Who is "them" and who is this "we"?
The collective "we" who make them illegals employees and protect them in sanctuary cities and counties usually aren't the ones who 'then' treat them as criminals. That's a rather unkind thing to say about your own side. What do you tell them, that the coyotes are government licensed travel agents and tour guides?
I suspect they know who is paying, encouraging and shielding them ARE NOT the same folks who wants them them fired, removed from sanctuary cities and counties, and to be treated as criminals. Don't you?
Well there ARE people such as yourself who want millions of brown people loaded into concentration camps, but fortunately such folks are few and far between.
"We" refers to the American people generally, who are more than happy to eat the produce the immigrants pick, sleep in the hotels the immigrants clean, live in the houses the immigrants build, and have those immigrants keep their yards nice and pretty.
"Then" when it comes time for an election, Americans are generally opposed to illegal immigration, and a good half of them (usually falling on the right side of the political fence) will wail and gnash their teeth about all the "criminals" that ILLEGALLY entered the country.
"Them" are the immigrants themselves, who come here because "we" (collectively) pay and encourage them to do so.
Why should anyone accept the notion of there should be a collectivized guilt for the differing opinions and the differing conduct of millions? I am no more responsible for sanctuary cities than you are responsible for Sheriff Arapaio's policy of arrest and detention of illegals. Illegals know who is sending different messages, which is why they head to sanctuary cities.
In general, people are not hypocrites - if anything, they tend to align their politics with their self-interest. Valley farmers, small business owners, and Malibu liberals agree - they want more nannies and farm hands, and push for open borders and lax enforcement.
On the other hand, older and native born working class communities don't employ them (most can't afford nannies). "We" as a people don't represent any treatment collectively, except as represented by our national government. And the only "mixed message" hypocrisy I see are from those politicians who claim to want to enforce the law, establish greater border control, and are opposed to amnesty when in fact they don't.
When they get here, "we" (collectively) treat them like second class citizens (because they aren't even citizens) and elect politicians who claim to "get tough on illegal immigration" but then once in office don't do a damned thing about immigration because fine folks from the Chamber of Commerce and the business community make it clear that if the flow of cheap immigrant labor is cut off, so are the campaign contributions.
We agree, but more accurately you mean "when they get here" by various illegal and fraudulent means, they know that once pass the border zone, the enforcement will largely disappear. Yes, that is hypocritical - which is why we ought to employ more robust means of detection, arrest, punishment, and deportation.
The collective "we" is the government, and the federal government leadership responsible for any mixed messages.
On that subject, I notice that in all your anti-immigrant (dangerously close to "final solution" type) rhetoric, you don't mention loading the employers into box cars. Businesses large and small - from corporate to individual owners - shell out hundreds of millions of dollars every year in wages to these immigrants that have you so vexed.
You want to punish the folks who overstay a visa or jump the border as harshly as inhumanely possible, then close the borders and force every foreigner who arrives here for business or pleasure to wear a device usually reserved for convicts, but in all your nativist fury I don't detect even a little bit of disdain for the people who make the entire illegal economy possible.
The thread was about the morality of 'Fed Ex' methods of tracking, but I am more than happy to convey my opinions on other goals and methods of immigration control. In brief, the other measures I support include:
- Targeted use of microchipping.
- A border wall-security fence system from gulf to the pacific, with guard towers spaced within visual range of each section. The Israeli model ought to serve as a template. Deadly force should be employed, if necessary.
- There should be not be a "safe" zone from deportation. Sanctuary cities and counties should be outlawed and/or defunded. If outlawed, any public official refusing to comply should be convicted of a federal crime.
- Family reunification and chain migration should end.
- Anyone who knowingly employs (or who should have known) illegals should be arrested and charged with a crime.
- A merit based immigration system, based on skills and abilities, should be instituted. The emphasis should be on professionals and highly skilled workers.
- The quota should be no more than 1/2 to 1 million a year.
- Citizenship law should exclude "anchor babies" (estimated to be 340,000 a year).
