Jump to content

US Politics 3


TrackerNeil

Recommended Posts

Anguy, you said:

And while mass-deporation is maybe nonstarter (and that's debatable) mass self deportation isn't. Just take away the reasons for them to come and they will leave. So high fines for everyone who employs them, take away all welfare (except emergency healthcare), no driving licenses etc.

I must take issue with the notion that mass-deportation is a "maybe nonstarter." It's a complete non-starter. There are ten million or so illegals or undocumenteds or whatever you want to call them in this nation, and there is no way we could seriously deport ten million people without a huge increase in the size of federal government - new agents, hearing officers, clerks, administrators - and either a giant debt or a sizable tax increase to pay for it all. That leaves out, of course, the untold human misery caused by rounding up millions of people, holding them in custody for weeks months years until there were shipped back to wherever they'd originated. It'd be the Trail of Tears on steroids.

The American people today would simply never stand for that kind of relocation, not in moral or economic terms, so you might want to put the quaint notion of deporting ten million people out of your head and back in the realm of fantasy where it belongs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Removing the incentives that motivate illegal immigrants is bass ackwards. If you have a problem with illegal immigrants using tax payer funded programs without paying into the system there is a much easier answer:

Tax them.

End of story. Just about every non racist argument for opposing wide open immigration can be answered with the above. Give migrant workers the same employment rights as citizens without having to jump through the hoops of immigration compliance, such as the right to bring legal action against an employer that pays them less then minimum wage, and the problem resolves it's self.

Guys who stand outside of home depo might still avoid taxation, but everyone working for a company with more then a dozen employees will.

Legally prohibiting the employment of non-registered aliens gives companies an incentive to hire them under the table. Remove that prohibition, and you remove the incentive to hire employees under the table. After all, if you have to give an employee two fifteen minute breaks and a half an hour lunch for every eight hour shift, as well as pay minimum wage, overtime, and provide medical benefits if your company is over X number of employees in order to avoid lawsuit, what is the point of paying people under the table?

Punish companies who fail to comply with regulations, rather then the people who might accept employment absent standard protection, and the problems vanish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I must take issue with the notion that mass-deportation is a "maybe nonstarter." It's a complete non-starter. There are ten million or so illegals or undocumenteds or whatever you want to call them in this nation, and there is no way we could seriously deport ten million people without a huge increase in the size of federal government - new agents, hearing officers, clerks, administrators - and either a giant debt or a sizable tax increase to pay for it all. That leaves out, of course, the untold human misery caused by rounding up millions of people, holding them in custody for weeks months years until there were shipped back to wherever they'd originated. It'd be the Trail of Tears on steroids.

Already today US deports 400 000 people anually. Quadruple the manpower, streamline the deportation process (faster court proceedings, eliminated or reduced right to appeal and some procedures) and you can easily increase it to 4-5 million for let's say 40 bil./year. (after all whole ICE budget today is just 5 billion/year).

Is it a lot? Sure. But it is much less and more effective (more jobs "created" for poor Americans) than 700 billion stimulus bill.

But like I said pressure on employers is much better idea. Fines can also finance large part of deportation process so it won't cost the state that much.

Say I happened to have come from Mexico and I work in a factory in the US illegally. A tighter law scares my employer into letting me go, and I don't believe that I can find another similar job because of that law, I still don't think I'd be likely to go back to Mexico. Some would, of course, but I don't think something like this would be a de facto "self-deportation" as anguy called it.

I don't think there will be that many people who would stay (after all Mexico is not Zimbanwe or some country where people starve to death), and those can be dealt with traditional methods.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Already today US deports 400 000 people anually. Quadruple the manpower, streamline the deportation process (faster court proceedings, eliminated or reduced right to appeal and some procedures) and you can easily increase it to 4-5 million for let's say 40 bil./year. (after all whole ICE budget today is just 5 billion/year).

Is it a lot? Sure. But it is much less and more effective (more jobs "created" for poor Americans) than 700 billion stimulus bill.

So all we have to do is quadruple the staff and reduce the accuracy of the deportation process (by "streamlining") and it will be a cinch? Uh-huh. If you thought getting the stimulus bill passed was hard, wait until you try vastly increasing the size and decreasing the accuracy of the deportation machine. I can just about hear the filibuster now...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But like I said pressure on employers is much better idea. Fines can also finance large part of deportation process so it won't cost the state that much.

I support fining employers, however I would want that money to be used toward border security since I think the majority would easily support it but it's always a huge pain to agree how to finance it. It would also have the effect of creating jobs. I'd couple that with the path to citizenship approach.

I don't think there will be that many people who would stay (after all Mexico is not Zimbanwe or some country where people starve to death), and those can be dealt with traditional methods.

I'm wondering what the internal situation is in Mexico these days. Last I read it was described as writhing in bloody cartel violence, but I don't know if that was overly dramatic or not and how much it affects the average Mexican. It crossed my mind reading what you wrote above about it essentially not being so bad there, and the part of Triskele's article about not deporting people based on placing undue burden on them by forcing them to return to their country in such situations like an earthquake (like Haiti I assume) or civil war.

I pulled this up real quick:

Since 2006, the Mexican government has engaged in an extensive effort to combat drug-trafficking organizations (DTOs). Mexican DTOs, meanwhile, have been engaged in a vicious struggle with each other for control of trafficking routes. In order to prevent and combat violence, the government of Mexico has deployed military troops and federal police throughout the country. U.S. citizens should expect to encounter military and other law enforcement checkpoints when traveling in Mexico and are urged to cooperate fully. DTOs have erected unauthorized checkpoints, and killed motorists who have not stopped at them. In confrontations with the Mexican army and police, DTOs have employed automatic weapons and grenades. In some cases, assailants have worn full or partial police or military uniforms and have used vehicles that resemble police vehicles. According to published reports, 22,700 people have been killed in narcotics-related violence since 2006. The great majority of those killed have been members of DTOs. However, innocent bystanders have been killed in shootouts between DTOs and Mexican law enforcement or between rival DTOs.

Recent violent attacks and persistent security concerns have prompted the U.S. Embassy to urge U.S. citizens to defer unnecessary travel to Michoacán and Tamaulipas, to parts of Chihuahua, Sinaloa, Durango, and Coahuila, (see details below) and to advise U.S. citizens residing or traveling in those areas to exercise extreme caution.

Much of the country’s narcotics-related violence has occurred in the northern border region. For example, since 2006, three times as many people have been murdered in Ciudad Juarez, in the state of Chihuahua, across from El Paso, Texas, than in any other city in Mexico. More than half of all Americans killed in Mexico in FY 2009 whose deaths were reported to the U.S. Embassy were killed in the border cities of Ciudad Juarez and Tijuana.

Since 2006, large firefights have taken place in towns and cities in many parts of Mexico, often in broad daylight on streets and other public venues. Such firefights have occurred mostly in northern Mexico, including Ciudad Juarez, Tijuana, Chihuahua City, Nogales, Nuevo Laredo, Piedras Negras, Reynosa, Matamoros and Monterrey. Firefights have also occurred in Nayarit, Jalisco and Colima. During some of these incidents, U.S. citizens have been trapped and temporarily prevented from leaving the area.

The situation in northern Mexico remains fluid; the location and timing of future armed engagements cannot be predicted. U.S. citizens are urged to exercise extreme caution when traveling throughout the region, particularly in those areas specifically mentioned in this Travel Warning.

In recent months, DTOs have used stolen trucks to block major highways and thus prevent the military from responding to criminal activity, most notably in the area around Monterrey. Also in Monterrey, DTOs have kidnapped guests out of reputable hotels in the downtown area, blocking off adjoining streets to prevent law enforcement response. DTOs have also attacked Mexican government facilities such as military barracks and a customs and immigration post.

The situation in the state of Chihuahua, specifically Ciudad Juarez, is of special concern. Mexican authorities report that more than 2,600 people were killed in Ciudad Juarez in 2009. Three persons associated with the Consulate General were murdered in March, 2010. U.S. citizens should defer unnecessary travel to Ciudad Juarez and to the Guadalupe Bravo area southeast of Ciudad Juarez. U.S. citizens should also defer travel to the northwest quarter of the state of Chihuahua, including the city of Nuevas Casas Grandes and surrounding communities. From the United States, these areas are often reached through the Columbus, NM and Fabens and Fort Hancock, TX ports-of-entry. In both areas, American citizens have been victims of drug related violence. There have been recent incidents of serious narcotics-related violence in the vicinity of the Copper Canyon in Chihuahua.

The Consular agency in Reynosa, Tamaulipas was closed temporarily in February 2010 in response to firefights between police and DTOs and between DTOs. In April 2010, a grenade thrown into the Consulate compound at 11:00 PM caused damage to the U.S. Consulate General in Nuevo Laredo, Tamaulipas. The Consulate General in Nuevo Laredo and the Consular Agency in Piedras Negras, Coahuila, were closed for one day as a result. The Consulate General in Nuevo Laredo prohibits employees from entering the entertainment zone in Nuevo Laredo known as “Boys Town” because of concerns about violent crime in that area.

Between 2006 and 2009, the number of narcotics-related murders in the state of Durango increased ten-fold. The cities of Durango and Gomez Palacio, and the area known as “La Laguna” in the state of Coahuila, which includes the city of Torreon, have experienced sharp increases in violence. In late 2009 and early 2010, four visiting U.S. citizens were murdered in Gomez Palacio, Durango. These are among several murders in the state of Durango that have been cause for particular concern and that remain under investigation.

Travelers on the highways between Monterrey and the United States (notably through Nuevo Laredo and Matamoros) have been targeted for robbery that has resulted in violence and have also been caught in incidents of gunfire between criminals and Mexican law enforcement. Travelers should defer unnecessary travel on Mexican Highway 2 between Reynosa and Nuevo Laredo due to the ongoing violent competition between DTOs in that area. Criminals have followed and harassed U.S. citizens traveling in their vehicles in border areas including Nuevo Laredo, Matamoros, and Tijuana. U.S. citizens traveling by road to and from the U.S. border through Nuevo Leon, Coahuila, Durango, and Sinaloa should be especially vigilant. Criminals appear to especially target SUVs and full-size pick-up trucks for theft and car-jacking along these routes.

Continued concerns regarding road safety along the Mexican border have prompted the U.S. Mission in Mexico to impose certain restrictions on U.S. government employees transiting the area. Effective July 15, 2010, Mission employees and their families may not travel by vehicle across the U.S.-Mexico border to or from any post in the interior of Mexico. This policy also applies to employees and their families transiting Mexico to and from Central American posts. This policy does not apply to employees and their family members assigned to border posts (Tijuana, Nogales, Ciudad Juarez, Nuevo Laredo, and Matamoros), although they may not drive to interior posts as outlined above. Travel is permitted between Hermosillo and Nogales, but not permitted from Hermosillo to any other interior posts.

Crime and Violence Throughout Mexico

Although narcotics-related crime is a particular concern along Mexico’s northern border, violence has occurred throughout the country, including in areas frequented by American tourists. U.S. citizens traveling in Mexico should exercise caution in unfamiliar areas and be aware of their surroundings at all times. Bystanders have been injured or killed in violent attacks in cities across the country, demonstrating the heightened risk of violence in public places. In recent years, dozens of U.S. citizens living in Mexico have been kidnapped and most of their cases remain unsolved.

One of Mexico’s most powerful DTOs is based in the state of Sinaloa. Since 2006, more homicides have occurred in the state’s capital city of Culiacan than in any other city in Mexico, with the exception of Ciudad Juarez. Furthermore, the city of Mazatlan has experienced a recent increase in violent crime, with more murders in the first quarter of 2010 than in all of 2009. U.S. citizens should defer unnecessary travel to Culiacan and exercise extreme caution when visiting the rest of the state.

The state of Michoacán is home to another of Mexico’s most dangerous DTOs, “La Familia”. In June 2010, 14 federal police were killed in an ambush near Zitacuaro in the southeastern corner of the state. In April 2010, the Secretary for Public Security for Michoacán was shot in a DTO ambush. Security incidents have also occurred in and around the State’s world famous butterfly sanctuaries. In 2008, a grenade attack on a public gathering in Morelia, the state capital, killed eight people. U.S. citizens should defer unnecessary travel to the area. If travel in Michoacán is unavoidable, U.S. citizens should exercise extreme caution, especially outside major tourist areas.

U.S. citizens should exercise extreme caution when traveling in the northwestern part of the state of Guerrero, which likewise has a strong DTO presence. U.S. citizens should not take the dangerous, isolated road through Ciudad Altamirano to the beach resorts of Ixtapa and Zihuatanejo. The popular beach resort of Acapulco has been affected by narcotics-related violence. In April 2010, three innocent bystanders were killed in a shootout between Mexican police and DTO members in broad daylight in one of the city’s main tourist areas. In the same month, numerous incidents of narcotics-related violence occurred in the city of Cuernavaca, in the State of Morelos, a popular destination for American language students.

U.S. citizens should also exercise extreme caution when traveling in southern Nayarit in and near the city of Tepic which has recently experienced unpredictable incidents of DTO violence. The number of violent incidents involving DTOs has increased in recent months throughout Jalisco, Nayarit and Colima.

U.S. citizens traveling to towns and villages with large indigenous communities located predominantly but not exclusively in southern Mexico, should be aware that land disputes between residents and between residents and local authorities have led to violence. In April 2010, two members of a non-governmental aid organization, one of whom was a foreign citizen, were murdered near the village of San Juan Capola in Oaxaca.

http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/tw/tw_4755.html
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the same month, numerous incidents of narcotics-related violence occurred in the city of Cuernavaca, in the State of Morelos, a popular destination for American language students.

Erm, that's where I was in April. Certainly didn't seem unsafe at the time...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A poll with graphs which . . . er . . . graphically illustrates what I said before about small business owners not expanding or even downsizing in the current environment:

Wells Fargo/Gallup Small Business Index Hits New Low in July

Notice in the graphs when things really start to plummet; it's not a coincidence. Like I've said previously, I'm far from the only small business owner who isn't happy with the current state of things. The federal government can't—or at least hasn't tried to yet—force us to hire people. It wouldn't surprise me if they tried with some Ayn Randian legisation; something like "The Equalization of Opportunity Bill" or "National Directive 10-289" being pushed by the lefties isn't beyond imagination.

Now, tell me how the above is Bush's fault when so many small business owners are making a conscious decision to limit growth or downsize in light of Obama and Congress's policies and actions. Is it so hard to believe? Perhaps it's just refusing to believe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's amazing that the decline begins in mid 2007 in perfect coincidence with the Great Recession, which as every thinking individual knows is obviously brought about by Obama and his magical wand.

It's even more amazing that SYM continues to claim to be a business owner, despite continuously demonstrating business acumens suitable only for operating a one-person shoe-shine stand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No one at the national level of government seriously wants illegal immigrants gone. They are a net benefit to the federal government. The only way you will get someone at the federal level working on this is to elect some straight-up racists. Everyone at the federal level is fine with it, and no one at the state level north of Utah cares.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's amazing that the decline begins in mid 2007 in perfect coincidence with the Great Recession, which as every thinking individual knows is obviously brought about by Obama and his magical wand.

Haven't you heard. Its because the market figured out that Obama was going to be elected when it began its downturn. And when exactly did it start to downturn? Well, when the market figured out Obama was gonna win.

And round and round and round it goes.....

As far as that goes. I think the new low is because the rational business owners think that the Repubs are gonna gain seats. And they know that they are gonna get a drubbing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No one at the national level of government seriously wants illegal immigrants gone. They are a net benefit to the federal government. The only way you will get someone at the federal level working on this is to elect some straight-up racists. Everyone at the federal level is fine with it, and no one at the state level north of Utah cares.

What do you mean by "gone"? If you meant as in rounding up all illegals immigrants, breaking up families and starting massive deportation along with building some giant electrified fence around the border, than yeah I'm afraid that nobody would consider that seriously. I doubt if you do too, given how much more power and money you need to give to the federal government.

And of course those crafty illegal immigrants could very well figure out a way to dig tunnels under that giant electrified fence. It's probably hard to fathom that such shifty people are capable of such engineering feat, but that's something we all should think about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What do you mean by "gone"? If you meant as in rounding up all illegals immigrants, breaking up families and starting massive deportation along with building some giant electrified fence around the border, than yeah I'm afraid that nobody would consider that seriously. I doubt if you do too, given how much more power and money you need to give to the federal government.

And of course those crafty illegal immigrants could very well figure out a way to dig tunnels under that giant electrified fence. It's probably hard to fathom that such shifty people are capable of such engineering feat, but that's something we all should think about.

The amount of money a fence like that would cost if mind boggling. It would cost billions just for a tin fence. Anyone who actually thinks a fence is a good idea is a moron.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The amount of money a fence like that would cost if mind boggling. It would cost billions just for a tin fence. Anyone who actually thinks a fence is a good idea is a moron.

You know what is silly? What is silly is that people think securing the border is about illigal immigrants. It is not. Securing the border is about National Security. Reducing the number of illigal immigrants is just a nice side benefit.

On a more positive note, I am actually in favor of some sort of road for the exsisting 10-12 million odd illegal immigrants getting a right to work here (not citizenship, but some sort of green card or something) that would require background checks, proof of a legitiment job, etc. Here is the major problem with both sides. Companies are able to pay illegal immigrants (undocumented workers is a silly term, and full of shit if you ask me)much less than the minimum wage, and the illegals like this why? Well, they get straight cash, no checks, no ties to any systems (taxes), and can send it back home. Also (and this is really really sad but true), well below minimum wage in America, is still much better than they can get back in their home countires. So, at the moment, both parties benefit, while the 2nd party uses communial resources without paying anything into them.

I talk a little bit about illegal immigrants here: http://starkimus.blogspot.com/

I have not had a chance to flesh out my illegal immigrant road to redemption...but I soon will! And I know..Im a damn conservative, and shouldn't want any form of Amnesty or whatever..but I think there has to be some kind of road to legalization, as well as reforms in the immigration system. So..yeah..

Hasta!

Stark Out!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know what is silly? What is silly is that people think securing the border is about illigal immigrants. It is not. Securing the border is about National Security. Reducing the number of illigal immigrants is just a nice side benefit.

Because so many national security threats have come illegally through the borders. But of course all those evil terrorists will be able to be stopped by a fence you can break through with tin snips. You have any idea just how non-feasible it is to do what your talking about? You can spend billions on a tin fence which anyone who wanted through could just by spending 5 dollar's on a pair of tin snips. 10's of billions on one you'd need a pair of $0.99 rubber gloves in addition to the tin snips to get through. Trillions if you wanted it patrolled and then they'd just go through when no one was looking because you'd need such a huge force to keep an eye on all of it and you wouldn't be able to get the many people to man the posts.

You know what go for it, I'll just break through every other weekend just to piss the border patrol off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The amount of money a fence like that would cost if mind boggling. It would cost billions just for a tin fence. Anyone who actually thinks a fence is a good idea is a moron.

The cost normally would be a great point. But wasn't the whole point of the stimulus package to inject government cash into the economy and create jobs? And if that was the goal, why not spend some of that 900 billion to create a ton of construction jobs and build more of that fence?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The cost normally would be a great point. But wasn't the whole point of the stimulus package to inject government cash into the economy and create jobs? And if that was the goal, why not spend some of that 900 billion to create a ton of construction jobs and build more of that fence?

Because there are too many slums (Western style) and shitty roads. Why not do something... useful?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The cost normally would be a great point. But wasn't the whole point of the stimulus package to inject government cash into the economy and create jobs? And if that was the goal, why not spend some of that 900 billion to create a ton of construction jobs and build more of that fence?

The actual argument is it wouldn't defend against a damn thing. You'd have to build a fence equal to the Great Wall of China to stop people from getting over (better actually the Great Wall has holes in it) and even that would be useless unless you had enough men to patrol it. As I said in the post above yours go ahead and build it, I'll have fun breaking through it just to screw with the border patrol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thor,

Because so many national security threats have come illegally through the borders. But of course all those evil terrorists will be able to be stopped by a fence you can break through with tin snips. You have any idea just how non-feasible it is to do what your talking about? You can spend billions on a tin fence which anyone who wanted through could just by spending 5 dollar's on a pair of tin snips. 10's of billions on one you'd need a pair of $0.99 rubber gloves in addition to the tin snips to get through. Trillions if you wanted it patrolled and then they'd just go through when no one was looking because you'd need such a huge force to keep an eye on all of it and you wouldn't be able to get the many people to man the posts.

You know what go for it, I'll just break through every other weekend just to piss the border patrol off.

You know just because something hasn't happened, yet, doesn't mean people who don't particularly care for the U.S. will not use a glareingly huge hole in our national security to attack us at a later date. If it's that easy for you, or anyone else to bypass border security what is to stop someone with much less benign intentions from doing the same thing?

The fence, by itself, simply isn't enough. It would need to be combined with a beefed up border patrol and high tech surviellence equipment along the border in layers at and behind the fence. That said I recognize no defense is 100%. The best we can to is not make it disgustingly easy for people to slip across the border.

As I said before the biggest argument against it is cost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What do you mean by "gone"? If you meant as in rounding up all illegals immigrants, breaking up families and starting massive deportation along with building some giant electrified fence around the border, than yeah I'm afraid that nobody would consider that seriously. I doubt if you do too, given how much more power and money you need to give to the federal government.

I mean that a large illegal immigrant population is paying payroll, medicare, social security, gas, and other taxes to the federal government, but not using really any federal services. Almost all services used by illegals are at the state level. The federal government moves closer to solvency with every illegal that gets a job. There is no motivation at all (at the federal level) to provide a path to citizenship for these people, outside of humanitarianism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

*Sigh*

Okay, has anyone arguing for a border fence actually looked at a map? If we count Alaska, the border with Canada is slightly more than 5,500 miles long. This includes areas that are heavily forested on both sides, areas that are so depopulated there are few roads along long stretches of the border, 4 of the Great Lake, multiple rivers, etc.

To actually guard the border, you would need to cut down swathes of forest for space, (and convince the Canadians to do the same, so that someone couldn't just leisurely stroll right up to the wall unseen through the Canadian forest, cut or blow a hole, then walk through) build dozens of roads to nowhere so that people and material could be brought into place, in the case of the Great Lakes you would need to have staggered patrols across hundreds of mile of water so that someone couldn't simply take a boat across, patrol stretches of the St. Lawrence river and other rivers that cross the border, massive naval patrols around Alaska so someone can't just take a boat from a Canadian river that empties into the Pacific and then go into Alaska, more naval patrols to guard the Juan De Fuca strait that goes between portions of British Columbia and Washington state, etc.

After you build the walls, the ships, and coordinate all this, you then have to get people and equipment to watch, and do constant upkeep on it all.

Oh, and then you need to do it again, but on the easier, smaller scale of just 2,000 miles along the Mexico border. But hey, it'll be easier, because it's almost all land. You'll still need the massive naval patrols though, after all you wouldn't want someone to be able to hop a boat from the coast of Mexico, cross the Gulf, and hop off someplace in, say, Louisiana or Florida.

It's a project that probably wouldn't be finished in our lifetime if construction began tomorrow. Hell, it may not be finished in the lifetime of our grandchildren. It would be a hell of a boon to the construction industry, and maybe create around 100,000 jobs to guard it when finally finished, but there are dozens of better things that could be done with those funds that aren't so ridiculously stupid, wasteful, and almost certainly futile.

Or, to render it appropriately for the internets; stupid idea is stupid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...