Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
More on Monday’s presidential address
Posted by: McQ on Saturday, May 13, 2006

Some more details are emerging concerning the President's "immigration" address on Monday night:
President Bush plans to call for troops and a high-tech "virtual" fence to beef up the border with Mexico when he speaks to the nation on immigration Monday night, sources said yesterday.

The get-tough approach will be coupled with a renewed push to give illegal aliens a chance to get in line for U.S. citizenship, said a source briefed on the speech.

"He'll talk about deploying troops, strengthening border control, more raids on companies that hire illegals, a virtual fence, and letting those who are here already get in line," the source said.

The virtual fence could include lasers and unmanned aerial drones as well as cement barriers, the source said.
Well that's a start. The troops, strengthened border controls, virtual fence and enforcing employment laws.

But as for the "letting those who are here already get in line" for citizenship, I suggest we see how the border control thing goes first. If we see actual progress in that area, then, perhaps, we can talk about lines and who gets to get in them. We need to be aware that the government is famous for making promises it never intends to keep. As Lastango warned us yesterday, we need to ensure the "virtual fence" doesn't become a "vapor fence".

Until then I suggest that the place in line for those already here be put on hold. When we see real border control in action and succeeding, then let's raise that subject.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
So as to inspire confidence in a "virtual Fence" President Bush should announce that starting Monday evening the real barriers and real guards at the White House will be replaced with a virtual barrier. As soon as a lasar senses that someone has crossed over to White House grounds the Secret Service and Marines will be alerted and will be be at the White House within 10 to 15 minutes.
 
Written By: Phil Dayton
URL: http://
However effective this fence, real or virtual, will be at detecting or blocking illegals, I think it is likely to do much more to deter would-be crossers. I think this may also be true for any enforcement measures we take.

I base this on the assumption that one cause for the "flood" we’ve been seeing is that up until now it’s just been so darn easy to get through and stay. If the perception south of the border changes so they start to believe that there will be some measure of enforcement, then I think a significant fraction will decide not to try.

OK, yeah. I’m an optimist.
 
Written By: equitus
URL: http://
Well that’s a start.
So’s the drug war. Two million people in jail and drugs are still everywhere at the lowest prices ever, but it’s a start.
Until then I suggest that the place in line for those already here be put on hold. When we see real border control in action and succeeding, then let’s raise that subject.

And what’s the point of this again?

If Congress had suggested not raising the speed limit back up to 70mph until all of the "illegal drivers" in America toed the line at 55mph, well, something tells me that most anti-immigration proponents wouldn’t have a problem seeing the idiocy of such a suggestion. Or maybe that’s just wishful thinking on my part. I don’t know anymore.

:peter
 
Written By: Peter Jackson
URL: http://www.liberalcapitalist.com
...something tells me that most anti-immigration proponents wouldn’t have a problem seeing the idiocy of such a suggestion.
Can you name some "anti-immigration proponents" for me? I’m having a hard time thinking of any prominent voices coming out against immigration - that is, assuming its done legally.
 
Written By: equitus
URL: http://
Can you name some "anti-immigration proponents" for me?
Yeah, Peter ... why does wanting to keep people out who are breaking the law "anti-immigration?" I have absolutely no problem whatsoever with legal immigrants (who here everafter will be known as "immigrants" ... those breaking the law as "illegal immigrants"). We need immigrants.

I’ll cop to being anti-illegal immigration. How about you?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
I understand the temptation to think of this like the failed war on drugs, and without attacking the demand side, it could become that way. But people are not drugs, and if you make it harder for them to come over, there will be some reduction. (at least in the short run)
 
Written By: kyle N
URL: http://impudent.blognation.us/blog

Yeah, Peter ... why does wanting to keep people out who are breaking the law "anti-immigration?" I have absolutely no problem whatsoever with legal immigrants...
One reason is because it is nothing more than a political distinction — the legal status of one immigrant or all immigrants can be changed by politicians with the stroke of a pen.

Suppose the federal government decided to grant citizenship to any immigrant who wants it, including all currently illegal immigrants. The number of illegal immigrants would be reduced to a handful. If that were to occur, then the moment it does, you should "have absolutely no problem whatsoever" with the millions of immigrants who would come here or with the millions already here who were once illegal, since they are not illegal anymore.

If you would still have a problem with the millions who are here and the millions who would come, then your problem with immigrants isn’t their legal status.
 
Written By: Manny Davis
URL: http://
One reason is because it is nothing more than a political distinction — the legal status of one immigrant or all immigrants can be changed by politicians with the stroke of a pen.
Which is irrelvant to the point.

They’re illegal. And that has a meaning and ramifications.


 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
That’s dumb as a sack of hammers. That’s like If I objected to random murder, and it was suddenly legalized, my objection is specious.

What you’re saying is more akin to that if I let people in my home as guests through the front door, and someone breaks in the back door, I’m not allowed to later let other people through that back door legitimately. It’s hogswallop. The prblem isn’t people being in my house - it’s in them breaking in. And that’s what these illegal aliens - not immigrants, aliens - have done, is jimmied the lock and crawled in the window like a common sneak theif. Regardless of later changing the process of border crossing or legalization, those who have snuck in have showed the true measure of their character - and it’s poor, and I don’t want them here.

People who do something in defiance of legitimate and eminently fair laws have proven that they cannot be trusted to be law abiding people, and thus productive and valuable citizens. They are bad prospects for citizenship.
 
Written By: Pete Jensen
URL: http://
That was to Manny, McQ.
 
Written By: Pete Jensen
URL: http://
That was to Manny, McQ.
Heh ... I figured that, Pete.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
That’s dumb as a sack of hammers. That’s like If I objected to random murder, and it was suddenly legalized, my objection is specious.
No, because your objection to random murder isn’t based on politicians declaring it illegal.
What you’re saying is more akin to that if I let people in my home as guests through the front door, and someone breaks in the back door, I’m not allowed to later let other people through that back door legitimately. It’s hogswallop. The prblem isn’t people being in my house - it’s in them breaking in.
I agree, but the debate isn’t about private property.
 
Written By: Manny Davis
URL: http://
"...Two million people in jail and drugs are still everywhere at the lowest prices ever, but it’s a start...."

Yeah! And don’t forget the failed war on murder, theft, etc! For literally thousands of years societies all over the world have been fighting an expensive and fruitless war against "crimes" like murder, rape, etc. Isn’t it about time we accepted reality and put those resources to better use? We should spend the money on prevention and treatment, if we spend it at all.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
timactual your analogy would only work if you could demonstrate that free adults smoking a little pot was as bad for other people or society as murder, threft, rape, etc.
 
Written By: kyle N
URL: http://impudent.blognation.us/blog
No, because your objection to random murder isn’t based on politicians declaring it illegal.
And where do we get our statutes against random murer? Stone tablets found on a mountainside? The moral objectionableness of it may indeed give rise to the outlawing of the practice, but the same is true all around, I am afraid, of everything. Contrary to masturbatory liberal fantasies and dream worlds, not everything is based on racism. Not letting any random schmuck in your country without knowing who they are and where they comes from and what business they have there is a worldwide practice which goes back many, many, many years.

It is self defeating for any society - let alone a free one - to allow people in who do not share or who are unwilling to adopt the goals and mores of that society. It is destructive for them to allow in violent criminal elements. The list goes on. It is sufficiently objectionable that we have laws requiring people to stop at the border - the entrance - and announce who they are, and state their business.

And your whole premise of "Politicians say - we obey" is indicative not only of a statist, but arguably a slave mentality. I object to the laws being rolled back, for precisely the reasons stated, and many more. That leftists like yourself want to see a racist under every rock is more indicative of what lies in your heart.

And just FYI - I’m what you PC types call a "Native American," Descended from the Okahoki Lenape.
I agree, but the debate isn’t about private property.
Oh really? I guess this "of the people, by the people, for the people" is just windage, then. This is our country. It belongs to we the people. It is our private property, not an international park. We live here.

I own a tractor with two other people. Seriously. And the ramification of it is, if one of us wants to loan it out - and one has no problem with it - and one of us objects; guess who the law sides with?
 
Written By: Pete Jensen
URL: http://
I wonder if W will go for my idea of virtual taxes...
 
Written By: Jody
URL: http://
I agree, but the debate isn’t about private property.
Oh really? I guess this "of the people, by the people, for the people" is just windage, then.
Yes, it’s malarkey if that’s what you mean. And Lincoln was referring to government, not land.
This is our country. It belongs to we the people.
Careful, your collectivism is showing.

Private property belongs to individuals or groups of individuals whereas public property belongs to the state. Neither belong to "the people", because something that belongs to everyone in fact belongs to no one.

Ownership implies control. You and I have no control over public parks, public libraries, public housing, etc...hence we don’t own it in any meaningful sense.
 
Written By: Manny Davis
URL: http://
The state belongs to the people. They are our employees, our executors - not our masters. Your statist, slave mentality is showing.

This is our country - held in common trust for CITIZENS. Not ALIENS. They have their own countries. If they want to visit, let them do so LEGALLY. If they want to live here, let them renounce their country of origin and embrace ours LEGALLY.

LEGALLY - as We The People have mandated our employees enact.

If they do so legally, they are in the former case "Tourists," and if, and only if they do so legally are they in the second sense "Immigrants." Doing so illegally makes them "Invaders."

This goes for the Irish who are sending money to the IRA in Boston, and for the Mexicans who are sending it back to Vincente Fox, lest you try to obfuscate the issue again with spurious insinuations of racism. They are commining an illegal act, IOW a crime, which makes them criminals. Criminals are undesirables. Q.E.D.
 
Written By: Pete Jensen
URL: http://
Regardless of the argument whether or not there ought to be laws and rules regulating immigration (I think there should be, but maybe more generous than the current laws), to me the issue is largely about fairness.

I’ve worked with and been friends with many people from all over the world over the years. I’ve heard from these friends countless stories regarding obtaining visas, green cards, and citizenship - often onerous but in every case admittedly worth the effort to the individual for the opportunities to study, work, or live in this country.

I’ve enormous respect for these individuals, who risked leaving their families and societies to make a new and better life, putting up with the sometimes ridiculous bureaucracy to achieve their goals.

Compare and contrast these stories to those of the illegal immigrants. It’s the moral equivalent of jumping to the front of a line that is blocks long. It’s just not fair to those who do follow the rules.
 
Written By: equitus
URL: http://
McQ!
Yeah, Peter ... why does wanting to keep people out who are breaking the law "anti-immigration?"
I thought it was more polite than saying "anti-Mexican."
One reason is because it is nothing more than a political distinction — the legal status of one immigrant or all immigrants can be changed by politicians with the stroke of a pen.
Which is irrelvant to the point.

They’re illegal. And that has a meaning and ramifications.
Yes—arbitrary meaning and arbitrary ramifications to breaking an arbitrary rule.
I’ll cop to being anti-illegal immigration. How about you?
If that’s what you would prefer me to call your position then that’s how I’ll refer to it. But it is a loaded term insofar as it implies that the law that’s being broken is rational. It isn’t rational. And THAT’S why it doesn’t work: it’s inconsistent with the very reality it attempts to regulate and therefore is 100% responsible for the chaos on our border which threatens our national security. One rule change and the problem would go away, *poof,* just like that. There are people here comparing it to laws against rape and murder, etc., which is absurd on it’s face. We’re not talking about directly violating the rights of others or anything else of direct moral consequence, we’re talking about the violation of an arbitrary, abstract formal rule. A more apt comparison would be to the "crime" of owning a banned book.

And I really would like to know the practical reason for having to build a multi-$$$billion dollar wall before we can even discuss changing the rules. Seriously. I would.


Equitus!
Compare and contrast these stories to those of the illegal immigrants. It’s the moral equivalent of jumping to the front of a line that is blocks long. It’s just not fair to those who do follow the rules.
Your analogy also doesn’t hold my friend:

1. The "line jumping" metaphor implies that the line jumper causes some kind of harm, say a change or a delay, for all of the people that were jumped ahead of. This is not the case down south; The fact that some Mexicans cross the border illegally doesn’t slow or otherwise affect the legal line in any way.

2. The "line" metaphor the "line jumping" metaphor is predicated on is also inaccurate because it implies that there is some kind of line in the first place. As far as I know, there is not a line, but a lottery since the quotas are so low.

yours/
peter.
 
Written By: Peter Jackson
URL: http://www.liberalcapitalist.com
Well, Mr. Jackson, I believe that you leave the doors unlocked to your house and allow anyone who wishes to come in, look around, and leave. 24 hours a day.

After all, they aren’t going to take anything or do anything to you. Just look around. It’s rather arbitrary that you get to look around in your home and no one else does.


As for the arbitrariness of our immigration laws, I’d like to point out there is a difference between "immigration" and "colonization". Our immigration laws are designed to ensure that "immigration" doesn’t turn into "colonization".
 
Written By: Mark A. Flacy
URL: http://
Well, Mr. Jackson, I believe that you leave the doors unlocked to your house and allow anyone who wishes to come in, look around, and leave. 24 hours a day.

After all, they aren’t going to take anything or do anything to you. Just look around. It’s rather arbitrary that you get to look around in your home and no one else does.
That’s another analogy that doesn’t even get out of the gate. The country doesn’t resemble a private residence except in the most abstract metaphorical sense imaginable. But Mr. Flacy, I’m going to help you out.

Imagine if the borders of your state were unlocked and anyone who wished could come right on in from the state next to it, day or night. Heck, imagine even that they could even fly in by the airplane-full, 24 hours a day, Not just from neighboring states but from every other state! Every one! Imagine they could go rent a house in your neighborhood, buy and sell what they liked, take your jobs, and help themselves to your schools and hospitals!

Then imagine that someone got the brilliant idea to build a wall around your state, blockade your highways at the state line and station thousands of soldiers on the border.

Would your state be better or worse off?

yours/
peter.
 
Written By: Peter Jackson
URL: http://www.liberalcapitalist.com
1) is it possible to determine which employers make use of undocumented aliens with the intent of ceasing to patronize these businesses?

2) since current employment practices seem to consist of filing form 1099’s and classifying illegals as "independent contractors", when will the "they pay taxes,too" meme die a natural death?

3) is it not clear that previous immigration took place in a context of limited, if any government services and did not burden public services - and it is equally clear that the burden now largely falls on state and local, rather than national government?

4) is there anyone who is not clear that we were scammed once in 1986 and are about to be scammed again?
 
Written By: fiona
URL: http://
1) is it possible to determine which employers make use of undocumented aliens with the intent of ceasing to patronize these businesses?
Easy. Don’t buy a house, rent a house, purchase fruit, vegetables or meat or go to restaurants. There’s more of course, but this is a start.
2) since current employment practices seem to consist of filing form 1099’s and classifying illegals as "independent contractors", when will the "they pay taxes,too" meme die a natural death?
They’ll quit paying taxes as soon as we kick them out. Until then they will pay sales taxes every time they buy something (just like you) rent (just like you) put gas in their vehicles (just like you) or have it taken from their paychecks (just like you) for the ones working under false identities. The only difference is that they won’t file a return for fear of bringing attention on themselves, or they’ll claim as few deductions as possible for the same reason (unlike you). If there’s a meme about this, it’s that illegals "don’t pay taxes." 1099s aren’t just for illegal Mexicans you know.
3) is it not clear that previous immigration took place in a context of limited, if any government services and did not burden public services - and it is equally clear that the burden now largely falls on state and local, rather than national government?
Maybe the problem is the public services and the unsustainable way they’re distributed. Do you really think Congress can revoke the tragedy of the commons?
4) is there anyone who is not clear that we were scammed once in 1986 and are about to be scammed again?
Another way to pose the same question would be if there’s anyone here who is not clear that our stupid, socialist foreign worker policies didn’t work in 1986 (or ’76, or ’66, etc.) and they’re not going to work now? Remember the AA definition of madness, which is doing the same thing over and over yet expecting to somehow get a different result?

Our immigration laws have nothing to do with the mess we’re in, it’s our foreign worker quotas; we simply don’t let enough people in to work legally.

yours/
peter.
 
Written By: Peter Jackson
URL: http://www.liberalcapitalist.com
They’ll quit paying taxes as soon as we kick them out. Until then they will pay sales taxes every time they buy something (just like you) rent (just like you) put gas in their vehicles (just like you) or have it taken from their paychecks (just like you) for the ones working under false identities. The only difference is that they won’t file a return for fear of bringing attention on themselves, or they’ll claim as few deductions as possible for the same reason (unlike you). If there’s a meme about this, it’s that illegals "don’t pay taxes." 1099s aren’t just for illegal Mexicans you know
Oh Please, Illegals paying income taxes..You’ve got to be kidding me...Now, here is what I, as a legal immigrant pay towards taxes..And I don’t have the right to vote !!!!

1. Federal Income Tax
2. State Income Tax
3. Medicare Tax
4. Social Security (my employer contributes towards Social Security too)
5. Sales tax
6. Property Tax
7. Gasoline Tax

Illegals don’t pay into 1,2,3&4. And they get to dictate policy !!
 
Written By: Ivan
URL: http://
I thought it was more polite than saying "anti-Mexican."
Well then you’re the one conflating "illegal immigrant" with Mexican. I don’t care if they’re from jolly olde England, if they’re illegal I want them gone.
Yes—arbitrary meaning and arbitrary ramifications to breaking an arbitrary rule.
Well heck, Peter, under your interpretation, murder is an arbitrary rule.

You either play by rules or you don’t, arbitrary or not. Or said another way, you’re either a nation of laws or you’re not.

Which do you prefer?
If that’s what you would prefer me to call your position then that’s how I’ll refer to it. But it is a loaded term insofar as it implies that the law that’s being broken is rational. It isn’t rational.
Of course it’s rational. How does one remain a sovereign nation when it can’t control it’s own borders?
And THAT’S why it doesn’t work: it’s inconsistent with the very reality it attempts to regulate and therefore is 100% responsible for the chaos on our border which threatens our national security.
No law "works" when you don’t enforce it, Peter. That doesn’t make it a bad law or an irrational law. It simply makes it an unenforced law.

I’m demanding it be enforced for legal, soverignty and security reasons, and, as I pointed out, I don’t care where the illegals come from, as long as they’re illegal, I want them gone.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Easy. Don’t buy a house, rent a house, purchase fruit, vegetables or meat or go to restaurants. There’s more of course, but this is a start.
Oh, mercy. Is this guy from Kos? I read the same crap on there - almost verbatim - two weeks ago. Really.

You zombie, liberal, propagandists have got to learn to vary your rhetoric, since thinking for yourself seems to be a forlorn prospect.

Now, to address a thinking person - Fiona, yes it is extremely possible. There are websites already which track this information. What action you take from there is your doing.

As for me, I’ve already kicked illegals brought in by subcontractors to the sites I work; and I raise a stink with management and take my business away when I find a store or establishment doing such things. Just speak up. If enough people do it - if it starts costing them - they will stop.
 
Written By: Pete Jensen
URL: http://
Mr. Jackson ignores the "immigration" versus "colonization" point. Not very surprising.
 
Written By: Mark A. Flacy
URL: http://
McQ!
Well then you’re the one conflating "illegal immigrant" with Mexican. I don’t care if they’re from jolly olde England, if they’re illegal I want them gone.
Fine. I’ll take you at your word.
No law "works" when you don’t enforce it, Peter. That doesn’t make it a bad law or an irrational law. It simply makes it an unenforced law.
This is a syllogism where both of your implied premises are false. Specifically, ineffective law=unenforced law, and of course it’s opposite, enforced law=effective law; the sub-premise here is effort=success. The truth is, McQ, some laws don’t work when you do enforce them. And some laws, when enforced, not only don’t work, they actually make the problem they seek to address WORSE. THAT is what I’m referring to when I say "irrational law." The reasoning you offer, that effort equals success, is the same reasoning behind the left’s reasoning for things like universal health care and gun control.
Or said another way, you’re either a nation of laws or you’re not.
False dichotomy. As a nation you can have bad laws too. Nationally we will be successful to the extent we avoid enacting and enforcing bad laws. The US isn’t successful just because we have laws, period. The Soviet Union had laws too.
Of course it’s rational. How does one remain a sovereign nation when it can’t control it’s own borders?
How can a nation control it’s own borders when there are millions of underemployed people on one side and millions of available jobs on the other side?

We spend $billions every year "securing" our border with Mexico with all sorts of barriers, check points, and thousands of personnel in the border region who manage to intercept and process well over a million border jumpers every year. Our foreign worker quotas are enforced AND ineffective.

yours/
peter.
 
Written By: Peter Jackson
URL: http://www.liberalcapitalist.com
I have to remind everybody that the obvious answer to...
How does one remain a sovereign nation when it can’t control it’s own borders?
...is "the same way we have for 200+ years".

If "securing the borders" is the goal, rather than merely stopping Latin Americans from coming in, will proponents of "border control" propose an equivalent program at our Canadian border? It’s less utilized but just as porous.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.qando.net/
Mr. Flacy!

Allow me to give you the respect of addressing you directly:
Mr. Jackson ignores the "immigration" versus "colonization" point. Not very surprising.
But living here in Central Texas amongst many, many Hispanics, I see zero evidence of any desire on their part to "colonize" any part of Texas. In fact, here "colonias" refer to the sh*tty, open sewer Mexican communities near the border. The term is often used pejoratively by Mexicans against Mexicans.

Yes, I’ve read all about "La Raza" or whatever. And from what I understand it’s mostly made up of disaffected American Angelenos. As I’ve pointed out before, we have the Klu Klux Klan and the Flat Earth Society too. That doesn’t mean that Black Americans should keep a lookout over their shoulders or that we should walk around wearing parachutes.

yours/
peter.
 
Written By: Peter Jackson
URL: http://www.liberalcapitalist.com
If "securing the borders" is the goal, rather than merely stopping Latin Americans from coming in, will proponents of "border control" propose an equivalent program at our Canadian border? It’s less utilized but just as porous.
Absolutely, if it is proven that it is necessary.

Porus doesn’t mean flooding. It just means it has the potential to do so. Show me the same numbers (or even a good fraction of those numbers) that come across the southern border and I’ll be advocating the same for the north.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Oh, so it’s not the "unsecured" nature of the border that’s a problem, but the number of people coming over it?

You keep arguing "first, control the borders". But why? To what end? If it’s "security", then I’ll note that it’s every bit as easy for terrorists to come in via Canada as it is to come in via Mexico. Probably easier, since there’s a longer border and less oversight.

And if we don’t want to stop millions of Mexicans from coming to the US, then "controlling the border" is a waste of time. It’s nothing more than flexing our muscles.

That’s like saying "first, stop drug smuggling into the US; THEN we’ll decide what our drug policy should be." It’s exactly backwards.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net
Oh, so it’s not the "unsecured" nature of the border that’s a problem, but the number of people coming over it?
There’s active security and passive security, Jon.

What’s your point?

While the numbers south of the border may require active measures to secure it, passive measures may be fine up north.
You keep arguing "first, control the borders". But why? To what end? If it’s "security", then I’ll note that it’s every bit as easy for terrorists to come in via Canada as it is to come in via Mexico. Probably easier, since there’s a longer border and less oversight.
The problem doesn’t have a "one-size-fits-all" solution. If necessary then yes, active measures up north. If not, then go with passive.

In either case, secure the borders.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Why is it necessary on the Mexican border, but not on the Canadian border? Do you have some information about terrorists crossing one border but abjuring the other? What passive security measures are we currently deploying to prevent that?

If you’re not opposed to millions of people entering the US legally, then why not simply make it legal? Problem solved. And you don’t have to take my money to militarize the border. (even if we assume, arguendo, that the War on Illegals could possibly be more effective than the War on Drugs)
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net
But Jon, you’re taking our money to deal with the ’illegals’ either when you make them legal, or you don’t. They aren’t without cost. And they’re illegal...does that in itself have absolutely no meaning?

Why do I have to be worried only about terrorists to recognize our porous Southern border is a much bigger problem than our border with Canada if only because in addition to allowing possible terrorist infiltration it also clearly allows wandering illegal migrants workers to make a mockery of our national sovereignty?

If people were snorting or smoking Mexicans in the privacy of their homes you could liken this to the war on Drugs (which I agree is a failure), but I don’t think the two are the same. They aren’t addictive, they don’t make you feel good, and the ’cartel’ that profits from them is the government that borders our southernmost states. Sure, there’s a demand for them, but it’s the desire to pay them below minimum wage. Do you seriously think all the companies that employ them now because their labor is so cheap will be suddenly eager to keep them when they’re legal and they can complain about being paid below minimum?
All you’d get is 10 million new citizens and a renewed demand for illegals to fill the below minimum jobs the previous 10 million filled. How is that productive or cheap?

 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Why is it necessary on the Mexican border, but not on the Canadian border?
Who said that? Certainly not me.

What I said is "secure the borders". What I also said is it may not take the same type of security measures on the Canadian border than the Mexican border.

And this time try not to ignore my point about this not being a "one-size-fits-all" situation.
Do you have some information about terrorists crossing one border but abjuring the other?
At the moment, it appears the Mexican border is the border of choice. You remember the 3 Iraqi Christians from a week or two ago? Then there’s the Polish illegal living in Chicago who admitted to flying into Mexico City and walking across the southern border. If Canada were as easy as Mexico why not fly into Toronto?

So yeah, I think there is information available which points to the south and not the north.
If you’re not opposed to millions of people entering the US legally, then why not simply make it legal?
Why don’t we propose a simplistic solution to a complex problem?

Because "legal" requires some identification and security processing before applicants are allowed to enter. That is why passenger manifests are processed before aircraft touch down and people on the watch lists identified and denied entry. That would also be a part of becoming "legal" here.

That’s how "securing the borders" works.

If they’re willing to submit to the scrutiny, I’m more than willing to see them enter ... legally.
And you don’t have to take my money to militarize the border. (even if we assume, arguendo, that the War on Illegals could possibly be more effective than the War on Drugs)
First one has to agree to your premise that this attempt to secure our borders is analogous to the War on Drugs and I’m afraid I’m not seeing the parallels.

 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Who said that? Certainly not me. What I said is "secure the borders". What I also said is it may not take the same type of security measures on the Canadian border than the Mexican border.
Ok, so now we’re up to building a wall or establishing a military force on the thousands of miles with with Mexico and creating — at a minimum — some way to monitor the even longer border with Canada. Because, so far our laissez faire approach to US/Canada or US/Mexico border has failed to....what?
And this time try not to ignore my point about this not being a "one-size-fits-all" situation.
I don’t think I did. That’s why I specifically asked about "passive security measures". Apparently, our completely passive "ignore the vast majority of it" method has generally worked — to my standards — for a couple hundred some-odd years. But you and others seem to see a need to "control" the borders.
At the moment, it appears the Mexican border is the border of choice.
It is? That’s quite a stretch, considering you cited people you don’t even know to be terrorists. I’ve little doubt that somebody fairly malevolent — even perhaps a terrorist — could have previously crossed the US/Mexican border, or tried to do so and been stopped. I can’t think of one, but you’re welcome to name him.

Meanwhile, I can name a terrorist — al Qaeda, no less — who tried to enter from Canada with the intention of committing terrorism and was only stopped by pure luck and because he foolishly tried to enter legally, instead of somewhere along the other ~4000 unsecured miles. Ahmed Ressam.

Oh, and Mohammed Atta also entered via Canada. He did so legally, but doing so illegaly would have — apparently — been even less difficult.

What’s more, as Peter Beinart recently pointed out in the WaPo...
Would-be terrorists coming from Canada are not only less likely to be caught, they are less likely to die along the way.

There also happen to be many more potential jihadists in Canada. Unlike Mexico, with its negligible Arab and Muslim population, Canada in recent decades has welcomed large numbers of immigrants from the Middle East. And while the vast majority are law-abiding, Canadian authorities estimate that roughly 50 terrorist groups operate in the country.

So, the empirical evidence is that the Canadian border is quantifiably more dangerous than the Mexican border. Why are we more worried about Mexican border security?

As far as I can tell, since the inexpensive laissez faire approaches are widely dismissed, it’s not really about "security" so much as about a basker of concerns. Legitimate concerns in some ways, perhaps, but not strictly "security".
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net
Ok, so now we’re up to building a wall or establishing a military force on the thousands of miles with with Mexico and creating — at a minimum — some way to monitor the even longer border with Canada. Because, so far our laissez faire approach to US/Canada or US/Mexico border has failed to....what?
Huh? We’re looking at each situation and figuring out what is the best response based on that situation. One may take more of a physical presence than the other unless you assume we’re doing nothing to monitor the Canadian border.

I’m not sure why is this so hard for you to understand?
It is?
Yes, it is ...
That’s quite a stretch, considering you cited people you don’t even know to be terrorists.
Uh huh, so if they’ve figured it out, it doesn’t at all take much of a stretch to assum terrorists have figured it out as well, does it? I mean if a guy wants to live in Chicago but chooses a city which is thousands of miles away from Chicago when he could have chosen one a couple of hundred miles away - if Canada was just like Mexico - doesn’t tell you something, I’m not sure what will.
So, the empirical evidence is that the Canadian border is quantifiably more dangerous than the Mexican border. Why are we more worried about Mexican border security?
That’s actually an empirical assumption with no empirical evidence to this point to back it up.

Point out where there have been a rash of illegal crossings from Canada, Jon. Perhaps their internal controls simply don’t facilitate it like the lack of the same controls do in Mexico.
As far as I can tell, since the inexpensive laissez faire approaches are widely dismissed, it’s not really about "security" so much as about a basker of concerns. Legitimate concerns in some ways, perhaps, but not strictly "security".
Well I’m not sure what a "basker of concerns" is, but I’m sure that I believe we should use whatever is appropriate for border security, be it Canada or Mexico.

And before I forget:
And you don’t have to take my money to militarize the border. (even if we assume, arguendo, that the War on Illegals could possibly be more effective than the War on Drugs)
If this is a an important principle for you, why are you asking others for their money to finance a war in Iraq for which you voiced support?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Huh? We’re looking at each situation and figuring out what is the best response based on that situation. One may take more of a physical presence than the other unless you assume we’re doing nothing to monitor the Canadian border.

I’m not sure why is this so hard for you to understand?
You keep arguing that each situation requires different approaches, but you’ve given no substantive reason why they require different approaches. Because there are more people crossing the Mexican border? But it’s not the number of people that you object to — in fact, you’ve said you’d be willing to dramatically increase the number we allow in legally. So what is it? That the threat is greater from the Mexican border? But that can’t be the case, because you have yet to cite a single terrorist who crossed via the Mexican border, while I’ve cited two who crossed via Canada and pointed out that Canada has a much larger immigrant Muslim population that does Mexico.

You’re not being clear about precisely what it is to which you object. If it’s just security, then militarizing the southern border doesn’t really solve that and there’s no substantive reason why the norther border should not get at least as much militarization. All you can point to is the fact that a lot more non-terrorists are crossing via the Mexican border. But if your worry is terrorism, then non-terrorists are not your worry. They are a matter to be worked around, not stopped.
It is?
Yes, it is ...
Maybe you’re right and a host of terrorists have been crossing via the Mexican border. You’re welcome to mention them. To date, however, the count is Canada-2 / Mexico-0. If it’s the border of choice for terrorists, you’ll have to be more specific about who, specifically, has made that choice.

Again, I’ll readily concede that, should they choose to do so, terrorists could cross the mexican border. Of course, they could also cross the Canadian border or our coastal border, both of which are currently less dangerous than the Mexican border.

I mean, militarizing the Mexican border to stop terrorists from entering our country is a bit like stopping smoking by criminalizing the sale of cigarrettes. Sure, you’ll make some kind of impact. But that’s expending a lot of effort to stop water from running downhill. Water, smokers and terrorists will find a way around such a narrow defense.

And that kind of border "control" will inevitably lead to more and more intervention. That’s the way government works. The initial steps are easy. Paying for an extra few thousand border patrols is relatively inexpensive in the grand scheme of things. It’s the additional marginal effectiveness that’s tough. Every increased percentage worth of effectiveness will cost more and more. And we’ll just have to sacrifice a little bit more to solve the problem. Etc, ad nasueam.
I mean if a guy wants to live in Chicago but chooses a city which is thousands of miles away from Chicago when he could have chosen one a couple of hundred miles away - if Canada was just like Mexico - doesn’t tell you something, I’m not sure what will.
Ahmed Ressam and Mohammed Atta.
That’s actually an empirical assumption with no empirical evidence to this point to back it up.
Ahmed Ressam and Mohammed Atta.
Point out where there have been a rash of illegal crossings from Canada, Jon.
There aren’t a lot of hysterical cassandra’s writing about this sort of thing from Canada, but illegal border crossing is certainly happening.

And if those links weren’t enough, how’s this:
...authorities announced Wednesday that they had dismantled a human-smuggling ring that was running illegal immigrants into the United States through Canada.

The ring was responsible for importing dozens of Indian and Pakistani immigrants, according to U.S. and Canadian authorities.
Illegal and unmonitored Pakistani immigrants? From Canada. There’s your rash. Where’s the call for national guard on the borders of the country that actually does have a significan immigrant muslim community, from which terrorists actually have emerged?
Well I’m not sure what a "basker of concerns" is,

That should have read "basket of concerns". Typo. I.e., "other concerns like culture, assimilation, economic, etc".
If this is a an important principle for you, why are you asking others for their money to finance a war in Iraq for which you voiced support?
I’ve pointed out a far less expensive, security-specific way to address the concerns about terrorism. If that’s the concern you have, the solution I noted would be sufficient. If the concern is really the other "basket of values" and security is either a smaller part of it or a red herring, then let’s talk about those issues. But militarizing the border simply to flex our muscles and demonstrate our ability to enforce unnecessary laws is counter-productive and a terrible waste of my money.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net
You keep arguing that each situation requires different approaches, but you’ve given no substantive reason why they require different approaches.
I’m not arguing that at all. I’m arguing they may require different approaches.
But it’s not the number of people that you object to — in fact, you’ve said you’d be willing to dramatically increase the number we allow in legally. So what is it?
Stopping people from crossing the border illegally, for heaven sake. It’s an inherent security risk.
That the threat is greater from the Mexican border? But that can’t be the case, because you have yet to cite a single terrorist who crossed via the Mexican border, while I’ve cited two who crossed via Canada and pointed out that Canada has a much larger immigrant Muslim population that does Mexico.
Just one?
Furthermore, in a Feb. 16 Senate hearing, Mr. Mueller cited the case of Mahmoud Youssef Kourani, who paid to be smuggled across the US-Mexico border in 2001. He pleaded guilty on March 1 to providing material support to Hizbullah and was sentenced to no more than five years in prison.
Come on Jon, you can use Google just as well as I can.

And tell me, is it only muslims who are terrorist risks?
You’re not being clear about precisely what it is to which you object. If it’s just security, then militarizing the southern border doesn’t really solve that and there’s no substantive reason why the norther border should not get at least as much militarization.
If it warrants it, then fine. You’ve yet to show me it warrants that level of a physical barrier.

How many times do I have to say that before you get it?

And you’re right, militarizing the southern border may not solve the problem of illegal entry ... so we’ll have to look at something else then. Of course your declaration that it won’t work aside, I guess we’ll see, won’t we?
I don’t think I did. That’s why I specifically asked about "passive security measures". Apparently, our completely passive "ignore the vast majority of it" method has generally worked — to my standards — for a couple hundred some-odd years. But you and others seem to see a need to "control" the borders.
Yeah, it did. But you may have noticed over the years that time goes on and situations change. In the case of the US, the security situation has drastically changed. And so has the response.

BTW, passive security means passive measures of monitoring the borders. It doesn’t require the physical presence that they’re talking about on the southern border. High flying IR drones, for instance, would be a passive way of monitoring. Sensor arrays deployed in depth and linked with communications at likely crossing points would be another.
Ahmed Ressam and Mohammed Atta.
Door now closed. You, of course, would leave it open.
There aren’t a lot of hysterical cassandra’s writing about this sort of thing from Canada, but illegal border crossing is certainly happening.

And if those links weren’t enough, how’s this:
Those are wonderful, Jon ... so let’s secure that border as well, even if it requires a physical presence.

Clear enough?
I’ve pointed out a far less expensive, security-specific way to address the concerns about terrorism.
Good for you ... now go get support and funding for it. Otherwise you can just pay for my preferred way of doing it just as those who don’t support the war in Iraq are paying for it.

Interesting that I have to remind you that’s the way politics works.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Since there is so much traffic on this thread, I will ask my question again.
What happens when we have the next recession, and these millions of unskilled, unassimilated aliens are out of work?

Then there is the matter of public health. One of the major reasons for the establishment of the US Public Health Service was to ensure that immigrants to this country were not bringing in diseases such as tuberculosis. They were examined and, if need be, quarantined at places like Ellis Island. It is pretty obvious that illegal aliens are not screened for diseases before entering our country, and in spite of our present state of good public health we are still vulnerable to things like polio, tuberculosis, and other goodies we don’t even know about. There are some rather exotic afflictions from south of the border that may find an ecological niche here, like the rabbits in Australia. The recent mumps outbreak in Iowa(?) should be a warning. I myself do not wish to run the risk of contracting a drug-resistant strain of TB so that my fellow citizens of the world may better themselves. Call me selfish, but my family and I, and my tribe, take precedence over some alien tribe.

Immigration, legal and illegal, is not a cost-free process, and until someone provides me with clear and convincing proof that I receive a net benefit(as defined by me) from it, I reserve the right to limit it.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
The UK has this thing. Although there are particulars, generally if you are a citizen of any nation that is currently or was historically part of the Brittish Empire, you can emmigrate to any of the current member nations of the Commonwealth—including Canada. Two of the largest immigrant groups relocating to Canada are Indians and Pakistanis.

Ten years ago I was passing through British Columbia on my way to Alaska and heard derogatory ethnic jokes about Indians ("Do you know why the US got the Negro and Canada got the Hindoo? America got first choice.") for the first time. I was pretty startled. Here in the US Indians have a reputation for a funny accent, but they also have a reputation for being physicians and computer programmers and being generally over-educated as a group. The US government took Indians off of various preferred minority status lists in the ’80s after it was discovered that Indian American households have higher median incomes than white households. But the Canadians told very familiar-sounding stories about Canadian Indians, and how they live five families to a house, suck up all that good Canadian welfare and universal health care all while they’re sticking to themselves, speaking a variety of languages other than english and generally not assimilating. I had it explained to me in great guilty detail more than once when I responded to their jokes by first laughing and then eventually letting them know that my girlfriend at the time (now my wife) was Telegu.

So, just so you know, Canada’s got all kinds of brown people from a pretty hostile part of the world, and they enter and leave Canada more or less as they please. We also have border with Canada over 3100 miles long with more than two-thirds of it being over water (and we’re not talking about the Rio Grande here).

If Canada is a more likely entry point for Islamist terrorists yet what we’re doing on the Canadian border results in sufficient security, yet on our southern border the strategy we’re employing (which is different than what we’re doing up north) results in disorder and insecurity, doesn’t reason suggest we should consider shifting strategies down south to something more in line with our success up north before we consider resorting to more of the same policies that until now have resulted in nothing but failure?

So how about this: legalization first— and then a fence. Although if we provide a rational way for Mexicans to come here to work legally, we’ll never have to build it.

yours/
peter.
 
Written By: Peter Jackson
URL: http://www.liberalcapitalist.com

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider