• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Illegal immigration and Obama

\
The fence is meaningless. A fence only serves to slow people down which is a meaningless deterrent if there isn't someone there to stop them.
By itself yes but if you slow them down you make it more likely they will be caught if you man the border as well, especially if you have breach sensors and cameras on the fence as well.

I don't want to turn the southern border (which extends for a hundred mile inland) into a trigger happy paramilitary zone where everyone is asked for their papers. The growing backlash: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/21/arizona-border-patrol-anger-grows
 
I don't want to turn the southern border (which extends for a hundred mile inland) into a trigger happy paramilitary zone where everyone is asked for their papers. The growing backlash: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/21/arizona-border-patrol-anger-grows
yeah, much better letting millions of illegal Mexicans and Central Amerericans in and giving them amnesty every 30 years. :rolleyes:

Btw, Guardian is a left wing rag. That the author calls illegals "migrants" (won't even commit to the direction they are "migrating") is evidence of his bias.
 
I know the Guardian is a left wing rag. I read the rags on both sides. I think if we cut off employment and prosecuted business that hire them under the table that would do more good than a bazillion border guards. Check out the Cato institutes study's on illegal immigration. They say it's beneficial.
 
\
The fence is meaningless. A fence only serves to slow people down which is a meaningless deterrent if there isn't someone there to stop them.
By itself yes but if you slow them down you make it more likely they will be caught if you man the border as well, especially if you have breach sensors and cameras on the fence as well.

You need a hell of a lot of people to effectively man the border. Want to pay the price tag?

And there's no point to it anyway, there are enough other ways to sneak in.

- - - Updated - - -

I think it's a horrible idea. Can you say "identity theft"?
There is identity theft outside of e-Verify system already but that is no reason to abolish say the credit card system.
It's all about shifting the balance of cost-benefit calculation for would-be illegals. If you make it more difficult (and more likely to result in an arrest) to enter illegally, more difficult to find work while illegal etc. you reduce illegal immigration.
As far as identity thieves, make sure you consequently prosecute them as felonies and make everyone guilty of identity theft illegible for any amnesty. Current proposals exempt immigration related crimes which is a big mistake.

I'm just saying that e-Verify is not going to be that much of an obstacle and it will cause harm for US workers whose identities get stolen. The IRS isn't as willing to write off identity theft losses as the credit card companies.
 
Imagine - Obama pushes for "Dream Act" that gives amnesty to minors, puts a version of it through as an executive order and thousands of illegal minors show up expecting amnesty.
Nobody could have predicted that outcome. :banghead:

To Obama's defenders Obama is never responsible for anything that happens. He's like that empty chair. Completely powerless to do anything but make excuses and blame other people.
 
\
The fence is meaningless. A fence only serves to slow people down which is a meaningless deterrent if there isn't someone there to stop them.
By itself yes but if you slow them down you make it more likely they will be caught if you man the border as well, especially if you have breach sensors and cameras on the fence as well.

I don't want to turn the southern border (which extends for a hundred mile inland) into a trigger happy paramilitary zone where everyone is asked for their papers. The growing backlash: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/21/arizona-border-patrol-anger-grows

Yep, it would be far better, and morally proper, to let those blue States who wish to support them, do so. It shouldn't be that hard to ship them to Vermont, Rhode Island, or Delaware and place them in pro-amnesty homes. Why, they are practically begging to adopt them as their own foster kids!
 
\
The fence is meaningless. A fence only serves to slow people down which is a meaningless deterrent if there isn't someone there to stop them.
By itself yes but if you slow them down you make it more likely they will be caught if you man the border as well, especially if you have breach sensors and cameras on the fence as well.

True. Security walls and fences work quite well. Israel, among others, have shown what an aggressively manned wall and fencing security zone can accomplish.

wall_cross_section.gif
 
You need a hell of a lot of people to effectively man the border. Want to pay the price tag?

Here's the thing...

The people who support what amounts to a free-fire zone on the border filled with trigger happy agents and/or militia members, a minefield or two, and a thousand miles of razor wire and trenches filled with mutated sea bass with frickin' lasers on their heads think that once the border is sufficiently fortified and enough people die trying to cross it, the immigration problem will cease.

As such, the cost will be kept down by the fact that the masses of brown folks to the south will simply be too terrified to attempt to make it over such an imposing border. Problem solved!

Of course this ignores the fact that a lot of the people coming here are already risking their lives in a journey that would make some of our more intrepid armchair border guards piss their pants to even consider. Then there is the fact that the real "open borders" crowd can be found sitting in offices at the Chamber of Commerce, but that's maybe another thread...
 
You need a hell of a lot of people to effectively man the border. Want to pay the price tag?

Here's the thing...



The people who support what amounts to a free-fire zone on the border filled with trigger happy agents and/or militia members, a minefield or two, and a thousand miles of razor wire and trenches filled with mutated sea bass with frickin' lasers on their heads think that once the border is sufficiently fortified and enough people die trying to cross it, the immigration problem will cease.

As such, the cost will be kept down by the fact that the masses of brown folks to the south will simply be too terrified to attempt to make it over such an imposing border. Problem solved!

Of course this ignores the fact that a lot of the people coming here are already risking their lives in a journey that would make some of our more intrepid armchair border guards piss their pants to even consider. Then there is the fact that the real "open borders" crowd can be found sitting in offices at the Chamber of Commerce, but that's maybe another thread...

Actually here's the thing...

The people who support what amounts to a welcome wagon for an endless tidal wave of uneducated, illiterate, low ability, lumpen prols feel compelled to adopt a dumbed down denial - nations don't find it that difficult to largely or entirely secure their borders if they make it a priority. Israel has almost totally sealed the border against the armed insurgents and terrorists such as Hamas, a far more determined and violent transgressor than migrant peasantry. And, be reminded, the Communist nations of a prior generation amply demonstrated how countries can secure their borders from anyone, from either direction, crossing.

Until Obama started diluting US border policies, the INS without a border to border security system caught 1/2 million to 3/4 million a year. If that can be accomplished with a weak border security system, something far more serious would stop far more.

The question is NOT IF they could be stopped because you know, as well as I, that many (including you?) don't want them stopped. The canard that the US and its military cannot seal its own border is laughable nonsense - an excuse to hide behind. I wish more of the open border folks were just honest and acknowledge that they don't want the border to be sealed - regardless of whether or not can be accomplished.
 
Actually here's the thing....

Yes, Maxx. We all know you hate Mexicans. You've been very clear.


I wish more of the open border folks were just honest and acknowledge that they don't want the border to be sealed - regardless of whether or not can be accomplished.

Maybe you should take that up with the Chamber of Commerce?

The real "open border folks" are the business owners who are literally funding the entire illegal immigrant community to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars each year.
 
\
The fence is meaningless. A fence only serves to slow people down which is a meaningless deterrent if there isn't someone there to stop them.
By itself yes but if you slow them down you make it more likely they will be caught if you man the border as well, especially if you have breach sensors and cameras on the fence as well.

True. Security walls and fences work quite well. Israel, among others, have shown what an aggressively manned wall and fencing security zone can accomplish.

wall_cross_section.gif

It's over $1 million/mile for a much simpler version of the fence. I'm not finding costs for that design. And that doesn't include the cost of manning it.

And you're still ignoring the fact that people can go around the fence.
 
The people who support what amounts to a welcome wagon for an endless tidal wave of uneducated, illiterate, low ability, lumpen prols feel compelled to adopt a dumbed down denial - nations don't find it that difficult to largely or entirely secure their borders if they make it a priority. Israel has almost totally sealed the border against the armed insurgents and terrorists such as Hamas, a far more determined and violent transgressor than migrant peasantry. And, be reminded, the Communist nations of a prior generation amply demonstrated how countries can secure their borders from anyone, from either direction, crossing.

I don't see many supporting that. What we are saying is that the proposed "cure" is worse than the disease--and ineffective.

Until Obama started diluting US border policies, the INS without a border to border security system caught 1/2 million to 3/4 million a year. If that can be accomplished with a weak border security system, something far more serious would stop far more.

In case you haven't realized deportations are up under Obama. The system is probably catching less because our economy crashed, not because of Obama.
 
There are a lot of jobs Americans just won't do. They will go homeless first. Google "jobs Americans won't do". If they raised the pay significantly would that attract US citizens, maybe.

This is an interesting article:
“What we have going on now is a farce — a waste of time and money,” said Mr. Herrin, a lifelong Republican who grew up in central California, adding that the country should be considering ways to bring workers in, not keep them out. “We need these people to get our food to market.”

California is home to an estimated 2.5 million illegal immigrants, more than in any other state. Perhaps nowhere else captures the contradictions and complications of immigration policy better than California’s Central Valley, where nearly all farmworkers are immigrants, roughly half of them living here illegally, according to estimates from agricultural economists at the University of California, Davis.

That reality is shaping the views of agriculture business owners here, like Mr. Herrin, who cannot recall ever voting for a Democrat. In dozens of interviews, farmers and owners of related businesses said that even the current system of tacitly using illegal labor was failing to sustain them. A work force that arrived in the 1990s is aging out of heavy labor, Americans do not want the jobs, and tightened security at the border is discouraging new immigrants from arriving, they say, leaving them to struggle amid the paralysis on immigration policy. No other region may be as eager to keep immigration legislation alive.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/30/us/california-farmers-short-of-labor-and-patience.html?_r=0
 
Until Obama started diluting US border policies, the INS without a border to border security system caught 1/2 million to 3/4 million a year. If that can be accomplished with a weak border security system, something far more serious would stop far more.

n case you haven't realized deportations are up under Obama. The system is probably catching less because our economy crashed, not because of Obama.
Unfortunately, pro-Obama counterfeit still seems to be passed around as real currency. A few years ago it was discovered that administration had cooked the polemics books when ginning the falsehood that Obama far more aggressive on deportations than Bush and other Presidents. The LA Times (a paper that supports Democrats) recently had an article that, in part, outlines out the con:

But the portrait of a steadily increasing number of deportations rests on statistics that conceal almost as much as they disclose. A closer examination shows that immigrants living illegally in most of the continental U.S. are less likely to be deported today than before Obama came to office, according to immigration data.

Expulsions of people who are settled and working in the United States have fallen steadily since his first year in office, and are down more than 40% since 2009. On the other side of the ledger, the number of people deported at or near the border has gone up — primarily as a result of changing who gets counted in the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency's deportation statistics.

The vast majority of those border crossers would not have been treated as formal deportations under most previous administrations. If all removals were tallied, the total sent back to Mexico each year would have been far higher under those previous administrations than it is now.

The shift in who gets tallied helped the administration look tough in its early years but now may be backfiring politically...

Until recent years, most people caught illegally crossing the southern border were simply bused back into Mexico in what officials called "voluntary returns," but which critics derisively termed "catch and release." Those removals, which during the 1990s reached more 1 million a year, were not counted in Immigration and Customs Enforcement's deportation statistics.

"If you are a run-of-the-mill immigrant here illegally, your odds of getting deported are close to zero — it's just highly unlikely to happen," John Sandweg, until recently the acting director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, said in an interview.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-obama-deportations-20140402-story.html#page=1
 
Back
Top Bottom