Group Cries Foul on Border Control Measure

Even if you do not like O'Reilly...he is the only one addressing the immigration problem that i have seen...and he makes good points.



About 15,000 illegal aliens cross our borders every week. Some could be potential terrorists who now have the ability to roam through the US freely. The Democrats and the Republicans are both turning their back on this issue and it could be a fatal one. This should be an issue that i want to see Bush and Kerry address...but i am guessing that any word about it would effect their hopes for the Hispanics vote.

So now the Dept. of Homeland Security has given the border patrol the ability to immediately deport illegal aliens to speed up the process.

Questions for Debate:

1) Is Immigration an important issue and should it be important in regards to the Presidential Election?

2) Do you believe that border patrol agents should have the power to deport illegal aliens right away?

3) How do you suggest we deal with the immigration problem? (if you see it as a problem)

1) Is Immigration an important issue and should it be important in regards to the Presidential Election? Immigration is incredibly important but there are more important things to talk about this election like whether Kerry got injured enough in Vietnam.

2) Do you believe that border patrol agents should have the power to deport illegal aliens right away? That really depends. If the border patrol agent finds them physically near the border it seems pretty obvious that they should be allowed to. The only problem I would have is deporting someone without any hearing if they have lived here for 10 years. That lends itself to unfairness.

3) How do you suggest we deal with the immigration problem? To me there's only one rational solution. We need to make it easier to be a legal guest worker in the US. If we do that people who want to work here are more likely to do it legally. That would reduce the load on our border patrol and allow them to focus on stopping the terrorists and criminals who have no interest in legitmate employment.

Actually Lou Dobbs on CNN has every nite a segment he calls "Broken Borders" that he talks about topics like this.

1) Is Immigration an important issue and should it be important in regards to the Presidential Election? Well immigration is not as an important issue as illegal immigration is, such as in California and NY (things I saw on Broken Borders) illegals are all up in arms that the government is not willing to give them Drivers License or keep their illegal ones. They believe its their right just like going into the hospitals and make the legal citizens of the US foot the bill.

Lou Dobbs "Broken Borders- California"



Lou Dobbs "Broken Borders- NY"




2) Do you believe that border patrol agents should have the power to deport illegal aliens right away? Definitely if they are here illegally then they are not following our laws to start with. That is the problem I have blanket amnesty we tried this back in the 80's and early 90's and have not slowed down the influx at all.

3) How do you suggest we deal with the immigration problem? Actually enforce the existing laws, as well as hold company's liable for hiring illegals which in turn works against the existing laws. After that if we want to have work permits with established time limits that is one thing, but you have fix what is broken first and that is enforce the existing laws.

It is very important but the politicos who are running for Prez are too concerned about a certain groups' vote right now to care.


Yes. Save taxpayer dollars by shipping illegals back home immediatly after their arrest


Build a 100 ft brick wall along the border (i.e.: The west bank wall). Then have Armed helicopters such as Apaches patrol the wall at night

It should be a very important issue. not just because of the need for better control for safety but because the many who cross in desperation are abused by some of my fellow Americans AND their own homeland.

Yes Border Agents should be able to deport on the spot.

A better guest worker program would be a huge step forward. Pressure on Mexico to cleanse the corruption in the system that prevents Mexicans from building success in their own homeland.
Severe penalties for Americans who use illegal labor. Not just businesses but individuals. Use one to do your lawn a heavy fine or even criminal charges.
If you own a business and knowingly hire illegals then your business should be heavily fined.
Here in AZ they tried to pass just such a law but the Chamber of Commerce killed it because apparently many Arizona businesses are to incompetent to manage their own paper work and might some how mistakenly hire illegals. (or pay a fair price for good work.)


I think the word you are looking for Go America is Latinos.

I'm sorry but this is one of the least practical ideas I've seen on this board.

As for the reform discussed by O'Reilly et al... this story actually broke on August 11th, and was reported by the New York Times.

The concern I have is that the proposed changes mean that refugee claimants and asylum seekers will now have their cases heard by border guards instead of judges. On the surface this sounds like no big deal, but it is a fundamental shift in the practice of legal immigration.

Now, some would suggest that the proposed legislation would help because it would keep out Mexican illegals. Those people would be well served by actually looking up the story; as the target for this new policy is immigrant groups from countries OTHER than Mexico or Canada, who cross through America's land borders.



Since when have issues played a role in the election?



Absolutely not. Just because someone isn't American doesn't mean they don't deserve due process. Taking the responsibility of a JUDGE and giving it to a glorified security guard is apalling.



Well, this is an interesting question. This legislation does nothing to prevent people from crossing the border, and does nothing to keep people from trying to enter America. What it does do is allow border guards to turf people who they find once they're in the country.

Now, it's not as if these people would just be allowed to run free under the existing system. They'd be placed in a detention center until an immigration hearing of some sort could be held in front of a judge. Why not shell out the few extra bucks to hire more judges and expedite the process? As far as security is concerned this approach would work just as well; and you wouldn't have unqualified people rejecting immigrants who are justified in entering the country.

"The concern I have is that the proposed changes mean that refugee claimants and asylum seekers will now have their cases heard by border guards instead of judges. On the surface this sounds like no big deal, but it is a fundamental shift in the practice of legal immigration."

How many refugees and asylum seekers illegally cross the Mexican/American border daily?

The threat of Illegal Immigration on America
In America we spent over $10 Billion dollars on illegal immigration last year.

The plane crash on 9/11 was a result of illegal immigrants living in America.

Illegal immigrants pollute the road by adding more cars to crowd cities.

BOTTOMLINE: Illegal immgrants are ILLEGAL.

The Story

Well, if you answered that question then the rest of your post would have some weight.

The problem with your argument is that it draws no distinction between immigrants and the refugee/asylum seekers that are adressed by these issues. The two are NOT the same.

...distinction between immigrants and the refugee/asylum seekers that are adressed by these issues. The two are NOT the same.

You are right, they are not the same. Refugees/asylum seekers through legit means are LEGAL and the immigrants are ILLEGAL. The statics clearly express ILLEGAL immigrants. Not asylum seekers or refugees.

Joshua

Being married to a LEGAL immigrant and now citizen- I think I have a unique perspective on this issue-

I have dealt with "Homeland security" as recently as yesterday- and I am here to tell you- it is another one of GWs "purposely misnamed" policies- like "NCLB" or "Clear skies"

Basically- if you are honest and want to keep bringing your relatives to the US, you play by the rules, jump through thier hoops, kiss thier butt, and ask lots of questions to make sure you are in compliance. If your motives are less than honest- it is painfully easy to beat the system- in fact- ILLEGAL immigrants have FAR FAR FAR more rights and access to goverment programs than LEGAL immigrants- in fact, a LEGAL immigrant can not use welfare, public school system, emergency medical care etc WITHOUT incurring debt on the sponsor! When my family visits, I have to buy health insurance for them to cover them in emergency situations just in case of an accident to stabilize them enough to get them back to thier country to recieve further care!

There is no need to modify the system dealing with LEGAL immigration- it is the illegal aspect that needs to be changed.

We need to go "medival" on illegal immigrants IMO- a giant wall with machine gun placements and "kill zones" are fine by me- we need to treat any invader as just that, a FORIEGN INVADER- because, bottom line, that is what they are, a FORIEGN INVADER- I am very liberal on LEGAL channels to enter the US- as long as they have to jump through the same hoops I do- and accountability of the sponsor remains the same- such as with the farmer- and in fact, am all for some sort of "itenerant" pass for farm workers to the US etc- but I am all for full on military assault of those that invade us- it is the federal goverment's #1 PRIORITY to keep us safe from foriegn invaders- and this, and this case only, argues for a military solution.

How do you suggest we deal with the immigration problem?

Revoking the ridiculous worker amnesty idea without notice is a good start.

Well speaking simply as an AMERICAN tax payer (though at my income level I currently get more back then I pay in) I feel the the most cost effective approach is the right one.

If you catch someone crossing the boarder ILLEGALLY and immediately send them back then the job is done. At least until they try again.

If you detain them for a hearing, then you have to pay for adequate housing, food, medical treatment etc.

Now if those who feel that this is the right course of action would simply supply the funds necessary to fund it then I would not have a problem with it. I however, cannot afford to pay for it (with possible reductions in the money my family receives back in our tax "refund").

As for hiring more judges, we seem to have a problem with the conformation process. It seems there are those that feel if the judge is not of their political philosophy then it is OK to prevent a vote on the conformation. Seems lie tyranny to me.






What would be so impractical? Sure the cost would be astronomical, but the project would employ alot of Americans and the bulk of the cost would be a one time fee.

However, it would be much cheaper to put a 20 foot chain-link fence up (with 5 additional feet in the ground) and connect electronic sensors to it to alert the border patrol of the crossing attempt.

Sure the cost would be astronomical, but the project would employ alot of Americans and the bulk of the cost would be a one time fee.

America has done even more impractical and astronomical things. Like the Hoover Dam and the Panama Canal.

However, it would be much cheaper to put a 20 foot chain-link fence up (with 5 additional feet in the ground) and connect electronic sensors to it to alert the border patrol of the crossing attempt.

NOTE:
A) The ILLEGALS cross hundreds at one time;
There are only two(2) ICE agents for all the hundreds ILLEGALS;
C) Knowing where ILLEGALS cross is not a problem;
D) Putting fear into the hearts of ILLEGALS not to cross agains is hard.

Once again, there is a funny dissociation going on here. Everyone says "I don't mind legals, but I don't like the illegals," yet nobody really cares that in some cases a judge determines said status. Refugee claimants and asylum seekers don't always have legal channels to gain entry, that is why they have immigration judges; do determine who can legally stay, and who can't. THAT job is being turned over to border guards who (and inevitably WILL) turn away people who in the end have every right to stay.

Then again, who cares about rights when tax-dollars are concerned, right?

I am usually on the your side on many debates UJ- but not this one LOL - Illegal aliens, insofar as American law is concerned, do not have rights nor should they. I am not against a "funnel" or special gate, as it were, where someone could walk up and say" I want asylum" and are detained until thier case is heard- this is indeed a LEGAL avenue to seek entry into the US- HOWEVER- whether from Russia, China, or Mexico, or Timbuckto (sp)- illegal attempts at entry should be EXTREMELY dangerous and life threatening, and with horrible consequences, the same for any INVADER.

Loss of life should be a reasonable expectation of anyone entering our country stealthily and attempting to avoid detection.

It is a reasonable expectation that we have secure borders, and I mean every border, with some reasonable way for a person seeking asylum to make that plea, but everyone that attempts to go around our secure borders should lose thier life, whether it be in a fighter plane attempting to attack a US city or any other reason. National safety and security, without placing the rights of LEGAL residents of our society in jeoprody, is paramount over all other issues- and in this, I agree with the conservatives. The most logical way to make america more secure is to first secure our borders- far more logical then an "orange alert" or whatever that means!

Perhaps it is easier to consider things like this in an ideological rather than practical way when the practical side does not effect you.



I do agree with you UJ that there needs to be a mechanism to allow people to apply for asylum. However, I disagree that they need to enter the country illegal to do it.

People walk into US embassies (as well as those of other countries) every day and ask for political asylum. Nothing stops someone from walking up to a border check point to ask for the same.



What Right are you referring to here?

If we created a Migrant worker program, that would possibly lessen the tide of Illegal aliens. If we re-examined the number of people we legally allow into the US, this too might lesson the problem.

However, we have to be practical. Why expand the numbers of legal immigration if we currently are not employing all of our citizen who wish to work?

Furthermore, Legal immigrants should be in a way "probationary" in that for the first few years in the US they will not have access to welfare or other public assistance. Why bring people into this country just to further burden the society? However, that might not even be necessary if we follow Canada's lead and require that all people seeking to legally immigrate to the US be sponsored by an employer that will hire them when they arrive.

FYI- legal immigrants ALREADY have to have a sponsor that agrees to take financial responsibility of them- the LEGAL immigrant, with the exceptions of battered spouses- cannot access the welfare or social programs- and this even includes public schools (with the exception of certain visas).

I find it incredibly stupid that we ALLOW ILLEGAL immigrants (we ought to just change this euphimism to "foriegn invaders") to access our social programs, including school, but legal immigrants have to pay!

UJ has a point. U.S. conditions of asylum aren't recognized and sometimes purposely ignored by foreign countries. My mother had to bribe an official.

A border guard taking someone's word that they're a Cuban national (let's just pretend they were trusted enough to be in Central America and took the chance on foot) and allows him to pass, but refuses entry to a Nicaraguan seeking asylum on the grounds that he reasonably fears being tortured if he is returned to his country is unacceptable and wrong.

Edit: I know there's a U.S. Embassy in Nicaragua. There's also an embassy in Havana operated by Switzerland. You can enter any embassy but you can't always do so without bringing attention to yourself. Please don't use this as a blanket statement support for illegal entry. I'm looking at it in the context of what we honor overseas isn't necessarily honored by everyone else.

I would hope our system would not be set up to simply allow them to pass. At the point someone comes to a legal border crossing and requests political asylum from a border officer they should be taken into custody to have their case heard by an immigration judge.

Anyone choosing to cross the border illegally has shown a blatant disregard for our laws and should be sent back regardless of whatever claims they make. If they want to actually attempt to gain political asylum then they can head down the border from where they were dropped off to the nearest crossing and request it.

Want us to work with you, then work with us.

Heh, who's being an idealogue now. In case you missed it, the whole thrust of my argument is that border patrol guards ARE NOT QUALIFIED to asess the merits of such claims. That is the whole point. I feel you are being naive about legal routes of asylum/refugee status. If you're fleeing death or destruction in your home you're not going to just walk up to an embassy in the capital of your home country, during the day, and hope they take your claim.

The way this debate is turning is silly in a way. Everyone is saying how they think it's a good idea because it will stem the tide of illegal immigrants and turn close a security gap.

This is not true. The plan in question will not stop a single person from entering the country. All it does is expedite and "simplify" the process for kicking people out. I really would suggest that everyone go back and read the article in question. This will not make a dent in the number of illegals living in the U.S. It doesn't increase the number of border-guards, nor the number of checkpoints. ALL it does is give them the option of booting anyone they round-up, instead of sending them to a holding center.

I believe I said they could walk up to any border crossing seeking political asylum and then be taken into custody to await a hearing by a judge on the merits of their claim.

They can flee there country illegally to say Canada, or Mexico and walk over to the boarder crossing there instead of illegally crossing the boarder elsewhere.

I also said that if someone chooses to illegally enter America somewhere on the boarder instead of following that border to the nearest legal crossing and seeking legal entry or political asylum then they should be immediately ejected without hearing.

If you are unwilling to even make the attempt to follow the law of our land then you do not belong here.

The idea that it is impossible for these people to do this is another "silly" argument in this debate.




That is one of the reasons why I support it. How much money would be saved to be able o be used in other areas if we simply held people accountable for their actions?

This will also reduce the tide of illegals to some degree when word gets out that the Asylum card no longer works if you've already illegally crossed the border.



Which will save the tax-payers of America millions. I see nothing wrong with that. Nor do I feel the idea of being fiscally responsible while holding others responsible for their actions is in anyway "silly".

The problem isn't people looking for asylum but people looking to harm American. You know that the 9/11 Hyjackers were all given visa's legal and over stated and became ILLEGAL.

Besides look at the problems in Texas. The Scary Side of Waiting to be Heard

UJ is talking about asylum seekers, not illegals, and the qualifications or lack of for border patrol agents to decide who's full of hot air and who's legit. Eleanor Acer, the director of the Refugee Protection Program in the Fox article doesn't pine about making it more difficult for illegal aliens to cross, but turning back people who deserve a hearing.



Hopefully I can post a response to these questions from DHS next week but my track record for emails is nil; don't hold your breath.

I'll tell you what I think is silly. Holding immigrants up to standards we can't (or won't) match on our end in the pursuit of the popular political position du jour.

If an asylum seeker chooses to illegally cross the border rather than identify themselves at border crossings and request asylum then they ARE illegals.

In my opinion, there should be nothing for a border patrol agent to decide.

If someone approaches an agent at a legal border crossing and requests asylum then the requester should automatically be taken into custody (if they choose to accept that) to await a hearing on the merits of their case. If they do not choose to be detained until their claims are heard then they should be turned away.

If this same person illegally crosses the border and gets caught, and then asks for asylum that request should be ignored and they should be returned to the other side of the border immediately.

What qualifications would be required to follow these rules?

Person A has no job. Person A hears that across an imaginary line and not so imaginary river is land teeming with jobs. Person A desires just one of those jobs, maybe two or three. The more Person A looks at its own squalor the stronger that desire becomes. Eventually Person A crosses that river, and after making a few friends gets one or two or even three of those jobs. This is not to say that Person A is making a killing, just enough to feed family, send money home, and pay for his room with eight other such persons. Person A didn't have to do much to get those jobs, except not mention the job to anyone.

Now imagine, since person A is obviously an illegal immigrant, imagine if Person A knew that even though there were jobs across that river, the process of getting them required lots of paperwork, testing, etc. and that if Person A went across the river illegally then they will find themselves completely unemployable.

If the current immigration laws were rigorously enforced on the companies that profit off of their cheap labor, even the ones that donate to the politicians pockets, it would take the allure out of illegal immigration. The current system is inhospitable, but completely survivable. Californian agriculture has gotten fat and lazy off the backs of immigrants, Texas as well.

It's a matter of cause and effect. Job prospects draw immigration. The cause is the offering of jobs, the effect is the movement of bodies. Enforcing border patrols only manages to vindicate people, waste money, and continue the cycle. If the actual problem is adressed, we would barely have to spend any money at all on border protection.

This is one of the reasons I tolerate Bill O'Reilly.. He is one of a few who
actually addresses this issue as the huge problem that it is.





Yes, potential terrorists. Also, many of those coming across the border illegally
are criminals in their homeland, and become such here, too.



This is why I put little faith in either man. They are politicians first, and that
means that their number one concerns are VOTES.

1) Is Immigration an important issue and should it be important in regards
to the Presidential Election?

Illegal immigration is such an important issue, to me, that I would vote for
the candidate who would offer a promising solution (not that he'd ever follow
through with it ). Currently, neither candidate is even
acknowledging what a huge problem it is...

2) Do you believe that border patrol agents should have the power to deport
illegal aliens right away?

Oh, yes!! We should build man-sized sling-shots and shoot them right
back to where they came from.

3) How do you suggest we deal with the immigration problem?

First and foremost, we must hold those who profit from illegal immigration
accountable. If we make the penalties for hiring illegal workers so stiff
(and we enforce those penalties) that it wouldn't pay to hire illegal workers,
the demand would disappear, and so would our border-jumpers.

Another thing that we, as a great and powerful country, could do:

Address our relationship with Mexico. Perhaps, we could invade that country
and teach them how to be a self-sufficient entity, free of corruption and greed,
like US!