Immigration reform???

[Larry Gude]

My view starts with the premise that the attraction of coming to the US is a good thing; the desire for freedom and opportunity including jobs and benefits. It is not stupid or un-American, at least ideologically, to seek better for yourself and family.

From there, I view our immigration system as unequal to the task; the economy is too large and too dynamic to be serviced by a system that amounts to a one man lemonade stand that has a monopoly in the neighborhood. In the real world, if a lemonade stand had too many customers, the kids who ran it would most likely try to figure out how to serve more people; not back them up so that they sought satisfaction through other means. Point being there are any number of ways to handle larger volumes of people more efficiently and productively that would serve the national interests of promoting the general welfare and eliminate the ugliness of 'other means' such as simple illegal immigration and human smuggling. The mess we have could ONLY be a government operation.

The mess we have is the result of both parties having no real interest in it being anything but the mess it is and just let people fall into the natural extremes we humans always tend to fall to; 'deport them all! Or 'no borders!' so that nothing gets done.

I'm really not even sure how to word this poll other than to ask 'would you support sensible immigration reform' but, if you believe, on the one hand, they are all criminals and must be deported/machine gunned/beheaded as such OR there should be no borders/free for all/anarchy on the other, how does one word that?

I guess I'll just try this; Do you think there is a reasonable compromise that includes amnesty AND some sort of fines or other reasonable sanction along with an ongoing 'national interest' quota system, akin, say, to an annual budget via, say, the congress, that balances the two extremes?

 

[tommyjo]

I guess I'll just try this; Do you think there is a reasonable compromise that includes amnesty AND some sort of fines or other reasonable sanction along with an ongoing 'national interest' quota system, akin, say, to an annual budget via, say, the congress, that balances the two extremes?

Absolutely. Intelligent, educated people who are concerned about the future well being of this country can surely come to a compromise.

Unfortunately, those people aren't in the positions of power to solve this--or any--of our problems. This country is ruled by extremists and political fanatics who whip up the ignorant masses with propaganda instead of rational thought. Look at this board. Look at the stupidity that is exhibited here every day.

The millisecond you mention "amnesty" the far right morons go berserk. The millisecond you mention "quota", the far left morons go "berserk". And the "debate" devolves into a shouting match.

 

[Larry Gude]

Absolutely. Intelligent, educated people who are concerned about the future well being of this country can surely come to a compromise.

.

So, let's work on it. What do you think is a good compromise?

 

[b23hqb]

I say close and secure the border first and foremost. Then a compromise will be able to be had because that most important issue will have been taken care of. Then the congress and the current occupant of the WH can then deal with what is here now, and future entrants. It doesn't do any good to keep chasing more horses through an open barn door.

 

[Larry Gude]

I say close and secure the border first and foremost. Then a compromise will be able to be had because that most important issue will have been taken care of. Then the congress and the current occupant of the WH can then deal with what is here now, and future entrants. It doesn't do any good to keep chasing more horses through an open barn door.

So, fences, barbed wire, gun towers, a great wall?

Because this worked for the French the Soviets and the Chinese?

 

[Monello]

Why compromise? How about we enforce the laws we have on the books?

I sponsored 1 person years ago. There is a process in place. Believe me the process works just fine. You fill out the papers, give them what they want as far as documentation. They ask stuff about political party affiliation, did you ever try to overthrow a government, some what funny questions. Then some bureaucrat sitting behind a desk has the power to reward the applicant with a green card. The government knows that person is in the country. The government likely knows where they live and knows who sponsored them.

If you don't have a sponsor, you can apply for a visa at an embassy in your home country. It is our right to be selective with who we allow in to the country.

I was at a border crossing going into Canada. Someone ahead of me was denied permission to enter Canada because they had been convicted of a DUI years before. The Canadian officials didn't feel that person merited admission. That is their prerogative.

My opinion is we don't need to change anything. You either belong here legally or you don't. BTW I've worked in food service with many illegals from Northern Virginia. Other than not being able to leave to go to their country of origin to visit family, they pretty much can do as they please here. Nobody is bothering them. I even worked a party at the Supreme Court building. We all had to have our names vetted and somehow a few of my illegal immigrant co-workers we allowed in. What a great country.

For the bleeding hearts who cry out that we somehow are obligated to take in the masses that yearn to be free, check out this video. It uses visuals for the logically challenged.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPjzfGChGlE

 

[Larry Gude]

Why compromise? How about we enforce the laws we have on the books?

I sponsored 1 person years ago. There is a process in place. Believe me the process works just fine. You fill out the papers, give them what they want as far as documentation. They ask stuff about political party affiliation, did you ever try to overthrow a government, some what funny questions. Then some bureaucrat sitting behind a desk has the power to reward the applicant with a green card. The government knows that person is in the country. The government likely knows where they live and knows who sponsored them.

If you don't have a sponsor, you can apply for a visa at an embassy in your home country. It is our right to be selective with who we allow in to the country.

I was at a border crossing going into Canada. Someone ahead of me was denied permission to enter Canada because they had been convicted of a DUI years before. The Canadian officials didn't feel that person merited admission. That is their prerogative.

My opinion is we don't need to change anything. You either belong here legally or you don't. BTW I've worked in food service with many illegals from Northern Virginia. Other than not being able to leave to go to their country of origin to visit family, they pretty much can do as they please here. Nobody is bothering them. I even worked a party at the Supreme Court building. We all had to have our names vetted and somehow a few of my illegal immigrant co-workers we allowed in. What a great country.

For the bleeding hearts who cry out that we somehow are obligated to take in the masses that yearn to be free, check out this video. It uses visuals for the logically challenged.

]

I'm not sure if this is an argument for how well things are working as they are or a recognition of just what a mess it is because it's not working which then begs the same question; what to do about it?
Shirley, you're not arguing for more of the same and expect a different (better?) result?

 

[b23hqb]

So, fences, barbed wire, gun towers, a great wall?

Because this worked for the French the Soviets and the Chinese?

Fences, Barbed wire, yes. Observation towers, yes. Technical observation tactics and steady human patrols, yes.The rest of your statement is idiotic, comparing a border to halt illegal immigration/border crossings by drug cartels, etc., to physical armies battering each other.

Nothing of substance will/can happen until the border is secured. Finish the approved measures from a decade ago, then deal with those here.

 

[Larry Gude]

Fences, Barbed wire, yes. Observation towers, yes. Technical observation tactics and steady human patrols, yes.The rest of your statement is idiotic, comparing a border to halt illegal immigration/border crossings by drug cartels, etc., to physical armies battering each other.

Nothing of substance will/can happen until the border is secured. Finish the approved measures from a decade ago, then deal with those here.

Yeah, history is always idiotic, huh? Where were the armies the commies were trying to keep out in Berlin, dumb ass? I suppose you'll need me to answer that for you based on your comments? There weren't any. They were trying to approach complex problems the same way you propose; massive control issues. To a hammer, every problem looks like a nail, thus, you sir, are a tool.

There are a lot of ways to 'secure' a border including dealing with the issues of why and managing them.

 

[Larry Gude]

Fences, Barbed wire, yes. Observation towers, yes. Technical observation tactics and steady human patrols, yes.The rest of your statement is idiotic, comparing a border to halt illegal immigration/border crossings by drug cartels, etc., to physical armies battering each other.

Nothing of substance will/can happen until the border is secured. Finish the approved measures from a decade ago, then deal with those here.

And where were the armies at the Maginot Line? Fail #2. There were none. They tried a more intelligent approach. I won't even discuss the Great Wall and how that failed.

 

[Monello]

Shirley, you're not arguing for more of the same and expect a different (better?) result?

That is exactly what I'm saying. The part that isn't being done is the 2nd sentence in the quote.

1 girl I know from Honduras flew here on a tourist visa but never left. I'm sure she went through immigration and had her passport stamped. Now all passports are bar coded. We know she is here and that it appears she never left. She could have taken a boat out or gone north to Canada illegally. But for argument sake, let's say she's still in the US. Why not deduct her from the number of visa to be given out in her home country? There has to be some repercussions for the behavior.

Why compromise? How about we enforce the laws we have on the books?

 

[Larry Gude]

That is exactly what I'm saying. The part that isn't being done is the 2nd sentence in the quote.

1 girl I know from Honduras flew here on a tourist visa but never left. I'm sure she went through immigration and had her passport stamped. Now all passports are bar coded. We know she is here and that it appears she never left. She could have taken a boat out or gone north to Canada illegally. But for argument sake, let's say she's still in the US. Why not deduct her from the number of visa to be given out in her home country? There has to be some repercussions for the behavior.

OK so, how to get us to enforce the laws on the books?

 

[Monello]

Finish the approved measures from a decade ago, then deal with those here.

 

[Larry Gude]

And we're not doing that because......because???

 

[Ken King]

And where were the armies at the Maginot Line? Fail #2. There were none. They tried a more intelligent approach. I won't even discuss the Great Wall and how that failed.

You do know that the GEICO "Great Wall" commercial ain't real.

Seriously, before any solution or compromise can be reached shouldn't the goals be established? What should the goals of immigration control be? Protect the sovereignty of the nation, allow for visitation, foreign workers, business efforts and higher education, and allow for new non-natural born citizens. Are there any others?

As of yet we don't control our sovereignty, thus we have an undocumented immigration issue (not to mention smuggling efforts and other nefarious activities). How do we fix that? Secure the border. How do we do that? By any means necessary up to and including militarization. It cannot be ignored or no change can be achieved.

The current sponsor program/visa programs work well enough to allow many to enter, but not always so well when getting people to leave. What do we do about those that overstay? Should we have a means to track the legal immigrants that are here?

There should be a means of incorporating those that want to live here into our society. I'm sure many are, or could be, assets to our nation, just as many aren't. We need a way to weed out the bad and keep the good. I'm not up to speed on what it takes to become a citizen but some form of compromise shouldn't be too difficult to achieve.

 

[Monello]

OK so, how to get us to enforce the laws on the books?

Use a multi prong approach. Go after individuals. Target the employers that use them. Freeze their assets. Don't give them drivers licenses. No public funds of any sort. No anchor babies. Eliminate birth vacations. Tie foreign aid to the numbers of citizens here illegally.

Making life easy for invaders isn't solving any problem. It sends the wrong signal.

5 years ago the US Army created a new command, AFRICOM. The US Army holds joint exercises with African nations. The budget for just the airfare for 1 exercise is staggering. (They fly commercial, not mil A/C) Many of the soldiers sent over there are National Guard types. Instead of sending them halfway around the world, let them run year round exercises in the desert. Spread the troops out along the border. Put in some artillery and gunnery exercises. Create choke points for entry. After a while the juice won't be worth the squeeze for the invaders.

 

[Larry Gude]

You do know that the GEICO "Great Wall" commercial ain't real.

Seriously, before any solution or compromise can be reached shouldn't the goals be established? What should the goals of immigration control be? Protect the sovereignty of the nation, allow for visitation, foreign workers, business efforts and higher education, and allow for new non-natural born citizens. Are there any others?

As of yet we don't control our sovereignty, thus we have an undocumented immigration issue (not to mention smuggling efforts and other nefarious activities). How do we fix that? Secure the border. How do we do that? By any means necessary up to and including militarization. It cannot be ignored or no change can be achieved.

The current sponsor program/visa programs work well enough to allow many to enter, but not always so well when getting people to leave. What do we do about those that overstay? Should we have a means to track the legal immigrants that are here?

There should be a means of incorporating those that want to live here into our society. I'm sure many are, or could be, assets to our nation, just as many aren't. We need a way to weed out the bad and keep the good. I'm not up to speed on what it takes to become a citizen but some form of compromise shouldn't be too difficult to achieve.

If we militarize the border, we are no longer the land of the free and the home of the brave. We are no longer the ideas that made us great. We are no longer about freedom and liberty.

Now, you may well argue that that America is long gone and you may well be right but, we ain't getting it back by going the way of the French or the Chinese or the Soviets.

You deal with the motivations, the desire for better and you capitalize on it. The goal SHOULD be congress, each session, setting the goal for the next two years and then going about facilitating that. A federal ID for immigrants. Fines for those without. Finger prints. Deportation for violent criminals. Conversations with the governments of nations South of us and how it would be in their interest to help us meet our goals.

We always come at these things, China, the border, as though we're in no position of power when, in fact, we have ALL the power and just are too stubborn to use it.

 

[Monello]

And we're not doing that because......because???

Lack of nads. PC atmosphere. Liberal BS. Need more reasons?

 

[Larry Gude]

Instead of sending them halfway around the world, let them run year round exercises in the desert. Spread the troops out along the border. Put in some artillery and gunnery exercises. Create choke points for entry. After a while the juice won't be worth the squeeze for the invaders.

That is an idea I have long supported. Having a presence makes sense. Walls don't.

 

[Ken King]

If we militarize the border, we are no longer the land of the free and the home of the brave. We are no longer the ideas that made us great. We are no longer about freedom and liberty.

BS! Our freedom and liberty, and making us great, was all about taking from the one that had it first. Are you saying that now that we have it you don't want to defend and keep it? And you did note that in my comment I said "any means necessary up to and including militarization" not just militarization. Do you not see open borders as an issue to the problem?

Now, you may well argue that that America is long gone and you may well be right but, we ain't getting it back by going the way of the French or the Chinese or the Soviets.

You deal with the motivations, the desire for better and you capitalize on it. The goal SHOULD be congress, each session, setting the goal for the next two years and then going about facilitating that. A federal ID for immigrants. Fines for those without. Finger prints. Deportation for violent criminals. Conversations with the governments of nations South of us and how it would be in their interest to help us meet our goals.

We always come at these things, China, the border, as though we're in no position of power when, in fact, we have ALL the power and just are too stubborn to use it.

How do you get those fingerprints if the border remains porous? Will those of us born here (you know, those that are here legally) need a national ID to tell the difference between us and them when we are out roaming around the country?