The SAVE Act

[daveman]

Sanctuary cities? You're kidding, right? The existence of "sanctuary cities" is the reason we ahve an illegal immigration problem??
Is that what passes for thought in the anti immigrant circles?
Come on. You're smarter than that.

You asked for what the left is doing to block solutions.

They're refusing to cooperate with Federal law. And that rewards criminals.

That isn't blocking solutions. That is a very localized phenonmenon. You'll have to try harder to be credible on this issue.

The truth is that despite massive amounts spent and draconian laws we have made very little difference in illegal immigration. This is because the problem is just not susceptible to law enforcement but demands a look at the root issue.
That root issue is abundance of jobs for low skill low pay workers on the one hand and a very willing and mobile labor pool on the other.
You can either legalize the free movement of labor (a conservative idea btw) or stimulate demand for labor in their home country.
Shooting people just isn't an option here.

Neither is rewarding criminals.

What is so hard to understand about that? Illegal immigrants are criminals. Your heart can bleed that "They're just looking for a better life!", but that's their own country's problem.

Get in line, come in legally, and I'll shake your hand and thank you for making America a better place.

Sneak in like you think the law doesn't apply to you, and I'll ask that you be deported with a trebuchet, because you're just a fucking criminal.

The left doesn't want America to be the world's policeman, but you damn sure want us to be the world's welfare office, don't you?

 

[The Rabbi]

You asked for what the left is doing to block solutions.

They're refusing to cooperate with Federal law. And that rewards criminals.

That isn't blocking solutions. That is a very localized phenonmenon. You'll have to try harder to be credible on this issue.

The truth is that despite massive amounts spent and draconian laws we have made very little difference in illegal immigration. This is because the problem is just not susceptible to law enforcement but demands a look at the root issue.
That root issue is abundance of jobs for low skill low pay workers on the one hand and a very willing and mobile labor pool on the other.
You can either legalize the free movement of labor (a conservative idea btw) or stimulate demand for labor in their home country.
Shooting people just isn't an option here.

Neither is rewarding criminals.

What is so hard to understand about that? Illegal immigrants are criminals. Your heart can bleed that "They're just looking for a better life!", but that's their own country's problem.

Get in line, come in legally, and I'll shake your hand and thank you for making America a better place.

Sneak in like you think the law doesn't apply to you, and I'll ask that you be deported with a trebuchet, because you're just a fucking criminal.

The left doesn't want America to be the world's policeman, but you damn sure want us to be the world's welfare office, don't you?

First off, I am hardly "the Left."
Second, on your view, everyone is a criminal. Have you driven 56mph in a 55mph zone? Then you're a criminal. Calling people names doesn't really solve the problem.
Second, we have to ask why people don't go the legal route. The answer is simple: it takes 5 years and lots of money to go the legal route. The illegal alternative is simpler and cheaper. If we make the legal route simpler and cheaper we will cut out a lot of illegal traffic and be able to concentrate on actual criminals, like murderers and drug dealers.
Third, we have tried deporting people by the bus load. It doesn't work.

 

[daveman]

That isn't blocking solutions. That is a very localized phenonmenon. You'll have to try harder to be credible on this issue.

The truth is that despite massive amounts spent and draconian laws we have made very little difference in illegal immigration. This is because the problem is just not susceptible to law enforcement but demands a look at the root issue.
That root issue is abundance of jobs for low skill low pay workers on the one hand and a very willing and mobile labor pool on the other.
You can either legalize the free movement of labor (a conservative idea btw) or stimulate demand for labor in their home country.
Shooting people just isn't an option here.

Neither is rewarding criminals.

What is so hard to understand about that? Illegal immigrants are criminals. Your heart can bleed that "They're just looking for a better life!", but that's their own country's problem.

Get in line, come in legally, and I'll shake your hand and thank you for making America a better place.

Sneak in like you think the law doesn't apply to you, and I'll ask that you be deported with a trebuchet, because you're just a fucking criminal.

The left doesn't want America to be the world's policeman, but you damn sure want us to be the world's welfare office, don't you?

First off, I am hardly "the Left."
Second, on your view, everyone is a criminal. Have you driven 56mph in a 55mph zone? Then you're a criminal. Calling people names doesn't really solve the problem.
Second, we have to ask why people don't go the legal route. The answer is simple: it takes 5 years and lots of money to go the legal route. The illegal alternative is simpler and cheaper. If we make the legal route simpler and cheaper we will cut out a lot of illegal traffic and be able to concentrate on actual criminals, like murderers and drug dealers.
Third, we have tried deporting people by the bus load. It doesn't work.

We're never going to agree on this.

 

[Angelhair]

Then this country is doomed! That simple.

 

[The Rabbi]

Neither is rewarding criminals.

What is so hard to understand about that? Illegal immigrants are criminals. Your heart can bleed that "They're just looking for a better life!", but that's their own country's problem.

Get in line, come in legally, and I'll shake your hand and thank you for making America a better place.

Sneak in like you think the law doesn't apply to you, and I'll ask that you be deported with a trebuchet, because you're just a fucking criminal.

The left doesn't want America to be the world's policeman, but you damn sure want us to be the world's welfare office, don't you?

First off, I am hardly "the Left."
Second, on your view, everyone is a criminal. Have you driven 56mph in a 55mph zone? Then you're a criminal. Calling people names doesn't really solve the problem.
Second, we have to ask why people don't go the legal route. The answer is simple: it takes 5 years and lots of money to go the legal route. The illegal alternative is simpler and cheaper. If we make the legal route simpler and cheaper we will cut out a lot of illegal traffic and be able to concentrate on actual criminals, like murderers and drug dealers.
Third, we have tried deporting people by the bus load. It doesn't work.

We're never going to agree on this.

That isn't the purpose. The purpose is to debate the issues.
And I don't see how you can push more enforcement when enforcement has failed terribly, despite spending massive amounts of money.

 

[signelect]

We have the only border in the world that is wide open. the drones sound good to me. Find them and shot them, within a week the number trying to cross would slow to a trickle. Granted world opinion would go berserk but we are the only country I know of to have these problems. I wonder if I broke into the home of the head of Lulac and told him I liked it and wanted to stay and would he feed me and take care of my family while I was there he would call the police.

 

[daveman]

First off, I am hardly "the Left."
Second, on your view, everyone is a criminal. Have you driven 56mph in a 55mph zone? Then you're a criminal. Calling people names doesn't really solve the problem.
Second, we have to ask why people don't go the legal route. The answer is simple: it takes 5 years and lots of money to go the legal route. The illegal alternative is simpler and cheaper. If we make the legal route simpler and cheaper we will cut out a lot of illegal traffic and be able to concentrate on actual criminals, like murderers and drug dealers.
Third, we have tried deporting people by the bus load. It doesn't work.

We're never going to agree on this.

That isn't the purpose. The purpose is to debate the issues.
And I don't see how you can push more enforcement when enforcement has failed terribly, despite spending massive amounts of money.

Because enforcement wasn't done correctly, because it wasn't taken seriously.

 

[The Rabbi]

We're never going to agree on this.

That isn't the purpose. The purpose is to debate the issues.
And I don't see how you can push more enforcement when enforcement has failed terribly, despite spending massive amounts of money.

Because enforcement wasn't done correctly, because it wasn't taken seriously.

We have increased the budget for the BP by a factor if 12, and increased the number of agents 3.7 times.
Which part of that is not serious? How much more would you propose to spend to solve the problem?
Testimony

 

[daveman]

That isn't the purpose. The purpose is to debate the issues.
And I don't see how you can push more enforcement when enforcement has failed terribly, despite spending massive amounts of money.

Because enforcement wasn't done correctly, because it wasn't taken seriously.

We have increased the budget for the BP by a factor if 12, and increased the number of agents 3.7 times.
Which part of that is not serious? How much more would you propose to spend to solve the problem?
Testimony

What's the Border Patrol's rules of engagement?

 

[The Rabbi]

Because enforcement wasn't done correctly, because it wasn't taken seriously.

We have increased the budget for the BP by a factor if 12, and increased the number of agents 3.7 times.
Which part of that is not serious? How much more would you propose to spend to solve the problem?
Testimony

What's the Border Patrol's rules of engagement?

I dont know. I would assume the same as any other law enforcement agency in this country.
What's your point?

 

[daveman]

We have increased the budget for the BP by a factor if 12, and increased the number of agents 3.7 times.
Which part of that is not serious? How much more would you propose to spend to solve the problem?
Testimony

What's the Border Patrol's rules of engagement?

I dont know. I would assume the same as any other law enforcement agency in this country.
What's your point?

Because it doesn't matter the size of their budget or the number of agents. It matters what they're allowed to do -- and where they're allowed to do it:

During an April 14 press conference, Republican sponsors of the bill indicated that the Interior Department's interference with the Border Patrol’s congressionally mandated operations had opened the 20.7 million acres of public land along the southern border to illicit activity, which is often associated with illegal immigration.

--

Of the 20.7 million acres of federal land covered by the Republican bill, 4.3 million acres are designated as “wilderness areas.”

--

In a prepared statement, the sponsors of the legislation said that “according to internal memos, DOI officials have asserted that the Wilderness Act of 1964 trumps border security legislation passed by Congress.”

According to the 1964 federal Wilderness Act, “wilderness” land is broadly defined as “an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain.”

The “wilderness area” designation prohibits Border Patrol agents from using motorized vehicles, building roads, or installing monitoring devices in these areas, which essentially makes them inaccessible to agents.

The strict enforcement of these regulations has failed to preserve the lands as originally intended. Pictures displayed at the press conference showed that much of the “wilderness areas” had been trashed by illegal immigrants using these trails to cover their entry into the United States.​

DoI is preventing one-fifth of the US-Mexican border from being patrolled.

You still want to claim that the government is taking border security seriously? Because they're not.

 

[The Rabbi]

You'e focusing on incidentals like sanctuary cities and wilderness areas. Even if those things went away we would still have an enormous problem. And more funding is not going to fix it.
You never answered the question about ROEs.

 

[dblack]

Because enforcement wasn't done correctly, because it wasn't taken seriously.

The debate on the enforcement of immigration laws has a lot of parallels to drug prohibition. We could, if we really wanted to, stop both illegal immigration and the illegal drug trade. But the question is, do we really want it bad enough to do what it takes?

If we really wanted to put a stop to illegal drug use, we could do it. We could institute mandatory random drug testing of all citizens. We could apply the death penalty to minor drug offenses, etc, etc, ... But most of us don't think it's worth turning our nation into a full-blown police state to curb drug abuse.

Likewise, we could virtually eliminate illegal immigration if we wanted it bad enough. If we erected enough walls and fences, stationed enough armed guards and drones, and punished violators ruthlessly enough, we could put a stop to almost all illegal immigrants. But would it be worth the cost?

Most people aren't willing to answer 'yes' to either one of those questions, which is why we don't see such draconian efforts implemented. Yet that leaves us in a really bad place. Laws that can't be enforced consistently, or that we don't have the will to enforce consistently, make for bad government. They erode respect for the law in general and demoralize those tasked with enforcing laws without solid support to do so.

We need to shit or get off the pot. If we're not willing to 'kick ass and take names' over drug abuse or immigration (I'm not) then we need to replace the existing laws with policy that we are willing to enforce like we really mean it.

 

[The Rabbi]

Because enforcement wasn't done correctly, because it wasn't taken seriously.

The debate on the enforcement of immigration laws has a lot of parallels to drug prohibition. We could, if we really wanted to, stop both illegal immigration and the illegal drug trade. But the question is, do we really want it bad enough to do what it takes?

If we really wanted to put a stop to illegal drug use, we could do it. We could institute mandatory random drug testing of all citizens. We could apply the death penalty to minor drug offenses, etc, etc, ... But most of us don't think it's worth turning our nation into a full-blown police state to curb drug abuse.

Likewise, we could virtually eliminate illegal immigration if we wanted it bad enough. If we erected enough walls and fences, stationed enough armed guards and drones, and punished violators ruthlessly enough, we could put a stop to almost all illegal immigrants. But would it be worth the cost?

Most people aren't willing to answer 'yes' to either one of those questions, which is why we don't see such draconian efforts implemented. Yet that leaves us in a really bad place. Laws that can't be enforced consistently, or that we don't have the will to enforce consistently, make for bad government. They erode respect for the law in general and demoralize those tasked with enforcing laws without solid support to do so.

We need to shit or get off the pot. If we're not willing to 'kick ass and take names' over drug abuse or immigration (I'm not) then we need to replace the existing laws with policy that we are willing to enforce like we really mean it.

Superficially you're right.
But there is a big difference between drugs and immigrants. Immigrants largely add to the economic life of this country, driving down labor costs. Drugs subtract from the life of this country, increasing crime, violence, and health costs.
I am all for the Chinese solution to the drug problem. First offense, finest rehab we can afford. Second offense, execution.
On immigration I favor a system where someone wanting to work here can get a biometric ID with a laissez=passer back to the country where he crossed over that allows him to work anywhere here for a specific period. The card should be issued within a week and cost about $100.
Anyone not doing that should be presumed to be a violent criminal and treated appropriately.

 

[dblack]

I am all for the Chinese solution to the drug problem. First offense, finest rehab we can afford. Second offense, execution.

Ok. But (fortunately, in my opinion) most people don't agree with you and aren't willing to back such extreme measures.

In any case, I'm hoping you at least see my point. We need to have laws that we're willing to enforce, and we need to be willing to enforce the laws we have. The contradiction between the to is tearing us apart.

 

[The Rabbi]

I am all for the Chinese solution to the drug problem. First offense, finest rehab we can afford. Second offense, execution.

Ok. But (fortunately, in my opinion) most people don't agree with you and aren't willing to back such extreme measures.

In any case, I'm hoping you at least see my point. We need to have laws that we're willing to enforce, and we need to be willing to enforce the laws we have. The contradiction between the to is tearing us apart.

I agree that it depends entirely on how serious people are.
But what I propose has been proven to work. What we're doing now is just counterproductive.

 

[brokenarrow]

The first step is to develop reasonable policies for legitimate foreign workers. Anywhere you have a border with the kind of wealth disparity that exists between the US and Mexico, you're going to have a massive draw for the eager labor on one side to meet up with the paying customers on the other.

I had a fascinating experience at the Alamo a couple of years ago. The tour guide gave a brief history of the region and the situations that led to the famous battle there. He explained how, after Mexico won its independence from Spain, it was eager to advance itself and develop the wilderness of the region that was to become Texas. They began an aggressive campaign to lure settlers to the region. They offered grants of cash and property to anyone willing to develop the land. The offers were extended to anyone willing to work, regardless of nationality.

Shortly thereafter, however, a conservative backlash in Mexico City marked a radical reversal of that policy, and the offers halted. In some cases they were reversed. It seems the conservatives were worried about all the foreigners (mostly US Americans) 'invading' their land and watering down the Latin-American/Spanish culture. They closed the borders and did their best to keep people out.

But, as the tour guide pointed out, when there is a wealth of opportunity on one side of a border, and eager people yearning for that opportunity on the other, there's very little hope of keeping them out. And they couldn't. In the end, their draconian efforts to do that backfired on them, and they lost Texas.

The point is, pretending we can keep hungry people away from the work that will feed them is delusional. And I see no reason why we should.

The best way to keep the dangerous elements from crossing the border is to make sure that the vast bulk of immigrants who aren't dangerous can cross safely. When the legal channels are easier than hiking through the desert, legitimate immigrants and guest workers will gladly use them rather than supporting the pipeline of illegal immigration. Then we can focus on the remaining "illegals" vigorously, when their number will be reduced and we can be sure they are up to no good. As it is, we're treating all of them as a threat and we can't possibly deal with the volume.

You missed an important point. Most of those settlers had lost everything they had in the depression years earlier. But Texas was not wealthy and neither was Mexico which doesn't prove the point of a rich country next to a poor.

Mexicans and other invaders are coming across "to get even". This was established by the BBC as they road the trains with "migrants". These people HATE Americans. They want to destroy the American way of life and make this country part of Latin America.

War is the only answer and soon!

You're an idiot.

That's what they called Churchill when he warned the world about Hitler and Germany.

 

[brokenarrow]

Because enforcement wasn't done correctly, because it wasn't taken seriously.

The debate on the enforcement of immigration laws has a lot of parallels to drug prohibition. We could, if we really wanted to, stop both illegal immigration and the illegal drug trade. But the question is, do we really want it bad enough to do what it takes?

If we really wanted to put a stop to illegal drug use, we could do it. We could institute mandatory random drug testing of all citizens. We could apply the death penalty to minor drug offenses, etc, etc, ... But most of us don't think it's worth turning our nation into a full-blown police state to curb drug abuse.

Likewise, we could virtually eliminate illegal immigration if we wanted it bad enough. If we erected enough walls and fences, stationed enough armed guards and drones, and punished violators ruthlessly enough, we could put a stop to almost all illegal immigrants. But would it be worth the cost?

Most people aren't willing to answer 'yes' to either one of those questions, which is why we don't see such draconian efforts implemented. Yet that leaves us in a really bad place. Laws that can't be enforced consistently, or that we don't have the will to enforce consistently, make for bad government. They erode respect for the law in general and demoralize those tasked with enforcing laws without solid support to do so.

We need to shit or get off the pot. If we're not willing to 'kick ass and take names' over drug abuse or immigration (I'm not) then we need to replace the existing laws with policy that we are willing to enforce like we really mean it.

And the opposite of those laws you think can't be enforced is the madness of no laws. Every year, there are more gang members than the year before. Would you prefer gang members running your life? It could happen.

 

[The Rabbi]

You missed an important point. Most of those settlers had lost everything they had in the depression years earlier. But Texas was not wealthy and neither was Mexico which doesn't prove the point of a rich country next to a poor.

Mexicans and other invaders are coming across "to get even". This was established by the BBC as they road the trains with "migrants". These people HATE Americans. They want to destroy the American way of life and make this country part of Latin America.

War is the only answer and soon!

You're an idiot.

That's what they called Churchill when he warned the world about Hitler and Germany.

I remember Winston Churchill.
You're no Churchill.

 

[dblack]

And the opposite of those laws you think can't be enforced is the madness of no laws. Every year, there are more gang members than the year before. Would you prefer gang members running your life? It could happen.

I don't think the current laws "can't be enforced". Please read my post again. They most certainly can be enforced. My point is, we don't have the will to do what is necessary (i.e. we don't want to as a nation). I don't know why you'd jump from that point to the opposite extreme (no laws at all), other than histrionics. That fact that the laws we have aren't being consistently enforced, essentially creates the kind of lawlessness you're worried about.

What I'm suggesting is seeking out alignment between our actual laws and what we're willing to enforce. Then we can start taking the problem seriously and actually do something about it.