In the latest border patrol controversy:

BISBEE, Arizona (Reuters) - A U.S. Border Patrol agent must stand trial for murder in the shooting of a Mexican man trying to enter the United States, an Arizona judge ruled Monday in a case that drew criticism from Mexico....Following the killing, Mexico's Foreign Ministry complained of "disproportionate violence" and instructed the Mexican Embassy in Washington to investigate the circumstances...

Questions:

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

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

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

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

Should Mexico have a say in how we decide to secure our borders?
Every country has concerns about how it's nationals are treated, even when they've committed a crime.

There were complaints over an American being caned in Singapore, right?


Do you believe that border patrol agents have enough leeway in restraining or stopping illegal entry
Yes, lethal force is way too excessive.

Don't do that. We might shoot you.

No of course not.

Well, frankly I don't actually want people getting shot trying to enter our country illegally. I want them sent back, quickly. Maybe it's time to break out the "puke ray"!

So when an American contractor lifts a pack of smokes in Riyadh and they chop off his arm, we should just smile and nod, right?

The agent killed a man because he was threatened by a rock? Could this be a case of mistaken identity? Maybe the Mexican is actually a Palestinian.

What message do cases like this send to Mexicans looking to cross our border illegally?
It says our border patrol doesn't have the right to kill you.

Should Mexico have a say in how we decide to secure our borders?
It doesn't and they're not dictating terms and making demands by simply investigating. Who's scared of big, mean Mexico? I mean really.

Do you believe that border patrol agents have enough leeway in restraining or stopping illegal entry?
They have enough in terms of restraint. They shouldn't have authority make judicial determinations about asylum seekers.

P.S. Who's the other agent on trial for murder? I thought two went to trial for shooting a smuggler in the rear.

I had to read this a few times to understand you meant steals... only because I wasn't entirely understanding what you were trying to get at.

Uh, yeah. When you go to another country you are a guest subject to your hosts rules and laws. Now in the case of an American contractor that person is in the country legally and if they stay on the fair side of the law their life and limbs will remain intact. In the case of someone coming across American borders (especially at a time of war) that person is committing a crime from the outset. Let us not forget the difference here.

Fair enough, I was just trying to get the whole picture.

In context what Mexico is doing is perfectly normal in international circles. I referenced the Fay case of an American caned in Singapore which turned into an international incident. Same with cases of abuse in Japan by military stationed there. Countries almost always take an interest in how their nationals are treated, even when they commit a crime.

I haven't really looked at what Mexico is saying lately regarding their nationals but recently (under Fox0 they were looking for more open borders and more access to American services (like education and health care).

And certainly a US delegate should look after an American tobacco thief in Riyadh to try to keep his arm intact - but the law is the law. If you don't like the laws in a country you are free not to go there.

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

Um, Don't, we may kill you. We need to post signs "if you are sneaking across our border, we believe you are foriegn invaders bent on killing Ameircan citizens cross this line and we will kill you, you have no recourse, so don't do it!"

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

Of course not. Doesn't mean that they won't try, but they don't really have a say. And for the record- I think Fay got off easy in Singapore, his actions when he got back here shows that he should have got hanged in singapore before he got here, would have saved alot of grief.

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

No, I believe a wall with machine gun nests and razor wire and minefields is appropriate- our borders are too porous. Anyone entering this country needs to be documented as a matter of national security, and anyone attempting to sneak in illegally should be treated as a hostile invader.

That was another case, entirely.

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

It tells them that they can possibly cash in if they are somehow hurt or mistreated. It sends the message that no matter how many Americans are up in arms over the lack of adequate border security, our own government will pay no heed to what is best for its citizens. By all means, come in and work and bring as many family members as you like.

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

No they should not. Furthermore, they should be charged for every Mexican citizen that we have to use our resources in dealing with.

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

No I do not. They are theoretically supposed to stop illegal entry. Yet, cases emerge, where they are penalized and criminally prosecuted for doing their jobs. If we were to tighten security and make it known to all of Mexico that if they attempt to cross our borders illegally they will be SHOT on sight, that would pretty much dampen their resolve.

For anyone who takes a soft approach on how Mexicans should be treated, I would ask you this: If someone were to break into your house, would you grant him the same accomodations. Or would you shoot first, ask questions later?

Would that I could afford a house as big as the Mexican border. I understand the need for border patrol, but a "shoot first, ask questions later" approach es bastante loco and doesn't explain the paranoia.

Do you really feel like you're being overrun and want to do something about it? Then decrease white welfare.

Somehow?

He shot him. People are responsible for their actions


Should we be charge for all those Americans slipping across for medicine?

An individual is responsible for his/her actions, not their government.

Unless you feel lethal force should be justified in stopping illegal immigrants this guy has every right to sue.

It you do feel lethal force should be justified, we have bigger problems.

Un hombre loco deja su puerta delantera abierta

I'm really tired of the double-speak. Our government does not want the borders secure. So let them admit it and stop playing us all for fools. If we are serious about securing our borders effectively we must change the status quo because it is not working.

If we were to enforce a policy that was harsh, there would be less "victims" in the long run. If you were a burglar and you came upon a house that had a man standing with his gun aimed and ready to shoot, you would hightail it out of there and you'd probably tell all your friends, don't go near there, they will shoot you.

As Lesly already pointed out that's a false comparison. The only good reason to shoot an intruder is because he puts your safety at risk by proximity. The border is huge.

A better example is do you shoot the guy fleeing with your new circular saw from the tool shed out back?

I'm hoping the answer is no.

I agree that people are responsible for their actions. The border agent is being held accountable and he will pay the price for trying to do his job, and making an error in judgment. My argument is that we need to revise our border security rules. Our agents' hands are tied. They are, in essence, glorified security guards who are really not supposed to enforce control of the border. That's the crux of it.



I don't understand the comparison. If we are going down to Mexico to pay for medicine they are making money off of us already, rest assured. The people that come into out country are dirt poor. They have nothing to offer except cheap labor at a very high cost.



I do feel lethal force should be the policy. Otherwise, let's just send our guys home and save the taxpayers money that might as well be flushed down the toilet.




It depends on the tool, I suppose. If someone is bold enough to break the law and try to enter my house (or my property), he deserves what he gets. Unfortunately, we live in a day where the man who breaks into my house will sue me for shooting him in the foot, and he'll end up owning my house, if the lawyers have their way.

I respond that non-violent offenses do not require lethal force. We don't shoot people for everything, this is silly.


That resulted in someone getting shot, a little worse than an oops...

This is the same as police shootings in the states. Law-breaker or not you aren't licensed to kill at will.


I meant Americans slipping into Canada for prescription drugs. Is that the US government's responsibility?


Doesn't follow. We don't shoot speeders either.

I am not sure this is true. The studies I've read suggest basically a net break even (or even slight increase) in economic growth for undocumented workers. Note that even though these workers get fake social security cards, they are *still* paying taxes. And, they won't be accessing the social security.


I know you're not quite saying this, but I've been very confused with the following circular argument:

1. Undocumented workers are costing us money.
2. Let's increase security to prevent undocumented from coming into the country.
3. But, increasing security costs us money.
4. See! Undocumented workers are costing us money.

...rinse and repeat...

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

Um...you might get shot? If you do get shot, the US provides a legal recourse for you. The US is pretty awesome this way.

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

Any country should have an interest in how their citizens are treated abroad. Bordering countries should have a greater interest in each other. Trade agreements, extradition treaties, resource treaties, etc. may be affected by how countries treat each other's citizens.

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

Yes and no. I think they have enough leeway but I don't think their job should be to patrol the borders mainly looking for undocumented workers whose only crime is crossing the border illegally. This is not an efficient use of our resources. We should be focusing on the worse crimes.

If we have a goal of stemming the tide of undocumented workers, then we need to create *economic* disincentives for crossing into the US to work AND we need to help create *economic* incentives to keep Mexicans working in Mexico. Not only is this a better allocation of resources but it grows the overall regional economy.

Okay, but we are talking about a policy whereby people would be warned, "If you attempt to illegally enter the U.S. you will be shot." It's not willy-nilly killing.


This would be a situation whereby the potential "victims" would know in advance. If you speed, you know there's a chance you'll get a ticket. That potential keeps many of us from speeding. What if the punishment was, if you get caught speeding you will serve 5 years in prison, no exceptions. I bet you that would further reduce the number of speeders on the streets.




I do not see how that applies to this debate.




It's not only a matter of money. There are other issues at stake: population control, homeland security, etc.




Indeed. What about the two men serving time for shooting a drug smuggler who refused to stop when they told him to. They are in jail for doing their jobs. And who got penalized? The border agents. I would consider a Mexican drug smuggler a criminal to be stopped, wouldn't you?



I agree. But we still need to secure the borders, regardless. Open borders is not a good policy, under the best of circumstances.

What if the punishment were: "you'll be summarily executed"?, bet that'd darn near end it.

The point is that it's excessive.

Binational Migration Institute (pdf): Professor Wayne Cornelius, a leading scholar of immigration issues at the University of California, San Diego, estimates that the bodies of 2,978 unauthorized border crossers were recovered on U.S. soil from 1995-2004.⁷ Cornelius describes the body count in these terms: "To put this death toll in perspective, the fortified US border with Mexico has been more than 10 times deadlier to migrants from Mexico during the past nine years than the Berlin Wall was to East Germans throughout its 28-year existence."⁸

^{In 15 years 927 people have risked hyperthermia, hypothermia, drowning and motor vehicle accidents coming here and died and you want to tell their families they might not share the same fate if they cross the border to feel like you're getting your money's worth? I doubt illegal immigrants care one way or the other how you feel about your tax dollars. They cross the border because Mexican jobs suck, their agribusiness is in the tank thanks to us, and we've slacked on enforcing the administrative end of anti-immigration measures (going after employers) for years. Oh, but if only those hardheaded Mexicans weren't so hung up on breaking the law we could all get along.}

Okay. But to make a complete joke out of the border is what is actually occurring. We must change the operating procedure in order to garner different results.




It's sad. Life is filled with sad and tragic events. But the people who decide to cross the border are responsible for their own lives and their own survival.

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

Very little I suspect. I wonder how many unknown illegal immigrants are buried out in the deserts of the border region... All this really says is if you get caught killing an ilegal immigrant, then you will face investigation. For the immigrants themselves this is scant assurance that the first American in uniform they meet won't just pod them right there on the spot!


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

Not unless the USA is in violation of existing international law and even then they should only have the right to protest. Every country has the right to enforce its laws as stringent as it see's fit.


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

I don't know but I suspect not.

It doesn't send them any message. There isn't an implication that they will get away with it. the man in this instance didn't-he was killed. He's dead, what kind of victory is that? It certainly won't make them fearful of crossing the border. they know it's huge and that their chances of getting caught or harmed by agents, is somewhat minimal. It's a calculated risk, nothing more to them. The reward of making it far exceeds the negative of potentially being caught.

I'm not certain where it is stated that Mexico wants to have a say in our border policy. I do believe they are concerned about people being killed, which is absolutely senseless. What sensible nation wouldn't be concerned about people dying?

The third question's answer is obviously "no" in rgards to the larger, overall context. We also have to acknowledge that we need to make some serious reforms in order to accelerate the paperwork process and to make it more "user friendly" for those who want to come here and participate in the American dream. Once that is done, I'm all for hiring more guards, buying cool buggies for them, not to mention UAVs. In regards to the invididual border patrol agent-the clear answer is yes. He can arrest them and then the people are shipped back. At the individual level, they do have leeway, you just can't shoot civilians in the process, you are not a member of the East German border patrol, you work for the U.S. A big difference.


As for the case, I'm waiting judgment, though I will say that the agent's story appears to have some problems in it, much as the account of the immigrants does. I will be looking forward to hearing more about it in the coming months.


Article.

A nations first priority, it's most rudimentary duty- is the protection of it's borders. Our borders are porous, and we have way too many undocumented nationals in this country- from a variety of sources, not just mexico.

I believe we should be manning those borders as if we were being invaded. I have no problems with those seeking to enter LEGALLY- but we should treat anyone trying to invade our country as a hostile invader.

Numerous signs saying "if you cross this line, you will die. I suggest a trip about 50 miles down road to the official border crossing. There are automatic firing laser guided machine guns in this area. They are not manned by human beings- they shoot indiscrminately- you will die."

I have no problem with a few thousand miles of walls, and an airtight naval screen as well.

If we are really so worried about terrorist invasion and damage this is the most obvious way of stopping that from happening.

IF we put the same resources into protecting our borders as we do into "nation building" - we would have safe and secure borders.

I don't blame poor poeple with trying to run across our borders to get jobs to send money back home- I don't.

I think we need to go after the employers with mandatory minimum very long prison sentences- in excess of 10 years, to stem the demand, and at the same time, close our borders, permanently- except a nice large quota through approved entry locations.

And if a border guard kills you- too bad, so sad. The border guard should face no more than losing his job in these instances- NOT jail time.

Only from threats, not immigrants.

The whole idea of "illegal' immigration is a bit new.

The US didn't control immigration for long decades after the revolution, we didn't really care.

These aren't the Mongol hordes, same old story that built this nation.

You know after the Revolution we didn't bathe much. We died of syphilis. Heck a good cold could take us out. After the Revolution it took days to get to California from New York... in fact, there was NO California.

The fact that we didn't control our borders for long decades after the Revolution has nothing to do at all with this debate. Nothing. For long decades prior to today we have controlled our borders. Illegal immigration isn't something we invented in the 1980s. We've been controlling immigration for well over a century. I'd say that has precedence.

I was just pointing out it's not a basic point of nation-state theory. We started doing it after the Civil War because of a racist reaction to Chinese Immigration.

Is it good policy?

Mostly, no. The only benefit is a basis to go after contraband traffickers.

Just the same if we're going to do it, the Berlin Wall approach leaves a lot to be desired.

Eventhough it's clear that the vast majority of them are not hostile and have no intention of being so? What about reforming the process to lessen the burdensome paperwork and backlog for citizenship applications? Is that not a problem as well?

Numerous signs saying "if you cross this line, you will die. I suggest a trip about 50 miles down road to the official border crossing. There are automatic firing laser guided machine guns in this area. They are not manned by human beings- they shoot indiscrminately- you will die."



I'm not certain if "we" are worried about it, as much as certain elements of the right are. Terrorism has been a convenient scare tool for them, despite the fact that that hispanics crossing the border aren't jihadists.



I more than agree with you on this, they clearly need more manpower and techno stuff.



This is just too extreme and very unrealistic. It is a crime, but it isn't a death penalty worth crime. Round them up and ship 'em back, while making a faster, more efficient citizenship process. The border guard job will be a lot easier when people actually see that the wheels turn and that a week's wait outweighs the dangers of crossing a desert.

Turnea and Nebraska- I think we need to close our borders to illegal crossings first- and then worry if we need a streamlined documentation. We really don't know if we need it more now or not. Employers find it very easy to exploit poor poeple that sneak across the border, and not in a nice way.

First, we go after employers with hard core prison time, and we make it super dangerous, as in, 99% chance you will die, by not going through the correct "gate".

We will take your tired and poor, but on OUR terms.

The world is dangerous place, and we have a right and duty to protect our borders, and deadly force is completely okay in this case.

Just curious here. I would like to ask a question of those who support summarily executing illegal immigrants. Please don't disagree with me and sugarcoat it; that's what you're advocating.

I feel comfortable stating a majority of Mexicans crossing the border do so in the hopes of a better life, even if that means facing exploitation. Slave wages here are still better than free Mexican wages. If improving the economic conditions of your poor family means you are certain to face possible execution should you be unlucky enough to run into a border patrol agent, shouldn't employers hiring illegals also face the death penalty? What about politicians who signed NAFTA? Should we line them up before a firing squad? What about politicians who pass billions of dollars in farm subsidies and authorize USDA policies allowing quotas? If not, why not? These people create an economic demand for illegal immigration.

I seperate the problem into two areas- one is national security and the need to keep our borders sacrosanct- and the other is the actual problem with baiscally innocent hard working poeple running to work.

Once you start putting minefields on our borders- the word starts to get out to folks trying to cross the border that it is no longer economically feasible to cross the borders illegally.

BUT before you even do that- you make it impossible for employers to hire illegals. Mandatory minimum prison sentences and fines totally twice what the business is worth.

Once the illegal EMPLOYMENT ends, the only people sneaking across our borders are seeking to do us harm.

Regardless, the need to secure our borders is paramount, above everything else.

Just the contruction of a militarily secure border would be notice enough that anyone crossing our borders and getting killed had fair warning. You take 140k men out of Iraq and deploy them into making a secure border- ya, word would get out.

You want to work- you work legally- period.

I believe in holding all ends of this issue accountable.

I don't want minefields across our border. We're not at war with Mexico. Congress hasn't declared war. Why are you prepared to go the extra wingnut mile on illegal immigration? You criticize neocons for the same mentality.


This would curb demand; it doesn't reverse supply. There will continue to be economic incentive to cross the border as long as we continue disrupting "free" trade with subsidies, tariffs and quotas.


It's important. I'm not sure it's the most important. But if you feel so strongly about it why do you hold back on executing employers, farmers and politicians who perpetuate a "crisis" of national security proportions?


This is unfeasible and you know it. Not to mention, it will just add to the numbers of dead who attempt and fail to cross the border. Have you ever been desperate, CR?

Apart from the potential for terrorists and their ilk to cross the border illegally, I'd like to see actual statistical evidence for this. As I recall, we did have terrorists attempt to cross the border (legally, btw) from Canada. Are you advocating mining that border too?

As for "sacrosanct" borders, I don't really know what this means. Even the Berlin Wall, which was pretty well fortified, was crossed. I guess I don't see any virtue in "sacrosanct"ness.

As for the jobs issue, the wikipedia has some good source material to reference. In particular, this from is telling.



Killing someone, whose only crime is crossing the border illegally, is...let's say...excessive.


Sounds good but how are you going to enforce it? Workers (whether immigrant or naturalized, legal or illegal border-crossers) will have a social security card/taxpayer id, a place of residence, a drivers license and other documentation (legal or forged) required for employment. How do you expect the employer to know the legal status of those documents?

Perhaps, you could make a case that if an employer knowingly hires someone with illegal immigration status (or perhaps a good idea of it), then you might have a case. My bet is that this is the minority of cases though. More often than not, there is no way to know if someone is legal or illegal if they have all the documentation.

You may roll-out the old "profiling" canard. That is, you might argue that if the potential worker is Hispanic then s/he is more likely to be an illegal immigrant. I won't disagree with you there. However, consider that as of 2004, there are ~40 million people of Hispanic origin. What is the fraction of illegal immigrants of Hispanic origin? From the wikipedia again: . So, let's say 75% of illegal immigrants are Hispanic and we buff up the 2004 total Hispanic number to 2006 level (~43 million Hispanic), then we get a 8 million illegal / 43 million total Hispanic immigrants giving the employer about a 1 in 5 chance they will have an illegal immigrant hired. This means that 4 out of 5 Hispanic workers will get denied employment (or unnecessarily hassled). I see a class action suit in the making.

Maybe, you could target specific types of employers (like agriculture) who may be more likely to hire illegal immigrants (get it up to 1 in 3). You will still have a problem...

I suppose the government could provide services for employers to reference the documentation data, yet much of this documentation (such as driver's license and address) are under the state and not federal control. You'd have to require all states to create this database and cross-reference with the feds and other states. A non-trivial task with a population over 300 million and *legal* immigration at like 2 million per year. And what if you're not in the database? Does that mean you're an illegal immigrant and can't be hired? More than likely not. Keeping track of all the data so it doesn't get stale, dealing with name changes, address changes and so forth is a very difficult problem to solve; doing so reliably is even harder. It's also a lot of data to search; can it be done in real time? What's the cost for all this? And talk about growing government...


Who's sneaking across the borders seeking to do us harm? Do you have any stats on this? Or will you just cite anecdotes?


Why?


You're right. If we turn America into a fortress, word will get out. How do you plan on paying for this? Have you run the numbers for the cost for both securing and maintaining this border ongoing? Is that more or less than cost of illegal immigration?


I'll defer to Lesly's questions on this.

I have no problem putting the smack down on farmers and such that hire illegal aliens, none at all. After all- they are knowingly hiring someone that they are not supposed too- otherwise- why do they pay them below minimum wage?

Obviously- they are not so worried about getting caught- with oh, 1200 or so illegals working for them:
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/loca...5212743,00.html

The attack on 9/11 was a direct result of our porous borders and lax immigration controls. The men that perpetrated these crimes preyed upon our lax immigration issues.

That is the real issue when it comes to the islamist extremist invasion we are seeing a problem with world wide.

Proper tracking, documentation, and control of the numbers we have entering our borders are all part of a REAL "homeland security" if we want to REALLY be a much safer place to live.

At no time in world history are we, as a world, so populated.

Illegal immigration is going to be a major problem for every developed country, and we are going to need to control this, or it will over run us.

We have a right and a duty to make sure we know who is coming into America, and to make sure they cross where and when we say it is okay- regardless of skin color.

I have said on every "WOT" thread we need to stop meddling in other countries biz and take care of our own- and we need to withdraw to our own borders, do business as we see fit with other countries- but have our super powers protect the US, not, oh, Iraq or Afghanistan or Isreal.

At some point, we are going to have to go this route- whether we like it or not. We can't have 1/5th of our population here illegally (or higher) and expect to have a stable and safe society.

That should logically lead to a greater effort regarding airport security right? Since Atta and co. came that route and not through the desert into Arizona?



Apples and oranges here? I'm not certain that Islamic extremists are sneaking into European countries. Would you have sources on this?



I more than agree with you here. There definitely needs to be some reform and greater cooperation between nations on this. I'm shocked at how little this important priority is amongst those who want immigration reform.




It is important that we reform the system and that we know who comes in. At the same time, we need to realize that immigration is the only reason why we haven't had negative population growth-a problem for several industrialized countries that in the future, will have to support a largesse or retirees with fewer workers.




It's a question of intent isn't it? I have taught many students who were here on a queestionable basis, I have even met their parents. The vast majority of people who are here want a job, a house, a car, and for their children to live a good life. I have no problem with them and I don't understand why we can't make them pay a $50.00 fine for being here illegally and then work to make them citizens. Will society as we know it fall apart because we have more homeowners?

Come on, CR. I specifically asked for stats not anecdotes. This doesn't prove anything other than there are businesses out there which operate illegally. You need to demonstrate that a policy which affects all employers is justified for all employers.


This is a just scare tactic. The 9/11 hijackers all came into the US legally. Mining the borders would not have helped.


There's an Islamist extremist invasion worldwide? And porous borders are the cause worldwide? Care to back up either of those claims?


I tried to lay out some of the problems associated with tracking. Care to address those?


Why will it run over us? Who is us? If immigration doesn't have a net economic loss or even gives a net economic gain, why is it a major problem?


We will never be able to stop illegal immigration. We can make it very difficult; we can slow it down. Almost all illegal immigration is due to economic reasons. If we create economic incentives to stay in their country and not immigrate, then we will cut down on illegal immigration.


1/5th of our population is not here illegally. Where did you get this number?

You said over 45million? I believe there are numbers ranging from 16 million to your 45 million in illegal immigrants- figure in about 300 million divided by 45 milion- about 1/6ths of the country, figure in for growth over the next ten years, unstemmed- you have about 1/5th in a fairly short amount of time.

I am okay with a population growth- but I want anyone coming to our country to be vetted to make sure they are here for good reasons- like wanting a job or something - and we can track them and such, just like we should.

By the way- are you guys okay with our porous borders?

Are you okay with anyone that walks across our borders to be here secretively and not open and documented?

You all seem to be okay with this- and if we have a real achilles heel in this country defensively- it is our porous borders.

No and no. Have you seen my illegal immigration posts before? I don't agree with Nebraska and Turnea about granting citizenship status because it's not fair to people who wait, unless their children are born here. I don't want to amend or ignore Section 1 Article 2.

But authorizing shootings and minefields? That's so flippant it beggars belief. It also makes me angry that Americans don't seem aware of our economic impact on Mexico's agricultural workers. Well, we either don't know how our economic policy impacts them or we're so secure in our privilege we can't be bothered with inconveniencing our agricultural interests, which is worse. Like I told Nebraska, I don't mind some protectionist policies as long as it doesn't relocate another freaking country's low-skilled labor force here. Enough is enough.

with the border patrol poeple that have been shooting illegal aliens- I only want them to lose thier jobs for not following policy- and would pardon any charged with any crimes that simply used bad judgement- as in the cases in the media noticed recently. Firings is punishment enough. I would also NOT allow any lawsuits to go forward against the poeple doing the shootings, in fact, I would fine the families that bring the suit, and charge them the price of the bullets and trials.

Sounds harsh and cold- but that is what you do when you want a secure border.

I am all for "fortress America"- as far as forcing, through military force, a closed border, with LEGAL entry points being utilized. It is to keep folks out, NOT hold them in- as in the eastern bloc references. If you want to risk your life walking through a minefield for a job- then you deserve your fate, as you have made a choice.

We have a right and a duty to secure our borders, and make them secure tightly. No one crossing that line can be remotely "innocent bystanders"-

there would be plenty of warning of the policy change just by troop mobilization and infrastructure build up.

It would be different if we were keeping poeple in- but this is simple defense, and an effective one.

We need to close up EVERY avenue that would allow another terrorist strike- by tightening up tracking in legal immigration, and stopping, dead, illegal immigration.

And since a great number of illegals entered legally, then lapsed into illegal status- hard core prison time would be appropriate as well.

If you take away the "demand" - the supply will dry up as well. Why run to the US if there is no financial incentive?

I am all for making it air tight, and not just the southern borders either- EVERY border, by ocean or land. You cross illegally- you die. You are considered a hostile invader by trying to evade the legal entry points. Period. No further debate, as you are dead.

You want to come to America? Fine, do it legally.

No, I quoted a number between 11.5 and 12 million illegal immigrants (~75% of which are of Hispanic origin). That's far lower than 45 million. The total number of immigrants (both legal and illegal) is ~60 million. This means the total number of legal immigrants is ~48 million. I thought that was pretty obvious from my earlier post. In other words, illegal immigrants compose less than 4% of the total US population.


For the most part, we can be assured that almost all immigrants (whether legal or illegal) come here for a job. Very, very, very, very few come here for other purposes. Yes, we do grant asylum for a small number of immigrants.


I don't agree with your question. How are the border porous? Please give me actual statistical evidence and not anecdotes.


The question seems to imply that these folks crossing the border illegally are criminals when the *only* crime they've committed is crossing the border. Sorry, I just don't feel that this is a very big crime. There are many things which are illegal that are not very criminal in my book (like small amounts of pot or speeding 10 miles over the limit).


How is it an "Achilles heel"? Please provide statistical evidence and not anecdotes.

There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.........Benjamin Disraeli

How about living in an area of the country that over the last decade has become massively overcrowded with illegal aliens which continues to have a profoundly negative effect on our resources. (schools are overcrowded, hospitals closing down, insurance rates going up to offset the free health care given to illegals, horrendous traffic, etc.).

You are from California? I guess you're not in the southern end because if you were, you'd be laughing at a figure as low as 12 million.

The poor people of Mexico are Mexico's problem, not ours. I'd gladly pay more and consume less if it meant closing the door on illegal immigration. Every kettle has its boiling point. Eventually we will reach ours and all of the bleeding hearts will then rise up and say, "Ya know, maybe it wasn't such a good idea to allow massive illegal immigration."

I'm open to any stats which contravene what I've quoted. Why don't you provide that information instead of rolling out cliches?


If illegal immigration doesn't hurt the economy or even provides net economic growth, then why is it a problem? Really, why? I understand that there are security concerns, but what evidence do we have that illegal border crossers are one of the biggest security issues associated with immigration?

Well, would you care to check out these statistics? I would advise reading the whole article, which gives other links with data.



It does hurt the economic viability of segments of the population. It drives wages down. The cost of social services (which tax payers fund) sky rocket. The population continues to put a drain on all natural and man-made resources. What else can I say, except this: legal immigration is the appropriate solution to all of your voiced concerns. We can work out an economic plan that would utilize the appropriate numbers of immigrant workers, as needed, but not to interfere with or undermine the standard of living for the lower and middle classes of America. I happen to care more about legal U.S. citizens putting bread on the table and sending their kids to college than I do about an illegal immigrant and the children he creates on U.S. soil. Go down to Mexico and see how much they care about your well being. You'll sooner find yourself in prison down there for doing a U-turn.

Oh, and yes, security of the nation is reliant upon borders being sealed.

Um, logo- 15-20 million illegal aliens pretty much defines "porous borders" don't ya think? Even if it is as laughably low as you seem to think- I would say that california and texas ALONE has more than that- - I mean, in southern Texas, it is hard to find a legal immigrant sometimes, in fact, my Dad teaching NOTHING BUT the children of illegal aliens in San Benito Texas.

Stats the goverment have released are obviously, laughably, low. I mean, the Prez is talking about illegal immigration on one vid while they are sneaking over during the interview

But really- it is not the illegal immigrant sneaking across the border illegally that really bothers me- not the economic impact etc etc- we, as consumers, have demanded ultra low cost products and cheap stuff vs quality stuff, etc etc- we bring that on ourselves.

It is the nature of national security that concerns me- the fact that we have no control over who comes and goes from our country. It is simply too easy to sneak in, and we do have poeple that wish us harm.

For years, we kinda poo-poo'd the idea like the 9/11 attack. There is nothing in place to prevent one from coming across our borders now- it is simply too easy to cross.

We may not be able to prevent 100% of the bad guys from trying to harm us, but the incredibly porous borders ( you know, the ones that hundreds of poeple every day cross, defining the word "porous" ) being taken care of would be a very, very good first step towards some REAL security for this country.

That used to be exactly my thinking but (and this is just food for thought) it then occurred to me that "fair" has not described US immigration policy since the Chinese Exclusion Act.

I suspect that most illegal immigrants would be only too happy to fill out forms if they thought they had any reasonable chance of being granted a visa in a reasonable amount of time.

I don't think the Golden Rule applies to any policy more than it does to our current immigration dilemma.

Were I in a prospective border-hopper's shoes I'd think it a lot more "fair" that my children ate than that I waited in line while they lived in squalor.

Sometimes fairness is really pettiness. (my entire position in a nutshell)

I took a few years for me to come to the conclusion that that is what were really seeing here and it may not be the most popular position... but it's clear as day to me now.


So when a law enforcement officer shoots and kills an unarmed suspect without any authority to do so...

...we should charge the family of the deceased for seeking recompense?

Only when they are illegally entering our country. I don't think of this as a law enforcement issue at all- but rather, a military defense issue- we have a right, duty and need to protect our borders. Fair warning should be given, and, as my link has shown, there is a massive drop off in immigration, word has got out- and after that- you cross the line in the sand- you have made the choice to put yourself in front of a bullet. Your choice.

The fact is it is a law enforcement issue. The border patrol aren't soldiers nor is our border a military zone.

Until that changes this is exactly what you are proposing, cops permitted to kill at will.

Right perhaps, but duty and need are far from clear.

The border patrol comes up in this debate BECAUSE of thier quasi-military status, they are not policing US citizens, with US citizens constitutional rights, but literally foriegn invaders, and should have rules of engagement similar to the military "we told you to stop, you didn't stop, and now you have chosen to put yourself in front of a bullet" type deal.

ANYONE crossing the border, without permision, is by definition, a foriegn invader. Anyone crossng our borders without permission is guilty until proven innocent in this case. It is NOT the goverment's job to try and ascertain who is a true threat when someone crosses illegally-

in the end, it is still the invaders choice to cross the line. They have a very clear choice- don't cross illegally if you don't want to die.

Quasi what?

This is a civilian police agency and always has been.

They are charged with enforcing the law along the border for both US and foreign nationals. Typically these "foreign invaders" are unarmed men, women and occasionally children whose chief crime is crossing a fence. Trespassers, not invaders.

Americans cross the Canadian border with ease and frequency. There are literally towns in two countries. I bet if a Canadian border guard shot one, a lot of border war mongers would change their tunes swiftly.

It is precisely a law enforcement officer's job to access whether a suspect is "armed and dangerous" or not. Everyone is afforded that right, including foreign nationals.

Apparently- you haven't crossed the canadian border lately. It is harder to cross the border into and back from Canada than the Mexican border. I have far more hoops to jump through coming from Canada into the US than vice versa, and the Mexican border is a joke. A very bad joke.

A US border guard on the Canadian border very well might shoot you if you try to run too hard BTW- they have no sense of humor at all with all that. They have very tall watchtowers with a nice clearing to see who attempts to run across.

When I crossed into Washington state from the Canada side- the border was no joke. This was the last year you can drive across the border WITHOUT a passport- and if you didn't have a passport this year- you got hassled, big time- I know, I crossed the border in June.

I had to show two forms of ID, sign a statement that I was a US citizen, get quized about "where wuz ya born" and then search everything I own.

Don't see that happening on our southern borders.

I know, I have crossed the southern border a couple times since 9/11. They basically don't even look to see if your face matches your ID.


Should I claim that the US is racist because they hassled me, a white man born in the US, more than they do a foriegn invader?

yes, if you cross our borders illegally- you are a foriegn invader- whether you like the phrase or not- trying to tone it down to "undocumented worker" is political correctness at it's worst-

I am hoping we get the picture before a terrorist DOES exploit our open borders.

IF 9/11 has taught us anything, it is to untangle ourselves from foriegn affairs, and to secure our borders, and track our legal and illegal aliens.

It is wrong that we even have a civilian border guard- defense of the nation belongs wth the military, NOT a police force, quasi or otherwise.