Arizona's Next Immigration Target: Children of Illegals

[kamui]

If al qaeda and other such groups start bringing people and materials across the border, and a 911 like act of terrorism occurred, I wonder just how long it would take to secure the border?

 

The terrorists entered the country legally, while here they were plotting and it was known that their actions were at the very least suspicious. Someone up the chain of command in the FBI failed to address concerns. I don't think anyone argued that securing the border would have stopped 911. Which was stoppable.

 

 

 

The 9/11 terrorists all entered the US legally by plane, not by foot like the illegals do. Also they used "weapons" from inside the USA.

 

To make it worse: the drug cartels don't smuggle weapons into the USA. It's USA citizens who smuggle weapons to Mexico. I guess there is no industrialized country in the world were anybody can buy assault-weapons that easily.

 

IMHO the best way is what Obama is starting to do: Check the employers for illegal immigrants. If the number of jobs for illegals goes down, they will return home without causing additional costs for the government (jail, deportation costs, health care e.g.).

I wonder why the conservatives did not do it during the Bush years.

And this is a really cheap solution: the government(s) only need to hire a few hundred tax auditors. National guard, police e.g. are not needed and the government(s) even make money with it:

 

Over the past year, Immigration and Customs Enforcement has conducted audits of employee files at more than 2,900 companies. The agency has levied a record $3 million in civil fines so far this year on businesses that hired unauthorized immigrants, according to official figures. Thousands of those workers have been fired, immigrant groups estimate.

 

[color:red]Employers say the audits reach more companies than the work-site roundups of the administration of President George W. Bush.[/color] The audits force businesses to fire every suspected illegal immigrant on the payroll not just those who happened to be on duty at the time of a raid  and make it much harder to hire other unauthorized workers as replacements. Auditing is “a far more effective enforcement tool,†said Mike Gempler, executive director of the Washington Growers League, which includes many worried fruit growers.

NYT

 

[shygye]

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.

 

...

 

The guns are flowing from the USA to Mexico! The drug problem has been ongoing for decades and the war on drugs, begun under Nixon in 1971, has been a complete failure. After 40 years of failure shouldn't something else be tried?

[shygye]

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?

 

 

The electronic virtual fence, Boeing contract, has been a disaster. It can't tell the difference between animals and humans. It is unreliable due to heat and dust.

[Bangkoktraveler]

If the USA took the money we spent in Afghanastan for a $300 million dollar power plant which they will not use, it could have helped us. But Conservatives like GWB don't want to spent money helping our citizens but can find the money for power plants that are not used and providing people like the Iraqis healthcare with our money.

[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.

 

...

 

The guns are flowing from the USA to Mexico! The drug problem has been ongoing for decades and the war on drugs' date=' begun under Nixon in 1971, has been a complete failure. After 40 years of failure shouldn't something else be tried?[/quote']

If you want to get technical there has been a war on drugs way before Nixon with the illegalization of drugs that were legal before.

The term was first used in the Nixon era, In the modern era Ronald Reagan created the Office of National Drug Control Policy in the '80s to coordinate it all.

 

The southern border is a huge national security issue if nothing else. Not just drugs.

 

Something else has to be tried but there is no political will to do it.

[Steve]

Both parties are at fault for different reasons. Unless there is a very big and public event that galvanizes the nation, whether that be a domestic terrorist act or some cartel gunman kills someone and it because a cause celebre, NOTHING will happen.

The Mexicans don't want it to happen. Congress and the White House are too scared of losing votes to do anything of importance.

[Bangkoktraveler]

Both parties are at fault for different reasons. Unless there is a very big and public event that galvanizes the nation, whether that be a domestic terrorist act or some cartel gunman kills someone and it because a cause celebre, NOTHING will happen.

[color:red]The Mexicans don't want it to happen. Congress and the White House are too scared of losing votes to do anything of importance.[/color]

 

 

Most importantly, we can't afford, as a nation, to secure the border.

 

Even if the border could be secured, what prevents drugs and illegals arriving at such cities as San Francisco by sub? Nothing.

[kamui]

Both parties are at fault for different reasons. Unless there is a very big and public event that galvanizes the nation, whether that be a domestic terrorist act or some cartel gunman kills someone and it because a cause celebre, NOTHING will happen.

The Mexicans don't want it to happen. Congress and the White House are too scared of losing votes to do anything of importance.

 

Hispanics are becoming a very powerful voting block which no party can ignore. Therefore running a radical anti-immigration program will eliminate either party from presidency, because the *legal* hispanic immigrants will rally against it. Projections show that "non-hispanic whites" will become a minority in 2042:

 

Today, non-Hispanic White Americans make up about 66% of the population. This percentage is expected to fall to 46% in 2050. The report foresees the Hispanic and Latino population rising from 15% today to 30% by 2050. Today, African Americans make up 14% of the population, in 2050 they are projected to comprise 15%. Asian Americans make up 5% of the population and are expected to make up 9% in 2050. The U.S. has 308 million people today, and is projected to reach 400 million by 2039 and 439 million in 2050.

Wikipedia

 

In states like CA the whites are *already* less than 50%:

 

Non-Hispanic whites [color:red]decreased from about 76% of the state's population in 1970 to 43% in 2006[/color]. While the population of minorities accounts for 100.7 million of 300 million U.S. residents, 20% of the national total live in California.

 

New Mexico and Texas have higher percentages of Latinos, but California has the highest total number of Latinos of any U.S. state. Only Hawaii has a higher Asian American percentage than California.

Wikipedia

 

Which means: on the long run US politics will need to find a solution how to control the influx of illegal immigrants and how to deal with illegal immigrants living in the US, without angering legal hispanics. Anything else will be political suicide.

 

As a side note: The "Tea Party" which is 99% white and strongly anti-immigration is a symbol of the fear of loss of political power and cultural/economic dominance of the white people with European heritage.

Anti-immigration conservative/right fringe groups might influence the upcoming elections but their future influence will go down considerably.

[Old Hippie]

Both parties are at fault for different reasons. Unless there is a very big and public event that galvanizes the nation' date=' whether that be a domestic terrorist act or some cartel gunman kills someone and it because a cause celebre, NOTHING will happen.

[b'][color:red]The Mexicans don't want it to happen. Congress and the White House are too scared of losing votes to do anything of importance.[/color][/b]

 

 

Most importantly, we can't afford, as a nation, to secure the border.

 

Even if the border could be secured, what prevents drugs and illegals arriving at such cities as San Francisco by sub? Nothing.

 

 

Practicality?

[Bangkoktraveler]

Both parties are at fault for different reasons. Unless there is a very big and public event that galvanizes the nation' date=' whether that be a domestic terrorist act or some cartel gunman kills someone and it because a cause celebre, NOTHING will happen.

[b'][color:red]The Mexicans don't want it to happen. Congress and the White House are too scared of losing votes to do anything of importance.[/color][/b]

 

 

Most importantly, we can't afford, as a nation, to secure the border.

 

Even if the border could be secured, what prevents drugs and illegals arriving at such cities as San Francisco by sub? Nothing.

 

 

Practicality?

 

 

As a country, we have a tendency to jump in do something (like starting a war) without considering the cost and the consequences.

 

The length of the border seperating the USA from Mexico is 1969 miles. Manning the border every 100 feet would take about 50 men per mile times 5 to cover all three shifts, Weekends, etc. X 2000 mile. [color:red]That is 500,000 people![/color]

 

 

Just to provide them with an M4 and a sidearm would cost over 750 million!

 

 

Talk about a tax increase!