|
Post by Tim Collins on Dec 13, 2008 16:24:26 GMT -7
This is a continuation of portions of the thread reasons to oppose the border wall.
Green Text = Rosa Bold/Italics = Snill
the wall is a projection of this government's failure to implement and enforce good immigration policy.
Wrong. The wall is the result of citizens of other countries choosing to ignore our laws - complicated or not. In this case we are speaking specifically of those who choose to enter illegally through our southern border, not all all Mexican for the record.
no. the wall is the result of this government's inadequate, ineffective and inappropriate response to it's own immigration problems.
Please expand on exactly which immigration problems, caused by the US Government, resulted in non-citizens assuming a right to cross our border at their discretion? By what logic does a citizen of one country gain the right to ignore and violate the laws of another country?
Are you saying that if we had adequate, effective and appropriate immigration laws (which I must say you will have to define) then the wall would not be necessary because 12 million people would not have entered the US Illegally?
No you have put the cart before the horse in your argument. The wall was a response to our immigration laws (as inadequate, ineffective and inappropriate as they may be) being flagrantly ignored, by those who crossed our border illegally and those who provided them work, housing and more.
Please define "good immigration policy". Currently immigration policy calls for basically a clean bill of health, limits on the number of immigrants from each country (an attempt at fairness), criminal background check, economic viability upon arrival, and other logical considerations. The goal is to accept immigrants to a level that the US economy can support and in fields where we are lacking skills for an improved economy.
is this really true? this may be what is on the books. is this how the current laws/policies are interpreted and enforced?
Yes, in a very summary fashion this is really true.
How do you enforce these laws/reasons if the very people they are intended to be applied to do not pass through legal immigration channels? You are using the usual anti-wall tactic of confusing legal proper immigration with illegal immigration.
I cannot ask for a background check, a medical record or anything else of a person who chooses to sneak across the border rather than present themselves to the proper immigration authorities for legal entry. The wall is no barrier for those who choose to enter legally fulfilling all requirements.
As to enforcement - how do you enforce "good immigration policy" when an overwhelming
"overwhelming"?
What would you call it? It seems from public statements of those engaged in the job of patrolling the border, The Border Patrol, that this term is appropriate, given the size and difficult terrain to be patrolled and the volume of illegals making the crossing. The odds certainly are not stacked in favor of the Border Patrol. The wall at the very least concentrates crossing attempts at it weakest point, thus increasing the potential for an intercept. (Look in the reference section of this category and you will see a research paper proving this point by discussing how a Mexican internal air line shifted its flight schedule from the Sand Diego area to an area further west when the San Diego Border Patrol sector strengthened the wall and increased patrols.)
number of immigrants, arriving from a country sharing almost 1500 miles of border with the US, choose consciously to ignore the policy in place? This is one reason FOR the wall - weed out all but the most determined and the criminal element and channel the remainder to more difficult crossing areas where "enforcement" can be accomplished.
"but the most determined and the criminal element"? I thought the laws were also in place to protect our border and our citizens?
And reducing the number of people entering illegally by dissuading those who only seek work, and at the same time making those with the most motivation to sneak across the border, namely drug smugglers with a huge potential financial gain, work harder and still have a higher chance of being caught does not serve those purposes? What would? An open border? Or perhaps the status quo anti, only a moderately patrolled border?
|
|
rosa
Full Member
Starting 5-Founding Member
Posts: 185
|
Post by rosa on Dec 13, 2008 17:47:23 GMT -7
snil, smugglers cross every day via the bridges! dealers, rapists, dirty cops, money launderers -all these people cross every day. the wall isn't keeping them out.
the wall is the result of other countries' citizens ignoring our laws and crossing illegally? No, it's not.
if this is the case, why wasn't it appropriately funded, planned DECADES ago, and erected on both north and south borders?
As tiresome as those arguments you listed are for you to hear, this is the same for those of us who have lived here for generations and been scapegoated whenever it served a political purpose. You may find it easy to deny that this happens. We on the other hand, are used to it
I am not justifying illegal immigration. what I am saying is: if we are so fired up about stopping all of it, why is there no wall up north? we want it stopped, right? from every direction, right?
The Saudis didn't seem to have all that hard a time getting in on those visas. Yes. Mix apples and oranges, Rosa, right?
you seem to dismiss the comment that I made regarding those BP/ICE agents who feel they were doing an adequate job, given the rising number of apprehensions over the years. These aren't political mouthpieces, they are the folks on the front line. Some support the wall, others see it as a waste of money in light of what they see on a day-to-day basis.
And I am sorry, but I have never heard one of these people ever say they feel we are being "overwhelmed" by illegals. I wonder if any of the agents I know or have heard from were interviewed for that research paper.
this wall is not a "result" of anything. It is a political tool used to deflect responsibility for failure and to satisfy political pandering. It is a waste of money that wasn't appropriately budgeted due to the controversey surrounding it's construction. It is evidence of our inability to enact and enforce immigration policy in this country WITHOUT having to scapegoat large groups of people in order to justify its existence.
No immigration problems caused by our government? really? from where I stand, this pretty much started at the utilization of immigration laws. And preferential treatment was alive and well then. Over the course of our development as a country, we have denied access to various groups based on discriminatory attitudes...against Italians, the Chinese, etc.
Even now, folks from other countries with money have little trouble acquiring the right papers, the right attention-there are no "lesser" time periods within which they can stay in this country. I've seen it, and I've seen it every bit as much as I've seen others lie to get and stay here.
There are citizens from other countries who have violated and ignored the laws of this one to get in and stay. They had money to pay the fines; they're still here. Others who did the same thing but didn't have that money have been apprehended and/or deported. A good lawyer and money to pay for one, see?
Shouldn't our good immigration laws, appropriately enforced preclude this? You break the law, you're gone, right? This should happen in all cases but it doesn't. That's what you want me to account for? This is on the government, not me.
The government has a tendency to cut off its nose to spite its face. I already referenced cases I know of where folks applied for amnesty, were in the process and were told that new laws taking effect would not impinge on the process they had already started. Then they were hit with the increased fees, regulations or other changes that were reportedly only applicable to the new law and those applying under the new terms. Is this uniform application or implementation of our laws?
The individuals who informed and were working with these people were government employees who could not keep their story straight for months on end.
How shall I define existing law when government officials charged with that very task do it selectively or ineffectively? I cannot pretend these incidents didn't take place; they take place every day.
I hardly think that "status quo" equals a "moderately" patrolled border. I have lived here for the majority of my life. I have never seen the level of enforcement and patrols so increased and vigilant. I remember what a "moderately patrolled" border looked like because I grew up here.
Look around the next time you are on the south side of town- the BP is everywhere, as are its cameras. Why are you arguing from extremes ("an open border?") if you don't want me to?
|
|
|
Post by Tim Collins on Dec 13, 2008 18:15:33 GMT -7
God can you stay on one topic or issue at a time? I feel like I just ran into a swarm of hornets, all biting from different directions.
If you want a wall on the norther border I have no problem except that the VAST majority of drugs entering via land crossing come from the south NOT the north. The VAST majority of illegal border crossing come from the south NOT the North. If I had to make a priority on a wall to go first it would be right where it is.
If you want add it to our Pres. Elects list of infrastructure projects.
Again, its all our fault . That sums up your position succiently. That and other peopel break the law but it only hispanics that get punished. Hogwash.
What is your answer to selective issuance of visas? Let anyone in who wants to come - unrestricted access, that is what it sounds like. Or do we only take the poor? Or do we only take Mexicans and other "hispanics"?
If its all humanitarian hell lets empty Darfur, Somalia, Rawanda - those people are much more poor and also suffering from direct genocide. Can they get here before we absorb all the Mexicans/Central American/South Americans who suffer poverty of their governments making.
Sorry perhaps you have lived in El Paso too long. You are being near sighted.
|
|
rosa
Full Member
Starting 5-Founding Member
Posts: 185
|
Post by rosa on Dec 13, 2008 18:56:12 GMT -7
I never said it is "only" hispanics that get punished; I said they get scapegoated. Again, you are arguing in extremes, and I guess I have a hard time NOT arguing from different perspectives here because this one "issue" has many facets to it, all which interconnect at one or more points. it is the reality I see and live. my ability to understand this issue, our shortcomings and where I think we need to improve does not at all make me near-sighted. It makes me an active participant in my community selective issuance of visas? green cards? apply the law evenly. the government doesn't do it now; you imply that it does because you understand existing law to say that it should? IF you are going to argue that the laws and the wall make perfect sense, then they should be implemented and enforced so that they apply to law breakers from all points of entry. They do not. That means you argue for the wall up north with the same criteria, objections and logic..right? I notice by the way, your inclusion of the term "hispanic" does that include Cubans? will there be a wall going up which prevents them from entering us territory from the water? you know they try to get here via makeshift rafts...by the way, there's a pretty strong and very conservative Cuban/Cuban-American community there This is about understanding this issue from a perspective which allows for dissent and discourse, right? you asked where the government errs in interpreting/implementing its own laws. I describe incidents where I have seen this happen. Actually, around here it happens a lot. Now you argue "so you are saying it's all our fault", and you dismiss it... but you wanted examples then you say I am arguing from too many directions you didn't sum up my position at all; you mis-stated it and then called what you misrepresented "hogwash". We agree on something at least don't tell me I have lived here "too long". not for you to decide and frankly I have lived elsewhere. I have a wider perspective than you might think Tunnel vision can happen anywhere and I think it applies much more to how someone sees whatever world he or she lives in. You don't have to travel OR live in a box to develop it
|
|
|
Post by admin1 on Dec 13, 2008 19:20:35 GMT -7
Can you answer my question about deciding who gets a visa? Do you really want to admit all comers? Is that what is fair?
You point to your personal experience with failures in the application of the law and call it a failure of the law. No that is a failure of a person. What law is it that is uniformly applied in all cases? Do you want that to be the case, or would you prefer creativity as needed in compliance, such as a judge deciding it is better to keep a family together than to return them all to their country of origin?
I think or dispute is unsolveable because we have a different end game. I want the end to be for our laws to be respected and enforced fairly. You want are laws changed to benfit a specific group of people.
|
|
rosa
Full Member
Starting 5-Founding Member
Posts: 185
|
Post by rosa on Dec 13, 2008 19:26:53 GMT -7
here it is in a nutshell for me. this would start us on our way to fixing things
quit funding Mexico's duplicitous government and their laughable drug interdiction policy-there's enough concrete and anecdotal evidence to sustain at minimum, a serious overhaul of our intent as well as their ability to deliver on initiatives such as Merida. Simply restrict the funds until the government can demonstrate that the drug cartels no longer own them
this would also address the government's distaste for dealing with it's poverty, its avarice and its lawlessness
if you are going to say that you implement existing law, then you use that money currently being given to the corrupt Mexican government, you apply it toward consistent implementation of current law and policy. apply it toward salaries for more investigators and agents so that the backlog of cases, requests, appeals and deportations can be reduced, if not eliminated
quit stealing from other budgets to fund the wall -- do what citizens are instructed to do all the time: spend tax money responsibly
this also means no more favors for folks w/money. Pay the agents at the borders decent overtime. Dismiss dirty officers when they are discovered.
quit screwing around with people already in the process of acquiring their papers. point new laws at new entrants and enforce them consistently; apply appropriate criteria to the appropriate applicants ACROSS THE BOARD
quit rewarding politicians with status and power when they lie about their intention to address immigration issues --one term is sufficient to determine whether or not they can at least try to follow up on such promises
this means people like Silvestre Reyes, who now panders to the left AND the right on this dispute...bye, bye
unfortunately, it's on us to change what is broken in our perception of who breaks the law and why, and what rewards are bestowed to those who do nothing to see to it that it is properly enforced
I can think of more but unfortunately, I have other things to attend to right now.
|
|
rosa
Full Member
Starting 5-Founding Member
Posts: 185
|
Post by rosa on Dec 14, 2008 6:31:56 GMT -7
Can you answer my question about deciding who gets a visa? Do you really want to admit all comers? Is that what is fair? You point to your personal experience with failures in the application of the law and call it a failure of the law. No that is a failure of a person. What law is it that is uniformly applied in all cases? Do you want that to be the case, or would you prefer creativity as needed in compliance, such as a judge deciding it is better to keep a family together than to return them all to their country of origin? I think or dispute is unsolveable because we have a different end game. I want the end to be for our laws to be respected and enforced fairly. You want are laws changed to benfit a specific group of people. No, I do not. Are you really assuming that our laws are enforced fairly to begin with? Re: visas--that can wait for now, but if we have room for the wealthier applicants, then why not allow the back bone of certain labor forces to stay? Our laws have always been written to favor one group over another. You seem to be comfortable with the notion of considering the merits of individual cases once they hit a courtroom, but how many never get that far? There are families that are divided, have been for a long time. Are you arguing against this now? There are patterns of abuse within implementation and enforcement that transcend generations. For you to minimize these as discrete incidents here or there is rather surprising, given that you like to do research. I know you aren't going to change your mind. But this "fairness" in applying existing law? Well, there are current disputes about just that in Ortero county. The existing law did not protect citizens from deportation because sherrif's officials looked at skin color as they demanded proof of citizenship and finding none, they rounded people up. I know, you do not like the use of specific examples, but in a couple of cases, children were "apprehended". We are familiar with the old quotas, we are familiar with the attitudes behind exclusionary clauses in enforcement here on the border. We are familiar with the traps that were set when people were encouraged to apply for amnesty, and having done so, found themselves in deportation hearings instead. Because the "fairness" in our laws (I reference my previous comments regarding "loopholes" you said you wanted to know about) which are ammended all the time----often out of deference to one group of people over others, was applied "fairly". And we are familiar with racist attitudes that persist on this border. Not too long ago, in pushing for a "better", "cleaner", more prosperous downtown area, outside consultants were paid (in part with taxpayer money that wasn't approved by the taxpayers) to come up with an assessment of where things stood in the downtown area, i.e. what needed to be changed. Part of that "study", referred to as the "Glass Beach Study" included imagery of an elderly man, clearly of Mexican hertiage, who was described in part as: "lazy", "dirty", etc. The pitch was this: "do we want this in our new downtown? Shall I go on? Or will you again challenge me on adding yet another dimension to an argument you seem to think is cut and dried? The Glass Beach Study was privately lauded by some in our business community, but once it got out to the larger communities within this city, it was condemned. If you want to argue that racist attitudes do not impact the laws themselves or the ways in which they are implemented, go right ahead. I will repeat: I can remember the levels of enforcement changing throughout my life here on this border. I remember seeing it. I grew up with it. What you claim is "moderate" is quite different in my eyes--are you suggesting that my experience as a lifelong border resident is less valid than yours? Just a question about the mentality here: when "Hold the Line" was first implemented years ago, were we being "overwhelmed" with illegal "aliens" then as we are now? Do you remember what the political context of that movement was then? I think I do. This wall is a knee-jerk response to the terrorist attacks of 2001, and it is situated on the wrong side of the border, given where the terrorists entered this country. They entered from the north, where it is STILL easier to get through. Its erection is based upon years of scapegoating and does not adequately answer the reasons those terrorists were able to get into and stay in this country. I know you feel it is a correct answer to years of abuses of our laws. But if the government had ever really been intent upon stemming the "overwhelming tide" of illegal immigration, it would have funded the wall, and erected it on both sides of the border decades ago. The examples I described aren't anomalies, they are examples of systemic problems in application of the law as meted out by individuals, but they are part of a larger problem. And if you weren't so dismissive of the perspective that I (and many lifelong residents have here), you might hear more than just the "isolated" stories here and there. People often clam up during such discussions if they see/sense this level of thought presented in what is clearly an underlying feeling of "fairness for yours but not for mine". And yet you project this on to me? I have a lot of respect for your emphasis on research. I think that history can be a great teacher as well. What I want is for us to clean up our end of things, even as we demand that others obey our laws. You know, the braceros and their descendants have yet to collect all that is owed to them by our government. Some descendants have had to take the government to court in order to force it to abide by agreements that were made with the braceros. The arguments against this predominantly Mexican group of laborers center around the issue of citizenship and entitlement too. Because there are those who argue that as non-citizens, they should have never been allowed to accrue social security, and the government in what I am certain, was fair application/implementation of all existing laws and agreements, sat on that money for decades. Collecting interest. While a large portion of the braceros, having fulfilled their end of the bargain, returned to their native country after their work was done. The government does now what it did then. It says what it says in order to achieve a desired result. What it does later by way of adhering to the agreements it made, some written into law, is an entirely different thing. I understand that you don't like my sweeping generalities, but this is just the way things look to me, more often than not. If you want us to demand that others abide by our laws, then we should lead by example by doing it ourselves. I understand that you see my arguments as a reinforcement of your own. But I don't think that you understand my perspective isn't as limited as you implied it was. Is this really because I was raised and have continued to live here? Or is it because perhaps you don't think I read enough, or that I am not aware of how different things are in other areas of the country? Is it because my "personal experiences" are so trite when compared with an adequate understanding of the law iteslf (I mean, as opposesd to the way it's enforced along the border). Or is it becaue I won't agree with the myth of equality under "the law"? Is this why you imply I have no respect for our laws? I argue that we need to improve, while you argue that our laws should be protected and respected. I argue that it is on us as much as it's on others.
|
|
|
Post by Tim Collins on Dec 14, 2008 7:38:08 GMT -7
Can you answer my question about deciding who gets a visa? Do you really want to admit all comers? Is that what is fair?
You point to your personal experience with failures in the application of the law and call it a failure of the law. No that is a failure of a person. What law is it that is uniformly applied in all cases? Do you want that to be the case, or would you prefer creativity as needed in compliance, such as a judge deciding it is better to keep a family together than to return them all to their country of origin?
I think our dispute is unsolveable because we have a different end game. I want the end to be for our laws to be respected and enforced fairly. You want are laws changed to benfit a specific group of people. No, I do not. Are you really assuming that our laws are enforced fairly to begin with?
No I am not. There will always be "unfair" decisions made under the guise of law enforcement - it is a weakness of all systems. I do assume that all laws are INTENDED, it this country at least, to provide justice in line with the beleifs upon which this country was founded.
Re: visas--that can wait for now, but if we have room for the wealthier applicants, then why not allow the back bone of certain labor forces to stay?
Because our social support system is already failing in many respects - schools, medical care, social security. Is it fair to absorb more people than our economy and support network can provide for?
Perhaps - and I do not know this to be fact - "wealthy" immigrants can aid in reviving our social support systmes by making an immediate contribution to our economy.
As to letting in the "back bone" of certain labor forces and allowing them to stay - go for it. But go for it legally. Establish work force recruiting stations at the border where workers and employers can be matched immiediately. Issue work permits on the spot, hold employers accountable for complying with our laws re workers rights. Eliminate the "in the shadows" life that now exists because a)the workers enter illegally and thus fear deportation and b) some if not many employes exploit this fear to their own gain.
Our laws have always been written to favor one group over another. You seem to be comfortable with the notion of considering the merits of individual cases once they hit a courtroom, but how many never get that far? There are families that are divided, have been for a long time. Are you arguing against this now?
Ours laws from day one have been written to favor the wealthy and to throw enough to the working class and poor to make them docile. At least that is one historical interpretation.
Cases "hit the courtroom" because people enter illegally! Make entry controlled and ordely and this problem goes away. As long as people refuse to obey the law they put themselves at risk of facing an "unfair" result from their encounter with the law.
There are families divided and have been for a long time. This has always been the case since the beginning of immigration. The first choice to divide a family is made by the immigrant. How that family reunites is greatly influenced by their later decisions and actions. Do not assume all family divisions are because of the laws that are written - it begins with a personal values choice.
There are patterns of abuse within implementation and enforcement that transcend generations. For you to minimize these as discrete incidents here or there is offensive; it reflects ignorance. Those of us who know this border know this as a part of daily life. We are familiar with the old quotas, we are familiar with the attitudes behind exclusionary clauses in enforcement here on the border. And we are familiar with racist attitudes that persist on this border even as you seem to see none.
It is not that I do not see racism - I am not ignorant. What I also see is the progress made systematically to fight this.
Exclusionary clauses based on race are wrong - they are now and they were when applied to Eastern Europeans, Chinese, Irish and whomever. They are the product of national xenophopia not rational thought.
Not too long ago, in pushing for a "better", "cleaner" downtown area, outside consultants were paid (in part with taxpayer money that wasn't approved by the taxpayers) to come up with an assessment of where things stood in the downtown area, i.e. what needed to be changed. Part of that "study", referred to as the "Glass Beach Study" included imagery of an elderly man, clearly of Mexican hertiage, who was described in part as: "lazy", "dirty", etc. The pitch was this: "do we want this in our new downtown? Shall I go on? Or will you again challenge me on adding yet another dimension to an argument you seem to think is cut and dried?
The Glass Beach Study was privately lauded by some in our business community, but once it got out, it was condemned by the larger community within this city. This city is predominantly Mexican-American.
I have read and was appalled by the "glass beach" study. And the community at large was correct to condem it - is this study a reflection of our government, or the business community?
I wish this community was more American-Mexican than Mexican-American. (not being clear here, so I will accept the big slap I see coming)
I will repeat: I can remember the levels of enforcement changing throughout my life here on this border. I remember seeing it. I grew up with it. What you claim is "moderate" is quite different in my eyes--are you suggesting that my experience as a lifelong border resident is less valid than yours?
Just a question about the mentality here: when "Hold the Line" was first implemented years ago, were we being "overwhelmed" with illegal "aliens" then as we are now?
The examples I described aren't anomalies, they are examples of systemic problems in application of the law as meted out by individuals, but they are part of a larger problem. And if you weren't so dismissive of the perspective that I (and many lifelong residents have here), you might hear more than just the "isolated" stories here and there. People often clam up during such discussions if they see/sense this level of thought presented in what is clearly an underlying feeling of "fairness for yours but not for mine". And yet you project this on to me?
Here is the "underlying feeling" We are a sovereign nation. Our laws should be respected. They should be enforced consistently and fairly. and NO ONE no matter what their nation of origin should be allowed to just ignore those laws.
How exactly would you suggesst application of our laws be monitored to make sure they are enforced fairly?
You seem to be big on applying research and history to your logic. I have a lot of respect for that. I think that history can be a great teacher What I want is for us to clean up our end of things. You know, the braceros and their descendants have yet to
I too want to clean up our end of things. I want an orderly, just and rational means to allow those "who just want to work" into the country, and be able to keep their families together. I also want to attract the best and brightest from around the world to come here and contribute their best in a free land. I also want refugees from war torn and corrupt lands to be able to come here and breathe free air. What I do not want is uncontrolled, unregulated immigration. Too many "bad Apples" will enter that flow. Hell in my mind George Soros should be sent packing.
I want Mexico to end its Government policy of encouraging migration and clean up its act too. Looking at Mexico there is no reason it is not as strong and free as the US and Canada. It has hard working, freedom loving people, it has natural resources, it has all the blessings of the US and Canada - yet it remains underdeveloped and exploitive of its citizens. We would not even be having this discussion if Mexico reached its full potential. Our current pattern of relationships with Mexico serve only to continue the status quo, and feed its corruption. You want to make things better - that is where it must start.
You know you do not have to be "Mexican-American" to see and fight racism. Some of of white guys give a crap too, and hate racism as much as you without having to be a direct victim of it.
Believe it or not I am not your enemy here. We both want the same thing
|
|
rosa
Full Member
Starting 5-Founding Member
Posts: 185
|
Post by rosa on Dec 14, 2008 7:56:43 GMT -7
but the laborers are part of the best and the brightest, wouldn't you agree?
No one should be allowed to ignore our laws. Good, this means the rich who do are out. Even as they superficially contribute to our struggling economy. This also means that those politicians who angle for them lose their seats. Because they are effectively enabling those who are breaking the law.
snil, I am not just Mexican by birth and heritage, I am white too. I am half and half. If you want too to clean up our end of things, then you need to be ready to acknowledge our part for how things have gone awry and this means understanding the racism that belies our government's claims to address these issues. This wall is a HUGE demonstration of their inability to do what they need to do: sit down, hash it out and come up with systemic and responsible changes that are readily implemented and do not penalize one group over others.
What did they do instead? They went for the extreme "answer", they didn't and don't have the money to cover the expenses, but they spend out of other budgets
rather than acknowledge, account for and ADDRESS the problems that stem from illegal immigration.
what "uncontrolled, unregulated immigration"? I refer again to the reduced numbers over the years..... the bad apples are often those who can get through, they come through the bridges and not the desert. The terrorists got through up north because it was easier. NOT ONE was of Latino descent. Where did the wall go up? The bad apples are those that can afford the illegal docs that the customs officer at the bridge misses because he/she is working a triple shift, because the government won't add to the labor force there. Costs, you know.
if you want to change our relationship with Mexico then you need to quit electing politicians who reward the government for its corruption
I am not anybody's enemy.
|
|
|
Post by Tim Collins on Dec 14, 2008 10:16:16 GMT -7
All of your arguments have some validity. However, they all deal with things that take place AFTER someone is in the country. That is a different issue not addressed by the wall.
The wall is to stem the flow, not to correct injustices after someone has violated the existing laws.
Do you see the distinction I am trying to make?
Yes people will still cross the bridges illegally, I never said the wall will end all illegal immigration. I have consistently said it will reduce it and channel it to points where additional means can apply to curtail it. Additionally I have never been one to tout its ability to stop terrorist from entering the US, that is an absurd argument for a wall.
I think it was a secret service agent discussing assassination attempts against a President who said the one assassin you cannot plan for or stop is the nut job who is willing to die in the attempt. This is the same with terrorist.
Again, this is why I started this thread asking for bullet points on opposition to the wall. As I knew would happen it turned immediately to immigration law and its failures. With or without the wall these failures would exist - that is why you can and should discuss the wall in specific. In is merely an attempt to stop/limit/hinder crossings at unmanned points. It does not change any laws on immigration
|
|
rosa
Full Member
Starting 5-Founding Member
Posts: 185
|
Post by rosa on Dec 14, 2008 15:46:18 GMT -7
the bullet points don't work unless you want to pander. I was assuming that more that a superficial context was needed to address these issues; each has definition and a history.
The wall will stem the flow. But this is a limited effect; it will not and hasn't kept out committed criminals. Those who advocated for its construction haven't answered to this. The level of divisiveness it causes isn't being adequately addressed. We've done a better job here than have most politicians who have been asked about it.
It also serves to "answer" the calls for restricted access to this country. It serves to answer the calls for protected borders. If and when criminals circumvent the wall, those calls are not answered. The border up north has no wall. Illegal immigrants come into this country from the north, albeit not in the same numbers as the do from the south. Why has no wall been built that will address the need for protection from up north?
|
|
|
Post by Tim Collins on Dec 14, 2008 16:06:46 GMT -7
The bullet point approach was only meant as a facilitation method to address each point fully before pulling together a comprehensive understanding, an organizational tool if you will. I rarely pander.
The wall will stem the flow. But this is a limited effect; it will not and hasn't kept out committed criminals.
Both points I have already conceeded, and agree with 100%. The "wall" needs to be married with increased and efficient patrol - ie technology such as UAVs, and fast response teams. The objective is to stop infiltration as quickly as possible and as near the border as possible. Channeling the crossings away from populated areas facilitates this limited goal.
Those who advocated for its construction haven't answered to this. The level of divisiveness it causes isn't being adequately addressed. We've done a better job here than have most politicians who have been asked about it.
Agree fully with both
It also serves to "answer" the calls for restricted access to this country. It serves to answer the calls for protected borders. If and when criminals circumvent the wall, those calls are not answered.
We have a reactive criminal system - a crime must be committed before the criminal justice/enforcement can take place. The calls are better able to be answered with the wall than without.
The border up north has no wall. Illegal immigrants come into this country from the north, albeit not in the same numbers as the do from the south. Why has no wall been built that will address the need for protection from up north?
A wall or some similar device should be installed up north. The big difference again is priorities. The Government of Canada is much more cooperative, and less corrupt than the Government of Mexico, so the issues will be different as will the solutions. Issues of terrain will also play a role - ie Lake front borders, heavy woods, etc. The technology and form of the barrier will need to be adjusted accordingly.
|
|
|
Post by Tim Collins on Dec 16, 2008 14:42:51 GMT -7
OK after many sleepless nights of tossing and turning as I thought about this issue, I think I have a way to clearly express my point of view on this wall.
This thread is titled "The wall is the result of Failed Immigration Policy"; my position is that the wall is a necessary first step in devising an improved immigration policy. Let me explain.
An improved immigration policy would:
1) Make immigration into our country more efficient, meaning it should not take 10 years or whatever the time frame currently to gain permission to enter the US as a resident.
2) For those entering the US with the intention of working here (economic reasons), we should have a mechanism to help them locate an employer prior to entering the country (perhaps a job match service - government run or contracted out as a franchise) in this way both the worker is protected from exploitation and the employer is protected from fines for unknowingly hiring someone not legally able to work in this country.
In the case of Mexico and Canada these offices should be located right at the border, with entrance and exit only to and from the neighbor country. There should be no fee to the immigration candidate for this service. The hiring company should pay a fee to the US Government based upon the starting salary of the hire. (I think I will leave the details to experts in the job placement industry) The function should be self funded from these fees.
3) A mechanism must be put in place to allow families to stay together (this primarily applies for unskilled workers entering from Mexico as those entering from across an ocean by air etc already face a hurdle of transport costs).
4) A mechanism must be built into the system so that immigrants entering in this fashion (or any fashion for that matter) cannot disappear. We need a tracking mechanism; not ankle bracelets, but a check in at a proscribe schedule, and employers required to report when a worker leaves their employ within 24 hours.
5) A mechanism to waive all these requirements in cases of humanitarian aid. For example true refugees such as those escaping from Darfur or other such places. ( I DO NOT think Cuba any longer classifies for the special treatment it receives.)
In closing.
I think the ideal of our country (never really achieved) being a "shining light upon a hill" or as so eloquently put by Emma Lazarus in the New Colossus, should not be forgotten and should be our goal:
The New Colossus
Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
"Keep ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
None of the above deals with those already here illegally, I have not yet thought that issue out fully.
The wall is a starting point for this if as intended it reduces the flow of illegal entry while this plan is put in place. The wall would not be necessary if we had the cooperation of the countries of origin today, but waiting on other countries to act is not a good strategy. We must control our own policies. I think we could get these countries to work with us if they suffered some penalties for non-cooperation - IE no more foreign aid, or foreign aid reduce by some estimate of the cost to us for their laxity on their borders etc. A disincentive if you will.
|
|
rosa
Full Member
Starting 5-Founding Member
Posts: 185
|
Post by rosa on Dec 17, 2008 13:59:24 GMT -7
if we had a different attitude about immigrants, we wouldn't need a wall, literal or figurative. That said, I like some of this very much....
but I still cannot conceive of this wall as a "starting point", no matter how I try
would you please expand on number four? I want to make sure I understand the whole post before I say more...
|
|
|
Post by admin1 on Dec 17, 2008 19:19:05 GMT -7
Number 4 needs explaining
|
|