Immigrants break into rental house and camp out and police do nothing.

[Ursa Majoris]

I find it interesting how you and other liberals on this board can defend big government programs with no Constitutional basis, yet really don't care if the federal government does it's constitutional responsibility, but rather shirk it off on the states and businesses.

See my post above, featuring the government doing what it's supposed to. Let's try this a different way:

 

In illegal immigration, there is fixing the existing problem (deportation) and there is addressing the forthcoming problem (drying up demand). Seems to me that the deportation piece is proceeding apace but the problem gets bigger because demand won't stop. None of that demand is generated by the Federal Government.

[Perchoutofwater]

387,000 actual deportations in Obama's first year. 32,000 in jail awaiting deportation any given day. Not too shabby.

 

It is a good start but the federal government should be doing much much more. That represents only about 4% of the problem, and unfortunately unless we start really fining businesses, deporting illegals where we find them, and stop providing services to illegals, the vast majority of those that Obama has deported will be back within a year. We need to repeal the 1965 legislation. We need to strengthen our border presence, we need to make the environment less desirable for illegals.

[Perchoutofwater]

See my post above, featuring the government doing what it's supposed to. Let's try this a different way:

 

In illegal immigration, there is fixing the existing problem (deportation) and there is addressing the forthcoming problem (drying up demand). Seems to me that the deportation piece is proceeding apace but the problem gets bigger because demand won't stop. None of that demand is generated by the Federal Government.

 

On the contrary, illegals are willing to work for less because they get education for their children and free health care and other welfare programs. If you start denying illegals these programs, illegal immigration would be a lot less inviting, and those that came would want more compensation making them less attractive to unscrupulous businesses. Also fine the living $hit out of businesses and demand will dry up. Sure some businesses are to blame you haven't heard me deny that at all, but the welfare programs along with the governments lack of enforcement both in deportation as well as in dealing with businesses have just as much to do with it.

[bpwallace49]

I said they can only do so much. States can not deport. States can not refuse to educate or provide medical services.

 

Yes they can start tightening down on businesses, and Texas has. All public contracts require the contractor / vendor to provide background checks on all employees that will work on that contract. Part of the background check does check immigration status. This is somewhat of a pilot program that will eventually be extended to all business. My state representative and my state senator were both supporters of this state legislation.

 

The state is dragging it's feet somewhat because it actually expects the federal government to do it's job. All business are supposed to turn in I9 forms to the federal government. I have talked to my representative about making businesses copy the state with these forms. I know that not only do we require I9s on all of our employees, but we require our trade contractors to supply I9's on all their employees that will be working on our sites. So in a way some businesses are starting to trying keep the others clean too. Sure the state could do more, and they are taking steps in that direction, but that doesn't relieve the federal government of it's responsibility. You say you find it interesting how I can rail against big government programs but want the government to get involved with this. I find it interesting how you and other liberals on this board can defend big government programs with no Constitutional basis, yet really don't care if the federal government does it's constitutional responsibility, but rather shirk it off on the states and businesses.

 

Not shirking at all Perch . . . but actually doing something in the interim until your fleets of deportation commandos are ready to deploy.

 

If there is no incentive to hire illegals, then illegals WONT stay in a particular area. They will leave to find jobs elsewhere. Your concern about education and health care is very valid, but ignores the fact that without JOBS then they wont stay to GET eductaion and health services. THAT is on the onus of the state to impose fines and step up regulation. But to cry about the federal gubmnet while using that as an excuse to get something done on a local level is absurd. Why wait? Why not start by passing HUGE fines for hiring illegals? That is ALLL state-based. Has Texas done so(or any state for that matter?)?

 

You seem to strictly focus on the issue of deportation and building barries to prevent immigration, which is good. But then you ignore/absolve the role of your state and businesses to start enacting penalties for implicitly allowing the culture of hiring illegal immigrants to continue. I think that both things need to be done to address the problem.

[Perchoutofwater]

You seem to strictly focus on the issue of deportation and building barries to prevent immigration, which is good. But then you ignore/absolve the role of your state and businesses to start enacting penalties for implicitly allowing the culture of hiring illegal immigrants to continue. I think that both things need to be done to address the problem.

 

What part of fine the $hit out of them do you not understand? It would be so easy for the federal government to do it's constitutionally mandated job if only they would do it. The money saved by not providing services to illegals would more than make up for the additional enforcement officers, the fines would end up making the federal government money, something it could use with the deficits our fearless leader keeps amassing.

 

Yes I'd like my state to do more, but at least it has started to do something, even if it is baby steps. What is sad is that the states have to do anything, when it is the federal government's job, and the federal government could make money doing the right thing if they had the political will to do so. I'm still not sure if the states actually fine you for breaking federal law, I'll defer to the lawyers on that. If they can I'd be all for it.

Edited April 6, 2010 by Perchoutofwater

[The Wolf]

On the contrary, illegals are willing to work for less because they get education for their children and free health care and other welfare programs. If you start denying illegals these programs, illegal immigration would be a lot less inviting, and those that came would want more compensation making them less attractive to unscrupulous businesses. Also fine the living $hit out of businesses and demand will dry up. Sure some businesses are to blame you haven't heard me deny that at all, but the welfare programs along with the governments lack of enforcement both in deportation as well as in dealing with businesses have just as much to do with it.

 

Perch gets my vote for office.

[bpwallace49]

What part of fine the $hit out of them do you not understand? It would be so easy for the federal government to do it's constitutionally mandated job if only they would do it. The money saved by not providing services to illegals would more than make up for the additional enforcement officers, the fines would end up making the federal government money, something it could use with the deficits our fearless leader keeps amassing.

 

Yes I'd like my state to do more, but at least it has started to do something, even if it is baby steps. What is sad is that the states have to do anything, when it is the federal government's job, and the federal government could make money doing the right thing if they had the political will to do so. I'm still not sure if the states actually fine you for breaking federal law, I'll defer to the lawyers on that. If they can I'd be all for it.

 

The part where I was writing this post and you happened to post right before me and I never got to read your post?

 

Settle down Francis . . . .

 

Hell Perch I am all for getting the hell out of the needless war in Iraq and stationing the troops on the border to repel new illegals . . . but all your original finger pointing posts in the beginning of this thread seemed to avoid placing any responsibilities on the states to do their part to avoid making a comfortable situation for illegals to stay in. Make it UNcomfortable by denying them work opportunites, and the flood of illegals coming in will slow to a trickle . .

[SayItAintSoJoe]

What part of fine the $hit out of them do you not understand? It would be so easy for the federal government to do it's constitutionally mandated job if only they would do it. The money saved by not providing services to illegals would more than make up for the additional enforcement officers, the fines would end up making the federal government money, something it could use with the deficits our fearless leader keeps amassing.

 

Yes I'd like my state to do more, but at least it has started to do something, even if it is baby steps. What is sad is that the states have to do anything, when it is the federal government's job, and the federal government could make money doing the right thing if they had the political will to do so. I'm still not sure if the states actually fine you for breaking federal law, I'll defer to the lawyers on that. If they can I'd be all for it.

 

I just believe it's a tough issue and everything is not so black and white. There are a lot of grey areas.

 

I think that a police officer should be able to check whether or not someone they pull over for a traffic violation is here illegally. But if I start getting pulled over 5 times a month for "traffic" violations when prior to the new law I hadn't been pulled over in years I may think there is some profiling going on.

 

I also believe that we should check if people are here legally at hospitals when they go in for health services. But if all of a sudden a bunch of babies start dying because the mothers that are here illegally are going into labor at home because they are afraid to go to the hospital for fear of being deported, I would probably change my mind about that policy as well.

[Perchoutofwater]

The part where I was writing this post and you happened to post right before me and I never got to read your post?

 

Settle down Francis . . . .

 

Hell Perch I am all for getting the hell out of the needless war in Iraq and stationing the troops on the border to repel new illegals . . . but all your original finger pointing posts in the beginning of this thread seemed to avoid placing any responsibilities on the states to do their part to avoid making a comfortable situation for illegals to stay in. Make it UNcomfortable by denying them work opportunites, and the flood of illegals coming in will slow to a trickle . .

 

Again I'm not sure if the states can legally do what you are saying they should do. If they can then on all for it. I have to think that their hands are somewhat tied based on several facts. First I know my uncle who is a cop was told by ins to let an illegal go when he tried to tern him over. Second I know illegals cost Texas $4.7 billion a year in services and an estimated $1billion in sales tax. Maybe yo mamma can chime in as I think this touches on his area of expertise. Still the states shouldn't have to do what the Constitution says the federal government is to do. I wouldn't mind seeing Texas and California Sue the federal government for what illegals are costing them.

[Perchoutofwater]

Arizona Clears Strict Immigration Bill

 

By MIRIAM JORDAN

 

Arizona lawmakers on Tuesday passed one of the toughest pieces of immigration-enforcement legislation in the country, which would make it a violation of state law to be in the U.S. without proper documentation.

 

It would also grant police the power to stop and verify the immigration status of anyone they suspect of being illegal.

 

The bill could still face a veto from Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer. A spokesman for Ms. Brewer said she has not publicly commented on the bill. Ms. Brewer, a Republican, has argued for stringent immigration laws.

 

Under the measure, passed Tuesday by Arizona's lower house, after being passed earlier by the state Senate, foreign nationals are required to carry proof of legal residency.

 

Immigrants' rights groups roundly criticized the bill. "The objective is to make life miserable for immigrants so that they leave the state," said Chris Newman, general counsel for the Los Angeles-based National Day Laborer Organizing Network. "The bill constitutes a complete disregard for the rights of nonwhites in Arizona. It effectively mandates racial profiling."

 

The bill's author, State Sen. Russell Pearce, was in a committee session Tuesday and couldn't be reached, his offices said. Mr. Pearce, a Republican, represents the city of Mesa, in Maricopa County, whose sheriff, Joe Arpaio, has gained a national reputation for his tough stance on immigration enforcement. A spokesman for Mr. Arpaio didn't return a request for comment.

 

The bill is different from an earlier version, giving protections for church and community organizations from criminal prosecution for transporting or harboring illegal immigrants.

 

In a statement, Tuesday Rep. John Kavanagh (R-Fountain Hills) called the measure "a comprehensive immigration enforcement bill that addresses the concerns of our communities, constituents and colleagues."

 

"This updated version gives our local police officers the tools they need to combat illegal immigration, while protecting the civil rights of citizens and legal residents."However, human rights groups are certain to challenge the measure in court, said Joe Rubio, lead organizer for Valley Interfaith Project, a Phoenix-based advocacy group, calling it "an economic train wreck." He added that "Arizona's economic recovery will lag way behind the country's if we keep chasing away our workforce. Where do the legislators think business will find workers?"

 

The bill in some ways toughens up a situation that the Obama administration had tried to roll back. Under a program known as 287g, some local law enforcement agencies were trained to enforce federal immigration laws by checking suspects' immigration status.

 

Mr. Arpaio, the Maricopa county sheriff, had been one of the most aggressive enforcers of 287g. However, the Obama administration in recent months has sought to scale back that program, and had reduced the resources it made available to Mr. Arpaio's office and others.

 

 

States can't deport illegal, so they are left with only being able to confine them. The federal government is supposed to reimburse the state governments for doing their job, but in many cases the federal government does not do so, increasing the financial strain on the states.

[SayItAintSoJoe]

I used to live in Arizona. There are a lot of Native Americans there. Many of them could be mistaken for being Mexican. How ironic it will be when they start getting pulled over for suspicion of being here illegally.

[SEC=UGA]

I used to live in Arizona. There are a lot of Native Americans there. Many of them could be mistaken for being Mexican. How ironic it will be when they start getting pulled over for suspicion of being here illegally.

 

They are already being pulled over enough for suspicion of DUI, I'm sure they check their immigration status at the same time.

[Caveman_Nick]

Sehen sie papiere, bitte?

[bpwallace49]

 

States can't deport illegal, so they are left with only being able to confine them. The federal government is supposed to reimburse the state governments for doing their job, but in many cases the federal government does not do so, increasing the financial strain on the states.

 

Good for Arizona! Now if only cash-rich Texas had the balls to do the same thing . . . "thinking:

[Perchoutofwater]

Good for Arizona! Now if only cash-rich Texas had the balls to do the same thing . . . "thinking:

 

I agree it is a good move, the problem is the states then have to pay to jail them, because once again the federal government fails to protect our borders as it is constitutionally mandated to do. Didn't Arizona and Texas sue the federal government back in the early 90's to get money for jailing illegal immigrants? It is about to be time to do so again.

[SEC=UGA]

I agree it is a good move, the problem is the states then have to pay to jail them, because once again the federal government fails to protect our borders as it is constitutionally mandated to do. Didn't Arizona and Texas sue the federal government back in the early 90's to get money for jailing illegal immigrants? It is about to be time to do so again.

 

Here in metro ATL, Gwinnet County and Cobb are facing serious budget problems and jail capacity issues because they are holding a very large number of Hispanic illegals in their jails. There is also qute an uproar from local rights groups about this practice.

 

http://news.newamericamedia.org/news/view_...64bde02e107f3ee

 

http://www.alipac.us/article-print-4936.html

 

http://www.gwinnettdailypost.com/home/head...s/81081777.html

 

http://georgiadefenderblog.com/2009/07/13/...ty-deport-this/

Edited April 14, 2010 by SEC=UGA

[westvirginia]

Here in metro ATL, Gwinnet County and Cobb are facing serious budget problems and jail capacity issues because they are holding a very large number of Hispanic illegals in their jails. There is also qute an uproar from local rights groups about this practice.

 

http://news.newamericamedia.org/news/view_...64bde02e107f3ee

 

http://www.alipac.us/article-print-4936.html

 

http://www.gwinnettdailypost.com/home/head...s/81081777.html

 

http://georgiadefenderblog.com/2009/07/13/...ty-deport-this/

 

I'd be willing to bet it's even happening up here in Hall too.

[bpwallace49]

I agree it is a good move, the problem is the states then have to pay to jail them, because once again the federal government fails to protect our borders as it is constitutionally mandated to do. Didn't Arizona and Texas sue the federal government back in the early 90's to get money for jailing illegal immigrants? It is about to be time to do so again.

 

Perch . . . then why dont the business of Texas stop HIRING illegals and make it very punitive to do so? States can levy almost any fine they want to businesses that deal in their state, so why dont states that have huge problems with illegals start going after the SOURCE of them coming here? If it becomes too expensive to hire an illegal, then they would have no income or incentive to come here. You have valid points about education, but I am pretttty sure that not having food/shelter would trump elementary school . .

 

No jailing needed, and you could make a boatload of money for gubmnet programs (or a fund for a big wall) from the fines.

[SEC=UGA]

I'd be willing to bet it's even happening up here in Hall too.

 

Go to any chikcen farm and you'll see em out there. I'm not quite sure of the impact on Hall, it hasn't been as publicized. I alos think part of the issue with Hall is that, it being a bit more agrarian in it's totality, that the community and government is a bit more lenient as these illegals are a major part of the workforce (and are actually working). Not quite as much the case in Gwinnett and Cobb. There is a large component in C and G that are very intrenched in illegal activity, Gwinnett has become a major distribution point for Central/South American and Mexican Cartels.

[Perchoutofwater]

Perch . . . then why dont the business of Texas stop HIRING illegals and make it very punitive to do so? States can levy almost any fine they want to businesses that deal in their state, so why dont states that have huge problems with illegals start going after the SOURCE of them coming here? If it becomes too expensive to hire an illegal, then they would have no income or incentive to come here. You have valid points about education, but I am pretttty sure that not having food/shelter would trump elementary school . .

 

No jailing needed, and you could make a boatload of money for gubmnet programs (or a fund for a big wall) from the fines.

 

I don't know how many times I can say that I'm all for what you suggest, I'm just also for the federal government doing what it is mandated to do as well, instead of sending my tax dollars to Africa, repairing a city built below sea level, funding the so-called arts, and a myriad of other things that are in no way constitutionally mandated to do.

Edited April 14, 2010 by Perchoutofwater

[Gopher]

You want to have a conversation...... I live about 70 miles off the Mexican border and I don't care how many troops/Border Patrol, Minutemen, etc... you put out there, you can't stop the flow. You can build walls a mile high, a mile thick, and electrify it. Not going to stop them from coming across.

 

What most people don't understand because they don't live close to the action, is that there is a lot of people dying out in the Desert trying to get into this country, so do you really think we can scare them... Not going to happen. There is only 2 ways to stop this

 

1. Mexico needs to clean itself up and take care of it's own. And lets face it, that is not going to happen. Hell it's practically a failed state. Mexico relys on the income that comes from their citizens working in the US, that's why they don't enforce border security from their side. That's why the last time I drove thru LA (I hate that) I heard PSAs on the radio paid for by the Mexican Government telling mothers how to take care of their children, etc.. . Along with recruitment ads for the Mexican Navy (they have a Navy?). People are willing to risk death for minimum wage. That says everything you need to know about the Mexican Government.

 

 

2. Destroy the incentive, and that's jobs. Put some teeth into the existing employment laws, and then use all that surplus manpower that use to patrol the border to enforce them. If a business is hiring illegals, take away their business license for a year. You start to seriously shutdown businesses and businesses will stop hiring illegals. And once the jobs dry up, then and only then will you see a reduction in illegal immigration. But to make this work our government needs to provide a fast and efficient way to verify citizenship, to be able to screen SSNs, and provide proof that the local business is following the rules. And if someone sneaks thru, then blame the system not the business.

 

I like the 2nd option..... But my guess is it would piss off way to many groups..... Mexican-American groups, Civil-rights groups, more the half of the South and Central American governments, along with the Mexico... It's a large part of their economy, and it would force them to actually do something for there people, and I would imagine it would really piss off business owners....

 

There, rant over..... move along, nothing more to see here.....

+1

 

If I leave an opened soda can on my kitchen counter overnight, there will be hundreds of ants all over the can, as well as a trail of them from the can to the wall, in the morning. To fix the problem, do I worry about how they are getting in through the wall, or just remove the can? Controlling illegal immigration through border patrol is just as IMPOSSIBLE as trying to keep ants from having access to my home... it can not be done.

 

I have no problem with immigrants coming to the USA... as long as they're "chipping in" just as much as they're taking out. The problem we have, especially in California, is that illegal immigration runs so rampant that the people who are breaking the laws don't even look at it that way... To them, it's a way of life. Why try to become a legal resident of this country, when you have so much more to gain by just working illegally, with no tax ramifications? So, essentially, they're adding nothing to the pot through taxes, but still taking just as much OUT of the pot, through medical care, education, etc. There is WAY more being taken out, as a whole, than what is going in, and putting troops, walls, land mines, or whatever at the border isn't going to change that.

 

Even if we WERE able to "secure" our border with Mexico on land, there is no way we would be able to keep them from coming into the U.S. on water. I went on a 12-hour fishing trip, deep into Mexican waters, last week, and I can say with absolute certainty that our boat could have held 50 illegal immigrants on it, and nobody would have known the difference. There are dozens of boats, just like the 60 x 20 fishing boat we were on, that pass in/out of Mexican waters all day long, 365 days a year. I'm sure the coast guard does random checks or whatever, but my point is that it seems far more feasible to remove the incentive for illegal immigration, than to restrict the means of illegal immigration to the point where they simply can not get in. Neither task is an easy one, but going back to my "ants in the kitchen" analogy, one makes sense, while the other is absurd.

 

Make things very uncomfortable for business owners who hire illegal immigrants, and the amount of illegals will start to decline. Once it gets to the point where there is no longer a great incentive for them to move here (which will take time), the amount going into the pot will start to balance with what is coming out. That's not going to happen overnight, but it's somewhere to start. Makes a whole lot more sense than staring at my kitchen wall and counter, trying to figure out where the ants are coming from.

[SayItAintSoJoe]

If I leave an opened soda can on my kitchen counter overnight, there will be hundreds of ants all over the can, as well as a trail of them from the can to the wall, in the morning. To fix the problem, do I worry about how they are getting in through the wall, or just remove the can? Controlling illegal immigration through border patrol is just as IMPOSSIBLE as trying to keep ants from having access to my home... it can not be done.

 

Really? Then hell yeah you need to worry about how they're getting in through the wall.

[Gopher]

Really? Then hell yeah you need to worry about how they're getting in through the wall.

I could do the same thing for the next 100 days in a row, and seal the crack that I see them coming through, each and every morning. They would still find a way in, if I leave something, containing sugar, open or unsealed. Never had that problem when I lived in the Midwest, but in CA, I've had the same problem in multiple homes. Everything containing any amount of sugar goes in an airtight container (ziplock bag or tupperware, usually)... even things like cereal. If not, the ants will get to it, one way or another. I've noticed that it's particularly bad in the summer (dry) months... not as bad when there is more moisture outside.

 

You also have to keep in mind that the ants I'm talking about are the tiny red ones... not fire ants, like you see in the South (the ones that BITE), but just the pesky little red ones. More of an annoyance than anything else, but they're so small that they can get through the smallest of cracks/gaps... typically they come in through creases in cupboards, window sills, sliding glass door "gaps", etc. It's not like I live in a house with cracks all over the place... these ants are just very "efficient" at getting into homes.

[SayItAintSoJoe]

I could do the same thing for the next 100 days in a row, and seal the crack that I see them coming through, each and every morning. They would still find a way in, if I leave something, containing sugar, open or unsealed. Never had that problem when I lived in the Midwest, but in CA, I've had the same problem in multiple homes. Everything containing any amount of sugar goes in an airtight container (ziplock bag or tupperware, usually)... even things like cereal. If not, the ants will get to it, one way or another. I've noticed that it's particularly bad in the summer (dry) months... not as bad when there is more moisture outside.

 

You also have to keep in mind that the ants I'm talking about are the tiny red ones... not fire ants, like you see in the South (the ones that BITE), but just the pesky little red ones. More of an annoyance than anything else, but they're so small that they can get through the smallest of cracks/gaps... typically they come in through creases in cupboards, window sills, sliding glass door "gaps", etc. It's not like I live in a house with cracks all over the place... these ants are just very "efficient" at getting into homes.

 

Oh, I see. I never lived in CA. That sounds like a pain to deal with but what area of the country doesn't have something that causes homeowners headaches.

Edited April 15, 2010 by SayItAintSoJoe

[Gopher]

Oh, I see. I never lived in CA. That sounds like a pain to deal with but what area of the country doesn't have something that causes homeowners headaches.

Yep... When I first moved to CA, I was amazed/shocked to see how many people would just leave windows and sliding doors open in the evening, with no screen. In Minnesota, where I grew up, if we did that (especially at night), we would be eaten alive by mosquitoes.

 

Different areas have different insects that are a pain, I guess. Then there is the South, that seems to have every species of bug, known to mankind, except they're twice the normal size.