If we secure the border, you will have no reason to vote for immigration reform

[rattsass]

yea it is so hard to imagine they actually might be telling the truth. McCain has been shown to be such a liar. I remember when he said he went to the church of rev wright for 20 freaking years and did not know he was such a radical american hater. That was so funny McCain said that. ...or when McCain said this...talking to the AFL/CIO:“I happen to be a proponent of single-payer universal healthcare coverage. That’s what I’d like to see.”In January, 2008, Obama claimed in a nationally televised debate:”I never said that we should try to go ahead and get single-payer.”...or this....

 

On the January 22nd edition of “Meet the Press,” Tim Russert and Obama had the following exchange:Russert: “When we talked back in November of ‘04 after your election, I said, ‘There’s been enormous speculation about your political future. Will you serve your six-year term as United States senator from Illinois?’”Obama: “I will serve out my full six-year term. You know, Tim, if you get asked enough, sooner or later you get weary and you start looking for new ways of saying things. But my thinking has not changed.”Russert: “So you will not run for president or vice president in 2008?”Obama: “I will not.”.....or this

 

"The vast majority of the money I got was from small donors all across the country.'' ,,,or this

 

"We've excluded lobbyists from policymaking jobs."...or this

 

Health reform will "give every American the same opportunity" to buy health insurance the way members of Congress do.

 

or this..."As president, Barack Obama will close the detention facility at Guantanamo."

 

I can understand why you trust the messiah so much. He does not lie like McCain.

Oh sure, just because he mis-spoke a few times before, you make him out to be some kind of liar. And anyway Bush caused all this. So there.

[bpwallace49]

can someone please point me to the "comprehensive immigration reform" plan that doesn't include some form of amnesty? TIA.

 

Az does "comphrensive immigration reform" AUTOMATICALLY mean amnesty? I havent seen any comprehensive immigration plans, so I am really asking you here . . .

[westvirginia]

Comprehensive plan? I don't know...it seems pretty simple to me. There is a border...let's call it a line in the sand. [bush] You are either on their side or our side. [/bush]

 

This. Whether the "comprehensive plan" includes amnesty or not, you folks do realize your arguing that the chief law enforcement officer in the land shouldn't be enforcing the law, right?

[TimC]

This. Whether the "comprehensive plan" includes amnesty or not, you folks do realize your arguing that the chief law enforcement officer in the land shouldn't be enforcing the law, right?

 

If there is any law in this land that is more cut and dry than illegal immigration, I'd like to hear it. You are either illegal (on our side of the border) or not (on the outside looking in). There is no grey area. Well, unless you're straddling the line sticking your tongue out, I guess....

[rattsass]

This. Whether the "comprehensive plan" includes amnesty or not, you folks do realize your arguing that the chief law enforcement officer in the land shouldn't be enforcing the law, right?

I've got no problem with that. Whatever he thinks is probably best for us.

[Azazello1313]

Az does "comphrensive immigration reform" AUTOMATICALLY mean amnesty? I havent seen any comprehensive immigration plans, so I am really asking you here . . .

 

as far as I can tell, any time someone uses those words, they are contemplating some sort of amnesty (or "path to citizenship" or whatever buzzwords people try to use in place of "amnesty"). certainly that is the case when anyone in the current white house uses them. if I am wrong about that, it should be pretty easy to prove.

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

can someone please point me to the "comprehensive immigration reform" plan that doesn't include some form of amnesty? TIA.

 

Can someone point me to a realistic plan that doesn't?

[bpwallace49]

as far as I can tell, any time someone uses those words, they are contemplating some sort of amnesty (or "path to citizenship" or whatever buzzwords people try to use in place of "amnesty"). certainly that is the case when anyone in the current white house uses them. if I am wrong about that, it should be pretty easy to prove.

 

Az, you are making the jump to immediate amnesty? While that may very well be proposed, it is by no means a "lock" or guarantee like you allude to. Here is a good article on the border . . . the first bolded part is very telling, and contradicts delaying a decision so "everything can be addressed", but it sure sounds like more action is being taken NOW to secure our borders than ever before . . .

 

anyone disagree with the progress on border control that has been done in the last few years?

 

I also like the question in the article that askes "what is defined as a secure border"? Something that hasnt been done by either party yet . .

 

US-Mexico Border Actually More Fortified Now Than 5 Years Ago: AP Spin Meter

 

— You wouldn't know it from the public debate, but the U.S.-Mexico border is more fortified now than it was even five years ago. Far more agents patrol it, more fences, barriers and technology protect it and taxpayers are spending billions more to reinforce it.

 

Despite those efforts, calls for increased border security are elbowing out cries for an overhaul of U.S. immigration laws and inducing Congress and the administration to spend even more money on border enforcement.

 

Securing the border remains the prerequisite for any other immigration reforms. That leaves on hold any decision on whether border security might be improved by forcing illegal immigrants to come forward, get background checks and comply with other rules in exchange for legal status. Also pushed aside is any consideration of whether more visas for temporary foreign workers would reduce illegal immigration and make better use of law enforcement resources.

 

"Once we get the border secured, then we can support a lot of things," Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., said earlier this month. "Until then, it's going to be very difficult."

 

That sentiment is shared by both Democrats and Republicans this election year.

 

But border security is in the eye of the beholder. There's no agreed-on definition of what constitutes a secure border and no budget for how much more to spend to achieve it.

 

Is it when the entire southern border of nearly 2,000 miles is fenced, or double-fenced? Is it when illegal immigration arrests are at zero or close to it? Is it when everyone who crosses the border can be identified? Is it when Army troops are sent to the border, as they were after Mexican revolutionary Pancho Villa raided a New Mexico border town in 1916, or when the number of Border Patrol agents has quintupled?

 

The White House will lay out plans for more border reinforcements when administration officials meet with Gov. Jan Brewer in Arizona June 28.

 

President Barack Obama already has called for 1,200 National Guard troops in support roles, along with at least another $500 million in spending on border security. For President George W. Bush, the number of Guard troops was 6,000. A Texas congressman has said no fewer than about 25,000 will do the job.

 

"One of the questions I think we need to talk about is whether securing the border is ever going to be reached ... in the sense of the Congress," Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano told members of a Senate committee at a hearing in April, "or whether that goal post is just going to keep moving."

 

The rush to secure the border has gone awry at times. Amid similar demands for ramped-up security in 2006, Congress contracted with Boeing Co. for an electronic "virtual fence." A sweeping immigration overhaul bill was stalled in Congress at the time.

 

The fence of cameras, radar and other technology has been plagued with problems and delays. It has cost at least $15 million for 53 miles of electronic barrier.

 

Some border security that has been achieved in recent years:

 

_ The number of Border Patrol agents has doubled to more than 20,000 since 2003, with most of those agents stationed at the U.S.-Mexico border. The Border Patrol's budget has grown from $1 billion in the 2000 fiscal year to a requested $3.58 billion for 2011, according to the Congressional Research Service.

 

_ The combined budgets of two agencies – Customs and Border Protection and Immigration and Customs Enforcement – total about $17 billion after steady increases in funding in recent years.

 

_ The U.S. has erected about 510 miles of fences and vehicle barriers on the nearly 2,000-mile southern border since 2006, adding to about 137 existing miles of fences and barriers built in previous years.

 

_ Americans returning from Mexico and Canada now must show passports to cross the border and enter the U.S., under rules that took effect last summer.

 

Obama's administration has moved immigration investigators to the border and begun inspecting southbound train cargo to help stem cash and weapons flowing to Mexican drug cartels.

"I think people simply don't understand how much has been done in recent years, particularly over the last five or six years, but somewhat going back into the mid-'90s," said Edward Alden, author of "The Closing of the American Border."

 

That's a result of the demand for increased border security, but Border Patrol Chief Michael Fisher said border security isn't an all-or-nothing proposition. At a recent hearing, he said the border and threats on it are dynamic and security must be, too. A portion of the border could have high levels of security, including fencing, but then face new threats from people using tunnels or ultralight planes to cross illegally, Fisher said.

 

So far, border security has been addressed incrementally.

 

A compromise between those who want eased immigration and those advocating security first could mean trade-offs that benefit both sides. For example, employers might be persuaded to check the legal status of their employees in exchange for a visa program that ensures they have a stable work force.

 

While improving border security persists as the priority, the population of undocumented immigrants in the U.S. remains unidentified and unknown

[Azazello1313]

Can someone point me to a realistic plan that doesn't?

 

hey, I agree with you. at some point, you have to deal with the fact that there are however many millions of illegal immigrants here and you just can't realistically deport them all. I agree with that. the question was, "does 'comprehensive immigration reform' necessarily mean amnesty", and my answer was, "as far as I can tell, yes".

 

again, can anyone point me to the "comprehensive immigration reform" plan that doesn't include some form of amnesty?

 

didn't think so.

 

so the question really is, do you work hard to secure the border first, then deal with all of that stuff once you feel like you've got it somewhat under control? or do you wait to better secure the border until that security is part of a larger plan that includes amnesty? the argument for doing the former is that if you create a plan for a "path to legalization" while the border is not yet secure, you open the door for a flood of people to coming in before it's secure in order to take advantage of the amnesty -- you basically leave a backdoor to citizenship gaping wide open. I'm honestly not sure what the argument is for creating a plan for amnesty and a plan to secure the border simultaneously. unless somehow they view that gaping back door as more of a blessing than a curse.

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

hey, I agree with you. at some point, you have to deal with the fact that there are however many millions of illegal immigrants here and you just can't realistically deport them all. I agree with that. the question was, "does 'comprehensive immigration reform' necessarily mean amnesty", and my answer was, "as far as I can tell, yes".

 

again, can anyone point me to the "comprehensive immigration reform" plan that doesn't include some form of amnesty?

 

didn't think so.

 

so the question really is, do you work hard to secure the border first, then deal with all of that stuff once you feel like you've got it somewhat under control? or do you wait to better secure the border until that security is part of a larger plan that includes amnesty? the argument for doing the former is that if you create a plan for a "path to legalization" while the border is not yet secure, you open the door for a flood of people to coming in before it's secure in order to take advantage of the amnesty -- you basically leave a backdoor to citizenship gaping wide open. I'm honestly not sure what the argument is for creating a plan for amnesty and a plan to secure the border simultaneously. unless somehow they view that gaping back door as more of a blessing than a curse.

 

I'd guess some that rely on that cheap labor do. But back to your point, I absolutely think we need to secure the border right now.

[Azazello1313]

I'd guess some that rely on that cheap labor do.

 

as do some who would love to get all those new votes!

 

But back to your point, I absolutely think we need to secure the border right now.

 

so you agree with kyl and mccain

Edited June 23, 2010 by Azazello1313

[untateve]

Yep, Shrub's unwillingness to man up on the board and Medicare D are the two things that I am most critical of during his time as President. Unfortunately Obama has basically done the same only 10 times worse.

 

Really? I'm most critical of him spearheading the war in Iraq that has cost the US thousands of lives and billions of dollars.

[bpwallace49]

as do some who would love to get all those new votes!

 

 

 

so you agree with kyl and mccain

 

Did you read the article I posted? No? Pity . . .

[Azazello1313]

Did you read the article I posted? No? Pity . . .

 

I did read your article, twit. the one that argues,

Securing the border remains the prerequisite for any other immigration reforms. That leaves on hold any decision on whether border security might be improved by forcing illegal immigrants to come forward, get background checks and comply with other rules in exchange for legal status.

which happens NOT to be the policy of the obama administration, as they think and have said point blank that they do NOT think securing the border is a "prerequisite" that leaves "on-hold" the question of amnesty. they have made it abundantly clear that their position is the exact opposite, "comprehensive immigration reform" is the prerequisite which keeps securing the border on hold. which is what prompted these comments by kyl in the first place. cripes, did YOU read your article?

 

or was your argument that the border is now secure, since we have twice as many border agents as we did in 2003? because that's even dumber.

[bpwallace49]

I did read your article, twit. the one that argues,

 

which happens NOT to be the policy of the obama administration, as they think and have said point blank that they do NOT think securing the border is a "prerequisite" that leaves "on-hold" the question of amnesty. they have made it abundantly clear that their position is the exact opposite, "comprehensive immigration reform" is the prerequisite which keeps securing the border on hold. which is what prompted these comments by kyl in the first place. cripes, did YOU read your article?

 

or was your argument that the border is now secure, since we have twice as many border agents as we did in 2003? because that's even dumber.

 

Then you really are NOT that bright cause the article asks what the definition of a secure border is, and then specifically points out that the border has never been more secure than it is now. It is SHOWING that there has been and continues to be progress in border security . . well before amnesty is brought up. If there isnt a agreed-upon definition of what a secure border is, then it cant be done, and then other questions like visas cant be addressed.

 

Az, what is the definition of a secured border? A Berlin wall? Land mines? Armed sentries every 100 yards? Doesnt THAT question need to be answered so that it can be achieved?

 

Or are you just reading the parts that you like and ignoring the rest?

 

As always, I patiently await the proposal from either party that actually defines a "secure border" and the resulting plans to fund it and achieve it.

Edited June 23, 2010 by bpwallace49

[rattsass]

As always, I patiently await the proposal from either party that actually defines a "secure border" and the resulting plans to fund it and achieve it.

Well, if we are truly fighting a war on terror, we should protect our most vulnerable border as though it were a war-zone. If we are not really fighting a war on terror we should continue at the same level as now. Wait a minute, I need to phone a friend to Obama before I make that my final answer.

[bpwallace49]

Well, if we are truly fighting a war on terror, we should protect our most vulnerable border as though it were a war-zone. If we are not really fighting a war on terror we should continue at the same level as now.

 

rattsass . . what is our most vulnerable border?

[Azazello1313]

Then you really are NOT that bright cause the article asks what the definition of a secure border is, and then specifically points out that the border has never been more secure than it is now. It is SHOWING that there has been and continues to be progress in border security . . well before amnesty is brought up. If there isnt a agreed-upon definition of what a secure border is, then it cant be done, and then other questions like visas cant be addressed.

 

Az, what is the definition of a secured border? A Berlin wall? Land mines? Armed sentries every 100 yards? Doesnt THAT question need to be answered so that it can be achieved?

 

Or are you just reading the parts that you like and ignoring the rest?

 

As always, I patiently await the proposal from either party that actually defines a "secure border" and the resulting plans to fund it and achieve it.

 

look, however "secure" the border is, I am pretty sure there is broad consensus that it is not secure enough. people are coming and going, more or less as they please. have their been some improvements? yeah, the fences, the increase in the number of agents, it's had some impact. but again, everyone this side of la raza agrees, the border is NOT secure enough, not even close. so your contrived furrowing over just how secure is "secure" is a complete red herring in this context. because, bottom line, a (much) more secure border than we have currently is needed.

 

the only question is, do we do that first and figure out what to do about everyone that's here once we feel like we've got control over the border? or do we come up with the assimilation/amnesty/citizenship plan first, and then figure out how to better secure the border?

[bpwallace49]

the only question is, do we do that first and figure out what to do about everyone that's here once we feel like we've got control over the border? or do we come up with the assimilation/amnesty/citizenship plan first, and then figure out how to better secure the border?

 

I have clearly stated that the definition of what a secure border is has to be established . . then put together a plan for achieving it. It sure looks like the feds are doing better than in the past, but with no clear goal in mind what is the point? Worry about the assimilation later. Heck, if more local municipalities enacted penalties for renting to/hiring illegals, then it will make answering any assimilation questions that much easier with a reduced amount of illegals in the country.

[Perchoutofwater]

Then you really are NOT that bright cause the article asks what the definition of a secure border is, and then specifically points out that the border has never been more secure than it is now. It is SHOWING that there has been and continues to be progress in border security . . well before amnesty is brought up. If there isnt a agreed-upon definition of what a secure border is, then it cant be done, and then other questions like visas cant be addressed.

 

Az, what is the definition of a secured border? A Berlin wall? Land mines? Armed sentries every 100 yards? Doesnt THAT question need to be answered so that it can be achieved?

 

Or are you just reading the parts that you like and ignoring the rest?

 

As always, I patiently await the proposal from either party that actually defines a "secure border" and the resulting plans to fund it and achieve it.

 

While we may have a more secure border than we have in a while, it is still not secure, and that is arguable when you consider we are closing parks because of the danger of violent illegals. Many of us were hard on Shrub for not doing more, so it isn't like we are just picking on your guy. We are stepping it up a bit, because your guy is on record for wanting amnesty, and he has the congressional majorities to get and amnesty bill passed. There are two more reasons that this issue has gotten amped up as well. The criminals that are crossing the border are becoming more and more violent, and unemployment is higher than many of us have ever seen. Many of hammering on this issue every time it is brought up, due to the unemployment rate and the violence, it looks like we might actually be able to get something done.

 

With regard to what secure is, I'd say a double fence all along the border, with video or other technology to alert us to attempted crossings, and enough agents to respond. I'd also say it involves kicking all illegals out of the country whenever and where ever they are found. We also need to get rid of the anchor baby laws. The only way I could come close to accepting amnesty for those already here is if we get rid of the anchor baby laws, and still then I have reservations because of the message it sends to those who may think they can come here and get amnesty in the future.

[rattsass]

Yeah, I called Obama and he filled me in. I think our border is plenty safe enough. He tells me I think we shouldn't worry about that - if any terrorist make it across the border we will arrest them after they blow chit up.

[rattsass]

- if any terrorist make it across the border we will arrest them after they blow chit up.

...or if they join the NRA.

[Ursa Majoris]

how dare he say we won't secure the border without comprehensive immigration reform (amnesty). we say we can't secure the border without comprehensive immigration reform (amnesty)"

Can't and won't are two different things. Your statement may accidentally be entirely true - Kyl said they won't while in fact they can't.

[Azazello1313]

Can't and won't are two different things. Your statement may accidentally be entirely true - Kyl said they won't while in fact they can't.

 

well if they firmly believe they can't, I think it's fair to assume they won't. can't is, in this case and every other, an excuse for inaction.

[Ursa Majoris]

well if they firmly believe they can't, I think it's fair to assume they won't. can't is, in this case and every other, an excuse for inaction.

Whatever, I think Obama is right to want a comprehensive immigration policy. I'm very concerned about what that policy might be though.