Why would anyone in their right minds make arguments against sealing the border

[mike2810]

For most kinds of issues, I actually agree with that. But civil rights is not one of those issues. Civil rights are clearly set up by our constitution to be consistent nationwide, and it is clearly the responsibility of the federal government to ensure that they are protected no matter what state you are in. Historically, that has turned out to be a very important principle in US history and not one I would consider shifting on.

And it will be courts to decide if AZ is in error or is correct. I can live with that. Illegal immigration is not a simple issue nor is border security. No matter the reason, an illegal is an illegal and broke federal law. Seems some want to pick and choose what laws they want to enforce. If the federal law is wrong, remove it. If the federal law is on the books enforce it. Same for the State laws.

So you going to work on getting 834b removed from CA books? Last I checked it was still posted when searching CA gov. code.

 

[mikhail]

Why not just go after those employing illegal immigrants?

 

[deltabtry]

For most kinds of issues, I actually agree with that. But civil rights is not one of those issues. Civil rights are clearly set up by our constitution to be consistent nationwide, and it is clearly the responsibility of the federal government to ensure that they are protected no matter what state you are in. Historically, that has turned out to be a very important principle in US history and not one I would consider shifting on.

Well first off the Federal law should be enforced first and then and only then should any civil rights violations be taken up. The federal government first and foremost duty is to protect the citizens of this country..FIRST. The federal government for decades has turned a blind eye to our porous border with Mexico and this alone should be grounds to bring our politicians up on charges who willing negate their oath of office in this regard.

 

[mike2810]

Why not just go after those employing illegal immigrants?

Arizona passed a law in 2007 that sanctions employers of illegals. guess what, Obama is taking AZ to court on this law. It will be interesting to see how it plays out.

 

[teamosil]

And it will be courts to decide if AZ is in error or is correct. I can live with that.

Cool. That's reasonable. Although, be warned, the federal courts have previously made some extremely stark rulings about states needing to stay out of immigration policy. Here is the relevant section from the supreme court decision on it:

the regulation of aliens is so intimately blended and intertwined with responsibilities of the national government that where it acts, and the state also acts on the same subject, the act of Congress or treaty is supreme; and the law of the state, though enacted in the exercise of powers not controverted, must yield to it. And where the federal government, in the exercise of its superior authority in this field, has enacted a complete scheme of regulation…. states cannot, inconsistently with the purpose of Congress, conflict or interfere with, curtail or complement, the federal law, or enforce additional or auxiliary regulations.

HINES v. DAVIDOWITZ, 312 U.S. 52 (1941)

In short, AZ is highly unlikely to win the upcoming court challenges.

Illegal immigration is not a simple issue nor is border security. No matter the reason, an illegal is an illegal and broke federal law. Seems some want to pick and choose what laws they want to enforce. If the federal law is wrong, remove it. If the federal law is on the books enforce it. Same for the State laws.

I think this is a misconception that we're just not enforcing immigration law. We spent about $36 billion a year enforcing immigration law. But, it's a big expensive process to deport somebody. It requires coordination between different agencies, a trial, often a series of appeals, holding somebody in custody or letting them out on parole knowing that they're highly likely to disappear, trying to catch people who disappeared, etc. On average, it is about $113k per person we deport. So, they have to prioritize cases to stay on budget. $36 billion is a huge budget, but even so, that only allows them to deport about 300,000 people a year. So, anyways, the idea that it's just not enforced is false. It's not a question of "should we enforce it?" so much as a question of "how much do we want to spend enforcing it?" In my book, $36 billion is already pretty tough to justify... The cost of illegal immigrants on the social services is about $20 billion, so we're already almost doubling that...

So you going to work on getting 834b removed from CA books? Last I checked it was still posted when searching CA gov. code.

No. 834b is pretty chill. It's not remotely like the AZ law. It only allows the police to check immigration status after they've been arrested, and it is superceded by the sanctuary laws in all the major cities.

 

[teamosil]

Well first off the Federal law should be enforced first and then and only then should any civil rights violations be taken up. The federal government first and foremost duty is to protect the citizens of this country..FIRST. The federal government for decades has turned a blind eye to our porous border with Mexico and this alone should be grounds to bring our politicians up on charges who willing negate their oath of office in this regard.

That's an awfully melodramatic interpretation of things... Protecting the citizens is an overstatement of what is really going on. Illegal immigrants commit fewer crimes per capita than citizens. When a community gets more illegal immigrants, their crime rate actually goes down... And, the notion that enforcement of the law somehow precedes civil right is ridiculous. The whole point of civil rights is to LIMIT the power of government... You can't say that government should use whatever power it wants and when it's done, then we'll talk about civil rights... That's like waiting to tell your kid he can't drive your ferrari while your out of town until you get back from your trip...

 

[digsbe]

I would say it is due to a political motive. The more illegals that come over, the more business can abuse an illegal workforce. The more illegals that come over, the more undocumented Democrat voters there will be if Democrats can get amnesty for them. I do not believe there is any logical reason behind not wanting to seal the border or increase border security.

 

[teamosil]

I would say it is due to a political motive. The more illegals that come over, the more business can abuse an illegal workforce. The more illegals that come over, the more undocumented Democrat voters there will be if Democrats can get amnesty for them. I do not believe there is any logical reason behind not wanting to seal the border or increase border security.

The problem with that argument is that the timing is wrong. Democrats support pretty much the same message on illegal immigration now that they have for about 20 years, but until this last year or so, Hispanic voters were relatively split between the parties. Something like 2/3 of the hispanic voters went for Obama, but sometimes the majority of them have gone for Republican candidates as well. It wasn't until the recent barrage of anti-hispanic stuff from the right that they swung firmly into the Democrat's camp... The treatment of Sotomayor, english as a national language stuff, AZ's whole laundry list of anti-hispanic and anti-illegal immigrant campaigns, statements by high profile Republicans comparing La Raza to Al Qaeda and the KKK.... I mean, seriously, if I sat down and tried to figure out what the Republican party could do to offend hispanic voters, I couldn't have come up with half that stuff... The Democrat's position didn't change, it's the Republican's position that has changed. Bush supported pretty much the same plans on immigration Obama does, as did McCain. Then all of a sudden the GOP went all anti-hispanic, that drove hispanic voters away, and now they're trying to paint it like it was something the Democrats did.... That just isn't how it played out on the timeline at all.

 

[Hoplite]

The problem with that argument is that the timing is wrong. Democrats support pretty much the same message on illegal immigration now that they have for about 20 years, but until this last year or so, Hispanic voters were relatively split between the parties. Something like 2/3 of the hispanic voters went for Obama, but sometimes the majority of them have gone for Republican candidates as well. It wasn't until the recent barrage of anti-hispanic stuff from the right that they swung firmly into the Democrat's camp... The treatment of Sotomayor, english as a national language stuff, AZ's whole laundry list of anti-hispanic and anti-illegal immigrant campaigns, statements by high profile Republicans comparing La Raza to Al Qaeda and the KKK.... I mean, seriously, if I sat down and tried to figure out what the Republican party could do to offend hispanic voters, I couldn't have come up with half that stuff... The Democrat's position didn't change, it's the Republican's position that has changed. Bush supported pretty much the same plans on immigration Obama does, as did McCain. Then all of a sudden the GOP went all anti-hispanic, that drove hispanic voters away, and now they're trying to paint it like it was something the Democrats did.... That just isn't how it played out on the timeline at all.

I have to agree. Ethnic communities in general have often fallen somewhat in the middle during elections. During the 2008 elections, one big reason Prop 8 passed was because of the involvement of large segments of the Latino, black, and Asian communities by Conservatives.

 

[Josie]

Why not just go after those employing illegal immigrants?

I think we need to first make sure the border is secure with many more National Guard. Second, we need to put a MAJOR fine on people who employ illegal immigrants. Third, we need to deport anyone who breaks the law and is found to be illegal.

When they can't get work at all, they'll go home. My town has a large population of Hispanics. I just wonder how many of them are illegal. It would be interesting to see what kids don't come back to school if they were ever forced to leave.

 

[deltabtry]

That's an awfully melodramatic interpretation of things... Protecting the citizens is an overstatement of what is really going on. Illegal immigrants commit fewer crimes per capita than citizens. When a community gets more illegal immigrants, their crime rate actually goes down... And, the notion that enforcement of the law somehow precedes civil right is ridiculous. The whole point of civil rights is to LIMIT the power of government... You can't say that government should use whatever power it wants and when it's done, then we'll talk about civil rights... That's like waiting to tell your kid he can't drive your ferrari while your out of town until you get back from your trip...

In regards to protecting our sovereignty and our borders, illegals are not subject to our constitution or bill of rights, although we afford them these rights currently. They broke federal law, they are invading a sovereign nation with established borders, if enforcing these borders with military action is necessary, this would be constitutional and the duty of our government as per the constitution. Whether illegals have a higher crime rate or otherwise is irrelevant, this in no way excuses these illegals from violating federal law. In a sense you are implying because my neighborhood hasn't had a murder in almost 60 years, that I can go out a steal a car, break into some ones house etc. and this would be OK because my neighborhood has less crime than Boston.

 

[deltabtry]

That's an awfully melodramatic interpretation of things... Protecting the citizens is an overstatement of what is really going on. Illegal immigrants commit fewer crimes per capita than citizens. When a community gets more illegal immigrants, their crime rate actually goes down... And, the notion that enforcement of the law somehow precedes civil right is ridiculous. The whole point of civil rights is to LIMIT the power of government... You can't say that government should use whatever power it wants and when it's done, then we'll talk about civil rights... That's like waiting to tell your kid he can't drive your ferrari while your out of town until you get back from your trip...

BTW, Boston.com is a lousy source, it is extremely Bias and contradictory in it's reporting, how about posting the FBI statistics on crime rates you will see a much different picture. Considering Boston.com is based in MA. and currently the murder's committed in the Boston area, 99 percent committed by minorities, this is just in Boston. I believe even in CA. or even in most states the crime committed by minorities would share the same statistics.
Map of 2010 murders in Boston - Boston.com

 

[washunut]

I think we need to first make sure the border is secure with many more National Guard. Second, we need to put a MAJOR fine on people who employ illegal immigrants. Third, we need to deport anyone who breaks the law and is found to be illegal.

When they can't get work at all, they'll go home. My town has a large population of Hispanics. I just wonder how many of them are illegal. It would be interesting to see what kids don't come back to school if they were ever forced to leave.

Is it true that the Obama administration has STOPPED going after employers. I agree that is the best way to dissuade people from coming here, as it will make it harder to find work.

I wonder why organized labor has not complained about illegal immigrants that steals it's members jobs. Maybe they just care about the dues. Could are less if it is from an illegal who stole an American's job.

 

[deltabtry]

I think we need to first make sure the border is secure with many more National Guard. Second, we need to put a MAJOR fine on people who employ illegal immigrants. Third, we need to deport anyone who breaks the law and is found to be illegal.

When they can't get work at all, they'll go home. My town has a large population of Hispanics. I just wonder how many of them are illegal. It would be interesting to see what kids don't come back to school if they were ever forced to leave.

Currently we do need to completely shut the borders down, and protected by the military considering the border provinces in Mexico are at war, something like 24,000 casualities and counting.

 

[deltabtry]

Is it true that the Obama administration has STOPPED going after employers. I agree that is the best way to dissuade people from coming here, as it will make it harder to find work.

I wonder why organized labor has not complained about illegal immigrants that steals it's members jobs. Maybe they just care about the dues. Could are less if it is from an illegal who stole an American's job.

Going after employers makes sense and I do realize we can not go after 20 million illegals, and as far as the unions, these illegals will be your future union members once legalized or the attempt of making them become union members.

 

[teamosil]

In regards to protecting our sovereignty and our borders, illegals are not subject to our constitution or bill of rights, although we afford them these rights currently. They broke federal law, they are invading a sovereign nation with established borders, if enforcing these borders with military action is necessary, this would be constitutional and the duty of our government as per the constitution.

Well, we probably need to be more precise. In terms of actual border protection, you are correct. Somebody trying to cross the border illegally is very likely not a citizen. We don't know that for absolutely certain though. Many coyotes are actually citizens or legal residents for example. But, yeah, I don't think we need to afford people physically crossing the border constitutional rights. And they aren't. But, human rights still certainly apply. Certainly killing people outside of a real war and outside of the rule of law is not something we as a country believe in. A couple people have advocated that on this thread, and that is absolutely morally unacceptable to me.

But, where the constitution comes in to play is the attempts to find and oust illegal immigrants inside the US. Still in that scenario the illegal immigrant themselves don't have constitutional rights, but in order to get to the illegal immigrant they need to cut through the civil rights of a ton of citizens first. 90% of hispanics in AZ, for example, are citizens or legal residents, but many of the laws AZ is passing under the guise of attacking illegal immigration and the actions of Sheriff Arpaio (who is sheriff of 60% of the population) dramatically curtail the civil rights of the hispanic citizens. That is, by far, my top concern.

Whether illegals have a higher crime rate or otherwise is irrelevant, this in no way excuses these illegals from violating federal law.

Oh, yeah, definitely not. I do not feel that it excuses their violation of immigration law. But, a lot of people intentionally distort the facts and represent it as though illegal immigrants bring with them a huge spike in crime. That just is not true. It's a misrepresentation that some people are using to stir up some panic that isn't really justified.

 

[teamosil]

BTW, Boston.com is a lousy source, it is extremely Bias and contradictory in it's reporting, how about posting the FBI statistics on crime rates you will see a much different picture. Considering Boston.com is based in MA. and currently the murder's committed in the Boston area, 99 percent committed by minorities, this is just in Boston. I believe even in CA. or even in most states the crime committed by minorities would share the same statistics.
Map of 2010 murders in Boston - Boston.com

Boston.com is the Boston Globe... It's one of the most respected newspapers in the country...

And the notion that 99% of murders committed in Boston are committed by minorities is wildly false... Wherever you heard that is clearly a white supremacist propaganda machine. That's not even remotely close to being accurate...

 

[deltabtry]

Well, we probably need to be more precise. In terms of actual border protection, you are correct. Somebody trying to cross the border illegally is very likely not a citizen. We don't know that for absolutely certain though. Many coyotes are actually citizens or legal residents for example. But, yeah, I don't think we need to afford people physically crossing the border constitutional rights. And they aren't. But, human rights still certainly apply. Certainly killing people outside of a real war and outside of the rule of law is not something we as a country believe in. A couple people have advocated that on this thread, and that is absolutely morally unacceptable to me.

But, where the constitution comes in to play is the attempts to find and oust illegal immigrants inside the US. Still in that scenario the illegal immigrant themselves don't have constitutional rights, but in order to get to the illegal immigrant they need to cut through the civil rights of a ton of citizens first. 90% of hispanics in AZ, for example, are citizens or legal residents, but many of the laws AZ is passing under the guise of attacking illegal immigration and the actions of Sheriff Arpaio (who is sheriff of 60% of the population) dramatically curtail the civil rights of the hispanic citizens. That is, by far, my top concern.



Oh, yeah, definitely not. I do not feel that it excuses their violation of immigration law. But, a lot of people intentionally distort the facts and represent it as though illegal immigrants bring with them a huge spike in crime. That just is not true. It's a misrepresentation that some people are using to stir up some panic that isn't really justified.

Well I do not advocate murder on behalf of our citizens, law enforcement and our military, but Mexico in a sense being in a state of war the rules of engagement do change until peace is regained on the border provinces of Mexico. Military rules of engagement in my book would apply, this in turn puts the responsibility back onto Mexico which seems to currently advocate illegals crossing our borders unchecked. Peace must be restored on our borders with Mexico and then and only then can immigration be discussed and solved on a more civil level. The 20 million illegals currently in this country should be vetted through attrition by punishing the employers who hire them, or allow work visa's until these people can be vetted and or sponsored and then seek the path to citizenship. The Hispanics who wish to come here from our southern borders have no right to jump in front of the line of other ethnic groups from around the world who also wish to immigrate here. The immigration process must be followed according to the rule of law, that said I do think that our immigration policy can be streamlined considerably. Although immigration laws are established for a reason, as to prevent criminals, people with infectious diseases, people able to assimilate into a new society, able to function on ones own merit etc. When we ignore the laws we then go done the path to anarchy, if the laws are unjust we do have a path to resolve this in a orderly fashion, to just ignore the laws is not the duty of our government or our citizens.

 

[deltabtry]

Boston.com is the Boston Globe... It's one of the most respected newspapers in the country...

And the notion that 99% of murders committed in Boston are committed by minorities is wildly false... Wherever you heard that is clearly a white supremacist propaganda machine. That's not even remotely close to being accurate...

Perhaps a few generations ago but today, it's a rag and it's a indisputable biased paper owned and operated by the NYT, and currently going bankrupt. As far as reporting strictly news it does as well as any other paper but as far as investigation reporting and opinion pieces it falls way to the left, it is as valid as the L.A. Times. Being a Boston area resident I see it every day, even if I hold a biased opinion the Globes view and it's subsidiaries are way off the chart of ordinary thinking Americans. It caters to the left plain and simple and the reason for it's failure to sell it's paper, although the internet plays a strong role in it's lack of funds.

 

[deltabtry]

Boston.com is the Boston Globe... It's one of the most respected newspapers in the country...

And the notion that 99% of murders committed in Boston are committed by minorities is wildly false... Wherever you heard that is clearly a white supremacist propaganda machine. That's not even remotely close to being accurate...

In regards to murders in Boston this is true, I see it on the news almost everyday, look at the link I posted from Boston.com BTW, and all these neighborhoods are minority nieghborhoods with the expection of Allston which is half and half. The FBI statistics will confirm what I say.

 

[teamosil]

Well I do not advocate murder on behalf of our citizens, law enforcement and our military, but Mexico in a sense being in a state of war the rules of engagement do change until peace is regained on the border provinces of Mexico. Military rules of engagement in my book would apply, this in turn puts the responsibility back onto Mexico which seems to currently advocate illegals crossing our borders unchecked.

Mexico is indeed having extreme problems containing the drug war. The budget of the drug cartels is literally several times greater than the budget of their entire military. Any and all help the US wants to offer in fighting that war, I would support, and any efforts required to keep it from spilling over onto our soil absolutely is required.

But, conflating that with immigration policy is not reasonable. They are two distinct issues that require very different approaches. Lumping together families looking for a better life with drug cartels absolutely does not make sense. Many of the illegal immigrants are immigrating here precisely because they are fleeing the drug cartels.

The notion that Mexico is encouraging illegal immigration to the US is completely false. The opposite is true. They are enacting severe policies to try to stem the flow of people through Mexico to the US, and they are at their wits end trying to Mexican citizens from emigrating from Mexico to the US. Generally speaking, the people who they are losing tend to be more skilled and economically valuable. They see it as a loss of a valuable resource and they've been fighting against that for a long time. NAFTA, for example, was largely percieved in Mexico as a way to stop people emigrating from Mexico to the US. Create more opportunity in Mexico and people won't feel that they need to go to the US to find it. Really, the ultimate solution to illegal immigration into the US would be to bolster the economy of Mexico so things aren't so desperate there that people are willing to leave even if it means being an outlaw.

The 20 million illegals currently in this country

It's actually 10 million. It peaked at about 12 million in 2007 and has been falling since then.

The Hispanics who wish to come here from our southern borders have no right to jump in front of the line of other ethnic groups from around the world who also wish to immigrate here. The immigration process must be followed according to the rule of law

I don't think anybody disagrees that that is the ideal state, but we don't want to get into a medicine that is worse than the disease situation either. To absolutely enforce immigration law 100% would bankrupt the US and mean abandoning all constitutional rights for all citizens. We currently spend $36 billion a year and abridge some constitutional rights to fight illegal immigration. The question isn't "should we enforce immigration law?", it is "how much are we willing to sacrifice in an attempt to tighten up enforcement of immigration law and what is the best way to do it?"

 

[teamosil]

Perhaps a few generations ago but today, it's a rag and it's a indisputable biased paper owned and operated by the NYT, and currently going bankrupt. As far as reporting strictly news it does as well as any other paper but as far as investigation reporting and opinion pieces it falls way to the left, it is as valid as the L.A. Times. Being a Boston area resident I see it every day, even if I hold a biased opinion the Globes view and it's subsidiaries are way off the chart of ordinary thinking Americans. It caters to the left plain and simple and the reason for it's failure to sell it's paper, although the internet plays a strong role in it's lack of funds.

You consider The LA Times to be a rag? That's ridiculous... The LA Times is ultra-respected. Yes, they lean to the left, but what lean a paper has editorially and how accurate the information they present are two completely different things. The Wall Street Journal, for example, is hard right, but they have extremely high standards for factual accuracy. The LA Times is in that same class of uber-credibility. The Boston Globe is not quite the giant of journalism the LA Times is, but they're not that far behind either.

This sounds suspiciously like you've fallen for the "every source of information except WND, talk radio and Fox is unreliable" hoax...

The FBI statistics will confirm what I say.

Yeah, lets see the FBI statistics that show that 99% of murders committed in Boston are committed by minorities.

 

[deltabtry]

Mexico is indeed having extreme problems containing the drug war. The budget of the drug cartels is literally several times greater than the budget of their entire military. Any and all help the US wants to offer in fighting that war, I would support, and any efforts required to keep it from spilling over onto our soil absolutely is required.

But, conflating that with immigration policy is not reasonable. They are two distinct issues that require very different approaches. Lumping together families looking for a better life with drug cartels absolutely does not make sense. Many of the illegal immigrants are immigrating here precisely because they are fleeing the drug cartels.

The notion that Mexico is encouraging illegal immigration to the US is completely false. The opposite is true. They are enacting severe policies to try to stem the flow of people through Mexico to the US, and they are at their wits end trying to Mexican citizens from emigrating from Mexico to the US. Generally speaking, the people who they are losing tend to be more skilled and economically valuable. They see it as a loss of a valuable resource and they've been fighting against that for a long time. NAFTA, for example, was largely percieved in Mexico as a way to stop people emigrating from Mexico to the US. Create more opportunity in Mexico and people won't feel that they need to go to the US to find it. Really, the ultimate solution to illegal immigration into the US would be to bolster the economy of Mexico so things aren't so desperate there that people are willing to leave even if it means being an outlaw.



It's actually 10 million. It peaked at about 12 million in 2007 and has been falling since then.



I don't think anybody disagrees that that is the ideal state, but we don't want to get into a medicine that is worse than the disease situation either. To absolutely enforce immigration law 100% would bankrupt the US and mean abandoning all constitutional rights for all citizens. We currently spend $36 billion a year and abridge some constitutional rights to fight illegal immigration. The question isn't "should we enforce immigration law?", it is "how much are we willing to sacrifice in an attempt to tighten up enforcement of immigration law and what is the best way to do it?"

Mexico is indeed having extreme problems containing the drug war. The budget of the drug cartels is literally several times greater than the budget of their entire military. Any and all help the US wants to offer in fighting that war, I would support, and any efforts required to keep it from spilling over onto our soil absolutely is required.

Well Mexico's war with the cartels is a Mexican problem not ours, although it is ours when it crosses our borders and then it should be met with the full force of the military. Supplying Mexico with money and weapons is a lesson in futility, to supply a corrupt government only leads to more arms against us at the border. The Mexican government is so corrupt that hardly any of the weapons or funds actually go to fighting the drug war but instead goes to financing and arming the drug cartels. The desertion rate amongst the Mexican military and police force and then these individuals joining the cartels is alarming.

But, conflating that with immigration policy is not reasonable. They are two distinct issues that require very different approaches. Lumping together families looking for a better life with drug cartels absolutely does not make sense. Many of the illegal immigrants are immigrating here precisely because they are fleeing the drug cartels.

I think the numbers of illegals that enter the U.S. are not fleeing the cartels but, mostly these individuals actually come from the center of Mexico and Mexico's southern borders.

The notion that Mexico is encouraging illegal immigration to the US is completely false.

all you have to do is utube it and hear right from the Mexico's presidents mouth Felipe Calderon.

Mexican citizens from emigrating from Mexico to the US. Generally speaking, the people who they are losing tend to be more skilled and economically valuable

The average educational level achieved by illegals in this country is 6th grade, this is not saying a lot for Mexico.

Create more opportunity in Mexico and people won't feel that they need to go to the US to find it. Really, the ultimate solution to illegal immigration into the US would be to bolster the economy of Mexico so things aren't so desperate there that people are willing to leave even if it means being an outlaw.

This is not our problem, besides we have a hard enough time keeping ourselves afloat and it is unconstitutional for our government to tax our citizens to bolster another countries economy.

 

[teamosil]

Well Mexico's war with the cartels is a Mexican problem not ours

That really is not true. Who do you think funds the cartels? We do. We buy billions of dollars worth of drugs from them. That's why they exist. Really the US's whole role in the thing has been pretty groteque... Our citizens fund the cartels while our government forces their governments into launching a war against those cartels, but our citizens are funding the cartels a whole lot better than our government is funding the governments...

We can't just say it's not our problem now that it went bad. We forced them into this war and then ensured that they couldn't win it...

all you have to do is utube it and hear right from the Mexico's presidents mouth Felipe Calderon.

Give me a link. I've heard him speak against human rights abuses, but that's not what you're claiming he said.

This is not our problem, besides we have a hard enough time keeping ourselves afloat and it is unconstitutional for our government to tax our citizens to bolster another countries economy.

Ahhh Republicans... Always complaining about problems then refusing to do anything that might actually solve them...

 

[cholla]

Well, we probably need to be more precise. In terms of actual border protection, you are correct. Somebody trying to cross the border illegally is very likely not a citizen. We don't know that for absolutely certain though. Many coyotes are actually citizens or legal residents for example. But, yeah, I don't think we need to afford people physically crossing the border constitutional rights. And they aren't. But, human rights still certainly apply. Certainly killing people outside of a real war and outside of the rule of law is not something we as a country believe in. A couple people have advocated that on this thread, and that is absolutely morally unacceptable to me.

But, where the constitution comes in to play is the attempts to find and oust illegal immigrants inside the US. Still in that scenario the illegal immigrant themselves don't have constitutional rights, but in order to get to the illegal immigrant they need to cut through the civil rights of a ton of citizens first. 90% of hispanics in AZ, for example, are citizens or legal residents, but many of the laws AZ is passing under the guise of attacking illegal immigration and the actions of Sheriff Arpaio (who is sheriff of 60% of the population) dramatically curtail the civil rights of the hispanic citizens. That is, by far, my top concern.


I call BS on the bolded areas, You will have to link to something responsible to prove those.

Oh, yeah, definitely not. I do not feel that it excuses their violation of immigration law. But, a lot of people intentionally distort the facts and represent it as though illegal immigrants bring with them a huge spike in crime. That just is not true. It's a misrepresentation that some people are using to stir up some panic that isn't really justified.

In Maricopa county about 1/3 of people in jail are illegals, I would call that a respectable spike.