Article

2006-04-07 Home Front: WoT

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Fred 2006-04-07 00:00|| || Front Page|| [11135 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 I harbor mixed feelings about them enlisting:
if they are truly only joining to gain legal status and not really caring about their position in the service, would you want them watching YOUR back?
With the recent waves of protests with the Mexican flag being hailed, it's hard to know where their true allegiance is. Most being here for the jobs and free services that are provided them, not because they love america and are willing to die for this country.
Also remembering that these are folks that are here illegally and knowingly have broken the law.
It used to be thought that if you weren't smart enough to get into college you went into the military, not the case anymore. With all of the high tech stuff our military has now, you have to be fairly smart to join. Plus speaking english would be a plus huh? The educational level of most illegals is 2nd or 3rd grade I think.

Posted by Jan 2006-04-07 01:06|| 2006-04-07 01:06|| Front Page Top

#2 also, integrity is a big deal to me. Folks that break the law by being here illegally, and think that they are getting their way by having protested as they did, is sending the wrong message.

Posted by Jan 2006-04-07 01:09|| 2006-04-07 01:09|| Front Page Top

#3 Not really the brightest thing in the world to train self-proclaimed lawbreakers in the use of deadly force. But this bill will never get past the House. Unlike the ~~House of Lords~~ Senate, members of the House of Representatives actually have to face their constituents and be accountable for what they do. There are enough people (me included) who would go ballistic at any whiff of amnesty that no bill with amnesty in it will emerge from the House Senate conference.

Posted by RWV 2006-04-07 01:14|| 2006-04-07 01:14|| Front Page Top

#4 Despite the good and decent folk of this country we may yet lose this this war because we are governed by whores - as this story so amply demonstrates.

Posted by Rex Mundi 2006-04-07 01:24|| 2006-04-07 01:24|| Front Page Top

#5
Sure makes Frist look weak. No leadership in the Senate.

Posted by Master of Obvious 2006-04-07 01:36|| 2006-04-07 01:36|| Front Page Top

#6 The only thing that makes the Republicans tolerable is the fact that the Democrats completely burned out their brains on drugs.

Sigh. Let's throw them all out and start over fresh.

Posted by 2b 2006-04-07 02:12|| 2006-04-07 02:12|| Front Page Top

#7 dittos,

I am so disgusted...

btw whores have way way way more integrity and developed back-bones.
.

Posted by RD 2006-04-07 02:24|| 2006-04-07 02:24|| Front Page Top

#8 The proposed plan sucks in it's entirety. It doesn't even include a wall. How stupid do they think we are?

(I guess plenty - somebody keeps re-electing these jokers.)

Posted by Leigh 2006-04-07 02:52|| 2006-04-07 02:52|| Front Page Top

#9 This actually makes me happy, because it means Frist just made himself unelectable in the primary for the next Republican presidental candidate - and he was shaping up to be a contender. I've never liked the cat torturer/killer and he is, IMHO, unelectable in the general election anyway. H'es just waaay too creepy to be in charge. Adios, Frist.

Posted by 2b 2006-04-07 03:04|| 2006-04-07 03:04|| Front Page Top

#10 This is simply more appeasment. Teddy had it so right! Not Kennedy, but Roosevelt!

Theodore Roosevelt's ideas on Immigrants and being an AMERICAN in 1907.

"In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person's becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American...There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag... We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language... and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people."

Theodore Roosevelt 1907

Posted by Besoeker 2006-04-07 06:52|| 2006-04-07 06:52|| Front Page Top

#11 Can't be said any better than that. Thanks, B.

Posted by Criger Shaling7432 2006-04-07 06:55|| 2006-04-07 06:55|| Front Page Top

#12 Lessee... working on this bill were these (ahem) Republicans:

Bill Frist
John McCain
Arlen Specter
Chuck Hagel
Mel Martinez

No Kyl, Cornyn or Sessions? Were they not invited?

Posted by eLarson 2006-04-07 08:13|| http://larsonian.blogspot.com]">[http://larsonian.blogspot.com] 2006-04-07 08:13|| Front Page Top

#13 Most senators have been playing politics with this borders issue. They bob and weave giving a little and taking a little. This is how they play their game. This works with senators, but these same honorable assholes don't realize that playing like this with the voters is suicide. Every day, 3 different organizations urge me to make calls or send faxs to the senate on the borders issue. I am to the point that I'm ready to march on Washington and capture the city. I urge everyone else to call all senators offices and send faxs to them. When 60 or 80 million calls a day are being made, then maybe they will stop playing politics with US and OBEY their employers like good little senators.
Seal the borders NOW !

Posted by wxjames 2006-04-07 09:44|| 2006-04-07 09:44|| Front Page Top

#14 We've all heard that building a wall or watertight manned border security is logistically impossible; I'm not sure that's true. A smartly constructed electric fence might work and is easier on the eyes than concrete, though I am sure that those with MUCH greater technological expertise than I have (I have none) would have a way of realizing the same effect without an actual structure-kind of a tazer "zap-em" approach.

IMO, the temporary worker program, however, IS a logistical impossibility. Just going through the mental steps of how it would work is an exercise in comedy. Costly? How high can we count? Reliable? We're talking about humans with pieces of paper as proof of legality-pretty dam*ed unreliable, in my experience. The bulk of the workers are doing lower-paying jobs, is that correct? So companies and corporations, already with tight budgets and schedules, are going to go through the machinations of filing papers and waiting to hold on to these low-paid workers? Something stinks here. If we were talking about 6-figure executives keeping their jobs, I might be able to believe that companies would go through this temporary program, but not with lower-level workers. It sounds like a sham-and a pricy one-to me.

Priority: Secure the borders. Whatever you use-fence, electric currents, something else-I think this is what we all want most.

Next priority: assimilation. Require 4-5 years of ESL classes for all immigrants and require an exit exam of proficiency. Stop providing Spanish or English options on phones-one because it encourages Spanish-language chauvinism (which those of us in ESL have noticed for some time), and two, it creates a system of preference where immigrants of other languages aren't getting the same treatment as Hispanic immigrants. How many companies are offering Chinese language instructions by pressing 2? Or Vietnamese? Or Russian? There are hundreds of languages and dialects; if we believe in a land of equal rights, are we going to offer translations for every language? Of course not-it's ridiculous. So why are we doing it for Spanish? Because they are the largest minority is not a good answer.

I understand why fellow bloggers are upset about lawbreakers getting what amounts to amnesty-and do agree in principle. But HOW are we going to round up 10-20 millions illegals and deport them, and while we shout and stomp for this, are WE prepared to pay for it? WE would be paying for it. This is the toughest question.

How about this idea for the illegals already here-let each pay the fine and jump through the hoops for the opportunity to be a RESIDENT only? After 25 years or so, then they can jump through some more hoops and pay more fines to be citizens, if they've worked off their criminal debt. Would this work?

Posted by Jules 2006-04-07 09:45|| 2006-04-07 09:45|| Front Page Top

#15 Going to be a bloodbath like '94 for the trunks in 2006 and 2008. This is what happens when you fail to show leadership. The congress-critter DO think we are stupid. That is the whole problem.

Posted by SR-71 2006-04-07 09:48|| 2006-04-07 09:48|| Front Page Top

#16 Breakthrough? What breakthrough? The bill wasn't even brought to a vote. The bill stalled because the Dem leadership objecteted to allowing ammendments to be brought to the floor. Can you imagine that a bill of this complexity is so perfect comming out of committee that it doesn't warrant offering ammendments? BTW, this bill was cobbled together on monday (one day) and final language (500+ pages) wasn't introduced untill Wednesday afternoon. I'm no fan of Sen.Sessions (R-AL), but I encourage everyone to read his top ten "loopholes" on this pending bill. IMO, even with ammendments, this bill looks really bad.

Posted by DepotGuy 2006-04-07 10:11|| 2006-04-07 10:11|| Front Page Top

#17 "Declared a breakthrough" == "Declared a victory"

Let's judge by results and not rhetoric, shall we?

Posted by mojo">mojo 2006-04-07 10:14|| 2006-04-07 10:14|| Front Page Top

#18 Jules, I'm with you. Seal borders first, then allow them to blend in speaking english only and not voting. Tax them to pay for the border patrols. Also, count them as immigrants from Mexico and add them to the back of the line to become citizens, accept for those who serve in the military.
Now is that hard ? Why does it take the phukan senate years to get here ?

Posted by wxjames 2006-04-07 10:43|| 2006-04-07 10:43|| Front Page Top

#19 Senate Shelves Immigration Bill

Posted by Frank G 2006-04-07 10:58|| 2006-04-07 10:58|| Front Page Top

#20 this is political suicide for both sides. These guys are like the hollywierd actors, they've forgotten that its the little people who make them what they are.

Few people are asking to round up and deport the hard working Mexicans who want to become productive citizens, they are welcome here. But if no wall is produced and the border isn't sealed, expect pitchforks and lighted torches in an upcoming election.

Posted by 2b 2006-04-07 12:15|| 2006-04-07 12:15|| Front Page Top

#21 Remember when Mexico was about to go belly-up financially in the 1990s? Remember when Clinton decided to bail out the Mexican government to prevent the Mexican economy from collapsing? Remember his reason for doing so? It was to prevent a tidal wave of illegals from heading north across the border.

Now picture this: if all the illegals are sent back, if the border is sealed preventing illegals from entering, if no guest-worker program is implemented, then at least one of two things would happen: the Mexican economy deteriorates over time to the point of destitution, and a possible civil war.

In either of the two cases, you will need several divisions along the border to stop that wave, but this time they would be called refugees.

The problem is not an unsealed border, but what lies on the other side of it, to the south: a corrupt economical and political system.

I think you should give the folks in Washington a little more credit. Emotional, short-sighted reactions will not solve anything.

Posted by Shese Anginert4511 2006-04-07 13:34|| 2006-04-07 13:34|| Front Page Top

#22 "The problem is not an unsealed border, but what lies on the other side of it, to the south: a corrupt economical and political system."

And this is whose problem?

Certainly it's not a simple situation, but there is a first step to be taken down the painful road: control our borders.

Everything else is SOS.

Posted by Thalet Angeng7414 2006-04-07 13:41|| 2006-04-07 13:41|| Front Page Top

#23 I agree with Jules earlier comment, that it would be a good idea to have them pay fines to be able to be residents only and not have the right to vote. At least for this very important first step in the process. I would like to see strong hoops of some kind to attain citizenship.

I also like the idea of not having everything in bilingual modes, it does seem to send the message that it isn't necessary to learn english.

Job issues aside, I would like to stop all of the free services we give these illegals. Stop the anchor baby law, and only keep services given to real emergencies.

Being able to attend schools needs to be looked at as well. I'm not quite sure what the answer is here but it isn't right to keep going the way we are with our school system. It's scary to look at the progression of our wanting to be PC, placing our flag as an equal to the Mexican flag. To allow illegals to feel comfortable in our american schools. Please check out the link below:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-04-06-immigration-flags_x.htm

I still want a fence, this would be money well spent.

Posted by Jan 2006-04-07 13:49|| 2006-04-07 13:49|| Front Page Top

#24 SA4511: "The problem is not an unsealed border, but what lies on the other side of it, to the south: a corrupt economical and political system."

True, that is a big part of the problem, 4511. But what is the solution? AN ACHIEVABLE, NON-'EMOTIONAL' SOLUTION? We gonna help Mexico become non-corrupt? From the movie 'The Big Easy': "you got your work cut out for YOU, sugar". Or, as I suspect, would you advocate a solution somehow involving "leveling the economic playing fields"? If that's the solution, I would say forget about extra divisions at our borders; get ready for civilian strife bubbling up right in the heartland. Non-emotionality is as important as not giving ourselves away.

Posted by Jules 2006-04-07 13:55|| 2006-04-07 13:55|| Front Page Top

#25 And this is whose problem?

Could be ours if it leads - as it probably would - to a close alliance between Mexican warlords and al-Qaeda, the Chinese -- or both.

Posted by lotp 2006-04-07 13:57|| 2006-04-07 13:57|| Front Page Top

#26 Brilliant.

Your plan?

Posted by Thalet Angeng7414 2006-04-07 14:05|| 2006-04-07 14:05|| Front Page Top

#27 I don't know that I agree with the oft-repeated mantra that we couldn't deport 11 million illegal aliens. I just completely disagree with that premise.

If we built a wall, punished employers with prohibitive fines, and authorized local authorities to arrest illegal immigrants on behalf of the federal government, then we could complete the job in a few years. A combination of exclusion, enforcement and attrition would definitely take its toll. Think about how many arrests are performed every year by local police forces (for a reference point, 1.6 mil in 2003 for drug offenses alone). General local enforcement could be combined with targeted enforcement in large illegal alien areas (such as parts of Northern Virginia) If you empowered local authorities to enforce federal immigration law, and provided federal holding facilities in central locations with buses running back and forth to the border on daily deportation runs it could work. Am I missing something? Where does the idea that we CAN't POSSIBLY do this come from? I think it's another example of leftist dogma that conservatives have adopted in an effort to appear reasonable in their argument and, in so doing, giving up the argument. If nothing else, this model should at least be a starting point for negotiations...

Posted by mjh 2006-04-07 14:10|| 2006-04-07 14:10|| Front Page Top

#28 You'd have to deal with the "sanctuary" cities, not that cleaning those city governments out would bother me much. This we're so "moral" we're above the law insanity, ala the SanFran Tweekers, has gone on long enough.

Posted by Thalet Angeng7414 2006-04-07 14:13|| 2006-04-07 14:13|| Front Page Top

#29 I feel we should at least START trying to deport them. Our not doing anything bugs the hell out of me. The catch and release attitude I'm sure drives our law enforcement folks nuts. Seeing illegals seemingly not worried about getting caught is a big deal.

Posted by Jan 2006-04-07 14:19|| 2006-04-07 14:19|| Front Page Top

#30 How about this ?
Step 1. Close southern border.
Step 2. No more legal immigrants from Mexico after those already in the pipeline are processed.
Step 3. All illegals must register and be issued a number (not a Social Security number), told that they must have a job, place to stay, learn english, or join and be accepted by the military.
Step 4. Find and deport anyone without a number.
Step 5. Give community service time to all without a fulltime job.
Step 6. Put those who have full time employment, speak and read english, at the back of the citizenship line and process them into citizens after any fines are paid.
Step 7. Repeat steps 4 thru 6 until no more non citizens.
Step 8. If a company or farm wants green card labor, then that company brings them here and takes them home. If any fail to go home, that company loses it's priviledge to do so again and pays a fine so we can hunt down the illegal.

Posted by wxjames 2006-04-07 14:26|| 2006-04-07 14:26|| Front Page Top

#31 TA 74,

Re: The "Sanctuary" cities, think about the MASS migration of illegals FLOCKING to those cities in a scenario of aggressive deportation. Eventually, the strain on community resources from overloading the infrastructure (schools, hospitals, etc.) would be so great, either the local governments would have to levy huge taxes on local population to support them, the residents would vote in new leaders, or the entire place would collapse.

Any municipality who maintained asylum laws in the face of a coordinated deportation program would quickly come under seige from within which would eventually result in the deportation of those lawbreakers seeking asylum...

Posted by mjh 2006-04-07 14:28|| 2006-04-07 14:28|| Front Page Top

#32 Wanna run for the Senate? :)

Posted by Thalet Angeng7414 2006-04-07 14:28|| 2006-04-07 14:28|| Front Page Top

#33 Good point, mjh. Not sure how long it would take nor if you could keep like-minded state legislatures out of the equation so the implosion would occur without outside interference - I'm thinking El Lay and CA, of course.

lotp - Re: #25 - The bad shit is probably already happening - whether we leave them to their own devices (their feudal system) or [insert your plan here]. There is no easy answer and I don't accept your easy (rather cheap shot) criticism without at least the beginnings of a workable alternative. But controlling the border comes first or everything offered is a joke. Surely that makes sense to everyone but La Raza.

I've just completed a double shift and have to go home to eat and sleep. Have fun, folks.

Posted by Thalet Angeng7414 2006-04-07 14:38|| 2006-04-07 14:38|| Front Page Top

#34 Wasn't meant as a cheap shot criticism, but just a warning. I don't disagree that we need to control the border. I just think that we all need to be very clear-eyed about the 2nd order effects of any serious crackdown.

The bad stuff that is 'probably already happening' could get a lot worse more quickly than we would be ready to handle it. Right now, for instance, we can't use UAVs in any significant number to monitor movements across the border because the technologies for "sense and avoid" are not developed - and that means they can't fly where general and commercial aviation flies.

We've waiting too long to deal with this - but realistically we are also stretched heavily in some areas. What is needed IMO is both to begin a crackdown on those we catch and ALSO to accelerate a build up of capabilities. Broadcasting a tough line we cannot enforce is counterproductive.

Posted by lotp 2006-04-07 14:49|| 2006-04-07 14:49|| Front Page Top

#35 lotp, given the involvement of the Federales, MS-13 and al-Qaeda in the drug trade, is there any doubt that the contacts have been made, even if they haven't formed a firm and fast alliance? If al-Q wanted to get across the border I have no doubt they could do so now in whatever numbers or with whatever weapons they wish simply by buying off whatever Mexicans they need to.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-04-07 15:01|| 2006-04-07 15:01|| Front Page Top

#36 Where does the idea that we CAN't POSSIBLY do this come from?

From the notion that greater men than you have tried and failed, in all sorts of places and in all sorts of political systems in the world. Migration, whether legal or not, is nothing new and there hasn't been a method developed yet to stifle it, although the Berlin Wall came close. Unfortunately, your border is a bit too long to implement such a solution without the necessary $trillion that it would take.

More realistically, and the snarkiness aside, what you are proposing is just a respite, trading the term illegal for refugee in the long term. If you think illegals have sympathizers on the inside, wait until they become refugees. This is fine if the number of sympathizers in the US is relatively smaller than the number of non-sympathizers (and the up-coming elections will show if this is the case). That's the sociological angle.

From the economical angle, there's also the notion of return on investment. Is it worth it to spend the billions necessary to make the border impassable? Can this money be spent more wisely elsewhere, such as the military or intelligence services? What impact will a reduction of illegals have on the US economy, without a guest-worker program as a substitute? And the all-encompassing...is it simply worth it?

As long as Mexico remains a basketcase, there is no simple solution.

Posted by Shese Anginert4511 2006-04-07 15:12|| 2006-04-07 15:12|| Front Page Top

#37 My recommendation remains: invade Mexico.

Posted by Perfesser 2006-04-07 15:21|| 2006-04-07 15:21|| Front Page Top

#38 We could deport 11 million illegals the problem is that we would have to go seriously draconian to do it. Don't know if puplic would except that and spend the money to do it.

Posted by djohn66 2006-04-07 15:31|| 2006-04-07 15:31|| Front Page Top

#39 SA45,

Give an example of "greater men than me" that have tried and failed? You have raised the tired Berlin analogy...without addressing the standard (and, in my mind,correct) rejoinder that the Berlin Wall was intended to keep people FROM LEAVING an oppressive state, and where people were willing to risk violent death at the hands of the regime they sought to escape. When illegal immigrants come here, they are not fleeing mortal danger.

I'll give you an example of where a wall has worked: Israel. It has achieved its purpose there, despite the wailing and gnashing of teeth that preceded its construction.

As for the cost of our wall, assuming that a wall would raise our border enforcement to 85%, I would guess that the per mile cost of a wall would be FAR less costly and more effective than providing sufficient staff and resources to ensure 85% success without a wall. (It's an arbitrary number, but whatever number you choose, it holds true)

Your sociological angle holds absolutely no water with me...I believe whatever policy that is designed can sufficiently disincentivize the hosting of "refugees" to make it a non-issue.

As for ROI, I heartily agree, but to make a full accounting, you need to take into account ALL costs and foregone revenue that result from the presence of illegals, including tax revenue that is not collected, the degradation of infrastructure and public services that occur due to the number of free riders, the opportunity cost of care not given to the citizens when warranted due to limited resources and any other externalities that occur due to illegals (for example, one that is not accounted for above in my list would be the cost of uninsured drivers who cause accidents). Finally, I would include the cost of incarcerating illegal aliens who, aside from their presence here, commit felonies and are hosted in our federal and state penitentiaries.

Assuming you are correct about the situation in Mexico, and the lack of a simple solution, who said my proposed solution was simple? It's not, it's complex. But it requires will and commitment to restore LAW and ORDER.

I don't disagree that the situation in Mexico contributes, but I do disagree with any implication (not sure that you were implying this, but...)that it is the job of the US to improve the situation in Mexico, that is the same logic of the Left that holds that Israel is responsible for the plight of the Palestinians...though I will say that the comparison is valid in that a wall worked there, and it can work here.

Posted by mjh 2006-04-07 15:43|| 2006-04-07 15:43|| Front Page Top

#40 To the proposed step 3 above (post #30), please append "must go home to apply for".

Posted by eLarson 2006-04-07 17:06|| http://larsonian.blogspot.com]">[http://larsonian.blogspot.com] 2006-04-07 17:06|| Front Page Top

#41 An America that would round up 11 million people and ship them across a border wouldn't be America anymore.

1) Secure the border with an appropriate, physical fence from San Diego to Brownsville.

2) Institute a guest worker program that accomodates the needs of American business (unemployment is < 5%, so no nonsense about displacing American workers) and allows orderly entry into the country by foreign nationals (not just Mexicans). Foreign nationals who play by these rules get improved status for subsequence citizenship (those who join the US Army do even better). We can do this, and it pays dividends in the long term.

3) Regularize the status of illegal aliens by the methods proposed, including ESL, a monetary settlement, and a period of waiting. And of course, a renunciation of other citizenship claims when they become citizens here.

I don't see any other way that works.

Posted by Steve White">Steve White 2006-04-07 17:46|| 2006-04-07 17:46|| Front Page Top

#42 You have raised the tired Berlin analogy...

...as an example of what extreme (and very effective) border security looks like. This is not what the solution calls for in the US, but it's the sort of thing that would be required, in my opinion, if you intended to stop most illegal immigration from Mexico. A wall won't do it.
The question of leaving or entering is irrelevant. It's the border's porousness that is at question.

When illegal immigrants come here, they are not fleeing mortal danger.

But they are fleeing extreme relative poverty. The incentive to cross the border is just too great. Stop immigration completely, legal or illegal, and the incentive will turn into an even bigger necessity.
BTW, the vast majority of escapees from eastern Europe during the Cold War were economic and not political.

I'll give you an example of where a wall has worked: Israel.

You can't realistically compare Israel and the US. I have no idea what its length is, but let's assume a figure of 200 miles. This would hardly solve the problem in the US. In addition, a long wall without significant spending on maintenance, surveillance, countermeasures, etc., is useless. Israel is a microcosm of the situation in the US. In their case, a wall is feasible.

I would guess that the per mile cost of a wall would be FAR less costly and more effective than providing sufficient staff and resources to ensure 85% success without a wall.

I disagree. A physical obstacle without additional security measures is just as useful as no barrier at all. People can get very resourceful when pressed. Additional security measures add costs. In this case, I would prefer to spend the money on other means and resources, rather than a wall by itself.

Your sociological angle holds absolutely no water with me...

By sympathizers I was refering not only to people who actively help illegals, but also skeptics who see that a wall will not solve the problem, or even that it is necessary. I assume you can count most Democrats in that category, but again, the elections will provide more insight.

As for ROI, I heartily agree, but to make a full accounting, you need to take into account ALL costs and foregone revenue that result from the presence of illegals,

If you could legally import a class of people willing to do the same jobs under the same conditions, then you would find that these people incur the same costs to the American economy that you speak of. And unless you are not interested in a stable economy, such a class of workers is indeed needed in the US.

I don't disagree that the situation in Mexico contributes, but I do disagree with any implication (not sure that you were implying this, but...)that it is the job of the US to improve the situation in Mexico,

You will note my reference to Clinton and Mexico's financial crisis in the 1990s. Criticize Clinton all you want, but at least he (or his advisors) had the foresight to understand what would happen if Mexico went belly-up economically. So you see, the fact that the US is physically attached to the US, means that, from time to time, you indeed have to care about improving the situation in Mexico. It's my understanding that the loans provided by Clinton have since been forgiven. So there you have it.

Other than putting some sort of constant and meaningful pressure on the Mexican government, and I have no idea what that would be, there is very little that can be done. NAFTA was the big hope, but that turned out to be a big flop. This is just an unlucky circumstance of the world's biggest economy, sitting geographically next to...well...Mexico.

Lastly, this is just like the ports fiasco that the media, and people like Lou Dobbs, have latched on to. People are basing their opinions on emotions, without considering the entire long-run picture. (You know, the best thing that the anti-globalization crowd can do right now, is sit back, get some popcorn, and watch protectionism and overheated nationalism do its thing.)

Disclaimer: I am not for illegal immigration. I would rather things would be done according to the rules. But sometimes, life is just not fair.

Posted by SA4511 2006-04-07 17:50|| 2006-04-07 17:50|| Front Page Top

#43 I think WXJAMES post #30 is pretty close to right on. We have to use the National Guard to close the border as step 1. We need to give those illegals that are here 6 months to register for either a path to permanent citizenship or as temporary guest workers. After the 6 months any business that hires an unregistered worker can be fined big dollars. This fine revenue will be shared between the state and local municipality where the infraction occurred (financial incentive for enforcement). The illegal would be deported and NEVER have the opportunity to be either a guest worker or citizen candidate. Same goes for any illegal found after the 6 month registration period.

With respect to the effect this will have on Mexico, my feeling is that only pressure will generate change there. The ruling elites of Mexico might rather see economic reform than to be disembowled by a raging mob. They have far more to gain by positive participation than by attempting to maintain the status quo.

Posted by remoteman 2006-04-07 17:55|| 2006-04-07 17:55|| Front Page Top

#44 the US is physically attached to the US

LOL. attached to Mexico, of course.

Posted by SA4511 2006-04-07 17:56|| 2006-04-07 17:56|| Front Page Top

#45 Step 3 of #30 above stays as is. Many of these illegals are now integral workers in their companies. Sending them home will add to the turmoil. They can stay put. They must register within 60 days, not 6 months. Why would they need 6 months. And finding those who don't register is as simple as offering a reward. $10 bucks per head would bring them in by the thousands.
My impression is that Mexicans are good workers and industrious, unlike some of our home grown minorities. Also, they have a moral compass and will fit in well if we help, rather than herd up in ghettos. Focus on regular work, communications in english, and accepting and following the rules we live by will allow them to melt, unlike Muslims, who don't want to lower themselves to our level. But I digress.

Posted by wxjames 2006-04-07 18:32|| 2006-04-07 18:32|| Front Page Top

#46 Norm is God, Peach Be Upon Hem

Posted by 6 2006-04-07 19:12|| 2006-04-07 19:12|| Front Page Top

#47 In 24 years as president, Saddam Hussein managed to put at least 300,000 of his citizens in mass graves -- that's an average of at least 34 per day. He also spent eight years at war with Iran at a cost of perhaps 1.7 million lives. That's 582 per day. Where was your outrage then? STFU.

Posted by Darrell 2006-04-07 19:15|| 2006-04-07 19:15|| Front Page Top

#48 Naomist - Fred Phelps has a place for you in his "church" - take it,you deserve it (and him).

TROLL

Posted by Old Patriot">Old Patriot 2006-04-07 19:49|| http://oldpatriot.blogspot.com/]">[http://oldpatriot.blogspot.com/] 2006-04-07 19:49|| Front Page Top

#49 Announce that illegal aliens caught will be organized and armed for the return tip. The Mexican government will seal the border the next day.

Posted by ed 2006-04-07 20:13|| 2006-04-07 20:13|| Front Page Top

#50 Ed, there's an idea! ;-)

Posted by Steve White">Steve White 2006-04-07 20:29|| 2006-04-07 20:29|| Front Page Top

#51 No real explanation in the comments above on how the guest worker program would actually work. From beginning to end, step by step, how would it work? Start with the illegal immigrant being here...

Posted by Jules 2006-04-07 22:28|| 2006-04-07 22:28|| Front Page Top

#52 Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]

Posted by Noamist 2006-04-07 18:39|| 2006-04-07 18:39|| Front Page Top

18:39 Noamist
18:42 .com
16:23 Rope a Colt
16:48 Noamist
16:44 Noamist
16:42 Noamist
16:52 Conservative Dining
16:58 .com
16:54 whitecollarredneck
13:20 Yusef Islam
12:56 Yusef Islam
12:52 Yusef Islam
12:50 Yusef Islam
12:48 Yusef Islam
07:13 Yusef Islam
07:00 Yusef Islam
06:03 Yusef Islam
05:46 Yusef Islam
05:40 Yusef Islam
05:38 Yusef Islam
05:35 Yusef Islam
05:29 Yusef Islam
05:25 Yusef Islam
05:22 Yusef Islam