How Can We Solve The Illegal Immigration Problem?

[syrenn]

Angelhair, how can you write or quote what you have, and still disavow any US obligation or need to assist Mexico?

Your joking right? Do you really want me to quote you?

 

[ConHog]

I see no reason at all for us to involve ourselves in Mexico's problems in order to be able to address our own. Isn't this exactly the sort of thing some of yall griped about BOOSH for, nation building I mean?

 

[antagon]

bush; nation building?

 

[American Horse]

<SNIP>
... She immediately had a child out of wedlock, diagnosed with an illness so she could collect ssi on him. You want to stop them, NO WELFARE. NO citizenship to children born to illegals. A oneway ticket home to every illegal caught. A $1000 fine and 2 years in jail to everyone caught hiring an illegal and that's PER illegal they hire.

It would end in no time.

We are a compassionate people, and those who want to legitimize that "compassion" extra-legally have up to now controlled the national dialogue by making any sort of strict policy seem to be lacking in our innate compassion for the underdog. Up to recently those have dominated the political debate have done so because they've controlled the language immigration has been discussed in in the MSM and in politics.

Our compassion extends evem to employers who would violate our own laws by hiring illegals. A $1,000 fine as you suggest is reasonable. And if passed it should be enforced, which has not always been the case.

But it should be enforced not just for every instance but for every day the violation persists. Once an employer is found with illegals in his workforce it is an easy thing to monitor a continuing violation. If an ellegal previously cited is found to have been transferred to another place by the employer, double the fine to $2,000 per day of continuance.

But when a prison term of 3-years is added to the penalty, the likelihood of its being enforced at all drops to nil. Unfortunately it will actually or I should say will "only" be in cases in which someone is singled out because of a case of political or bureaucratic revenge. It would be a political weapon, Chicago styile. An extreme penalty has a way of being a political weapon, when it is not simply ignored.

I outlined in my earlier post (HERE) a realistic and workable plan that would discourage new immigrants by limiting their access to employment opportunities, and for those who do work, provide an INCENTIVE to cause them to return to Mexico.

The residual problem is that of the dependent wives and children who are here and who do not work. A part of any plan should be to pass legislation eliminating anchor babies. But if you read my post, once the undocumented worker becomes documented, is required at all times while in the workplace requred to wear an unforgeable/untamperable ID badge, then all dependents could also be documented in the same way with the ongoing documentation.

Right now, more than ever before, a vast majority of the American people wants prompt and effective action/policy on illegal immigration, but they are still a compassionate people, and want the policy to be fair. Without a perception of fairness it is not going to happen. Much less than any sort of a majority want these people rounded up and deported.

It is entirely proper, compassionate, and economical to continue to build the fence eastward so that our whole border is protected. This extends to equal justice to all the residents along the border which is not the case with the state of Arizona, which is forced to take the brunt of the immigration and the drug trade.

 

[Angelhair]

<SNIP>
... She immediately had a child out of wedlock, diagnosed with an illness so she could collect ssi on him. You want to stop them, NO WELFARE. NO citizenship to children born to illegals. A oneway ticket home to every illegal caught. A $1000 fine and 2 years in jail to everyone caught hiring an illegal and that's PER illegal they hire.

It would end in no time.

We are a compassionate people, and those who want to legitimize that "compassion" extra-legally have up to now controlled the national dialogue by making any sort of strict policy seem to be lacking in our innate compassion for the underdog. Up to recently those have dominated the political debate have done so because they've controlled the language immigration has been discussed in in the MSM and in politics.

Our compassion extends evem to employers who would violate our own laws by hiring illegals. A $1,000 fine as you suggest is reasonable. And if passed it should be enforced, which has not always been the case.

But it should be enforced not just for every instance but for every day the violation persists. Once an employer is found with illegals in his workforce it is an easy thing to monitor a continuing violation. If an ellegal previously cited is found to have been transferred to another place by the employer, double the fine to $2,000 per day of continuance.

But when a prison term of 3-years is added to the penalty, the likelihood of its being enforced at all drops to nil. Unfortunately it will actually or I should say will "only" be in cases in which someone is singled out because of a case of political or bureaucratic revenge. It would be a political weapon, Chicago styile. An extreme penalty has a way of being a political weapon, when it is not simply ignored.

I outlined in my earlier post (HERE) a realistic and workable plan that would discourage new immigrants by limiting their access to employment opportunities, and for those who do work, provide an INCENTIVE to cause them to return to Mexico.

The residual problem is that of the dependent wives and children who are here and who do not work. A part of any plan should be to pass legislation eliminating anchor babies. But if you read my post, once the undocumented worker becomes documented, is required at all times while in the workplace requred to wear an unforgeable/untamperable ID badge, then all dependents could also be documented in the same way with the ongoing documentation.

Right now, more than ever before, a vast majority of the American people wants prompt and effective action/policy on illegal immigration, but they are still a compassionate people, and want the policy to be fair. Without a perception of fairness it is not going to happen. Much less than any sort of a majority want these people rounded up and deported.

It is entirely proper, compassionate, and economical to continue to build the fence eastward so that our whole border is protected. This extends to equal justice to all the residents along the border which is not the case with the state of Arizona, which is forced to take the brunt of the immigration and the drug trade.

Compassionate? Or just plain STUPID! These people laugh at us.......and some all the way to the bank!

 

[Againsheila]

<SNIP>
... She immediately had a child out of wedlock, diagnosed with an illness so she could collect ssi on him. You want to stop them, NO WELFARE. NO citizenship to children born to illegals. A oneway ticket home to every illegal caught. A $1000 fine and 2 years in jail to everyone caught hiring an illegal and that's PER illegal they hire.

It would end in no time.

We are a compassionate people, and those who want to legitimize that "compassion" extra-legally have up to now controlled the national dialogue by making any sort of strict policy seem to be lacking in our innate compassion for the underdog. Up to recently those have dominated the political debate have done so because they've controlled the language immigration has been discussed in in the MSM and in politics.

Our compassion extends evem to employers who would violate our own laws by hiring illegals. A $1,000 fine as you suggest is reasonable. And if passed it should be enforced, which has not always been the case.

But it should be enforced not just for every instance but for every day the violation persists. Once an employer is found with illegals in his workforce it is an easy thing to monitor a continuing violation. If an ellegal previously cited is found to have been transferred to another place by the employer, double the fine to $2,000 per day of continuance.

But when a prison term of 3-years is added to the penalty, the likelihood of its being enforced at all drops to nil. Unfortunately it will actually or I should say will "only" be in cases in which someone is singled out because of a case of political or bureaucratic revenge. It would be a political weapon, Chicago styile. An extreme penalty has a way of being a political weapon, when it is not simply ignored.

I outlined in my earlier post (HERE) a realistic and workable plan that would discourage new immigrants by limiting their access to employment opportunities, and for those who do work, provide an INCENTIVE to cause them to return to Mexico.

The residual problem is that of the dependent wives and children who are here and who do not work. A part of any plan should be to pass legislation eliminating anchor babies. But if you read my post, once the undocumented worker becomes documented, is required at all times while in the workplace requred to wear an unforgeable/untamperable ID badge, then all dependents could also be documented in the same way with the ongoing documentation.

Right now, more than ever before, a vast majority of the American people wants prompt and effective action/policy on illegal immigration, but they are still a compassionate people, and want the policy to be fair. Without a perception of fairness it is not going to happen. Much less than any sort of a majority want these people rounded up and deported.

It is entirely proper, compassionate, and economical to continue to build the fence eastward so that our whole border is protected. This extends to equal justice to all the residents along the border which is not the case with the state of Arizona, which is forced to take the brunt of the immigration and the drug trade.

How is it fair to grant legality to people who broke into our country? How is that fair to every legal immigrant in our nation? How is that fair to those who've been denied entry to this country and didn't force their way in? Fairness means sending home every single illegal immigrant and making them get in line like everyone else.

Fairness is taking care of our own before taking care of someone else's. My son's caregiver's hours were just cut. Do I have less work? No, the state has less money but the illegals are still here and still collecting money on their children born here. Heck some are even collection money on kids not born here. And because of them, I have to make do with less? How is that fair? I lived in Mexico in college and I paid my own way. I didn't collect welfare, I didn't get a job, they wouldn't let me. Heck even American prisoners in Mexico get money from home to pay for their incarceration in Mexico. How is that fair?

How is the trash they leave in the desert that we end up paying to clean up fair?

How is it not fair to put those responsible for them being here in jail?

 

[ConHog]

<SNIP>
... She immediately had a child out of wedlock, diagnosed with an illness so she could collect ssi on him. You want to stop them, NO WELFARE. NO citizenship to children born to illegals. A oneway ticket home to every illegal caught. A $1000 fine and 2 years in jail to everyone caught hiring an illegal and that's PER illegal they hire.

It would end in no time.

We are a compassionate people, and those who want to legitimize that "compassion" extra-legally have up to now controlled the national dialogue by making any sort of strict policy seem to be lacking in our innate compassion for the underdog. Up to recently those have dominated the political debate have done so because they've controlled the language immigration has been discussed in in the MSM and in politics.

Our compassion extends evem to employers who would violate our own laws by hiring illegals. A $1,000 fine as you suggest is reasonable. And if passed it should be enforced, which has not always been the case.

But it should be enforced not just for every instance but for every day the violation persists. Once an employer is found with illegals in his workforce it is an easy thing to monitor a continuing violation. If an ellegal previously cited is found to have been transferred to another place by the employer, double the fine to $2,000 per day of continuance.

But when a prison term of 3-years is added to the penalty, the likelihood of its being enforced at all drops to nil. Unfortunately it will actually or I should say will "only" be in cases in which someone is singled out because of a case of political or bureaucratic revenge. It would be a political weapon, Chicago styile. An extreme penalty has a way of being a political weapon, when it is not simply ignored.

I outlined in my earlier post (HERE) a realistic and workable plan that would discourage new immigrants by limiting their access to employment opportunities, and for those who do work, provide an INCENTIVE to cause them to return to Mexico.

The residual problem is that of the dependent wives and children who are here and who do not work. A part of any plan should be to pass legislation eliminating anchor babies. But if you read my post, once the undocumented worker becomes documented, is required at all times while in the workplace requred to wear an unforgeable/untamperable ID badge, then all dependents could also be documented in the same way with the ongoing documentation.

Right now, more than ever before, a vast majority of the American people wants prompt and effective action/policy on illegal immigration, but they are still a compassionate people, and want the policy to be fair. Without a perception of fairness it is not going to happen. Much less than any sort of a majority want these people rounded up and deported.

It is entirely proper, compassionate, and economical to continue to build the fence eastward so that our whole border is protected. This extends to equal justice to all the residents along the border which is not the case with the state of Arizona, which is forced to take the brunt of the immigration and the drug trade.

How is it fair to grant legality to people who broke into our country? How is that fair to every legal immigrant in our nation? How is that fair to those who've been denied entry to this country and didn't force their way in? Fairness means sending home every single illegal immigrant and making them get in line like everyone else.

Fairness is taking care of our own before taking care of someone else's. My son's caregiver's hours were just cut. Do I have less work? No, the state has less money but the illegals are still here and still collecting money on their children born here. Heck some are even collection money on kids not born here. And because of them, I have to make do with less? How is that fair? I lived in Mexico in college and I paid my own way. I didn't collect welfare, I didn't get a job, they wouldn't let me. Heck even American prisoners in Mexico get money from home to pay for their incarceration in Mexico. How is that fair?

How is the trash they leave in the desert that we end up paying to clean up fair?

How is it not fair to put those responsible for them being here in jail?

Fair =/= logical. We all know that. Is it fair that they came here illegaly? No of course not, but they are here so the only thing we can do now is decide what is logical, practical, and best for our nation. So let's examine the issue.

1) we do not have nearly enough INS agents to begin rounding up 12M people. We would probably have to expand 10X.

2) Our courtrooms are already over crowded, so when would they be given a trial, unless of course you propose we just chuck them over the border without so much as a trial to determine if they are legal residents or not?

3) What about children who are currently US citizens, are you going to tell them too bad your choices are A) go back to a country you don't even know and certainly don't belong to or B) live without your parents?

4) What about the huge expense involved with physically transporting these people back to Mexico?

5) In some cases entire industries would go under if their labor force were removed. Believe it or not some Americans would be affected by this

6) Do you I wonder realize that illegal aliens pay in an estimated $5B a year in various taxes? You just want to lose that revenue?

Wouldn't it be simpler and more logical to shut down the border and work towards getting those who are now on track to becoming legal?

 

[Againsheila]

We are a compassionate people, and those who want to legitimize that "compassion" extra-legally have up to now controlled the national dialogue by making any sort of strict policy seem to be lacking in our innate compassion for the underdog. Up to recently those have dominated the political debate have done so because they've controlled the language immigration has been discussed in in the MSM and in politics.

Our compassion extends evem to employers who would violate our own laws by hiring illegals. A $1,000 fine as you suggest is reasonable. And if passed it should be enforced, which has not always been the case.

But it should be enforced not just for every instance but for every day the violation persists. Once an employer is found with illegals in his workforce it is an easy thing to monitor a continuing violation. If an ellegal previously cited is found to have been transferred to another place by the employer, double the fine to $2,000 per day of continuance.

But when a prison term of 3-years is added to the penalty, the likelihood of its being enforced at all drops to nil. Unfortunately it will actually or I should say will "only" be in cases in which someone is singled out because of a case of political or bureaucratic revenge. It would be a political weapon, Chicago styile. An extreme penalty has a way of being a political weapon, when it is not simply ignored.

I outlined in my earlier post (HERE) a realistic and workable plan that would discourage new immigrants by limiting their access to employment opportunities, and for those who do work, provide an INCENTIVE to cause them to return to Mexico.

The residual problem is that of the dependent wives and children who are here and who do not work. A part of any plan should be to pass legislation eliminating anchor babies. But if you read my post, once the undocumented worker becomes documented, is required at all times while in the workplace requred to wear an unforgeable/untamperable ID badge, then all dependents could also be documented in the same way with the ongoing documentation.

Right now, more than ever before, a vast majority of the American people wants prompt and effective action/policy on illegal immigration, but they are still a compassionate people, and want the policy to be fair. Without a perception of fairness it is not going to happen. Much less than any sort of a majority want these people rounded up and deported.

It is entirely proper, compassionate, and economical to continue to build the fence eastward so that our whole border is protected. This extends to equal justice to all the residents along the border which is not the case with the state of Arizona, which is forced to take the brunt of the immigration and the drug trade.

How is it fair to grant legality to people who broke into our country? How is that fair to every legal immigrant in our nation? How is that fair to those who've been denied entry to this country and didn't force their way in? Fairness means sending home every single illegal immigrant and making them get in line like everyone else.

Fairness is taking care of our own before taking care of someone else's. My son's caregiver's hours were just cut. Do I have less work? No, the state has less money but the illegals are still here and still collecting money on their children born here. Heck some are even collection money on kids not born here. And because of them, I have to make do with less? How is that fair? I lived in Mexico in college and I paid my own way. I didn't collect welfare, I didn't get a job, they wouldn't let me. Heck even American prisoners in Mexico get money from home to pay for their incarceration in Mexico. How is that fair?

How is the trash they leave in the desert that we end up paying to clean up fair?

How is it not fair to put those responsible for them being here in jail?

Fair =/= logical. We all know that. Is it fair that they came here illegaly? No of course not, but they are here so the only thing we can do now is decide what is logical, practical, and best for our nation. So let's examine the issue.

1) we do not have nearly enough INS agents to begin rounding up 12M people. We would probably have to expand 10X.

2) Our courtrooms are already over crowded, so when would they be given a trial, unless of course you propose we just chuck them over the border without so much as a trial to determine if they are legal residents or not?

3) What about children who are currently US citizens, are you going to tell them too bad your choices are A) go back to a country you don't even know and certainly don't belong to or B) live without your parents?

4) What about the huge expense involved with physically transporting these people back to Mexico?

5) In some cases entire industries would go under if their labor force were removed. Believe it or not some Americans would be affected by this

6) Do you I wonder realize that illegal aliens pay in an estimated $5B a year in various taxes? You just want to lose that revenue?

Wouldn't it be simpler and more logical to shut down the border and work towards getting those who are now on track to becoming legal?

Logical? We've granted amnesty several times in the past and all it's done in increase illegal immigration. Do you know what they call someone that keeps doing the same thing and expecting different results?

 

[ConHog]

How is it fair to grant legality to people who broke into our country? How is that fair to every legal immigrant in our nation? How is that fair to those who've been denied entry to this country and didn't force their way in? Fairness means sending home every single illegal immigrant and making them get in line like everyone else.

Fairness is taking care of our own before taking care of someone else's. My son's caregiver's hours were just cut. Do I have less work? No, the state has less money but the illegals are still here and still collecting money on their children born here. Heck some are even collection money on kids not born here. And because of them, I have to make do with less? How is that fair? I lived in Mexico in college and I paid my own way. I didn't collect welfare, I didn't get a job, they wouldn't let me. Heck even American prisoners in Mexico get money from home to pay for their incarceration in Mexico. How is that fair?

How is the trash they leave in the desert that we end up paying to clean up fair?

How is it not fair to put those responsible for them being here in jail?

Fair =/= logical. We all know that. Is it fair that they came here illegaly? No of course not, but they are here so the only thing we can do now is decide what is logical, practical, and best for our nation. So let's examine the issue.

1) we do not have nearly enough INS agents to begin rounding up 12M people. We would probably have to expand 10X.

2) Our courtrooms are already over crowded, so when would they be given a trial, unless of course you propose we just chuck them over the border without so much as a trial to determine if they are legal residents or not?

3) What about children who are currently US citizens, are you going to tell them too bad your choices are A) go back to a country you don't even know and certainly don't belong to or B) live without your parents?

4) What about the huge expense involved with physically transporting these people back to Mexico?

5) In some cases entire industries would go under if their labor force were removed. Believe it or not some Americans would be affected by this

6) Do you I wonder realize that illegal aliens pay in an estimated $5B a year in various taxes? You just want to lose that revenue?

Wouldn't it be simpler and more logical to shut down the border and work towards getting those who are now on track to becoming legal?

Logical? We've granted amnesty several times in the past and all it's done in increase illegal immigration. Do you know what they call someone that keeps doing the same thing and expecting different results?

Except that this WOULDN'T be the same thing at all, because I, and most others, are actually calling for shutting the borders down completely first. By shutting down completely, I absolutely mean manning the border with armed military members with orders to shoot to kill anyone that tries to cross illegally.

 

[Againsheila]

Fair =/= logical. We all know that. Is it fair that they came here illegaly? No of course not, but they are here so the only thing we can do now is decide what is logical, practical, and best for our nation. So let's examine the issue.

1) we do not have nearly enough INS agents to begin rounding up 12M people. We would probably have to expand 10X.

2) Our courtrooms are already over crowded, so when would they be given a trial, unless of course you propose we just chuck them over the border without so much as a trial to determine if they are legal residents or not?

3) What about children who are currently US citizens, are you going to tell them too bad your choices are A) go back to a country you don't even know and certainly don't belong to or B) live without your parents?

4) What about the huge expense involved with physically transporting these people back to Mexico?

5) In some cases entire industries would go under if their labor force were removed. Believe it or not some Americans would be affected by this

6) Do you I wonder realize that illegal aliens pay in an estimated $5B a year in various taxes? You just want to lose that revenue?

Wouldn't it be simpler and more logical to shut down the border and work towards getting those who are now on track to becoming legal?

Logical? We've granted amnesty several times in the past and all it's done in increase illegal immigration. Do you know what they call someone that keeps doing the same thing and expecting different results?

Except that this WOULDN'T be the same thing at all, because I, and most others, are actually calling for shutting the borders down completely first. By shutting down completely, I absolutely mean manning the border with armed military members with orders to shoot to kill anyone that tries to cross illegally.

Every single amnesty promised to protect our borders from NEW illegals. EVERY SINGLE ONE.

 

[Angelhair]

Logical? We've granted amnesty several times in the past and all it's done in increase illegal immigration. Do you know what they call someone that keeps doing the same thing and expecting different results?

Except that this WOULDN'T be the same thing at all, because I, and most others, are actually calling for shutting the borders down completely first. By shutting down completely, I absolutely mean manning the border with armed military members with orders to shoot to kill anyone that tries to cross illegally.

Every single amnesty promised to protect our borders from NEW illegals. EVERY SINGLE ONE.

Which just proves the point that the USA is not interested in stopping the flow - but - it is still not a reason for the american people to stop trying to get the message to the WH that 'we won't take it anymore'!!!! AZ listened - now let's see if we can get more states to do the same.