I never cease to be amazed!

[tom pritchett]

I think that public hanging of illegals would start a run for the border. If we were like say Cuba, Afganistan or even North Korea, we wouldn't have an imigration issue. Maybe we could put them to non paid hard labor for say... 20 years and then deport them.

I do employ people from other countries. They are on working visas and they worked hard to get them. The government loves them as I take out the taxes that the government will never have to pay out in benefits. This is the correct way to run immigration. We don't make these people citizens of our country, they are here just for work. After a while, they go home and retire in the country they come from.

Are we the only country that makes a person a citizen if they are born in our countrys borders? Let's keep the children of these illegals citizens of the country of their parents. This will help with "we must keep the parents here for the children".

 

[Ian K]

Here's some interesting stats:

Twelve Americans are murdered every day by illegal aliens, according to statistics released by Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa. If those numbers are correct, it translates to 4,380 Americans murdered annually by illegal aliens. That's 21,900 since Sept. 11, 2001. This is more than are dying in Afganistan and Iraq combined.

Ah, that lovable Steve King. I wouldn't put much stock into his statistics - he is incorrectly extrapolating numbers from an GAO report from 2005 which does not even specify whether or not the convicted non-citizens were here legally or illegally, amongst other incorrect assumptions.

Colorado Media Matters - On consecutive broadcasts, Boyles and guests repeated dubious statistic that illegal immigrants "kill 25 Americans every single day"

What can be done?
We must secure our borders. Denying jobs to illegal aliens through a centralized secure identity verification system is important to that effort.
We must assure that the criminal conviction of an alien leads to deportation and permanent exclusion from the United States.

What really should be done is assuring that the criminal conviction of an illegal alien leads to deportation, permanent exclusion from the US and incarceration in their home country. Because, while the deportation and permanent exclusion may happen, once they are released back to their home country, they most likely will sneak back into ours. But I wholeheartedly agree with denying jobs to illegal aliens through a centralized secure identity verification system, as well as better securing our borders - though I am not all that confident in "the fence".

 

[Howard Jones]

What to do?

1. Make the fines for employing illegals so expensive it doen't pay to do so.

2. Seize the property (company assets) of employers who repeat offend on #1.

3. Deport any illegal that is discovered.

4. Convict/inprison repeat offenders of illegally crossing our borders. See #5

5. Contract out the prison system to a very low cost country for the purpose of holding convicted illegal prisoners. Cuba?

6. Make it a federal law that no city/state may harbor illegal's and denigh federal fund to those who do.

7. Make it a federal law that no benifits shall be paid to illegal's and deduct federal funding to states that do by the same amount they spend on benifits paid to illegal's

8. Fench the border and actively prevent illegal crossing of same.

 

[Doug S.]

What really should be done is assuring that the criminal conviction of an illegal alien leads to deportation, permanent exclusion from the US and incarceration in their home country. Because, while the deportation and permanent exclusion may happen, once they are released back to their home country, they most likely will sneak back into ours. But I wholeheartedly agree with denying jobs to illegal aliens through a centralized secure identity verification system, as well as better securing our borders - though I am not all that confident in "the fence".

I figure the incarceration part of your suggestion above isn't going to happen.....I mean, think about how "lenient" the laws are in Mexico these days for Mexican citizens.....now, try to figure out how to get Mexico to enforce our more stringent laws. Not gonna happen....and certainly not at Mexico's expense. The issue of re-entry might well be handled by better scrutiny at the established border crossing points.....but IMHO that's not where the majority of the illegal invaders enter, it's over the unprotected borders.

The border issue is a bit perplexing for me. History has proven that the drug cartels will tunnel under, cut through, or find a way over any fence that we build. I'd like to suggest something:

Bring our troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan....after all, we are but a fly in their ointment right now, a temporary impediment to their jihads, which they seem to enjoy with the same fervor as we enjoy the gladiatorial contests that happen on our football fields here in the U.S.A. This is entertainment for them and they'll joyfully go right back to killing each other soon as we leave (already have in Iraq!!!). Anyway, bring our troops home and station them along the U.S./Mexico border, one soldier every 100 yards with an automatic rifle in their hands and orders to shoot to kill if any illegal entrant attempts to elude them. If we approach it in this manner, the responsibility will be shouldered by the entity charged with the task.....the federal government.....and we'll have full employment for our returning soldiers. Sort of a win-win situation (except for those who would enter our country illegally.....thankfully)!

Bottom line.....we MUST make the "penalty points" greater than the rewards if we are going to stop the invasion from the south. Until we do that, their plight in Mexico will continue to motivate them to move north in larger and larger numbers.

Doug

 

[Ian K]

Bottom line.....we MUST make the "penalty points" greater than the rewards if we are going to stop the invasion from the south. Until we do that, their plight in Mexico will continue to motivate them to move north in larger and larger numbers.

Doug

Yep - take away the incentive, or make the risks far outweigh the gains, and the problem will self-correct. The problem is, for many, making the risks far outweigh the gains is very difficult. For them, even a US prison is more inviting than the situation at "home".

And, yes, the wall will not deter them much, and will cost us a lot. Hell, even Steve King's conservative estimate is $1.3 million per mile, or about $1.3 billion, just to construct. That doesn't include maintenance, or any other ancillary costs.

 

[Al Wohlstrom]

Not all of us...

Thank God!

 

[Jack]

Anyone have a problem with simply shooting them as they climb, crawl or otherwise
get around the fence? They are after all, illegal..catch them & deport them and they'll be right back. Mexico has little interest in this problem, so no help can be expected from there.

 

[tom pritchett]

Mexico benefits from this situation. Most of these illegals send the money home by wire transfer. Of course Mexico wants this to continue. It's in their best interest.

I'm all in for shooting illegals at the border or otherwise.

 

[Doug S.]

Anyone have a problem with simply shooting them as they climb, crawl or otherwise
get around the fence? They are after all, illegal...

As "radical" as I am regarding this issue, Jack, I'd see that as "....cruel and unusual punishment"---prohibited by our constitution :idea: .

BUT.......now, if they ran when confronted by one of those servicement I proposed be stationed along the border, well, I could see that serviceman being in fear for his life, believing that the invader had deadly weapons stashed somewhere near his entry point, and using deadly force to protect himself. No need to go hunting for Mexicans.....but if they are anything other than cooperative and contrite when confronted, they might be a danger to our citizenry........

Doug

 

[Roark_John]

Can you imagine how much more effective America would be at the international bargaining table, if in the background were playing an endless loop...wave after wave of illegal immigrants running across no-man's-land at the border, being shot down...in full Technicolor and Dolby 5.1, in grainy black and white, and the green-tinted hue of night vision?

Might put some tooth back in our policy AND some fear back in our enemies, since they have lost all respect for us.

Anyone have a problem with simply shooting them as they climb, crawl or otherwise
get around the fence? They are after all, illegal..catch them & deport them and they'll be right back. Mexico has little interest in this problem, so no help can be expected from there.

 

[Mike Christian]

You folks in CA do have a different thought process, don't you!

Actually, I am an Oregonian if you want to lump me in a group.

 

[Al Wohlstrom]

Actually, I am an Oregonian if you want to lump me in a group.

Is it fair to say that CA is a very liberal state? I saw So Cal under your name and jumped to a conclusion, how silly of me.

 

[Cliff Beer]

Let's get real here for a second...

1. There's very little "border security" in a practical sense as we don't have a 100' high electrified wall. What we've got is thousands of miles of opern territory patrolled by too-few border agents, each with modest levels of resources. So, we're going to have a LOT of "leakage" and thus the struggle is fought not just at some unmarked border, but instead in the streets of LA, San Francisco, Dallas, etc. where there aren't border agents, but where there are police men and woman. Give 'em the tools (translation: the rights) they need.

2. No legal citizen is getting deported just because they can't produce ID that day. Get real. Even if you don't have a wallet and ID on you that day, if you're a citizen then you've got enough connections to the US in various ways to convince the border agent not to deport you. Please.

3. Here's the dirty little secret: the vast majority of US citizens think illegals should be deported, and have no rights while in the US awaiting deportation, however, most folks don't really want to publicly say that (particularly politicians) because it's easy to be labeled a "racist" or "insensitive" by those few with big mouths who want to apply labels.

4. Jailing illegals isn't an option. The nation's jails are already way, way overwhelmed - there simply isn't the room for it. And, frankly, for many illegals, jail is no worse than going back to Mexico. It's not much of a disincentive for making a run across the border.

5. What's wrong with using force against illegals making entry into the US? If I ran through the German border with my car or on foot, some "force" is coming my way pronto which might well include a kick to the head or a jab with a rifle butt. Would I be surprised by that? Nope.

6. Illegals aren't "contributing" anything by taking low-wage jobs. It's an even exchange: money for work. Now, if instead, they were paying federal and state income taxes on those wages then they start to "contribute" something to the overall social scheme, but not until.

7. To say that illegals are doing low wage jobs that American citizens won't do is pretty dumb. If the illegals weren't there in the first place, thereby dramatically increasing the supply of low-wage workers, a) wages would be marginally higher, and b) there's plenty of Americans willing to do those jobs, even at the very low wages. Related, if I have to pay a bit more for my apples or my janitorial and painting services because a US citizen is performing them, I don't have a problem with that. Why? My tax bill might just be correspondingly less because at least those US citizens are paying taxes on those earnings, and not seaking free social services. (Note: everyone realizes that those people earning very low wages don't pay that much tax under our current Internal Revenue Code so let's skip that point of discussion.)

So here's a question: why is it that the US is supposed to open up its borders to let in anyone and everyone who wants to come here when no other country in the entire world does that? Is there some historical or cultural difference that says we need to be different than the rest of the world's practices?

 

[Pete McCluskey.]

Cliff + 1, well said. At least Oz is an island.

 

[Nick]

We reap what we sow

Food Crisis in Mexico: A US Policy Disaster That Bodes Increased Immigration

The urgency of the issue is heard in the voice of a poor indigenous shopkeeper in Oaxaca: "I hope to God that prices come back down - there is no hope otherwise." She then lamented, "Another one from our family will have to emigrate to the U.S."

This is a crisis, however, that has been in the making for over two decades. Wages for Mexican workers lost 82-percent of their purchasing power since 1982, the year when trade liberalization, privatization, and market deregulation were first imposed on Mexico by the U.S.-dominated International Monetary Fund. The same IMF structural adjustment programs, in conjunction with the 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement, plowed under Mexico's food security by mandating the privatization or dissolution of state-regulated grain reserves and price-support programs, sweeping reductions in farmer credit and subsidies, the deregulation of commodities markets, and the elimination of tariff and quota protections on imported agricultural products. These radical changes to Mexico's largely self-governed food system and the precipitous fall in real earning power, compounded by the dumping of U.S. agricultural commodities that were heavily subsidized under previous Farm Bills, made it utterly impossible for almost all Mexican small producers and most medium-size growers to maintain an internal market for their goods.
Mexicans can no longer produce the basic food their country needs, nor can they afford the products sold to them by U.S. agribusiness giants such as Cargill and Archer Daniels Midland. Twenty years of this "silent food crisis" have resulted in increased undocumented migration, rising crime, unplanned urbanization, and many more people trying to make their way in the informal economy - trends that are likely to amplify given current policy and the mounting issues affecting global food prices.

The new Farm Bill despite having been praised for domestic nutrition programs and financial support for small farms, maintains the unfair practice of designating the majority of its billions in subsidies to large agricultural conglomerates. As a result, large U.S. firms will keep the upper hand in setting the price for Mexican consumers.

Moreover, as it governs U.S. agricultural policy through 2012, the new law will continue subsidizing corn-based ethanol (now mandated to supplement every gallon of U.S. gasoline), furthering the trend of increased scarcity in corn - the main staple in the Mexican diet - and also raising the cost of other grains by diverting cropland for ethanol production. The World Bank recently stated in a leaked internal report that biofuel production accounts for 75 percent of the current rise in global food prices, a finding which brings further subsidization of corn-based ethanol into serious moral question.

 

[Mike Christian]

I saw So Cal under your name and jumped to a conclusion, how silly of me.

No worrries Al, I just want to get the facts straight. I live in both states, but my residence is Oregon. I was just messing with you.

 

[Garry]

+1 Nick! All except the part about Mexican Fruits and veggies. They are a major exporter of Agriculture in the US for most of the year. The truth is that Mexico exports a lot of it's own production because the growers make more money. As for the corn debacle, you are correct. We should not be mandating bio-fuels that use feed-stock. That puts pressure on food prices worldwide. No doubt congressmen from the corn growing states and corporate entities like Archer-Daniels lobbied for this legislation. Who would have thought that farm conglomerates would be in the fuel business this century?! It represents huge money for these guys and what Pol can pass up a buck! Not to mention that these farm communities recieve a $500B subsidy, most of which is going to the largest producers like A-D. Dumb and Dummer!

Garry

 

[Al Wohlstrom]

I do like the Arizona Corporation Commission.

Gary Pierce realizes that Los Angeles gets about 25% of its power from Arizona producers. I still think, at this point, retaliatory measures are appropriate against boycotting cities.

Dear Mayor Villaraigosa,

I was dismayed to learn that the Los Angeles City Council voted to boycott Arizona and Arizona-based companies — a vote you strongly supported — to show opposition to SB 1070 (Support our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act).

You explained your support of the boycott as follows: “While we recognize that as neighbors, we share resources and ties with the State of Arizona that may be difficult to sever, our goal is not to hurt the local economy of Los Angeles, but toimpact the economy of Arizona. Our intent is to use our dollars — or the withholding of our dollars — to send a message.” (emphasis added)

I received your message; please receive mine. As a state-wide elected member of the Arizona Corporation Commission overseeing Arizona’s electric and water utilities, I too am keenly aware of the “resources and ties” we share with the City of Los Angeles. In fact, approximately twenty-five percent of the electricity consumed in Los Angeles is generated by power plants in Arizona.

If an economic boycott is truly what you desire, I will be happy to encourage Arizona utilities to renegotiate your power agreements so Los Angeles no longer receives any power from Arizona-based generation. I am confident that Arizona’s utilities would be happy to take those electrons off your hands. If, however, you find that the City Council lacks the strength of its convictions to turn off the lights in Los Angeles and boycott Arizona power, please reconsider the wisdom of attempting to harm Arizona’s economy.

People of goodwill can disagree over the merits of SB 1070. A state-wide economic boycott of Arizona is not a message sent in goodwill.

Sincerely,

Commissioner Gary Pierce

The mayor is going to be very unpopular if the lights start going out!

 

[Chris Martino]

Loose analogy-

My cat, a Tabby (the type needing all 9 lives due to their curiosity) is an indoor cat that we let outside under supervision. When we let him out he usually tries to impress us with his climbing abilities (up and over the fence, climbing the banister to the upper deck etc) and so ends up in places I don't want him to be. I have been trying to find ways to keep him in the yard via barriers, verbal calls to stop etc - you name it.

Peanut was soon due for a trip to the vet for an illness where the vet promptly clipped his claws to make handling him easier. Upon coming home, the next time he wanted out, he tired to scale the fence and climb the banister but this time with no luck and after awhile, gave up.

Why? Dull claws.

This was a solution to the climbing issue that I never considered (duhhh - go figure). Obviously this isn't a people solution but when we complain of neighbors cats climbing fences and pooping in our gardens, the owners too have the power to make a difference by a simple and humane act.

There has to be sensible way to make things work for all.


Chris

 

[Al Wohlstrom]

Loose analogy-

My cat, a Tabby (the type needing all 9 lives due to their curiosity) is an indoor cat that we let outside under supervision. When we let him out he usually tries to impress us with his climbing abilities (up and over the fence, climbing the banister to the upper deck etc) and so ends up in places I don't want him to be. I have been trying to find ways to keep him in the yard via barriers, verbal calls to stop etc - you name it.

Peanut was soon due for a trip to the vet for an illness where the vet promptly clipped his claws to make handling him easier. Upon coming home, the next time he wanted out, he tired to scale the fence and climb the banister but this time with no luck and after awhile, gave up.

Why? Dull claws.

This was a solution to the climbing issue that I never considered (duhhh - go figure). Obviously this isn't a people solution but when we complain of neighbors cats climbing fences and pooping in our gardens, the owners too have the power to make a difference by a simple and humane act.

There has to be sensible way to make things work for all.


Chris

I wish it were as easy as that! I think you probably saw Mexico's President speak on national tv. He received a standing ovation from democrats and the president for his rant against the US. Not only do we have a president that travels throughout the world apologizing for and demeaning the USA, we allow leaders of other countries to spout their dislike for our country on the biggest stage, and then we throw a hollywood party with celebrity chefs for them! I wonder who paid for that fiasco? Beyonce doesn't come cheap! But what's a million here or there when we have a faucet spewing trillions. You expect perhaps that president Calderone is going to trim some nails?