Hello:

Man stands his ground and refuses to cooperate with immigration check points. What do you think of his action? Hero, or bum?

How Many Checkpoints in One Morning?! Welcome to the Police State! - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDCXzqgD99o&feature=player_embedded)

excon

Definitely hero!!

Hi Carol:

He's a braver soul than I, but I LOVE him. He's an inspiration to all freedom loving Americans out there.. IF I get stopped, I HOPE I have the balls to resist like him..

I AM surprised that they didn't pull him out of the window, mace him, taze him, and beat the sh!t out of him.. I'm not used to cops who get told NO, and then do NOTHING...

Did you know that there a whole YouTube channel devoted to these guys?? I didn't..

checkpointusa - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=checkpointusa&oq=checkpointu&gs_l=youtube-reduced.1.0.0.7188.15276.0.18388.11.6.0.5.5.0.106. 528.5j1.6.0...0.0...1ac.2o12wMmxcjI)

excon

Gutsy, but not a hero, and that whether I-8 never intersects the border is irrelevant. I've driven it and it hugs the border close enough to throw a rock into Mexico at one point.

The Border Patrol has "wide discretion" to send him to a secondary check for further questioning. They didn't push it but they could have. I understand the frustration but why not just whip out your license and go on?

but why not just whip out your license and go on?Hello again, Steve:

I'm surprised at your post.. I guess I shouldn't be. But, I thought I remembered a while ago when you were decrying cops behavior about something similar...

Why NOT whip out your license?? Because to DO so would ENCOURAGE the federal government to continue to VIOLATE the Constitution... Don't you complain about Obama and how he tears up the Constitution?? But, when the rubber meets the road, you right wingers are OK with the violations... You only TALK the TALK..

excon

What is the constitutional violation, ex? SCOTUS has ruled the way I described so what's your point? Should I be pissed enough at the Obamacare ruling and defy it?

It's gutsy, but what's the point? Don't we have a right to protect our border? Geez, never mind, what was I thinking there?

Don't we have a right to protect our border? Geez, never mind, what was I thinking there?Hello again, Steve:

I don't know what you were thinking.. These stops didn't happen at the border. They happened INSIDE these great United States of America, where we have (had) the RIGHT to be free from unreasonable searches. Driving on an American highway, minding your own business does NOT rise to probable cause or reasonable suspicion.

Nonetheless, as much as I know about the Constitution, I am UNAWARE of a ruling that makes these stops Constitutional. Would you link me?

excon

I don't think questioning is the same as "unreasonable searches" is it? And illegals? They only travel across deserts on foot, there would never be any reason to suspect there might be illegal activities on roads close to the border (http://legalupdateonline.com/4th/882)?


"Border Patrol agents at checkpoints have legal authority (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Border_Patrol_Interior_Checkpoints) that agents do not have when patrolling areas away from the border. The United States Supreme Court ruled that Border Patrol agents may stop a vehicle at fixed checkpoints for brief questioning of its occupants even if there is no reason to believe that the particular vehicle contains illegal aliens.[4] The Court further held that Border Patrol agents "have wide discretion" to refer motorists selectively to a secondary inspection area for additional brief questioning.[5] In contrast, the Supreme Court held that Border Patrol agents on roving patrol may stop a vehicle only if they have reasonable suspicion that the vehicle contains aliens who may be illegally in the United States—a higher threshold for stopping and questioning motorists than at checkpoints.[6] The constitutional threshold for searching a vehicle is the same, however, and must be supported by either consent or probable cause, whether in the context of a roving patrol or a checkpoint search.[7]"

I never said I liked checkpoints - of any kind - but if you don't like it change the constitution or SCOTUS' mind, they're a perfectly legal if inconvenient fact of life. I'm just not about civil disobedience for the sake of civil disobedience.

Hello again, Steve:

We're going to hell. You wingers talk about socialism, while fascism is growing under our feet.

The WAY you change SCOTUS's mind, IS to civilly DISOBEY.. Laying down for them, like you suggest we do, only tells SCOTUS that you're FINE with the ruling, which you ARE...

excon

So in other words it doesn't really violate the constitution as you claimed.

Look, there are 2 permanent checkpoints on I-8, one in California and one in Arizona. Does he not know this yet? I'm for protecting our borders, you lefties just don't care who comes in, who votes where and I'm sorry but this is much ado about nothing. He knows the checkpoint is there, videotaping yourself purposely being defiant is just provoking. That doesn't make him a hero.

So in other words it doesn't really violate the constitution as you claimed. Hello again, Steve:

Let's be CLEAR.. It was RULED Constitutional. Nonetheless, I can read. I KNOW what our rights are, where they came from, WHY we have them, and most importantly, what the government needs to do to overcome them.

Searching people at random simply because of where they are, does NOT rise to the level required by the Constitution. It just doesn't.

Now, you accuse me of saying this because I want anybody to cross the border anytime they want, and invade our country... That's offensive. I guess I shouldn't expect you to know me any better than you do.

excon

At points in eastern Imperial County, the border is less than 0.5 miles south of the Interstate.

http://www.wanderlodgeownersgroup.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=6108&stc=1&d=1281027580

Was this at one of those two checkpoints? Is there a side road so to avoid them? The driver wasn't going into Mexico he said, but just minding his own business driving to work within the US.

Searching people at random simply because of where they are, does NOT rise to the level required by the Constitution. It just doesn't.

For what, the third time now? No one is "searching." These checkpoints did not change the criteria for a search, but I already said that. Is it illegal to question or check for ID at a checkpoint?


Now, you accuse me of saying this because I want anybody to cross the border anytime they want, and invade our country... That's offensive. I guess I shouldn't expect you to know me any better than you do.

You most obviously don't think anyone should have to prove they have the right to vote and if I recall, you object to just about every other effort at enforcing our immigrations laws so what other conclusion can I draw?

Like I said, like it or not he knows these checkpoints are there and I doubt seriously this band of rebels is going to change SCOTUS' mind without taking it to court. But we've been there, done that and it's pretty well settled law so good luck. There is no illegal search taking place that I'm aware of so that's a straw man.

Was this at one of those two checkpoints? Is there a side road so to avoid them? The driver wasn't going into Mexico he said, but just minding his own business driving to work within the US.

Does it matter?

At points in eastern Imperial County, the border is less than 0.5 miles south of the Interstate.Hello again, tom:

The KEY is that it's INSIDE the United States, where I'm a sovereign citizen with the right to move about FREELY - or so I thought.. If they can fudge a half mile, why can't they fudge a mile, or 10? How about 100? That would include Seattle. I'm not far from the border. Why SHOULDN'T they be doing those checks here?

I have NO problem with guarding the BORDER.. But, this highway AIN'T the border.

excon

Does it matter?
Yes. If I am going into or leaving Mexico, okay then. I agree to be checked at the US-Canadian border too. But driving and staying completely within the US? NO!!

As a former NYer, I often visited Niagara Falls. You're saying US visitors to the American side can all be stopped and checked.

DUI and safety check points are normal and used often in various areas. They ( are suppose to) randomly check a certain number of cars, every 5th or what ever. Check for drivers license and insurance and proper tags ( and car inspections in areas that have that)

Many states have laws allowing these. Normally a person not pulling over when told would be ticketed or even arrested for not following the directions of a officer.

This wasn't a random check. EVERY car was to be checked, and usually a checkpoint is looking for something. What were these police looking for?

Hello again,

What blows my mind, is that you righty's are FINE with these intrusions on your private life, and don't see ANY Constitutional incursions - NONE!

Whereas, you scream and moan about Obama's SOCIALISTIC unconstitutional administration. But, I can't find ANYTHING he did that was even CLOSE to unconstitutional...

excon

Dear excon:

It depends on WHO instituted them, if they are acceptable or not. Like my righty husband says (paraphrased), "It's good if a Republican thought of it and made it happen."

WG

Hello again, Carol:

Being asked for your papers, which is WHAT these cops are asking, is NOXIOUS. It's reminiscent of the Gestapo, and the SS. Next, they'll be having us wear armbands to show whether we're citizens or not...

What's even MORE noxious, is this fascist creep is being done in CONSORT with the America loving Republican party. And, they can't see a thing... I guess that's what happened in Germany..

excon

Dear excon:

It's NOXIOUS because it's happening WITHIN our borders. With an scary agenda behind it.

WG

A random check would be unconstitutional . But check points that aren't randomly conducted in a systematic, predesignated manner are constitutional.

If you are driving a vehicle, you have an obligation to produce license, registration and proof of insurance when demanded by a cop . If you don't like it you don't have to drive . If you don't want to go through TSA ,don't fly.
It applies to all drivers who passes through the checkpoint.

It is not just on the Southern border either . There are many times I drive though road blocks in NY where the cops will ,at a minimum ,look at the registration and insurance sticker on the windshield before you can move on.

If you don't want to go through TSA ,don't fly.
I don't, so I don't.

It is not just on the Southern border either . There are many times I drive though road blocks in NY where the cops will ,at a minimum ,look at the registration and insurance sticker on the windshield before you can move on.
Are the cops in your area willing to say what they are looking for? (The ones here do.) Are there alternate routes to avoid the checkpoints? (There are here.)

Do the police in S.Cal. tell motorists what they are looking for? Are there alternate routes to avoid the checkpoints?

Hello again,

What blows my mind, is that you righty's are FINE with these intrusions on your private life, and don't see ANY Constitutional incursions - NONE!

Dude, no one likes checkpoints but you keep avoiding my point and moving the line back and forth. This was my answer to your last objection, what about it?


"For what, the third time now? No one is "searching." These checkpoints did not change the criteria for a search, but I already said that. Is it illegal to question or check for ID at a checkpoint? "

Well?


Whereas, you scream and moan about Obama's SOCIALISTIC unconstitutional administration. But, I can't find ANYTHING he did that was even CLOSE to unconstitutional...

His contraception mandate is the most blatant and obvious trampling of the constitution in my lifetime if you ask me. Why you can't see it I don't know.

Dear excon:

It's NOXIOUS because it's happening WITHIN our borders. With an scary agenda behind it.

WG

And you apparently think protecting our borders stops at a line on a map. Bwa ha ha ha!!

Dude, no one likes checkpoints but you keep avoiding my point and moving the line back and forth. This was my answer to your last objection, what about it?
What are the police looking for? Do they admit that during the checks?

And you apparently think protecting our borders stops at a line on a map. Bwa ha ha ha!!!
Protecting our borders from a short, cute red-haired German-looking woman who can say only "hola" and "poco" and "adios"? Or from something else?

Are the cops in your area willing to say what they are looking for? (The ones here do.) Are there alternate routes to avoid the checkpoints? (There are here.)

Do the police in S.Cal. tell motorists what they are looking for? Are there alternate routes to avoid the checkpoints?
In my town and in many towns including the NATIONS CAPITAL.. road blocks are common in predesignated areas. The rest of the question is irrelevant . It is known that the ones I drive through that the cops are checking registration and insurance stickers because that is ALL they look at . These roadblocks on I -8 are looking to see if the driver has licenses. Why are they doing that ? Because illegals drive cars without licenses. BOO HOO to anyone inconvenienced .

Because illegals drive cars without licenses.
So I would not have to be checked since I look nothing like an illegal (whatever that looks like).

What does an illegal look like?

I don't, so I don't.

Are the cops in your area willing to say what they are looking for? (The ones here do.) Are there alternate routes to avoid the checkpoints? (There are here.)

Do the police in S.Cal. tell motorists what they are looking for? Are there alternate routes to avoid the checkpoints?

Why does it matter if there are alternate routes? This sounds exactly like the voter ID arguments I alluded to earlier. Heaven forbid an American be inconvenienced in the least.

Just let everybody in, legalize everything, do away with standards, let anyone vote and make the federal government everyone's nanny. Does that about cover it?

Just let everybody in, legalize everything, do away with standards, let anyone vote and make the federal government everyone's nanny. Does that about cover it?
Now you're being silly, universalizing the checkpoint thing, and throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

Heaven forbid an American be inconvenienced in the least.
You mean like religious institutions made to offer contraception? That kind of "inconvenience"?

You mean like religious institutions made to offer contraception? That kind of "inconvenience"?

Yeah see, you think the feds forcing the church to violate their beliefs and first amendment rights is a trivial thing, but pulling out your drivers license is the end of the freakin' world.

Now you're being silly, universalizing the checkpoint thing, and throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

Silly? No, I'm not that far off.

As a former NYer, I often visited Niagara Falls. You're saying US visitors to the American side can all be stopped and checked.

BTW ,the zone for interior check point ranges within a 100 mile radius of a border. I can't find any instance of a check point at Niagara ; I know they do occasionally in the Buffalo area ; but on the Olympic Peninsula by EX . They have set them up at times.
Here in NY we commonly go through tunnel and bridge check points going into Manhattan ;even with the congestion on the roadways.

Yeah see, you think the feds forcing the church to violate their beliefs and first amendment rights is a trivial thing, but pulling out your drivers license is the end of the freakin' world.

Actually no, I think it's pretty even/equal. But you agree with one and not the other.

There is no illegal search taking place that I'm aware of so that's a straw man.Hello again, Steve:

You seem to think a search involves touching.. I maintain that searching for your citizenship is as much a search as looking in your trunk would be.

excon

Actually no, I think it's pretty even/equal. But you agree with one and not the other.

How so? The first amendment is pretty clear. Where are we protected from from being asked to show ID at a checkpoint you have to be licensed to drive on.

Protecting our borders from a short, cute red-haired German-looking woman who can say only "hola" and "poco" and "adios"? Or from something else?

Some 'cops' are radically stupid when it comes to exercising discretion, like certain TSA screeners, but if I recall they did let this guy through did they not?

Hello again, Steve:

You seem to think a search involves touching.. I maintain that searching for your citizenship is as much a search as looking in your trunk would be.

excon

So we should just do away with drivers licenses, testing and speed limits or what?

So we should just do away with drivers licenses, testing and speed limits or what?Hello again, Steve:

In the first place, the cops were only ASKING him what his citizenship was. They were NOT asking him to produce ANYTHING out of his pocket... So, I'm addressing what HAPPENED, not what DIDN'T happen.. You're confused.

excon

Some 'cops' are radically stupid when it comes to exercising discretion, like certain TSA screeners, but if I recall they did let this guy through did they not?
"Let" this GUY--oh THAT guy--through? Why did they allow him to go through, after all?

Hello again, Steve:

In the first place, the cops were only ASKING him what his citizenship was. They were NOT asking him to produce ANYTHING out of his pocket.... So, I'm addressing what HAPPENED, not what DIDN'T happen.. You're confused.

excon

Bingo, you finally got there to what happened. There was no searching, no beating, no kicking, no macing, he just inquired. Is that unconstitutional?

"Let" this GUY--oh THAT guy--through? Why did they allow him to go through, after all?

I answered that (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/your-constitution-work-681872.html#post3192219) on page one - more than once (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/your-constitution-work-681872.html#post3192172). In fact I've mentioned "discretion" 3 times, once directly to you (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/your-constitution-work-681872-5.html#post3192449).

Is that unconstitutional?Hello again, Steve:

Yes, it IS... He was searching for the citizenship of the driver.. In this great land of ours, we USED to be able to walk around UNFETTERED by the cops.. THAT was the design.. That's what a FREE country is all about.. How come you don't know that?

It's NOT that way anymore.. It's MUCH more Gestapo. It's GETTING that way WITH your help. If it was ME, I'd be ASHAMED.

excon

I answered that
No, you didn't. They let him through because he didn't fit the profile.

No, you didn't. They let him through because he didn't fit the profile.

In other words, he used his discretion (http://www.bing.com/Dictionary/search?q=define+discretion&qpvt=discretion&FORM=DTPDIA) which is what I said the first two times. They have "wide discretion" which they exercised.

Hello again, Steve:

Yes, it IS... He was searching for the citizenship of the driver.. In this great land of ours, we USED to be able to walk around UNFETTERED by the cops.. THAT was the design.. That's what a FREE country is all about.. How come you don't know that?

It's NOT that way anymore.. It's MUCH more Gestapo. It's GETTING that way WITH your help. If it was ME, I'd be ASHAMED.

Excon

Dude, you're really stretching. No one is stopping the guy from moving about the country freely. You may as well consider stop signs, traffic lights, one way streets, yield signs and speed limits a violation of your right to drive around UNFETTERED as well.

And again, I go back to precedent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unreasonable_search_and_seizure#Definition_of_.22s earch.22):


Definition of "search"

A threshold question in Fourth Amendment jurisprudence is whether a search has occurred. If no search occurred, then the Fourth Amendment does not apply.

In Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967), the Supreme Court ruled that a search occurs when 1) a person expects privacy in the thing searched and 2) society believes that expectation is reasonable.

In Katz, the Supreme Court ruled that a search had occurred when the government wiretapped a telephone booth.[22] The Court's reasoning was that 1) Charles Katz expected that his phonebooth conversation would not be broadcast to the wider world and 2) society believes that expectation is reasonable.

In United States v. Jones, 565 U. S. ____ (2012), the Supreme Court ruled that, in addition to the Katz standard, a search occurs when law enforcement trespasses on the searched person's property. In Jones, law enforcement officers had attached a GPS device on a car's exterior without Antoine Jones's consent. The Court concluded that Jones was a bailee to the car, because the car's owner had regularly permitted him to use the car, and so had a property interest in the car.[23]

There is no expectation of privacy on a public, controlled road. But if you can show me the precedent that it's unreasonable to be asked a question by the cops when you're just trying to drive down the road I'm listening. I don't like to go through checkpoints either, but I have nothing to be ashamed of for my view.

There is no unconditional right to drive our streets and highways that I'm aware of.

Dude, you're really stretching. No one is stopping the guy from moving about the country freely.Hello again, Steve:

I've always known that we didn't share the same view of America.. But the gap is WIDER than I could have imagined...

In this free country of ours, I believe we HAVE the right to move about WITHOUT ANY interference from the police - unless there's probable cause to stop you. At least that's what the Constitution says.. YOU, on the other hand, believe that if a cops business is MORE important than yours, he can IMPEDE your freedom, and that's just OK with you.

It's not a teeny little difference... It's a MAJOR difference... My position is ABSOLUTE - just like the Constitution is. YOURS is a slippery slope that ENDS just like where I said it would... With ARMBANDS, and maybe a concentration camp or two...

I'm a JEW.. You cannot imagine HOW repulsive it is to be asked for your papers (metaphor for DO YOU BELONG?) You, who speak about a close relationship with Israel, would ENDORSE the behavior that lead to the holocaust.

THAT is why the Fourth Amendment is written like it is, and you, who purport to LOVE the Constitution just threw it in the trashcan...

excon

First of all I don't like checkpoints, I'm just curious where you find this unconditional right to drive our streets and highways. And comparing it to the gestapo and the holocaust is way over the top.

The rulings are clear, if you don't like file suit. And while you're at it, don't try to fly, that'll really pi$$ you off.

First of all I don't like checkpoints, I'm just curious where you find this unconditional right to drive our streets and highways.Hello again, Steve:

We're not going to get anywhere as long as you SPIN what I said... I didn't say you have an unconditional right to drive. I said you have the right to MOVE about this country UNFETTERED... It has NOTHING to do with driving.. It has to do with MOVING ABOUT.. You have the right to WALK unfettered.. Drive, unfettered, swim, unfettered. The MODE of transportation ISN'T the issue.. FREE MOVEMENT IS. You don't need a license to move about UNFETTERED...

Am I clear, or do you want to throw more sh!t into the game?

Oh, never mind... I'll NEVER convince you about the BASIC FREEDOMS our Constitution calls for... I have no idea why not. I certainly NEVER thought a person who, purportedly, LOVES the Constitution could SO mangle what it means...

excon

So I would not have to be checked since I look nothing like an illegal (whatever that looks like).

What does an illegal look like?
They are not looking for illegals . They are looking for people driving without licenses. They are checking everyone since only checking for "someone who looks like an illegal " would be a rights violation.

They are not looking for illegals . They are looking for people driving without licenses. They are checking everyone since only checking for "someone who looks like an illegal " would be a rights violation.
But isn't it illegals who drive down there without a license? Or do Jim Bob's 15 year-old son and his friends drive without licenses and the cops want to catch them?

I'm guessing the "driving without a license" is just an excuse, a cover story.

Hello again, Steve:

We're not going to get anywhere as long as you SPIN what I said... I didn't say you have an unconditional right to drive.[/quo

Oh, never mind... I'll NEVER convince you about the BASIC FREEDOMS our Constitution calls for... I have no idea why not. I certainly NEVER thought a person who, purportedly, LOVES the Constitution could SO mangle what it means...

excon

I'm not the one comparing a checkpoint to the gestapo and the holocaust and distorting what I've said.

What I said was I don't like checkpoints but I don't see the fuss. You admit we don't have an unconditional right to drive on our highways but whine about the conditions. Which is it, are there conditions or not? I'm consistent, you move the line every time.

But isn't it illegals who drive down there without a license? Or do Jim Bob's 15 year-old son and his friends drive without licenses and the cops want to catch them?

I'm guessing the "driving without a license" is just an excuse, a cover story.

No ,they will pull over anyone driving without a license ;illegal alien or not.

no ,they will pull over anyone driving without a license ;illegal alien or not.
But they aren't looking for teens without licenses, are they.

Having seen the video I would say that fellow is extremely fortunate the cops didn't detain him for refusing to comply with the lawfull instruction of a police officer. Would it have hurt to comply, take the officers details and make a complaint to his congressman. It cost him more time to argue than comply

They are not looking for illegals . They are looking for people driving without licenses. They are checking everyone since only checking for "someone who looks like an illegal " would be a rights violation.Hello again, tom:

Look at the video again... These are federal Border Patrol agents.. They don't give a sh!t if you drive without a license... They don't even have the power to ticket you for it...

They let the guy go because he did not fit the profile..

excon

...

They let the guy go because he did not fit the profile..

excon

You don't think his accent might have had something to do with it

you don't think his accent might have had something to do with itHello clete:

Psssst... That's part of the profiling.

excon

Ok ex excuse my ignorance, I though it might have been a certain tinge of skin colour, the wearing of large hats and being accompanied by a tribe of brown kids, but this guy had a mustouche a sure give away, and what was with that cell phone.

We don't have profiling here, we refer to suspects as being of aboriginal appearance, of being of asian appearance, of being of south asian appearance, of being of middle eastern appearance, all of which has to do with the size of the nose and the intensity of the sun tan, hardly ever do we refer to someone as northern European or southern European and if there are hispanics they are rare

That's another rub with you leftists, profiling. You spend all day profiling conservatives then b*tch because the cops decide to let a guy go because he doesn't fit the profile.

You guys are so confusing.

cops decide to let a guy go because he doesn't fit the profile.
But they don't dare say they are profiling, thus they have to stop EVERYONE and inconvenience EVERYONE.

But they don't dare say they are profiling, thus they have to stop EVERYONE and inconvenience EVERYONE.

Yeah and that's stupid. Libs get their panties in a collective knot over profiling and then get them in another knot over the mess they created but not allowing profiling.

It makes perfect sense to me to profile. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck... But then if Congress would get off its butt and remodel the immigration service and deal fairly with the millions of illegals who are here now roofing our homes, picking our crops, cleaning our motel rooms...

deal fairly with the millions of illegals who are here now A fair dealing would be deportation for illegally entering the country . But a more practical decision is in order . We've tried all the lib solutions ;amnesty and all that... and all we asked in return was border security . Well our end of the deal was met at least twice .

and all we asked in return was border security . Well our end of the deal was met at least twice .Hello again, tom:

And, we're wise to your ploy. How secure is "secure"? If ONE guy gets through, does that mean it's NOT secure?? In order to avoid talking about the 12 million illegals already here, I'll bet you'll say, OF COURSE, that means the border isn't secure...

But, it's pretty DAMN secure.. The subject of the OP ought to tell you that... People are NOT pouring over like they once did. There are 1,000's more Border Patrol. No, there's not a 3,000 mile long, 50 foot high electrified fence, but that's not going to happen. If you're waiting till it does, then you'll wait forever..

excon

You can't deport them. Who will roof our homes, pick our crops, clean our motel rooms and all the other dirty, nasty jobs red-blooded Americans refuse to do?

What's a "practical" solution?

12 million illegals here and you call it secure ?

You can't deport them. Who will roof our homes, pick our crops, clean our motel rooms and all the other dirty, nasty jobs red-blooded Americans refuse to do?

What's a "practical" solution?

I already said that it was impractical to deport all of them . Shame on Americans if they think getting their hands dirty is beneath them. That is the truest indicator yet of a failing pampered society .

I already said that it was impractical to deport all of them . Shame on Americans if they think getting their hands dirty is beneath them. That is the truest indicator yet of a failing pampered society .
Southwestern and Southern farmers have said that crops will rot in the field before they can find white people to harvest them, or who are willing to stick it out more than a couple of days. Of course, now with the drought, it's almost a moot point.

My solution would be to reinstate the Bracero Program .But no one asked me.

12 million illegals here and you call it secure ?Hello again, tom:

Not long ago, we didn't care about illegals crossing the border. In fact, we invited them. We did that for a LONG, LONG time, so SOME of them settled down and raised family's.

THOSE are the 12 million that are here.

Now, we've changed our mind.. We want those people OUT. The welcome sign has been removed.. Now, I don't know know the numbers, but I can promise you, the fence is working, the new Border Patrol hires is working, the gun crazy militias roaming the desert are working, the anti-immigration laws like SB 1070 are working, the intrusion into yours and my ability to move about this country FREELY, is working...

But, I KNEW you had a trick up your sleeves about what a "secure" border is. It's NOT secure as long as the 12 million that are here, remain here... So, you'll take up a comprehensive immigration bill AFTER the 12 million are deported... Gotcha..

You KNOW this. You want to distract us again. Is that cause you're out of gas?

excon

I like the idea of a time-limited worker visit to this country with maybe then an opportunity to apply for citizenship. What criteria would then need to be met for citizenship and over what period?

But that doesn't address all the people here now.

I like the idea of a time-limited worker visit to this country with maybe then an opportunity to apply for citizenship. What criteria would then need to be met for citizenship and over what period of time?

But that doesn't address all the people here now.
The Bracero program was temporary workers . It did not allow for them to become citizens. The farmers get the work needed and the migrants get to work and get paid . Then when the crops are picked ;they go home.

If they want to apply for residency they can do it like every other legal immigrant does .

Dude, I've lived among them all my life so why would I want to deport them? I don't, I wouldn't and it sure seems to me Republicans have done their share to work out a way for them to stay more than once, so I can only surmise your talk about being for securing the borders is just blowing smoke.

Not long ago, we didn't care about illegals crossing the border. In fact, we invited them. We did that for a LONG, LONG time, so SOME of them settled down and raised family's.

THOSE are the 12 million that are here
I don't know when the time was that I thought illegals crossing the border was a good idea. I've cared about this issue since I began hiring people more than 25 years ago. 27 years ago Reagan did one of those "compromises " that Tal loves so much (aka Simpson-Mazzoli Act, aka the Immigration Reform and Control Act), Amnesty in exchange for border enforcement . Ted the Swimmer sold the enforcement clauses of the law as strong enough to ensure that only a one time amnesty would be needed.

Well Reagan kept his part of the "compromise " . The Congress did not . Back then it was 3 million .But that neglect for the border security means the numbers have swelled to 12 million .If they were invited at all it was under the assumption that the Congress would not take the steps necessary to properly deal with illegal entry into the country .

So now I say I'm all ears and am willing to "compromise " on their status. My bottom line is that border security gets done 1st .

I don't know when the time was that I thought illegals crossing the border was a good idea. Hello again, tom:

I'm from the west.. I didn't think about it being an idea. I just knew it WORKED. Farmers loved it.. Restaurant owners loved it. Hotel owners loved it. Small business owners loved it. The Mexican workers loved it. Their family's in Mexico loved it. Both country's benefited from it, and loved it. Nobody DIDN'T love it. They weren't hurting a soul..

Yeah, yeah, I know... You're going to give me that crap about taking jobs away from teenagers - as though you really DO think our teenagers are going to go out into the fields... Bwa, ha ha ha.

It was only when you wingers got scared that we looked at them... But, they don't want to plant bombs.. They want to plant lettuce.

excon

Again ;the problem needed resolution in the 1980s... long before the bombs. Here in the east I have been screening employees for years and have hired MANY legal immigrants from at least a dozen different countries ;including many Mexicans an other hispanics who took the effort ,and respect for their new countries laws ,to get the required documentation for legal residency. So no I don't think it's a good idea. My guys get paid fair market ;and lawful rates for their work . Do those guys working out west ? No . The same people who complain about slave wages overseas turn a blind eye when it happens right under their nose so they can eat cheap arugula .

So I guess compromise is out for, too? That's two of you in two days that blew right by offers of compromise.

Try and Fathom the hypocrisy of a Government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Try and Fathom the hypocrisy of a Government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured ... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Excellent point, tom.

If they (citizen or not) are insured, I don't have to pay for their medical care any longer. In fact, my health insurance premium will become lower.

If they (citizen or not) are insured, I don't have to pay for their medical care any longer. In fact, my health insurance premium will become lower.

Could not be more irrelevant to the point he was making.

If they (citizen or not) are insured, I don't have to pay for their medical care any longer. In fact, my health insurance premium will become lower.

A falorn hope when has an insurance premium become lower?