aeroripper

Because then they know exactly when, and where they are coming in. With the tradional measures they can just cut holes in chain link fences, and they've been traveling inside the country for a while. Instead of having to patrol the entire length of the wall or along the most heavy traffic areas, you can have night vision\thermal cameras which make it easier to see everyone. I'd imagine it would be an easier alternative especially at night.

Think of it like tripping a laser beam in a bank vault, alarms go off, they pinpoint the exact location of the intrusion instantaneously. Response times go up. I smell mission impossible 4.

CingularDuality

As to whether illegal immigration is good or bad: how can allowing uncontrolled entry to our nation by unknown people be a good thing? There's a thousand reasons why we want people to go to a Port of Entry and ask for permission to enter our country. Without control of our borders we have NO security. That's right, I'm saying that right now we're living in a nation that isn't secure.

As to using technology or a wall to close the borders: Nice idea, but the only answer is a bigger Border Patrol. Walls and UAVs don't catch intruders. Specially trained federal agents do. You might hear the term "force multiplier" thrown around, and to a certain extent some of these ideas are, but really the sheer numbers that we're talking about make it a moot point. Who really cares if you double your apprehensions of illegal aliens from ten percent to twenty percent?

As to this bill: The increase in penalties for illegal aliens don't matter. The courts and US Attorney's Offices can't keep up with the current felony immigration cases. On the border, the federal prisons are filled with aliens charged with federal misdemeanors. There simply aren't any resources for putting more illegal aliens in prison. It's already a matter of prioritizing your criminals. Do you want to see a criminal alien that's been deported 17 times to do some prison time, or do you want to see a criminal alien that has gang tattoos, but has only been deported once to do the time? If the alien doesn't already have criminal convictions, you can forget about the US Attorney being interested in prosecuting an alien for illegal re-entry (or any new administrative offenses).

Some of the other things in the bill are very important. I haven't read the latest version, but I thought this was the one that was going to get rid of jus soli. That's pretty significant and I've got mixed feelings about it. There are also a lot of changes to the agencies within DHS, which is probably something that I find a lot more interesting than most of you...

__________________

Become a supporting member!

Buy a Tactical Duck!
Take the world's smallest political quiz! "I was touched by His Noodly Appendage."
TacticalGamer TX LAN/BBQ Veteran:

Steeler

Is this the bill that includes felony charges for providing aid to an illegal, including humanitarian aid or medical care? There were some churches raising (pardon the expression) holy Hell over that.

__________________

Mateo

Sure guys: put another nail in the coffin of American agri-business, which has about 30-40% illegals.

Then, shut down the restaurant industries in most major cities: all the prep-cooks, kitchen staff, and busboys? Illegal. (That's a broad brush-I should say "in Boston")

Then, be ready to clean your offices yourself.

Illegals fill the jobs that Americans are "above" taking. Pure and simple.

Sucks to be a border state, but you were a Mexican colony to begin with. Imagine being in the Northeast, and suddenly need to know Spanish to get something done!

Apophis

I both agree with this and disagree at the same time. Let me explain.

In Rhode Island, the most you can draw on unemployment is $463 per week. It doesn't matter if you were making $250,000 before you became unemployed, you're capped at $463. You then have to pay income tax out of that $463.

$463 per week works out to just over $11.50 per hour pre-tax. If illegal immigrants are taking jobs away from American citizens, and some of those jobs would pay at least $11.50 per hour to a non-illegal, those jobs should be preserved for Americans. Forcing people on unemployement or welfare to take those jobs and stop milking the system is another story entirely, but I'm sure there is still a decent percentage of jobs out there that are being given to illegals that could be given to Americans for a workable wage while still keeping the employers profitable.

I don't know how I would find the data to back up my assumption regarding those jobs, it would probably be easier to do in the border states by looking at the jobs the illegals are taking vs. what an American citizen is being paid in the same job for a company that isn't breaking the law by employing illegals.

__________________
Diplomacy is the art of saying "good doggie" while looking for a bigger stick.

leejo

I think it is. However I have little doubt that the traditional protections for relationships with lawyers, doctors, and clergy would still apply.

When you think about it though, these people are in the country illegally, and there is a line between giving aid and advice to a criminal and harboring or assisting that criminal. Such a law may simply help remind these people of that line and help define it for them.

Steeler

So soup kitchens would need to check for visas before providing food?

__________________

Mateo

Well, below a certain income level, you are conditioned to think that welfare is there for you. So if the choice is $463 per week, or $250 per week busting your ass moping floors, most American's game the system.

I don't think it is a seperate issue, since the "out" is there: so long as Americans can do nothing and make more than they would in one of these "menial" jobs. Illegals do not have that luxury: if someone says: "I'll pay you $5 per day under the table for washing dishes" they take it. That $5 is more than they would make in a week in many places.

Take a case in point: El Salvador. My wife is from there. She's one of the 8% of the population described as "middle class".

The official population stats for El Salvador is 5.5 million inhabitants, 2.5 million of which are in the US. Some are illegal, many are here under the TPS program.

Now, the country makes its money off of exports, imports, tourism....you know, what 3rd world countries do. 17% of the GDP, however, is from remittances, money sent from Salvadoreans home to their families, which is then taxed by the government.

Salvadoreans are just one example: they can come here, work a job that an American won't, or doesn't have to because they have welfare, and still send money home.

It's a very different economic basis for life.

leejo

I doubt it, but thanks for making me think of the Soup Kitchen Nazi.

No Soup For You!

(how might one say that en espanol?)

If the soup kitchen sets up shop on the border and hands water and food to people who are actively breaking federal law, or structures its efforts specifically to assist these criminal fugitives one might successfully argue under this law that they are aiding and abetting, not just providing humanitarian assistance.

To tie this into the angle that Mateo and Apo have brought up, I don't have any problem with these people as immigrants. We have a process to enter this country legally that millions follow every year and they should follow it. What I DO have a problem with is the national security concerns our wide-open borders present.

So if a few soup kitchens need to be reminded of how highly dangerous and illegal assisting people who infiltrate our country is, so be it.

Cing deals with illegals every day. We're not only talking about Farmer Juan, but his vicious cousin who is trading in drugs, slavery, and wouldn't miss a minute's sleep helping out some dude from Iran with a package and $10m.

If certain industries require a large immigrant population, then we need to know that and adjust the legal processes to support those industries, or make the conscious decision to tolerate the inflation or outsourcing that would follow our continued restrictive immigration policy. But any industry that exists only because of the criminal activity of a large number of its labor force needs to change.

Mateo

No sopa para ti!

(Para/por are both correct technically, however, colloquially, it's usually "para." Actually "ti" is very informal, it should be USTED)

Steeler

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0314/p01s01-ussc.html
Papers, please!

__________________

Mateo

Well, Agriculture is one of the most subsidized industries going, and estimates are that 30-40% of the workforce is illegal. Restricting their access to a ready supply of migrants means that even greater subsidies will be necessary.

And other industries will have to be subsidized as well.

That makes me wonder: how much of a handout are we willing to give before we stop supporting uncompetitive businesses for "strategic reasons"?

AMosely

Border security is one of the most complex problems America faces today, and I feel as though it's gotten the least amount of attention out of our "post-Sept-11" government. Now it's getting some attention in the form of what appears to be some pretty harsh legislation. It won't pass.

I hate to say it, but this is one area where I seem to agree with Bush. While oversimplified, his view takes into account the critical (and I mean critical) role that immigrants - both legal and illegal - play in this country.

"Part of enforcing our borders is to have a guest-worker program that encourages people to register their presence, so that we know who they are and says to them, 'If you're doing a job an American won't do, you're welcome here for a period of time to do that job.' "

If we slam the door shut and start incarcerating and deporting illegal immigrants, we will do serious damage to the U.S. economy - which is not particularly strong right now. As much as there is a need to do something about this important issue, being hasty about it could seriously cost the American taxpayer and the economy as a whole.

leejo

The question isn't only how much are we willing to support these uncompetitive businesses, it's how much will the WTO allow us to artificially suppress prices. But yes, I think we can argue that we have strategic interests in maintaining our ability to grow our own food.

But I agree that several industries have benefitted by this illegal workforce. I think we need to halt that trend and fix the problems that have been created now, though.

Trooper

Until NAFTA runs out, our farm prices will remain low and the farmers will depend of those subsidies to live and keep farming. Before NAFTA corn was at 5.00-6.00 per/bushel now its around 3bucks. That is half the price, and farm costs keep rising.

As long as we have lazy Americans not willing to get off there asses and do some work we will have illegal immigrants doing those jobs. And i think someone else said it, they are not just taking American jobs they are also taking the jobs from legal immigrants who are here to actually make a difference in this country, and the Mexican government could care less.

__________________
that sounds like a good idea trooper.
-Vulcan