Arizona's Next Immigration Target: Children of Illegals

[rchapstick]

The number assigned to the area has been dramatically increasing in recent years. The U.S. Customs and Border Protection' date=' a division of DHS, told us that [b']17,057 agents are now assigned to that border, up dramatically from 6,315 in 1997.[/b]

 

Additionally, a report from the Congressional Research Service documented a steep increase in border agents, increasing every year since 1992. "The rapid and steady increase of Border Patrol agents assigned to the southern border reflects the ongoing interest in Congress in stemming the tide of illegal immigration," the report concluded. ...[/i]

 

 

Well, the number dramatically increased until Obama took office. Since then, the number seems to have been essentially static. That is, new hires only backfilling for those who retire, resign, or are terminated. Don't ask me how I know. :content:

 

HH

 

So is it your position that he is doing as well as Bush?

 

And if you want the number of order agents increased, are you willing to have your taxes increased to pay for the cost?

[cavanami]

Why increase taxes when you can bring the troops home from the bullshit "wars" in Irag and Afghanistan...plenty of $$$ would appear!!!

[Steve]

One more thing. Its not just the people coming across its also the drugs and guns. There's been a 'War on Drugs' since the '80s. The southern border lets in a good portion of that. If there is a 'declared' war on drugs then that its also one more 'violation' in spirit that the federal government has made.

 

Both parties have applied the 'spirit' of the constitution and rights, etc, to other things by extension.

 

Given that, then securing the border, given the issues at hand today (unprecedented numbers of people, drugs, guns), is also in that spirit.

[Steve]

The number assigned to the area has been dramatically increasing in recent years. The U.S. Customs and Border Protection' date=' a division of DHS, told us that [b']17,057 agents are now assigned to that border, up dramatically from 6,315 in 1997.[/b]

 

Additionally, a report from the Congressional Research Service documented a steep increase in border agents, increasing every year since 1992. "The rapid and steady increase of Border Patrol agents assigned to the southern border reflects the ongoing interest in Congress in stemming the tide of illegal immigration," the report concluded. ...[/i]

 

 

Well, the number dramatically increased until Obama took office. Since then, the number seems to have been essentially static. That is, new hires only backfilling for those who retire, resign, or are terminated. Don't ask me how I know. :content:

 

HH

 

So is it your position that he is doing as well as Bush?

 

And if you want the number of order agents increased, are you willing to have your taxes increased to pay for the cost?

 

What I don't buy or ever will is that any thing new has to be obtained from new taxes. Its well documented that there are hundreds of billions of dollars of waste, pork, etc. in the federal budget.

 

The bloated defense budget alone has lost over a trillion dollars over the years that has gone 'poof!' into the air.

 

Corporate and social welfare, pork, etc. there is plenty of money there that if we have to raise taxes it would be very modest and negligable.

 

The border can be secured by a combination of manpower and technology. There are drones, as well as technology that can sense the body temperature of people, etc. It can be done but due to politics and a lack of collective will it hasn't.

 

[Flashermac]

We had "people sniffers" and "dufflebags" that were dropped into the jungle in South Vietnam to track the bad guys. Why not along the border?

 

 

[rchapstick]

The number assigned to the area has been dramatically increasing in recent years. The U.S. Customs and Border Protection' date=' a division of DHS, told us that [b']17,057 agents are now assigned to that border, up dramatically from 6,315 in 1997.[/b]

 

Additionally, a report from the Congressional Research Service documented a steep increase in border agents, increasing every year since 1992. "The rapid and steady increase of Border Patrol agents assigned to the southern border reflects the ongoing interest in Congress in stemming the tide of illegal immigration," the report concluded. ...[/i]

 

 

Well, the number dramatically increased until Obama took office. Since then, the number seems to have been essentially static. That is, new hires only backfilling for those who retire, resign, or are terminated. Don't ask me how I know. :content:

 

HH

 

So is it your position that he is doing as well as Bush?

 

And if you want the number of order agents increased, are you willing to have your taxes increased to pay for the cost?

 

What I don't buy or ever will is that any thing new has to be obtained from new taxes. Its well documented that there are hundreds of billions of dollars of waste, pork, etc. in the federal budget.

 

The bloated defense budget alone has lost over a trillion dollars over the years that has gone 'poof!' into the air.

 

Corporate and social welfare, pork, etc. there is plenty of money there that if we have to raise taxes it would be very modest and negligable.

 

The border can be secured by a combination of manpower and technology. There are drones, as well as technology that can sense the body temperature of people, etc. It can be done but due to politics and a lack of collective will it hasn't.

 

OK, but suppose for the sake of argument that all of the pork and waste bets taken out of the budget. And those savings were used to pay down the national debt of the next 20 odd years, so you don't get a tax cut for now.

 

And also, lets assume that the cost of "defending the southern border" is on the order of $500 billion a year. Just making up the number, but perhaps if taken to an extreme ... to make it an impenetrable border ... that is the number.

 

So under these circumstances, are you willing to increase your taxes by, say, 10%? 20%?

 

This is the kind of economic planning that the libertarians and the tea party say they want. No new expenditures without paying for the programs. So don't cop out and say you want more spending, unless you are willing to pay for it.

 

React!!

[USVirgin]

React!!

 

I'm playing the role of quiet observer here but, sorry, you can't slip a Lee Hamilton reference past me without comment. The man has tried to incite Southern California border towns to call his radio station for decades, to no avail.

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5--4Rbea_c4

[rchapstick]

Chula Vista! React to me!

[expat]

...Those who are singing the immigration blues (including many of my friends) are the same ones who were singing the weapons of mass destruction blues' date=' the war on drugs blues, etc. In other words, to be charitable, they have bought into a lie. To be uncharitable, they are brainwashed. They are good people, but have bought into lies.[/quote']

 

Most societies, to some extent, have been based on what turned out to be in retrospect... lies. Humans haven't evolved to have a god's-eye understanding yet.

 

btw - I agree with most of what's written above, but let me add that I see the same kind of thinking in the outright dismissal of the teabaggers and the attempt to write them off as brainwashed conformist clones. Not all that different from their writing off of the evil 'liberals.'

 

I agree. The brainwashing is not limited to the right. I see tons of it happening on the left. People would rather follow a leader than think for themselves.

 

[USVirgin]

Yeah, the polarization of politics here is getting pretty weird. There's a local barman that I frequently disagree with when he brings up politics. Just because he's a Fox News guy, he automatically assumes I must be an MSNBC guy. When, in fact, I try not to watch any of that preaching to the choir crap.

 

I was having a conversation about these attitudes and the media with an Iranian immigrant lady last night. Words like laziness and decadence were bandied about with regard to the US, and I pretty much came to the conclusion that those who are from countries deprived of information value it more than we do, once they can access it.

 

In some countries, people risk their lives just to be informed. We are privileged to have uncensored media, for the most part, yet we seek out Rush Limbaugh and his ilk (on either side).