If you say so... ALL of those legal experts, local officials, police chiefs, etc are opposed for political or financial reasons. :eek:

Just like all govt data is biased.

But you're not biased. ;)

The Senate Democrats released a proposal for comprehensive immigration reform a few days ago.

It includes increase ICE funding for border patrol and drug interdiction, a controversial national biometric ID card for all workers and a tough pathway to citizenship.

Full proposal

The Republicans have called it DOA and have made it clear they wont support a proposal that includes providing a process for citizenship to current illegal immigrants in the country and dismissed it as amnesty.

They also dont like the national ID card (neither does the ACLU ) but have no problem requiring Hispanices in AZ to carry their immigration papers.

The last attempt at comprehensive immigration reform, the 2007 Kennedy-McCain Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act was a pretty good bill. Unfortunately, once McCain got the Republican nomination, he had to demonstrate his conservative credentials and backed away from his own bill and would not endorse it because of strong conservative opposition to the citizenship component of the bill.

Holy crap! We agree on two things in one post! ;) We have three really good Mex places in our area now.

That is pretty rough. Is that as high as it has been or did it crest higher?
A revolution on our Southern border may not be the ideal resolution to the immigration problem... It has been a long time coming though.

I like a lot of what I see in that REPAIR Proposal. The reality of it ever happening, not so much.

For redux who loves polls

Public Opinion Polls on Immigration

Cafferty Slams Obama and Dems For Their Response To Arizona Immigration Law

I have said polls can be a valuable tool to assess public opinion.

As you recently commented to me...."dont put words in my mouth"

But public policy should be based on enforceable laws that can stand a constitutional test, not public opinion polls.

Two of the most conservative governors, while avoiding the question of the constitutionality of the AZ law, have said it is bad public policy.

Bob McDonell, gov. of Virginia - "I’m concerned about the whole idea of carrying papers and always have to be able to prove your citizenship. That brings up shades of some other regimes that were not particularly helpful to democracy and civil rights."

Rick Perry, gov. of Texas - ""I fully recognize and support a state’s right and obligation to protect its citizens, but I have concerns with portions of the law passed in Arizona and believe it would not be the right direction for Texas,"

Link

and here for the state of your choosing

Not caring what the voters want seems to have been Washington's policy for some time now.

That may be the case, although I dont agree completely.

But that doesnt change the fact that polls should not be the basis for sound public policy.

Those numbers are staggering! ( no pun intended )

On average, 10 people out of 100 are unemployed.


:thepain:

The illegal immigration from Mexico will not stop, and cannot be stopped, until Mexicans feel that there is more benefit to staying in Mexico than there is in illegally entering the US.

You have said that twice now. Who said that polls should be a basis for ANYTHING?
Please cite, thanks.

So true!

I think there will always be a benefit to entering the US for people from any country in a similar situation to Mexico or just any that is more impoverished than the US. But as this video (posted a long time ago by xob i think) shows the US cannot handle the influx of even the legal immigrants let alone those coming here illegally.

Oh and this was from 2006

Good cites, Redux.

I have less respect for politicians opinions, than that of the man on the street. At least the man on the street doesn't have to consider whether it's the politically correct answer.

So the answer is to make the US more impoverished than those countries.


Ahhhh.... now I understand The Bush Doctrine! :p:

Are you saying that the country should set policy according to polls, then?

Given that many men (and women) on the street cant even name their own Congressperson and Senators and many get their "news" from info-tainment sources, just how informed is the average man on the street?

I wonder how many could pass the citizenship test required of immigrants?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13442226/

Seriously! Most just barf back what they heard Joe at the office say.

(I missed the original states) :blush:

Uh. no.

Well, it CAN'T be to un-impoverish (or would that be "to poverish"?)other countries, can it?

No, 'cause then they'll get all high and mighty and think they're just as good as us.

Then, also, they'll become a rich country and build a bunch of nuclear weapons, then they'll blast down those cheap-ass fences we built, and take over the world!

We can't have that!

;)

Are you really that ignorant? Really?

The old Classhole rears its ugly head.

- As Bruce said, you can't keep them out.

- You rejected the idea of impoverishing the US.

- You reject the idea of helping other countries.

What's the answer?

Agreed to a degree.
Is that your plan? :eyebrow:
When?


What's your answer?

:facepalm:

It's like the Vinnie Barbarino approach to debating. :lol:

To what degree.

No.
Sounds like rejection to me.

Annex Mexico.

No, we cannot have absolute zero illegal immigration. Thats too obvious for you to really be asking seriously, but what the hell I'll play along with your game.

We must be able to control, AS BEST WE CAN, who enters our country. Building adequate systems to prevent illegal crossing of our borders, enforcing existing laws, including prosecuting companies who hire illegal immigrants and abuse them for their own financial gain, and lastly getting more than lip service from those whose responsibility it is to do so.
Did you watch the video posted? Have you read any statistics?

Care to elaborate on that?

Oh and a guesstimate on total aid given to Mexico is probably somewhere around $60 million a year.

But I like lip service.:(

No. It speaks for itself.

Which could be reduced if we annexed them. We wouldn't have to do things like...
I know, I know, there would be additional costs associated with Mexico's annexation. There would also be some financial benefit, and a much greater amount of control, especially over any federal aid they would get.

ok - send in the troops.

You don't think it can be done peacefully?

Nope

How is that solution rectifying any of the other illegal immigrants?
You seem to be only addressing those from Mexico.

You're funny. Do you forget this exchange from earlier in the thread?

I said and that's exactly what I meant.
The politicians should be finding out where John Q Public stands, instead of Big F Corp, before they decide to do something... or do nothing.

Which was my point; I just went on longer about why. Meanwhile it should be noted that opportunity in the United States is such that people are breaking in here to partake of it. Until fairly recently there were Chinese shipping themselves in using cargo boxes to partake of it.

I diffidently suggest "Expoverish." How to make sure that doesn't mean not only empty pockets but pockets turned inside out, I dunno. "Repoverish," um... "Counterpoverish," er, no. This is getting to be like rustproofing your 15th-century helmet with Sallet Dressing.

While we're celebrating our confluence here -- I can recall finding one bad (quite boring) Mexican restaurant in Ventura a couple years-plus ago. Promoted itself as a Baja style place, parked a VW dunebuggy with a couple shortboard surfboards on top as advertisement in the parking lot.

Used a microwave oven and ho-hum recipes that tasted like lunchroom food, lasted maybe eight months.

It's been replaced by a family-owned operation named El Burrito Alegre, which is very much better and has hung in there. They weren't able to move their chili-spiked chocolate brownies, which is a pity, because I liked the things. Thought they'd go well with some Starbucks from across the way.

Bad Mex doesn't dare crop up among the eateries here.

You chose to make jokes or ignore the questions. Thats your choice. Have at it.

I accept your apology.

Why do you liberals support Human Trafficing?

Support broadens among Americans for Arizona's tough illegal-immigrant law, while opposition sags
Link
Thats an interesting development. I expected this to go the other way.

But what does the absence of papers prove? A drivers license is not proof of citizenship. So how would someone prove that they are a citizen?

This reminds me of the movie Born in East L.A. where Cheech gets deported.

Whether he can do it or not I dunno, but I like his style. The man has balls for even bringing it up.
Link

I would imagine there is a binding intergovernmental agreement between AZ and CA.

So why do you think this guys has more balls than those who want to boycott AZ?

I'd say cutting off someone's power takes more balls than simply refusing to do business with them. Which place would you rather live: the one that just lost some labor/trade contracts and is gonna have to eat ramen for awhile, or the one in pitch blackness, with no A/C in 100+ degree summer heat?

Or it is just political grandstanding.

I dont know the details of the AZ-CA interstate agreement, but most such agreements, particularly for defined services, are in the form of binding contracts.

Just like the original boycott threat. I thought it was a well-played response.

I agree boycotts are political as well.

The difference, IMO, is the boycott has the force of action behind it and voiding a valid intergovernmental contract (if that is the case) does not which would make it an empty threat.

add:
It is even less than an empty threat....just some dude in AZ (running for reelection to the AZ Commission) blowing hot air.

Given that Southern California Edison, the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power and other California utilities have an ownership stake in major power plants in Arizona.

I think it was symbolic and a great response to one state trying to exert its influence over another. What will happen if the AZ bill goes thru and illegals then try to cross somewhere else. I wonder where that would would be? Ohhh thats right CA.

Oh. My. Gawd.

Sounds like the healthcare reform debate

not really - this was 10 pages not a couple thousand.

I see. Not reading a bill is entirely different than not reading a bill. Gotcha.:rolleyes:

You're right - all the D's who voted for a bill they hadn't read and all the R's voting against and criticizing it. I see what you're saying.

It is funny, in a diversionary sorta way.

But it wont deflect the valid criticisms and concerns expressed by many constitutional experts, many local elected officials and many law enforcement officials... as well as civil rights and other grass roots organizations.

Its also funny in a pathetic that they're criticizing something they haven't even read. They've had weeks and its only ten pages.