Spend a week, build a wall !


PDA






sd550
March 31, 2006, 12:54 AM
How many of you would consider giving up a week of vacation to donate to building a wall between the US and Mexico ? Anybody ?

If you enjoyed reading about "Spend a week, build a wall !" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
real_name
March 31, 2006, 12:56 AM
Apparently I was wrong, this thread isn't going to be closed solely for being another anti-Mexican shouting match.

walking arsenal
March 31, 2006, 01:03 AM
I'm game.

My wife was just talking about that today as a matter of fact.

She said "funding? Heck, i bet they could get enough people to volunteer to build that thing"

I agree.

Should i bring my grill?

madmike
March 31, 2006, 01:06 AM
It didn't work for the USSR with mines, guns and guards. Why do you think it will work here?

Utter waste of time.

Just a quick calculation of the concrete and bricks needed, not to mention surveying, digging...and then trying to maintain it...

You may as well pile the money up and set it on fire. At least you'll get some useful heat from it.

GrammatonCleric
March 31, 2006, 02:49 AM
I'm down, Heck, I'd quit my job, and MOVE to Texas in order to patrol the border. If any of you live on the border, I'll work for room and board. ;)

Don't Tread On Me
March 31, 2006, 03:58 AM
Heh! A wall will not work because governments run the wall.

Instead of hoping that a wall will work, you create a deterrence instead. You do this not through a governemnt solution, but rather by using the free-market to solve an issue. (kind of hypocritical, as free-markets prefer open borders)

Anyhow, this is what you do.

You declare the US side of the US-Mexico border a "free fire zone". :eek: Anyone caught in this zone who is not a U.S. citizen can be shot on sight, but NOT taken prisoner. You either let them go, or you shoot them. Kind of like "catch and release"...Now, to prevent fire from going into Mexico, we'd have to back off from the actual border a few hundred yards at the least. I understand that both the government and private citizens own property on the border.

This is where it works out perfectly. All the gun-nuts in America can finally get a chance to turn their justifiable homicide-fantasies into reality by volunteering their time to be snipers on the border. Wouldn't be "volunteering" per se. More like going on a hunting trip, except for invaders of this country.

Ranchers and property owners on the border will make a lot of money by being able to sell hunting guides and access to their land. You could pay $1,000 for 5 days of lodging and access to a ATV to have your own exclusive access to a few miles of border. Others can just sell a certain number of tags per lot of land. The local border communities would prosper and boom (pardon the pun). Would create a massive new border economy.

People will get out there with all their $4,000 fancy sniper rifles, camo, ghullie suits and other "soldier of fortune" stuff. Would be fairly crazy.

Simply appealing to the homicidal nature of most Americans would be enough to create plenty of border security without ANY cost to the government. That's right! Not a single tax dollar wasted. Why create an expense for something people are willing to do for free? Or even pay a small license fee? Right now, most people don't want to be "Minute Men" how boring. Walk around with bottled water and flashlights! yuck! Tell Americans that they can actually discharge firearms at invaders and demand will soar! :what: Now that would get people out there!

The Border Patrol agents will no longer need to catch invaders, instead, they will become "game wardens"..and keep the civilian border protectors in line (have to have rules you know)...

Basically, there would have to be a licensing process. Anyone interested in this hunting license would have to agree to a number of special terms, as well as sign a number of waivers. That part would be a little complicated. Like no 12ga shotguns as their use would be inhumane when used at long distances. The use of hollowpoint or fragmenting ammo is a must, no non-fragmenting or non-expanding FMJ would be allowed. .22 caliber centerfires would be OK. Night hunting would be permitted...but only if the armed hunter has an individual night vision device. Poaching would be severely punished, ie.. no women and children.


BTW, I'm not serious. I think that is kind of sadistic. But this thread is already silly to begin with. :D

mnrivrat
March 31, 2006, 05:24 AM
You People - What will you think of next ?

Pretty soon you'll want to put locks on your doors to keep the neighbors out of your refridgerator ! :p

Maxwell
March 31, 2006, 07:24 AM
It didn't work for the USSR with mines, guns and guards. Why do you think it will work here?

Cause communits build walls to keep people in!
Joking aside, I'm in agreement that walls are just static things. You need enforcement or its just another pointless monument to xenophobia.

The idea of a wall is to slow someone down long enough to spot them or discourage them from crossing at this point. It wont stop them by itself.
If minutemen style programs start laying their hands on those that breach a wall or find gaps, we could end up with a very bad situation on our hands.

Unless the border patrol uses it and enforces that line in the dirt, you wont have anything meaningful.

Camp David
March 31, 2006, 08:07 AM
How many of you would consider giving up a week of vacation to donate to building a wall between the US and Mexico ? Anybody ?

I'll help but I have a recommendation; instead of a "wall" how about a deep "pit" dug? That way they fall in the "pit" when they try to cross? We can fill it with snakes, scorpions, and fanged critters and make it real desirable! A pit is cheaper than a wall in the long run!

madmike
March 31, 2006, 08:22 AM
If you do it, save time and effort and $$ by starting the wall at Arizona. CA, it's time to surrender and retrieve the Flag.

Of course, a large number of Asian immigrants enter illegally from Canada at several major border crossings that are almost impossible to stop.

Then there's the drug planes...

Any solution will have to be political, and make sure not to avoid people who DID come legally, then had administrative problems that can run for years, while they do work and pay taxes. Been there myself. Three years with no visa.

1911 guy
March 31, 2006, 08:42 AM
A wall patrolled by members of our BP and NG would work, except for the fact that it is our own government that wants the influx of illegals. They drive down wages and standard of living, but we as Americans have proven too resillient to cave fifteen years ago when the problem started geting bad, so our economy is being "outsourced" to further drive down the economy and standard of living. Welcome to the global economy. Resistance is futile, you will be assimilated.

I wish it were as easy as adjusting a tin hat to make the future look brighter.

TexasRifleman
March 31, 2006, 08:44 AM
IBTL

We don't use that one here. You're new to this forum so it's OK once.
Keep the IBTL's and +1's somewhere else please.

As for the wall, it sounds good on the surface, but as a poster mentioned in another thread, the Soviets tried building walls, see where that got them.

Remove the incentive for people to come across.

madmike
March 31, 2006, 09:25 AM
A wall patrolled by members of our BP and NG would work, except for the fact that it is our own government that wants the influx of illegals. They drive down wages and standard of living,

Please document these "Facts" and why the government would consider it desireable to reduce wages and the standard of living?

but we as Americans have proven too resillient to cave fifteen years ago when the problem started geting bad, so our economy is being "outsourced" to further drive down the economy and standard of living. Welcome to the global economy.

Japan's imported "junk" (from the 1950s, not "fifteen years ago") has improved to where it costs more than American made. So has Taiwan's. Korea's is catching up. China and India will take a while, they're larger.

Oh, nooooo, the whole world is becoming RICH! What are we to do in this global economy?

We'll be exploiting Zimbabwe in 20 years. You watch.

I wish it were as easy as adjusting a tin hat to make the future look brighter.

Why adjust it? Just take it off and recycle it.

RealGun
March 31, 2006, 09:44 AM
You declare the US side of the US-Mexico border a "free fire zone".

This is the kind of stuff that makes me glad that Senators are having a responsible discussion on the matter. Too many polls have little to do with what would be the "right" thing to do. People who have to answer for the outcome should make the call.

TX35
March 31, 2006, 09:55 AM
I'd give a week!!!!

1911 guy
March 31, 2006, 09:58 AM
First off, I'm not lumping LEGAL immigrtion into this mess. My family are recent additions in the last couple generations, so please don't think you're in any way a target here.

So here goes. An illegal can and will work for substantially less due to several factors. Under-the-table paychecks, not paying taxes and communal living all contribute to this. So does owning one set of clothes, hitching a ride to work every day and not paying for health insurance.

Fifteen or twenty years ago is when two things began to happen. Our trade inequities began to catch up with us and illegal immigration began to be more of a problem because of increasing numbers. These two economic factors feed on one another, although they are not directly related.

Also, the cost of goods made in asian countries has not gone up at all. The profit level for the execs making import deals, however, has skyrocketed. If costs were at all similar, why would our own execs have the desire to farm out our work?

Japan is very unique in that they have always had an industrial base and rebuilt it after WWII. They have a good standard of living, we import some very well made electronics and autos from them and they crave all things western in return. I've eaten at a KFC in Yokusaka.

China, Taiwan and Korea will never reach the economic success of the U.S. or Japan. They arrived in the 21st century with antiquated manufacturing and a largely unskilled workforce. Those who have learned skills are seeking jobs in the tech fields (think India. Call for tech sup. for your computer some time. Not good english, but they do know the machines.). The unskilled labor force is being exploited to keep the high profit margins at the expense of repressing the very people who are providing the labor. The corporation I work for bought a Chinese company two years ago. I'll tell you about the working and living conditions sometime. It'll make living in Hell's Kitchen seem like a fairy tale.

In short, I hate to rain on your parade, but while immigration has been and will be a source of innovation and a wellspring of new talent and skills, illegal immigration is a drain on any society. Once the economic strain further seperates the citizens from the intruders, social pains are sure to follow. We're seeing this in europe right now with the unrest in several countries, some openly, some under the surface where you've got to be on the watch to see it happening.

madmike
March 31, 2006, 10:06 AM
1911 Guy:

It's undoubtedly a problem. I'm just reminding people that some "cures" are impossible, unAmerican, or unaffordable.

As long as Commiefornicans will whine for free medical care, drivers' licenses, free medical care, etc, for illegals, no physical means will stop illegals. They know we won't shoot them (Can't), they know the Mexican authorities don't care, and the risk of dying in transit is a FAIR TRADE for what's at this end, IN THEIR OPINIONS, or they wouldn't be doing it.

There is NOTHING, short of summarily executing them, which we CANNOT do, that will make the risk of jumping the border greater than the potential rewards.

I don't have an answer. I'm just explaining the logic behind the government proposals.

Feel good or feel bad idiocy (pardon me for calling it that) about building walls or declaring free fire zones makes for amusing recreation, but will accomplish less than nothing at great expense or criminal conspiracy. I'd rather discuss things that MIGHT help.

rchernandez
March 31, 2006, 10:28 AM
FOLKS YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT THE BIG PICTURE!!!

Deciding to build the wall and funding it will get us half way there...we hire all of "prospective guest (workers)" to build it and they will not have to think of going any further north! Take the Pentagon estimate for building such a project...fund 1/10th of the budget. Employment!!! right there on the border! :D

WayneConrad
March 31, 2006, 10:29 AM
Sure, build a wall, but let's go after the real problem.

Build it around D.C.

1911 guy
March 31, 2006, 10:30 AM
The trade off you mention, the possibility of arrest or harm from attempting to get into the U.S., is accurate. If the Mexicans and others didn't feel it was worth the risk, they wouldn't try it, so your assessment is right. However, we need only look one country south to see a program that works. Mexico has an illegal alien problem of their own, people from countries south of them looking to transit Mexico en route to the U.S. Mexico, however, knows what a drain it is on an economy and a society, so they work very hard to stem the flow from the south. A large portion of their military (we can use National Guard) and police force (think Border Patrol) heavily patrol their southern border. Arrests are frequent and often violent. Mexican authorities have quite a reputation recently and guess what? Their problem is lessening as the people seeking to get here are looking for other avenues to gain entry into the U.S.

The lesson learned is that if we make the risk or probability of capture much higher, and no, I'm not suggesting shooting them, the tide may slow due to the increased risk and less chance of a payoff. Our system also needs work to make life here more difficult on them without burdening our citizens or resident aliens any more than we already are. Current immigration law requires basic english, written and spoken. No english, no job. Hired an illegal? Go to jail, do not collect 200 dollars. My Mother retired from a hospital, so here's one of my pet peeves. You should get the same care your country of origin would provide to an American tresspasser. To a mexican, that means none. You're sick? Go back to Mexico for a doctor, we won't help you. I remember a recent (year or two ago) story of an American citizen jailed in Mexico who needed medical attention. The local police refused to cooperate with the embassy, insisted the family post bond to release him for care. Every time the family came up with the cash, the price went up. There was no bail, just a greedy jailer and the man died in Mexican custody. Tell me again how nice we need to be to folks who want to take advasntage of us.

TexasRifleman
March 31, 2006, 10:35 AM
Sure, build a wall, but let's go after the real problem.

Build it around D.C.

Best suggestion yet....

PinnedAndRecessed
March 31, 2006, 10:38 AM
A wall is not necessary. Simply remove the incentive for being here.

This solution is not practical, however, because our elected officials completely ignore the electorate. Their motivation is a single country out of Canada/US/Mexico. That is the conspiracy.

Clinton: drunk with power.

Bush: he's just drunk.

1911 guy
March 31, 2006, 10:42 AM
Our politicians are indeed hard at work removing the incentive. Haven't you noticed the recent trend of "outsourcing", the code word for prostituting our economy to the lowest bidder in exchange for the trinket of world opinion and corporate profits? Another twenty years and you and I will be illegal aliens looking for jobs in China and Korea. How well do you think we'll be received?

madmike
March 31, 2006, 10:56 AM
1911 Guy, you miss some basic facts.

Mexico's southern border is MUCH SMALLER than ours.

I DO NOT WANT violent, brutal cops in ANY role.

Federal law says you are entitled to emergency medical care. It is NOT the hospital's responsibility to determine your citizenship. They can't, and I DON'T WANT the government subletting that much power (life and death) on a whim.

Yeah, we could just deny anyone who looks like a "spic" and doesn't have 3 photo IDs and a birth certificate on them at all times any jobs, medical care or civil rights, rough them up with clubs and cattleprods and dump them south of the border. It would solve the problem.

We wouldn't be America anymore.

That would be a bigger problem.

merk
March 31, 2006, 11:05 AM
Funny thing about your wall, is that it would probably be built with hispanic and illegal immigrants! :D

madmike
March 31, 2006, 11:32 AM
Merk: Ironic, but probable.

mnrivrat
March 31, 2006, 11:39 AM
This is the kind of stuff that makes me glad that Senators are having a responsible discussion on the matter.

While the comments about the "free fire zone" are (and most likely meant to be) off the edge of any reason, the one about the responsible discussion by out senators is truely twilight zone material.

In order ;the problem here comes from:

1.) Big business wanting cheap labor and thereby more profit.
2.) Government accomidating big business cause that's where their (elected officials) money comes from for running campains and for personal retirement.
3.) The liberal americans who don't mind the influx because they think it is about humanitarian things rather than ecomomic.
4.) The illegals who come - they know what side of the fence their on, and why, and that it is not legal.
5.) The Mexican government who encourages their citizens to leave the country and send money back to Mexico to keep their economy going.

wingman
March 31, 2006, 11:48 AM
In order ;the problem here comes from:

1.) Big business wanting cheap labor and thereby more profit.
2.) Government accomidating big business cause that's where their (elected officials) money comes from for running campains and for personal retirement.
3.) The liberal americans who don't mind the influx because they think it is about humanitarian things rather than ecomomic.
4.) The illegals who come - they know what side of the fence their on, and why, and that it is not legal.
5.) The Mexican government who encourages their citizens to leave the country and send money back to Mexico to keep their economy going.


You nailed it, mainly it is simply greed on the part of our business people,
and the willingness to trade in slave labor, make no mistake that is what
many companies now look for, increase the profit utilizing any means possible,
no matter the labor is subsidized by the American taxpayer.

We now live in an era when we must have secure borders and legal controlled
immigration, regardless the expense because we will certainly pay in the future.

Cuda
March 31, 2006, 11:48 AM
I think you can boil it down to who is in power.

1. The rep's big business and money

2. The dem's see more voters

Both will help to keep one or the other in power. Corrupt and dishonest politicians on both sides.


C

mcg-doc
March 31, 2006, 01:03 PM
It didn't work for the USSR with mines, guns and guards. Why do you think it will work here?

I’m not sure were you derived your “knowledge” but you are wrong. During communist rule almost no one ever crossed soviet border in either direction. You had to be issued a special document to live or travel within 50 miles of the border.

Bigjake
March 31, 2006, 01:09 PM
I'm in for the "moat" solution. I'll even bring my own excavator and gas tanks to run it and the dump. harder to tunnel under a moat!

It didn't work for the USSR with mines, guns and guards. Why do you think it will work here?

Utter waste of time.



alright, so offer up a constructive solution. Lets make it MORE illegal to illegaly cross the border. there , fixed.NOT.

Like the other guy said, walls to keep em' out work better than those to keep em in.

mcg-doc
March 31, 2006, 01:14 PM
Rather than have a moat or a wall, the most economical solution would be a mine field. Demarcate it well with barbed wire. Post large notes in Spanish every 10 yards. Then illegals will quickly develop a Pavlovian reflex; try to cross the US border and die!

longeyes
March 31, 2006, 01:21 PM
We need two walls, one at the southern border, one around Washignton, D.C.

Then we need a government, here, that has some cojones. Start jailing employers.

And stop playing patty-cake with "mi amigo Vicente." Mexico needs to be slapped down for trying to take over the U.S. We are being invaded, pure and simple. If our government is going to aid and abet the invasion, then we are going to need a regime-change muy pronto.

longeyes
March 31, 2006, 01:22 PM
Oh yeah, and a third wall...

Around George Bush's ego.

Who does he think he is trying to give away America?

Jammer Six
March 31, 2006, 01:24 PM
We get stronger every time an immigrant crosses the border.

Really.

One of many things they bring with them is knowledge.

For instance, they know how to build walls. It amuses me that the desire for the wall is here, and the knowledge to build it is there. This thread is demonstrating that quite clearly.

You need them, even to build your wall, to keep them out. :D

Biker
March 31, 2006, 01:27 PM
The wall is the first step. The next step is contigent upon the final draft of the immigration bill currently being pimped by Bush.
Biker

madmike
March 31, 2006, 01:32 PM
MCG-DOC: The amount of infrastructure spent on that wall was INSANE. Not to mention that the Border Guards had their own sizeable NAVY to chase people on the Black Sea and in the Baltic. (We're talking patrol boats and destroyers.)

Yes, only a few people made it out. The cost was a significant percentage of GDP.

But let's look at it: Are you going to put minefields in? What happens when local kids go playing? Or will you require OUR people to have "Special documents" to live near the border? What happens when people dig holes under or through the wall? Are you going to put in hundreds of miles of computerized sensors? Have rapid response teams ready? How many? Paid how? Engineers to maintain it? With off road construction vehicles? Or will you put in a border road at a million $ a mile? A road that makes it easier for people who get in to get deeper inland?

What about the TX and Cali coasts? What about all the container ships coming into NYC? There's 90 miles of water between Cuba and Florida. Somehow, Cubans with inner tubes and driftwood manage to get in, as do others with boats and planes. Remember the joke, How do you get 112 Cubans into a Dixie Cup? Tell them it's bound for Miami.

St Claire River, MI is a MAJOR crossing for drugs and illegals. There are native reservations on both sides, and (according to USCG) a boat can get across that channel in 47 seconds. Do you suggest random stops of everyone to produce their papers? Under what constitutional authority? Or is this threat, like many others, too IMPORTANT to worry about a piece of paper?

The first thing to do when you find you're riding a dead horse is to stop and get off, not offer it oats and a motivational speech.

There is NO WAY any America I will live in can PHYSICALLY stop this from happening. Precautions can reduce it, and enforcement inside the country can help. But speaking as a lover of liberty and a military engineer, the idea of a wall is the kind of suggestion I'd smile at from students, and use to give them this type of lesson.

Won't work.

But, hey, it's a free country. You don't have to believe me. You can also freely spend a few billion of my tax dollars and freely vote to infringe my rights and freedoms and create a massive bureaucracy to keep me free.

But you better not complain when Border Police stop you in St Louis or KC and ask to see your papers.

longeyes
March 31, 2006, 01:46 PM
One of many things they bring with them is knowledge.

For instance, they know how to build walls. It amuses me that the desire for the wall is here, and the knowledge to build it is there. This thread is demonstrating that quite clearly.

You need them, even to build your wall, to keep them out.

Those would be the walls that do so well in Mexican earthquakes?

I didn't know that America itself was a "dead horse." Guess it's time to shoot the poor old nag and jump on the nice new spiffy one called Globalism? That's the one where America the Nation has been replaced with America the Free Shopping Zone?

Biker
March 31, 2006, 01:53 PM
"We have an aging white America...They are dying...We have got to eliminate the gringo, and what I mean by that is if the worst comes to the worst, we have got to kill him".

Jose Angel Gutierrez
Professor, University of Texas, Arlington and founder of the La Raza Unida political party.

Biker

ElTacoGrande
March 31, 2006, 01:53 PM
Federal law says you are entitled to emergency medical care. It is NOT the hospital's responsibility to determine your citizenship. They can't, and I DON'T WANT the government subletting that much power (life and death) on a whim.

Doctors are basically "unable" to not treat someone who is in need of emergency care. This would violate their most basic ethical guidelines.

I can't believe some of the things I read on these types of threads.

And I agree with you also that building a wall would be a pure waste of money. It won't work.

The only things that will work are a) creating felony penalties for illegals and those who employ them or b) a guest worker program. We already waste so many billions of dollars with our present judicial system, I don't see how creating millions of new felons is feasible. Certainly isn't desirable to me.

We should have a guest worker program, although it should be reciprocal, IE, I should be able to get a guest worker permit in Mexico if we give them out to Mexicans.

By the way, you know the irony of talking about "building a wall": If we actually did it, the government would hire CONTRACTORS to do it, and guess who would end up doing the actual work?

madmike
March 31, 2006, 02:05 PM
ElTaco, I don't think most of these people know what the program actually entails. The purpose of it is to ID illegals, get taxes and fines from them, and allow them to apply for LEGAL positions, or be considered felons and potential terrorists and treated as such.

I DO know that that scumbag William Greene from "Rightmarch.com" is telling people that I'm a threat to the US and a traitor because I still (GASP!) have Brit citizenship, too.

longeyes
March 31, 2006, 02:07 PM
Sure, .gov would have "contractors" do the work, just as they did with Katrina. People should have stopped that cold. I guess too many were too traumatized, and the big boys took advantage.

I'm glad someone mentioned reciprocity. I've said there many times. What are we getting from Mexico for all this? Don't tell me cheap labor because thanks but no thanks for destroying my middle-class. Bush isn't even TRYING to get concessions, a quid pro quo, anything. Mexico OWES us, and if Bush and the American agribiz community don't understand that, millions of Americans DO.

Bush is on the threshold of both polarizing and galvanizing the American people as no one has done in a long, long while. "Dubai" was the opening shot. Here we go.

auschip
March 31, 2006, 02:14 PM
A good portion of the land along the US/Mexico border is privately owned. Do you propose using emminent domain to seize a portion of that land to add your wall/moat/mine field?

longeyes
March 31, 2006, 02:14 PM
"We have an aging white America...They are dying...We have got to eliminate the gringo, and what I mean by that is if the worst comes to the worst, we have got to kill him".

Jose Angel Gutierrez
Professor, University of Texas, Arlington and founder of the La Raza Unida political party.


Thanks for sharing, Professor Gutierrez.

I know, I know, he only represents a small slice of the hardworking moms and dads who come for opportunity. They love America...well, maybe they just love the American paycheck? Of course this guy is already here and no doubt an American citizen. Even better he probably has tenure.

I guess, as a gabacho, I won't be able to count on lovingkindness from a Latina nurse in my old age?

The virulent racism that emanates from some of our amigos is really quite something.

longeyes
March 31, 2006, 02:15 PM
A good portion of the land along the US/Mexico border is privately owned. Do you propose using emminent domain to seize a portion of that land to add your wall/moat/mine field?

Let's push south and build it on what was formerly their side of the border.

That should send a message.

madmike
March 31, 2006, 02:17 PM
I'd suggest annexing them...but to what benefit?:confused:

Oleg Volk
March 31, 2006, 02:18 PM
Something like this? Make the Mexicans build the wall, making sure they are on the opposite side of it...

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/images/Holocaust/Warsaw_ghetto.jpg

...plenty of historic precedents for such savory ideas.

TexasRifleman
March 31, 2006, 02:20 PM
I'd suggest annexing them...but to what benefit?

They would never want that. Look to the events in Puerto Rico any time statehood is talked about. That's the last thing they want. The handouts stop and the IRS starts once that takes place.......

Biker
March 31, 2006, 02:21 PM
Mex has lots of oil and we're getting their castaways in any case. Why not?
Biker

ElTacoGrande
March 31, 2006, 02:34 PM
ElTaco, I don't think most of these people know what the program actually entails. The purpose of it is to ID illegals, get taxes and fines from them, and allow them to apply for LEGAL positions, or be considered felons and potential terrorists and treated as such.

Yeah, they're here, so let's get them into the system, make them pay taxes, give them the same protection that American workers have (minimum wage and other protections against exploitation).

Those who say you are a traitor because you have Brit citizenship: They're wankers! And speaking of citizenship, I'm really serious about this reciprocity thing. If we give guest worker passes to Mexicans they should also give them to us, and I would like to have one.

For those who don't recognize Oleg's photo there: That's a photo of some helpful Germans building a wall to keep illegal Jews from leaving some ghetto somewhere, maybe in Warsaw I'm guessing.

The Jews were in fact illegals! Yes they were. They were stripped of their citizenship by German laws (I have documents that prove this) and also according to German laws they lost their rights as German citizens.

From now on every time I post in one of these thread I shall end thusly:

http://www.3dflags.com/media/icon/classic/m/3dflagsdotcom_mexic_2fawm.gif

longeyes
March 31, 2006, 02:42 PM
Yeah, they're here, so let's get them into the system, make them pay taxes, give them the same protection that American workers have (minimum wage and other protections against exploitation).

Maybe if you didn't see America as "a system," you'd understand that this is a nation first. We have plenty of corporate types who see America as a Profit Center and nothing more. The "system" is what got us to this sorry pass in the first place.

madmike
March 31, 2006, 02:42 PM
WAITAMINIT! You mean that wetback unloading for me for $20 a day yesterday now wants $6 an hour AND unemployment, withholding and social security?

Shoot, I might as well hire an AMERICAN STUDENT at those rates!:cuss:

;)

#shooter
March 31, 2006, 05:23 PM
I heard on the radio (I can't verify if this is true) that in 2004 only 4 companies in the entire nation were fined for hiring illegal workers. Hire 10k "illegal alien" inspectors that do nothing but dole out heavy fines (2-5k per worker) on employers that hire illegals. Enforce the law. Enforce the fine. Remove illegal welfare programs. Did you know the IRS gives out tax id's with out background checks to illegals with fraudulant personal info and false SSNs/IDs then shields their records from INS. So much for more cooperation between departments.

Reduce the demand and the supply will take care of it's self. If there are 11 million unemployed illegal aliens they will start to leave (they can not collect unemployment), and maybe it will stem the flow of them crossing the border.If they are criminals, they get deported. Maybe they can go to Canada:what:

This is like gun control, we don't need more control laws. Enforce the the laws we have.

madmike
March 31, 2006, 05:34 PM
Of course, if they have an SSN or EIN, we ARE getting tax money from them and they ARE being paid "proper" wages, not a few $$ under the table.

It's not any more legal, but it's less economically harmful.

THOSE are the ones who can potentially be turned into productive Americans, because they're ambitious and skillful.

mcg-doc
March 31, 2006, 05:45 PM
Madmike:

The barrier can indeed be an expensive proposition. Now let us see some engineering skills in action. How much would a 100 miles long and 100 yards wide harassing-type antipersonnel minefield cost?

mcg-doc
March 31, 2006, 05:50 PM
A good portion of the land along the US/Mexico border is privately owned. Do you propose using emminent domain to seize a portion of that land to add your wall/moat/mine field?

If you have a property that has public road frontage, the local government can and does take part of it for road widening. Moreover, most ranchers would probably welcome the idea if it protects them from squatters and trespassers.

madmike
March 31, 2006, 06:12 PM
Standard antipersonnel minefield would be pointless. Coyotes, dogs, thrown rocks, etc, would set it off. There'd quickly be holes. Or someone would use a piece of construction equipment to detonate a hole. Or flails, WWI style. These people are already risking death by dehydration and heat stroke in many cases. A minefield isn't going to mean squat.

Mines channel and slow the enemy to make it easier to call pre-coordinated artillery and air strikes against him. In this case, IF you had manned towers every 1000 yards max, you could bring rifle fire to bear on them.

And how will it play on the news to be shooting people without trial? And want to bet the ACLU won't win that one?

If we shoot at them on Mexican soil, it's an act of war. If they're on our soil, it's a violation of due process (unless they are in the act of using armed force at the time). Not going to happen.

madmike
March 31, 2006, 06:15 PM
Oh, a moat. I suppose we'd call people who navigated a moat...hm...wetbacks, perchance?

After all, the Rio Grande has been VERY effective at stopping incursions.:rolleyes:

Oleg Volk
March 31, 2006, 06:32 PM
That's a photo of some helpful Germans building a wall

Actually, they were Jews building a wall which sealed them inside a ghetto. Same idea as using Mexicans for that purpose.

bigun15
March 31, 2006, 06:37 PM
I need a summer job once school gets out. Pay me a little and I'll do the work all season long.

Biker
March 31, 2006, 06:51 PM
Oleg
The Mexican's ghetto belongs to them. Are you implying that we owe Mexico something?
Biker

Mr.V.
March 31, 2006, 06:58 PM
Volunteering to build a wall is a terrible idea. When an illegal alien injures themselves climbing over it, you're totally going to get sued...you better place small steps with that sticky paper stuff at the edge in case it's wet so they don't trip. Also you're going to need an elevator for disabled illegal aliens who can't climb the stairs. Also you'd better place bilingual signs so they can read instructions on how to safely climb-over your wall. Oh yeah...most can't read even spanish...so you're going to need to hire guides to help them over...bilingual guides.

Oleg Volk
March 31, 2006, 06:58 PM
I am not suggesting that we owe Mexico anything. It wouldn't break my heart if Mexican leadership all got cancer and leprosy at the same time.

I am saying outright that immigration helps the US, even if it is illegal due to the current restrictions. The problems were are seeing are largely due to theunfunded mandates (free social and other services), and that applies equally to the foreign and to the domestic freeloaders. My own experience with immigrants (including Mexican) indicates that they don't much differ from Americansinmentality nd that most just want to work for a living. Whether they do menial work or advanced work, they are mostly after having a reasonable living environment for their families.

As for the various gangbangers, foreign or domestic, I would not shed any tears if they came to sticky ends. Having studied European approach to this, I think that it is disingehuous to blame people fro trying to get away from bad places. If CA seceded from the US and its residents had to wait for years to be reunited with their relatives or just wanted to escape the dictatorship, would you blame them for walking across Nevada deserts to get away?

Stauble
March 31, 2006, 07:03 PM
how about an electric fence with barbwire?

Biker
March 31, 2006, 07:07 PM
Oleg...
You state that "immigration helps the US". I will concede that some immigration can, no more.
As far as the Eurpopean approach goes, it doesn't seem to be helping France out a whole lot, a model I could see repeated here.
Explain why, if you would, that you make an unequivical statement as "immigration helps the US, even if it is illegal".
Biker

Ralph
March 31, 2006, 07:08 PM
I like the idea of digging a moat.

Start at Chula Vista and drain the Pacific down to El Paso to flood the Rio Grande to the Gulf.

Seriously, some type of restraint is needed along the borders as well as the rewriting of legislation to make immigration a less burdensome endeavor.

madmike
March 31, 2006, 07:14 PM
how about an electric fence with barbwire?

Perfect. Mexicans haven't discovered rubber gloves and bolt cutters yet.:rolleyes:

Any such construction will turn into a sport.

"Ay, Pedro, you want to go cut holes in the Gringo fence again?"

"Sure ting, Romero. How about we bash a hole in the wall, too?"

"We could try fastening anchors and use Miguel's tractor."

"Si. Nothing runs like a Deere."

"Ay, I bet I can get that pack of dogs through the minefield with five rocks."

"Nah, that's boring. Think I can hit that camera with a .22 Colibri from 50 meters?"

"I was tinking we heave a gallon of gasoline over the post and light it."

ElTacoGrande
March 31, 2006, 07:30 PM
"Si, eh, Miguel, mi amigo 'el Taco' has some agua on the other side for us."

Anyway... we spend BILLIONS OF DOLLARS EVERY YEAR to keep drugs out of the country, and it's a felony to possess them (in distribution quantiies) anywhere in the country.... AND THAT'S WORKING SO WELL!

Mr.V.
March 31, 2006, 08:32 PM
But Taco don't you see...a wall would stop everything bad from happening. Take Britain for instance. They are surrounded by a huge moat and have no illegal drugs, migrants, or firearms entering. At least that was...until...the chunnel.

Standing Wolf
March 31, 2006, 08:32 PM
Maybe we should foster a revolution in Mexico.

Mr.V.
March 31, 2006, 08:38 PM
La Revolucion? First we'd have to resurrrect Che Guevara...wouldn't he be a fun El Presidente...we could all be treated to the joys of "Motorcycle Diaries 2"

madmike
March 31, 2006, 08:39 PM
At least that was...until...the chunnel.

Hey! What's with the French bashing? ;)

Hmm..I've always wanted to instigate Ze RevolooooooSHUN!

Do we send lawyers, guns or money?

Don Gwinn
March 31, 2006, 09:16 PM
Oh Lord, what did I do to deserve this?

:scrutiny:

Biker
March 31, 2006, 09:19 PM
You just 'squoze' a belly laugh out o' me.:)
Biker

Oleg Volk
March 31, 2006, 10:19 PM
By and large, people produce more than they consume -- in terms of goods, ideas and inventions. That's why I say that people who show enough initiative to move and adjust to another culture help the US. Those who don't adjust do not prosper and remain irrelevant to the rest of us. You might want to study the history of immigration: in some decades of the 19th and 20th centuries, over 50% of immigrants from the Mediterranean countries went back eventually, either because they couln't adjust or because they earned enough for a life of leisure back home. Didn't harm the US much, did they?

mcg-doc
March 31, 2006, 10:20 PM
Have you ever been at or close to any important federal or private installation like a nuclear power station? If you try to cut the fence, get inside, and disobey the guards you will get shot. Why can't we do the same on a narrow strip of land adjacent to Mexican border?

Foxtrot427
March 31, 2006, 10:23 PM
If I lived down there Id gladly do it. But he still have to be able to get the illegals out.

mcg-doc
March 31, 2006, 10:31 PM
I'm fascinated with one of the aspects of this discussion. Most of this forum's members are supporters of the 2nd amendment. I would also assume that if any of you had an intruder and a robber in your house you would not hesitate to use lethal force to protect your house. This country is our house, our domain. Why shouldn't we protect it from uninvited intruders who steal from us?

Reddog1
March 31, 2006, 10:37 PM
700 miles of rasor wire, 10 rows deep
would be a good start, backed up by
retired snipers with nothing to do.

Art Eatman
March 31, 2006, 10:44 PM
Oleg, the problem is that we HAVE this welfare system. It exists and won't go away. "Woulda, coulda, shoulda" just doesn't help. There is thus a negative cost picture for taxpayers in those states with large numbers of illegals. For California, the published number is around six billion dollars per year; for Arizona, some one billion dollars per year. One wonders at the value of goods and services produced by illegals. While wondering at the dollars, give some thought to the reported datum that 90% of the outstanding felony warrants in the LA basin is for illegals.

I don't know if anybody pays attention to "esoteric" economic data, but a couple of things: Illeglas make up some 30% of the workforce in construction of new houses. Over the last three months, new housing starts have been in steady decline.

If they're out of work, will they go back? Or, will they stay here and increase the burden on social services?

Art

madmike
March 31, 2006, 10:49 PM
Have you ever been at or close to any important federal or private installation like a nuclear power station? If you try to cut the fence, get inside, and disobey the guards you will get shot. Why can't we do the same on a narrow strip of land adjacent to Mexican border?

What imminent threat and potential danger are they?

"Hey, if I don't shoot him, he might lower our wages 4c an hour average! He could MOVE INTO PUBLIC HOUSING! IT WAS HIM OR ME!"

Sorry, but when I hear well-intentioned but heinous logic like this, it makes me glad this is, in fact, a REPUBLIC with a CONSTITUTION and COURTS and not a lynch-mob democracy.:cuss:

To become a citizen, I had to prove I was literate, had not been a subversive, and had a working knowledge of the US system of government.

Sadly, we don't require that of people born here.

Jammer Six
March 31, 2006, 10:50 PM
Actually, Art, that statistic said that 90% of all statistics are made up on the spot.

And when did you start calling illegal Mexican immigrants "illegals"?

Are you really changing your vocabulary?

I, for one, appreciate your efforts! :cool:

mcg-doc
March 31, 2006, 11:04 PM
What imminent threat and potential danger are they?

To name a few: terrorism, narcotics, tax evasion, effect on electoral system, currency export, etc.

Deadly force on the border is not an end point in itself. It is a deterrent. The same holds true for the secure installations. You have no business being there despite of your intend or ability to do harm. Moreover, as an intruder you clearly undertook an effort to enter a restricted area. That is why the guards can use deadly force.

Art Eatman
March 31, 2006, 11:17 PM
Jammer Six, illegals is illegals is illegals. Wetbacks is illegals that come across the Rio Grande. Right now, with Mexico repaying some of its water debt to the U.S. via releases from San Martin Reservoir on the Rio Conchos, El Rio Bravo is more for swimming than walking. :)

Last I heard, the Rio Grande sorta quits being a border at El Paso. Hard to get wet, crossing into New Mexico, Arizona or California. Ergo, those illegals ain't wetbacks. Or "moja'os', as they style themselves. ¿Comprendes tu?

Art

madmike
March 31, 2006, 11:28 PM
To name a few: terrorism, narcotics, tax evasion, effect on electoral system, currency export, etc.

In order:

Terrorism: The boogieman of any argument.

Narcotics: Yes, because laws against that are working so well. ONLY illegal Mexican immigrants smuggle drugs and there's no way to stop it.

Tax evasion: An amnesty solves this by making them part of the system and paying taxes. Problem solved.

Effect on electoral system: federal law requiring ID to vote. Most of it goes away. Cross check with SS# and INS to eliminate most fakes.

Currency export: yes, because there aren't any Chinese investors buying dollars by the truckload. Has to be those pesky, illiterate wetbacks sending money home. (PS: removing money from OUR supply IMPROVES the value of the remaining dollars.)

Etc: undefined.

Sorry, but a lot of these scary arguments remind me of the arguments against CCW and legalizing drugs. Won't somebody think of the children?

But hey, we've only had TWO huge, bloated, ineffective bureaucracies created by this administration. Why not try for three?

Mr.V.
March 31, 2006, 11:36 PM
They're right in saying that everyone who has ever come to the United States has at some point migrated...whether it was 40,000 years ago across the Bering Strait or 5 years ago on a plane from Luxumberg. And for the majority of the history of the North American continent and the US in particular, immigration has been vital to the development of the industrial era.

But industrialization is over. In fact, in many ways it's reversing. We have less and less manufacturing jobs. The jobs that remain are becoming more technical and require more education. That or food service, gardening etc. The middle class is shrinking because the middle jobs are lost.

Meanwhile, old people aren't dying like they should. (Not that I'm an age bigot =)

For the first time we're starting to reach the carrying capacity of the land. More people = more poverty, not a new wealth of labor for industrialization like it used to.

If you get enough angry poor people, you can forget freedom as a lifestyle. At least...so says the history of bolsheviks

NCP24
March 31, 2006, 11:55 PM
Call me a racist xenophobic bigot – build the wall!

beerslurpy
April 1, 2006, 12:41 AM
We need to build the wall because not having the wall moots any possible regulation we could possibly impose upon border travel. Mexican immigration is the big issue, NOT because anyone hates mexicans for racial or cultural reasons, but because mexicans happen to live within walking distance of our country and are abusing this arrangement to our detriment. A wall allows us to control who passes back and forth across the border. It allows us to put malfeasors on the other side of the wall and have them stay on the other side for the most part.

That being said, I dont really see any reason why we should devote special effort towards expelling any mexicans that we find on this side of the wall. Most of them want to be here and want to work. Obviously Americans want to employ them, so why not make everyone happy by continuing to do nothing about them? I expect some of them want to go back to their families in mexico- let them. I expect a small percentage will get caught committing crimes- put them on the other side of the wall and make them Mexico's problem. Everyone else stays and gets defacto citizenship by virtue of having kids and assimilating.

Examine the plan I just laid out. It has practically zero costs beyond building the wall and it should satisfy EVERYONE in the country- immigrants, employers and citizens alike. And there wont even be any social upheaval beacuse there wont be any real changes in the short term.

But for this simple and mutually satisfying plan to succeed....

We need the wall to be built.

madmike
April 1, 2006, 12:46 AM
Set the billion dollars on fire.

It'll save the hassle, the waste of resources, and the ten thousand more jackbooted thugs who can demand you bow before them.

Funny. I remember a day when conservatives and Americans didn't demand the government protect them or do things for their own good.

May as well dump our guns, too. The government will protect us.:rolleyes:

Hey, government stupidity got us into this mess. Why can't it get us out?

You build that wall. I'm going to try to defend our Republic. What's left of it.:banghead:

beerslurpy
April 1, 2006, 12:53 AM
Mike, you know I am one of the most diehard libetarians on here. I have to ask if you are mentally handicapped or just a troll. Your argument is somewhere between insultingly flawed and just plain insulting.

There are some things that only governments can do. Like building a giant multistate wall that crosses thousands of people's private property lines. This is EXACTLY the type of scenario that the founders envisioned using eminent domain for.

Yes, some people will have to give up a few feet of land from their property to make room for the wall. But the land that they dont give up will go up in value because they wont have to fight off armed bandits and smugglers 24/7. I would bet you 90 percent of the people living on land that would be occupied by the wall would approve of the change.

longeyes
April 1, 2006, 12:53 AM
In order:

Terrorism: The boogieman of any argument.

Narcotics: Yes, because laws against that are working so well. ONLY illegal Mexican immigrants smuggle drugs and there's no way to stop it.

Tax evasion: An amnesty solves this by making them part of the system and paying taxes. Problem solved.

Effect on electoral system: federal law requiring ID to vote. Most of it goes away. Cross check with SS# and INS to eliminate most fakes.

Currency export: yes, because there aren't any Chinese investors buying dollars by the truckload. Has to be those pesky, illiterate wetbacks sending money home. (PS: removing money from OUR supply IMPROVES the value of the remaining dollars.)

Etc: undefined.

Sorry, but a lot of these scary arguments remind me of the arguments against CCW and legalizing drugs. Won't somebody think of the children?


I'm thinking of the children. The "children" who are illegal alien gangstas in L.A. That would be SIXTY PER CENT of gangbangers, according to the L.A. PD. Or maybe you're interested in the older children who populate our Federal prisons? Thirty per cent, nearly, are illegal aliens. Three thousand Mexican felons have fled back to Mexico, leaving their victims behind.

Let's cut the sentimental crap about illegal immigration. (That goes for you too, Mr. El Presidente with your "hard-working moms and dads!")

mrmeval
April 1, 2006, 12:54 AM
mzmadmike: May as well dump our guns, too. The government will protect us.
Hey, government stupidity got us into this mess. Why can't it get us out?
You build that wall. I'm going to try to defend our Republic. What's left of it.


It's an issue created by government that people want government to solve or use a solution that's guaranteed to get the public to get involved.

As you'd stated previously most of the problems go away with very simple solutions.

Someone called themselves xenophobic, bigotted and racist. There may be some that fit that but I'm more inclinded to cry out 'myopic'.

longeyes
April 1, 2006, 12:55 AM
Effect on electoral system: federal law requiring ID to vote. Most of it goes away. Cross check with SS# and INS to eliminate most fakes.

Maybe you want 'em voting, I don't. I'm not alone, sir.

Jammer Six
April 1, 2006, 01:06 AM
Thanks, Art.

We've been talking about THR, you, and your language on a another board.

They didn't believe me. Now they do. :cool:

madmike
April 1, 2006, 01:08 AM
Longeyes, what I just PROPOSED was the SOLUTION to STOP illegals from voting. Why don't you read a little more carefully.

Slurpy: Are you mentally handicapped or just mentally handicapped?

If you think a WALL, wire or landmines will stop illegals, I want what you're smoking.

I suppose the millions of illegal Chinese and SE Asians came here through Mexico? The wall will stop them?

Are you actually suggesting HSA should have MORE officers, MORE power, and MORE ability to harass people, or just shoot them and claim they were hopping the border?:scrutiny:

I thought I left the UK to get AWAY from fascism.:fire:

ElTacoGrande
April 1, 2006, 01:26 AM
Welcome to the US, Senor Locomike. I'm with you in all that you say here. We have enough hopeless, endless, futile wars already. We don't need any more of them. We already have enough huge armed federal bureaucracies. We don't need any more.

NCP24
April 1, 2006, 01:28 AM
Someone called themselves xenophobic, bigotted and racist. There may be some that fit that but I'm more inclinded to cry out 'myopic'.It was me and NO I'm not any of the above. My point is it just doesn’t matter anymore, people believe what they want to believe. The way I see it the problem is larger than just being artificially labeled. Its time for people to speak their peace and stand for what they believe in.

We can and watch our country crumble or we can take control and reclaim our heritage......the choice is ours.

CAnnoneer
April 1, 2006, 01:34 AM
To become a citizen, I had to prove I was literate, had not been a subversive, and had a working knowledge of the US system of government.

Double citizenship is not allowed by our naturalization laws. Previously you mentioned you are still a British citizen. Then you did not take your oath in good faith. You broke the law. Where does your allegiance lie?

Also, while some of your points are technically valid, you still offer no solution to the two biggest problems:

1) a large number refuse to assimilate into America, but form enclaves while trying to apply political pressure and drain resources through social services.

2) if the ones here are given amnesty, that would make millions of others to sneak in even more doggedly. How many do you propose we can absorb?

My solutions:
a) throw employers in jail and apply heavy fines
b) fine illegals heavily and deport them at their expense
c) give drug traffickers and coyotes the death penalty
d) control labor supply by legal admittance according to adjustable quotas through temporary work visas with no connection to path to citizenship
e) abolish the anchor baby rule
f) continue legal immigration as before

Mr.V.
April 1, 2006, 01:37 AM
Mike--i'm with ya too. Walls seem to keep nothing out.

There's two ways to get rid of ants. The first involves driving to the market, spending a bunch of money on toxic chemicals, spraying them to death and feeling slightly sorry for them
-- OR --
clean up that big glob of cake I left out overnight and within hours they're all gone off to find some other sucker who left cake out...

Let's stop employing them. Then you wouldn't need a wall or the shooting of people which in general makes people feel slightly sorry for them.
And also "NO IRISH NEED APPLY!"

CAnnoneer
April 1, 2006, 01:38 AM
Thanks, Art. We've been talking about THR, you, and your language on a another board. They didn't believe me. Now they do.

Art used the word "wetback".
You most likely knowingly hire illegals.

Hmmm...

CAnnoneer
April 1, 2006, 01:42 AM
Funny. I remember a day when conservatives and Americans didn't demand the government protect them or do things for their own good.

Cheap. :barf:

We pay taxes, obey laws, and in return expect the gov TO DO THEIR FRICKING JOB!!!! Or do you expect the taxpayer also to shoulder the responsibilities of national security and law enforcement?

Mr.V.
April 1, 2006, 01:51 AM
Allow me to apologize for drawing a parallel between hispanics and insects. However, I do believe that if a country feels that immigration is a problem, don't give people a reason to immigrate. If however people enjoy their gardens to be tended for $1.25/hr or like their Strawberries $2.00 a basket instead of $4.00 then you need a large pool of cheap labor to do it. That's why all our manufacturing jobs are now in China. People wanted $14 toasters....It's just we can't outsource our local Denny's, not yet at any rate...

Don't Tread On Me
April 1, 2006, 06:37 AM
you know I am one of the most diehard libetarians on here.

Not an attack on you, but die hard libertarians do not believe in walls, or even borders for that matter. They believe in free and open immigration. Buiding a wall as a means to that end is oxymoronic at best.

****
If you were to deport every illegal in America, every single restaurant in the country would go out of business. Who would wash the dishes? Orange juice would cost $10 a quart if illegals didn't pick the fruit. Lawn mowing service would be too expensive to ever use.

I reject any argument as to why these people shouldn't get the work. They are humans like anyone else, and let me tell you - I am NO Liberal at all. If you reject them, then you have fallen victim to the statist propaganda known as "nationalism"...We're an amazing species aren't we? When 3,000 Americans die in a terrorist attack, we all cry and mourn. But when 100,000 people die in a tsunami, we're saddened but not really bothered. Why? Because they belong to a different country? The vast majority of American's didn't know anyone who was killed on 9/11 personally, yet the sorrow is great. Most don't know anyone who died in Thailand or India at all...but no one cares. The difference is that one human being is an American, the other is not. Yet, we're all human beings.

That is the mental illness known as nationalism. It is the great satan of our era. It justifies and promotes the callousness between people based on nothing but artificial labels.

These people are not Mexicans, and we are not Americans. We are all human beings. They want to come here and work, so be it. Let them work. They only put it right back into our economy when they rent apartments, buy shoes and underwear and eat.

As for the socialist entitlement/wealth redistribution programs in America, guess what? Our domestic population does an excellent job of exploiting them already. They don't exploit them really...these programs are PACIFICATION programs. Go ahead and abolish welfare and see what happens in the streets of America. Welfare is the answer to a nasty wound in American culture that has never healed.

If anything, the illegals give us an opportunity to free ourselves from this madness by potentially breaking the system. I hate to say it, but when it comes to some things in our country, we're closer to liberty and freedom by going forward, rather than going backward. We're just prolonging the inevitable. Welfare will NEVER go away until it all collapses and there is revolutionary reform in this nation. Fighting it only delays its own natural path towards destruction.


People say the Mexicans bring crime? HEH...yeah, and exactly what did the Italians bring with them? They brought organized crime, the likes of which had an extremely profound (see 1934 GCA) effect on American politics.


As a Libertarian, whenever someone can offer a good or service for a lower cost to me, then that is beneficial for all of society, since I preserve wealth, and that is the basis for a stable and decent society.

RealGun
April 1, 2006, 07:06 AM
Not an attack on you, but die hard libertarians do not believe in walls, or even borders for that matter. They believe in free and open immigration. Buiding a wall as a means to that end is oxymoronic at best. - Don't Tread On Me

This kind of rationale, based upon a nonexistent utopia, unworkable without every piece in place to perfection, is why hard core libertarians find it difficult to be taken seriously. There are all kinds of reasons within the current political environment why this philosophy is simply laughable.

However, what would be relatively close would be a "guest worker program" with some rules of engagement, the first piece of which is a positive ID system and a burden on employers and day laborer crew bosses to require such ID. That is inflationary, but that's another issue. It also requires work site raids by newly hired Federales, perhaps a new department, deployed throughout every State, to enforce employer requirements.

I am not sure those who propose control of illegal immigration recognize that ID requirements will apply to them also and what that really means in terms of a change in the American status quo. They also may not have thought through what it will all cost and how it will be financed.

Don't Tread On Me
April 1, 2006, 07:19 AM
Not really, borders separate the jurisdiction of laws...but they do not separate human beings from others. That is un-American.


If this isn't an argument for a flat sales tax, I don't know what is. If you want them paying their part, then a flat sales tax is what we need.


With a free and open border, anyone can come across (as they do now for the most part) but the society they come into will be impossible to avoid contributing to (tax wise) due to a flat sales tax. No more income tax.


No one can argue that a local PD's crime-stopping load is too heavy due to their town being over run by illegals, and the locals have to foot the bill. These illegals would have no choice but to pay their fair share, or they simply couldn't survive here.


So, in effect, borders are BS. They do nothing. The story here is "fairness"...

1911 guy
April 1, 2006, 08:18 AM
Sorry, you're wrong about immigration always being a good thing. Immigrants who choose to follow the rules, assimilate into a society and be contributing and respected members of society are indeed a good thing. Criminals who sneak into your backyard, leech off your tax dollar and insist you owe them more are most definately not a good thing.

By the way, there are jobs to be had in Mexico. The catch is that you must be educated and not a criminal to get and keep them. What does that say about the illegals who come here looking for jobs?

I work with several mexicans who came here by legal means. They came to get away from the backwoods of rural Mexico and ply a trade. They happen to be good machinists who are willing to work hard and cross train well because they have machining backgrounds and are intelligent. They own nice cars and nice houses with nice families. The polar opposite of the type of people we are discussing in this thread.

RealGun
April 1, 2006, 08:30 AM
If this isn't an argument for a flat sales tax, I don't know what is.

That's a good argument, but once again you have to change everything to a utopia to make the strict libertarian view work.

garyk/nm
April 1, 2006, 11:21 AM
I keep seeing reference to "they only come here to work", and while that may be true of some, what about the hangers-on? The 15 member extended family, who are either too young, too old, or too busy taking care of all the kids to go work. How do they fit into this grand guest worker plan?
My solution: no hangers-on. If you are here to work, great. We don't need the rest of your family clogging up our schools and emergency rooms, thank you very much!
Ever been to an emergency room in an area infested by illegals? They use it as a walk-in clinic. But will the hospitals turn them away? Not until they have to close up shop for lack of income.

Biker
April 1, 2006, 11:28 AM
Bush's Guest Worker program includes provisions that would allow the 10-20 million illegals already here to bring their families into the country.
Many of them have large families, I'm told.
Biker

longeyes
April 1, 2006, 12:10 PM
If you were to deport every illegal in America, every single restaurant in the country would go out of business. Who would wash the dishes? Orange juice would cost $10 a quart if illegals didn't pick the fruit. Lawn mowing service would be too expensive to ever use.

I reject any argument as to why these people shouldn't get the work. They are humans like anyone else, and let me tell you - I am NO Liberal at all. If you reject them, then you have fallen victim to the statist propaganda known as "nationalism"...We're an amazing species aren't we? When 3,000 Americans die in a terrorist attack, we all cry and mourn. But when 100,000 people die in a tsunami, we're saddened but not really bothered. Why? Because they belong to a different country? The vast majority of American's didn't know anyone who was killed on 9/11 personally, yet the sorrow is great. Most don't know anyone who died in Thailand or India at all...but no one cares. The difference is that one human being is an American, the other is not. Yet, we're all human beings.

That is the mental illness known as nationalism. It is the great satan of our era. It justifies and promotes the callousness between people based on nothing but artificial labels.

These people are not Mexicans, and we are not Americans. We are all human beings. They want to come here and work, so be it. Let them work. They only put it right back into our economy when they rent apartments, buy shoes and underwear and eat.

As for the socialist entitlement/wealth redistribution programs in America, guess what? Our domestic population does an excellent job of exploiting them already. They don't exploit them really...these programs are PACIFICATION programs. Go ahead and abolish welfare and see what happens in the streets of America. Welfare is the answer to a nasty wound in American culture that has never healed.

I know libertarians, and you, sir, are no libertarian.

Nationalism is now, according to you, both a mental illness and the Great Satan. That is startling news. You must have been reading from the Cancun playbook, spoken aloud by Bush and written for him by the multinational corporatists. Yes, nationalism is "dangerous for America." Right. Let's toss our Constitution and Bill of Rights and all genuflect to Big Brother.

The Founding Fathers were nationalists, in the best and only sense. Let's protect and enhance this nation, with its legacy of political liberties, FIRST. To be an internationalist today means, de facto, to be a socialist, globalist corporatist, or warlord, usually all three.

madmike
April 1, 2006, 12:13 PM
Bush's Guest Worker program includes provisions that would allow the 10-20 million illegals already here to bring their families into the country.
Many of them have large families, I'm told.
Biker

Who'll have to spend money on food, housing, goods and services.

What's your problem?

Or are you just opposed to "Them" being here?

Repeat: I STRONGLY FAVOR better enforcement, ID to vote, inspection of employers and workers. There are ALREADY laws in place for this. I recall them coming through the mall in Indy and checking on seasonal workers doing retail (BTW: the illegals were making $6 an hour, just like the locals)(The two "illegals" in question were from Turkey, had visas, were married to other Turks who were permanent residents. Their visas didn't allow them to work. They were working for money to support their families. Such criminals.) and dealing with the situation on the spot--employer was given a huge stack of paperwork that resulted in fines. The workers were cautioned about their visa status and sent home.

If they are driving without licenses, by all means bust them. By all means deport the ones without visas.

Building a wall is a "shut our eyes and it will go away" mentality. People have tunnelled 300 feet or more from BC to Washington state to smuggle in drugs. How long do you think it will take before someone has a tunnel under that wall?

No problem! Dig down ten feet and use lots of rebar!

But wait! There's a TWELVE foot deep tunnel!

Have patrols go along with seismic sensors. They're only $100,000 each plus operating cost and training, and we need one every ten miles.

They're bashing holes on their side of the wall for fun. What do we do?

No problem! Put it 50 feet on our side and SHOOT PEOPLE! THAT's the American way!

Use a minefield! That's cool.

But WAIT! THey're driving dogs and trashed cars through to set off the mines and make a hole!

Use ANTI-TANK MINES! Maybe some SADMs! Blow a few limbs off, and that'll teach those greasers! We're AMERICANS!

They're using boats to go around the wall, and have linked up with the illegal Chinese groups to port in Long Beach and NYC.

Have the Coast Guard do more boardings! Give HSA MORE personnel and power! Instead of just turning them back to try again, let's put them in jail here...oh, wait, that means we have to PAY for them!

No, tell the CG to just SINK THEM! That'll teach the @#$ers!

And hey, a wall worked for the USSR, and Mexico has armed guards shooting people on their southern border. Why don't we emulate THOSE cultures?:barf:

longeyes
April 1, 2006, 12:15 PM
The practical result of the "guest worker" program will be to bring 100 million Central Americans, mostly Mexican, into our nation and, within not very many years, give them the vote. Forget about the fact that in the interim our social service system will be utterly destroyed and overtaxed. Focus on the fact that In 18 years we will be turning control of America's political future over to Mexico.

I am waiting for ONE person in our political establishment to discuss this openly. They won't, they can't, they mustn't.

Want to bring down our welfare state? Well, this will be a good way to do it all right. The only problem is that what will follow will be polity along the model of Matamoros and Medellin.

Wake up, America!

Biker
April 1, 2006, 12:16 PM
Lotsa good ideas there, madmike. However, enforcing existing laws and building The Wall would do much to slow The Invasion.;)
Biker

longeyes
April 1, 2006, 12:23 PM
Who'll have to spend money on food, housing, goods and services.

What's your problem?

Or are you just opposed to "Them" being here?

Hey, are you the guy with dual citizenship who wants to tell Americans how to run America? We talk about "them" because, to be blunt, some people here understand what America's all about and a lot don't. Deal with it.

Americans who roam the shopping malls and outlet centers lusting for $14 toasters are not to be indulged, they are part of the massive problem of crazed consumerism and debt addiction that has been pushed--like any drug--by unscrupulous and irresponsible and perhaps outright insane businesspeople who have utterly lost their spiritual center.

Yes, I said SPIRITUAL CENTER. If you want to understand why Americans have fought and died for LIBERTY, you need to get beyond the "bottom-line" as the be-all and end-all of American society and recognize what inalienable rights are all about and what they are grounded in. Hint: It's not the 99c stores and it's not Donald Trump's gold-plated private jets.

RealGun
April 1, 2006, 12:27 PM
Wake up, America!

And do what?

madmike
April 1, 2006, 12:28 PM
Double citizenship is not allowed by our naturalization laws.

Wrong.


Previously you mentioned you are still a British citizen. Then you did not take your oath in good faith. You broke the law. Where does your allegiance lie?

I enlisted in the military before my final naturalization hearing, have served 21 years. Have you? And thanks for letting me see what kind of person you are. Sorry I'm only an American by choice. I hope to one day be considered worthy of the consideration of those born here.

1) a large number refuse to assimilate into America, but form enclaves while trying to apply political pressure and drain resources through social services.

A large number of legals do that, too. That's the problem with America--other groups don't have to abide by your ideas.

2) if the ones here are given amnesty, that would make millions of others to sneak in even more doggedly. How many do you propose we can absorb?

Why would it make any difference on how many? The amnesty isn't open ended. And I'll bet you can't even tell me the terms of that amnesty. Go ahead.


My solutions:
a) throw employers in jail and apply heavy fines
b) fine illegals heavily and deport them at their expense
c) give drug traffickers and coyotes the death penalty
d) control labor supply by legal admittance according to adjustable quotas through temporary work visas with no connection to path to citizenship
e) abolish the anchor baby rule
f) continue legal immigration as before

A: agreed.
B: How do you propose to get the "expense" from them? Sure, you can seize what assets they have. What do you do for the rest?
C: Federal government cannot impose death penalty for such crimes, per US Constitution. You should read it sometime. Fascinating document. States can, but define "trafficking?" And shouldn't we include alcohol and tobacco in there?
D: Such already exists. Finding the means to enforce it in a country where people can freely travel is the problem. Should we require everyone to have passports to move about and get permission?
E: Per that inconvenient US Constitution, people born here are Americans. I'm not sure how this is handled in other countries. At the very LEAST, they would be allowed back as adults. A good lawyer can easily argue their best interests are served by living here. Either their natural family stays, or they get a US foster family. Per that tricky Constitution thing, let me blow the dust off it here, a court would decide how their best interests would be served.
F: Agreed.

longeyes
April 1, 2006, 02:03 PM
And do what?

Start by clearing house of all the politicians who are selling out America. A lot of them are up for re-election this fall.

Don't transfer wealth from American taxpayers to people who have no right to it. Cut social welfare benefits for illegal aliens and their dependents.

Don't subvert sovereignty and hand over suffrage because you are afraid of protests or of being called "racist. We owe illegals nothing just because they have been squatting on our territory.

Accept the fact that life includes pleasantness and don't shy away from the difficulties of what must be done to preserve a viable nation.

longeyes
April 1, 2006, 02:12 PM
C: Federal government cannot impose death penalty for such crimes, per US Constitution. You should read it sometime. Fascinating document. States can, but define "trafficking?" And shouldn't we include alcohol and tobacco in there?
D: Such already exists. Finding the means to enforce it in a country where people can freely travel is the problem. Should we require everyone to have passports to move about and get permission?
E: Per that inconvenient US Constitution, people born here are Americans. I'm not sure how this is handled in other countries. At the very LEAST, they would be allowed back as adults. A good lawyer can easily argue their best interests are served by living here. Either their natural family stays, or they get a US foster family. Per that tricky Constitution thing, let me blow the dust off it here, a court would decide how their best interests would be served.

All documents can be emended and amended. The jus soli provision could be re-interpreted by SCOTUS. There is nothing sacrosanct about birthright citizenship; it was never intended to apply to the present circumstances anyway.

No one wants "papers" to move about, but when your nation is riddled with illegal trespassers, you have to be realistic.

Anyone who begins a sentence with "a good lawyer can easily argue" has placed himself or herself in the ranks of the damned.

madmike
April 1, 2006, 02:46 PM
All documents can be emended and amended. The jus soli provision could be re-interpreted by SCOTUS. There is nothing sacrosanct about birthright citizenship; it was never intended to apply to the present circumstances anyway.

This is the "living document" version of the Constitution, then.

No one wants "papers" to move about, but when your nation is riddled with illegal trespassers, you have to be realistic.

No one wants to stop you from recreational shooting, but when illegal Mexican alien gangbangers have assault rifles, you have to be realistic.

Anyone who begins a sentence with "a good lawyer can easily argue" has placed himself or herself in the ranks of the damned.

Anyone who imagines a lawyer won't find holes and make money and get clients what they want is smoking crack.

mcg-doc
April 1, 2006, 03:11 PM
E: Per that inconvenient US Constitution, people born here are Americans. I'm not sure how this is handled in other countries. At the very LEAST, they would be allowed back as adults.

Here's some interesting reading on 14th Amendment
The UnConstitutionality of Citizenship by Birth to Non-Americans
http://idexer.com/citizenship.htm

By P.A. Madison
Former Research Fellow in Constitutional Studies
Last updated 1/02/06

We well know what federal law says on the subject of children born to non-citizens (illegal aliens) within the jurisdiction of the United States by declaring them to be American citizens. But what does the Constitution of the United States say about the issue of giving American citizenship to anyone born within its borders? As we explore the Constitutions Citizenship Clause, as found in the Fourteenth Amendment, we can find no Constitutional authority to grant such citizenship to persons born to non-American citizens within the limits of the United States of America.

We are, or should be, familiar with the phrase, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the States wherein they reside." This can be referred to as the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, but what does "subject to the jurisdiction" mean? Jurisdiction can take on different meanings that can have nothing to do with physical boundaries alone--and if the framers meant geographical boundaries they would have simply used the term "limits" rather than "jurisdiction" since that was the custom at the time when distinguishing between physical boundaries, reach of law or complete allegiance to the United States.

It is important to understand what the text of the clause actually says: subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and not any particular State jurisdiction. This is why laws at the time were written to include both limits and jurisdiction of the United States when speaking of aliens. Take for example U.S. title XXX of 1875, sec 2165 where it states: "Any alien who was residing within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States..."

It was never considered that a foreigner within the limits of a State was also automatically under the jurisdiction of the United States at the same time: they were considered still under the jurisdiction of their native country. Only time it could be said the United States had any jurisdiction over a alien is when the alien violates some U.S. law and the United States brings the alien under U.S. jurisdiction through a process of law.

We are fortuante to have the highest possible authority on record to answer this question of how the term "jurisdiction" was to be interpreted and applied, the author of the Citizenship Clause, Sen. Jacob M. Howard (MI) to tell us exactly what it means and its intended scope as he introduced it to the United States Senate in 1866:

Mr. HOWARD: I now move to take up House joint resolution No. 127.

The motion was agreed to; and the Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, resumed the consideration of the joint resolution (H.R. No. 127) proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

The first amendment is to section one, declaring that all "persons born in the United States and Subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside. I do not propose to say anything on that subject except that the question of citizenship has been fully discussed in this body as not to need any further elucidation, in my opinion. This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.[1]

One significant highlight about what Sen. Howard says above is that he regards the clause as simply declaratory of the "law of the land already" and is a virtue of "natural law" and "national law." Why this is significant is because some have mistakenly argued that the Citizenship Clause was somehow rooted in Common Law.

Sen. Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, author of the Thirteenth Amendment gives us the definition of what "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means under the Fourteenth Amendment:

[T]he provision is, that 'all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.' That means 'subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.' What do we mean by 'complete jurisdiction thereof?' Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.

Trumbull continues, "Can you sue a Navajo Indian in court? Are they in any sense subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States? By no means. We make treaties with them, and therefore they are not subject to our jurisdiction. If they were, we wouldn't make treaties with them...It is only those persons who come completely within our jurisdiction, who are subject to our laws, that we think of making citizens; and there can be no objection to the proposition that such persons should be citizens.[2]

Sen. Howard concurs with Trumbull's construction:

Mr. HOWARD: I concur entirely with the honorable Senator from Illinois [Trumbull], in holding that the word "jurisdiction," as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now.[3]

In other words, only children born to American citizens can be considered citizens of the United States since only a American citizen could enjoy the "extent and quality" of jurisdiction of an American citizen now. Sen. Johnson, speaking on the Senate floor, offers his comments and understanding of the proposed new amendment to the Constitution:

[Now], all this amendment [Citizenship Clause] provides is, that all persons born in the United States and not subject to some foreign Power--for that, no doubt, is the meaning of the committee who have brought the matter before us--shall be considered as citizens of the United States. That would seem to be not only a wise but a necessary provision. If there are to be citizens of the United States there should be some certain definition of what citizenship is, what has created the character of citizen as between himself and the United States, and the amendment says that citizenship may depend upon birth, and I know of no better way to give rise to citizenship than the fact of birth within the territory of the United States, born to parents who at the time were subject to the authority of the United States.[4]

No doubt in the Senate as to what the Citizenship Clause means as further evidenced by Sen. W. Williams:

In one sense, all persons born within the geographical limits of the United States are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, but they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States in every sense. Take the child of an embassador. In one sense, that child born in the United States is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, because if that child commits the crime of murder, or commits any other crime against the laws of the country, to a certain extent he is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, but not in every respect; and so with these Indians. All persons living within a judicial district may be said, in one sense, to be subject to the jurisdiction of the court in that district, but they are not in every sense subject to the jurisdiction of the court until they are brought, by proper process, within the reach of the power of the court. I understand the words here, 'subject to the jurisdiction of the United States,' to mean fully and completely subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.[5]

Rep. John Bingham of Ohio, considered the father of the Fourteenth Amendment, confirms the understanding and construction the framers used in regards to birthright and jurisdiction while speaking on civil rights of citizens in the House on March 9, 1866:

[I] find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen...[6]

The reason the language "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was chosen for the Citizenship Clause instead of the civil rights bill language that read "all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed" was because Howard feared States could eventually impose a tax on Indian's, making them eligible for citizenship under the Fourteenth. Because of the language "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" required direct allegiance to the United States, Indian's would be disqualified because they owed their allegiance to their respective tribes which in return were considered foreign nations. In 1872 Sen. James K. Kelly sums up the clause and national law on the subject in the most clearest language that anyone could understand when he said "in order to be a citizen of the United States he must been not only be born within the United States, but born within the the allegiance of the United States."[7]

Further convincing evidence for the demand of complete allegiance required for citizenship can be found in the "Naturalization Oath of Allegiance to the United States of America," an oath required to become an American citizen of the United States. It reads in part:

I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen...

Of course, this very oath leaves no room for dual-citizenship, but that is another troubling disregard for our National principles by modern government. Fewer today are willing to renounce completely their allegiance to their natural country of origin, further making a mockery of our citizenship laws. In fact, recently in Los Angeles you could find the American flag discarded for the flag of Mexico in celebration after taking the American Citizenship Oath.

It's noteworthy to point out a Supreme Court ruling in Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253 (1967), where the court completely discarded the fourteenth's Citizenship Clause scope and intent by replacing it with their own invented Citizenship Clause. The court in effect, ruled that Fourteenth Amendment had elevated citizenship to a new constitutionally protected right, and thus, prevents the cancellation of a persons citizenship unless they assent.

Unfortunately for the court, Sen. Howard effectively shoots down this feeble attempt to replace his clause with their own homegrown Citizenship Clause. Firstly, Howard finds no incompatibility with expatriation and the fourteenth's Citizenship Clause when he says: "I take it for granted that when a man becomes a citizen of the United States under the Constitution he cannot cease to be a citizen, except by expatriation for the commission of some crime by which his citizenship shall be forfeited."

Secondly, Sen. Howard expressly stated, "I am not yet prepared to pass a sweeping act of naturalization by which all the Indian savages, wild or tame, belonging to a tribal relation, are to become my fellow-citizens and go to the polls and vote with me and hold lands and deal in every other way that a citizen of the United States has a right to do."

The question begs: If Howard had no intention of passing a sweeping act of naturalization--how does the court elevate Howard's Citizenship Clause to a new constitutionally protected right that cannot be taken away since this would certainly require a sweeping act with explicit language to enumerate such a new Constitutional right? Remember, the court cannot create new rights that are not already expressly granted by the Constitution.

A third problem for the court is the fact both Howard and Bingham viewed the Citizenship Clause as simply "declaratory" of what they regarded "as the law of the land already." This then requires flights of fantasy to elevate Howard's express purpose of inserting the Citizenship Clause as simply removing "all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States," and not to elevate citizenship to a new protected Constitutional right. Citizenship is a privilege, not a right as say the right to freedom of religion is, and therefore, can be taken away just as any other privilege can.

James Madison defined who America seeked to be citizens among us along with some words of wisdom:

When we are considering the advantages that may result from an easy mode of naturalization, we ought also to consider the cautions necessary to guard against abuse. It is no doubt very desirable that we should hold out as many inducements as possible for the worthy part of mankind to come and settle amongst us, and throw their fortunes into a common lot with ours. But why is this desirable? Not merely to swell the catalogue of people. No, sir, it is to increase the wealth and strength of the community; and those who acquire the rights of citizenship, without adding to the strength or wealth of the community are not the people we are in want of.[8]


What does it all mean?

In a nutshell, it means this: The Constitution of the United States does not grant citizenship at birth to just anyone who happens to be born within American borders. It is the allegiance (complete jurisdiction) of the child’s birth parents at the time of birth that determines the child’s citizenship--not geographical location. If the United States does not have complete jurisdiction, for example, to compel a child’s parents to Jury Duty–then the U.S. does not have the total, complete jurisdiction demanded by the Fourteenth Amendment to make their child a citizen of the United States by birth. How could it possibly be any other way?

The framers succeeded in their desire to define what persons are, or are not, citizens of the United States. They also succeeded in making both their intent and construction clear for future generations of courts and government. Whether our government or courts will start to honor and uphold the supreme law of the land for which they are obligated to by oath, is another very disturbing matter.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Footnotes

[1]. Congressional Globe, 39th Congress (1866) pg. 2890
[2]. Id. at 2893
[3]. Id. at 2895
[4]. Id. at 2893
[5]. Id. at 2897
[6]. Id. at 1291
[7]. Congressional Globe, 42nd Congress (1872) pg. 2796
[8]. James Madison on Rule of Naturalization, 1st Congress, Feb. 3, 1790.



Permission is granted to use, copy or republish this article in its entirely only.

mcg-doc
April 1, 2006, 03:24 PM
For those interested in the "Citizenship Clause" I recommend the enclosed document. It comes not from any particular "interest group," but from the US government. You will see, that majority of the countries in the world do not offer automatic citizenship to each baby bourn on its soil. Moreover, our esteem madmike wouldn't be a British citizen was not for his parents being "settled" in the UK or him being a bastard.
Same holds true for Germany, France, Sweeden, Switzerland, Norway, Israel, Australia, Italy,Japan. It is time to ammend the 14th Ammendment!

http://www.opm.gov/extra/investigate/IS-01.pdf

Geno
April 1, 2006, 03:42 PM
Change is good! The status quo is bad! Change is good! The status quo is bad! Change is good!

Now--don't just say it--vote it! Take back our country; take our rights!

If people want to come here, let them come here the way my wife came from Chile--LEGALLY!

We'll have the NEW politicians build a wall and leave the illegals on the far side, doing

this-----> :banghead: and this-----> :cuss:

I'll stand on this side doing this-----> :neener:

Doc2005

madmike
April 1, 2006, 03:57 PM
mcg-doc: I can concur with the position on children of illegals not being considered native born. I have no problem enforcing that.

As to the status of British born citizens, you're wrong. Ditto for German. Australia's a half and half.

Not that I've ever cared for the "They do X in Y, so we should." Half the arguments for gun control are based on that logic.

I'm still waiting to see if anyone here actually is familiar with the provisions of the proposal. It appears most people seem to think it's, "Wetback greasers will be living on welfare tomorrow." And it's not.

By the way: my children are also dual nationals, US and UK, by provision of at least one parent (me) being British.

And no, it doesn't violate US law.

mcg-doc
April 1, 2006, 04:05 PM
As to the status of British born citizens, you're wrong

Not according to the above mentioned document. Look it up or provide an opposing source of information.

madmike
April 1, 2006, 04:14 PM
Not according to the above mentioned document. Look it up or provide an opposing source of information.

Hmmm...let's see, how many Americans were born to military parents in the UK or Germany?

They're all dual nationals. I can personally name two AMERICAN personnel, born to AMERICAN personnel, on A US BASE on BRITISH SOIL who have BRITISH AND AMERICAN PASSPORTS. I can name one AMERICAN airman born to AMERICAN personnel on a US BASE on GERMAN soil who has GERMAN AND AMERICAN PASSPORTS.

If you're born there, you have citizenship as of that moment.

This actually did create complications for one of them at a later point, where he was dealing with controlled information of a highly protected status. Dual nationals are legitimately considered a potential security risk, though it's less so for UK or German than for say, Chinese or Russian.

mcg-doc
April 1, 2006, 04:27 PM
If you're born there, you have citizenship as of that moment.

No you AIN'T! Please, look up the link I provided. If the document is wrong, provide an alternative source of info. Your opinion just doesn't count. :)

wingman
April 1, 2006, 04:35 PM
"Wetback greasers will be living on welfare tomorrow." And it's not.



Why do you find it necessary to utilize terms like above, do you assume anyone who has a opinion different then yours is racist.?
Totally unnecessary.:barf:

madmike
April 1, 2006, 04:50 PM
mgc-doc: Neither you nor I are immigration attorneys. I'll leave parsing the legalese to them.

I am the man with two valid passports, who could legally have a third.

I served with HUNDREDS of personnel who were Americans born on foreign soil with dual nationality.

I can name, at this point, dozens. I can probably get two of them to sound off in here in short order if I ask them nicely, but I don't see the point in harassing them over it, and you'd probably insist they were wrong or lying. YOUR allegation and UNEDUCATED OPINION falls flat in the face of the FACT that it is incredibly common for such to exist, and the military has provisions in place to deal with that exact matter.

As all these people, and myself, and Nicki Fellenzer from the Soviet Ukraine, were all investigated AT LENGTH by the Defense Investigative Service pursuant to getting our security clearances, I'm pretty sure the US Government is aware of said facts (Especially as there's blocks on the standard form 86 and the EPSQ I have to fill out every four years to renew my clearance) of our dual status. As most of us do, in fact, have both passports, whether born there and naturalized here, or born there to US parents, I don't know what to tell you. I'm starting to wonder if I'm talking to a Turing program.

PS: If you REALLY want accurate information on what constitutes British citizenship, you might consider finding a UK website not a US .gov one. Just a suggestion.

Wingman: It's pretty clear that some people here do think that way. Especially when mention is made of a wall on the Mexican border, when there are also illegals coming from China, Africa, SE Asia and Cuba.

madmike
April 1, 2006, 04:52 PM
Your opinion just doesn't count.

And since I HAVE been through this process and YOU HAVE NOT, my opinion counts a lot more than yours.

Biker
April 1, 2006, 05:00 PM
The vast majority of illegals - a million or more a year - come across our southern border. Just plain logical to concentrate our initial efforts there.
Do you agree?
Biker

madmike
April 1, 2006, 05:10 PM
Biker: You concentrate efforts on the locations they wind up, and yes, on patrolling the border.

But nothing is going to "Stop" it, and the insularity of a wall...come on, a WEEK? Building that would cost more and take longer than the Maginot Line. Most people here seem to grasp that. The cheerleaders not only think it's a cheap fix, they seem to think it's the be all and end all solution.

There also comes a point where the proposed fix is more morally and economically expensive than the problem. Witness Prohibition, the War on (Some) Drugs, Gun Control, etc.

And seeing as someone here ALREADY questioned my allegiance to this country (Hey, I'm sorry I didn't DIE in Kuwait to REALLY prove it) for trying to inject some EXPERIENCE with both INS, military operations (Which guarding a border is) and engineering military structures, you might understand I'm a bit ticked.

I'll post something here on INS issues that might add a little clarity. Give me a few.

Biker
April 1, 2006, 05:26 PM
I don't question your patriotism at all. If you serve this country and put your feces in the wind, you certainly have my respect. Having said that, as a country, we need to approach this invasion with a 'triage' attitude.
The wall is a good start and only one part of a three step plan.
BTW, I'm a vet also.
Biker

mcg-doc
April 1, 2006, 05:31 PM
Wikipedia must be wrong too!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_nationality_law#British_citizenship_by_birth_in_the_United_Kingdom


Now, I'll let you on a little secret. The reason you and many other children of Foreign Service and military personnel stationed in GB are eligible for the GB citizenship is because their parents are in the GB legally and therefore considered "settled." A birth in GB alone DOESN'T guaranty this right. Get your info straight!

And BTW I'm also a naturalized US citizen. Therefore, I have been through the process.

Don't Tread On Me
April 1, 2006, 05:44 PM
I know libertarians, and you, sir, are no libertarian.

Nationalism is now, according to you, both a mental illness and the Great Satan. That is startling news. You must have been reading from the Cancun playbook, spoken aloud by Bush and written for him by the multinational corporatists. Yes, nationalism is "dangerous for America." Right. Let's toss our Constitution and Bill of Rights and all genuflect to Big Brother.

The Founding Fathers were nationalists, in the best and only sense. Let's protect and enhance this nation, with its legacy of political liberties, FIRST. To be an internationalist today means, de facto, to be a socialist, globalist corporatist, or warlord, usually all three.


I think you are seriously confused. Again, I refer back to my statements in the "libertarian purity test" thread where half the responses scored higher than I (meaning more liberarian), yet most people espouse neoconistic ideasm or beliefs that stand in direct conflict with libertarianism.. Bizarre. This leads me to believe that the definition of libertarianism varies greatly amoung our membership here on THR.


BTW, I am no globalist, nor am I into big brother or any of the other strawmans you've thrown out. I believe in free trade, free from borders, regulations and racism. I am not for making a 1-world government or any such garbage.


There's a difference, but those who favor globalism and the UN etc..blend the two together and confuse the masses. There is a difference between believing in free markets, and protecting sovereignty. Our sovereignty is NOT at threat due to wanting open immigration. Having compassion for a fellow man, and wanting the State to butt out of our lives is a whole lot different than advocating globalism.

longeyes
April 1, 2006, 06:27 PM
Our sovereignty is NOT at threat due to wanting open immigration. Having compassion for a fellow man, and wanting the State to butt out of our lives is a whole lot different than advocating globalism.

Perhaps you've read some of the Founding Fathers' remarks on "charity?"

The problem with your compassion for your fellow man is that it hands that bill off to other citizens, whether it occurs via a benignant government or the ministrations of a proselytizing church. That is not libertarianism, which is built on self-reliance and willed cooperation, not coercion.

Our sovereignty is not endangered by immigration, coupled with assimilation; it is most certainly endangered by illegal immigration, unchecked, coupled with an ardent lack of assimilation.

I think you have libertarianism confused with liberation theology.

madmike
April 1, 2006, 06:34 PM
My family left the UK for Canada (Quite easy; Canada was still part of the Commonwealth at the time), then realized that pretty as Canada was, it was bend-over-and-flinch expensive and rapidly sliding down the same socialist slope.

We entered the US, with advice of a noted US immigration attorney (let that be a warning to you about lawyers), with a temporary visa, intending to apply for a permanent visa.

This is legal. Now. Then it was not.

That visa expired, leaving the four of us owning a house, working, paying taxes, and ABSOLUTELY ILLEGAL. It took three years to get through the bureaucracy and get a hearing with an immigration officer, who examined all the documents and informed us that our temporary visa entailed a signed agreement to leave, and that stepping to a permanent visa was illegal and fraudulent. In almost all cases, that would have been IT. On a plane, back to the UK under guard, house seized and sold to pay for the operation, personal goods, including my baby sister's teddy bear (Yes, I'm being deliberately emotional to give you some IDEA of how we felt) abandoned or trashed.

FORTUNATELY, at length, we could prove good intent, good employment, good behavior, and an employer who could show four of my father's patents and was willing to go to bat. (Damned atty had communicated with us BY PHONE, so we couldn't document his advice in this hearing.) We were granted the permanent visa.

Ironic side note: At age 18, I was registered and draftable to fight for this country, and paying taxes on my income, to support people on welfare who could vote to take more of my money and send me to die. just so you know.

~~~~

Nicki Fellenzer, escaped Ukrainian Jew, US Army vet (used to hang out here), adopted her half-brother's kids from Israel during family trouble. Legally her kids. As minors, legally entitled to stay with her. No valid visas. Not residents or citizens, not exemptions on taxes. Took several years and a CONGRESSMAN to sort that mess out.

Maxim. Moved from Russia to the UK, got hired on contingent work visa by a US company. Arrived in the US, company went bankrupt, left him with no money, no visa, no means of support. Five years, several thousand dollars in legal fees, a student visa and a lot of work, he is NOW able to APPLY for a regular visa again, helped in part by his mother getting HER permanent visa and sponsoring him.

Viesturs. Escaped at age 5 with his family from Lithuania when the Commies moved in. Scrambled to the US, spent years playing paperwork games with INS (He was a Ranger in 'Nam by the way. You're welcome.)

(UNNAMED) Came over from Australia on a student visa, with limited work privileges. Had some trouble at school, attempted to change schools, got caught up in a SNAFU. Visa expired. Don't worry, he's telecommuting to Russia for a US company, working at $40,000 a year and paying taxes here. Greatly hoping he can get a visa to stay here. Of course, if he does have to leave, he'll telecommute to Russia from Australia, pay taxes in Australia and help their economy as a CONTRACTOR.

Now...what good will a wall do, and would you like to see all the people like us gone, too, for the "greater good" of America?

I'm not saying don't stop illegal aliens. I'm saying don't lump all illegal aliens in with Hispanic gangs in LA, and don't think that building a wall and shooting people is a civilized, responsible or practical solution to the problem.

CAnnoneer
April 1, 2006, 06:37 PM
Wrong.

I do not know what kind of backdoor loophole you use to legally maintain two passports. Everybody that I know could not maintain their own citizenship at the moment of naturalization. Please explain to me how you are going to maintain your allegiances in a situation of conflict between your two countries? The non-zero possibility of such a situation demostrates to any clear thinker that such a double citizenship is a bad idea. Even you have some loophole to do it, should you?


I enlisted in the military before my final naturalization hearing, have served 21 years. Have you?

I do not have to, to call you on the double allegiance. You still have not answered the question where you allegiance lies.


And thanks for letting me see what kind of person you are. Sorry I'm only an American by choice. I hope to one day be considered worthy of the consideration of those born here.

And what kind of a person that is? A bigot against the naturalized? I probably have more naturalized friends than you do. Most of them are better Americans than some posters here. :rolleyes:


A large number of legals do that, too. That's the problem with America--other groups don't have to abide by your ideas.

But they do have to abide by our laws. Also, they are expected to be nationalistic, rather than wave the flags of foreign countries and apply pressure in favor of invaders and thieves.


Why would it make any difference on how many? The amnesty isn't open ended.

It isn't? 2 million invaders an year. Who guarantees if the ones going through amnesty are oldcomers or newcomers?


And I'll bet you can't even tell me the terms of that amnesty. Go ahead.

The Feinstein plan? 2k fine, back of the line, 6 years work until converted to permanent resident on track to citizenship, must remain employed. Sounds like amnesty to me.


B: How do you propose to get the "expense" from them? Sure, you can seize what assets they have. What do you do for the rest?

You charge their government for the difference. Maybe then Mexico will secure their northern border too.


C: Federal government cannot impose death penalty for such crimes, per US Constitution. You should read it sometime. Fascinating document. States can, but define "trafficking?"

You answered your own question.


D: Such already exists. Finding the means to enforce it in a country where people can freely travel is the problem. Should we require everyone to have passports to move about and get permission?

You use a credit car? You drive? You need a license anyway. Make them temper-proof, refuse them to illegals, problem solved.

longeyes
April 1, 2006, 06:44 PM
Building a wall isn't a final answer; I think we all know that. It's just an essential step in a multiplex process that must include penalties on employers and the termination of social welfare benefits to illegals.

Shooting people would be a final answer, but it's certainly not a humane first response to a crisis. But make no mistake about it: it IS a crisis and stopping people by force remains an option if we exhaust other, more preferable options. Once illegal immigrants are viewed as an "enemy," the rules change. So far they have been beneath the radar for most Americans and tolerated by many others; only a relatively small percentage of Americans directly encourages illegal immigration or benefits from it. I maintain that the net cost of illegals still far outweighs their benefits, and that's only looking at the problem economically. There's more to it, a lot more. Without guarantees of assimilation ANY immigration becomes problematic; no nation wills its own cultural dismemberment, although troubled individudals--Ted Kennedy comes to mind--do. I'm about to add George W. Bush to that contingent.

Don't Tread On Me
April 1, 2006, 06:51 PM
Perhaps you've read some of the Founding Fathers' remarks on "charity?"

The problem with your compassion for your fellow man is that it hands that bill off to other citizens, whether it occurs via a benignant government or the ministrations of a proselytizing church. That is not libertarianism, which is built on self-reliance and willed cooperation, not coercion.

Our sovereignty is not endangered by immigration, coupled with assimilation; it is most certainly endangered by illegal immigration, unchecked, coupled with an ardent lack of assimilation.

I think you have libertarianism confused with liberation theology.


I never advocated that the bill be passed off to someone else (like us)...there shouldn't be a "bill" in the first place. That's my point. Like I clearly said in an earlier post, the reason people are having issues with this is because they have to pay, and this has caused unfairness. The argument over illegal immigration should be about not having to pay for them, not - we shouldn't let them in because we have to pay.


Your problem, as well as everyone else's problem is with the STATE, not with the people walking across the border.


Whether they come in or not is irrelevant, the issue is footing the bill. That should be debated, and entitlement programs as well as most taxation should be done away with. If that is unpalatable to the masses and governemnt (since most love statism), then create a flat sales tax, where everyone shares the burden equally. This is still unfair, because I shouldn't be taxed on goods or services for programs that I will absolutely never use, but at least the burden of Unfariness is distributed equally. That's still idiotic and unfair, but it's the only compromise in a nation of government-lovers and taxers.

madmike
April 1, 2006, 06:54 PM
Wikipedia must be wrong too!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British...United_Kingdom


Now, I'll let you on a little secret. The reason you and many other children of Foreign Service and military personnel stationed in GB are eligible for the GB citizenship is because their parents are in the GB legally and therefore considered "settled."

Wikipedia doesn't count as a reference. If they have a reference to something more concrete, I'll be happy to take a look at an excerpt.

I'll let you in on two secrets: Foreign Service and military personnel AREN'T ON VISA STATUS and have no legal standing to work, vote or gain public aid from the host nation. So your argument in that area fails. If they have a SPECIFIC rule against children born of illegal or non-visa'd residents or tourists, do please show it to me.

And my parents aren't American. They're British.

longeyes
April 1, 2006, 07:12 PM
I never advocated that the bill be passed off to someone else (like us)...there shouldn't be a "bill" in the first place. That's my point. Like I clearly said in an earlier post, the reason people are having issues with this is because they have to pay, and this has caused unfairness. The argument over illegal immigration should be about not having to pay for them, not - we shouldn't let them in because we have to pay.


Your problem, as well as everyone else's problem is with the STATE, not with the people walking across the border.


Whether they come in or not is irrelevant, the issue is footing the bill. That should be debated, and entitlement programs as well as most taxation should be done away with. If that is unpalatable to the masses and governemnt (since most love statism), then create a flat sales tax, where everyone shares the burden equally. This is still unfair, because I shouldn't be taxed on goods or services for programs that I will absolutely never use, but at least the burden of Unfariness is distributed equally. That's still idiotic and unfair, but it's the only compromise in a nation of government-lovers and taxers.

No, the issue is not only footing the bill. The very predicates of your argument are culture-bound, not shared by the people who walk across, but that doesn't seem to dawn on you.

The last thing we need right now with our economy in a world of trouble and sustained only by unsustainable debt is another hundred million people with limited skills and limited education. You think we are going to compete with the Chinese with a lowest-common-denominator approach to economics? I don't.

madmike
April 1, 2006, 07:24 PM
I do not know what kind of backdoor loophole you use to legally maintain two passports. Everybody that I know could not maintain their own citizenship at the moment of naturalization. Please explain to me how you are going to maintain your allegiances in a situation of conflict between your two countries? The non-zero possibility of such a situation demostrates to any clear thinker that such a double citizenship is a bad idea. Even you have some loophole to do it, should you?

The US does not RECOGNIZE foreign citizenship or awards. Whether or not you have it is irrelevant to your US citizenship that requires allegiance to the US. As far as the UK is concerned, I'm British for life and can return at any time. I can also travel to anty EU or Commonwealth country and seek employment and travel with no visa or minimal fuss. The reason VIRTUALLY ALL naturalized Americans maintain dual status is for that reason. If I want to visit my family at any time, including an emergency, I hop a plane, take both passports and use one each way.

An example of what this means is thus:

I can fly back to the UK. I could THEN use my British passport to visit Cuba. Upon returning to the US, AS AN AMERICAN, I would still be in violation of US law. The fact that it was legal under British law is not relevant, because the US DOES NOT RECOGNIZE my British nationality.

Likewise, the UK does not care that I'm American. I was born British, so I have ALL RIGHTS that come with that.

My oath stated my allegiance was to the US, and I would seek no privilege or exemption from US law based on foreign nationality. And I don't. Were I a Knight Commander of some order and a "Sir" in the UK, I would not be here.

SOME countries renounce or require you to renounce your foreign citizenship to be naturalized. The problem is, some countries REFUSE to revoke citizenship, especially for refugees. So most of the modern nations simply choose the option of NOT RECOGNIZING foreign citizenship.

To renounce my UK citizenship, I would have to physically travel to DC, appear in the chancery, swear to renounce it before a member of the British consular staff. This would entail 1200 miles round trip and several hundred dollars plus a couple of weekdays to accomplish. And that's for a very simple process with a nation we're on GOOD terms with. Try doing it with Cuba. Good luck. No country I'm aware of allows you to email their consulate and say, "Oh, by the way, I quit."


I enlisted in the military before my final naturalization hearing, have served 21 years. Have you?

I do not have to, to call you on the double allegiance. You still have not answered the question where you allegiance lies.

If 21 years with my name on the paper and my @$$ on the line doesn't answer that, get bent, sir.


And thanks for letting me see what kind of person you are. Sorry I'm only an American by choice. I hope to one day be considered worthy of the consideration of those born here.

And what kind of a person that is? A bigot against the naturalized? I probably have more naturalized friends than you do. Most of them are better Americans than some posters here.

Are some of your best friends Jewish? (and if you don't know any with dual status, you probably don't know many at all, and certainly not well enough for them to tell you that. Gee, could they be afraid of sounding "unAmerican" to someone like you? Nah, you'd never question anyone's allegiance.)


A large number of legals do that, too. That's the problem with America--other groups don't have to abide by your ideas.

But they do have to abide by our laws. Also, they are expected to be nationalistic, rather than wave the flags of foreign countries and apply pressure in favor of invaders and thieves.

Now there I agree with you.


Why would it make any difference on how many? The amnesty isn't open ended.

It isn't? 2 million invaders an year. Who guarantees if the ones going through amnesty are oldcomers or newcomers?

The same government either way?:confused: you trust that government for one but not the other?:confused:


And I'll bet you can't even tell me the terms of that amnesty. Go ahead.

The Feinstein plan? 2k fine, back of the line, 6 years work until converted to permanent resident on track to citizenship, must remain employed. Sounds like amnesty to me.

So, call it 1 million immigrants for example purposes, each paying the US $2000 = $2 billion dollars. And paying taxes. And proving residency. And working gainfully at COMPETITIVE wages meaning no incentive to hire them, meaning without credentials their odds of obtaining work are lower, and then being allowed to APPLY (Not "Convert") for permanent status IF an employer will sponsor them, sounds like "amnesty" to you? Funny. In my lexicon, a "fine" is a civil or criminal penalty. I'm sorry most people don't agree with shooting them in the neck. I guess they're getting off easy.

Of course, they could just STAY illegal like they are now. Would that suit you better? Might make them a little harder to track down and deport, but at least they wouldn't be getting "Amnesty." Just working illegally, like they are now, usually for cash, like they are now, not paying taxes, like now, using resources, like now. Eating up government investigators' time, like they are now.

Which of these sounds more economically advantageous?


B: How do you propose to get the "expense" from them? Sure, you can seize what assets they have. What do you do for the rest?

You charge their government for the difference. Maybe then Mexico will secure their northern border too.

Oh, yes. Bill Presidente Fox. I'm sure he'll give that due attention when he runs out of Charmin. :rolleyes: Going to have a collection agency call and harass him?

[
C: Federal government cannot impose death penalty for such crimes, per US Constitution. You should read it sometime. Fascinating document. States can, but define "trafficking?"

You answered your own question.

So, 20 years down the road, at a cost of several million dollars each, three or four coyotes will be executed, assuming the courts don't decide it's a cruel and unusual punishment for a crime that doesn't directly or intentionally cause bodily harm to US citizens. Yeah, THAT'LL teach them.


D: Such already exists. Finding the means to enforce it in a country where people can freely travel is the problem. Should we require everyone to have passports to move about and get permission?

You use a credit car? You drive? You need a license anyway. Make them temper-proof, refuse them to illegals, problem solved.

Not solved, but I agree that will go a long way. Consider that LA suburb that ordered the cops not to make traffic stops to avoid "inconveniencing" illegals.:fire:

madmike
April 1, 2006, 07:31 PM
The last thing we need right now with our economy in a world of trouble and sustained only by unsustainable debt is another hundred million people with limited skills and limited education. You think we are going to compete with the Chinese with a lowest-common-denominator approach to economics? I don't.

Well, let's see:

2000 miles times 2 guards times 3 shifts every 500 feet plus support personnel and construction and maintenance...we could probably keep them all employed at TAXPAYER expense guarding the Mexican border.:D :banghead:

Biker
April 1, 2006, 07:32 PM
About six years ago, the CIS conducted a study that proved that the average immigrant uses $56,000 more out of the US than he/she contributes.
How does this benefit the US?
Biker

longeyes
April 1, 2006, 07:45 PM
So, 20 years down the road, at a cost of several million dollars each, three or four coyotes will be executed, assuming the courts don't decide it's a cruel and unusual punishment for a crime that doesn't directly or intentionally cause bodily harm to US citizens. Yeah, THAT'LL teach them.

No, the coyotes are Congress, and I doubt we'll have to wait 20 years for the fun and games to begin.

Illegal immigration is the wedge of socialism. We began a debtor nation in '89, and in my view illegal immigration aids and abets our problem with huge and mounting social welfare costs of all kinds. You can expect, as a result of the proposed bills, should they pass, A Great Leap Forward in welfare costs and, with that, the collapse of the American economy into something "Argentinian."

longeyes
April 1, 2006, 07:48 PM
2000 miles times 2 guards times 3 shifts every 500 feet plus support personnel and construction and maintenance...we could probably keep them all employed at TAXPAYER expense guarding the Mexican border

Wrong. Imperial America has ample troops in Europe and Asia right now to cover border control. Better we should circulate the cost here rather than in Germany or S. Korea.

Will your guest workers sign a legal commitment NOT to draw welfare for themselves or any dependent? Will they commit legally to learn English?

Of course they won't.

Jammer Six
April 1, 2006, 07:53 PM
Of course they won't.
No reason for them too. There's no difference between them and anyone else.

It pleases me to read that many of you get it.:cool:

mcg-doc
April 1, 2006, 08:14 PM
We entered the US, with advice of a noted US immigration attorney (let that be a warning to you about lawyers), with a temporary visa, intending to apply for a permanent visa.

This is legal. Now. Then it was not.

This finally is the explanation for the differences in our views. I came to this country legally and want others to do the same. You, by your own admission, entered the US under false pretences on the temporary visa knowing well you had no intension to leave. So, you want to open America doors to illegal immigration.

Suum cuique pulchrum est

CAnnoneer
April 1, 2006, 08:18 PM
So most of the modern nations simply choose the option of NOT RECOGNIZING foreign citizenship.

Hehehehe. So I wonder how that will work out for them when in conflict. No matter which country you choose to serve, the other one will execute you as a traitor if they capture you. The folly of such policies is staggering.


No country I'm aware of allows you to email their consulate and say, "Oh, by the way, I quit."

Actually, a bunch of Eastern European countries do that. Russia for example expects citizens living abroad to renew their passports every 6 years or so. If you fail to renew it, they assume you do not maintain your citizenship and scratch you off the books.

Art Eatman
April 1, 2006, 08:26 PM
That's enough squabbling and infighting for one thread...

Art

If you enjoyed reading about "Spend a week, build a wall !" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!