Sounds like a ww2 era movie of all good German citizens spying on their neighbors for the glory of the fatherland.

Well, I don’t agree in so much as we have not tried. I personally think, that is the debated double wall, sophisticated border that was on the books, would drastically reduce the influx. Of course there will be seepage...just as companies that produce products know there is a % of goods that will be stolen, or lost in transit, there’s a % that one has to accept.

The problem is as it stands now is, we aren’t really even trying. We won’t know, unless we give it a whirl. IF we can knock down the influx by say 70%, that’s a huge start, I wouldn’t accept that as the final %, I’d say we never would knock it down past 80%....there will 20% that would find a way in, but the difference from where we are now, would be tremendous.

At the same time, some type of border visa process where in we could match immigrants with employers and issue these visas based on employment would go along way in knocking down that 20% as they wouldn’t have a reason to skirt the process unless they were afraid of being identified for instance having a criminal history or have violated previously issues visas etc.

__________________
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile....

What's the estimated cost to seal all US borders and maintain that status? This subject was discussed at length on most forums when 911 was fresh and though I can't recall the numbers it was considered a logistical and fiscal nightmare without devoting a major portion of US resources to that one task. Or are US resources in the form of direct expenses considered unlimited in an era of a declining service economy, shrinking credit markets, failing currency and labor shortages?

You just gotta shake your head in disgust.........in a country headed by a man who calls himself a conservative, our nation's capitol is a sanctuary city.

__________________
Are you a spineless slave to political correctness?

As a resident of Oklahoma, home of the indisputable harshest state immigration law H.B. 1804, I would like to know what the right wing is hoping to gain from purging a work force of millions, and doing away with the state revenue this chunk of the work force provides?

I don't think its an either/or thing, but severely penalizing businesses that hire illegals is a must. Business need to be made responsible for ensuring their employees are legal, and they need to be held responsible when they don't.

I think any business that is caught hiring illegals should be shut down, and auctioned off to the highest bidder with the proceeds going directly towards border control efforts.

Next there needs to be a system to control migrant workers. Other countries have systems like this and it seems to work very well for them. Bascially what happens is an agency hires them in their home country on contracts, they come to the hiring country and work, during that time the agency is responsible for them, and when the contract is completed they go back. While living and working in the host country, close tabs are kept on these people - they only work for the contracted business, they live where they're told, and the agency takes care of their medical needs, etc.

Of course, physcially securing the border is a big part too.

__________________
-Eric

"For whoever habitually suppresses the truth in the interests of tact will produce a deformity from the womb of his thought." -Sir Basil H. Liddel-Hart

Self-composed.com

I happen to know from the effects of our HB 1804 that harsh illegal immigration laws effect more than the illegal immigrants themselves.
Many legal immigrants are compelled to move so they can stay close to illegal family members. Many local businesses depended on the spending power of these men and women. As these business' fail we will be faced with a far worse employment problem than we started with.

Further, as most businesses were paying these illegal workers substandard wages, many businesses will have to increase payrolls which will come out of your pockets. i.e. higher prices for products to pay wages.

I know it's easy to pawn off a nations problem on brown people, but why don't we as a people work on a solution that doesn't rob people of basic human rights?

I've seen the figures - a head of lettuce would cost about five cents more. I'm happy to pay it. I also haven't suggested closing the border both ways - if someone's relative is deported for being here illegally, and they want to follow them back to Mexico or wherever, I'm fine with that. As for the businesses that you claim will be hurt by not being able to sell to illegals, they'll just have to adjust.

But my favorite thing you said was about rights. What basic human rights are being robbed by anything I've proposed?

__________________
-Eric

"For whoever habitually suppresses the truth in the interests of tact will produce a deformity from the womb of his thought." -Sir Basil H. Liddel-Hart

Self-composed.com

If someone is in a country illegally, then they have no legal right to be there at all.

So what?

I'll gladly pay more for an avocado if it means illegals are bussed home...

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":

Cutting off their noses to spite their faces. Wrapped in their Chinese made American flags while driving gas guzzlers burning imported fuel (or worse yet methanol) they'll promote harassment of employers to drive their employees off while the US faces half of its work force retiring over the next decade with a birth rate too low to replace them and rapidly escalating social costs. Most don't have a clue as to the economic impact of a declining work force in a debtor nation any more than they understand the actual costs of attempting to close the borders. Their war on illegals makes as little sense as their failed war on drugs and the cost will eventually take their breath away. I often wonder why they don't just send their money directly to the nations who let us bury ourselves in debt using their imports, but understand their blind patriotism doesn't allow them to engage in critical thinking. Pure emotion with an absence of reality seems to be their motivation.

Why won't they just adopt my plan?

Since they're literally invading us...trying to effect the same sorts of changes (in reverse) that led to the independence (and subsequent statehood) of Texas...

Announce that as of a certain date, for every illegal Mexican we catch, we're moving the border south (from east to west) 100 yards and evicting the residents within the newly acquired territory.

Maybe when they're all crowded into the Yucatan Peninsula up against the border of Guatemala, they'll figure out what is up.

More oil for us! w00t!

__________________

"Compassionate Conservatism"?!?! That is a stupid phrase. Conservatism is inherently compassionate. It is liberalism that is cruel for the sake of maintaining a constituency.

Because it's retarded.

__________________
"Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God."
Matthew 5:9

It would work.

__________________

"Compassionate Conservatism"?!?! That is a stupid phrase. Conservatism is inherently compassionate. It is liberalism that is cruel for the sake of maintaining a constituency.

Yes, the U.S. invading countries has been a stellar success

__________________
Is our children learning? -George W. Bush

"I think—tide turning—see, as I remember—I was raised in the desert, but tides kind of—it's easy to see a tide turn—did I say those words?"—Washington, D.C., June 14, 2006

"[T]he illiteracy level of our children are appalling."—Washington, D.C., Jan. 23, 2004