Undocumented immigration in border states

[MagicNakor]

While I don't have a horse in this particular race (Arizona immigration law), this section has an inordinate amount of Americans; it's very localised. Each country faces its own immigration and crime issues. For one example, here's my illustrious MP attempting to justify allocating $9+ billion for prisons due to unreported crimes. He's no Gohmert talking about "terror babies" but nonetheless:

Forgive the chop job:

How do you politely get someone to realize that their actions, and arguments are, in fact, racist. It is very easy for the majority (whites) to think of others (Mexican/Mexican-Americans) as only being "slightly inconveniences" by being pulled over and "checked out" in order to keep the area "safe".

Any conservative should recognize that this is FAR from being a "minor inconvenience".

You, and anyone else, would find this to be VERY unconstitutional if it were something you, yourself, had to face on a daily basis.

We've (US) already gone through this with the internment of Japanese-Americans. Can't we recognize it for what it is?

Mexico tries to protect the sovereignty of its borders with a far more draconian immigration law (as quoted in earlier posts) than the relatively mild Arizona law. It even states that it does not want to upset the demographic balance of its country. And that all immigrants who immigrate to Mexico must be capable of supporting themselves so they are not a drain on the government and taxpayers. I see nothing wrong with this.

And I see nothing wrong with the Arizona law. It merely mirrors the current Federal immigration law, which is mild in comparison to Mexico's immigration law.

If it were up to me, I would solve the problem by hiring enough full time, permanent border patrol agents to patrol both the entire northern and southern borders 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, and to sufficiently man all border crossings and check points and airports and sea ports to ensure that people are entering legally. It is really the only solution to the problem. We must be able to control who comes into our country to remain a sovereign nation.

I also support a crackdown on any employer who hires illegal immigrants. Arizona already has this law (and is making its way to the U.S. supreme court), but unfortunately, it is not being fully and properly enforced. After I looked into this matter I found out that I was wrong about Sheriff Joe of Maricopa County. He is not enforcing it against employers, but just the employees, and I agree that is wrong.

I also agree with leet about a nationwide biometric i.d. card and database. It is essential to have such a system if we are really serious about immigration reform.

And if we would do all of the above things FIRST, to ensure that we have a system that can truly control who comes into our country and who works here, then I FULLY SUPPORT AMNESTY for all the current illegal immigrants to make them citizens and bring them out of the shadows and into our system, and maybe assimilate them a bit into the American culture.

Leaving the first aside, how is it that biometrics/implants are to be considered a solution?

How long before biometrics can be had on the street-corner, just like a one-off driver's license or passport?

It occurs to me that such an implant could seriously compromise one's privacy, but perhaps 'leet' hasn't considered this.

I wonder, too, why no one initiates a discussion as to why these people seem not to be the least inclined to expend much effort in aid of improving their lot in Mexico.

You don't like it where you are?

Break out the brooms and clean up your own shit.

What (if anything) does he propose we do about the sheer size of the influx of people and the load it puts on an inadequate U.S. infrastructure?

My question is one of scale: If biometrics are put into use, it will have to be an all-or-nothing approach. Will the populace capitulate to mandatory government fingerprinting, photographing, microchipping, tattooing, profiling? There would have to be both a state and a federal database. If the idea is to tell immigrants that that is the price of admission, how does that negate any of the concerns of racial profiling when asking for valid passport/driver's license/state ID? Something tells me the former wouldn't happen without a fuss, nevermind the cost for creating, implementing and maintaining such a system.

Mexico definitely has its own issues that need to be addressed if there is any hope of stabilising that border. That change has to come from within; I am not educated enough on that subject to provide any meaningful contribution, only superficial observation.

[bigboab]

Your 'MP' is talking a lot of sense. Better prisons are required to house long term offenders. As for unreported crime. They are going to raise the age of liability in this country(Scotland) to 12. That should lower the reported crime figures by a huge amount. They also ignore theft if it is under a certain value(unless it is from a business).

If the police can't be bothered, why should the public?

[j2k4]

Let us designate MN's thread as the new start, then.

To begin at the beginning:

The flow of undocumented people over the U.S. border has long-and-far out-stripped the ability of extant controls, indicating a need for heightened capabilities there.

Do we build a wall?

Apparently not.

Do we expand the staffing and capabilities of border-patrol personnel?

No.

Do we allow individual states to address the problem on their own?

Definitely not.

Is this traffic even a problem?

Depends on who you ask.

Is there a biometric solution?

That's debatable - the prospect raises myriad other concerns, but so what?

Am I a racist for asking such questions?

The answer to that is a firm "yes", according to some.




One other thing:

While estimates are somewhat fuzzy, I have heard there are upwards of ten million undocumented people here.

I find myself wondering how many law-enforcement personnel are required to hassle them, given that we can expect they will have full plates harassing legal/naturalized citizens?

[bigboab]

It is rather worrying about the carnage caused by illegal aliens driving motor vehicles. I have just found this site. (by accident.)
http://www.usillegalaliens.com/impac...accidents.html

The story is the same for illegal immigrants in any country.

[999969999]

As for biometrics, it need not be all that invasive. A simple Fingerprint Clearance Card could be morphed into a nationwide i.d. card and with mobile fingerprint readers, cops and employers could very quickly tell if the person's fingerprints match their i.d. card.

Arizona has a primitive and crude form of it currently in use... http://www.azdps.gov/services/Fingerprint/ ... and with some big adjustments, this system could go a long way to determining who is here legally.

[clocker]

It is rather worrying about the carnage caused by illegal aliens driving motor vehicles. I have just found this site. (by accident.)
http://www.usillegalaliens.com/impac...accidents.html

The story is the same for illegal immigrants in any country.

"Carnage on the highways!", eh?
I'll overlook the giant leaps of faith necessary to accept any of the conclusions of that site- after all, it's clearly stated, and often repeated, that "Nobody is keeping track!" of the statistics- but it does lead me to a question...

If this "carnage" is so unacceptable, in fact, so odious that it has led to calls to modify the 14th Amendment, where is the outrage over the "carnage" caused by guns and the subsequent reimagining of the 2nd Amendment?
No matter what statistics one choses to believe, far more people are killed/injured with guns than cars, so where is the right's outrage over this?

[j2k4]

But...but...we're not talking about the second amendment, nor are we talking about any 'outrage' issuing from the Right.

We're talking about the border, controlling it, or not, etc. ...

[bigboab]

It is rather worrying about the carnage caused by illegal aliens driving motor vehicles. I have just found this site. (by accident.)
http://www.usillegalaliens.com/impac...accidents.html

The story is the same for illegal immigrants in any country.

"Carnage on the highways!", eh?
I'll overlook the giant leaps of faith necessary to accept any of the conclusions of that site- after all, it's clearly stated, and often repeated, that "Nobody is keeping track!" of the statistics- but it does lead me to a question...

If this "carnage" is so unacceptable, in fact, so odious that it has led to calls to modify the 14th Amendment, where is the outrage over the "carnage" caused by guns and the subsequent reimagining of the 2nd Amendment?
No matter what statistics one choses to believe, far more people are killed/injured with guns than cars, so where is the right's outrage over this?

I'm not on the right. I am thinking of the poor buggers who can't afford comprehensive insurance and get involved through no fault of their own in a collision with an ILLEGAL alien driving the other vehicle. This is happening in most western countries who have an illegal alien problem.

I agree, guns should be made illegal with stricter controls but that is a different subject and would only create a diversion from the debate about the illegal alien problem.

[megabyteme]

For those struggling with the concept of a Race-based law leading to people supporting that/those law(s) being considered (unknowing) "racists"...

Law #1: Blacks are required by law to ride at the back of the bus and give up their seats if a white desires the seat.

Law #2: Asians, by law are not allowed to own property, and count as 1/2 persons.

Law #3: By law,blacks are not allowed to vote.

Law #4: By law, blacks are not allowed o use public drinking fountains, and must use substandard "blacks only" restrooms.

The vast majority of current Americans would believe that supporters of these laws are, in fact, racist.


Law #5: By law, Latino and hispanic looking people must carry proof that they are not illegal aliens in the state of Arizona. This law is directly tied to race, violates constitutionally guaranteed rights, and is just as much a deterrent to legal, American-born citizens as the "illegals" it targets.

How does someone support this race-based law, and NOT believe they are (unknowingly) being racist?

[bigboab]

For those struggling with the concept of a Race-based law leading to people supporting that/those law(s) being considered (unknowing) "racists"...

Law #1: Blacks are required by law to ride at the back of the bus and give up their seats if a white desires the seat.

Law #2: Asians, by law are not allowed to own property, and count as 1/2 persons.

Law #3: By law,blacks are not allowed to vote.

Law #4: By law, blacks are not allowed o use public drinking fountains, and must use substandard "blacks only" restrooms.

The vast majority of current Americans would believe that supporters of these laws are, in fact, racist.


Law #5: By law, Latino and hispanic looking people must carry proof that they are not illegal aliens in the state of Arizona. This law is directly tied to race, violates constitutionally guaranteed rights, and is just as much a deterrent to legal, American-born citizens as the "illegals" it targets.

How does someone support this race-based law, and NOT believe they are (unknowingly) being racist?

Laws should not discriminate against law abiding citizens of any country regardless of colour or religion.