San Fran running adds to attract illegal Immigrants

[Ravi]

Nothing like the current influx of people from Mexico and other South and Central American nations has happened in the way it is happening now, in 200 years.

Percentage wise, I've no way of know if that's true. But I imagine the Native Americans might disagree with you.

lol

 

[Tech_Esq]

So you don't see this as a state's right issue?

Protecting the borders is one of the few legitimate (an enumerated) purposes of the national government.

 

[Tech_Esq]

Because they aren't...

At least we know the terrorists are checking in with somebody before they come.

 

[Tech_Esq]

All I want is to know who is coming, I could care less if they made it legal from them to come. I just do not like the idea of our laws being ignored, and people being happy with that.

Absolutely right!

 

[Charles_Main]

Because they aren't...

That is one hell of an assumption you are making there. We have know way of knowing for sure. Hell we do not even know how many are crossing, let alone who.

 

[Tech_Esq]

So far...well over 200 years.

I'd like to see the immigration laws changed, I think the ones that are here should be able to work toward being citizens.

I've not seen a proposal on this problem that makes coherent sense, which makes me believe even more than it is nothing but a wedge issue.

You are slipping Ravi. Before you said that a country could have laws and enforce them concerning immigration. But it sounds here like the only law you really support is one saying that anyone can go to any country (or maybe just this one) and avail themselves of all the rights of citizenship when ever they want to. More or less correct?

Is there no legitimate purpose a government has in controlling its border? If there isn't then why would the countries of the world concerning themselves with all these needless and pointless expenditures?

 

[ReillyT]

You are slipping Ravi. Before you said that a country could have laws and enforce them concerning immigration. But it sounds here like the only law you really support is one saying that anyone can go to any country (or maybe just this one) and avail themselves of all the rights of citizenship when ever they want to. More or less correct?

Is there no legitimate purpose a government has in controlling its border? If there isn't then why would the countries of the world concerning themselves with all these needless and pointless expenditures?

Can a country have laws and enforce them concerning immigration? Of course.

Are there legitimate reasons that a country wants to control its border? Yes.

Is it therefore necessarily prudent for a country to enforce any law concerning illegal immigration? Not necessarily.

Perhaps the laws are bad laws in light of the circumstances and the cost of enforcing them will outweigh the benefits of doing so. Maybe changing the law or non-enforcement is better in sum than enforcement of the current laws. It is surely possible.

 

[Ravi]

Protecting the borders is one of the few legitimate (an enumerated) purposes of the national government.

Is it? What does it say, exactly?

 

[Ravi]

You are slipping Ravi. Before you said that a country could have laws and enforce them concerning immigration. But it sounds here like the only law you really support is one saying that anyone can go to any country (or maybe just this one) and avail themselves of all the rights of citizenship when ever they want to. More or less correct?

That isn't correct but you're probably smart enough to know that already.

Is there no legitimate purpose a government has in controlling its border? If there isn't then why would the countries of the world concerning themselves with all these needless and pointless expenditures?

Of course there is...if the economy and/or national security warrants it. In this case, I don't think it does. I also don't see any way possible to make it cost effective. In fact, I suspect it would be so costly that our economy would collapse.

 

[Charles_Main]

Is it? What does it say, exactly?

I believe it would be part of "providing for the common defense."

 

[Ravi]

I believe it would be part of "providing for the common defense."

That's what I thought he meant. Of course if we were seriously considering most of our illegals to be a threat to national security then we'd be considering their entry an act of war. It's quite a stretch to say that keeping illegals out is providing common defense.

Therefore, IMO, it can still be considered a state's rights issue. And if it isn't, why are the sanctuary cities allowed to be sanctuary cities?

 

[Charles_Main]

That's what I thought he meant. Of course if we were seriously considering most of our illegals to be a threat to national security then we'd be considering their entry an act of war. It's quite a stretch to say that keeping illegals out is providing common defense.

Where I think you are going wrong, is you are looking at it only in the context of the current situation, only in the context of Mexican immigrants. Instead of seeing that we should always know who is coming into our nation no matter who it is.

Therefore, IMO, it can still be considered a state's rights issue. And if it isn't, why are the sanctuary cities allowed to be sanctuary cities?

Umm because our government has continually failed to enforce its laws?

Come on girl, you know 2 wrong do not make a right.

 

[Ravi]

Where I think you are going wrong, is you are looking at it only in the context of the current situation, only in the context of Mexican immigrants. Instead of seeing that we should always know who is coming into our nation no matter who it is.

Why? It would cost too much money.

Umm because our government has continually failed to enforce its laws?

Come on girl, you know 2 wrong do not make a right.

I'm not convinced.

 

[Charles_Main]

Why? It would cost too much money.

Please!!!

I'm not convinced.

Of what?

 

[Charles_Main]

Slaying suspect once found sanctuary in S.F.

San frans policy has lead to the deaths of 3 people.

 

[Ninja]

Slaying suspect once found sanctuary in S.F.

San frans policy has lead to the deaths of 3 people.

Hey Charles,

check out post #5:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/724938-post5.html

I included som videos as well.

Gavin blames the NRA.

 

[Charles_Main]

Hey Charles,

check out post #5:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/724938-post5.html

I included som videos as well.

Gavin blames the NRA.

Yeah, I saw that, I guess he has to tell himself that to sleep at night, that man and is kids blood is on his hands. All he had to do was report the guy to the feds and 3 people would still be alive.

 

[Epsilon Delta]

I agree, that the majority of those who enter our county illegally are not at heart criminals, but that does not make it any less wrong that they broke our laws to enter the country.

True. I mean, it makes sense for US citizens to be angry at the idea that the government doesn't control the border properly, and it is correct to a degree that 'illegals' are breaking a law already by coming in, but that doesn't really tell the entire story. I don't like it when people like Lou Dobbs and Bill O'Reilly imply day after day that this is some sort of holocaust to the American people and that illegal immigrants forfeit their rights entirely when coming in. It's not hard to sympathise on both sides, really. The immigrants aren't coming in for a vacation, they come to make enough money to feed their families and secure a living when their options at home are completely exhausted (Really, why else make the dangerousm expensive, and probably futile journey?). In the wave lots of criminals come in as well, though. It's a real tough issue.

 

[Ravi]

Please!!!






Of what?

That it isn't a state's rights issue. I can see where the general welfare clause could cover it being a federal issue. But even then, I'm convinced the general welfare is better served by not spending billions to round up and deport immigrants.

 

[editec]

One does not need to have a solution to the problem of illegal aliens to see that the problem exists.