home

Bush Signs Border Bill

By Jeralyn, Section Civil Liberties
Posted on Fri Oct 27, 2006 at 06:45:00 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

700 miles of fence will be built along the Mexican border. President Bush signed the legislation Thursday. But that's not all:

The new law also provides for more vehicle barriers, checkpoints and advanced technology to bolster border security. A previously enacted domestic security spending bill provides $1.2 billion for the fence and the accompanying technology.

A mere $1.2 billion. Republicans must think money grows on trees. Hopefully, the American public will teach them it doesn't on November 7.

The border fence will not keep out the undocumented.

This was politics at its worst.

< Late Night: Counting Crows | Friday Open Thread >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Bush Signs Border Bill | 37 comments (37 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Re: "the fence" (none / 0) (#1)
    by cpinva on Fri Oct 27, 2006 at 12:56:34 AM EST
    i know i feel safer already. sort of. maybe. well, not really. is halliburton going to build it? if so, i wouldn't worry about it for another 20 years, at least.

    Building it (none / 0) (#2)
    by roy on Fri Oct 27, 2006 at 01:26:16 AM EST
    Presumably, they'll take advantage of the abundant cheap physical labor available here in the southern states.  You can just drive by some spots and pick up workers.

    Parent
    Another boondogle - Canada too (none / 0) (#3)
    by janinsanfran on Fri Oct 27, 2006 at 01:58:25 AM EST
    Have you noticed that they are also running this boondoggle on the Canadian border? What a combination of crooked scamming and terrifying people to reinforce their power!

    Illegal (none / 0) (#4)
    by jarober on Fri Oct 27, 2006 at 06:38:09 AM EST
    "The border fence will not keep out the undocumented."

    1. It's not about stopping all of it, it's about preventing some of it

    2. Try using the word "illegal".  It's far more accurate

    3. Why exactly does this bother you?  Do you leave your door unlocked and open at all times?


    Re: Illegal (none / 0) (#13)
    by Skyho on Fri Oct 27, 2006 at 11:18:57 AM EST
    jarober,

    It's not about stopping all of it, it's about preventing some of it

    It just raises the cost to the undocumented crosser, money that will go to the smuggler.  Congratulations.  Prohibition with live people, to start out.

    Try using the word "illegal".  It's far more accurate

    Undocumented means, in effect, status unknown, a much more accurate description.  For instance, I have gone across the border numerous times to hunt and fish and would be somewhat chagrinned to be called an "illegal".

    Why exactly does this bother you?  Do you leave your door unlocked and open at all times?

    Ten minutes from front door to downtown Los Angeles and we have yet to lock our doors, either house or autos.  In fact, it is like that in the entire neighborhood.  

    Parent

    Wrong (1.00 / 0) (#23)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Oct 27, 2006 at 04:46:11 PM EST
    skyho - And when you went across you had a driver's license, credit cards and probably other things that documented you.

    So you were not then, now or will be "undocumented."

    And yes, "illegal alien" is accurate, descriptive and used by those of us who don't want open borders.

    Parent

    Re: Wrong - Yes, you are wrong, Jim. (none / 0) (#27)
    by Skyho on Sat Oct 28, 2006 at 08:27:39 AM EST
    Jim,

    And when you went across you had a driver's license, credit cards and probably other things that documented you.

    No, I did not.  I was too young to have a drivers license, much less credit cards and, other than a canteen and sticks of gum I had not much else, though I did have passable ingles.

    Besides, where I went across, there would have been no one to show "id" to, either direction.

    Jim, you need to leave your dark, warm, fetal-like basement world and come up for air every once in a while.  You might come to realize that building a "wall" will fence us in rather than keep "undocumenteds" out.

    Parent

    Common Sense - Lack of (none / 0) (#28)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Oct 28, 2006 at 09:17:56 AM EST
    Skyho - If you had none of these I would hope you were with an adult. If not, I don't know whether to admire your spirit of adventure or laugh at your lack of common sense. I think your current and past comments dictate the latter.

    Speaking of waking up and being sheltered, take a look around and you will discover that the world at the time of "Skyho's Big Adventure" no longer exists.

    As has been pointed out time and again, the fence is one measure of many that will hopefully slow the flood of illegal aliens to a trickle and let us figure out what to do with 10-12 million illegal aliens that are already here.

    But let us cut to the chase. What would you do to stop the influx??

    Parent

    Re: Common sense (none / 0) (#32)
    by Skyho on Sat Oct 28, 2006 at 03:29:42 PM EST
    PPJ,

    You wingnuts seem to have led such protected lives.  Perhaps that is why many of you seem so naive when talking about anything beyond our borders.  A little unsupervised travel would help mature your world-view, immensely, as well as help you develop some common sense.

    What would you do to stop the influx?

    We can spend billions on "border security" that really will not work, even very well, or, we can spend billions on providing opportunities in, the current problem area, Mexico.

    Sen. Dorgan touches on this in his book, "Take this job and ship it".    By allowing industrial combines to take over agriculture, we have killed our "seed corn" in many different ways.  By forcing farmers to buy sterile (non-reproducing) seed, we made them dependent on the corporations.  As a result, over 2 million family farms in Nortern Mexico have been sold to the corporations, leaving families, nay, extended families, looking for work.

    One stops the "influx", not through violent means, but through economic incentives to produce within their homeland.  Of all the "undocumenteds" I know, I know of none who really want to leave their homeland.  However, like the Okies of the '30's many feel they must migrate or die.

    How to go about it?  Lots of different ways.  You are dealing with a very wealthy country that is a democracy in name only.  It is mainly ruled by thieves and thugs, repeatedly raping the land and people, sort of like our country.  The upside is that nearly all Mexicans are hard-working and honest to a fault.

    I laid out some problems.  I will simply say that America has never benefited from exclusionary policies.  Walls have never worked in a satisfactory manner, from Hadrian's to Israel and are quickly rendered useless, usually by a simple and enlightened change of policy.

    Stop the influx by making it attractive to stay where they are.   Is it cheaper to provide incentives or to build and maintain a wall?  Do the math.  The carrot is always better and cheaper than the whip.

    Parent

    skyho's small adventure (none / 0) (#34)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Oct 29, 2006 at 10:17:10 AM EST
    skyho - So your solution is to provide billions in foreign aid on the theory that the Mexican government will somehow reform itself and then reform the economy.

    Huh?  If that would work, why hasn't it?

    President Bush promised to increase US foreign aid, currently $10 billion a year, to $15 billion a year,

    Let's face facts. Mexico's problems stem from a culture that discourages birth control (Catholic) and a historical large land owner served by peons economy, which in turn encourages large families. Result. A huge underclass and a small elite population that has no real interest in reform and creating a middle class to compete with it.

    Result, people do the logical thing and try to get out. There's nothing wrong with this basic human desire, just as there is nothing wrong in the US wanting to insure that an influx of people from Mexico will not change the culture of the US and damage the economy/infrastructure/life style, especially of our citizens who are on the low end of the economic scale.

    You merely have to decide which side are you on. Those who want to get in, illegaly I might add, and those who want to try and control the borders.

    And I object to you using the word "violent." Building walls and enforcing borders is not violent. If so, why not tell women that if they just give their attacker what they want, then they won't be hurt. Now we both know that is wrong in multiple ways. Well, I do. You can speak for yourself.

    In one of your earliest comments I believe you inferred that you had some special knowledge/source. I challenged that. Your comment about "wingnuts" having a limited view of the world demonstrates that you not only have no special souce, but in fact it is you that have not traveled and that it is you that has a very poor knowledge of history.

    And one more time, dear skyho. I am not a conservative. I am not a Repub. I am not a Demo.

    I am social liberal and Indpendent. And being a liberal does not mean that you are unwilling to protect the country and think that open borders would be a good thing.

    Do some more "traveling," skyho. See the real world.

    Parent

    Link on aid (none / 0) (#35)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Oct 29, 2006 at 10:21:53 AM EST
    Here is the link on foreign aid.

    Parent
    Cost per foot of fence (none / 0) (#5)
    by JSN on Fri Oct 27, 2006 at 07:28:44 AM EST
    The $1.2 billion has been called a downpayment (Are they anticipating a cost overun?) which works out to $325 per foot. This probably includes a road
    and electronic sensors and because some of the places that the fence will be located are remote and rugged the transportation and labor costs will be high. My guess is that $325 per foot will not cover the costs.

    We have spent the past few winters in Green Valley AZ where were are well placed to observe the mass influx of humanity crossing the border. There are crossing points where the foot traffic has caused serious erosion. One day when the temperature was below freezing they found five dead bodies in the area West of Green Valley.

    I suppose we will keep out the folks who can't climb fences. Does anyody think a fence will do anything more than slow the rate of influx?

    A true rethuglican bargain... (none / 0) (#15)
    by Bill Arnett on Fri Oct 27, 2006 at 12:11:19 PM EST
    ...at only $1,714,286 a mile! And that's for a "virtual" fence; what would a "real" fence cost us?

    And, as conventional wisdom dictates, "Build a 50-foot tall fence and I'll show you a man with a 51-foot ladder."

    This is strictly for show, to try and convince voters that the GOP is the party of "d-fence", and thus better able to protect us. So they build a 700-mile fence to protect over 2,000 miles of border.

    R-i-i-i-i-g-g-g-g-h-h-h-t-t!

    Parent

    It's a beginning, not an end (none / 0) (#6)
    by fafnir on Fri Oct 27, 2006 at 07:47:29 AM EST
    A fence, no matter how long or high, is not a silver bullet solution for our illegal alien problem. A fence will slow down the volume of illegals and drug traffic, but to be more effective it needs to part of a comprehensive economic and border security package.

    Regarding illegals, a comprehensive solution must include strict worksite enforcent to turn off the job magnet attracting foreign laborers to enter the US illegally. Illegal employers must suffer heavy fines and jail time for hiring illegals.

    Second, we need serious trade reforms and foriegn policy objectives that motivate Mexico to use their common wealth for the common good to create sustainable employment opportunities for their citizens.

    Lastly, illegals who are in the US should not be granted immunity or "guest worker" status, but be allowed the same opportunity to apply for legal status from their country of origin as those who play by the rules. Without jobs, many -- if not most -- illegals will self-deport over time, and compel employers to compete fairly for labor.

    STRICT worksite enforcement (none / 0) (#9)
    by Jen M on Fri Oct 27, 2006 at 09:37:45 AM EST
    not only nice stiff fines, but actual jail time. A few days for someone hiring a guy for a day to help paint, a longer time for someone hiring 1,000 people  as permanent emplyees.

    Illegals who have been here for 18 years since they were 1 should be given a break, a chance to earn citizenship. Military service, americorps or somesuch. Military service especialy should be a ticket to citizenship for these kids.

    Illegal is Illegal, but there is a sliding scale of nature of the offence. a one year old is supposed to stop his parents from crossing the border?  a 16 year old is supposed to tell them to go back?  Fine in theory but how many 16 year olds get their way when it comes time for family moves?

    There has to be room for compassion or we are not a nation of laws but a machine with no moral center - just programing.

    Parent

    If not now, when? (none / 0) (#14)
    by fafnir on Fri Oct 27, 2006 at 11:44:05 AM EST
    I empathize with the plight of illegals who overcame many challenges and dangers to arrive here to pursue their economic purposes. As a citizen, however, I have a responsibility to ensure that legal immigrants and native born Americans have opportunities to pursue their own purposes as well.

    These purposes conflict when the illegal population increases classroom size, burdens the healthcare system, and are given jobs at low wages that working-class Americans want to do for a fair wage, especially in construction, retail and hospitality. Furthermore, some states legislatures are extending the benefit of in-state tuition costs (or lower) to illegals, while denying this benefit to citizens who had the misfortune of being born out-of-state rather than out of the country.

    The impact of a large and growing illegal population on our society is not without consequences. Financial and opportunity costs are increasingly being paid by citizens, especially those who are less-educated and less-skilled than the majority of liberals and conservatives who advocate the corporate cheap labor/open border agenda.

    Out of fairness to those who play by the rules, we must stop rewarding those who willfully jump the line and break our immigration laws. Illegals come here for one overriding reason: to work. Without the freedom to work, many illegals will leave over time.

    America must stop being a relief valve for negligent oligarchs who enrich themselves and impoverish their country.

    Parent

    Unintended Consequences (none / 0) (#16)
    by roy on Fri Oct 27, 2006 at 12:18:06 PM EST
    Stepping up enforcement against employers might work, but be careful.  You could end up making it too risky to hire people who look or act like they might be from outside the US, on top of the potential to make it more expensive to hire people in general.

    I know you're targeting companies who deliberately hire illegals, but some companies do it unintentionally because illegals can trick employers.  That means some companies will pretend to do it unintentionally.  How will honest companies prove their honesty?

    If it takes a lot of work to verify work eligibility (so the employer can actually be honest) or to prove that those steps have been taken (so an honest employer isn't unfairly convicted), then you've increased the cost of hiring in general.  Increased cost of hiring means increased appeal of alternatives: overtime for existing employees, automation, off-shoring, and so on.

    If either of the above isn't pretty near foolproof, you've increased the risk of hiring people who aren't "obviously" legal, where "obviously" will usually mean white and with a local accent.  Most businesspeople spend somebody else's money and won't freak, but imprisonment is a big deal.  A 1% chance of facing prosecution, or a 1% chance of going to prison after being tricked, will scare the pants off everybody in the country who makes hiring decisions.

    Then there's the question of what happens when employers mistakenly turn away those who can legally work.  Will a good faith effort at verifying eligibility protect the employer from civil suits by those turned away?  This will probably happen more often with non-whites.  Will the employer be protected from racial discrimination suits using the ratio as evidence, or from the the reputation-damning chants of "racist"?

    And how screwed will a worker -- alien or citizen -- be if they lose their paperwork?  Mandatory unemployment while waiting X weeks for a replacement after losing everything in a fire?  That's fine for the middle class and up, we have savings and better fire departments anyway, but it could devastate the working-class families which labor protectionism is supposed to help.

    Parent

    oh, (none / 0) (#19)
    by Jen M on Fri Oct 27, 2006 at 03:26:26 PM EST
    when it's rich employers illegal is no longer illegal?

    Parent
    Rich? (none / 0) (#21)
    by roy on Fri Oct 27, 2006 at 04:02:39 PM EST
    Not all employers are rich.  If anything, the smaller employers will have a harder time dealing with any new rules.  They can't as easily afford the long-term investments in people or infrastructure to spread the cost of compliance around.  Nor can they afford as good a lawyer to make it appear -- truthfully or not -- that they've tried to verify work eligibility if they're accused of knowingly hiring illegals.

    But now it's thought experiment time.

    You're hiring laborers for a week-long project that starts tomorrow.  One who asks for a job doesn't speak a lot of English, but you speak Spanish so that's fine.  He convinces you he has the skills and work ethic you're after.  Only trouble is, the name on his driver's license is "George Gonzalez" and the name on his Social Security card is "Jorge Herbert Gonzalez".  It's not uncommon for different government agencies to list names differently because of miscommunication, but it's also not uncommon for illegals to have cobbled-together sets of fake ID.

    In today's non-cracked-down environment, do you hire him?

    How about in an environment where, if George turns out to be an illegal and a judge determines that you should have known so, you spend a week in jail?

    And if there's a white dude with ID reading "Steve Smith", a Texas drawl, and the same qualifications, asking for the same job?


    Parent

    so (none / 0) (#26)
    by Jen M on Fri Oct 27, 2006 at 09:52:37 PM EST
    Illegal isnt ALWAYS illegal

    Parent
    picture id (none / 0) (#29)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Oct 28, 2006 at 09:33:58 AM EST
    roy - In 2000 I changed jobs. I was required to do a drug test and provide proof of citizenship... among acceptable proof was a notarized birth certificate, US passport plus two supporting pieces of proof.. drivers license, utility bill...

    What is coming, and has to be whether we like it or not, is a Fed issued ID card with picture, address, etc.

    Parent

    bat squeaze (none / 0) (#25)
    by fafnir on Fri Oct 27, 2006 at 06:30:17 PM EST
    An applicant has either legitimate credentials (i.e., his or her Social Security Number) or the applicant is a fraud.
     
    The Social Security Account Number is a unique identifier for citizens. When an employer submits the number for verification, the Social Security Administration knows whether the number submitted matches the owner.

    When repeated mismatch discrepancies occur, the administration is prohibited from reporting it to the appropriate authorities for investigation. Instead, the administration, along with the illegal employer and the illegal hire, perpetuate a cruel game of fraud and abuse at the expense of the real account owner.

    The consequences of this "game" that illegal employers play impact real lives, like those of Camber Lybbert, who "thought it was a mistake when her bank told her that her daughter's Social Security number was on its files for two credit cards and two auto loans, with an outstanding balance of more than $25,000. Her daughter is 3 years old."

    The New York Times <http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/04/us/04theft.html> piece continues: "For Ms. Lybbert and her husband, Tyson, the call was the beginning of a five-month scramble trying to clear up their daughter's credit history. As it turned out, an illegal immigrant named Jose Tinoco was using their daughter's stolen Social Security number, not in pursuit of a financial crime, but to get a job."

    There are many more personal stories like this one, and some with financially devastating results.

    So, if employers are serious about making it simpler to verify a prospective employee's credentials, they can begin immediately by lobbying Congress to end the nonsense that prevents the Social Security Administration from sharing information with immigration or law enforcement agencies.

    Parent

    Small steps (none / 0) (#10)
    by Gabriel Malor on Fri Oct 27, 2006 at 10:17:44 AM EST
    I agree that this is just a beginning. There is a need for comprehensive border and immigration reform. The problem is that Congress tried to put together a big package and was unable to cut through the partisan hysterics. So instead, the Republicans have decided to take a "small steps approach."

    We've got a while before true border and immigration reform is possible. Before we get there a few things need to change.

    (1) We have to admit that there is a problem. This is a bigger issue than many believe. First, many businesspeople rely on off-the-books labor and therefore will resist any reforms that place their business model in jeopardy. Second, many liberals truly believe that an "open borders" policy is the best policy. This group, relying, I guess, on the "World Community" idea, will also resist any action which appears to limit the free movement of people across the borders.

    Both groups are missing or disregarding important concerns. First, having an illegal shadow population is bad for the illegals because they don't have the same access to social safety nets and legal protections that citizens do. Second, the trans-border movements of this large group of people provide cover for more nefarious criminals.

    (2) We have to do something about illegals that are already here. Either we get them some of the protections of citizens, or we get rid fo them entirely. I would argue that the second course is not practical or desirable and that therefore we have to do something to bring them into this society. Failure to assimilate this population will give us a result something like what France is seeing: violent unrest among groups that have been segregated from society and who have no hope of a change in their status.

    I don't particularly care what this looks like (I mean, whether it's a blanket amnesty plan or graduated amnesty or even something more clever), but it will not work unless we simultaneously address issue (3). Also, whatever we decide to do, we should not incentivise illegal behavior over legal applications for citizenship. IOW, our solution must be better than the current situation, but not as progressive as granting automatic citizenship. Otherwise we disincentivise the legal processes we've established for entry into this country.

    (3) We have to do something about those trying to enter illegally. We should be trying to keep that population of illegals from growing. If we decide to embrace our immigrant population and give them legal protection and status, we run the risk of encouraging more illegal entry. Since we know that our current border regime is not up to the task of preventing border crimes, we have to make some changes.

    Fences and an increased security presence address the problem directly, assuming they are used effectively. The incentive to cross can also be reduced by increasing penalties and enforcement for those who employ illegal labor. These folks are crossing the border to get to jobs. Jobs where they are afforded less than legal protections. Remove the jobs, and we will have removed the incentive.

    So, from the above, my ideal border and immigration reform package would contain:
    Granting of some legal status and protections to current immigrants.
    Outlawing (no, really, we mean it this time) of illegal immigration by which I mean, no further legal status and protection will be granted to future illegal immigrants, only those who are currently here.
    Increased border enforcement.
    Increased enforcement and penalties for employing illegal labor.

    Parent

    I agree (none / 0) (#7)
    by aw on Fri Oct 27, 2006 at 08:31:09 AM EST
    Regarding illegals, a comprehensive solution must include strict worksite enforcent to turn off the job magnet attracting foreign laborers to enter the US illegally. Illegal employers must suffer heavy fines and jail time for hiring illegals.

    I think this is key.  They want to have it both ways.  The fence is just more expensive window dressing.

    Bothersome (none / 0) (#8)
    by kdog on Fri Oct 27, 2006 at 09:12:48 AM EST
    Why exactly does this bother you?

    It's an eyesore and a waste of money.  I don't want to see the US become a massive "gated community".  The unintended consequence is shutting yourself off from the world around you.

    "Give me land lots of land under starry skies above, Don't fence me in."

    - Cole Porter

    Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breath free...and tell them to hop the fence.
     

    i'm against the fence........... (none / 0) (#11)
    by cpinva on Fri Oct 27, 2006 at 10:27:45 AM EST
    for the same reasons i opposed the invasion in iraq: the threat is overblown, with no empirical evidence to support the assertions made; the plan to correct it, such as it is, is poorly drawn and lacks sufficient resources to accomplish the mission.

    increase the border patrol agents, the number of detention beds for INS.

    enact draconian penalties for employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants. if you can get life for selling pot, you should get the same for hiring these people. hell, hiring illegal immigrants should be considered a possible breach of national security, you have no clue who they really are.

    capture and deport all illegals, with their children. sorry, it's the only way to be fair to those who followed the rules. additionally, enact a five year ban on them applying for legal immigration.

    put major pressure on the govt's of the countries responsible for the majority of illegal immigrants, to force them to improve their own economies. if necessary, cut them off from trading with the U.S. until they show tangible signs of improving their economies.

    As a former law enforcement officer... (none / 0) (#17)
    by Bill Arnett on Fri Oct 27, 2006 at 12:31:49 PM EST
    ...as well as having served in the armed forces, and just plain old commonsense dictate that it is and always will be impossible to arrest, detain, and deport over 11-million people.

    Unless you are in favor of pogroms and genocide, of which I sincerely do not believe that you would be in favor, the logistics, manpower, and money required would complete the bankrupting of America and take a hundred years of futile effort.(Actually, at the rate of 1,000 arrested/charged/deported PER DAY it would only take a little over THIRTY YEARS.)

    The only practical solution, mentioned here by many, including yourself, is to enact TRULY DRACONIAN penalties against employers of illegal aliens.

    Once CEOs, CFOs, and Chairmen of the Boards start paying fines in the millions of dollars AND spent say, 100 days in jail for each illegal worker PER DAY of employment, the hiring of illegals would cease.

    Parent

    what to do (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Oct 28, 2006 at 10:32:06 AM EST
    Bill - As a member of the armed forces and a former law enorcement agent, then you have to had some amount of first aid training, and have an understanding of what you treat first. i.e. If the patient is not breathing and bleeding, treat the breathing problem first.

    The fence and other associated measures to stop the influx is just that. After we have done that we can start to worry about the 10-12 million that are already here.

    And that's a tough problem. If you grant amnesty you are telling those still trying to come that if they get here, we'll do the same thing again, thus reducing the effectiveness.

    If you have a solution for that, let me know.

    In the meantime there some things that can be done and that I think a maajoriy of US citizens would support.

    First, if you are illegal and have a child born here we should ship the family and child to the parents country.

    i.e. No "anchor" children used to grant citizenship to illegal alien parents.

    Make an attempt to purchase false ID, or possesion of false ID, or selling false ID a very serious federal crime. First conviction seven years and deportation. Sale by a citizen, ten years.

    Employing an illegal alien.. Two years jail time for the hiring manager/person. Five years for the hiring manager/person supervisor... ten years for people above...

    Increase the minimum wage to $10.00 an hour. This, plus a reduction in illegal employees, will create a job market that will pay enough to attract legal workers.

    And yes.... be prepared to pay more for your burger and fries, yard to be mowed, your maid to clean and farm products. Look at it as your contribution to the national good.

    Mandate that all law enforcement agencies arrest and turn over to the Feds anyone suspected of being an illegal alien. Absent any other crimes, illegals and families should be deported. And the feds must be stopped from releasing people on bail. They just don't come back.

    Mandate that no state, local or indian reservations  may provide protected status to illegal aliens.

    Mandate no in state tution for illegal aliens. No exceptions.

    Mandate no safety net for illegals. If they are hungry or need medical attention let them turn themselves in.

    Some of these may seem harsh. But remember that these illegal aliens came here for monetary gain.
    While that is understandable, it is not reason to let them cause the damage to our country that we are seeing.

    Parent

    What are YOU smoking? (none / 0) (#12)
    by Che's Lounge on Fri Oct 27, 2006 at 11:12:03 AM EST
    So Jarober, you want to throw $700 million dollars at a problem, just to prevent some of it?
    You sound like Bush's accountant.

    Et al,
    To actually believe, for even a moment, that this vertical porkbarrel is going to do anything to eliminate the problem of undocumented workers coming into this country is politically naive, and actually dangerous to our community. It's purpose is to make a few people rich while giving the false impression that the current criminal in chief is actually doing anything. At all.

    Meanwhile the solution to the problem is obvious on it's face. If everyone who has a job in this country is registered into a trade union there would be no illegal immigration.

    But of course, the corporatocracy and the mindless purchasers of their anti-union rhetorical crap will attack the unions as corrupt, or "communistic". They use the media to blind you to the fact that the "farmers", who are actually business alliances, have worked in concert with the government for decades to put down any attempt to legitimize guest worker programs. They keep wages down and illegal immigration up by having their political friends write the right laws and using private hiring agencies to circumvent the unions. These people are the true cause of illegal immigration in this country.

    The solution is to remove the politicians who write laws, and spend money, to enrich themselves and their corporate backers, while the nazi minutemen get the air time.

    Treat not a treatment (1.00 / 0) (#31)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Oct 28, 2006 at 10:38:36 AM EST
    Che writes:

    Jarober, you want to throw $700 million dollars at a problem, just to prevent some of it

    Che, how many patients do you know that are treated for one serious disease while there is another serious disease present?

    Oh, Jane. You have breast cancer so we're not going to treat the car accident damage...

    Huh???


    Parent

    No, it surely won't keep 'em out (none / 0) (#18)
    by scribe on Fri Oct 27, 2006 at 12:36:30 PM EST
    And, even if it would, people like the Immigration official profiled in this comment would take care of matters, for a few dollars.

    No, it surely won't.... (none / 0) (#20)
    by Edger on Fri Oct 27, 2006 at 03:56:49 PM EST
    People put up fences for one reason. Fear. Once the fence is up they then have another fear - that someone will climb over it or go around it or dig under it.

    One way or another they'll get past it. All fences do is increase the fear level.

    See scribes' comment above. Also see Peaches' comment here.

    Parent

    Edger, you define yourself, again (none / 0) (#36)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Oct 30, 2006 at 07:13:49 AM EST
    Edger - People put up fences for many reasons.. To keep their animals on their property... to keep others off their property.... to protect their crops and gardens from animals, wild and domestic...

    While all of these actions are based on security, none of them are basd on the "fear" you love to trot out when someone disagrees with you.

    In the meantime you live in a world that is largely safe because we have fences and borders that people do not cross, and we have police and military to protect those "borders."

    You define yourself. You have no world to defend and  you mistakenly believe that you are of the world. Your inability to identify with any group may give you a false sense of security, based totally on the actions of others.

    If would be nice if your beliefs were true, edger. But they aren't. That you do not understand this demonstrates that you are very naive.

    Parent

    Border bill (none / 0) (#22)
    by Sailor on Fri Oct 27, 2006 at 04:46:08 PM EST
    The problem is that Congress tried to put together a big package and was unable to cut through the partisan hysterics.
    Since the rethugs control congress how could it be partisan hysterics?

     It's obviously just a ploy to appeal to xenophobes who vote rethuglican.

    bill, you're numbers make no sense (none / 0) (#24)
    by cpinva on Fri Oct 27, 2006 at 05:49:47 PM EST
    bill arnett, your numbers don't add up. 1,000/50=20 per day per state. since the bulk of illegals are concentrated in but a few border states, a concentrated effort, using local information, should have a far greater yield of arrests. if one employer has 50 illegals working in one factory or farm, that's 2.5 times what you're suggesting is feasible for an entire state.

    being realistic, the odds of getting all 11m aren't that great. however, the constant, very real threat of being discovered/arrested/deported might cause many to voluntarily leave.

    add to that the economic pressure of no job and no public services, the incentive to stay starts to lose its appeal.

    admittedly, i don't have the actual #'s in front of me, but i'm willing to bet money those 11m are not evenly distributed throughout the 50 states. probably 80-90% are concentrated in maybe 6 states. that's where you put your federal law enforcement resources, to get the biggest bang for your buck.

    i would go even farther, and submit that they aren't evenly distributed throughout the 6 states, but again are concentrated, in metropolitan areas, where there is a high level of the types of jobs most of them are qualified for. it narrows your enforcement area even further, allowing more focused attention, and increasing your rate of return on enforcement doller investment.

    The numbers are right... (none / 0) (#37)
    by Bill Arnett on Mon Oct 30, 2006 at 12:37:23 PM EST
    ...and easy to figure. Arrest/convict/deport 1,000 people a day for one year, 365,000 people. Divide 11,000,000 by 365,000 (or you can strike three zeros from each number and divide 11,000 by 365). Either way you find it will take 30.136986301 years to deport 11-million people.

    Still think it is logistically possible to evict 11-million people? I don't know how much it would cost to undertake such a doomed-to-failure endeavor, but I would wager we would come close to DOUBLING our deficit from $9-trillion to $18 trillion in the attempt.

    Parent

    Look up 'irony' (none / 0) (#33)
    by Nowonami on Sun Oct 29, 2006 at 09:29:41 AM EST
    Maybe this fence is to catch flotsam and jetsam should there be another Katrina like flooding along the Rio Grande, rather than for trying (failing) to keep illegal immigrants out.

    Bush Signs Border Bill | 37 comments (37 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment