object to is rewarding illegality, and that is clearly what blanket amnesty is. What I object to is the democrat party leadership wanting amnesty to occur simply because they think it would expand the number of votes they will get in future elections (and they are going to need those votes after what they've done the last 2 years). That is the naked truth of the matter.

We can decide what we are going to do with all the people that are currently illegally in the country ... but let's make that decision AFTER we have stopped the flood. And the only thing that will do that is a fence/wall. Otherwise, all we are inviting is another amnesty (or whatever) after the current one … as has already happened several times in the past 25 years. Remember, we were promised back in 1986 that the first amnesty, which gave 3 million illegals citizenship, would solve the problem. It was nothing but a pack of lies because the measures that were supposed to reduce future illegal immigration were never enacted or enforced. What do you folks think the Arizona law is all about?

Besides, do you really think you can prevent people who come here to work them from having "anchor babies"?

Sure. Don't give children born in the US of non-citizens automatic citizenship. The US is one of the only First World countries that does (Canada is the other). And don't democrats want us to be like the rest of the world … especially Europe? :D

[BeAChooser]

I just think that "securing the borders" is probably one of the least effective ways to limit immigration, if limiting immigration is even a desirable thing to do.

First, almost every country on earth limits immigration. The biggest irony of all would be if we adopted the same rules that Mexico has with regards to immigration, legal and otherwise. democrats would be screaming bloody murder.

Second, securing the borders is meant to limit ILLEGAL immigration. Why do liberals insist on dropping the term illegal from these discussions. Just to paint conservatives as against immigration in general, when they are not?

Third, on what do you case the claim that securing the borders is probably one of the least effective ways to limit illegal immigration? Can you cite any sources whatsoever, or is this claim purely your own *opinion*?

[kevinquinnyo]

BAC,

I'm going to soak in the above post and respond in time, but first:

What made you think I was a liberal?

Not that it matters, we should be critiquing the argument and not the arguer, but I can't imagine what gave you that idea. It couldn't be further from the truth.

[BeAChooser]

What made you think I was a liberal?

The only people of late that I've heard say "let people flow into the country" and advocate completely open borders have all been liberals.

Nor can I imagine how you could hold that position in the here and now and not be one.

But I apologize if you are not.

The positions that conservatives can hold sometimes surprise me. Almost as much as those liberals hold.

[marplots]

beachooser,

Are you claiming that all those people from 30 years ago should be counted as you claim? At what point would an illegal alien be an immigrant-- 10 years, 20, 30?

Secondly, how many of these folks leave again? Any? You slipped in a cumulative total that counts multiple crossing by the same person as unique and a permanent addition.

Third, have you considered that if your figures are correct, we native Americans aren't breeding enough? (0.9% real growth) Maybe we need these new people.

Fourth, if I get a child from an illegal alien family and give them the free education you are so against, how are they not a U.S. citizen by the time they grow up? After all, some of these children (using your stats) were born and raised here and are now in their mid-twenties. Is there some stain on them that won't wash away?

The crime stuff is skewed because much of the crime is between the same ethnic group, but I think you might already know that. Of course, it also doesn't consider the crimes that U.S. citizens perpetrate on resident illegal aliens.

I think you ought to consider the influx of illegal immigration a great boon. It isn't easy to convince someone to take the risks for such crappy rewards. Especially when, after being here twenty years, they and their family can get the boot back to a country where their kids can't speak the language.

[BeAChooser]

Are you claiming that all those people from 30 years ago should be counted as you claim?

The only thing I'm claiming is that if you REALLY want to get a handle on this problem, you need to stop the flow of illegals ... at least stop the vast majority of that flow ... and the only way you will reliably do that is with a fence/wall system across the southern border.

You slipped in a cumulative total that counts multiple crossing by the same person as unique and a permanent addition.

Where was that, exactly?

Third, have you considered that if your figures are correct, we native Americans aren't breeding enough? (0.9% real growth) Maybe we need these new people.

I haven't suggested immigration is bad. But why is allowing illegal immigration good? Why don't any other countries (like Mexico) allow that? And why is it good to accept millions and millions of absolutely impoverished, uneducated people, who don't even speak English? And yes, perhaps Americans aren't breeding enough. But surely you're not suggesting the best solution to that problem is to *adopt* the impoverished and uneducated.

Fourth, if I get a child from an illegal alien family and give them the free education you are so against, how are they not a U.S. citizen by the time they grow up?

Well by law they aren't (presuming they weren't born here), unless you take the steps necessary to turn them into American citizens. If you don't like that law, then change it. Don't just ignore it and expect all the rest of us to accept your decision. Because maybe we'll decide to ignore a few laws you think are important. Now if an illegal who came over and then had a child is caught, and it's decided (perhaps because they are a criminal) that illegal needs to be deported, feel free to adopt their child. That's legal.

The crime stuff is skewed because much of the crime is between the same ethnic group, but I think you might already know that.

So you are saying crimes perpetuated by illegals against illegals don't matter and have no cost. I see. :rolleyes: Perhaps that explains why the opponents of the Arizona law don't seem to care about the murders and kidnappings committed against illegals by the smugglers. :D

Of course, it also doesn't consider the crimes that U.S. citizens perpetrate on resident illegal aliens.

And how do you come to that conclusion?

I think you ought to consider the influx of illegal immigration a great boon.

Well I don't. For all the reasons stated that you simply dismiss.

[marplots]

The only thing I'm claiming is that if you REALLY want to get a handle on this problem, you need to stop the flow of illegals ... at least stop the vast majority of that flow ... and the only way you will reliably do that is with a fence/wall system across the southern border.

I think hidden in our conversation is the idea that the status quo is a problem. And not just a problem, but a serious and growing problem. If I read you right, this is the basis? That there is a problem that needs a solution?

My criticisms have been meant to show that the situation is neither as dire as your statistics imply, nor particularly a problem at all. The solutions I hear sound more like making the perfect the enemy of the good, or at least the enemy of the 'seems to work OK'.

As far as illegal immigration being bad or good, and where the law should fall, that isn't as important as the consequences. I don't think the fact that someone came here without jumping through all the hoops more than a pro forma flick of the fingers at the government. It actually seems like a bit of the lauded American independent action -- taking your future into your own hands, taking the risk and seeking opportunity in another country. I'd have to say that an illegal immigrant is showing more initiative than a lot of folks I know.

I haven't suggested immigration is bad. But why is allowing illegal immigration good? Why don't any other countries (like Mexico) allow that?

It is neither bad, nor good. That's a false dichotomy. And we cannot look to other countries for guidance on moral behavior even if it were true. I have no particular desire to "Be like Mexico" in this or many other things.

And why is it good to accept millions and millions of absolutely impoverished, uneducated people, who don't even speak English? And yes, perhaps Americans aren't breeding enough. But surely you're not suggesting the best solution to that problem is to *adopt* the impoverished and uneducated.

Well, you already accept the impoverished and uneducated who live on the dole for decades -- every time an American child is born. At least when we get adults, they can work.

I wasn't suggesting any 'solution', but rather one of the consequences that might be beneficial. There are pluses and minuses to any policy.

Well by law they aren't [citizens](presuming they weren't born here), unless you take the steps necessary to turn them into American citizens. If you don't like that law, then change it. Don't just ignore it and expect all the rest of us to accept your decision. Because maybe we'll decide to ignore a few laws you think are important.

Exactly, by law a child raised here from birth till adulthood, educated in U.S. schools and living in the country, watching TV, goofing off... the gamut -- is somehow less a citizen than my kids. Where's the logic in that?

As far as laws being ignored, that's common and accepted practice. It has largely been accepted practice to allow illegals 'their place' for many decades. It is the same for many misdemeanors (which illegal immigration is on a first offense) -- this puts it in the category of disorderly conduct or resisting arrest, hardly something that rises to the level of outrage I hear on the topic.

Calling them 'illegals' is factually correct, but rises to the level of a synecdoche in popular parlance. The term should be banned for use among the bevy of folks who cheat on their taxes or drive faster than the posted speed limit. The fallacy seems to be saying that it follows that someone who is 'illegal' must also be criminally-minded or a deadbeat and disallows a hard working family man. Someone who cannot get a loan to start a business and is prevented from paying legitimate income taxes (lacking a SS#).

The illegal immigration issue is a fake problem trumped up to garner support for a non-solution by fear mongering -- not a precise description of all the posts here, but certainly in the main public discourse.

[BeAChooser]

I think hidden in our conversation is the idea that the status quo is a problem.

It's not hidden at all. The Arizona Law is a shout out because the status quo has grown completely intolerable.

My criticisms have been meant to show that the situation is neither as dire as your statistics imply, nor particularly a problem at all.

And my detailed response to your criticisms has shown you are wrong. Net costs on the order of at least a 100 billion dollars a year, thousands of murders each year, countless rapes each year, and all the other concerns I noted can be described as a "dire" situation. And to suggest it isn't even a problem "at all" is simply delusional. But then the response from liberals that we've seen of late to many of America's problems can only be described as delusional? Why should we expect them to be any different with regards to this issue?

It is neither bad, nor good.

Illegal immigration is neither good nor bad? Is this just another example of the liberal disease called moral equivalence?

And we cannot look to other countries for guidance on moral behavior even if it were true.

Why not? We have a President who has allowed (and applauded) a Mexican leader telling us how wrong we are about immigration policies. I can only think that President thinks the Mexicans have a better immigration policy. So let's just adopt theirs. :D

Well, you already accept the impoverished and uneducated who live on the dole for decades -- every time an American child is born.

What a COMPLETE crock. You know full well that is not what I was talking about. The illogical depths to which you people will now go to defend illegal immigration is simply stunning.

Exactly, by law a child raised here from birth till adulthood, educated in U.S. schools and living in the country, watching TV, goofing off... the gamut -- is somehow less a citizen than my kids. Where's the logic in that?

If he wasn't born in this country, yes. And if that's illogical, then almost the entire world is even more illogical … because they do not call children of illegals born in their countries citizens. It's hypocritical that liberals want us to be like the rest of the world in so many ways … in health care, in foreign policy, etc … but not in how we deal with illegal immigration.

As far as laws being ignored, that's common and accepted practice.

Like I said, the illogical depths to which you people will now go to defend illegal immigration is simply stunning. And frightening. Or at least the average American should be frightened by what you suggest. You liberals don't believe in the rule of law. In fact, you stopped believing about the time Clinton became president.

Calling them 'illegals' is factually correct, but rises to the level of a synecdoche in popular parlance.

That's a mighty fancy word. You one of those Haaaavaaarrrrrd leftists? :D

The illegal immigration issue is a fake problem trumped up to garner support for a non-solution by fear mongering

You just keep telling yourself that until November. :D

[marplots]

It's not hidden at all. The Arizona Law is a shout out because the status quo has grown completely intolerable.

Just so, there is a faction in Arizona that wants harder enforcement of existing laws. Are they going to do what you suggested though and build a fence? It would be an excellent test case. We could see what it accomplishes and what it does not.

And my detailed response to your criticisms has shown you are wrong. Net costs on the order of at least a 100 billion dollars a year, thousands of murders each year, countless rapes each year, and all the other concerns I noted can be described as a "dire" situation. And to suggest it isn't even a problem "at all" is simply delusional. But then the response from liberals that we've seen of late to many of America's problems can only be described as delusional? Why should we expect them to be any different with regards to this issue?

But I think your costs list leaves out many benefits. For instance, a simple one might be the sales tax illegal aliens pay on goods they purchase in the U.S. or the savings we enjoy by having cheap labor. But those are just monetary costs and you lump moral costs in as well.

Your solution to reducing murder and rape is to send murderers and rapists to Mexico? Why stop with illegals? By your logic, we should ship all criminals out. And if you want a moral dimension, shouldn't you be happy that the impoverished have a chance to breathe the free air and have the opportunities that the U.S. can provide them? And how does shipping people back to Mexico reduce murders and rapes? Oh, I get it, you mean murders and rapes of people here in the U.S. not overall.

There are many degrees between dire problem and no problem at all. The question is whether we should spend the resources to address this problem instead of that and what the consequences of a fence might be, both foreseen and possible unintended consequences. I am happy to see a few websites where you can donate to private/non-profit fence building operations. This might be a good way to get it done without relying on my tax dollars. I don't see a problem with that at all.

Illegal immigration is neither good nor bad? Is this just another example of the liberal disease called moral equivalence?

The way we frame the issue does impact the solutions we will allow. If it is a question of good or bad instead of a choice between political policies then the proper court is with the ethicists and not the legislators. I am not sure what the religious ruling may be on this but I'm pretty sure they don't allow policies against a whole class of people when some members are criminal or immoral. I think the idea is to convert them to more moral ways of behavior, but I could be wrong.


Why not? We have a President who has allowed (and applauded) a Mexican leader telling us how wrong we are about immigration policies. I can only think that President thinks the Mexicans have a better immigration policy. So let's just adopt theirs. :D

I guess if we did, we wouldn't build a fence, would we? I don't know what the Mexican immigration policy is, there might be some good points to it.

It's hypocritical that liberals want us to be like the rest of the world in so many ways … in health care, in foreign policy, etc … but not in how we deal with illegal immigration.

So, which country's model do you favor? And how does it differ from our own? I am not particularly informed about immigration policies in other countries, although I happened to look into Canada's which seemed pretty fair. What are the policies that other countries are adopting that include a fence? We could look at the 'before fence' condition and compare it to the 'after fence' condition.

That's a mighty fancy word. You one of those Haaaavaaarrrrrd leftists? :D

I wish. Who wouldn't want a degree from a prestigious university? But I'm just a freelance writer, I don't have any political science cred.


You just keep telling yourself that until November. :D

If you mean until an election changes the makeup of congress, I'm all for it. I think 'balance of power' requires a regular and thorough shakeup. I don't think having a conservative majority will get you the fence though. It didn't the last time. Doing anything concrete on the issue is about as popular as 'fixing social security'. It's a good way to identify like-thinkers and get votes, but there's no political will to actually do much.

I wonder if Regan's policies might resurface -- you might remember that one of his key principles was the realization that immigrant workers are a key and vital component of the US economy. Ya, that's right, Reganomics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaganomics).

[T.A.M.]

First, almost every country on earth limits immigration. The biggest irony of all would be if we adopted the same rules that Mexico has with regards to immigration, legal and otherwise. democrats would be screaming bloody murder.

Second, securing the borders is meant to limit ILLEGAL immigration. Why do liberals insist on dropping the term illegal from these discussions. Just to paint conservatives as against immigration in general, when they are not?

Third, on what do you case the claim that securing the borders is probably one of the least effective ways to limit illegal immigration? Can you cite any sources whatsoever, or is this claim purely your own *opinion*?

Please explain to me how CANADA is doing anything different then the USA with respect to Illegal immigration? While you are at it, explain how Canada is any more severe in terms of their Legal Immigration.

Beyond that, even if the USA is more lenient, it is your country with the plaque that reads....

"Give me your tired, your poor,

Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,

The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.

Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,

I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

Of course, you might not agree with the plaque...that is a personal thing.

TAM:)

[BeAChooser]

Please explain to me how CANADA is doing anything different then the USA with respect to Illegal immigration?

As I noted in post #103, Canada is the only other First World country that gives the children of illegals born in the country automatic citizenship. In that we are similar.

But what about in other ways?

Canada's illegal immigration problem is only a tiny fraction the size of ours. Where some 3 to 6 percent of our population is now here illegally, the Canadian government estimates there are only between 50,000 and 200,000 people illegally in Canada. That's just 0.1-0.6 percent of its population. A tiny fraction.

As to how Canada treats them, in 2006, Canada's border agency had more than 9000 illegals incarcerated in its facilities, and another 3000 in provincial cells, in conditions that it's own auditors found did not meet standards for detainees. If the US detained the same proportion of illegals for being here illegally, it would have upwards of 3 million illegals in jail … for being illegal. That, of course, is not the case. Not even close. As lax as Canada is, it's still a lot better at keeping track of and rounding up illegals.

And despite the tiny illegal problem in Canada, can an illegal immigrant walk into an ER/hospital and get free treatment? Generally no. In the US, illegals can not only do that but they also get free pre-natal health care, hospital care during delivery, and post-natal care? No, to get free health care in Canada, I guess they have to resort to fake health cards and IDs, like they did in these cases: http://www.nowpublic.com/world/3-000-illegal-immigrants-used-fake-quebec-health-cards-report and http://hogtownfront.blogspot.com/2007/04/york-region-police-break-up-massive.html .

So don't try and preach to us about Canada's treatment of illegals.

Any other questions?

While you are at it, explain how Canada is any more severe in terms of their Legal Immigration.

This thread isn't about legal immigration.

[BeAChooser]

there is a faction in Arizona that wants harder enforcement of existing laws.

Just "a fraction"? :rolleyes:

Are they going to do what you suggested though and build a fence? It would be an excellent test case. We could see what it accomplishes and what it does not.

We already have good test cases that show what a fence can accomplish. Look at the Israeli experience. Or look at what happened in San Diego. In 1993, prior to building a multiple layer fence system along a 14 mile stretch of San Diego, they deployed a significant number of border guards to stem the tide. And in 1993 alone, they caught over 100,000 illegals in that one small stretch (with hundreds of thousands estimated to have made it past the guards). But after they built a fairly simple three fence system, the number apprehended dropped to just 5000 a year with very few actually getting past the system (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5326083). So this argument of yours is just another dishonest tactic to delay what we already KNOW works.

But I think your costs list leaves out many benefits. For instance, a simple one might be the sales tax illegal aliens pay on goods they purchase in the U.S. or the savings we enjoy by having cheap labor.

First, the argument that we should overlook illegalities that economically benefit the country is specious at best. There are many illegal activities that one might conclude could benefit the country economically that we don't allow and stringently enforce.

Second, you are just plain wrong. Tax and GDP growth benefits were already included in estimates of benefits provided by your side in this thread.

In fact, the authors of the $113 billion dollar cost estimate I cited looked at the estimated tax collections from illegals (both those in the above and underground economy) and concluded

http://www.fairus.org/site/News2/708226221?page=NewsArticle&id=23190&security=1601&news_iv_ctrl=1761


Those receipts do not come close to the level of expenditures and, in any case, are misleading as an offset because over time unemployed and underemployed U.S. workers would replace illegal alien workers.


Here's their report: http://www.fairus.org/site/DocServer/USCostStudy_2010.pdf?docID=4921 . It states that


Next we look at the offsetting taxes collected at the state and local level from the illegal alien population. This is not a true one-to-one offset in the sense that there would not be a proportionate drop in tax collections if the illegal alien were not present. This is true because unemployed and underemployed American workers would fill many of the jobs made available by departing illegal alien workers and this would tend to reduce fiscal outlays for social welfare expenditures on the American workers and it would increase tax collections to have fewer workers paid in cash with no tax withholding. Further, the amount of locally earned money spent locally rather than sent out of the country in remittances would benefit local sales, tax collection, manufacturing and job growth.


It goes on to note that


llegal aliens are not typical taxpayers. First, the large proportion of illegal aliens that works in the underground economy avoids income tax withholding. Second, because illegal aliens are largely poorly educated and poorly skilled their earnings are on average significantly lower. The low earnings level is also likely to result in those illegal aliens employed in the above-ground economy being able to draw money from the state treasuries — rather than contributing taxes — where tax credit provisions exist.


And it notes this:


Even when compared to American workers who have only — or less than — a high school education, illegal alien workers will differ in their tax payment profile. One reason for this is that they likely will have family members living abroad to whom they send money, i.e., remittances. That reduces their disposable income. Illegal aliens are also more likely to live in a multi-family dwelling arrangement which means that their share of property tax contributions is reduced. Similarly, illegal aliens are less likely to be able to obtain legal driver’s licenses, afford a motor vehicle plus insurance and upkeep, and are therefore more likely to use public transport, which represents a cost to local government in the form of operating subsidies. Finally, in areas with many illegal aliens, there is likely to be a significant untaxed barter economy. All of these factors contribute to a lower level of tax contribution among the illegal alien population than among any segment of the legal resident population.


And the total dollar amount in federal and state tax revenues collected from illegals each year based on what appears to be a quite rational analysis is about $13 billion a year, 10% of the direct costs they found.

And all told the benefits perhaps, might, possibly, if I give your side the benefit of the doubt where GDP benefits are concerned, total a couple hundred billion dollars a year over the next 10 years. But I've already listed costs that currently total far more than that per year, without even including the cost of all those murdered by illegals each year (and keep in mind that every once in a while a liberal will tell us that each human life is *priceless*).

So your argument is seriously flawed. :D


Your solution to reducing murder and rape is to send murderers and rapists to Mexico?

No, my solution to the murder and rapes caused by illegals in this country is to keep those illegals in Mexico in the first place. If they rape and murder there, that's Mexico's problem, as it should be.

Why stop with illegals? By your logic, we should ship all criminals out.

No, my logic doesn't suggest this at all. The desperation of your side is evident in the red herrings and strawmen you are now spouting.

And if you want a moral dimension, shouldn't you be happy that the impoverished have a chance to breathe the free air and have the opportunities that the U.S. can provide them?

If you need to feel good about yourself, you go right ahead and donate all your money to cover the cost of feeding, housing and otherwise caring for all the illegals that you want to be allowed in this country. Don't try to transfer your feelings of guilt to me.

There are many degrees between dire problem and no problem at all.

Sorry, but you suggested that illegal immigration is not as dire as my statistics imply, "nor particular a problem at all". So you obviously feel it is a lot closer to "no problem at all" than a dire problem. And I think that's purely delusional considering all the facts I've listed on this thread which you haven't successfully disputed.

I am happy to see a few websites where you can donate to private/non-profit fence building operations.

Well I'd be happy to see a few websites where you can take care of the cost of illegals by donating your own money instead of trying to get the rest of us to pay for your feelings of guilt.

And just for the record, there are private efforts to build fencing along the border. For example, http://www.borderfenceproject.com/ . And you know what the response of the left and Obama administration is to this? Tear down that fence. It's racist. :rolleyes:


Quote:
Illegal immigration is neither good nor bad? Is this just another example of the liberal disease called moral equivalence?

The way we frame the issue does impact the solutions we will allow.

LOL! So I guess you aren't denying that your approach reflects the liberal disease of moral equivalence … being unable to distinguish between right and wrong, evil and good, or even degrees of those things. :D

I am not sure what the religious ruling may be on this but I'm pretty sure they don't allow policies against a whole class of people

LOL! So illegals are now a "class" of people? Is this "class" entitled to the same rights as "citizens", as "blacks", as "women", as "gays"?


Originally Posted by BeAChooser
I can only think that President thinks the Mexicans have a better immigration policy. So let's just adopt theirs.

I guess if we did, we wouldn't build a fence, would we? I don't know what the Mexican immigration policy is, there might be some good points to it.


LOL! Talk about speaking from a position of ignorance. Here is a good summary of current Mexican immigration laws:

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=14632


Mexico welcomes only foreigners who will be useful to Mexican society:

- Foreigners are admitted into Mexico "according to their possibilities of contributing to national progress." (Article 32)

- Immigration officials must "ensure" that "immigrants will be useful elements for the country and that they have the necessary funds for their sustenance" and for their dependents. (Article 34)

- Foreigners may be barred from the country if their presence upsets "the equilibrium of the national demographics," when foreigners are deemed detrimental to "economic or national interests," when they do not behave like good citizens in their own country, when they have broken Mexican laws, and when "they are not found to be physically or mentally healthy." (Article 37)

- The Secretary of Governance may "suspend or prohibit the admission of foreigners when he determines it to be in the national interest." (Article 38)

Mexican authorities must keep track of every single person in the country:

- Federal, local and municipal police must cooperate with federal immigration authorities upon request, i.e., to assist in the arrests of illegal immigrants. (Article 73)

- A National Population Registry keeps track of "every single individual who comprises the population of the country," and verifies each individual's identity. (Articles 85 and 86)

- A national Catalog of Foreigners tracks foreign tourists and immigrants (Article 87), and assigns each individual with a unique tracking number (Article 91).

Foreigners with fake papers, or who enter the country under false pretenses, may be imprisoned:

-Foreigners with fake immigration papers may be fined or imprisoned. (Article 116)

- Foreigners who sign government documents "with a signature that is false or different from that which he normally uses" are subject to fine and imprisonment. (Article 116)

Foreigners who fail to obey the rules will be fined, deported, and/or imprisoned as felons:

- Foreigners who fail to obey a deportation order are to be punished. (Article 117)

- Foreigners who are deported from Mexico and attempt to re-enter the country without authorization can be imprisoned for up to 10 years. (Article 118)

- Foreigners who violate the terms of their visa may be sentenced to up to six years in prison (Articles 119, 120 and 121). Foreigners who misrepresent the terms of their visa while in Mexico -- such as working with out a permit -- can also be imprisoned.

Under Mexican law, illegal immigration is a felony. The General Law on Population says,

- "A penalty of up to two years in prison and a fine of three hundred to five thousand pesos will be imposed on the foreigner who enters the country illegally." (Article 123)

- Foreigners with legal immigration problems may be deported from Mexico instead of being imprisoned. (Article 125)

- Foreigners who "attempt against national sovereignty or security" will be deported. (Article 126)

Mexicans who help illegal aliens enter the country are themselves considered criminals under the law:

- A Mexican who marries a foreigner with the sole objective of helping the foreigner live in the country is subject to up to five years in prison. (Article 127)

- Shipping and airline companies that bring undocumented foreigners into Mexico will be fined. (Article 132)

All of the above runs contrary to what Mexican leaders are demanding of the United States.


Furthermore Mexico's Constitution states that:


"Foreigners may not in any way participate in the political affairs of the country."


Imagine that.

And to belong to the National Navy or the Air Force, be a deputy, be a Senator, be a Minister of the Supreme Court, be a governor, be minister of any religion in Mexico to Mexican citizens, be a Secretary or be President you must be a "Mexican citizen by birth. In fact, the President of Mexico must be "the son of Mexican parents by birth".

And get this, marsplot. Article 27 states:

"Only Mexicans by birth or naturalization and Mexican companies have the right to acquire ownership of lands, waters, and their appurtenances, or to obtain concessions for the exploitation of mines or of waters. The State may grant the same right to foreigners, provided they agree before the Ministry of Foreign Relations to consider themselves as nationals in respect to such property, and bind themselves not to invoke the protection of their governments in matters relating thereto; under penalty, in case of noncompliance with this agreement, of forfeiture of the property acquired to the Nation. Under no circumstances may foreigners acquire direct ownership of lands or waters within a zone of one hundred kilometers along the frontiers and of fifty kilometers along the shores of the country."


Those are VERY restrictive constraints on not just illegal immigrants, but all immigrants. So go ahead, marplots, you pick out the "good points" in that. And while you think about that, let me point out the following as well.

In 2000, Mexico deported over 150,000 illegals along it's southern border. In the first six months of 2005, Mexico deported more than 120,000 illegals back to their countries of origin in Central America. And that's just those from Central America. They also deported people back to Eastern Europe, Asia and South America. In all of 2004, we deported a total 150,000. In 2007, Mexico deported nearly 50,000 Guatemalans alone. I guess we should thank them since most of those Guatemalans were on the way here. In fact, there was quite a scandal when they deported 50 Mexican citizens southward, because they thought they were Guatemalans (http://www.latinola.com/story.php?story=3356 ). You think about that.


So, which country's model do you favor?


I like the model we used to have in this country. Although you realize that the provision of giving citizenship to anyone born in the US (birthright citizenship) was adopted at a time when illegal immigration was not a problem at all. So maybe we should reconsider that one.

I happened to look into Canada's which seemed pretty fair.

You might want to read my post to TAM above. Because if we did treated illegal immigrants the way Canadians do, you'd be very upset.

What are the policies that other countries are adopting that include a fence? We could look at the 'before fence' condition and compare it to the 'after fence' condition.

Most other countries haven't needed a fence either because their geography protected them from huges numbers of poor and uneducated people, their economies and social system are so bad that few want to sneak in, or because they, unlike us, have actually enforced their immigration laws and deported offenders. The fence is now a last resort because our politico's, especially democrats, have shown a complete unwillingness to enforce even the existing laws against illegal immigration.


Who wouldn't want a degree from a prestigious university?

Parents who don't want their kids indoctrinated with radical leftisms? :D

I don't think having a conservative majority will get you the fence though.

Except the people who will be replacing those ousted in Washington, aren't going to be like the last crop of Republican leaders. In case you haven't heard, many of them are getting thrown out of office this year, too.

I wonder if Regan's policies might resurface -- you might remember that one of his key principles was the realization that immigrant workers are a key and vital component of the US economy. Ya, that's right, Reganomics.

LOL! That's ReAgan, Mr liberal. And Reagan would never have dreamed of doing to Arizona what democrats and Obama are now doing.

Furthermore, the immigration problem that Reagan faced was small compared to what we now face. In just a 4 years timespan, we will see an increase in numbers greater than the total number of illegals that Reagan's America had within it's borders.

I suspect the problem is that you know a whole lot less about Reagan and his policies, vis a vis illegal immigration, then you think you do. So why don't you take this little true/false quiz:

1. The Reagan Amnesty granted a blanket Amnesty to Illegal Aliens.

2. The Reagan Amnesty granted automatic citizenship to Illegal Aliens.

3. The Reagan Amnesty granted citizenship to some Illegal Aliens.

4. The Reagan Amnesty granted automatic permanent residence (green cards) to Illegal Aliens.

5. The Reagan Amnesty granted immediate permanent residence (green cards) to some Illegal Aliens.

6. The Reagan Amnesty was granted to Illegal Aliens, free of charge.

Got your answers written down?

Well if you answered TRUE to any of those, you FAIL the quiz.

Because the Reagan "amnesty" was only for admission to "temporary residence". And there were conditions on eligibility for even that. Certain residency requirements, no felony convictions, less than three misdemeanor convictions, medical examinations. To get permanent residence, they first had to be legalized as temporary workers, then apply between 18 and 30 MONTHS after being granted that temporary status. And then wait. And there were fees to be legalized as a temporary resident. And above all else, the deal that was struck in order to pass the "amnesty" included provisions to bring illegal immigation to an end such as harsh penalties on employers hiring illegals and a 50% increase in the number of border guards. But then, democrats stripped some of these provision from the bill. Here's what Reagan said at the signing of the 1986 bill:


Future generations of Americans will be thankful for our efforts to humanely regain control of our borders and thereby preserve the value of one of the most sacred possessions of our people: American citizenship.


So I don't think you know Reagan's views at all. And I think being the pragmatist that he was, if he now faced the problem we face, even though he didn't like the idea of fences or walls, he might support the building of one across our southern border. If nothing else, he would demand we fix the border before any additional thoughts of amnesty. :D

[marplots]

Ha! I misspelled Reagan. Excellent.

Shows I really didn't go to Harvard.

[marplots]

I think we may have stumbled on an area of agreement. First, thank you for posting the Mexican laws, it was interesting reading.

I agree with you that we might adopt a Mexico style of immigration law. And I think this might address many of your concerns short of building a fence. How's that? Do we agree on this at least?

With all the apparent damage illegal immigration is causing, perhaps harsher, Mexican style laws are the way to go. It would allow us to see what the true effects of less migration back and forth will be without the cost of a fence. We could watch to see crime drop and savings in the economy -- or not. It would be a good way to see how things go.

[BeAChooser]

I agree with you that we might adopt a Mexico style of immigration law. And I think this might address many of your concerns short of building a fence. How's that? Do we agree on this at least?

So you want to make it illegal for anyone but a US citizen to own property (for starters)? :rolleyes:

With all the apparent damage illegal immigration is causing, perhaps harsher, Mexican style laws are the way to go.

Any evidence it has worked in Mexico? I think you don't want a fence precisely because you know it would work while the sort of laws Mexico has in place don't. :D

[marplots]

Sure, no one but U.S. citizens can own property (real estate)... and U.S. registered corporations of course... and U.S. registered trusts -- which is how U.S. citizens own property in Mexico in the exclusion zones.

But getting back to the fence. I've seen some interesting prices out there:
http://articles.sfgate.com/2007-01-08/bay-area/17225174_1_border-fence-border-patrol-arrests-san-diego-border gives either $3million per mile or $9 million per mile.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/security/systems/mexico-wall.htm $1Million a mile for San Diego style fencing.

http://www.borderfenceproject.com/ a high of 4.5 million a mile to a low of $25,000 per mile

We could do a couple hundred miles, guessing with maintenance and repair, maybe a billion dollars? Good test case. No problem. That would get you the entire California border with Mexico.

And along with that, stick with Bush's plan: (from the global security site above)
As long as the per-capita income differential between the US (over $30,000) and Mexico (less than $4,000) continues to be so wide, it will be difficult to stop immigrants. President Bush's guest-worker proposal would have created a legal means -- a renewable three-year work visa -- for new immigrants to enter the country and take jobs that Americans don't want. Illegal immigrants already living here would become eligible for guest-worker status after paying a fine.

There's nothing like an experiment to see what actually happens. And not like the San Diego experiment that just shifted all the crossings East and didn't change much.

[BeAChooser]

But getting back to the fence. I've seen some interesting prices out there:

As I noted earlier, even at $10 million per mile it would still be a great deal. That's just $20 billion to fence the border ... while illegal immigration is costing us NET well over a $100 billion EVERY SINGLE YEAR.

There's nothing like an experiment to see what actually happens. And not like the San Diego experiment that just shifted all the crossings East and didn't change much.

But why did those crossing shift east if fences are so easy to defeat? ;)

[marplots]

I don't know. I'd guess that traveling East is easier? Is someone asking these people? Seems like you'd get a lot of good information just by interviewing illegals and see what they think about it.

I actually don't support a fence, but I don't see why a project like I described wouldn't give some additional information. Especially if we can get it on the cheap. After all, who wouldn't want better information?

POC -- proof of concept. Generally a good idea. Isn't that, after all, why we don't think a 'virtual fence' works very well?

[BeAChooser]

I actually don't support a fence

You think I didn't figure that out? :)

, but I don't see why a project like I described wouldn't give some additional information.

Of course a project to build a couple hundred miles of properly designed multiple (two and three layer) fence system along the border would provide additional information. That goes without saying. In fact, Congress (at the urging of the American people) overwhelmingly passed a bill funding just such a project in 2006.

It called for DHS to complete construction of 300 miles of double fencing by December 31, 2008. It also required contruction of 700 miles of fencing along the border with no specific deadline for completion. DHS set the goal of completing 670 miles by December 2008. But unfortunately, in 2007 an amendment was placed (by democrats) in the 2007 omnibus spending bill that eliminated the double fencing requirement. It gave the head of DHS (and hence his/her boss) the power to do whatever they like, instead. So guess what? Instead of building a multiple-fence system of the type recommended by proponents (and known to work), the Bush and Obama administrations defied the will of the people and built only single fence systems (and half of what they built only prevents vehicles from crossing the border). In fact, only about 34 miles of double fence system was ever built (http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=37025 ).

The DHS is so bold about it's lies that in 2009, Napolitano claimed ((http://www.chicagodefender.com/article-6714-napolitano-pronounces-us-border-more-secure-now.html ) that 600 miles of fencing had been built and that as a result our border was more secure … so secure that she said it's time to move towards giving the millions of illegals already in the country citizenship. Both are lies. Neither 600 miles of fence was built, nor is the border more secure now then it was in 2005.

And the fact is that most of the "new fence" they are taking credit for was built under Bush. The fact is that Obama administration stopped the building of fences (of any kind) almost entirely. The fact is that almost none of the fence that was built is of the multiple fence type which was recommended by fence proponents. And that is despite sufficient money being allocated by Congress to build such fences. No, the funds were diverted to a stupid virtual fence which this thread notes (and the government has now admitted) has been a monumentally costly failure.

So don't expect people like me to believe you folks are serious now. Don't expect us to be fooled twice. The fact is that multiple fence/wall systems have already been shown to work in various areas of the world. Here's one separating Morocco from the Spanish city of Melilla (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melilla_border_fence ). And as noted, "so far the new fence has succeeded in deterring new massive intrusions and the subsaharian camp sites in the buffer zone have mostly disbanded." So it's time to authorize and fund one here. Else we will just see another 10 million illegals enter the country while you folks dilly and dally another 5 years. But then that's your goal, isn't it? :mad:

[marplots]

Selectively quoted for dramatic effect:

So don't expect people like me to believe you folks are serious now. Don't expect us to be fooled twice.... So it's time to authorize and fund one here. Else we will just see another 10 million illegals enter the country while you folks dilly and dally another 5 years. But then that's your goal, isn't it? :mad:

As much as I'd like to take credit for the collective, "folks", I don't get the conspiracy memos, so I'm just winging it. If others agree, good on them.

I also don't have any overarching goal in mind, although I'd be curious to know what the goal of no fence is supposed to be.

As far as congressional funding goes, they funded it and then backdoored a way to unfund it? Sounds normal. The case is going to be tougher without the political will to build a fence though. Is this one of those coalitions where the farmers and the human rights folks are on the same side of the issue for different reasons? Hard coalition to stop.

[BeAChooser]

I'd be curious to know what the goal of no fence is supposed to be.

Why, to get more people into the country who will vote democrat, of course.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/63187


Bottom line: [b]The more immigrants in an electoral district, the more grim the GOP’s prospects. Consider a few of the largest counties in the nation.

Between 1980 and 2008, Los Angeles, No. 1, grew by 2.5 million to 10 million people. The immigrant share went from 22 percent to 41 percent. Over those decades, the GOP share of the presidential vote fell from 52 percent in Ronald Reagan’s rout of Jimmy Carter to 29 percent for John McCain. 


Orange County, the bastion of Barry Goldwater conservatism, saw its population rise from 1.9 million in 1980 to 3.2 million in 2008, with the immigrant share rising from 13 percent to 34 percent. Reagan swept Orange County with 68 percent. McCain got 50 percent. 



Consider Cook County, the nation’s second largest. While Cook grew by 350,000 from 1980 to 2008, the character of Chicago changed, with the immigrant share of the population rising from 12 percent to 25 percent. In those 28 years, the GOP share of the presidential vote fell from 40 percent to 23 percent.

In Kings County (Brooklyn), the immigrant share of the population rose from 24 percent to 44 percent and the Republican share of the presidential vote plummeted from 38 percent to 20 percent.

… snip …

According to CIS, of recent immigrants who became citizens by 2008, by 55-30 they identified as Democrats. Among immigrants who have not yet become citizens, 70 percent identify as Democrats, 15 percent as Republicans. The sooner Democrats get them naturalized, registered and voting, the sooner the bell tolls for the Grand Old Party.


The democratic party sees the potential of 12 to 20 million instantaneous new democratic voters in the amnesty of illegals. And the more that get in before that happens, the better. And when that happens, this will effectively become a one-party nation. With socialists and communists in control.

[marplots]

So it falls under party lines then? But your cite about the funding and then taking away the funding happened under Republican control, so I'm confused by that part.

I could buy an economic reason more than a political one -- or a combination of economic and political. Like farmers and construction wanting cheap labor coupled with social justice ideas from the Dems.

If I had to identify an anti-illegals party, I'd have to go with Libertarian.

I do like the Reagan idea of 3-year renewable work visas and better enforcement over a fence though. It gives an incentive for those who are mere instruments of migration because of economic realities to register and the rest, who are not helping, to get tagged and returned.

By the way, worst case, we could absorb the entire population of Mexico (the country) without too much trouble. If we did so, the end result would be only 1/4 of our new demographic being Mexican. So, yes, I do think the problem is exaggerated.

[excaza]

I wonder if they'd use illegal immigrants to build the 'real' fence

[BeAChooser]

By the way, worst case, we could absorb the entire population of Mexico (the country) without too much trouble.

Show of hands! How many readers believe marplots? :D

If we did so, the end result would be only 1/4 of our new demographic being Mexican. So, yes, I do think the problem is exaggerated.

The population of Mexico is about 120 million people. The current estimated Hispanic population of the US is nearly 50 million of which about 64% are from Mexico. Out of about 310 million. So if you added 120 million and 64% of 50 million, you get about 150 million out of 430 million which is over 1/3rd the new demographic. Furthermore current average per capita GDP of Mexico is about $13,500. So dropping those people in the US pool where the average per capita GDP is currently about $44,500, would lower our per capita GDP to about $35,500. I'd say that a pretty serious hit. Not to mention bringing in all the other problems that Mexico is currently plagued with.

So do you have any other astute ideas to bring to the table?

[BeAChooser]

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_BORDER_DEATHS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2010-07-16-16-25-51


July 16 [2010]

PHOENIX (AP) -- The number of deaths among illegal immigrants crossing the Arizona desert from Mexico is soaring so high this month that the medical examiner's office that handles the bodies is using a refrigerated truck to store some of them, the chief examiner said Friday.

Gee, don't the anti-fence people care?

[marplots]

Show of hands! How many readers believe marplots? :D

The population of Mexico is about 120 million people. The current estimated Hispanic population of the US is nearly 50 million of which about 64% are from Mexico. Out of about 310 million. So if you added 120 million and 64% of 50 million, you get about 150 million out of 430 million which is over 1/3rd the new demographic.

I wasn't distinguishing Hispanics from other US citizens and I assumed the illegals that are here are already counted as part of the Mexican population. It gets a lot more confusing when ethnicity instead of citizenship is the target.


Furthermore current average per capita GDP of Mexico is about $13,500. So dropping those people in the US pool where the average per capita GDP is currently about $44,500, would lower our per capita GDP to about $35,500. I'd say that a pretty serious hit. Not to mention bringing in all the other problems that Mexico is currently plagued with.

So do you have any other astute ideas to bring to the table?

Well, you could look at Puerto Rico as an example. Lots of people don't leave their native land for whatever reason. Plus, we'd get their land, oil and so on as part of the mix. You are assuming that adding Mexico to the U.S. wouldn't elevate the annual income of people originally from Mexico, I don't see how that could be. After all, it would then allow them access to all the opportunities, free markets, rule of law and all the other goodies that makes the U.S. have such a high per capita income in the first place.

I wasn't really suggesting it as anything other than a throw-away; I don't think the Mexicans would be interested anyhow. But now that you've got me thinking about it, it might be a good idea.

[marplots]

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_BORDER_DEATHS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2010-07-16-16-25-51
Gee, don't the anti-fence people care?

I think you are implying that a fence is going to keep out people who are willing to die for a chance to work in the U.S. ? The same people who are risking their lives to cross a desert won't bother crossing a fence? That probably feeds into why so many don't think a fence will solve anything.

It might save lives in this way though -- if there is a fence along a good portion of the border and less enforcement in depth because of the fence, then people could cross in more hospitable locations. Places where a breach or a tunnel would place them right in a major city instead of the desert. You might have something there, I'm not sure.

[BeAChooser]

I wasn't distinguishing Hispanics from other US citizens

Well you should have, since you were talking about the demographics of Mexicans in the US. And if you are going to just lump all Hispanics into that category, perhaps America should also be ready to accept the populations of Guatemala, etc ... "without too much trouble". :rolleyes:


Well, you could look at Puerto Rico as an example.

Now you are talking about a nation of just 4.4 million people who are already US citizens that isn't much of an illegal immigration problem because it's an island. We don't need a fence there, just better monitoring of who is flying from there to the US.

You are assuming that adding Mexico to the U.S. wouldn't elevate the annual income of people originally from Mexico

No I'm not. I'm simply pointing out what will happen to US per capita GDP the moment we combine the two. What would happen to per capita GDP after that is anybody's guess. I would hazard that US per capita GDP growth would slow while we tried (perhaps unsuccessfully) to deal with the many problems Mexico has.

I wasn't really suggesting it as anything other than a throw-away

Well that much is obvious.

I don't think the Mexicans would be interested anyhow.

Why would they be when right now they are being allowed to take over the US? Their leaders even allowed to come to our Whitehouse and insult us. :D

[BeAChooser]

I think you are implying that a fence is going to keep out people who are willing to die for a chance to work in the U.S?

Yes it will, much like the Israeli wall keeps out islamofanatics who are willing to die for a chance to kill Jews (and anyone else who happens to be standing nearby).

The same people who are risking their lives to cross a desert won't bother crossing a fence?

You are assuming they are going to be able to cross it. But the examples of fences we have so far suggest very few of them will succeed. Hence, there will be far fewer people dying in the desert. Don't the anti-fence folks that would be a good thing?

breach or a tunnel

Again, you are assuming something that is not going to be easy to accomplish in a properly designed fence/wall SYSTEM.

[BeAChooser]

Here's yet another expensive, failed Federal Government program.

Back in 2006, the feds promised to build 655 miles of REAL fence along our southern border. Then they ended up spending most of the money that was allocated to that on a "virtual" fence. And here's what you go for about $833 million dollars folks:

http://www.startribune.com/nation/113623549.html?elr=KArks:DCiUMEaPc:UiacyKUnciaec8O 7EyUr


53 miles of operational "virtual fence" in Arizona for a cost of at least $15 million a mile, according to testimony in previous congressional hearings.

And even that 53 miles is porous as a sieve:

http://borderwallinthenews.blogspot.com/2010/10/costly-virtual-border-fence-in-tatters.html


The department required, for example, that the system help Border Patrol agents be in position to apprehend 90% of the incursions over the border, but the technology has achieved only a fraction of that goal.


But at least the Fed's have finally admitted the program was a failure.

So (from http://www.startribune.com/nation/113623549.html?elr=KArks:DCiUMEaPc:UiacyKUnciaec8O 7EyUr again) ...


Napolitano said the department's new technology strategy for securing the border is to use existing, proven technology tailored to the distinct terrain and population density of each region of the nearly 2,000-mile U.S-Mexico border.

LOL! It's like watching an army of marching morons. People who are Stuck On Stupid. Who can't learn from history. Just build a REAL fence system. A physical barrier. You could do that for a lot less than $15 million a mile and stop AT LEAST 90% of the influx.

Oh yes … and fire all those who were involved in this fiasco and make sure they don't come within a hundred miles of the next border security program. Anything less is dooming it to failure too. :mad:

[BeAChooser]

By the way, where can we get the money for a real coast to coast fence in these hard times? Start here:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/01/19/welfare-tab-children-illegal-immigrants-estimated-m-la-county/


Welfare benefits for the children of illegal immigrants cost America's largest county more than $600 million last year, according to a local official keeping tabs on the cost.

Los Angeles County Supervisor Michael Antonovich released new statistics this week showing social spending for those families in his county rose to $53 million in November, putting the county government on track to spend more than $600 million on related costs for the year -- up from $570 million in 2009.

[willhaven]

Nah, the government just needs to build a REAL fence.

Like this one at an average cost of $4m/mile?

XHjKBjM1ngw

[marplots]

Monkey women are hot!

[Puppycow]

LOL! It's like watching an army of marching morons. People who are Stuck On Stupid. Who can't learn from history. Just build a REAL fence system. A physical barrier. You could do that for a lot less than $15 million a mile and stop AT LEAST 90% of the influx.

Oh yes … and fire all those who were involved in this fiasco and make sure they don't come within a hundred miles of the next border security program. Anything less is dooming it to failure too. :mad:

But don't good fences make bad neighbors or something?
Oh I know! Say it's to keep guns out of Mexico! :teacher:

[Upchurch]

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/texassouthwest/stories/DN-borderfence_18tex.ART.State.Edition1.414dbb9.html
Another failed Bush program, huh? Try to imagine my shock.

[BeAChooser]

Like this one at an average cost of $4m/mile?

XHjKBjM1ngw

No, that is not the type of structure we want built. That's simple landing mat/bollard construction and is just begging to be climbed. That's just what people who really didn't want to build a fence system in the first place chose to build instead. That's the result of people with other priorities. That's the result of people who think that being able to see through the border and allowing small animals to cross it is more important than securing the border from illegal invaders. That's the result of fundamentally stupid thinking, since even the dumbest of us can see such that a fence would never be effective at preventing climbing.

What has been proposed be built … what has proven very effective when it's been tried … is a multi-fence/wall system. There are numerous alternatives.

One would be to make the outer barrier a wall that does not provide good hand holds for climbing, can not be gone through or under very easily, is too tall for most ladders, and has integral obstacles that make using ladders and what those two did in your video next to impossible. I'll discuss a couple possibilities for such a barrier later on below. In this alternative, there would be one or two additional fences/obstacles behind this other wall, designed to trap those who might manage to make it over long enough for border agents to arrive and detain them.

Another possibility is to have an outer fence that serves as a warning, obstacle and trip wire. This barrier is designed to pose an obstacle but not one that is totally insurmountable. Its primary purpose is to keep people from easily or stealthily approaching the middle barrier. It will be a mix of open fence and barbed wire. The first barrier should have features to detect people trying to scale or go through it. It will make it harder for them to bring tools, ladders or anything else to the middle barrier. And will keep large animals out of the zone between it and the second barrier, since that zone may itself be laced with sensors.

The middle barrier is of a form that does not provide good hand holds for climbing, can not be gone through or under, is too tall for most ladders, and has integral obstacles that make what those two did in your video next to impossible. In other words, a wall. This wall can mount cameras to observe both sides of the barrier, but particularly the Mexican side. There would be a road between the outer fence and this wall that border agents could access in order to detain or hinder illegal crossings. I will discuss the design of this barrier in a moment.

The third layer is another fence, to trap anyone who somehow manages to scale the second barrier long enough that guards will for sure have arrived. It need not be designed to prevent vehicle penetration but will have features to keep someone some simply climbing it or easily cutting through it. Probably a lot of barb wire (see the Israeli example below), hence, not very costly.

And yes, there will be guards observing every portion of the system 24/7 with quick reaction teams on-call to intercept invaders. You ask how many? Well, right now the US Border Patrol has over 18,000 agents deployed in the southern border. ICE employs another 20,000 people, many of whom deal with illegal immigrants who have made it past the Border Patrol. Fewer would be needed with a fence system in place.

I imagine there would be roving patrols along the fence system, day and night. But instead of agents having to cover the border to a depth of a hundred miles as they now do to round up even a fraction of the illegals (an impossible task) they'd just have to cover the fence system itself. I would imagine there would be manned outposts every 4 or 5 miles along the fence, with quick reaction forces to support the agents that constitute roving patrols and the sensor (intrusion alert) system that will be part of the fence system, and platforms to physically watch the fences in that area. That would mean about 500 such outposts. Even if you manned each of them with 5 agents at a time, in 3 eight hour shifts, you would still only need 7500 agents. Throw in another 2500 for roving patrols and vacation/down time for the agents. That would allow you to put at least 10, well-armed, well-rested agents in any given spot, day or night, along the fence in just minutes. Well within the timeframe needed to prevent a breach of the system. And under those assumptions, we could pay for building the fence system in just a few years with the savings in border patrol and ICE agents alone. :D

I think you way underestimate the difficulty of getting over, through or under a properly designed fence system. Getting past the wall will take equipment that most people do not have. And all the while the clock is ticking. Do you know that when they built a real multi-layer system in San Diego (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5326083 and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KdvnWmgySrE ) and in the Spanish city of Melilla (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melilla_border_fence ), they caught almost everyone who tried to get past it. The later article states "the new fence has succeeded in deterring new massive intrusions and the subsaharian camp sites in the buffer zone have mostly disbanded."

Now that doesn't mean a fence system will stop everyone. The purpose isn't to stop everyone. My suspicion is that it will deter perhaps 90 percent from even trying, and stop all but 5-10% percent of the rest, at minimum. In other words, it will dramatically reduce the problem from what we now have. And if it only stopped 90 percent of the flow, it would still be a huge improvement … one that would pay for itself in only a few years.

Now as to the cost cited by you, the claim the government spent about $4 million per mile on the fence in your video is based on a report by the GAO (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09244r.pdf ) that actually said:


Pedestrian fencing accounted for 140 of the miles that CBP had completed as of October 31, 2008, with costs ranging from $400,000 to $15.1 million per mile for an average of $3.9 million per mile.


Now do you know where the $15.1 million per mile figure came from? From virtual fencing.

The average cost of SBI pedestrian fencing per mile as of September 30, 2007 (with costs ranging from $400,000 to $4.8 million per mile) was actually only $2.7 million per mile. They completed 70 miles of that *fence* under what they called PF70. By October 31, 2008 they'd built another 145 miles of fence. Another 5 under PF70 and then 65 miles under PF225 (with costs from $2.8-15.1 million per mile, averaging $5.1 million per mile). PF225 included miles and miles of virtual fence at $15 million, which is what raised the cost. They also built 75 miles of vehicle fence under VF300 at an average cost of 1 million per mile. The point is not to suggest that the fence will cost lost than $4 million a mile, but just to be sure folks know that the fence they show in that video is probably not $4 million a mile fence.

Now what type of fencing is proposed for the outer or middle barrier wall? Something that will resist penetration by vehicles, be difficult to climb, prevent most tunneling attempts, be virtually impervious to cutting, and have a long life. Here are some examples of the many, already existing possibilities:

http://www.betafenceusa.com/Steel-Wall-Fence

The fence shown in the above link has numerous good characteristics (and many competitors, which helps force costs down): http://www.betafenceusa.com/fullaccess/Security%20Barrier%20Design%20Attributes.pdf . The estimated cost for such fencing?

http://www.betafenceusa.com/fullaccess/ABMImages/BorderGuardGraphics03.jpg

Let's see those 2 in your video try to climb that. ;)

Or have them try this:

http://www.instablogsimages.com/images/2010/01/10/israel_wall_tower_2_ufnlj_3868_V6mAm_19672.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/64/AbuDisWall.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3d/Israel-Palestinian_Wall_Ich_Bin_Eine_Berliner.jpg

which cost the Israelis about $5 million a mile and is 25 feet high.

Here's another example of a fencing system, courtesy of the Israelis:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_opS7ZcZqLsg/TA1Jgk21K5I/AAAAAAAAAW4/XmXjH45RO-U/s1600/fence4.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/yalop/image/22977046

And you want to talk about the effectiveness of that Israeli fence system? In 2002, the year before construction started, 457 Israelis were murdered; in 2009, 8 Israelis were killed. So fences can work, even against people determined to get through them. It's foolish to pretend otherwise.

And even if a fence/wall system costs $10-20 million per mile, it would still be a great investment … provided it stopped the bulk of illegals from entering the country at will. Because in just a few years, savings in health care, schools, welfare, law enforcement, prisons and infrastructure, not to mention Border and INS agent salaries and benefits, would more than pay for building and maintaining the fence/wall system and any guards assigned to it. And as I've already noted in this thread and others, there are many other advantages to a fence/wall system protecting our southern border. For example ...

How can any of the alternatives to a physical barrier be more reliable? How often do we hear about people in the government being bribed or being found incompetent? A fence can't be bribed. And can be fixed if found inadequate.

Would any of the alternatives you folks suggest (and I notice you haven't suggested any so far) be more easily tested? No. A barrier you can build anywhere and tested anytime. You can easily put your best, brightest, leanest, tallest, smallest and meanest against it and see what they do. If they find a defect, you can improve the barrier (before it's built). Improving human guards or electronics is not all that easy, as Boeing and the Obama administration have learned … especially if government unions and aerospace engineers are involved.

And would any of your alternatives have less impact on those in the border areas? I doubt it. Since you approaches are not going to stop illegals at the border, you must be going to try and catch them after they may have traveled tens, scores or even hundreds of miles inside the border. How can putting tens of thousands of armed personnel who will have to operate in America's backyards, on America's highways, in America's border cities, in America's wildlands, many miles inward from the border or in the middle of big cities that are near the border ever be less impactful than simply stopping 90-99% of the flood between two or three fences built right at the border? With an unfenced/unwalled or even virtually fenced border, your only alternatives are to literally militarize the southwest if you hope to catch an equivalent fraction of those who would be stopped by a fence/wall system. Or are you suggesting we just do what the Obama adminstration has now done in Arizona and erect a couple signs here and there warning American citizens not to go within a hundred miles of the border because it's become too dangerous? In essence, hand over part of the country to the drug cartels and illegals?

Will your alternatives be more humane to the illegals? No. You are going to allow illegals to go on risking their lives in the millions because they will think they can beat your armed border guards at their own game. Because they can't see a virtual fence. And even if they can see it, not knowing it's capabilities, they may still think they can beat it (which we now know they can). Many will die in American deserts, just as they do now. Many will be killed by smugglers who will take their money and lead them to nowhere, as they are now. Many will be raped and held hostage by the coyotes or drug cartels demanding more money from relatives, as they are now. Some may be killed by border agents trying to intercept them if the illegals resists. Some may pray on each other, even after they get to a neighborhood near you.

And is it humane to allow pregnant women and small children to face the dangers they do now? A pregnant woman would have a problem scaling a properly designed fence/wall. So would a child. But a few additional guards and some electronic sensors aren't going to stop them in your alternatives. So what will our government do then under your unnamed alterative ... since the child birthed by the woman automatically becomes a citizen and an anchor baby? Since it may seem unkind to deport small children. The humane thing is not to allow these people the hope of beating the system by putting a larger barrier in their path ... one not easily crossed. One that will deter folks from giving thousands of dollars to smugglers but instead spend that money on improving their lot in their own country.

Will your alternatives be less subject to the whims of the border patrol agents and current administration? No. Agents are already being corrupted, but now it's easy for them to get away with that corruption because they do so in circumstances far less controlled than a fence/wall system would be. There already are governors and mayors in California who are not enforcing immigration laws ... who are openly hostile to the notion of stopping the flow … who have even called for boycotts against anyone who suggests such a thing as enforcing existing federal immigration laws. But a real fence/wall is blind to such whims and can't be bribed.

Look at the whims of the Bush administration ... a republican administration. They promised us 10000 new guards in 2004's budget and gave us 210. Look at Obama. A bill was passed and signed into law requiring the constuction of hundreds of miles of double fence. When Obama became President he immediately stopped all construction of real fences, while his head of DHS lied to us claiming that 600 miles of fencing had been built (http://www.chicagodefender.com/article-6714-napolitano-pronounces-us-border-more-secure-now.html ). And his administration is now suing a state simply because it tried to enforce the Federal laws his administration has chosen not to enforce. We've watched the INS and border patrol catch over 1000 illegals a day ... and then promptly release 80 percent of them into our society. THAT is what I think we can expect under your alternatives. A fence, on the other hand, will be much harder for politicians and everyone else to negate the effectiveness of on a whim or for political gain.

Would your alternative cause less harm to our relationship to Mexico? No. A fence will actually reduce contacts that may lead to confrontation. A fence will make it less likely that Mexico will see America as a dumping ground for its poor. A fence will return the focus to legal immigration between the two countries. A fence will force Mexico to look to its own devices for solutions to its economic and social problems. A fence system will seriously weaken the cartels, perhaps making it possible for decent Mexicans to regain control of their own government and country.

But then, you and the other opponents of fencing on this thread didn't join in to debate this topic rationally, did you? :D

[BeAChooser]

Another failed Bush program, huh? Try to imagine my shock.

Yes, Upchurch, as pointed out in post #121, Bush did defy the will of the people and built only a small amount of double fence (34 miles) , despite the fact the original bill called for 300 miles of it. But in Bush's defence, most of the actual fence (and any kind) that was built, was built during the Bush admistration. The Obama administration stopped the building of real fences almost entirely. No, the funds were diverted to a stupid virtual fence BY OBAMA, a fence which this thread notes (and the government has now admitted) has been a monumentally costly FAILURE.

[Upchurch]

Yes, Upchurch, as pointed out in post #121, Bush did defy the will of the people and built only a small amount of double fence (34 miles) , despite the fact the original bill called for 300 miles of it. But in Bush's defence, most of the actual fence (and any kind) that was built, was built during the Bush admistration. The Obama administration stopped the building of real fences almost entirely. No, the funds were diverted to a stupid virtual fence BY OBAMA, a fence which this thread notes (and the government has now admitted) has been a monumentally costly FAILURE.

Bush fails at yet another something and it's Obama's fault? I suppose it was Obama's fault that Bush didn't catch bin Laden, too? Or to find the Iraq's dangerous supplies of WMDs?

[BeAChooser]

http://pewhispanic.org/reports/report.php?ReportID=133


Unauthorized Immigrant Population: 
National and State Trends, 2010

As of March 2010, 11.2 million unauthorized immigrants were living in the United States, virtually unchanged from a year earlier, according to new estimates from the Pew Hispanic Center, a project of the Pew Research Center. This stability in 2010 follows a two-year decline from the peak of 12 million in 2007 to 11.1 million in 2009 that was the first significant reversal in a two-decade pattern of growth.


Gee. Another indication that Obama's administration isn't serious about curtailing illegal immigration. :mad:

[marplots]

So it's reached equilibrium at about four people out of a hundred being unauthorized immigrants? I could live with that. Crisis over, get back to your normal routine.

[BeAChooser]

So it's reached equilibrium at about four people out of a hundred being unauthorized immigrants? I could live with that.

Steady? No, if you look at the plot, it's climbing. How fast, on average, we won't know until a few years from now ... assuming policy remains the same.

Second, that 4% isn't throughout the US. The Peu study found that the percentage of illegals is 7.2% in Nevada, 6.8% in California, 6.7% in Texas and 6.2% in New Jersey. Can you live with that?

Third, I'm not sure the 11 million is accurate. For one thing, it doesn't include the children of illegals ... because they are "citizens". The Peu analysis said that 8% of all births have at least one illegal immigrant parent. So obviously, the illegals are outbreeding us as well. And they are mostly impoverished children, which makes them a burden on the country as well.

Finally, the Pew analysis is based on the Census Bureau's Survey. But the Census Bureau does not ask people about their immigration status, so the *estimated* number of illegal immigrants is derived largely by subtracting the *estimated* legal immigrant population from the *estimated* foreign-born population. Seriously, do you think that a house full of illegal immigrants would provide Census workers with an accurate count of the number of people inside the house? Or that they were even found by census workers in the first place? California is now claiming an undercount of as many as 1.5 million alone. So clearly the 11 million figure is probably a lower bound on the real number.

Here's a website that notes a variety of studies and groups that suggest the real best estimate number is around 20 million illegals, with an upper bound on estimates near 40 million:

http://www.npg.org/CAPS.html


In October 2007 at a Washington press conference, however, Californians for Population Stabilization (CAPS - a nonprofit public interest organization) released reports from four of its experts variously estimating that 18 million to 38 million illegal aliens may now be in the US, with the permanent stock of illegals estimated as increasing yearly at between 1.3 million and 4.0 million.


Here's more on that CAPS report: http://www.capsweb.org/content.php?id=57 .

And there are other sources suggesting a number near 20 million is more accurate.

For example, Bear Sterns:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_immigrant_population_of_the_United_States


Bear Stearns' investigators came up with another way to attack this very difficult problem. They made the assumption that the amount of remittances (money sent back to Mexico) is directly proportional to the number of Mexican immigrants in the United States. Other data used for their estimates are the increases of households and school enrollment in Mexican immigrant communities. They conclude that the number of illegal aliens in the United States may well be twice the official number put out by the U.S. Census of 9 million and may be 20 million people or higher.

And here's another analysis: http://www.desertinvasion.us/data/invasion_numbers.html

All coming up with numbers around 20 million or higher. And if the real number is indeed closer to 20 million than 11 million, then we are talking an average of over 6% of the population nationwide being illegal, and over 10% in states like California. Can you live with THAT, marplots?

[Zep]

So BAC, is your objection to them being in the USA at all? Or just that they are in the USA illegally?

Because each of those situations have significantly different solutions.

[BeAChooser]

So BAC, is your objection to them being in the USA at all? Or just that they are in the USA illegally?

I have no problem with legal immigration.

Now here's my question to you.

Is "citizenship" meaningless to you?

[marplots]

BeAChooser, it seems a bit disingenuous to quote a study as if you thought it meritorious and then trash the study when I agreed with the numbers. If you didn't like the pew numbers, why even bring them up?

As far as children of illegals not being citizens, I don't see why that would follow -- aren't they being raised in the same country as my kids? How could my kids claim to be citizens any more than the children of illegals? Is there some genetic component of citizenship I am missing?

An interesting artifact of the math is that by having children in the U.S., illegals reduce the percentage of illegals in the country. Math rocks!

[BeAChooser]

Is "citizenship" meaningless to you?

crickets ...

[BeAChooser]

BeAChooser, it seems a bit disingenuous to quote a study as if you thought it meritorious and then trash the study when I agreed with the numbers. If you didn't like the pew numbers, why even bring them up?

Because the Pew study shows something that the other links don't. That since Obama took over progress on reducing illegal immigration has stopped and illegal immigration is infact headed back up. And that was the point of my original post.

As far as children of illegals not being citizens

I said no such thing. Under current law they are citizens ... and thus are not counted in the 11 million figure. But despite being citizens, they are still a burden on the country since the vast majority of them are impoverished because their parents are impoverished ... and often don't even learn proper English since many of their parents insist on only speaking Spanish.

How could my kids claim to be citizens any more than the children of illegals? Is there some genetic component of citizenship I am missing?

Why don't you ask the rest of the world, since the US is one of only a few countries that have birthright citizenship. Most countries in the world would say that your kids do have a right to be citizens while those of illegals do not.

[Zep]

crickets ...Excuse me for having a life outside of here in a different timezone and not responding to you instantly. And my life doesn't revolve around you. Learn some patience.

I have no problem with legal immigration.
So you would have no problem if the 20% influx of Mexicans (or whatever it is you claim) into the southern states was due to legal border crossings and legitimate employment. Is that correct?

[BeAChooser]

Originally Posted by BAC
I have no problem with legal immigration.

So you would have no problem if the 20% influx of Mexicans (or whatever it is you claim) into the southern states was due to legal border crossings and legitimate employment. Is that correct?

Do you not understand English, Zep? I said "I have no problem with legal immigration." Now answer my question. Is citizenship meaningless to you?

[Zep]

Do you not understand English, Zep? I said "I have no problem with legal immigration." Now answer my question. Is citizenship meaningless to you?Your question about citizenship is utterly ridiculous as far as I'm concerned, so I'm going to ignore it. Oh and yes, I do understand English quite well, thank you for asking. Certainly more so than Punjabi, Swahili and Javanese anyway.

So staying on-topic (this is YOUR topic, by the way, BAC):

OK, you have made it clear that legal entry and jobs for any numbers of Mexicans is fine by you.

So what would be your view if the US government legalised the existing "illegals" in the USA, retrospectively making their entry and jobs legal?

[marplots]

I'll answer. Citizenship is not meaningless to me. It is not, however a very useful measure of a person and I do not think that being a citizen of one country instead of another tells me much about an individual.

When Einstein emigrated from Germany to the U.S., I don't think it made him a better scientist. I'm sure you can identify many people of various citizenry you admire. You can also probably pick out lots of your native born fellows you do not admire much at all.

I would say that these arguments always seem backwards to me. It isn't that the U.S. is out adopting people (or shouldn't be) what is more important is that those who come adopt the U.S. If you find someone who shares my ideals about freedom and human rights, I'm not sure how I would go about distinguishing them as native born citizens or naturalized citizens or illegal aliens. I think it should trouble you that if you were unable to produce a valid birth certificate that no one could determine you were a legit citizen. It's not a piece of paper that makes you belong, it's who you are and what you do.

Even if you are native born, I think I would still want to exclude you if you were a dangerous criminal -- maybe by exiling you to prison, which is exactly what we do, citizen or not.

Now, a counter-question for you. Who would trouble you more, a bona fide citizen who was a traitor or an illegal who was loyal to the United States?

[BeAChooser]

Your question about citizenship is utterly ridiculous as far as I'm concerned, so I'm going to ignore it.

It's not meaningless at all ... it's at the heart of this entire debate. Which is why your refusal to answer is so ... demonstrative. :D

I do understand English quite well

Then why did you ask me a question I'd already answered?

So what would be your view if the US government legalised the existing "illegals" in the USA, retrospectively making their entry and jobs legal?

They'd be legal then. Right? I already answered that question.

But the devil is in the detail. What makes you think existing illegals are going to be legalized without a fence to ensure border security (keeping this on topic) being built first? Amnesty without first securing the border is a waste of time. It will only invite further illegal immigration and downstream yet another amnesty. Just as occurred following several previous amnesties. Well I say no more. Build the fence first, then we can discuss what to do with those here already. And if it's the will of the people to then grant them amnesty, fine. I'm ok with that. But if its the will of the people to round them up and eject them from the country … as a matter of law … are you ok with that? Is the law even meaningful to you? Hmmmmmmm? :D

[BeAChooser]

Citizenship is not meaningless to me. It is not, however a very useful measure of a person and I do not think that being a citizen of one country instead of another tells me much about an individual.

LOL! If the measure of the person is what you wish to use to decide whether to allow them to stay or not, then a large number of current citizens in the US would be expelled. Meaning you don't really think citizenship means anything at all.

It isn't that the U.S. is out adopting people (or shouldn't be) what is more important is that those who come adopt the U.S.

Sure. But that's not what many illegal immigrants are doing. They aren't making the effort to learn English. They are setting up Spanish speaking enclaves. They aren't encouraging their children to learn English (my grand parents did it by insisting my parents only speak English at home … which was also the means by which my grandparents became totally fluent in English). Spanish speaking television and radio is a booming growth industry in the Southwest (and by the way, the news on those programs is mostly about events in Mexico, not the US (other than presenting a highly skewed/biased view of illegal immigration news items). They aren't adopting our culture but trying to preserve/spread theirs (see http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/print/255320 "Two Californias"). They demonstrate by waving Mexican flags. They send large amounts of money back to Mexico. And many freely admit plans to return there someday.

Now, a counter-question for you. Who would trouble you more, a bona fide citizen who was a traitor or an illegal who was loyal to the United States?

Well just look at the legal penalties for both. I think that answers your question.

[Zep]

It's not meaningless at all ... it's at the heart of this entire debate. Which is why your refusal to answer is so ... demonstrative. :DYour citizenship issues are meaningless to me. And your lack or research is making you look quite stupid just now. ;)

Then why did you ask me a question I'd already answered?To give you a chance to think about your answer. Rather than just blindly parroting the same response. After all, I would not want to make you look needlessly foolish. (I'll let you do that all by yourself. ;))

They'd be legal then. Right? I already answered that question. So if they are illegal, why don't the authorities simply toss them back over the border?

But the devil is in the detail. What makes you think existing illegals are going to be legalized without a fence to ensure border security (keeping this on topic) being built first? Amnesty without first securing the border is a waste of time. It will only invite further illegal immigration and downstream yet another amnesty. Just as occurred following several previous amnesties. Well I say no more. Build the fence first, then we can discuss what to do with those here already. And if it's the will of the people to then grant them amnesty, fine. I'm ok with that. But if its the will of the people to round them up and eject them from the country … as a matter of law … are you ok with that? Is the law even meaningful to you? Hmmmmmmm? :DOK. You are seriously saying that without a 30ft fence and machine-gun towers every one hundred yards along the entire US border, ANY immigration should be considered illegal regardless. Have I got that right? Because that appears to be what you are saying...

Incidentally, the will of the people of the USA means nothing to me in this instance.

[dc1971]

You hear that America? Kevin is for open borders.

He DID NOT say OPEN BORDERS...

...he said...

OPEN IMMIGRATION!!

At least that's what I read but maybe I'm a little crazy in the head?

[Newtons Bit]

Like this one at an average cost of $4m/mile?

XHjKBjM1ngw

That's $757/ft. Either there are a few areas where the fence is obscenely expensive to build due to geography increasing the average, or an incredibly inefficient design was chosen.

The other odd thing about these fences that I notice is that there is no barbed wire and no razor wire. What's the deal? That stuff is cheap.

[BeAChooser]

Your citizenship issues are meaningless to me.

Take note of Zep's views, folks. And remember he's not alone. Many people on the left side of the political fence in this country think exactly the same thing ... that YOUR citizenship is meaningless to them. Indeed, the guy now occupying the Whitehouse seems to feel that way. So if you keep electing these people to important positions, don't be surprised when one day your citizenship really is meaningless. :(

So if they are illegal, why don't the authorities simply toss them back over the border?

What were you saying about looking stupid and needlessly foolish? :rolleyes:


You are seriously saying that without a 30ft fence and machine-gun towers every one hundred yards along the entire US border, ANY immigration should be considered illegal regardless. Have I got that right? Because that appears to be what you are saying...

I said no such thing. What were you saying about looking stupid and needlessly foolish? :D

And you didn't answer my question. Would you be ok if the will of the people ... as a matter of law ... were to round up illegals and eject them from the country? Yes or No?

Incidentally, the will of the people of the USA means nothing to me in this instance.

There you go, folks. Not only does YOUR citizenship mean nothing to Zep, but he could care less about what the majority in this country might want. And if the will of the people means nothing in this instance, what other instances might it mean nothing to Zep and his leftist friends? :D

[BeAChooser]

He DID NOT say OPEN BORDERS...

...he said...

OPEN IMMIGRATION!!

At least that's what I read but maybe I'm a little crazy in the head?

Actually he did say he advocate open borders. In post #4, where he said:


Why build a fence at all?

Why not just ease up and let people flow into the country?

The more, the merrier

[BeAChooser]

That's $757/ft. Either there are a few areas where the fence is obscenely expensive to build due to geography increasing the average, or an incredibly inefficient design was chosen.

Or as I pointed out is the case, that average $4 million per mile figure includes the $15 million per mile electronic fence sections that they spent most of the money on.

The other odd thing about these fences that I notice is that there is no barbed wire and no razor wire. What's the deal? That stuff is cheap.

How true. And notice pictures of the effective fence system the Israelis built that I linked earlier. Lots of barbed wire and razor wire. And even the portions of their *fence* system with 25 foot tall concrete walls and observations towers supposedly only cost about $5 million per mile. So it looks like the US government has been massively inefficient and wasteful ... as usual.

[marplots]

BeAChooser, I have an idea that might do an end-run around liberal objections to a border fence. Get the Mexicans to build one. They need the money, they have the labor, and because it's Mexican land, no one in the U.S. could say them nay.

All you'd have to do is start an NGO to fund it, pay a small stipend to the locals and put the fence up. Even if you had gaps, those could be more easily patrolled by U.S. customs agents on our side and make their jobs less difficult.

With the amounts of money involved, I think the Mexicans would go for it. It doesn't really matter if the fence is on their side of the line or ours, a fence doesn't care, it's still a barrier.

[BeAChooser]

BeAChooser, I have an idea that might do an end-run around liberal objections to a border fence.

If only Mexico were not already controlled by drug cartels that do not want a fence. Who will behead anyone who challenges their control or agenda. I think you are grasping at straws to justify keeping our country from doing what is needed, effective and right. Nice try, but that won't work.

[Zep]

Take note of Zep's views, folks. And remember he's not alone. Many people on the left side of the political fence in this country think exactly the same thing ... that YOUR citizenship is meaningless to them. Indeed, the guy now occupying the Whitehouse seems to feel that way. So if you keep electing these people to important positions, don't be surprised when one day your citizenship really is meaningless. :(:dl:



What were you saying about looking stupid and needlessly foolish? :rolleyes::dl:



I said no such thing. What were you saying about looking stupid and needlessly foolish? :D Let me just play back your own response here:What makes you think existing illegals are going to be legalized without a fence to ensure border security (keeping this on topic) being built first? Amnesty without first securing the border is a waste of time.So no amnesty before the fence, your idea being that the fence will "secure" the border from more illegal entries. And nothing short of a 30ft fence with towers every 100 yards will actually succeed. This whole topic, of yours, was about debunking the "virtual fence" notion as an alternative. So do you not agree that "Fortress Amerika" is where you are really heading?

And you didn't answer my question. Would you be ok if the will of the people ... as a matter of law ... were to round up illegals and eject them from the country? Yes or No?And I answered that: It doesn't matter to me what the USA does, particularly.

There you go, folks. Not only does YOUR citizenship mean nothing to Zep, but he could care less about what the majority in this country might want. And if the will of the people means nothing in this instance, what other instances might it mean nothing to Zep and his leftist friends? :DHey, don't put words in my mouth, please, Harpo! You have no clue what my political leanings are, no clue what my views are on everything. In fact, while you tend towards the prolix, you really are as clueless and dense as I've seen the usual Right ranters come in a while, certain high-profile media pundits included. Are you actually capable of backing off and doing a bit of thinking?

Let's do this again: US citizenship issues really do mean nothing to me. And what US citizens decide is not my affair particularly. However that does not mean I am "leftist" nor "unconcerned" (I wouldn't be rapping with you if I was). Now. What other conclusions can you draw besides calling me a raving lefty, hmmm?

OK, since everyone else is now laughing at you behind your back because they have long ago twigged to the obvious, I'll let you in on a little secret.........








....I'm not American! :)

[BeAChooser]

:dl:

Yes, Zep, we know you laugh at those who value US citizenship.



I said no such thing. What were you saying about looking stupid and needlessly foolish? :D

Let me just play back your own response here:


What makes you think existing illegals are going to be legalized without a fence to ensure border security (keeping this on topic) being built first? Amnesty without first securing the border is a waste of time.



So tell us, Zep, where in anything I've written on this thread have I suggested or even implied that "ANY immigration should be considered illegal" … just to play back the statement that caused me to note that you were the one looking "stupid" and "needlessly foolish"? :D

Let's do this again: US citizenship issues really do mean nothing to me. And what US citizens decide is not my affair particularly.

Yet here you are on this thread. :D

OK, since everyone else is now laughing at you behind your back because they have long ago twigged to the obvious, I'll let you in on a little secret………

....I'm not American! :)

The obvious? What's so obvious about that from your posts on this thread? You certainly didn't use any of the local dialect that I found you using on this thread: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=101318 "Australians only! Foreigners Keep Out". Now THAT might have given me a clue. :D

[I Am The Scum]

I don't see why citizenship is meaningful. I acknowledge that it is directly tied to several functions of American society (such as who can vote), but I see no reason why it should.

BeAChooser, if I'm missing something, please point it out to me.

[BeAChooser]

I don't see why citizenship is meaningful.

Ok, before we go any further, what country are you posting from? :D

[I Am The Scum]

Ok, before we go any further, what country are you posting from? :D

The United States of America, though I don't see why that's relevant, either.

[BeAChooser]

The United States of America, though I don't see why that's relevant, either.

You're from the US and you don't see why US citizenship is meaningful? :rolleyes:

[I Am The Scum]

BeAChooser, if I'm missing something, please point it out to me.

Take your time. I'll wait.

[Corsair 115]

If only Mexico were not already controlled by drug cartels that do not want a fence. Who will behead anyone who challenges their control or agenda. I think you are grasping at straws to justify keeping our country from doing what is needed, effective and right. Nice try, but that won't work.


And when will the U.S. do something to attack the demand? After all, the drug cartels exist to feed the seemingly insatiable demand within the U.S. for such illicit drugs. If there was no demand in the U.S. for the product, where would the cartels be then?

[Zep]

Yes, Zep, we know you laugh at those who value US citizenship. No, I laugh at those who think that everyone they talk to MUST agree with their view of American citizenship or else be somehow traitorous or "lefties" or some other demeaning insult. It shows they have a highly blinkered view of the world - anything outside their own little world of Fortress Amerika is somehow wrong and not worth thinking about.

FYI: Reality is I think it is fine for US citizens to be proud of their country and to be prepared to defend and secure it. If they want a fence, build one. For all the good it will do.


So tell us, Zep, where in anything I've written on this thread have I suggested or even implied that "ANY immigration should be considered illegal" … just to play back the statement that caused me to note that you were the one looking "stupid" and "needlessly foolish"? :DYou certainly don't seem in favour of it, particularly from Mexico. Your argument here is against the virtual fence concept as being entirely ineffectual. That is, you want something that is actually effectual instead. You then posited the notion of no amnesty (i.e. throw them back) until there was a real barrier of some sort (i.e. a real fence). That much seems established now. And we haven't even gotten into who pays for it, or what to do with Canada. ;)

Yet here you are on this thread. :D...digging you in the ribs. You have any objections to non-Americans being interested in America? Or are we supposed to be entirely disinterested? Do you think we are uninformed? In this day and age? :rolleyes:

The obvious? What's so obvious about that from your posts on this thread? You certainly didn't use any of the local dialect that I found you using on this thread: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=101318 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=101318) "Australians only! Foreigners Keep Out". Now THAT might have given me a clue. :DI can speak and write many "dialects", including a variety of Australian, British and US regional styles. I also write "computer" and "scientific" as well.

But this is all irrelevant. We are discussing your propositions, not my capabilities.

[BeAChooser]

And when will the U.S. do something to attack the demand? After all, the drug cartels exist to feed the seemingly insatiable demand within the U.S. for such illicit drugs. If there was no demand in the U.S. for the product, where would the cartels be then?

I agree that US policy with respect to drugs has been wrong-headed for a long time. But that's not the topic here. And US drug usage is not the motivation for most illegals coming to the US. So the need for a fence is there even if we were to suddenly make US policy vis a vis drugs rational. And even if we did do that, you wouldn't (and certainly not overnight) destroy the cartels and make it possible for Mexico build a fence. The time when that might have been possible is past. Much like prohibition provided the seed capital for the mafia to get into all sorts of other illicit businesses, the profits from drugs have made it possible for the cartels to branch out. One of the businesses they are now running is smuggling of illegals into the country. In which case, we still need a fence and Mexico isn't going to be the one building it. Not when the cartels have already shown the willingness to behead hundreds of people to maintain power. I know you folks are desperate to avoid having to discuss a fence/wall system, but sooner or later you are going to have to do it.

[BeAChooser]

No, I laugh at those who think that everyone they talk to MUST agree with their view of American citizenship

Zep, you've expressed no view of US citizenship other than that it's "meaningless". Given that, there is no middle ground for you and I to agree on, so it's downright silly for you complain about my particular views of American citizenship and it's value.

It shows they have a highly blinkered view of the world

No, it merely shows that I value US citizenship and you don't. Nothing blinkered about it. In fact, most of the world's countries guard citizenship far more than America and treat illegals far more severely. Including Mexico. Including Australia.

anything outside their own little world of Fortress Amerika is somehow wrong and not worth thinking about.

Let's talk about *Fortress Australia*? It's nice to live on a big island with hundreds/thousands of miles separating you from the hungry, poor masses of the third world. But when a few of them do manage to make it to Australia, what's it's reaction? If you are all that concerned about a country trying to build a *fortress* against illegals, why don't you take umbrage at this:

http://www.danielpipes.org/50/australias-crisis-of-illegal-immigration


September 5, 2001

Something unprecedented and possibly highly significant happened last week in Australia, when the government resorted to military force to keep out 434 would-be refugees, nearly all of them from Afghanistan, along with some Pakistanis and Sri Lankans.

… snip …

Prime Minister John Howard forbade it from entering the country's territory, saying that Australia cannot be seen "as a country of easy destination." The captain obeyed, stopping just nine kilometers outside Australian waters.

But two days later, citing health problems among the Afghans, he moved the Tampa into Australian waters, heading toward land. In response, saying he must "draw a line on what is increasingly becoming an uncontrollable number of illegal arrivals" Howard sent crack Australian troops to board the ship and prevent it from reaching land.

… snip …

polls showed that a resounding 78 percent of Australians backed Howard's "resolve," and his party gained five percentage points in popularity. This broad support reflected two public worries.

The first is a sizable growth of illegal immigration, mostly of Afghans, Iraqis and Iranians. The 11 days before the Tampa's arrival saw more than 1,500 illegals landing in Australia on small boats, and reports were circulating of another 5,000 would-be immigrants readying to set sail from Indonesia. Many Australians felt under siege.


Oh my gosh. Australia felt under "siege" because a few thousand people were planning to illegally enter the country. Imagine if you had a land bridge to Asia and had a few MILLION planning to sneak in? With Asian drug lords helping them. What would you do then? Claim you don't care about Australian citizenship? If so, you'd be in the minority:

http://ussc.edu.au/news-room/Australians-out-worry-Americans-on-illegal-immigration-A-comparative-survey


19 August 2010

An election-campaign survey commissioned by the United States Studies Centre at the University of Sydney in conjunction with Stanford University has found that Australians are more concerned about illegal immigration than those in the United States.

… snip …

76 per cent of Australians believe that increasing numbers of asylum seekers and illegal immigrants are an important problem for the country whereas in the US, where the number of illegal immigrants in 2009 was estimated by the US Department of Homeland Security at nearly 11 million, 71 per cent rate it as important.


And how does that affect Australian policy?

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/defence/canberra-fears-new-surge-in-illegals/story-e6frg8yx-1225697112233


April 15, 2009

AUSTRALIA is urging Indonesia to do more to crack down on people-smugglers as the Rudd Government braces for a new wave of more sophisticated illegal boat arrivals.

http://www.afgana.org/showart.php?id=660&rubrica=218


19/01/2011

Illegal Afghan Immigrants in Australia will be forcibly repatriated to their homeland under a new refugee deal.


Yet here was the magnitude of Australia's problem:

http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/bn/sp/boatarrivals.htm

Population 21 million. Number of refugees who arrived by boat? A few thousand. Now if that number was scaled to the size of the US population, that'd be about 30,000-40,000 people. Multiply that by 50-100 and you begin to get an idea of the problem facing the US, compared to Australia.

FYI: Reality is I think it is fine for US citizens to be proud of their country and to be prepared to defend and secure it. If they want a fence, build one. For all the good it will do.

Well I think it will do a lot of good. Think of it as America's version of an ocean between the it and the source of the illegals.


Quote:
So tell us, Zep, where in anything I've written on this thread have I suggested or even implied that "ANY immigration should be considered illegal" … just to play back the statement that caused me to note that you were the one looking "stupid" and "needlessly foolish"?

You certainly don't seem in favour of it, particularly from Mexico.

FALSE. I have not said a single thing about legal immigration from Mexico being bad. Not one statement. I just don't see the wisdom of taking in millions of Mexico's poorest and least educated people and giving them all the benefits of US citizenship (including free health care and free educations) without taking any steps to stop that flow. And Australia doesn't see the benefit of taking in people with out jobs or skills either. Go check out your own immigration laws, Zep.

Your argument here is against the virtual fence concept as being entirely ineffectual.

Yes, and I think even our government agrees.

That is, you want something that is actually effectual instead. You then posited the notion of no amnesty (i.e. throw them back)

No, I never said "throw them back". "No amnesty until" means *no amnesty until*. What I said is there should be no discussion of what to do with the illegals that are in this country until there is a real barrier to prevent future illegal immigration. THEN I imagine there will be some form of amnesty. But handing another amnesty out without first building a barrier to further illegal immigration has already been proven not to solve the underlying problem. It's already proven that handing out amnesty without a barrier in place only means more illegal immigration down the road and demands for yet another future amnesty. We've already been through this experience TWICE. You'd think we'd learn. Well some of us have. So no ... we're not going to do that again ... not without a major political fight.

And we haven't even gotten into who pays for it

Well it's obvious who pays for it. The US taxpayer. But the final cost won't be very much since I showed above that the savings that will result from preventing 95% or more of illegal immigration will easily exceed the cost of building even the most magnificent fence/wall system. So your cost argument is nothing more than a red herring.

or what to do with Canada.

As is this complaint. Canada is not a problem that has to be solved at the same time as the problem of the Mexican border. It's not even a problem that comes close to the magnitude of the problem on the Mexican border. And there is no inexpensive way for millions of poor illegals to get into Canada and make it a problem. I'm pretty sure that if they tried, Canada would build fences around their own airports because the number of illegals who would then try to remain in wonderful Canada would be far more than that country is willing to tolerate. Canada problem solved.

Quote:
Yet here you are on this thread.

...digging you in the ribs.

You haven't accomplished anything here, Zep, other than embarrass yourself … make yourself look stupid and needlessly foolish by misquoting me.

You have any objections to non-Americans being interested in America?

Not at all. Would you like to honestly discuss the efficacy of fences and walls, rather than dishonestly suggest this is about my wanting to ban "all immigration"? :D

I can speak and write many "dialects", including a variety of Australian, British and US regional styles. I also write "computer" and "scientific" as well.

Good for you. That doesn't make my not being aware you are Australian "obvious". That only makes my point.

[Zep]

Zep, you've expressed no view of US citizenship other than that it's "meaningless". Given that, there is no middle ground for you and I to agree on, so it's downright silly for you complain about my particular views of American citizenship and it's value.Nice selective quote work there, Groucho!:rolleyes: US citizenship is meaningless to me. I'm sure it is of considerable interest to many Americans though. That you are trying desperately to twist my words to make them support your notions shows just how badly you are going with this.

No, it merely shows that I value US citizenship and you don't. Nothing blinkered about it. In fact, most of the world's countries guard citizenship far more than America and treat illegals far more severely. Including Mexico. Including Australia.Indeed so. However you are still putting words in my mouth...again. And dodging the issue wildly here. Fun to watch! ;)


Let's talk about *Fortress Australia*?And let's not. Changing the subject and committing a giant tu quoque fallacy is not adddressing your topic in the slightest. Nor is it of any relevance whatsoever. Want to talk Australia's immigration issues? Start another thread.

FALSE. I have not said a single thing about legal immigration from Mexico being bad. Not one statement. I just don't see the wisdom of taking in millions of Mexico's poorest and least educated people and giving them all the benefits of US citizenship (including free health care and free educations) without taking any steps to stop that flow.Fair enough. But say it like that from the start, not begin with flaming rhetoric and derision.

Yes, and I think even our government agrees.Again, fair point. So have you a more practical solution that will achieve your aims as stated just above?

No, I never said "throw them back". "No amnesty until" means *no amnesty until*. What I said is there should be no discussion of what to do with the illegals that are in this country until there is a real barrier to prevent future illegal immigration. THEN I imagine there will be some form of amnesty. But handing another amnesty out without first building a barrier to further illegal immigration has already been proven not to solve the underlying problem. It's already proven that handing out amnesty without a barrier in place only means more illegal immigration down the road and demands for yet another future amnesty. We've already been through this experience TWICE. You'd think we'd learn. Well some of us have. So no ... we're not going to do that again ... not without a major political fight.So what will you do with the illegals that are already in the country prior to any wall/amnesty arrangement? That is, after you find them...

Well it's obvious who pays for it. The US taxpayer. But the final cost won't be very much since I showed above that the savings that will result from preventing 95% or more of illegal immigration will easily exceed the cost of building even the most magnificent fence/wall system. So your cost argument is nothing more than a red herring.AGAIN...don't put words in my mouth. I said nothing that inferred that answer. Just because someone asks a question does not mean there is a sarcastic implication underneath it. A question is requesting information. You provided it; don't undermine your response with snark.

As is this complaint. Canada is not a problem that has to be solved at the same time as the problem of the Mexican border. It's not even a problem that comes close to the magnitude of the problem on the Mexican border. And there is no inexpensive way for millions of poor illegals to get into Canada and make it a problem. I'm pretty sure that if they tried, Canada would build fences around their own airports because the number of illegals who would then try to remain in wonderful Canada would be far more than that country is willing to tolerate. Canada problem solved.What about the many Canadians seeping south across your northern border (which is much longer incidentally), taking jobs illegally and sending the money back to Canada, HMQE2, etc? Any idea of the scale there?

You haven't accomplished anything here, Zep, other than embarrass yourself … make yourself look stupid and needlessly foolish by misquoting me.Strange. Windows cut-and-paste is introducing selective misquotes for certain JREF posters' content. Who knew! :rolleyes:

Not at all. Would you like to honestly discuss the efficacy of fences and walls, rather than dishonestly suggest this is about my wanting to ban "all immigration"? :DWhere did I say it was a total ban?

Good for you. That doesn't make my not being aware you are Australian "obvious". That only makes my point.Actually, I am hardly alone here. Many US posters (from the broad spectrum of politics) are perfectly capable of imitating a lot of styles and dialects. It's because they are respectful, listen carefully, think deeply and learn well. You would do well to emulate them...

[I Am The Scum]

So, BeAChooser, are you going to explain why I should value US citizenship or not? It seems to be very crucial to your argument.

[Zep]

So, BeAChooser, are you going to explain why I should value US citizenship or not? It seems to be very crucial to your argument.BaC does, so it follows (to him) that everyone else in the world should too or else they will stand accused of being a leftie (or something like that). After all, the borders of the USA are the edge of the known world...to him. ;)

[Corsair 115]

What about the many Canadians seeping south across your northern border (which is much longer incidentally), taking jobs illegally and sending the money back to Canada, HMQE2, etc? Any idea of the scale there?


"Many"? Do you have a number to attach to that? Because as far as I'm aware the number of Canadians illegally entering the U.S. is quite small. About 30,000 is the figure I last recall hearing.

[Zep]

"Many"? Do you have a number to attach to that? Because as far as I'm aware the number of Canadians illegally entering the U.S. is quite small. About 30,000 is the figure I last recall hearing.It's a long, open border and I know "incursions" happen each way every day. So I'm more than happy to accept your figures (although that would appear to me to be on the larger end of "quite small").

The issue at point here is that there does not seem to be any great alarm or push to build a stalag fence from the Great Lakes to Vancouver to stop Canadian illegals. That would seem to be just...stoopid, no?

[quadraginta]

One problem I see is that a fence along the border with Mexico would not create a Fortress America. It would amount to an American (Texan?) sized Maginot Line. Unless the coastlines are equally well protected the prospective illegals would simply go around it. (Remember that the first major wave of truly xenophobic anti-immigrant hysteria in the U.S. was a result of Chinese and other Pacific Basin immigrants. Very few of them came in by way of Mexico, but our earliest proscriptive immigration laws were inspired by little else.)

Since the nature of coastlines is essentially fractal, (not to mention the issue of hardened structures on the beaches) practical considerations would require that the additional fencing be set back some distance from the oceans. How many of our own people will we need to fence out?

Of course we could save a bunch of money by just fencing across the north end of Florida. Aside from Spring Break I doubt that many people would mind.

Same with the DelMarVa Penninsula, especially if the fence stopped mosquitoes too.

Skipping Manhattan would probably be okay. It's already largely immigrants. I'm not sure about Long Island, but I think most of them have already moved to North Carolina.

[Zep]

Like your style. :)

[BeAChooser]

Nice selective quote work there, Groucho! US citizenship is meaningless to me.

But not to me. And I'm the only one who counts, since you have nothing to lose if US citizenship is devalued to the point of being meaningless while I do. That being the case, I value your opinions about as much as say a war lord in Somalia. :)

And dodging the issue wildly here.

I'm dodging no issues. I've addressed every comment you've made. You're the one dodging issues, Zep. As anyone who has followed this exchange can see. :)

Quote:
Let's talk about *Fortress Australia*?

And let's not. Changing the subject

But it's not a change in subject. You made the subject about whether creating a "fortress" (a term you used in a derisive way) to preserve the character of a country and the value of it's citizenship is really meaningless. You say my concern about those things is meaningless "to you". Fine. I'm curious whether those concepts have any meaning to you, if the country in question is your own. Because if they do have importance to you where Australia is concerned, then your derisiveness where my concerns are involved is more than a bit hypocritical. So? :)

But say it like that from the start, not begin with flaming rhetoric and derision.

I said it "like that" long before you joined this thread, Zep. Here … from post #108 back in July …


I haven't suggested immigration is bad. But why is allowing illegal immigration good? Why don't any other countries (like Mexico) allow that? And why is it good to accept millions and millions of absolutely impoverished, uneducated people, who don't even speak English? And yes, perhaps Americans aren't breeding enough. But surely you're not suggesting the best solution to that problem is to *adopt* the impoverished and uneducated.


And you simply ignored that statement in accusing me of wanting to ban "ANY immigration". And as I pointed out in post #114,


Most other countries haven't needed a fence either because their geography protected them from huges numbers of poor and uneducated people, their economies and social system are so bad that few want to sneak in, or because they, unlike us, have actually enforced their immigration laws and deported offenders. The fence is now a last resort because our politico's, especially democrats, have shown a complete unwillingness to enforce even the existing laws against illegal immigration.

And you ignored that too. And you've shown you don't even want to talk about that since you refuse to discuss how Australia … a country whose geography protects it from huge numbers of poor and uneducated people … handles illegals. Because you aren't really here to discuss this topic in an honest manner. You joined this conversation to disrupt … to derail … using flaming rhethoric like calling me "stupid" and "needlessly foolish".

So have you a more practical solution that will achieve your aims as stated just above?

Yes, I have. I even presented it earlier … which you obviously either didn't read or won't discuss in an honest manner.

So what will you do with the illegals that are already in the country prior to any wall/amnesty arrangement?

Are you having trouble with the American dialect? What part of "there should be no discussion of what to do with the illegals that are in this country until there is a real barrier to prevent future illegal immigration" do you not understand? You seem intent on looking stupid and needlessly foolish.

I said nothing that inferred that answer. Just because someone asks a question does not mean there is a sarcastic implication underneath it. A question is requesting information.

LOL! You clearly mentioned cost (and what to do with Canada) as objections. And you did it in the same paragraph where you totally mischaracterized my views about "any immigration" and my views about "no amnesty". The very tone of that paragraph was "snark" on your part, so don't expect me to infer you were just "requesting information". Especially since I'd already clearly addressed the issue of cost … another portion of the thread that you simply ignored.

What about the many Canadians seeping south across your northern border (which is much longer incidentally), taking jobs illegally and sending the money back to Canada, HMQE2, etc? Any idea of the scale there?


First, your attempt to change this into a discussion of Canada is a derail given that, as already pointed out, the scale of illegal immigration from Canada to the US is minor compared to that from Mexico to the US (this is widely known, even in Australia) and the two borders are a separable problem.

But just for your edification, under 100,000 Canadians are thought to be in the US, compared to 10-20 million illegals from south of the border. And while Canadian illegals do take jobs, most of those people are likely skilled and well educated, and actually benefit the US when all is said and done. Afterall, Canada ranks near the US in per capita GDP. So most Canadian illegals are not nearly the hardship to this country that illegals crossing the southern border tend to be. Certainly, the Canadian problem is manageable and not out of control. Not so the southern problem. Now if you want to talk about Canadian illegal immigration further and what to do about it, I suggest you start your own thread. This one is about the southern border and how to protect it. :)


Where did I say it was a total ban?

In post #155 you made this statement:


You are seriously saying that without a 30ft fence and machine-gun towers every one hundred yards along the entire US border, ANY immigration should be considered illegal regardless.


Apparently Australians don't define "any" the same as the rest of the English speaking world. Or perhaps they don't define "immigration" the same. Because I certainly took that to mean you were accusing me of being against "any" (i.e., all) "immigration" (both legal and illegal). And you even confirmed that interpretation when in post #171 you stated this:


You certainly don't seem in favour of it (BAC - "it" being "immigration", not "illegal immigration"), particularly from Mexico.


in response to my complaint about you accusing me of being against "ANY immigration". So yes, I think you were clearly and dishonestly accusing me of wanting a "total ban".

Many US posters (from the broad spectrum of politics) are perfectly capable of imitating a lot of styles and dialects.

That may be true, but you've repeatedly shown you don't seem to understand how we define terms, and shown yourself unable to comprehend very clear statements by me as to my views. The only other possibility is that you did understand what I said but then chose to dishonestly characterize my position.

It's because they are respectful, listen carefully, think deeply and learn well. You would do well to emulate them…

Why are you so intent on looking stupid and needlessly foolish? :)

[BeAChooser]

So, BeAChooser, are you going to explain why I should value US citizenship or not?

I wouldn't think an American citizen would need to have that explained. :D

[BeAChooser]

Originally Posted by I Am The Scum
So, BeAChooser, are you going to explain why I should value US citizenship or not? It seems to be very crucial to your argument.

BaC does, so it follows (to him) that everyone else in the world should too

No, Zep, I'd just think that an American citizen would. Apparently not the case in IATS' case. And when an American citizen doesn't, odds are they are indeed "lefties". :D

[BeAChooser]

The issue at point here is that there does not seem to be any great alarm or push to build a stalag fence from the Great Lakes to Vancouver to stop Canadian illegals.

Do Australians understand the difference between 1 and 100 (the relative scale of the two border problems)?

Do Australians understand the difference between poor/uneducated/unskilled and wealthy/educated/skilled (the terms that describe most southern border illegals versus most northern border illegals)?

Do Australians understand the difference between a border owned by drug cartels and one that is not?

Do Austrialians understand the difference between a border where both countries are cooperating vis a vis immigration and one where they are not?

Or is it just you, Zep, who doesn't understand? ;)

[I Am The Scum]

Until you demonstrate otherwise, I am left to conclude that your question of the value of citizenship is nothing but a derail in order to deflect attention away from your vacuous argument by way of painting those who disagree with you as some sort of radicals. This has no place in intellectual discourse, which is probably why you've focused your argument away from the discussion that requires people to use their heads.

So, you don't want to tell me why I should value citizenship, possibly because you're a dishonest coward. That's fine. I'll just ask you this simple question:

Why do you value citizenship?

[BeAChooser]

Unless the coastlines are equally well protected the prospective illegals would simply go around it.

Going around the fence will not be nearly as easy as you think. And the point isn't to stop all illegals from crossing, but reduce the number to a much more manageable level ... say by a factor of 100. Most southern illegals are not going to have the money to finance an extended, covert boat trip (which entalis great risks and costs on the part of those operating the boats). It won't be as simple as just rowing around the edge of the fence since obviously the US will watch the end of the fence with radar, boats and other surveillance, just waiting for someone to try. :)

In other words, this argument against the fence is just desperation on the part of those who suddenly find themselves with no "virtual fence" to use as their *solution* to the problem (not that they really want a solution since most of them see illegals as more democrat votes) and who apparently can't argue against a real fence system being effective at stopping most illegal crossings. :D

[BeAChooser]

Until you demonstrate otherwise, I am left to conclude that your question of the value of citizenship is nothing but a derail

LOL!

You entered this thread by saying "I don't see why citizenship is meaningful." I think that is all that needs be noted in response to you, regardless of whether your posting from the US means that you are a poorly educated, unappreciative US citizen or an illegal who is just here to work (which might be the case, given that attitude).

In any case, the OBVIOUS fact is that allowing tens of millions of illegal aliens to flow into the country (such that their numbers now comprise 6% of the total population and as much as 10% in many regions) and obtain the benefits of being a citizen (health care, driver's licenses, free education, legal protections, etc) without being a citizen and without paying the taxes that come with being a citizen, dilutes the value of being a citizen. Pardon me if I resent this *redistribution* of citizenship.

If you need more ways to assess the value of citizenship, I would suggest these:

Visit a few National Cemeteries. Those people paid quite a price to defend YOUR citizenship.

Ask yourself how much would you pay to keep your citizenship? I know that I'd be willing to pay a lot … even defend it with my life. And, believe me, my life is worth a lot to me. But what about you?

Perhaps looking at the number of people willing to risk their lives to get here is a way for you to measure it's potential value? That number is rather large and some of the dangers quite serious. Which is why I don't blame the illegals for the illegal immigration. They are doing what is in their interest. Now we have to do what is in our interest.

Or consider this …

http://www.eb5-visa.net/


You and your immediate family can now obtain green cards and permanent US residency with an EB5 visa by investing $500,000 into a government designated Regional Center. It will give each of you the security of permanent US residency without repeated visa applications. Citizenship may be obtained after five years.


Is your citizenship worth half a million dollars? Maybe it's worth at least million dollars (http://blogs.cgdev.org/globaldevelopment/2010/07/is-your-citizenship-worth-1-million-an-alternative-to-obama’s-proposal-on-immigration.php ).

Maybe your not being willing to defend the value of US citizenship is the result of programs that give that citizenship away to almost anyone as if there is nothing special about it? Are you not feeling special? :D

[I Am The Scum]

In any case, the OBVIOUS fact is that allowing tens of millions of illegal aliens to flow into the country (such that their numbers now comprise 6% of the total population and as much as 10% in many regions) and obtain the benefits of being a citizen (health care, driver's licenses, free education, legal protections, etc) without being a citizen and without paying the taxes that come with being a citizen, dilutes the value of being a citizen. Pardon me if I resent this *redistribution* of citizenship.

Now wait a minute. I asked you about citizenship, and instead you frame this as tax evasion. Why is that? Does being a citizen make it more difficult to dodge taxes? If that's the case, shouldn't we grant citizenship as much as possible?

By the way, is there a "citizens tax" I've been paying at the check-out line all this time? It doesn't show up on my receipt. How do the cashiers know that I'm a citizen?

[BeAChooser]

Does being a citizen make it more difficult to dodge taxes? If that's the case, shouldn't we grant citizenship as much as possible?

Oh believe me, the left wants to do that as much as possible. :D

By the way, is there a "citizens tax" I've been paying at the check-out line all this time?

Curious. You don't deny the assertion that you might be an illegal in this country. :D

[I Am The Scum]

Oh believe me, the left wants to do that as much as possible. :D

Are you going to have this discussion, or not? I'm asking some serious questions and all that you can fathom is a method by which you can spin it towards an attack against your boogeyman of choice.


Curious. You don't deny the assertion that you might be an illegal in this country. :D

Nor have you denied the allegation that you are a serial child rapist.

[BeAChooser]

I'm asking some serious questions

:rolleyes:

Nor have you denied the allegation that you are a serial child rapist.

Is that your way of asking me? No, I'm not.

Now are you actually a US citizen who thinks US citizenship is meaningless?

[Zep]

Do Australians Americans understand the difference between 1 and 100 (the relative scale of the two border problems)?

Do Australians Americans understand the difference between poor/uneducated/unskilled and wealthy/educated/skilled (the terms that describe most southern border illegals versus most northern border illegals)?

Do Australians Americans understand the difference between a border owned by drug cartels and one that is not?

Do Australians Americans understand the difference between a border where both countries are cooperating vis a vis immigration and one where they are not?

Or is it just you, Zep, who doesn't understand? ;)ftfy

Now, please stick to your own topic.

NB. Seconded what IATS said: Try not to spin your comments in a ridiculous and failing effort to perperate your own personal hatreds.

[BeAChooser]

Try not to spin your comments in a ridiculous and failing effort to perperate your own personal hatreds.

I don't hate Australians (or Mexicans, for that matter) at all, Zep.

I just feel sorry for people who insist on looking "stupid" and "needlessly foolish".

Removed personal remark
:D

[quadraginta]

Going around the fence will not be nearly as easy as you think. And the point isn't to stop all illegals from crossing, but reduce the number to a much more manageable level ... say by a factor of 100. Most southern illegals are not going to have the money to finance an extended, covert boat trip (which entalis great risks and costs on the part of those operating the boats). It won't be as simple as just rowing around the edge of the fence since obviously the US will watch the end of the fence with radar, boats and other surveillance, just waiting for someone to try. :)

<snip>


I think this reflects a rather simplistic response to the issue, as well as a lack of understanding of the real difficulties involved in effectively patrolling the thousands of miles of coastline.

I have to think that you have not spent a great deal of time in small boats on deep water or around the coasts of our ocean borders. Or spent much time reflecting on the history of blockades and smuggling, and the problems involved in patrolling coastlines.

Yes, the land routes are more attractive ... now ... while they are easier. Once we take steps (if that is possible in any cost -effective or socially acceptable fashion) to render those routes non-porous then the other routes will become more attractive.

They will not be nearly as easy to interdict as you seem to believe.

The only practical way to make any significant inroads to discourage illegal immigration into a continent sized country situated as the U.S. is would be to make that immigration less attractive. If you want to do that you need to go after the Americans who are offering employment to those illegals. Then you won't need a fence. When the jails start filling up with restaurant, agribusiness and factory owners, and the people who hire the nannies, housekeepers and gardeners ... that's when we'll make real progress.

Fences won't work, no matter how well built they are.

[I Am The Scum]

BeAChooser, I am a United States citizen. You are a person who doesn't know what an ad hominem fallacy is. I think an understanding of the latter is more important and has more of an effect on my daily life than the former.

I asked you once why you value citizenship and you gave me some response about why you're worried about Mexicans and something else about taxes. If you have no argument, just say so.

[BeAChooser]

I think this reflects a rather simplistic response to the issue, as well as a lack of understanding of the real difficulties involved in effectively patrolling the thousands of miles of coastline.

No, it reflects an understanding of the economics involved in getting smuggled into the US by sea. It costs at a minimum twice as much to get smuggled in by sea than by land. Remember, the purpose of the fence is not stop every illegal from getting into the country. It someone wants to charter a boat and sail out to sea and then dart in along the coast somewhere, they may be able to do it. But it will be costly, especially since when such boats are caught, they are impounded and the operators arrested. The purpose of the fence is to stop say 95% of them. That alone would be a tremendous improvement on the current situation. Would more than pay for the fence system. And most likely the number who would be able to enter by tunneling or by ship would be well under 1% of the current illegal flow.

They will not be nearly as easy to interdict as you seem to believe.

Put a naval vessel or two off the coast near the end of the fence and you'll interdict 90% of any traffic that might come from Mexico without a very long, involved and expensive journey to avoid detection by those vessels. The US coast guard stops boats all the time already trying to get in. Build the fence, and maybe that number will double or triple. But it will still be a tiny number compared to the MILLIONS that currently walk across the southern border every year.

The only practical way to make any significant inroads to discourage illegal immigration into a continent sized country situated as the U.S. is would be to make that immigration less attractive.

Nonsense. We've heard this argument for 20 years (by people who don't really want to solve the problem) and we yet here we are today still seeing millions flow illegally across the border. If that were "practical" to do, it would have been done long ago. The reason it hasn't been is clearly explained in my posts earlier in this thread. The foremost being that it depends on people ... people who in many cases can be subborned or who have agendas that don't involve solving the illegal immigration problem. A fence/wall system has no such problem. It can't be bribed and it has no agenda other than making it difficult to cross the border.

Fences won't work, no matter how well built they are.

Yeah, tell that to the Israelis and Moroccans. :D

[Corsair 115]

It's a long, open border and I know "incursions" happen each way every day. So I'm more than happy to accept your figures (although that would appear to me to be on the larger end of "quite small").


30,000 into a population of 300 million is insignificant.


The issue at point here is that there does not seem to be any great alarm or push to build a stalag fence from the Great Lakes to Vancouver to stop Canadian illegals. That would seem to be just...stoopid, no?


It would be foolish to spend resources to curtail a problem which does not actually exist, yes? That said, there are some in Congress (Joe Lieberman just recently, Peter King a couple of years ago, to name two) who do want more strict controls over the U.S.-Canada border due to (unfounded) fears of Canada being some sort of haven for terrorists.

Any time there is noise in the U.S. about tightening up the U.S.-Canada border, Canadian businesses and the government sit up, take notice, and get nervous. An enormous amount of trade flows across that border (an average of nearly $1.2 billion per day), and with over 75% of Canadian exports going to the U.S., anything which threatens to seriously impede that trade becomes a big issue. It should concern Americans as well—Canada purchases more U.S. exports than any other nation (about 20% of the total dollar value of all U.S. exports), and Canada is the #1 supplier of crude oil to the United States (providing some 20% of its imports).

[quadraginta]

<snip>

Yeah, tell that to the Israelis and Moroccans. :D


The Israelis have built a little bit over 300 miles (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Peace/fence.html) of fenced border at a cost of around $3,300,000 per mile. A significant percentage of that is devoted to enclosing towns. Presumably this does not include maintenance and staffing of the "underground and long-range sensors, unmanned aerial vehicles, trenches, landmines and guard paths." Not to mention the checkpoints.

They're not done yet, either. They have around 200 miles still planned.

How does this scale up compared with the U.S. border with Mexico?

Or with the cost of catching the people who decide to go around it after we're done?

Wouldn't it cost less to go after the Americans who encourage and bankroll the illegal immigration? After all, the Israelis don't even have to deal with other Israelis actively encouraging the border violations.

ETA: Well, in one direction, at least.

[Zep]

30,000 into a population of 300 million is insignificant.I guess so. Although 30,000 is the best part of a baseball stadium full. Or something.

It would be foolish to spend resources to curtail a problem which does not actually exist, yes? That said, there are some in Congress (Joe Lieberman just recently, Peter King a couple of years ago, to name two) who do want more strict controls over the U.S.-Canada border due to (unfounded) fears of Canada being some sort of haven for terrorists.

Any time there is noise in the U.S. about tightening up the U.S.-Canada border, Canadian businesses and the government sit up, take notice, and get nervous. An enormous amount of trade flows across that border (an average of nearly $1.2 billion per day), and with over 75% of Canadian exports going to the U.S., anything which threatens to seriously impede that trade becomes a big issue. It should concern Americans as well—Canada purchases more U.S. exports than any other nation (about 20% of the total dollar value of all U.S. exports), and Canada is the #1 supplier of crude oil to the United States (providing some 20% of its imports).Nicely put.

It would seem to me that that particular border is far less important as a topographical entity than it is an important economic one. Which applies similarly (admittedly with different parameters) to the Mexico border. The pressure to swim the Rio Grande is purely economic - there's plenty of dollars in the US if you can get there. To the extent that the penalty for breaching the legality of the border crossing is considered less than the reward of doing so. So even if a stalag fence was to be built, if the economic drivers continue to exist, the Mexicans will find other ways over (I'm betting on light aircraft, btw).

As QG noted above, stopping the economic demand for Mexican labour is key to controlling the influx. How that is addressed is considerably different than these nebulous issues of "citizenship" and "Fortress Amerika" that BaC is on about. Surely there's some bright sparks in the USA who can come up with a better way.

PS. LOL @ Canadian terrorists! :D

[Corsair 115]

As QG noted above, stopping the economic demand for Mexican labour is key to controlling the influx.


The best way of all would be to turn Mexico from a second-world country into a first-world country. If its citizens had plenty of opportunities at home they wouldn't be seeking them elsewhere. Of course, achieving that transition is no easy task.


PS. LOL @ Canadian terrorists! :D


It's no LOL here when someone in Congress stands up and starts saying Canada has open doors to terrorists via its immigration system, or says the border must be tightened due to the 9/11 hijackers having entered the U.S. from Canada. (That pernicious myth was even repeated by the head of Homeland Security last year.)

[Zep]

The best way of all would be to turn Mexico from a second-world country into a first-world country. If its citizens had plenty of opportunities at home they wouldn't be seeking them elsewhere. Of course, achieving that transition is no easy task.Perhaps some government-sponsored building projects might kick that off? How about a 30ft security fence with towers every 100 yards across their northern border... ;)

It's no LOL here when someone in Congress stands up and starts saying Canada has open doors to terrorists via its immigration system, or says the border must be tightened due to the 9/11 hijackers having entered the U.S. from Canada. (That pernicious myth was even repeated by the head of Homeland Security last year.)More seriously, I had actually read somewhere that comment had been so attributed. I can only put it down to a brain-fart in a sound-bite situation.

There were a myriad of entry-points into the USA, so the perps could have arrived from any other country, just about. Would he be saying the same thing if they arrived from Bermuda? Or Iceland? Or on the direct flight over the pole from Japan? Resurrect the DEW line?

[Random]

As QG noted above, stopping the economic demand for Mexican labour is key to controlling the influx. How that is addressed is considerably different than these nebulous issues of "citizenship" and "Fortress Amerika" that BaC is on about. Surely there's some bright sparks in the USA who can come up with a better way.

$100,000 fine or jail time for any employer who hires an illegal worker. Amnesty, a green card, and $50,000 for any illegal worker who turns in their employer. Poof, you’re done. No zillion dollar Great Wall of America, no concentration camps for Mexicans, no breaking up families with mixed legalities. You just make it not economically viable to hire undocumented workers.

[quadraginta]

$100,000 fine or AND jail time for any employer who hires an illegal worker. Amnesty, a green card, and $50,000 for any illegal worker who turns in their employer. Poof, you’re done. No zillion dollar Great Wall of America, no concentration camps for Mexicans, no breaking up families with mixed legalities. You just make it not economically viable to hire undocumented workers.


Other than that one edit I made, and some effort to make sure that it is senior management and owners, and not scapegoat flunkies who see the inside of the slammer ...

I agree.

[Corsair 115]

There were a myriad of entry-points into the USA, so the perps could have arrived from any other country, just about. Would he be saying the same thing if they arrived from Bermuda? Or Iceland? Or on the direct flight over the pole from Japan? Resurrect the DEW line?


It's different because, at that time, crossing from Canada into the U.S. was easy. A passport wasn't needed to fly into the U.S. from Canada, just two pieces of ID, one of which had your photo on it. I once flew in without photo ID as the driver's licence at the time didn't have a photo on it. Land crossings were even easier.

[Random]

Other than that one edit I made, and some effort to make sure that it is senior management and owners, and not scapegoat flunkies who see the inside of the slammer ...

I agree.

There is really no need for jailtime for corporations or companies. If any undocumented worker who shows up to get a job from a company can turn them in and collect a cash reward if they say yes, costing the company $100,000 in the process, the company just won’t hire them. Companies only break the law if they can make or save money by doing so. Make an activity unprofitable and companies won’t do it, regardless of legality. Besides, a straight cash fine avoids all that courtroom bellyaching about who is really responsible at XYZ Inc. and should go to jail.

Remember, you don’t actually have to punish anyone to make this system work, you just have to be willing to punish someone. Opportunistic undocumented workers would actively search for an employer to hire them for the specific purpose of collecting the reward. Employers would end up treating any and all undocumented workers as potential moles, looking for an employer to turn in for the reward. Even if an undocumented worker is honestly looking for a job and has no intention of turning in the employer, the employer has no way to know that and will not hire them.

[BeAChooser]

The Israelis have built a little bit over 300 miles (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Peace/fence.html) of fenced border at a cost of around $3,300,000 per mile. A significant percentage of that is devoted to enclosing towns.

Already pointed out. In fact, I noted a cost of about $5 million a mile. What you didn't mention is that the fence system has DRAMATICALLY reduced the problem of terrorists (who are highly motivated individuals) getting into the protected areas. Like I said, fences system can work when properly designed (i.e, multi-layer, containing features such as high walls and razor wire, and backed by armed guards).

How does this scale up compared with the U.S. border with Mexico?

Well you know what they say ... there are savings in quantity. Build 2000 miles of a fence system and perhaps we can do it for less than $5 million a mile. But as I've already pointed out, even if it's 10 to 20 million dollars a mile, it will still be less expensive than letting the flow of illegals continue unabated.

Or with the cost of catching the people who decide to go around it after we're done?

Again, you are worrying about very small numbers and ignoring the MILLIONS how are now WALKING across the border every year. Illogical.

Wouldn't it cost less to go after the Americans who encourage and bankroll the illegal immigration?

Apparently not, since they've had 20 years to do it. And haven't. Or perhaps that just proves how susceptible that solution is to circumvention by politics. Which is one of the advantages of building a fence. Once the fence is built, politics will have little impact on it's effectiveness.

[BeAChooser]

So even if a stalag fence was to be built, if the economic drivers continue to exist, the Mexicans will find other ways over (I'm betting on light aircraft, btw).

LOL! And how many millions of mexicans will fly over the fence? Your arguments are simply ridiculous, Zep. :rolleyes:

[marplots]

$100,000 fine or jail time for any employer who hires an illegal worker. Amnesty, a green card, and $50,000 for any illegal worker who turns in their employer. Poof, you’re done. No zillion dollar Great Wall of America, no concentration camps for Mexicans, no breaking up families with mixed legalities. You just make it not economically viable to hire undocumented workers.

I'm a "no fencer" and this, at least seems doable. I'd couple it with some form of national ID or solid verification. It would also have some unintended consequences so might need a worker visa component. Maybe instead of the green card offer? I'd also be more lenient on the worker visa part for family units where children are citizens.

You could use the fine to pay for deportation costs.

[BeAChooser]

$100,000 fine or jail time for any employer who hires an illegal worker. Amnesty, a green card, and $50,000 for any illegal worker who turns in their employer. Poof, you’re done.

Except NOONE has the will do to that or enforce it. And the moment you change adminstrations or control of Congress, POOF, you're back where you started. Sorry but this approach is simply a way to not do anything. We've heard them promise (and even enact laws) to do this previously. Empty promises. Unenforced laws. And that's the way it will remain as long as there are democrats in Congress or the Whitehouse. And republicans who put cheap labor ahead of national interests.

No zillion dollar Great Wall of America

You aren't concerned about cost since doing nothing ... what you really want ... is already costing us far more every year than what a fence would cost.

no concentration camps for Mexicans

A fence is the only solution that will make "concentration camps" unnecessary ... since it's the only solution that keeps Mexicans on their side of the border. Detention of illegals (which we now do by the hundreds of thousands each year) will actually go down as a result of building an effective fence.

no breaking up families with mixed legalities.

Again, there won't be any breaking of families because all the members of families will remain south of the border. The only way families aren't being broken now is by allowing MILLIONS of illegals to violate our laws.

You just make it not economically viable to hire undocumented workers.

Sorry ... history already proves that's not a practical solution. It's just an excuse thrown out by liberals to keep from solving the problem at all.

[BeAChooser]

It would also have some unintended consequences

And therein lies the rub ... why it will NEVER happen, NEVER work. Indeed, you are already creating *exceptions*. :D

[marplots]

Except NOONE has the will do to that or enforce it. And the moment you change adminstrations or control of Congress, POOF, you're back where you started. Sorry but this approach is simply a way to not do anything. We've heard them promise (and even enact laws) to do this previously. Empty promises. Unenforced laws. And that's the way it will remain as long as there are democrats in Congress or the Whitehouse. And republicans who put cheap labor ahead of national interests.

But isn't this exactly your complaint about the fence? How are the two different, other than you have one politically distasteful solution and I like another?

[I Am The Scum]

... doing nothing ... is already costing us far more every year than what a fence would cost.

I'd like to see some evidence of this.

[Zep]

It's different because, at that time, crossing from Canada into the U.S. was easy. A passport wasn't needed to fly into the U.S. from Canada, just two pieces of ID, one of which had your photo on it. I once flew in without photo ID as the driver's licence at the time didn't have a photo on it. Land crossings were even easier.My impression from Canadians and US contacts who live there is that transit is still just as open, even today. I gather it is part of the daily commute for tens of thousands.

[Zep]

LOL! And how many millions of mexicans will fly over the fence? Your arguments are simply ridiculous, Zep. :rolleyes:They have been flying the border since aircraft first appeared in the region early in the 20th century. Certainly it is quicker and easier than this: http://www.google.com.au/#hl=en&source=hp&biw=1225&bih=555&q=mexico+border+tunnels&aq=f&aqi=g10&aql=&oq=&fp=a9ffe86d96f808ab

You really are in denial of reality, aren't you! :rolleyes:

[BeAChooser]

But isn't this exactly your complaint about the fence?

Yes, it's true that both republicans and democrats ignored the law they passed and didn't build the type and amount of fencing the law required them to build. But solving that problem is a lot easier than dealing with your approach because at least once the fence system is in place, it's not something you can just ignore. It's not something that the next administration can easily remove. And it it something that can be easily tracked as to whether it's implimented ... down to the mile ... with the public being able to see what is built. Whereas under your solution, the government can claim anything with regards to implimentation and enforcement with the public none the wiser. Your solution isn't practical at all whereas a fence system is more than feasible.

[BeAChooser]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
... doing nothing ... is already costing us far more every year than what a fence would cost.

I'd like to see some evidence of this.

Obviously, you haven't bothered to even read this thread. :rolleyes:

If you go back and look at post #82, you will see a source citing an estimated cost of illegal immigrants of $113 billion a year to the country. Assuming 13 million illegals, that works out to almost $9 billion per year per million illegals. So you could build a 2000 mile long fence system costing an average of $4.5 million a mile with what you'd save by preventing just one million new illegals from entering the country and imparting the same level of costs.

And as pointed out in post #84, that cost figure doesn't even include many indirect and opportunity costs that are obviously quite high (I provided a list). I went over the cost of the items in that list in post #101. Items adding up to billions and billions and billions of additional costs each year. Add them all up and you could easily build the fence with the savings from preventing another million or two from entering the country ... in other words, just a couple years worth of illegal immigration.

As also noted in post #84, the Heritage Foundation, reporting on a National Academy of Sciences estimate, said that each illegal will eventually cost taxpayers $100,000 per year on average. That means that every million (plus) illegals who are currently entering the country illegally each year cost actually cost us $100 billion dollars. For a $100 billion we could build a 2000 mile long fence costing $50 million dollars a mile. That's quite a fence. And it would still be a bargain.

So I stand by my statement and suggest you actually read the thread before posting further.

Because I had much more to say about costs than just the above and I'd hate to see you further embarass yourself. :)

[BeAChooser]

They have been flying the border since aircraft first appeared in the region early in the 20th century. Certainly it is quicker and easier than this:

LOL! So you think that tunnels are more difficult than flying over the fence would be? Well if that's the case, why do they build tunnels at all now? Why not just fly? And you still haven't shown that the number crossing the border by either flying or tunnelling will amount to anything remotely close to the millions who now WALK across the border every year ... because there's no barrier. :D

[I Am The Scum]

Obviously, you haven't bothered to even read this thread. :rolleyes:

If you go back and look at post #82, you will see a source citing an estimated cost of illegal immigrants of $113 billion a year to the country. Assuming 13 million illegals, that works out to almost $9 billion per year per million illegals. So you could build a 2000 mile long fence system costing an average of $4.5 million a mile with what you'd save by preventing just one million new illegals from entering the country and imparting the same level of costs.

And as pointed out in post #84, that cost figure doesn't even include many indirect and opportunity costs that are obviously quite high (I provided a list). I went over the cost of the items in that list in post #101. Items adding up to billions and billions and billions of additional costs each year. Add them all up and you could easily build the fence with the savings from preventing another million or two from entering the country ... in other words, just a couple years worth of illegal immigration.

As also noted in post #84, the Heritage Foundation, reporting on a National Academy of Sciences estimate, said that each illegal will eventually cost taxpayers $100,000 per year on average. That means that every million (plus) illegals who are currently entering the country illegally each year cost actually cost us $100 billion dollars. For a $100 billion we could build a 2000 mile long fence costing $50 million dollars a mile. That's quite a fence. And it would still be a bargain.

So I stand by my statement and suggest you actually read the thread before posting further.

Because I had much more to say about costs than just the above and I'd hate to see you further embarass yourself. :)

Oh, you were assuming I had not heard the arguments.

I take more stock in those who have taken a more balanced look at the issue. There are costs to illegal immigration, and benefits, as well.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5312900
http://www.factcheck.org/2010/05/does-immigration-cost-jobs/

So when you take that into account, it's not really a big deal.

[BeAChooser]

I take more stock in those who have taken a more balanced look at the issue.

Like NPR (talk about an organization with a left bias) and FactCheck (a project of the leftist Annenberg Foundation)? LOL!

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5312900

http://www.factcheck.org/2010/05/does-immigration-cost-jobs/

All those sources looks at is whether illegals cost jobs. At no other costs. And even in that area both sources admits there are conflicting experts and studies. Some say the effect on jobs is positive. Others note negatives. Then one of your links quotes several sources saying that "immigrant workers" (note that suddenly the term illegal got dropped) expand the economy. But neither source quantifies how much they expand the economy. Do you have anything that shows illegal immigrants expanded the economy enough to make up for all the additional costs that I've noted that illegal immigrants have caused over the years?

Just admit, IATS, you are hiding from the problem.

I've already cited a detailed study by FAIR that concluded the net cost of illegal immigrants to the US is a $113 billion a year, and I listed a bunch of other costs that study didn't include in it's calculations.

That's not the only study out there pointing to that reality.

Here's a citation to a 2004 Center for Immigration Studies study that concluded illegal immigrants cost the federal government alone more than $10 billion a year: http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html . It also predicts those costs would TRIPLE if illegals were given amnesty.

A 2006 study by FAIR estimated "the current local annual costs of illegal immigration from just three program areas — educating the children in public primary and secondary schools, providing medical services in emergency rooms, and incarceration — amount to about $36 billion.": http://www.fairus.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=16723&security=1601&news_iv_ctrl=1007 . It predicted that "annual fiscal costs in 2010 would increase by nearly 70 percent to $61.5 billion for just these same three program areas."

Here's a citation regarding a 2009 study by the Center for Immigration Studies that looked at the cost to the public of implimenting Obamacare for illegals: http://www.numbersusa.com/content/news/september-8-2009/new-study-shows-costs-illegal-aliens-under-house-healthcare-could-top-30-billi . Conclusion? "Because of the lack of immigration verification requirements in the House health care bill, an estimated 6.6 million illegal aliens could be covered because they meet the financial criteria. Those 6.6 million currently cost the public $4.3 billion in emergency rooms and free health clinics but would cost $31 billion under the House health care system."

Here's a 2007 CBO paper on "The Impact of Unauthorized Immigrants on the Budgets of State and Local Governments". It concludes that


State and local governments incur costs for providing services to unauthorized immigrants and have limited options for avoiding or minimizing those costs.

… snip …

The estimates that CBO reviewed measured costs associated with providing services to unauthorized immigrants that ranged from a few million dollars in states with small unauthorized populations to tens of billions of dollars in California (currently the state with the largest population of unauthorized immigrants). … snip …

… snip …

Most of the estimates found that even though unauthorized immigrants pay taxes and other fees to state and local jurisdictions, the resulting revenues offset only a portion of the costs incurred by those jurisdictions for providing services related to education, health care, and law enforcement.

… snip …

Federal aid programs offer resources to state and local governments that provide services to unauthorized immigrants, but those funds do not fully cover the costs incurred by those governments.


And here's a 2007 study by the Heritage Foundation (http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2007/06/amnesty-will-cost-us-taxpayers-at-least-26-trillion ) that concludes "Amnesty Will Cost U.S. Taxpayers at Least $2.6 Trillion" during their retirement years. Imagine what it would cost if there were an additional million illegals … the number still flowing across the border every year thanks to there being no effective barrier.

But you go on sticking your head in the sand, IATS. :rolleyes:

[Corsair 115]

My impression from Canadians and US contacts who live there is that transit is still just as open, even today. I gather it is part of the daily commute for tens of thousands.


Not by aircraft. Passports are now generally required. Ground travel is supposed to require a passport or similarly secure piece of identification. The original deadline for that was put off several times as governments on both sides of the border worked out what kind of secure ID alternative to the passport would be acceptable, and how it would be set up.

The U.S. requirements for better ID in cross-border travel were a part of its Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative.

[Zep]

LOL! So you think that tunnels are more difficult than flying over the fence would be?Seriously, Gummo, learn to read and comprehend. I made no mention of any relative difficulties involved. I just made it clear that they will find many ways to get into the USA while ever there is money to be made.

Well if that's the case, why do they build tunnels at all now? Why not just fly?They do, Gummo, they do. That's the point.

And you still haven't shown that the number crossing the border by either flying or tunnelling will amount to anything remotely close to the millions who now WALK across the border every year ... because there's no barrier. :DNinja Mexicans! They will bring...ladder! Or...boat! :D

Seriously, Gummo, you've lost this one. Here. Here's your fence.

SbWg-mozGsU

[BeAChooser]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
LOL! So you think that tunnels are more difficult than flying over the fence would be?

Seriously, Gummo, learn to read and comprehend. I made no mention of any relative difficulties involved.

Gee, Gummo, I distinctly recall responding to your claim that "flying the border" was "certainly" "quicker and easier than this:", followed by a link to a google search with keywords mexico+border+tunnels". Do "quicker and easier" have a different meaning in Australia, Zep? Like so many of the other words you've demonstrated you don't understand? Or is it just YOU, AGAIN. :D

[Zep]

Gee, Gummo, I distinctly recall responding to your claim that "flying the border" was "certainly" "quicker and easier than this:", followed by a link to a google search with keywords mexico+border+tunnels". Do "quicker and easier" have a different meaning in Australia, Zep? Like so many of the other words you've demonstrated you don't understand? Or is it just YOU, AGAIN. :DI gave you two possible alternatives off the top of my head that already make your fence idea an expensive laugh. Others here have given you more, plus good reasons why. During your absence to la-la-land, we have discussed some realistic reasons and potential solutions.

So you're just floundering now, trying lamely to be insulting. It's like being savaged by a dead sheep,* whipped with a feather. You really haven't got the hang of this reality thing, have you.





*Thanks, John Cleese!

[BeAChooser]

:rolleyes:

[quadraginta]

I gave you two possible alternatives off the top of my head that already make your fence idea an expensive laugh. Others here have given you more, plus good reasons why. During your absence to la-la-land, we have discussed some realistic reasons and potential solutions.

So you're just floundering now, trying lamely to be insulting. It's like being savaged by a dead sheep,* whipped with a feather. You really haven't got the hang of this reality thing, have you.




As long as we don't get whipped with a dead sheep. That could be unpleasant on many levels.





*Thanks, John Cleese!


Agreed.

[BeAChooser]

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/crime-part-life-america-and-border-secur


March 03, 2011

(CNSNews.com) -- When asked if it was necessary to seal the southwest border to combat transnational drug gangs, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Director John Morton did not directly answer but said the border is more secure now than in the last 20 years and that crime is part of life in the United States.


I think the ICE director is either lying or Stuck On Stupid. Maybe it's catching in the Obama administration. :D

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/04/29/border-states-dealing-illegal-immigrant-crime-data-suggests/ "Border States Deal With More Illegal Immigrant Crime Than Most, Data Suggest"

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/03/03/americas-war-texas-farmers-attack-mexican-border/ "America's Third War: Texas Farmers Under Attack at the Border"

[BeAChooser]

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/border-patrol-chief-we-have-operational


The deputy commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection, David Aguilar, said that 1,100 miles – ‘give or take a couple of miles’ – of the U.S.-Mexico border is under operational control by his agency. For the remaining 800 to 900 miles, he said that 510 miles of the Marfa sector along the Texas border does not need the same degree of security as the sectors in urban areas.

Aguilar also said that the U.S.-Mexico border should not be sealed.


This assessment of the situtation is called Stuck On Stupid. It's definitely catching in the Obama administration.

And isn't it great that the Border Patrol Chief doesn't think we should close the border? Let me guess. He's Hispanic and a democrat. :rolleyes:

[BeAChooser]

http://cnsnews.cloud.clearpathhosting.com/news/article/not-mile-border-secure-texas-sheriff-say


April 11, 2011

(CNSNews.com) – Texas Sheriff Tomas Herrera said he does not agree with Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano’s assessment of security at the U.S.-Mexico border as being “better than it has ever been.”

Herrera, in a telephone interview with CNSNews.com, said that not “a mile” of the 85-mile stretch of border in Maverick County, Texas, which is separated from Mexico by the Rio Grande River, is secure and that the violence of Mexican drug cartels is spilling over into the United States as cartels come into Texas and kidnap teenagers for their smuggling operations.

[BeAChooser]

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/obama-claims-he-s-done-all-gop-wanted-bo


May 10, 2011

(CNSNews.com) – President Barack Obama told a border crowd in Texas today that he had addressed the border security concerns of Republicans, and now was calling on GOP lawmakers to support his push to grant legal status to the nation’s estimated 12 million illegal aliens. … snip …


LIAR.

This is Obama's idea of border security:

http://www.cnsnews.com/image/border-fence-0

[BeAChooser]

{crickets}

[marplots]

{crickets}

Sometimes the bias is so thick, even the crickets don't have the energy to respond.

[BeAChooser]

Sometimes the bias is so thick

You're confusing bias with facts to which you apparently have no response. :p

And if you think Obama's statements are anything more than politically motivated, then your confusion borders on delusion. :D

[marplots]

Well, if I'm going to wade in, I should clarify what I thought you meant.

It looked like you were asserting that Obama thinks our border policy and fence should be, and is, a few posts in the middle of the desert. Is that what you really meant?

If it is, I think the flagrant hyperbole says more about your opinions than any facts on offer. See, the thing about facts is they come in bunches. So it's disingenuous to pick through the pile and find one you like while dumping the rest in the Rio Grande.

But maybe you weren't implying what I thought you were.

[fess]

We build fences, they build tunnels. :rolleyes:

[ApolloGnomon]

We build fences, they build tunnels. :rolleyes:

Who's going to be building those fences, anyway? I'll tell ya -- Mexican laborers. Hard working, intelligent laborers who are so in need of work they go to a foreign country and send money back home so their kids can eat and go to school.

Fencing across the border with Mexico is like solving global warming by outlawing sweaters.

[marplots]

Fencing across the border with Mexico is like solving global warming by outlawing sweaters.

I think it falls under the category of, "Here's a clear, easy to understand solution to your complex problem."

"Great. Will it work?"

"Well, maybe a little, but honestly? No."

"So why should I buy into it?"

"Did I mention it was a clear, simple solution?"

... remembers Head-On... apply directly to forehead.

[BeAChooser]

Fencing across the border with Mexico is like solving global warming by outlawing sweaters.

Right. Just ignore the facts in this thread that indicate otherwise. I know how democrats work. Repeat the lie as many times as it takes to become the truth. :rolleyes:

[Corsair 115]

I know how democrats work. Repeat the lie as many times as it takes to become the truth. :rolleyes:


Yep, just like those Republicans repeating the lie about Obama's birth certificate. See? Two can play at that game. Only it doesn't get anyone anywhere. The only winning move is not to play. How about a good game of chess?

[BeAChooser]

The only winning move is not to play

You make a good case for smaller government. :D

[excaza]

And if you think Obama's statements are anything more than politically motivated, then your confusion borders on delusion. :D

Politicians making politically motivated statements.


I am shocked.

[BeAChooser]

Politicians making politically motivated statements.

Yeah, but Obama promised to be different. Don't you recall? :D

[Corsair 115]

You make a good case for smaller government. :D


Ah, I see. Only you are allowed to make ridiculously partisan jabs at your preferred political enemies because when you do it it is legitimate criticism. When it is done to your preferred political friends then it is partisan nonsense.

You are a great example of why American politics these days is, for lack of a better word, insane. With political blinders so thick, it's a wonder you can see anything at all.

[BeAChooser]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
You make a good case for smaller government.

Ah, I see. Only you are allowed to make ridiculously partisan jabs at your preferred political enemies because when you do it it is legitimate criticism.

What is partisan about my statement? Where in that did I defend republicans? I'm agreeing that both democrats AND republicans are dishonest and, therefore, bad. Therefore, we (the public) would be better off if they had less power. And it seems to me that the only way to ensure that is to make government smaller. So point out the partisanship in that, if you can. :D

[BeAChooser]

Talk about Stuck On Stupid.

This is the DNC Chairwoman, Wasserman Schultz, suggesting that Republicans want to make it a crime for *illegal immigrants* to be in this country:

Here:

http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-spokane/new-dnc-boss-scolds-republicans-for-treating-illegal-immigration-as-a-crime

I think the president was clearly articulating that his position — the Democrats position — is that we need comprehensive immigration reform. We have 12 million undocumented immigrants in this country that are part of the backbone of our economy. And that is not only a reality but a necessity. And that it would be harmful if — the Republican solution that I’ve seen in the last three years is that we should just pack them all up and ship them back to their own countries, and that in fact it should be a crime and we should arrest them all.


With idiots like this in power, folks, the ONLY solution is a REAL FENCE. Something that even idiots like this can't ignore.

[marplots]

I looked her up, assuming a lawyer should have known the distinction. Turns out she's got a Masters in PolySci. Not an excuse, but a surprise for me.

Of course, she's from Florida, so a fence isn't going to help with her immigration problems anyhow. Submerged mines might.

[BeAChooser]

http://dailycaller.com/2011/06/20/white-house-loosens-border-rules-for-2012/


6/20/2011

President Barack Obama’s administration is quietly offering a quasi-amnesty for hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants aiming to win reelection by mobilizing a wave of new Hispanic voters without alienating the populous at large, say supporters of stronger immigration law enforcement.

The new rules were quietly announced Friday with a new memo from top officials at the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency. The “prosecutorial discretion” memo says officials need not enforce immigration laws if illegal immigrants are enrolled in an education center or if their relatives have volunteered for the US military.

[Tricky]

http://dailycaller.com/2011/06/20/white-house-loosens-border-rules-for-2012/

...or in other words (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/7618722.html):

Morton wrote, ICE agents and attorneys should consider "all relevant factors" when deciding whether to enforce immigration law - from immigrants' contributions to the community to their criminal records.
The memo instructs ICE agents and attorneys to give special consideration to military veterans and their family members and to people brought to the U.S. as children — particularly those who graduated from high school and enrolled in college.
What? They're considering relevant factors? That's unAmerican!

[BeAChooser]

Obama's real illegal immigration policy …

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/06/28/cornyn-confronts-napolitano-over-backdoor-amnesty-controversy/


06.28.2011

During a hearing on the DREAM Act today, Sen. John Cornyn confronted Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano about whether her agency directed its attorneys to dismiss the deportation cases of illegal immigrants who had been convicted of crimes.

The exchange was prompted by a Houston Chronicle investigation*yesterday, which revealed that DHS’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials encouraged attorneys to seek dismissals for dozens of illegal immigrants who had been convicted of criminal acts ranging from sexual assault, kidnapping, assault, theft, drug dealing and DUIs.

… snip …

Napolitano denied her office was involved in a cover-up, arguing that the Houston ICE field office that instructed its attorneys to seek dismissals for these illegal immigrants had “misconstrued” the orders given by the ICE headquarters in Washington, D.C.

… snip …

But Napolitano’s response doesn’t completely explain the inconsistency. As the Chronicle reported, after the chief counsel of the Houston office gave the instructions to his attorneys, he forwarded the email to ICE headquarters. ICE officials replied with an email praising the chief counsel’s decision and asking him to share his strategies with other offices.


Comment, Tricky?

[marplots]

BAC, I appreciate your willingness to keep up with developments and posting them. Many of the news items you reference would otherwise be unknown to me. Thank you.

[BeAChooser]

http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2011/06/alipac-calling-for-obama-impeachment.html


The Americans for Legal Immigration PAC is calling for the impeachment of President Barack Obama for his involvement in the Operation Gunrunner scandal, as well as his recent edict instructing federal employees to establish a form of amnesty for illegal aliens in defiance of the Congress, existing federal laws, and the US Constitution.

Obama's ICE Director John Morton issued a memo on June 17th to all ICE Field Office Directors, Special Agents-in-Charge, and all Chief Counsel, authorizing them to decline to remove illegal aliens who meet the qualifications for amnesty under the DREAM Act Amnesty which Congress has rejected many times.


Do democrats even understand the word "illegal" any more? Or have they broken so many laws in the last few decades that the word is meaningless to them?