Undocumented immigration in border states

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by devilsadvocate

Also the amount of border guards has increased to record levels. Mostly due to a long term strategy started during the Bush administration and continued by this one

---

The increase in the size of the border patrol is of no consequence when they are hampered by practical policy, and in any case the increase has not kept pace with border traffic nor has the barest nod been given to the escalation in drug-related violence.

Our people are out-gunned and out-numbered.

Bush's policy was no less incoherent, and I do not defend it - the difference, however, coincides entirely with Arizona's decision to act in it's own interest.

Btw-

Have you noticed the tremendous backlash over S.B. 1070 emanating from the businesses whose habit it is to hire illegals?

To answer your other question, I have no problem whatsoever with the 1st Amendment, but, as there are exceptions to everything, I would point out that NAMBLA should qualify, if anything else does.

Now - as to your penchant for leading things off-topic, that will be the last of that.

Show us your attention-span is longer than 30 seconds, eh?

MBM-

As to your very relevant point about corn subsidies, perhaps you could fill in the gaps by elucidating on the relationship between the democrat-instigated subsidies, and the idiotic idea that ethanol will fuel our energy needs.

The name Tom Daschle comes to mind.

Funny you should mention that, j. I was once very conservative (daily listener to Rush, G. Gordon- even saw him live, and Glen Beck- prior to his television insanity). Now, as you may have surmised, I lean to the left. I am not quite sure just how far I lean, though. I still have not found a single Democrat I trust in terms of politicians.

When it comes to information/intellectual property, I'm usually to the left of most of my professors. Civil liberties- you already know. Taxes- Corporations need to start paying them. Middle class/small business- needs to see some relief. there is still a middle-class, right? :idunno: The cost of education is insane. Health-care needs to be stabilized, then made available to everyone....

I'll gather up some info on corn subsidies before too long. Food, Inc is a fantastic intro to the Mexico immigration problem.

*EDIT* ...and I have ABSOLUTELY no love, or trust, for energy/oil companies. Fuk'n lying pricks! :mad:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by devilsadvocate

Immigration enforcement is a federal concern not a state one.

---

Drug enforcement is also a federal concern, but Arizona enforces drug laws as well. And yet there is no outcry over this.

And when Arizona tried to legalize marijuana, the feds said NO WAY! So they control the issue of drug enforcement, and still expect us to enforce it.

I hope everyone realizes that Arizona felt it had no other choice but to do this. Our state government is essentially going bankrupt very rapidly. We even sold our capitol buildings to raise money. We can't afford to take care of so many poor people flooding across our border.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

MBM-

As to your very relevant point about corn subsidies, perhaps you could fill in the gaps by elucidating on the relationship between the democrat-instigated subsidies, and the idiotic idea that ethanol will fuel our energy needs.

The name Tom Daschle comes to mind.

---

Edit:

Intellectual honesty compels me to offer up the corpse of RMN to the current batch of subsidy gods.

"I'm NOT a corn subsidizer!"- RMN :P

Corn is SUCH a huge food product. Walk around the grocery store and look for foods that don't have corn/corn-based products in them. It's staggering. I am curious ho3w much I will be able to find, but STRONGLY doubt there are more than a handful of politicians that ARE NOT tied, somehow, to this. BIG, BIG MONEY!

Again, I encourage everyone to give Food, Inc. a viewing. It's an eye-opener! The Corporation is also a must see, IMO. Not partisan, just filled with eye-opening truth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 999969999

I hope everyone realizes that Arizona felt it had no other choice but to do this.

---

There is a palpable presumption these days that the Constitution is about to take a real beating over these events...

It is a BIG (over) step. These are some of the issues already on-the-table...

States rights
Responsibilities of schools/hospitals regarding illegals
Federal rights AND responsibilities
Law enforcement lines, and training
Civil rights of legal Latinos
Costs of detaining, transporting illegals
Employment verification requirements
Valid, legitimate identification requirements/verification standards
Open/free society vs. "safe"

That's a start....


*EDIT* Maybe enforcement was wrong, but "something" had to be done, and this law did bring A LOT of attention.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

The increase in the size of the border patrol is of no consequence when they are hampered by practical policy, and in any case the increase has not kept pace with border traffic nor has the barest nod been given to the escalation in drug-related violence.

What practical policy is hampering them?

I agree that more could be done, I'm questioning your theory that enforcement is a non concern.

Our people are out-gunned and out-numbered.

Bush's policy was no less incoherent, and I do not defend it - the difference, however, coincides entirely with Arizona's decision to act in it's own interest.
Bush's policy was/is pretty much the same one that exists today, Obama just carried it over. Given that due to the economic crash illegal immigration had been shrinking during the latter Bush years, it was funnily coincidental that AZ decided to act during Obama's term and not during the Bush years.

Apparently deficits matter now too.
Btw-

Have you noticed the tremendous backlash over S.B. 1070 emanating from the businesses whose habit it is to hire illegals?
Can't say I've noticed any group in particular, but I'm all for cracking down on employers.

To answer your other question, I have no problem whatsoever with the 1st Amendment, but, as there are exceptions to everything, I would point out that NAMBLA should qualify, if anything else does.

Now - as to your penchant for leading things off-topic, that will be the last of that.

Show us your attention-span is longer than 30 seconds, eh?

---

You introduced NAMBLA into the discussion, not me.

Just to clarify, SB1070 does not "mirror" the Federal Law. Besides other things, it makes "aiding" an "illegal" a criminal offense. This means that if happen to have family over my house, and they happen to be "illegal" I could be prosecuted for having them over my house. Something everyone seems to leave out of any equation is how this impacts the Latino family unit.

They are directly targeting us. Banning Latino Studies isn't proof enough?