Chertoff cracks down. The SD wall works!

[CAnnoneer]

A five time reduction of border crossings after "security is stepped up"? Well, what an astounding surprise!

Also, notice the official line is to "crack down on smugglers" rather than on illegal immigrants. So long as they do something, I can stomach the double speak.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060106/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/chertoff_border_patrol

Chertoff Calls for Crackdown on Smugglers By ELLIOT SPAGAT, Associated Press Writer
52 minutes ago



SAN DIEGO - Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff has declared a crackdown on immigrant smugglers at two California border crossings from Tijuana, Mexico.

ADVERTISEMENT

Chertoff promised more prosecutions of smugglers who tried to enter the United States at the San Ysidro and Otay Mesa crossings in San Diego, as well as more jail space to hold them, though he did not say on how much the effort would cost.

In a potentially controversial twist, Chertoff said Thursday state and local officials would participate in the crackdown. Proponents of tougher enforcement have long advocated a larger role for local law enforcement, but critics say local agencies should stick to fighting crime, not enforcing immigration laws.

Border Patrol agents thwarted 60,000 attempted illegal crossings at San Ysidro and Otay Mesa last year. Smugglers once stuffed a baby inside a gasoline tank, Chertoff said.

"It is remarkable the lengths to which smugglers will go to try to get people into this country," he said at a news conference. "They simply want to make money at the expense of human misery."

The federal government has also increased border enforcement in Arizona, which has surpassed California as the nation's busiest corridor for illegal immigrants. Arizona accounted for more than half the Border Patrol's 1.1 million arrests last year.

Border Patrol arrests in the San Diego sector plummeted to about 110,000 last year from 528,000 in 1995, when the state had stepped up security.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

I don't know how to take his comments.

He says we are cracking down on smugglers, and he apparently means people who are smuggling in illegal aliens. What is being done with the illegals that are smuggled in though? Are they being sent back? Or do they get to stay, and only the smugglers get in trouble.

If the illegals get to stay, and only the smugglers get in trouble, then all I see this doing is that the smugglers will charge more to get people in, since they are taking more risk.

As long as illegals don't think they will be sent back to Mexico, the demand to come here will continue, and the supply will be met by smugglers.

 

[exoduster18]

Smugglers and Illegals kind of go hand in hand. They have 'coyotes' that do human smuggling across the border.

But either way, I feel that it is at least a somewhat positive step in the right direction.

 

[rick_reno]

What is being done with the illegals that are smuggled in though?

These are the early adopter "guest workers" in the Presidents proposal.

 

[Waitone]

<shakes head>

Lemme see if I got this right. Fed.gov is going after smugglers, not those being smuggled. Result is a drop in those crossing into the US.

Watch out, I'm going to engage in a leap of logic. <drum roll> Ok, if stopping smugglers results in fewer crossers, why not go after those who employ crossers after they get into the us. Both the smuggler and the employer are merely different ends of the pipeline. Neither end restricts what passes through the pipeline.

Sorta makes me wonder what would happen if Chertof would get smart and go after both smugglers and employers.

I get a warm feeling knowing fed.gov is finally acting.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

<shakes head>

Lemme see if I got this right. Fed.gov is going after smugglers, not those being smuggled. Result is a drop in those crossing into the US.

Watch out, I'm going to engage in a leap of logic. <drum roll> Ok, if stopping smugglers results in fewer crossers, why not go after those who employ crossers after they get into the us. Both the smuggler and the employer are merely different ends of the pipeline. Neither end restricts what passes through the pipeline.

Sorta makes me wonder what would happen if Chertof would get smart and go after both smugglers and employers.

I get a warm feeling knowing fed.gov is finally acting.

Dumb question -- why do I have to check the citizenship of a person I employ?

Don't I pay taxes? Isn't the government responsible for stopping people from crossing the border illegally?

And more important, how do I have more responsibility that public employees -- including police -- to enforce the law? How can I be charged when California police, for example don't even report illegals they arrest?

 

[longeyes]

The gov't is concerned about illegal aliens being maltreated, that's why they are going after smugglers. And it's the only reason. The Feds know where to press if they want results but that's not on the to-do list. More sound and fury, yes, but color me cynical. I just don't believe that at bottom this Administration has any intention of stopping the influx.

 

[enfield]

Who needs jail space -- that's what concertina wire was invented for. Let's go camping!!!

 

[Lone_Gunman]

Dumb question -- why do I have to check the citizenship of a person I employ?

How do you withhold taxes, social security, etc, on your employees if you don't know if they are citizens are not?

 

[beerslurpy]

The govt doesnt require a valid ID or SSN to collect taxes. They are getting a ton of social security and general income tax from illegals that just gets dumped into the general fund. Plus the illegals dont have valid info, so they cant collect refunds either.

We are talking billions of dollars in taxes alone. I'm not even touching on the money made by employers who get workers at a fraction of the market rate and dont have to health care or other benefits.

 

[Standing Wolf]

Dumb question -- why do I have to check the citizenship of a person I employ?

It shouldn't be your responsibility to police the nation; by the same token, it shouldn't be a federal firearms license holder's responsibility to ensure prohibited people don't leave his shop with firearms.

Government isn't holding up its end of the social contract.

 

[CAnnoneer]

Government isn't holding up its end of the social contract.

+1

It is because it has been taken over by the pigs at the trough.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

How do you withhold taxes, social security, etc, on your employees if you don't know if they are citizens are not?

Same way you do a citizen -- the employee gives you a number, you report it to the government. Then you withhold money and forward it to the government.

Now, if it's a bogus SSAN, does the Government come back and tell you? No. Not their job, man!:banghead:

There is no "Social Security Trust Fund" nor any "Social Security Account" -- in fact, the money is not separated out when you send it to the government -- the IRS estimates how much is Social Security. There are no checks in the system.

If the government would do its job, I wouldn't need to check on my employee's citizenship.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

Vern, I think many of the employers fully realize that the people they are hiring are illegal. It is not a question of if they are illegal. Everyone knows it. At least that is the way it is here in Georgia.

Do you think it is ethically wrong for employers to hire people who they know are for sure not US citizens and here illegally?

I see your point about the burden of proof for people who are questionably citizens, but most for most of the field workers and construction workers in Georgia, there really isnt much question. It is in fact a joke among employers.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Vern, I think many of the employers fully realize that the people they are hiring are illegal. It is not a question of if they are illegal. Everyone knows it. At least that is the way it is here in Georgia.

Do you think it is ethically wrong for employers to hire people who they know are for sure not US citizens and here illegally?

I see your point about the burden of proof for people who are questionably citizens, but most for most of the field workers and construction workers in Georgia, there really isnt much question. It is in fact a joke among employers.

Where in the Constitution does it say ordinary citizens can be forced to work without pay as cops? Especially when the cops don't do their jobs?

When police arrest an illegal and are forbidden to report him, when teachers are forbidden to report illegals in their classes, when social workers and emergency room attendents are forbidden to report illegals, how does it suddenly become an employer's business to do what what government won't do?

There can't be illegals in Georgia -- that would mean the government isn't doing its job, right?

 

[Lone_Gunman]

I am not asking a question of legality.

I am asking a question of ethics.

The government not enforcing the laws against illegal aliens is bad, and it is unethical of the government not to follow the law. There is no doubt about that. We agree.

My question is, even if the government doesn't do its job, do you think it is ethically right or wrong to hire someone you know is illegal?

By the way, I do not think that ER personell are forbidden to report illegal aliens. Its just that if they do, the government ignores it.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

I am not asking a question of legality.

I am asking a question of ethics.

The government not enforcing the laws against illegal aliens is bad, and it is unethical of the government not to follow the law. There is no doubt about that. We agree.

My question is, even if the government doesn't do its job, do you think it is ethically right or wrong to hire someone you know is illegal?

By the way, I do not think that ER personell are forbidden to report illegal aliens. Its just that if they do, the government ignores it.

Is it ethical for me to submit to involuntarily servitude? That's being a Judas goat -- other people later will pay for my submission.

Is it ethical for me to accept the responsibility for doing what the government fails to do -- so the government can blythely continue its feckless behavior?

And equally important, is it ethical for me to condemn private citizens for not doing what the government is supposed to do and not doing?

 

[Lone_Gunman]

So, in summary, you won't answer the question?

Do three wrongs make a right?

 

[Waitone]

I just love it when people take a principaled stand when it coincides with their personal best interests.

I guess the real test of character is to see what happens when a principaled stand is not in one's personal best interest.

You operate a business because you have already agreed to be an agent of government at all levels. It is called the cost of doing business. So how come we want to draw a line at illegal border crossers?

 

[Vern Humphrey]

So, in summary, you won't answer the question?

Do three wrongs make a right?

I have answered the question (you just don't like the answer.)

The government has failed in its responsibilities. Many churches and other organizations are working to ensure that it continues to fail. They need a scapegoat, and "big business" is always handy.

 

[longeyes]

My question is, even if the government doesn't do its job, do you think it is ethically right or wrong to hire someone you know is illegal?

I'll answer for me: Yes.

A nation is the sum-total of its individual actions, and those comprise its ethos.