Skip to main content

View Diary: The overwhelming support of immigration reform (146 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  The problem with that is this ---- (8+ / 0-)
    "Securing the border."  Thats a point that bring in people to say "yes," but it will never happen because (a) it's impossible, and (b) it's too expensive to even try.

    Comprehensive reform may become law that actually includes such a requirement, but it won't be funded.

    •  If Obama really wanted to move all this, (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      au8285

      he'd just go ahead and move 50,000 national guard from around the country and declare martial law along the border. Then force congress to appropriate for it.

      There. Border security.

      Then we can have an honest debate extending citizenship to people already here.

      •  posse comitatus is not a solution n/t (0+ / 0-)

        "...calling for a 5" deck gun is not parody. Not by a long shot." (gnaborretni)

        by annieli on Fri May 07, 2010 at 01:14:51 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  National Guard is not that. (0+ / 0-)
          •  Uh-huh, and none of them serve overseas? n/t (0+ / 0-)

            "...calling for a 5" deck gun is not parody. Not by a long shot." (gnaborretni)

            by annieli on Fri May 07, 2010 at 01:22:47 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  and also... (0+ / 0-)

              The Posse Comitatus Act has traditionally been viewed as a major barrier to the use of U.S. military forces in planning for homeland defense.[1] In fact, many in uniform believe that the act precludes the use of U.S. military assets in domestic security operations in any but the most extraordinary situations. As is often the case, reality bears little resemblance to the myth for homeland defense planners. Through a gradual erosion of the act’s prohibitions over the past 20 years, posse comitatus today is more of a procedural formality than an actual impediment to the use of U.S. military forces in homeland defense.

              "...calling for a 5" deck gun is not parody. Not by a long shot." (gnaborretni)

              by annieli on Fri May 07, 2010 at 01:25:12 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  furthermore... (0+ / 0-)

                While the act appears to prohibit active participation in law enforcement by the military, the reality in application has become quite different. The act is a statutory creation, not a constitutional prohibition. Accordingly, the act can and has been repeatedly circumvented by subsequent legislation. Since 1980, Congress and the president have significantly eroded the prohibitions of the act in order to meet a variety of law enforcement challenges.

                "...calling for a 5" deck gun is not parody. Not by a long shot." (gnaborretni)

                by annieli on Fri May 07, 2010 at 01:26:42 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

    •  I think technology can help here (0+ / 0-)

      There is simply much better technology than an actual Great Wall of America. If we can wire Chicago such that the car of the School Board president could be identified on it and his progress followed, then I think we can build a technology solution to the coyote problem.

      •  Or we could stop making a mountain (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        esquimaux, Deep Texan

        out of a molehill.  The technological solutions tried so far have been ridiculously expensive and not very effective.  Unmanned drones, infrared cameras, walls, motion sensors, all to stop some guy looking to have the same right to find work as GM has to find workers.

        To believe that markets determine value is to believe that milk comes from plastic bottles. Bromley (1985)

        by sneakers563 on Fri May 07, 2010 at 01:00:05 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I don't think so (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          au8285, sneakers563

          The coyotes are the real problem, here. Plus if good people can come in unseen, then so can criminals or worse.

          •  I still think it's way overblown (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Odysseus

            Yeah, some criminals come in, so what?  There are criminals everywhere.  I live in Tucson; I can deal with it.

            As for worse, I assume you mean terrorists?  How many attacks have there been from people who crossed the border illegally?  How many attacks have been thwarted by Border Patrol pickups vs. intellegence and police work?  

            It could happen, but I still don't see the point in spending billions of dollars that could be spent in better, more effective ways.

            To believe that markets determine value is to believe that milk comes from plastic bottles. Bromley (1985)

            by sneakers563 on Fri May 07, 2010 at 01:30:33 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I was thinking murderers (0+ / 0-)

              Chicago has had 113+ murders this year. Statistically, murder is a far higher risk to me than terrorism, even in a major metropolitan center.

              The reason I don't want more criminals is that 1. we have enough, thank you very much. 2. Organized crime is a real threat in Mexico where people are starting to be kidnapped for ransom. I'd rather not have that here. 3. Putting a pressure relief valve on Mexico (whereby their problems can just go north) doesn't fix the source of the problem. Until recently Mexico has been unwilling to do much about its organized crime problem, to reform its economy or really do much of anything to fix its tattered body politic.

    •  There is no will to secure the border (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      au8285, trinityfly

      That is the real problem.

      And it is not even our southern border.  People fly in every day as visitors and simply stay forever and get jobs.  Whole industries are built on unauthorized labor from certain ethnic groups.

      "Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others." - G. Marx

      by Skeptical Bastard on Fri May 07, 2010 at 12:50:29 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  we've fixed up some of that (0+ / 0-)

        But really our whole immigration system is set up on the basis of border control. To have sufficient interior control, the average American would be affected and annoyed. In Chicago, the Polish wecationeers would be a good example. When enough of a community exists to camouflage the undocumented, how are you going to find people even if you have a warrant?

        •  By cracking down on employers... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          dinotrac

          I know a lot of business is done by cash (Polish Maids/Window washers for instance?), but I would think it would not be too difficult to identify businesses (by type, for example) that could use some extra scrutiny.

          "Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others." - G. Marx

          by Skeptical Bastard on Fri May 07, 2010 at 01:11:32 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Employers are the key. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      orson, esquimaux

      Jobs attract people.
      Make it too expensive to hire illegals and fewer people will come illegally.

      Fewer people crossing means more resources per crosser.
      Maybe a chance to focus on criminals and assorted bad guys.

      That doesn't seem like the hardest part of the equation.

      The harder part is figuring out how far to open the door so that we can welcome as many potential citizens as we can get to build our nation, but close it a bit as needed to make sure that our resources and economy can handle the flow.

      Free speech? Yeah, I've heard of that. Have you?

      by dinotrac on Fri May 07, 2010 at 01:08:06 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site