Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: The President and Immigration
America's Debate > Archive > Policy Debate Archive > [A] Domestic Policy
Google
VDemosthenes
The Story



Questions for Debate:

1.) Is the president's plan a practical solution?

2.) What problems do you foresee with the president's plan?

3.) Will these changes to the current policy be effective?

4.) Are you pleased with the plan? How or what would you change?




Google
Blackstone
1.) Is the president's plan a practical solution?

2.) What problems do you foresee with the president's plan?

3.) Will these changes to the current policy be effective?


The answer is No to 1 and 3. Any time a proposal is floated to give illegal aliens legal status, it encourages more illegal entry and makes it harder for the Border Patrol to do its job.

4.) Are you pleased with the plan? How or what would you change?

As I said, any plan that legalizes illegal aliens in any way is a non-starter. If we're to have a guest-worker program, it must be available only to people who sign up in their home countries. That way, it gives them an incentive to follow our laws. There's something profoundly wrong about giving people who've illegally jumped ahead in line any possible advantage over those who've gone through the right procedures. I can't see any excuse for doing it that way.
Christopher
QUOTE
I can't see any excuse for doing it that way.

Thats because you have options in how you will care for your family. The majority of the illegals who come here are simply looking to help their families have a chance in life--why else would they risk their lives to come to a country where they can be exploited for low pay and have to work long hours and be treated by the many Americans as sub human people? for kicks? to thumb their nose at our sovereignty?
Would you wait in line if your family was hungry?

Will his plan work--I doubt he'll get it off the ground. I fully support an expanded guest worker plan. I also support extremely heavy fines for any company who uses undocumented labor--except I know that this will never happen because then they would have to pay wages and benefits. I also support the same type of fines for any person hiring an illegal for the purpose of getting around having to hire an actual contractor.
Just enact and enforce the last one and you'll see a guest worker plan inside of a year.

Expanded interior repatriation is a good idea that i think will also head off many who come north.

Biggest problem Bush Outlines Border Security Plan
QUOTE
Meanwhile, Bush is also getting resistance from industries that rely on foreign workers. They say illegals have become a significant part of the economy. About half the nation's nearly 2 million farm workers are illegal immigrants, and they were in such short supply last year that farmers in California had to extend the harvest season and still lost crops.


Again too much money is made by business in this country for any real solutions to be made.
Blackstone
QUOTE(christopher @ Nov 29 2005, 10:07 AM)
QUOTE
I can't see any excuse for doing it that way.

Thats because you have options in how you will care for your family.
*

Uh, no, that's not the reason. The plight of the families of illegal aliens is no more compelling than the plight of families still in their home countries who are trying to enter the U.S. the right way. Giving illegals any kind of legal status is a slap in the face to those trying to enter the right way. I didn't say there wasn't an excuse for helping out foreigners who haven't yet entered by making it easier for them to work here legally. I said there's no excuse for giving an advantage to those who have already violated our laws by coming here, especially if the stated goal is to relieve pressure on the border and make it more secure.
srobert
QUOTE(VDemosthenes @ Nov 28 2005, 02:10 PM)
1.) Is the president's plan a practical solution?


Water is pouring in through open holes in your boat at 1000 gallons a minute. You're bailing the water out with a one gallon bucket. If I give you a two gallon bucket would that be more practical? How about this? Instead of throwing the water back just outside the boat, you hurl it 50 feet away. That way it will take longer for the water you just threw out to find its way back to the boat.

QUOTE
2.) What problems do you foresee with the president's plan?


Enforceability, at the stage when the special guest worker cards expire in three years. I foresee the expiration dates for these cards being extended indefinitely.

QUOTE
3.) Will these changes to the current policy be effective?


See my answer to 1)

QUOTE
4.) Are you pleased with the plan? How or what would you change?
*



For states with large illegal populations, we should increase the representation in the House of Representatives to a proportion of the whole number of citizens plus three fifths of the illegal aliens residing in that state. But of course the illegals would still not be permitted to vote. wink.gif Maybe if someone actually proposed such an amendment, we could start to see this issue in historical terms for what it is.

Seriously, What I would change would be to reduce the motivation of illegals seeking to enter the country. I would suggest that legislation be introduced making it a serious offense, punishable by jail time, to knowingly hire illegal aliens. Secondly, I would push for enforcement of agreements made with Mexico under NAFTA, to create better economic conditions within Mexico thus reducing the motivation to enter the U.S.



Fife and Drum
QUOTE(christopher)
The majority of the illegals who come here are simply looking to help their families have a chance in life--why else would they risk their lives to come to a country where they can be exploited for low pay and have to work long hours and be treated by the many Americans as sub human people? for kicks? to thumb their nose at our sovereignty?
Would you wait in line if your family was hungry?

In my mind this has always been part of the problem. If we strictly enforced our immigration laws eventually those who want to carve out a better life for their families would have no recourse but to put in motion what really needs to be done: take their country back from their crooked government.

A revolution, a coup, I don’t care, but as long the real issue is ignored it will never go away. Mexican economic development and providing opportunities is the solution, not another miserable short term policy.

Using your logic we should extend an open invitation to every suffering family in the world, if not, what makes the Mexicans so special? Because they’re close by? Do you think the factors that started the rioting in France were just put in place this year? Let’s see, legal immigrants, no jobs or only low paying jobs and the feeling they were being snubbed by natural citizens. Hmmm, sounds like we’re setting the table.

QUOTE
Meanwhile, Bush is also getting resistance from industries that rely on foreign workers. They say illegals have become a significant part of the economy. About half the nation's nearly 2 million farm workers are illegal immigrants, and they were in such short supply last year that farmers in California had to extend the harvest season and still lost crops.

Do we have a million able bodied welfare recipients? My guess is yes and that’s a start. And in three years when those million “registered” farm workers are due to be sent back what happens then? Besides, it’s a dangerous economic proposition to artificially prop up an industry with “fake” wages.

1.) Is the president's plan a practical solution?

Sure, it will continue to provide his appointees with cheap gardeners and maids. There’s one slight problem with his plan: they have to actually come out of the wood work and sign up. Huge assumption.

2.) What problems do you foresee with the president's plan?
3.) Will these changes to the current policy be effective?


Blackstone nailed it on the head. What would you do if you were considering crossing the border? I’ll add that it could also be used as a phase one of blanket amnesty.

QUOTE(Dubya)
"We're going to expand interior repatriation," Bush said. "We want to make it clear [that] when they violate U.S. immigration laws they are going to be sent home and they are going to stay at home."

And just how does interior repatriation keep them in their homes? Because he says so? Most folks would tell you that the second time around is easier, in any endeavor. I can see where those who come from the Southern regions of Mexico and were just put back across the border would probably turn around and try to re-enter. But this is where we need cooperation from the Mexican goverment.

Of course that would actually require "real" foriegn diplomancy. I won't hold my breath.

4.) Are you pleased with the plan? How or what would you change?

Start with a hard stance against Mexico, threaten them with tariffs, a reduction in aid and the removal of all US based industry unless they clean up their act. If the Bush administration wanted to clean up an evil regime and extend their nation building they should have started with our Southern neighbors.
turnea
I think christopher hit on a very important point in pointing out that this debate is not simply concerning the words on paper we call "law". It instead involves the imminently practical concerns of millions of destitute people.

It's all well and good to say they should get in line, but as he said if my family was starving I'm not sure I'd wait in any lines.


Therefore let's not engage in pointless debate over what is "legal" and what is not.

I always try and get people to understand the very basic fact of all law.

A law is not an end in itself but only a means.

Let us then dispense with the non-essentials and get to the point.
Is the president's plan a practical solution?
A solution to what problem?

The demand for labor, the plight of the Mexican migrant worker, the security concerns of illegal immigration ?

A comfortable balance for all three perhaps?

If the latter then: No.

It does nearly nothing for security as the border is still wide open to any who wish to do the US harm.

With a three year time limit, it does little for a migrant worker, who wouldn't have time to gain skills that would make it easier to succeed one he or she would return home.

It changes the demand for labor not one iota.

So then what's to be done.

Fife and Drum noted an important part of the solution. Until Mexico does better politically and economically, the rush to flee the country will not be abated.

However this is only part.

My solution:

1) Secure the border thoroughly against illegal immigration with more law enforcement or the national guard if necessary.

2) I am whole-heartedly for blanket amnesty for illegal aliens pending background check. Give them a road to citizenship.


This worry about "rewarding illegal behavior" is pointless. The law is a tool our society uses for it's purposes. When it has failed as abysmally as immigration law is failing now I see no reason not to admit that failure of law and change it.
aevans176
QUOTE(turnea @ Nov 29 2005, 04:43 PM)
My solution:

1) Secure the border thoroughly against illegal immigration with more law enforcement or the national guard if necessary.

2) I am whole-heartedly for blanket amnesty for illegal aliens pending background check. Give them a road to citizenship.


This worry about "rewarding illegal behavior" is pointless. The law is a tool our society uses for it's purposes. When it has failed as abysmally as immigration law is failing now I see no reason not to admit that failure of law and change it.
*



This is a very conservative thought process sir. I presume that an applause is in order! *clap* *clap* *clap*

I believe that the border can never be completely secure, but we cannot necessarily make it a financial priority and post guardsmen up and down the Rio Grande.

Illegal immigration has a long and illustrious history in the US, and I believe that some people can make a case for its value (or of course lack there of).
Check out this site.
http://immigration.about.com/library/blStateGovOpFo.htm

The funny thing about people living in Border states is that we come to an understanding about immigration, particularly from Mexico. Many Mexicans don't want citizenship. To become naturalized often times denounces their nationalism and their connection to Mexico (even as they can hold dual-citizenships... go figure huh.gif ).
Hence, the number of resident aliens is probably staggering (but very difficult to find!).

I believe that if we want to preclude illegal immigration for the large part, become hard-nosed and prosecute illegal immigrants to the fullest. Throw them in jail, hold them in desert camps for their government to come retrieve them. Make it a spectacle... at a far smaller expense to the US tax payer. Right now we're playing "catch and release", just like a father and son on the pond... but the fish keep coming back for the bait as they don't always get caught... and if the do? Right back into the pond... hmmm.gif
Ol Sarge
Questions for Debate:

1.) Is the president's plan a practical solution?

2.) What problems do you foresee with the president's plan?

3.) Will these changes to the current policy be effective?

4.) Are you pleased with the plan? How or what would you change?

1. NO.

2. Politics.

3. No.

4. No. How or what would you change? Place all emphasis on employers and require all employers to have all employees show proof of legal citizenship or right to work... e.g. a birth certificate, naturalization document or work permit. Fine and imprison violators. The action could be put in place by simply enacting a roaming enforcement agency at a cost of less than a million dollars if the fine and time behind bars fit the crime.

Define the 14th Amendment to disqualify citizenship to children born to illegal aliens.

Let business lobby with a worker plan in hand to replace needed labor and approve it if the business will bond the workers they import.
Blackstone
QUOTE(turnea @ Nov 29 2005, 04:43 PM)
This worry about "rewarding illegal behavior" is pointless. The law is a tool our society uses for it's purposes. When it has failed as abysmally as immigration law is failing now I see no reason not to admit that failure of law and change it.
*

I don't think anyone's opposed to admitting the failure that we've seen so far. But if we want to have a chance of getting the border effectively secured, we absolutely can not be encouraging more violation of the law. And that's exactly what we'd be doing if we offer illegal aliens any kind of amnesty, or even float such proposals before Congress as the President has done. Doing so exacerbates the failure. The last amnesty from 1986 is empirical evidence of this.

Yes, admit the failure, but then resolve to turn it around. The way to start is by making sure that guest-worker status is made available only to people willing to play by the rules.
Google
skeeterses
A better way to help curb illegal immigration is for the Government to trim its wasteful spending to help ensure that the immigrants come here to help build the country and not take a free slice of the pie.

That is, no illegal immigrant should get any handout or financial assitance from the Government whatsoever. No welfare, no foodstamps, no Medicaid, no emergency hospital visits at taxpayer expense, no student loans, no handouts or financial assistance from the Government whatsoever. If every immigrant had to pay the full cost of living, then there wouldn't be so many poor immigrants willing to sneak across the border for a McDonalds job. Now the majority of immigrants are hard working people who have made positive contributions to America. Those people should definately be welcomed to America.
nebraska29

QUOTE
1.) Is the president's plan a practical solution?


To me, it just looks as if he's throwing more money at the problem. Spending $6 billion on a new theory that might work is a bit troubling to me.

QUOTE
2.) What problems do you foresee with the president's plan?


I have doubts regarding the "interior return" policy. I don't believe that simply because you fly illegals to Mexico City instead of a border town near the border, that it will deter them from trying again. When you are poor and desperate, you will do what you can for your family, no matter what. It just means that coyote services will be more in demand.

QUOTE
3.) Will these changes to the current policy be effective?


No-because the incentive to make money here outweighs any problem of being flown back to the middle of your country(cars are a convenient way to overcome that) not to mention the fact that lengthy detentions will just teach you how to be smarter at avoiding the authorities next time around.

QUOTE
4.) Are you pleased with the plan? How or what would you change?[/b]


The funding to create more border guard positions is a good thing, so I do have to give him some credit. Unlike others, he has shown a willingness to spend the money to eradicate the problem. The problem however, is that this will just throw more money towards a problem whose real causes are not being dealt with.
OhioPatriot
The Presidents plan is no more the amnesty. How can I believe that a person that has already broken the Law? Will leave when there 3 years or 6 years are up. There not. Amnesty didn't work the last time and it won't now. The only way to take care of Illegal Immigration. Is to enforce the laws that are on the books now.

The recent polls showed that 77% of Americans are against any type of Guestworker/Amensty. I urge all of you, to get on the Phones and call your Congressperson and Senators. Tell them NO to any Rewarding of Illegal Aliens and the Companies that Hire them.

Just to show you, enforcement is not a big deal to them. Check out the ICE page.


http://www.ice.gov/graphics/news/newsrelea...130sandiego.htm

Notice this section of it

During the enforcement actions targeting facilities operated by the Golden State Fencing Company in Oceanside and Riverside, ICE agents arrested 17 unauthorized workers, a number of whom are believed to have been re-hired despite warnings to the company not to re-hire due to their illegal immigration status. ICE agents also seized boxes of documents and other information from the company facilities during the searches

Why would this be? Because Companies Know there not going to be fined or shut down.

I have heard there going to try and get the ball rolling on a Guestworker bill. So Call Call Call. Tell them NO NO NO. Enforcement first. The AMerican Citizen First.

us.gif us.gif us.gif us.gif us.gif us.gif us.gif us.gif
Ted
I agree with the view that ANY reward for illegal behavior only eccourages more of the same so I don’t see how this plan would work unless it was coupled with a total seal off of the border that was airtight. I did not here Bush say he was willing to do that.

I Don’t see that we have the slightest responsibility to the people or “families” of illegal aliens. Let’s face it, if we let 12 million Mexicans in illegally than why not accept a couple hundred million from Asia and the same from Africa. They have families too.

The fact that Mexico has a border with us has allowed their corrupt government to use this country to support their poor. They even printed MILLOINS of pamphlets telling Mexicans how to sneak into the US, work illegally, and send their money back to Mexico!

How about letting our workers have the jobs – and if that means that farm workers have to be paid more – so be it. At least the jobs will go to leagal aliens and Americans rather than criminals who send most of their money to Mexico and pay little on no taxes.

So I would change the plan by requiring illegal alien to go back to Mexico and apply for legal entry along with sealing the border. With the border sealed the incentive to “do it right” would be very high. Until we do that what is the incentive to do anything except continue to break the law. How do we plan to “catch” illegals if they don’t go along with any “guest worker program” we put in place.
Ol Sarge
Below is a link to an article by JASON L. RILEY Wall Street Journalhttp://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/fe...ml?id=110005927
This guy is a Republican Party supporter, which is quite clear in the article, well, actually big business. In this article he promotes supporting illegal aliens so they will vote Republican.

I saw an interview with him on Fox News where he actually encourages open borders and proclaims these workers are desperately needed in America and the loss of them could destroy portions of our agriculture base. The fear that large east-west coast vegi-fruit producers would go out of business if it were not for the illegal aliens willing to do the work. I think that sounds like a justification for slavery to produce cotton in our slavery period. Jason is an Afro-American?

If America can’t produce vegi-fruit economically without slavery then import it from Mexico and save the immigrants the trouble to come here. I think Americans would pay the wage to collect the crop to Americans or invent a machine to do the work as in the auto industry.

Let the farmers or sweatshops go to congress and lobby for the workers and pay a deposit bond to ensure all that came to work go back where they came from in between crops...
smallfarmer
QUOTE(VDemosthenes @ Nov 28 2005, 10:10 PM)
Questions for Debate:

1.) Is the president's plan a practical solution?


Certainly. It's practical because Mexican slave labor will continue to be provided to big agribusiness, only now it will be more legal. That way agribusiness will continue to contribute to the GOP and the GOP will continue to pass these types of laws, and millions in subsidies will continue to flow to agribusiness as is the norm for their State-sponsored food system.

QUOTE(VDemosthenes @ Nov 28 2005, 10:10 PM)
2.) What problems do you foresee with the president's plan?
3.) Will these changes to the current policy be effective?


Not many problems, from their perspective. Of course problems will arise for democracy, and opposition to corporate tyranny, but that's obvious. Changes only strengthen US neoliberal policy.

QUOTE(VDemosthenes @ Nov 28 2005, 10:10 PM)
4.) Are you pleased with the plan? How or what would you change?[/b]


One thing I'd do is have the "Minute Men" circle around the corporate headquarters of Monsato and Conagra and threaten to kill their CEOs instead of them threatening to kill illegal, poor, Mexican border crossers. That'd be more productive and a lot less snobbish than threatening poor Mexicans who have no choice. Another thing is you pass a law that requires big agribusiness to pay fair wages to everybody regardless of where they're from. That way, Americans can compete for the jobs they supposedly don't want, as President Bush tries to remind us at every opportunity. If we're a counrty that's dedicated to "spreading democracy" then why don't we practice it, rather than practicing corporate tyranny and slavery by relying on slave wages so you can swim in your pool of gold coins.
Ol Sarge
QUOTE(VDemosthenes,Nov 28 2005, 10:10 PM-->
QUOTE(smallfarmer @ Dec 3 2005, 10:52 PM
[quote=VDemosthenes,Nov 28 2005, 10:10 PM)
4.) Are you pleased with the plan? How or what would you change?[/b)


One thing I'd do is have the "Minute Men" circle around the corporate headquarters of Monsato and Conagra and threaten to kill their CEOs instead of them threatening to kill illegal, poor, Mexican border crossers.  That'd be more productive and a lot less snobbish than threatening poor Mexicans who have no choice.  Another thing is you pass a law that requires big agribusiness to pay fair wages to everybody regardless of where they're from.  That way, Americans can compete for the jobs they supposedly don't want, as President Bush tries to remind us at every opportunity.  If we're a counrty that's dedicated to "spreading democracy" then why don't we practice it, rather than practicing corporate tyranny and slavery by relying on slave wages so you can swim in your pool of gold coins.
*


AIRBORNE! You sound like someone who knows slavery when they see it! If any American can justify the FEDERAL Minimum Wage for agriculture workers of $2.30 an hour then you should reintroduce slavery and do away with any incentivities given former slaves in America!

It is all about money and votes and selfish greed... I don't want to pay more for my lettuce, strawberries or apples so screw the guy who has to sweat for $2.30 or less if he or she is illegal.
smallfarmer
QUOTE(Ol Sarge @ Dec 4 2005, 03:17 AM)
AIRBORNE!  You sound like someone who knows slavery when they see it!  If any American can justify the FEDERAL Minimum Wage for agriculture workers of $2.30 an hour then you should reintroduce slavery and do away with any incentivities given former slaves in America!

It is all about money and votes and selfish greed... I don't want to pay more for my lettuce, strawberries or apples so screw the guy who has to sweat for $2.30 or less if he or she is illegal.
*



????

I didn't say anything about the federal minimum wage for farm laborers. I said "fair wages".

Of course, greed produces tyranny. We're I'm from, people enjoy fresh food, and democracy rather than corporate tyranny, so they come to a local farmers market, where fresh vegetables in season are often less expensive than crappy supermarket ones, and even if more expensive, always higher in quality. They support direct, American agriculture without any bueracracy and any middlemen - and "they" are in all income levels. Corporate tyrannies such as those that pay 2.30 an hour should be countered and dismantled.
Ol Sarge
QUOTE(smallfarmer @ Dec 3 2005, 11:35 PM)
QUOTE(Ol Sarge @ Dec 4 2005, 03:17 AM)
AIRBORNE!  You sound like someone who knows slavery when they see it!  If any American can justify the FEDERAL Minimum Wage for agriculture workers of $2.30 an hour then you should reintroduce slavery and do away with any incentivities given former slaves in America!

It is all about money and votes and selfish greed... I don't want to pay more for my lettuce, strawberries or apples so screw the guy who has to sweat for $2.30 or less if he or she is illegal.
*



????

I didn't say anything about the federal minimum wage for farm laborers. I said "fair wages".

Of course, greed produces tyranny. We're I'm from, people enjoy fresh food, and democracy rather than corporate tyranny, so they come to a local farmers market, where fresh vegetables in season are often less expensive than crappy supermarket ones, and even if more expensive, always higher in quality. They support direct, American agriculture without any bueracracy and any middlemen - and "they" are in all income levels. Corporate tyrannies such as those that pay 2.30 an hour should be countered and dismantled.
*


I know you didn't say anything about the minimum wage and acknowledge you said "fair wages". I mentioned the federal standard to support your position that large or corporate producers shouldn't take advantage of workers regardless of their origin, but especially not be allowed to be sanctioned to employ a worker legally at slave wages. I operated an 11 acre natural vegi fruit farm in NC and know what labor is required to produce a great product for customers and you can't compete with people placed in a position of servitude. I find myself in a similar position now, I formerly built custom furniature and now find I can't compete with slave labor products sold in Wal Mart. The nature of man is to buy cheap and seldome is quality the mark in furniature when you can buy three throwaways for the price of one quality. Factory production of food or other products usually results in a competition that eliminates competition unless one can find and keep a customer that values quality and where I live you could starve looking for enough to stay in business.
OhioPatriot
This should make everyone call there congressperson and Senators to tell them to enforce the Immigration laws that are on the books.

Long article a must read and my suggestion. Send it to as many people and News agency's as you can.

Brief description.

Illegal Alien, serial Rapist, deported 2 times before. Gets an FHA loan for 123,000 dollar home. mad.gif mad.gif mad.gif mad.gif mad.gif mad.gif

http://www.news-record.com/apps/pbcs.dll/a...001/NEWSREC0201


http://www.alipac.us
DaytonRocker
I think this policy fits Bush's strategery in the Global War On Torror perfectly.

Here's an analogy:
There are a few houses across the street that are a haven for pedophiles. They've molested kids all over the neighborhood but nobody is doing much about it. Finally, one molests one of your children. You go to that house and destroy it.

So, that still leaves the remaining houses fully operational and a menace to the neighborhood. So, your solution? Destroy the house up the street that is downloading porn because it maybe could lead to child molestation while leaving all the doors to your house unlocked and the windows raised.

This is Bush leaving the door unlocked and I can't believe this could be acceptable to anyone. As stated before, enforce the current laws. Put the burden of proof on the companies hiring illegals and if they get caught, burn them bad. Illegals won't come here of they can't get a job or a means to survive.

My solution? Two 50' high fences running along our border 100' feet apart. Fill the gap with landmines. Run one positively charged cable along the top of one fence (the one closest to Mexico or Canada) with ~12K volts and a ground cable along the top of another. Let them try to sneak in then.
Ted
QUOTE(DaytonRocker @ Dec 11 2005, 04:37 PM)
I think this policy fits Bush's strategery in the Global War On Torror perfectly.

Here's an analogy:
There are a few houses across the street that are a haven for pedophiles. They've molested kids all over the neighborhood but nobody is doing much about it. Finally, one molests one of your children. You go to that house and destroy it.

So, that still leaves the remaining houses fully operational and a menace to the neighborhood. So, your solution? Destroy the house up the street that is downloading porn because it maybe could lead to child molestation while leaving all the doors to your house unlocked and the windows raised.

This is Bush leaving the door unlocked and I can't believe this could be acceptable to anyone. As stated before, enforce the current laws. Put the burden of proof on the companies hiring illegals and if they get caught, burn them bad. Illegals won't come here of they can't get a job or a means to survive.

My solution? Two 50' high fences running along our border 100' feet apart. Fill the gap with landmines. Run one positively charged cable along the top of one fence (the one closest to Mexico or Canada) with ~12K volts and a ground cable along the top of another. Let them try to sneak in then.
*




Dayton

I could not agree more. But you would have to go way beyond penalizing the businesses (which I agree we should do). Many state and local governments make it illegal to “turn in” an illegal alien even if questioned in a crime investigation! Thus we should also pass a federal law that states MUST require schools, hospitals, and business to require proof of citizenship. The best idea would be a notional ID card that was very hard to forge.

I like the fence idea as well.
aevans176
QUOTE(Ted @ Dec 12 2005, 01:51 PM)
Dayton

I could not agree more.  But you would have to go way beyond penalizing the businesses (which I agree we should do).  Many state and local governments make it illegal to “turn in” an illegal alien even if questioned in a crime investigation!  Thus we should also pass a federal law that states MUST require schools, hospitals, and business to require proof of citizenship.  The best idea would be a notional ID card that was very hard to forge. 

I like the fence idea as well.
*



My question to everyone that believes that all illegal aliens should leave the US would be:
How many American industries rely on illegal labor (specifically from Mexico)?

Consider industries like migrant farming, meat packing, and small businesses reliant on labor that comes from this part of the US economy?

The bottom line is that many American industries rely on "unauthorized" workers, and unemployment in the United States often is not impacted by said workers. In fact, the sheer fact that these migrant workers will work for lower wages allows businesses to often stay open when the profitability otherwise may not allow it.

Talking about a fence that runs along the border, I believe that it's completely counter productive. The reality is that the fence only forces the people whom might have passed back and forth to work in the US to set up "residence" in the US, causing us to provide healthcare, police forces, etc for said aliens.

When the Clinton administration increased the budget to build the wall, it increased aliens who live in the United States.

If we allowed the aliens to move freely back and forth across the border (or at least more freely), we'd have the ability to allocate more INS agents to investigating unautorized workers in industries that many Americans would want to work in. The last statistics I heard about investigative border patrol agents was roughly 1% (like 100 out of 10,000) were assigned to check up on businesses that might be employing illegal aliens.

And finally, to discuss the terrorism idea, I believe that there have been 0 terrorists caught at the Mexican border. These people, working within organized and well funded cells can easily afford to come to America perfectly legally. They have no need to jump fences, etc....
Ted
QUOTE
Consider industries like migrant farming, meat packing, and small businesses reliant on labor that comes from this part of the US economy?

The bottom line is that many American industries rely on "unauthorized" workers, and unemployment in the United States often is not impacted by said workers. In fact, the sheer fact that these migrant workers will work for lower wages allows businesses to often stay open when the profitability otherwise may not allow it.

Any company or industry that “depends” on Mexican labor can just as easily pay a little more and use US workers or LEGAL immigrants. This means we may have to pay a few cents more a pound for some products but on the other hand we will have fewer problems.

The companies will be profitable as long as all of them must use these workers. As it is now many companies, with easy access to illegal migrants, have an unfair advantage. And if labor becomes too expensive then machines will do the work.

And the fence is a great idea. ILLEGAL is illegal for the day or as residents. How the heck can we have any security if we let hundreds of people cross the border a day illegally? Who watches them to see that they go back? Or that they are not terrorists?
Fife and Drum
QUOTE(aevans176)
The bottom line is that many American industries rely on "unauthorized" workers, and unemployment in the United States often is not impacted by said workers. In fact, the sheer fact that these migrant workers will work for lower wages allows businesses to often stay open when the profitability otherwise may not allow it.

So that makes it ok for them to come into our country illegally? Because businesses rely on them? From the original article it was estimated that one third of farm workers are illegal, that means that two thirds are legal. Appears that business can get along without illegal workers.

This past year on one of my favorite golf courses, we watched them build a half million dollar home. Every time we’d be standing on the tee, we noticed that most if not all of the construction workers were Mexican. On one occasion one of the other golfers who is in the building trade said he knew the builder and knew most of his sub contracting crew consisted of illegals, which puts pressure on the other contractors (see this spiraling/domino thing?). On a half a million dollar home I can guarantee you there is enough margin to hire “real workers” for a “real wage”.

I can easily argue that some of these businesses who say they rely on illegal workers to say afloat are actually using illegal, low paid workers to add to an already fat bottom line.

QUOTE(aevans176)
If we allowed the aliens to move freely back and forth across the border [or at least more freely), we'd have the ability to allocate more INS agents to investigating unautorized workers in industries that many Americans would want to work in.

I never knew we had a problem with illegals going back to Mexico, and is that really a problem? So you're saying we should allow them free access to the border because some of them will return?

QUOTE(aevans176)
And finally, to discuss the terrorism idea, I believe that there have been 0 terrorists caught at the Mexican border. These people, working within organized and well funded cells can easily afford to come to America perfectly legally. They have no need to jump fences, etc....

Really?
QUOTE
An al-Qaida operative who was on the FBI's terrorist watch list was recently captured near the Mexican border,

QUOTE
Rep. Culberson said the detainee had been living in Mexico for up to a year, where the terrorist "was taking careful notes on the movement of people, police officers, wildlife, etc.

QUOTE
He said FBI Director Robert Mueller had previously "confirmed" in testimony before his committee "that there are individuals from countries with known al-Qaida connections who are changing their Islamic surnames to Hispanic-sounding names and obtaining false Hispanic identities, learning to speak Spanish and pretending to be Hispanic immigrants."
"And these are clearly Arab terrorists," Rep. Culberson added, "from countries like Yemen, Iraq and Saudi Arabia. They're crossing the border, pretending to be Hispanic immigrants, and then disappearing."

Sleep well.
Blackstone
QUOTE(Ted @ Dec 12 2005, 01:51 PM)
I could not agree more.  But you would have to go way beyond penalizing the businesses (which I agree we should do).  Many state and local governments make it illegal to “turn in” an illegal alien even if questioned in a crime investigation!  Thus we should also pass a federal law that states MUST require schools, hospitals, and business to require proof of citizenship.  The best idea would be a notional ID card that was very hard to forge.
*

We don't need a national ID card. Call me old-fashioned, but that's the sort of thing we used to deride other countries for. U.S. citizens shouldn't have to prove that they're legit in order to exercise the privileges of citizenship. Yes, I know all about how we already have to have ID cards for a whole host of things, but that doesn't mean we should go further down that road.

QUOTE(aevans176 @ Dec 12 2005, 02:36 PM)
My question to everyone that believes that all illegal aliens should leave the US would be:
How many American industries rely on illegal labor (specifically from Mexico)?

Consider industries like migrant farming, meat packing, and small businesses reliant on labor that comes from this part of the US economy?

The bottom line is that many American industries rely on "unauthorized" workers, and unemployment in the United States often is not impacted by said workers. In fact, the sheer fact that these migrant workers will work for lower wages allows businesses to often stay open when the profitability otherwise may not allow it.
*

If we deport those workers, there's nothing preventing them from being replaced through a legal process, if that's something the American people might approve of. But giving official sanction to their presence here is irresponsible, because it will cause more people to enter illegally, and put more pressure on the Border Patrol.

QUOTE
Talking about a fence that runs along the border, I believe that it's completely counter productive. The reality is that the fence only forces the people whom might have passed back and forth to work in the US to set up "residence" in the US, causing us to provide healthcare, police forces, etc for said aliens.

I don't know about anyone else, but my goal is to get the border secured. If it means that more illegals end up staying here (which I'm not conceding), we'd still have the benefit of a secure border, which is a very important goal in itself.

And incidentally, nothing says we have to provide health care or any other social services for these people, except our own laws. These laws can and should be changed. Americans pay taxes to help out Americans, and, in some cases, our guests in this country. Paying taxes to provide for foreigners who've come here illegally is not part of the deal that Americans would agree to.

QUOTE
And finally, to discuss the terrorism idea, I believe that there have been 0 terrorists caught at the Mexican border. These people, working within organized and well funded cells can easily afford to come to America perfectly legally. They have no need to jump fences, etc....

When you say 0 terrorists, how exactly do you define the term? Do you define them as people who've actually engaged in terrorist activities? Not many people of that description are known to have entered the country by any route. But that doesn't mean we should assume that the route by which the 9/11 terrorists entered the country is going to be the same route by which all future terrorists would do so. Drug dealers are well funded also, but they don't confine themselves to only one way of bringing drugs into the country. Some bring them in through otherwise legitimate shipping, some carry them on (or in) their persons while using outwardly legal means to enter the country, and others jump the border. Why would you expect it to be any different with terrorists?
Ted
QUOTE
We don't need a national ID card. Call me old-fashioned, but that's the sort of thing we used to deride other countries for. U.S. citizens shouldn't have to prove that they're legit in order to exercise the privileges of citizenship.


The problem is there are lots of cheap drivers license and SS card forgeries. If we don’t have a national ID then we need a solid and quick check by employers on SS numbers. And this would not stop someone from getting medical care.

As stated above, terrorists are very aware of this weakness in our borders and let’s hope we don’t have to pay a very high price before we fix it.
whyshouldi
Well, people in Mexico could at any time try to come to America illegally, so I guess it could qualify as the person that is downloading porn, it may at some point become child molestation, your child, so Mexico then should be destroyed.

Well, anyways, I like to think its simply migration in effect really. If the lands of Mexico were better prepared themselves to offer the culture their with viable options of survival the migration thing might simply die off, taking into account you would not have to leave your family and risk incarceration in order to obtain a job.

I do recognize that illegal immigration brings with it many problems. I feel one of the best ways to start to combat such is to work with southern American nations in a sense to elevate such nations to a state where people might not want to migrate for whatever reasons, illegally, and to combat business that hires such people with stiff penalty, truly something that will bend motivation to make a few extra dollars and or stay afloat. Maybe those companies could just move to Mexico and hire the people there.

I feel the other options will simply be a cycle that not only fails to combat the issue, but becomes a never ending and most likely growing drain on American resources, namely the taxpayer, or other institutions like public education that need tax money. The more jobs that illegal immigrants take, the less jobs there are existing for people already in the country, so its like carrying over poverty really, no overall solution to what is causing the problems.

Blackstone
QUOTE(Ted @ Dec 12 2005, 04:35 PM)
The problem is there are lots of cheap drivers license and SS card forgeries.  If we don’t have a national ID then we need a solid and quick check by employers on SS numbers.  And this would not stop someone from getting medical care. 

As stated above, terrorists are very aware of this weakness in our borders and let’s hope we don’t have to pay a very high price before we fix it.
*

There are ways of forgery-proofing existing documentation, but that shouldn't mean we'd need to start requiring new forms of documentation for new purposes. Whatever we don't need an ID card for now in our daily lives, should not be made to require an ID card in any proposed legislation.

Securing the border, on the other hand, is something I definitely agree with. And I don't think it's nearly as cumbersome a task as it often gets made out to be. How hard could it be to fence off the border? We have four- and eight-lane highways crisscrossing the country every which way, but building a good fence along the border is somehow too much of an expense?

QUOTE(whyshouldi @ Dec 12 2005, 05:01 PM)
I do recognize that illegal immigration brings with it many problems. I feel one of the best ways to start to combat such is to work with southern American nations in a sense to elevate such nations to a state where people might not want to migrate for whatever reasons, illegally
*

I don't know how much we'd need to "work with" them, because they know what they need to do. They need to do away with the strangling corruption in their society. Those in power there have little motivation to do that, because it's so entrenched, and because many of them benefit from it directly. The only thing that can really work against it (short of invasion) is constant exposure, and I'd agree we should probably be looking into that option.
Ted
QUOTE
Securing the border, on the other hand, is something I definitely agree with. And I don't think it's nearly as cumbersome a task as it often gets made out to be. How hard could it be to fence off the border? We have four- and eight-lane highways crisscrossing the country every which way, but building a good fence along the border is somehow too much of an expense?

Well building a fence is not rocket science just money but if you want it to be secure it must be monitored. And the monitoring must include both sides (to see people breaking through) and below ground since tunnels would be the next step in moving across if a fence was present. Tunnels have already been used by the drug trade and the fence (if done right) would then force theses folks to go underground.

Therefore just a “fence” or any barrier is not nearly enough. Monitoring every foot of it above and below ground would also be required.

aevans176
QUOTE(Blackstone @ Dec 12 2005, 03:53 PM)
If we deport those workers, there's nothing preventing them from being replaced through a legal process, if that's something the American people might approve of.  But giving official sanction to their presence here is irresponsible, because it will cause more people to enter illegally, and put more pressure on the Border Patrol.


I'm going to be accused of bein' a liberal on this one... but frankly, I'm really more of a flamin' capitalist.

The fact of the matter is that our nation's economy nearly relies on "unauthorized" labor coming from Mexico (among other nations, but predominantly Mexico).

What we have to analyze is a cost/benefit analysis of unemployment in America, the true impact of illegals in our workforce, and how much it would really COST to secure our borders in the fashion that you suggest.

What would we build the fences of? Solid steel? How much would that cost? How could we keep them from simply digging under the fences? What about ladders and jumping over the fences? Would we just put 20,000 border patrol agents along the border with rifles and shoot 'em?

My point is that if there are industries as far north as N Dakota that rely on migrant labor to sustain profitablilty, I doubt that a multi-billion dollar undertaking will change the end result.

So, the labor idea aside, let's discuss the terrorism idea. Are we going to secure the border to Canada as well? What will that cost? What will stop them from getting a Visa and flying United and sitting in first class... drinkin' a cold coke and eating peanuts on the way to terrorizing the Great US of A???

Terrorist organizations such as Al Qaeda are well funded, well organized, and well trained. I personally believe that if you put up a fence from the Baja to Texas, all you're going to have is a big piece of steel with holes dug underneath and a monstrous budget for border patrol that would never stop someone coming into the US perfectly legally...

Illegal mexican immigration is part of living in a border state, and every day I pass what could potentially be an illegal Mexican highway crew, lawn company, etc. My personal opinion is that maybe there are Americans that want those jobs and maybe that's the only draw back. However, as long as they don't commit crimes and are productive members of our society... let 'em send money home to build their families a new roof, buy their kids clothes, or find medical care for their parents... who on earth doesn't want that for someone?

Does it cost the American tax payer? Maybe... but how many companies keep their doors open and employ legitimate US citizens because they utilize illegal labor?? Who knows...
Fife and Drum
QUOTE(aevans176)
The fact of the matter is that our nation's economy nearly relies on "unauthorized" labor coming from Mexico (among other nations, but predominantly Mexico).

That’s a bold statement and strong premise for you’re argument without any actual proof. This country got along fine for years without having to rely on illegal workers. If companies have dug themselves into hole by hiring unauthorized workers than they have no one to blame but themselves. What happened to that conservative mantra of accountability? Appears the oil companies have no problem jacking the prices up when there's a bump in the road, why shouldn't that basic business premise apply to other industries?

QUOTE(aevans176)
What we have to analyze is a cost/benefit analysis of unemployment in America, the true impact of illegals in our workforce, and how much it would really COST to secure our borders in the fashion that you suggest.

I love cost benefit analysis (and aevans, I knew you had a liberal side in you!).

I tried to find something that hit home in your beloved state of Texas(or second favorite country as you put it in another thread).
QUOTE
Third, all of this comes at an enormous expense to Texas taxpayers. The Harris County Hospital District alone doled out $330 million in free medical care to illegal immigrants over the last three years. Even more ominously, the flood of illegal immigrants seeking free health care may crowd out U.S. citizens. Many public hospitals in Texas are already overburdened and some such as Brackenridge Hospital in Austin have begun turning patients away.

And this gem:
QUOTE
Cost of Illegal Immigration to Texas: 4.7 billion a year or an extra $725 to each resident in the form of taxes, higher education costs, higher law enforcement costs, and higher health care costs.

Cost of Illegal Immigration to California: 10.5 billion a year or an extra $1,183 to each resident in the form of taxes, higher education costs, higher law enforcement costs, and higher health care costs.

Cost of Illegal Immigration to Arizona: 1.3 billion a year or an extra $700.00 to each resident in the form of taxes, higher education costs, higher law enforcement costs, and higher health care costs.

That’s a total of 16.5 billion dollars annually from just three states. My guess is we could get a fairly nice barrier and extra border patrol guards for that price tag. And you just simply can’t ignore the opportunity cost associated with this dollar amount.

As usual with most issues this has far reaching implications. Basically through our taxes, increased health insurance premiums and increased deductibles we subsidize people who have clearly broken the law and not paid one cent into the system. Consider:
QUOTE
Illness and medical bills caused half of the 1,458,000 personal bankruptcies in 2001, according to a study published by the journal Health Affairs.

The study estimates that medical bankruptcies affect about 2 million Americans annually -- counting debtors and their dependents, including about 700,000 children.  Surprisingly, most of those bankrupted by illness had health insurance. More than three-quarters were insured at the start of the bankrupting illness.

(I couldn’t find more up to date numbers but I’ve recently read where this has gotten worse)

When a hospital spends money on the uninsured they have to recover those charges by increasing the cost on those who do carry insurance (it’s why my father's recent stay in the hospital for five days was 32K, just the hospital bill, no doctor fees).

What that tells me is legal, hard working citizens, who pay taxes and purchase insurance, could end up in worse off than those who came here illegally and received the same health care. And you must also consider that someone with health insurance could get turned down for medical care at a hospital because the beds are full of uninsured people who came into this country illegally.

It just sounds like we’re punishing the wrong people here.
Blackstone
QUOTE(Ted @ Dec 13 2005, 10:24 AM)
Therefore just a “fence” or any barrier is not nearly enough.  Monitoring every foot of it above and below ground would also be required.
*

A fence, in addition to the patrols we already have, would greatly reduce the number of people who illegally enter the country. Increasing those patrols (which I also advocate) would reduce the number further.

QUOTE(aevans176 @ Dec 13 2005, 10:42 AM)
What we have to analyze is a cost/benefit analysis of unemployment in America, the true impact of illegals in our workforce, and how much it would really COST to secure our borders in the fashion that you suggest.
*

First of all, as I explained in the previous post, whatever economic benefit that comes from illegals can be provided as well by the legals that replace them. And if the businesses that hire them were to bear a greater share of the cost of their social benefits, the market itself would be able to come to a much clearer judgment of the cost/benefit ratio than it's currently able to.

QUOTE
What would we build the fences of? Solid steel? How much would that cost? How could we keep them from simply digging under the fences? What about ladders and jumping over the fences? Would we just put 20,000 border patrol agents along the border with rifles and shoot 'em?

I highly doubt that the cost of the fence would be a budget-buster. There are parts of the border that are already fenced off. How much did that cost per mile of border? Extrapolate that across the rest of the border, and there's your number.

As for effectiveness, as I said above, it would improve the effectiveness of what we have already. You can always come up with scenarios like ladders and tunnels, but the point is, how much would that slow down the illegals? If it enables the Border Patrol to capture more of them, then it's worth it. If we increase the number of BP agents (who again, aren't really breaking the budget, to put it mildly), then we can catch a lot more of them. And if our government gets an attack of common sense and makes it clear that there will no chance of allowing illegal aliens to participate in guest worker programs, and that instead we will make an aggressive attempt to enforce the laws against illegal entry, that will reduce the number further.

Bottom line, though: Letting illegal aliens participate in a guest-worker program can only put more pressure on the border. It would never relieve pressure on it. There's no way around that.

QUOTE
So, the labor idea aside, let's discuss the terrorism idea. Are we going to secure the border to Canada as well? What will that cost? What will stop them from getting a Visa and flying United and sitting in first class... drinkin' a cold coke and eating peanuts on the way to terrorizing the Great US of A???

I don't know, should we fence off the border with Canada? Maybe, maybe not. But I don't see what that has to do with the question of whether or not to fence off the border with Mexico. On that decision, the only question to be asked is whether it will or will not move our security in the right direction.

I truly don't understand this style of argumentation which says that we shouldn't do something positive at all unless we take it to the nth degree. Not much progress on anything would ever get made with an attitude like that.

By the way, you haven't answered my point about drug dealers. They're well funded also, so why do they rely in part on jumping the porous border instead of exclusively utilizing nominally legal channels of brining drugs into the country? And by the way, did you check out Fife and Drum's link at #25?
Ted
QUOTE
A fence, in addition to the patrols we already have, would greatly reduce the number of people who illegally enter the country. Increasing those patrols (which I also advocate) would reduce the number further

Yes that would help as well as technology. There are systems out there now that can intercept and pinpoint the cell phones used by the lookouts who call to their friends to cross after the patrol goes by. But you have to spend the money to implement these and I am not sure there is the will in Congress to do this. We need to put more pressure on our Congressmen to get it done.

And then there is the issue of tunneling. To stop this a wide swath of land on our side of the border would have to be constantly monitored. Again it can be done. Takes money and people and with Bush not pushing it strongly and Dems generally against it (and some Republicans) I don’t see it happening.

IMO real reform will happen right AFTER we are hit by a terrorist attack that we verify was carried out by people who came across the Mexican border.
aevans176
QUOTE(Fife and Drum @ Dec 13 2005, 02:36 PM)
When a hospital spends money on the uninsured they have to recover those charges by increasing the cost on those who do carry insurance (it’s why my father's recent stay in the hospital for five days was 32K, just the hospital bill, no doctor fees).

What that tells me is legal, hard working citizens, who pay taxes and purchase insurance, could end up in worse off than those who came here illegally and received the same health care. And you must also consider that someone with health insurance could get turned down for medical care at a hospital because the beds are full of uninsured people who came into this country illegally.

It just sounds like we’re punishing the wrong people here.
*



(*side note*... I never said I didn't have a liberal side! smile.gif )

However, the problem with your argument is that it doesn't address the fact that a fence/wall hasn't ever been proven to stop illegal immigration, and the wall put up in Nogales, Arizona hasn't been effective at even stopping the cost of caring for Mexican patients...
http://www.hispanicvista.com/HVC/Opinion/N...120905Pnews.htm
Apparently...we're still taking their sick...
and
http://speakout.com/activism/issue_briefs/1370b-1.html
The wall didn't even really show a decrease in illegal immigration...

Industries that use "unauthorized" workers...
meatpacking
steel industry
farming
http://www.farmworkers.org/bpaccord.html
http://www.goveg.com/workerRights.asp
http://www.jsri.msu.edu/RandS/research/ops/oc19.html

Mexican labor accounted for roughly 5 million workers in 2000...
http://www.migrationinformation.org/USfocu...play.cfm?ID=206
that's roughly 3.5%...

So, my point is very easy to understand. In order to "rid" the US of illegal workers, stop new ones from coming to the US, and replenish their affect on the economy... it would cost huge amounts of money.

The reality is that the wall idea didn't work in Nogales, which was essentially a "Clinton" beta test on walls if you ask me. Frankly, it's not surprising that no more popped up.

The only way we could effectively secure borders against the illegal mexican immigration is to erect huge walls and man them w/ armed guards... which doesn't bode well for our pocket book or foreign relations.

As it stands, we're still aiding their sick, still having people go over/under/around the walls.. and the only issue is to ask how much it costs to erect and maintain such a barrier.

Wanna stop illegal mexican immigration?? Prosecute industries using said labor Frankly, if there weren't jobs for them here... they wouldn't come. Pretty simple concept. If we took the Border Patrol Budget and sent agents into suspect industries, the financial gain would be further reaching than a never-ending debaucle that they call the "Wall in Nogales"....




Fife and Drum
QUOTE(aevans176)
So, my point is very easy to understand. In order to "rid" the US of illegal workers, stop new ones from coming to the US, and replenish their affect on the economy... it would cost huge amounts of money.


And then you said this…

QUOTE(aevans176)
Wanna stop illegal mexican immigration?? Prosecute industries using said labor


I don’t know how you could satisfy both, something would have to give. As stated earlier, those businesses are sleeping in the beds they chose to make. If they have to hire more expensive worker than they might have to pass the cost along (re: oil companies), alluding to another comment I made about propping up an industry with fake wages, it’s completely different than subsidizing the product itself.

You’re absolutely right about prosecuting businesses that use illegal workers and it would be more cost effective. A solution here might be to give businesses a year of amnesty to “clean house” and then start the fines.

The other action we need to consider: just because you’re born in states shouldn’t automatically make you a citizen. If the parents came here illegally and gave birth that child should be considered illegal as well.
Ted
QUOTE
So, my point is very easy to understand. In order to "rid" the US of illegal workers, stop new ones from coming to the US, and replenish their affect on the economy... it would cost huge amounts of money.

The reality is that the wall idea didn't work in Nogales, which was essentially a "Clinton" beta test on walls if you ask me. Frankly, it's not surprising that no more popped up.

The only way we could effectively secure borders against the illegal mexican immigration is to erect huge walls and man them w/ armed guards... which doesn't bode well for our pocket book or foreign relations.


I disagree. The wall didn’t work because people simply went around it and it was never given all the capabilities needed. The head of HLS was on FOX last night speaking about this and said the answer is a physical and electronic “wall” that covers the entire border. He said it was doable and was in the works.

The cost will be far less than the cost today for the government and the states. One interesting thing he said they were going to eliminate was the “catch and release” policy whereby illegal immigrants are caught and let go because we have no place to hold them before deportation. Thus getting caught just delays entry into the US.

Finally the cost of security is worth whatever we have to pay. As posted above, AQ terrorists are well aware of the wide open border and are planning to use it to deliver bad things (potentially WMD) into this country.

Do we have to wait until after this happens to DO something. I hope not.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2014 Invision Power Services, Inc.