I don't recall mentioning the racist aspect of our current policy, it's there of course but not my point here. It's only at official border crossings where you run into flack at the Canadian border, just like the Mexican border.

Elsewhere it's even less fortified that the souther border.

Canada–United States border

:Snort:

Indeed the barbarians are at the gates, I'm quaking in my sketchers.


Otherwise.

...and that has never been the case with our borders. The 9-11 terrorist all came here legally.

Like I said- you haven't been to the Canadian border apparently- for an "undefended border" they have an awful lot of firepower and high tech goodies stretching for miles and miles- to protect Alaska from those pesky Canadians I guess?

I rolled up to Dawson city on the "Top of the world" hiway. The border is open only from 8-8pm. They close the station at night. Probably could have driven around it- except I would have been caught (don't need night vision in the land of the midnight sun)- because there is a manned guard tower on the AMERICAN side that will call down the angry fist of gawd almighty on you if you try to run it.

The land is more than just merely "inhospitable" up there, you are literally part of the food chain when you step off the road. You will be killed, most likely, if you try to go the 50 or so miles north or south of the guard station by the enviroment itself- mostly muskeg, tundra and about 10 billion mosquitoes, and lots of bears and other nasty things. The hike alone to get out of site of the towers would take you nearly a week in that enviroment.

It is nearly impassable. Not impossible- but the law of diminishing returns suggest that those trying that avenue of travel most likely have permission to do so (Yukon River travellers usually get permission and visas ahead of time. )

So this whole thing about the border being "unprotected" ESPECIALLY on the Alaskan side is pure rubbish. It is protected by angry guards that hassle everyone, and nearly impassable northern extreme conditions.

But hey- if you think it is so easy- give it a run homey!

BTW- I just mentioned this "unprotected border" idea that you cheechakoes seem to think is so easy to cross- we all had a good laugh and called those folks "either mosquito food or bear food"- you better be a hell of a woodsman if you want to make that run!

But- I look forward to the news release when you give it a run- I hope you don't die- really!

I've substantiated my position.

Unless you've done a survey of the entire border, your anecdote doesn't stack up. Most of the Canadian border is not along Alaska and people do cross, without being shot.

If you can provide evidence to the contrary...

Sorry- my evidence is my own two eyes, and the difference in they behavior of the US border patrol in Canada and Mexico.

And as far as mexicans being shot- we have I think TWO shootings on the mexican border with MILLIONS having crossed- not exactly a shooting gallery going on - and of those two, both officers claimed self defense- in the case of the drug dealer being shot- oh well, and it looks like there was serious wrongdoing in thier conviction on the prosecutors side.

this one is still playing out- and I am betting that there was some form of self defense as well- from what I have seen, the only thing going on here is that border patrol guards are not allowed to protect themselves- there is no large scale 'shoot to kill" going on the Mexican side EITHER.

However- the Canadian northern climate is deadly- believe it or don't, I don't care, we get a few dead poeple every year not respecting how dangerous it is.

As far as poeple's kids being dragged across the border with them- that is straight up Darwin in action - you drag your kids along, that is your bad, I have no pity on you.

That is the same kind of person that puts food in thier kids hand to "get a good picture with the bear"

That being said- just because the Canadian border is too porous too doesn't make it okay for the Mexican border to be porous and unprotected either. We should expend no less to protect our Canadian border as well.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8...;show_article=1

The very fact that the US border patrol even bothered to search those coming from Canada shows how much tighter security is on the US-Canadian border. They pretty much just wave you through on the Mexican-US border

Yes, anecdotal.

Not universal.


Never said it was, merely objecting to instating a shooting gallery down there.


Bears aren't reasoning human beings charged with law enforcement duties.


That'll teach us to steal Canadian medicine! Bang bang Grandma!


It is ludicrous to pretend either of our borders are military zones or that immigrants are hostile invaders.

Thanks for the link. They give a number of ~20 million illegal immigrants by arguing that the DHS doesn't keep good count. They use words like "tidal wave" to justify an "alternate methodology" for counting illegal immigrants. I trust the DHS numbers better. Perhaps, you can reference an alternative source of information whose stated goal isn't to justify how bad illegal immigration is?


Sigh... These factors are accounted for in the economic estimates. Perhaps, you can read those studies (in the bibliography of the wikipedia entry) and then argue your position? Believe me, if the economic data showed what you are arguing, then I would be taking your position. The economic studies show a net beneficial effect for immigration including illegal immigration.


Why? Define "sealed".

Here is another link for you to review:

ImmigrationCounters.com supports legal immigration and respect for all persons, yet highlights the significant weight of illegal immigration as a result of poor governmental controls and unscrupulous employers. The illegal immigration crisis is impacting all aspects of society and is unprecedented in American history.



Let me ask you this. Where do you see the U.S. in ten or twenty years if the rate of illegal immigration (even in the most conservative estimates) continues to go unchecked? Where do you see the U.S. in thirty years? In your opinion, would there ever be a point in time, or a number in terms of population, where illegal immigration would become a burden?

We are already feeling the burden of it in southern California. For example, I cannot send my child to a public school and expect a quality education:





I mean an airtight closure. The border should only be open to those entering it legally. What is so gosh darned evil about such an idea?

Again, thanks for the link. Again, this doesn't address the studies demonstrating a net positive economic effect for immigration (legal and illegal). In fact, most of these arguments referenced in the data sources link on the site can be applied equally well for legal immigrants (note that there are far more legal immigrants than illegal immigrants). As for the ~20 million vs. ~12 million illegal immigrant numbers, I can see where Bear-Stearns is coming from. I don't want to quibble over this number and agree that it could be this high; I still give greater authority to the DHS numbers.


If we see a net positive economic growth due to immigration to the US (legal and illegal), then it is a good thing by definition (at least as far as the economy is concerned). If we see a net negative economic affect, then it is a bad thing.


This is just scare tactics. Pick any group, like say Blacks or Muslims or Christians, and then cite their enormous impact on K-12 school expenditure. Almost all illegal immigrants are paying taxes. You're completely ignoring this.

And one other thing. The school budget crisis is not from illegal immigration; it's from Proposition 13. If you really want to solve this problem, you should be campaigning to repeal this awful law.


Nothing evil about the idea per se. Though it's probably impossible to do. Do you know how much this will cost to build and maintain? How will you pay for it? Are there more effective uses for this money? Are there "lower hanging fruit"? What about the negative economic affects of closing off illegal immigration?

So let me ask you, do you think our economy would be adversely affected if were were to force foreigners of all nations near or far to go through legal channels before they come to provide cheap labor?



I guess we have different criteria for what is economically feasible. Besides that, you have not addressed my question to you about what number you would give in terms of a deciding factor on closing the border. When our country's population reaches 400 million would you then reconsider? Illegal immigration isn't going to disappear unless we stop it. And the burdens places on the middle and working classes will be felt as the noose tightens and the disparity between rich and poor is exacerbated.

I do not blame the desperate Mexicans, but I do blame the U.S. government as well as the corrupt millionaires/billionaires of Mexico.




Most illegal aliens do not receive a typical paycheck with tax deductions -- they are paid in cash and do not pay taxes. Even when they do pay taxes (only possible if they use fraudulent social security numbers or government assigned ID tax numbers), their meager income is not enough to pay for medical expenses and all the expenses for all the children they give birth to. You don't have to look at statistics -- just visit the maternal ward at the L.A. county hospital. There, illegal immigrant women are having thousands of children per year free of charge and can't afford them once they give birth, and that doesn't stop them from having even more children -- most learn how to work the system so that they receive cash assistance and food stamps.




The problems that public schools face has more to do with politics and complacency than with money. Parents who can afford private school and want quality education for their children have no other option but to go private. I pay for public school and I also pay for private. Illegals do not pay for the schooling of their children and they are saturating the institution. I've toured enough public schools and I've spoken with enough parents and teachers to know that the efforts to educate children of illegals on the taxpayer's dime are futile. There are so many factors involved in the breakdown of education in southern California. Illegal immigrants are weighing so heavily on our resources that it is only a matter of time before the camoflauged hole that is hidden by cries of racism is revealed and we are forced to deal with a society whose population is growing by leaps and bounds while its fragile underpinnings continue to erode.




We have no choice. If we do not close the borders now, we'll have to do it later, unless you believe the resources of this wonderful nation are endless..

We do "force" foreigners to go through legal channels; it's just that some break the law. If there weren't a market for "cheap" labor (your words), then they wouldn't be coming across the border in the first place. If there wasn't a high risk of a border crosser being turned away at the border, then there would be more legal border crossers (perhaps most).

In other words, we have people who want to cross the border for work (and cross illegally because they know they'll be turned away). AND we have people who cross the border whose intentions are more illicit. If we were to make it easier for people who want to work to cross the border legally, then we could focus our efforts on those who have more illicit intentions. Right now, our border control efforts cannot differentiate between people who want to work and those who have unsavory intentions until after we've already picked them up.


I suppose we do have different criteria. I've laid out pretty well what my economic criteria are. What are yours?


I don't have a set number. When we do see a net negative economic effect due to immigration (legal or illegal), then I'll side with you on immigration. Since we don't see this effect, I am in favor of it continuing. It's that simple.


If an employer hires someone who does not have the paperwork demonstrating their legal status, then we should punish the employer.

So, let's talk about non-working women who have kids. Are you suggesting that their receipt of funds should be stopped? Or are you just singling out "illegal immigrants"?

The quotes you keep citing from the Free Republic web site are inaccurate. Please read the economic studies on the actual net economic effects of immigration (legal and illegal).


Again with the "illegal immigrants weigh down our schools", yada yada. If you won't even read or consider the serious studies demonstrating fairly conclusively about the net positive economic effect (yes, even in California), then there is no point continuing this debate. You have your position and clearly serious studies on this matter are immaterial to you...


Thanks for answering my questions. Very helpful.

Logo- I have spent four days now going through "studies"- but thier methodology is frequently tied to census data- something already acknowledged to be flawed data- you base a study on flawed data- the study is flawed.

What I have really been looking for is some kind of cluster survey- very accurate when done correctly- can't find any.

I agree with you there. I'll investigate this some more too. Thanks for taking the time to look at this.


Yes, the studies will likely never be completely satisfactory. The preponderance of the evidence though is for a net positive economic effect.

In case anyone cares, the Pew Hispanic Research Center is an excellent source for unbiased studies. They do sometimes use census data, but just as often, they use first hand accounts and conduct their own studies. http://pewhispanic.org/

Additionally, the Bell Policy Center also gives a nice overview of the economic effects of immigration. http://www.thebell.org/issues/img/issues.php (scroll down, and it's the last study).

And to address CR, all data is limited and thus flawed. There will never be a completely random sample, and there is always a margin of error. The best that we can hope for in social science empirical studies is that the sources are as unbiased as possible, but that hardly means that they are completely unbiased. I would venture to say that the Census Bureau data, as well as other data from other government sites (the Dept. of Labor, the IRS, etc.) is perhaps the most comprehensible available. Why? Simply because the US government has the resources available to get a wide sample size, and to conduct a fairly random sample. Other organizations (such as universities, or non profits, or research organizations) have limited funds and are not able to get the same range of information. This does not mean that their studies should be discounted entirely, but methodology is extremely important. Because social science literature wants to get the most accurate and broad sample possible, and the only info that is available to the public that contains all this data is the US Census, I would argue that the Census data is perhaps the best source of information that scientists have available.

Simply pointing out that something is flawed does very little for argument unless you can produce something that is just as unflawed. There is obviously some validity to pointing out serious flaws in studies, because those flaws will render the results invalid. However, we must also accept that all studies are inherently flawed, and we generally have to trust that the researchers did their best to balance any of the flaws in the study.

I understand the idea of "trying to prove a negative" here- but here is the deal- the same problem with census numbers and the homeless is showing itself in this debate over immigration- there is NO reliable numbers, on top of that, peer reviewed studies indicate that we are not being accurate with the estimates of numbers of illegals, but BADLY and ENORMOUSLY undercounting them. That alone makes it a very, very dangerous security issue. If we can't even get an accurate count, how are we supposed to cull the bad guys from the herd?

We need to get a handle on this NOW, not 20 years from now, when our options have come to the point that we are acting out of some apocolyptic sci-fi type scenario where the legal folks of this country are badly outnumbered by the illegals.

The best way to do this is to close our borders completely, and seal them up tight, and force everyone to go through checkpoints, and, to be fair, we need to revise upward our quotas from central America, obviously.

We can't tell if illegals are good or bad for the economy- because we don't have any reliable figures- that is one reason, if you noticed, I stay away from the economic argument for the most part- except with border states, that are obviously being dealt a very negative blow. but overall, Logo may very well be correct- but I won't commit to it one way or the other.

The only way to get accurate numbers, or at least approaching, oh, reliable guestimates, is to seal off our borders, and make everyone wishing to enter the US to go through legal checkpoints.

The best way to seal off our border is to take the human equation out of much of it- automated weapons systems, military deployment along the border.

It would seal it up darn tight- as it has been shown already working with the small effort that has been put forth already.

You have to make the cost-benefit for running for the border too high to even contemplate- you make it deadly, very deadly. Nothing personal- but we have to seal our borders, don't cross here, you will die. And I don't mean "it is dangerous, and you may die"- but "You wil most certainly be killed"

Yes, an attack hasn't happened yet, but that doesn't mean it won't- it is just too obvious of a planning starter. I mean "let's see, mexico is basically a Kleptocracy, and I could sneak some big bombs or WMD into Mexico, I think, and the border is completely open, it is a no-brainer". Heck, I am no military genius- but if I wanted to harm the US, and I was not a citizen, my planning would begin with the 'soft underbelly" of the US.

The Canadian crossings are much more strict than the Mexican crossings- the thoroughness of the searches and challenging of documents on the northern borders are 10 times more stringent, AT LEAST- hell, they hassle you for BEER even there.

they just pretty much wave you through on the southern border without much hassle at all.

But we need to stop charging our border patrols with crimes when they feel they are acting in self defense. I don't even mind them erring on the side of trigger-happiness vs being paralyzed like they are now, considering a coyote/drug smuggler can sue border patrols like we are seeing now.

Ideally, I would like to see the border patrol removed from being civilian at all to completely under the guise of the military. With tanks, rocket launchers, minefields, and automated defense installations.

After reading much of the Pew site, I also understand that another ideal way to stop illegal immigration is to make remittances very, very expensive and difficult for illegals. Proof positive of citizenship, with DNA tracking, would be a very easy way to stop the outflow of American dollars south, and stop the financial incentive to running to the US for economic reasons.

Also - looking at the Pew page- illegals are almost laughably low- 7 million> ARe you kidding? There are that many in SoCal alone!

Are you kidding? According to this Pew Hispanic Factsheet, the estimate is 11.5 million to 12 million. Similar to estimates already given. There is a a theory in social science literature, that if something comes up enough, it is regarded as fairly accurate. Most empirical studies tend to estimate the same thing. The Pew Hispanic Center used old Census Bureau data, as well as the Current Population Survey for March 2005. The center analyzed trends in a six year period to reduce sampling variability. You really can't get more accurate than something like this, other than hunting down each illegal immigrant, verifying that they're illegal, and then keeping count.

We've already shown this to be false so why keep repeating it without corresponding evidence?

Now the border crossing may be faster down south, but that's because they are far busier with legal traffic. The border itself is under much closer watch down Mexico way.

For whatever reason this whole issue is rife with the most obvious sort of overreaction.

Apocalypse?

Is that what illegal immigration is?

The situation is rather mundane when viewed dispassionately, the effort it takes to make a mountain of this molehill is telling.

International Boundary Commission

Because I know whatever "proof" you have of the border crossing to be complete crap- having crossed both of them, and somewhat regularly- whatever line has been fed to whomever about this- well, it is complete garbage.

The scrutiny at the canadian border crossing by US border agents is WAY tougher than the Mexican side. Of course, there is NO scrutiny for crossing into mexico- in fact, the reason for going south from Prudhoe instead of north from ARgentina is how much easier the border crossing become if you go south rather than north. The US border is the toughest, by far, as far as scrutiny, and getting your bags all searched, and asked lots of questions, and documents thoroughly gone through, at the candian border coming into the US than the mexican border going north. Any evidence you can come up with is pure bull puckey, because I know better from experiance.

I thought we were talking about illegal border crossings and not legal border crossings. While I don't discount your personal anecdotal experiences, this doesn't demonstrate anything about the permeability of our borders. Now, if you were a border enforcement agent, that might be a different case entirely.

But the border enforcement agent's experiance would be purely anecdotal -

I think there is some common sense needed here too- how much illegal border traffic do we get from Canada? Undefended doesn't mean unwatched either- there is quite a bit of guarding the border- as far as watching, and interdicting criminal traffic- but it is not neccesarily "defending" the border- but whatya know- they DEFINATELY ARREST POEPLE FOR COMMITING CRIMES. You know, that would be the "illegal" part of the debate- I would hazard a guess and say there is ALOT more illegal activity going on across the mexican-american border - NOT including illegal crossings- than the Canadian border- that alone should indicate a beefed up presence, to include or maybe even switch to- the military model instead.

Right now, the country to the south is a kleptocracy and sneaking bad things to kill us is alot easier from Mexico.

I would say that by sea is just as easy- so I would say beef that up too.

But anyway- we all digress- the border patrol agent should have better rules of engagement- meaning that they should be able to shoot a little easier- and we certainly should not be charging them with any crime.

Because you've done a survey of the border, interviewed the border patrol, done a helicopter flyover or something else that would indicate you have more knowledge of the border than the average tourist on a day-trip to TJ right?

That last link was from the Border Commission, the people who actually control the Canadian Border. So their "garbage" is pretty authoritative.

Questions:

What message do cases like this send to Mexicans looking to cross our border illegally?

That they can attack border patrols and feel safe.

Should Mexico have a say in how we decide to secure our borders?

NO

Do you believe that border patrol agents have enough leeway in restraining or stopping illegal entry?

No. This agent was being stoned and defended himself. The pictures have been on TV showing agents being pelted with large stones. It is ludicrous that the agents have to run away from being attacked or try to tackle a men trying to brain them with rocks.

The agents should be given effective non-lethal weapons as well as guns.

I will point out not even the agent himself claimed he was being stoned.

He said he was "threatened with a rock".

Is that something to kill over? Is it even true?

If you are threatened with a rock, are you safe? Have you seen the TV coverage of agents being stoned?

I agree that he may not have had to shoot – esp. shoot to kill but you and I were not there. Were the other two holding rocks as well?


If all you have to defend yourself is a gun what do you do?

Why wouldn't he lie and say he had "something shiny" ?

I assume that if someone picks up a large rock and you have a firearm, you might use it. The problem with deadly force is that umm... it's deadly.

This agent didn't have some predisposition to using his weapon, no citations for improper conduct, etc.

It's just like the two guys still in prison for shooting the guy in the butt. Seriously. When does it end? Did this man put multiple bullets into the drug dealer? Where did he shoot? How many times? What are the ballistics?

I've found that in the other situation, where they shot a drug smuggler in the butt... the court system failed. It became a tragedy in American history and shows what a slippery slope we could be sliding down.

If in fact the Mexican had a rock and got shot. It's tragic that he died, but defending himself with the only means he had available (his service weapon) surely isn't murder.

BTW- the "safe distance" for a police officer and an assailant with a blunt object or knife is 30 feet. If you approach the officer in a threatening manner with a hand held weapon, he is taught to empty the gun center mass. In training, I have been the attacker with the knife for the cops. I can close 30 feet so fast that many times, the cop in training never hit me at all, and was able to get only 1 or 2 rounds off before I was on top of him/her.

IF the dude picks up a rock to throw at a cop when they are being arrested- they have made the choice of "suicide by cop" as far as I am concerned.

To be clear- I am not always on the sides of cops here- I believe I was quite clear that I thought the NYPD cops that shot the unarmed dude in the car at the club (I forget the thread name, sorry) were murderers for their behavior- but these border patrol folks are in uniform, and the minute someone picks up something to harm the cop- I have no problem with a dead assailant at that point, and going all "china" on them and charging the family for the price of the bullet and the 3 days administrative leave the cop got for the investigation.

These guys need to be pardoned, stat, and the drug smuggler ( I don't normally have a probem with drug dealers that are all low key and dealing some weed out of thier house, but drug smugglers are NOT good poeple- EVER) - well, whatever bad things happen to him would make me point and laugh.

We need, as a nation, to show some dang common sense. It is not often Aevens and I agree on something- but I am willing to bet he is all for a 2-3 times quota increase for legal southern border aliens, and wants to see a complete 0 tolerance air tight border for ILLEGAL aliens.

It has far more to do with an obvious security issues with our currently UNDEFENDED border-(you know, we don't have tanks or big guns on our southern border either, in fact, IIRC, the mexican army attacked and forced the border patrol to run for thier lives)

I agree. Too many people forget that to threaten a cop is illegal (assault) and dangerous for your health. The incident I saw on TV showed sever young men stoning the border patrol guys and they were within 30 ft.

Why they did not shoot them dead is beyond me. Apparently our border patrol agent’s safety is not worth much to the government.

What message do cases like this send to Mexicans looking to cross our border illegally?

"Come on up and feel free to bring your drugs to sell, too!"


Should Mexico have a say in how we decide to secure our borders?

Nope. But then Bush has that North American Union thingy going, so....


Do you believe that border patrol agents have enough leeway in restraining or stopping illegal entry?

Nope...not with doing time for nailing a drug smuggler and now this. They are the patsies who will soon, if they haven't already, turn a blind eye to all the terrorists who will enter this country, as well.

I have to say this borders on the absurd.

This is why we have a justice system. If the officer really acted in self-defense that will come out at trial.

Clearly the previous set serving time failed the legal burden. Let's not pretend crossing the border illegally is criminal while shooting a fleeing unarmed suspect is not.