Fred Lucas, CNSNews.com Staff Writer reported:
“New York Democratic Gov. Elliott Spitzer pushed the policy, enacted last month, as a "common sense change" to give illegal aliens "the opportunity to obtain a driver license in a responsible and secure manner."
But opponents of the plan immediately cited homeland security concerns, recalling that 9/11 hijackers had obtained phony driver's licenses.”

Licenses-for-Illegals Faces Court Challenge in New York -- 11/02/2007 (http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200711/POL20071102a.html)

However what he didn't report was that the Justice Department found that eight of the 19 hijackers were registered to vote.
This brings another serious problem that a Wall Street Journal op-ed piece, “This Will Make Voter Fraud Easier” by John Fund does bring to light and, that is voter fraud. I wonder if this will pass the “Bull Test.”

OpinionJournal - John Fund on the Trail (http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110010814)

Who, he asks, are for granting a drivers license to illegal emigrants?
Democrat's, he answers and uses Hillary Clinton as an example along with New York governor Eliot Spitzer.

Meanwhile Arnold Ahlert a columnist for the NY Post for the past seven years enters the fracas, or farces, which is yet to be determined; with the question.
“What could be more threatening to our democratic republic than voter fraud? Nothing. What could be more threatening to the ambitions of the American Left–MoveOn.org, Code Pink, George Soros, Clinton, Obama, Edwards, et al–than fraud-FREE elections? Nothing.
In the 2008 election, two political parties will be vying for your vote. It is worth remembering which party is willing to make a complete mockery of your one opportunity to participate in our democratic process. As a conservative, it is somewhat annoying to realize that a liberal “cancels out” my vote.
That an illegal alien–or a terrorist thug–could do the same thing is an absolute outrage.

Political Mavens » 9/11 Terrorists–Registered to Vote (http://politicalmavens.com/index.php/2007/11/02/911-terrorists-registered-to-vote/)

How many of the 12-20 million illegal aliens in the country do you want voting?

This is all bureaucratic bs. A drivers license does not need to be some sort of *official identification card*!! That is ridiculous!

Every American needs a "passport" or some sort or "legal ID" for that purpose. This id can be processed through the police stations in every town village and city in America.

We need to know who are citizens and who aren't. The immigration situation is a mess and BUSH DID **NOTHING** TO ADVANCE A BETTER SITUATION.

This is all bureaucratic bs. A drivers license does not need to be some sort of *official identification card*!!! That is ridiculous!!

Every American needs a "passport" or some sort or "legal ID" for that purpose. This id can be processed through the police stations in every town village and city in America.

We need to know who are citizens and who aren't. The immigration situation is a mess and BUSH DID **NOTHING** TO ADVANCE A BETTER SITUATION.
The immigration issue began long before Bush came into the picture. I whole heartily agree that he has not done what is needed to fix it. One problem is in immigration law that makes it too expensive and troublesome for the poor immigrant from Mexico and South America with relatives already here. But my concern in the OP is them voting.

Bush has been president for seven years and did nothing... offered no leadership. So what how long this has been a problem, everyone who reads knows it has been a terrible problem for a long time.

The election isn't until 11-08... Bush can institute a national ID card for citizens... citizens vote, citizens have birth certificates and other documents.

There is no reason why drivers licenses should be an important id. Haven't you seen the kind of people who work at the Department of Motor Vehicles??

Choux ; Bush supported the foolish comprehensive legislation that the Dem. Controlled Congress tried to ram down our thoats in the spring. His only problem on immigration is he's got priorities screwed up;just like the Dems. He wants amnesty before enforcing the laws.

Tom, reading comprehension please! I know you are anxious to lie about my comment, but PLEASE!! My comment:

"This is all bureaucratic bs. A drivers license ***does not need to be*** some sort of *official identification card*!! That is ridiculous!

I stated I was in favor of an identification card for **citizens**, all citizens of America, if that wasn't clear.

Drivers licenses *SHOULD BE JUST FOR DRIVING*... for example, I have no driver's license and hence no picture id. I have nothing but a library card and a medicare card. THAT'S NOTHING IN THIS DAY AND AGE!! I SHOULD HAVE A TAMPER PROOF CITIZEN IDENTIFICATION CARD, AND SO SHOULD ALL CITIZENS.

All this can be accomplished fairly easily by Bush speaking out on this subject and having a law passed in Congress... each police station in America can issue the Citizen's ID after the bureaucratic stuff is worked out.

I guess Bush doesn't want that despite all his talk about war, terrorist attacks, be very afraid speeches... we don't know who the heck is in our country or entering our country through porous borders!

Political Mavens » OUT OF THE DARKNESS (http://politicalmavens.com/index.php/2007/11/03/out-of-the-darkness/)

Why such hostility to foreigners?

Statistics.

Until there's an eruption, the chattering classes of Paris, Antwerp, Lisbon, Copenhagen etc. don't see the trouble in the slums where Muslim youth smolders. Beltway politicians rarely glimpse the barrios of the West Coast where Latina illegitimacy has become an epidemic, and gang violence is spreading by the day. Nor do they care to make too much of the Islamic threat at home and abroad.

But the people know what the journalists and politicians don't. They express themselves inside the voting booth, when the curtain is drawn and they don't have to fake their enthusiasm for an inclusive curriculum.

When the November 2008 rolls around, that unpublicized feeling will have a profound effect on the American elections. As in Europe, the party that refuses to acknowledge reality is condemned to defeat, or to a short and ineffective rule. The cuckoo clock is ticking.

Choux I am opposed to giving illegals any form of official ID . Regardless if you think the driver's license should or should not be legit form of ID for voting... in NY it is .So Spitzer's move to get illegals licenses is an attempt to enfranchise them.

President Bush supports real id. Where have you been ? ;Bush supports most of the Democrat immigrant initiatives . This is where he gets in trouble wth his own party.

And once again, Chou weighs in on the wrong side of the issue.

Chou, what piece of ID do you use when you get on an airplane for a domestic flight?

What piece of ID do you use at your local bank?

What piece of ID do you use when you fill out a government form?

What piece of ID do you use when applying for a job?

What piece of ID is at the top of Column B on the I-9 tax form, the list of legal foms of identification.

What piece of ID is the most often used form for voter registration?

The drivers license.

Issuing a drivers license to illegal immigrants essentially grants them citizenship status. It gives them a legal ID with which they can register to vote. It gives them ID with which they can apply for jobs that they are not legally entitled to. There is no way to change that fact. Saying that a drivers license "doesn't need to be some form of identification card" completely ignores the fact that that is exactly what it is... exactly the purpose for which it is intended by the government, in fact.

A drivers license IS an ID card. It identifies the cardholder as a person having legal status in the state of issue. A drivers license in the hands of illegal immigrants is a statement that the holder has legal status in that state... a fact which is NOT TRUE. And the fact is that in many states, possibly in most states though I am not sure, a person with a drivers license can register to vote, either on the spot or before the date of election. There is no feasible way to keep illegals with drivers licenses from being able to vote. Ergo, the only way to stop that from occurring is to keep them from getting drivers licenses.

Spitzer is dead wrong on this issue... and so is Chou.

Elliot

Hello:

We need comprehensive immigration reform. That's problem "A". Instead, we had a congress who wouldn't/couldn't do the job.

Whether illegals have a driver's license or not, or whether they vot or not are problems "J" or "K". They're WAY down the list. Trying to fix problems "J" or "K", or even "B" or "C", without FIRST fixing problem "A", is not only impossible, but kind of stupid.

I do agree that in the absence of a national solution, the states are trying to fill in. But they can't, because it's a NATIONAL problem. Therefore, EVERY state remedy is going to be the WRONG remedy.

excon

Hello:

We need comprehensive immigration reform. That's problem "A". Instead, we had a congress who wouldn't/couldn't do the job.

Whether illegals have a driver’s license or not, or whether they vot or not are problems "J" or "K". They're WAY down the list. Trying to fix problems "J" or "K", or even "B" or "C", without FIRST fixing problem "A", is not only impossible, but kinda stupid.

I do agree that in the absence of a national solution, the states are trying to fill in. But they can't, because it's a NATIONAL problem. Therefore, EVERY state remedy is going to be the WRONG remedy.

excon
You miss the point in the OP. Are some Democrats trying to make it easy for illegal immigrants to vote because most would vote for Democrats? The issue is not immigration but voter fraud.

Hello again, DC:

I also missed the nexus between getting a drivers license and voting. When I was in the slam, I had a driver's license. It was stamped in big red letters 'FEDERAL PRISONER".

Wouldn't you think that the driver's license Spitzer is talking about would have something stamped on it, like "ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT"? Uhhh, I think that would stop them from voting.

But, I suppose you think Democrats are too stupid to think of that.

excon

The problem, excon, is that there is no consensus agreement on what "A" is. Or rather there is a consensus, but the majority of politicians aren't interested in following that consensus.

The disagreement lies in whether "solution A" lies in cutting off the flow of immigants and enforcing borders and employment laws, or whether it lies in legalizing immigrants who are already here.

The consensus of public opinion is that the first step to dealing with illegal immigration is to stop the flow of illegal immigrants into this country. 80% of the country (a consensus by any measure) supports that idea, but the politicians (and apparently you) seem to disagree with that being "solution A", for varying reasons (cheap labor, votes, immigrants' rights, whatever). From the perspective of most Americans, you can't fix the busted pipes until you first cut the water flow.

But if the politicians aren't going to go along with that consensus opinion, then we are at a standoff as to what "solution A" actually should be. What form should "comprehensive reform" take? What does it look like?

The Kennedy plan that was supported by Bush, called the "Comprehensive Immigration Reform Bill" was anything but comprehensive or reformative. It didn't address such issues as enforcement (the major one that the people want to see), criminal deportations, law enforcement's right to check immigration status, the status of LEGAL immigrants awaiting entry into the USA, or the status of foreign relatives of illegal immigrants who would be legalized by the bill.

So the fact that Congress voted the bill down is a GOOD thing, since it would have screwed up more than it fixed.

I agree that we need comprehensive immigration reform. I think the process should indeed be streamlined, and I believe that the system needs better monitoring as well. But I also believe that in order for an immigration bill to be truly COMPREHENSIVE it needs include enforcement of immigation laws and border security. Anything else is just a band-aid measure on a major wound that really needs a pressure bandage and trauma care, not a band-aid.

Elliot

Hello again, DC:

I also missed the nexus between getting a drivers license and voting. When I was in the slam, I had a driver’s license. It was stamped in big red letters 'FEDERAL PRISONER".

Wouldn't you think that the driver’s license Spitzer is talking about would have something stamped on it, like "ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT"? Uhhh, I think that would stop them from voting.

But, I suppose you think Democrats are too stupid to think of that.

excon
Nothing is said in the policy that was enacted; that is part of the reason for the law suit. So yes, I think he is that stupid, and so is Clinton for agreeing with him. In fact, she is taking a lot of heat for it.

The problem, excon, is that there is no consensus Hello again, El:

I agree. And, your point is??

I didn't say the solution is going to be easy. It's not. And, it's because congress did NOTHING about it for 50 years. The problem festered. The solution is going to be painful.

So what?? That does NOT absolve congress. They don't need consensus. They need leadership and balls. I think we should throw the bums out.

I'm not going to agree with whatever solution they come up with. You aren't either. On THIS subject, however, I agree with BUSH. He's a wonderful man.

excon

Interestingly enough all of Europe is rising up against immigration.

The anti-immigrant push is the untold story of politics all over Europe and the U.S.
In Portugal the Popular Party won 14 seats by promising to introduce tighten laws against immigration and immigrants.

In the Netherlands, where an anti-immigration politician was murdered for his views, the late Pym Fortuyn's party won 26 parliamentary seats.

In Norway, where theft and rape committed by immigrants has become a regular news item, the far right Progress Party also won 26 seats by promising to cap immigration at 1,000 people per year.
In Denmark, the Danish People's Party is now the country's third largest. It advocates harsh policies against those seeking political asylum, as well as a demand to curb aid to the third world.

In France, the rightist Jean-Marie Le Pen lost in the final elections. Nevertheless, it was his best showing. Some six million French men and women voted for him, underscoring the popularity of his anti-immigration policies in the wake of Muslim riots.

This suspicion and hostility to foreigners is not exclusive to the other side of the pond. The Bush administration crashed and burned when it announced that a United Arab Emirate company was in line to guard U.S. ports.
New York governor Eliot Spitzer recently announced plans to grant undocumented immigrants their own drivers' licenses. This plan to “bring illegals out of the darkness” was pitilessly mocked, pilloried and hooted down. Spitzer's remarkable rise came to a full stop. It will be very difficult for him to restart the engine.
Hillary Clinton's John Kerry moment (“I voted for it before I voted against it”) came when she ambiguously defended Spitzer's move. Her rivals for the Democratic presidential candidacy made much of this; she is still in the recovery room while her aids administer oxygen and adrenalin to a once-confident campaign

Political Mavens » OUT OF THE DARKNESS (http://politicalmavens.com/index.php/2007/11/03/out-of-the-darkness/)

Interestingly enough all of Europe is rising up against immigration.Hello again, DC:

To some, there's always a "them" to blame.

excon

Interestingly enough all of Europe is rising up against immigration.

The anti-immigrant push is the untold story of politics all over Europe and the U.S.
In Portugal the Popular Party won 14 seats by promising to introduce tighten laws against immigration and immigrants.

In the Netherlands, where an anti-immigration politician was murdered for his views, the late Pym Fortuyn’s party won 26 parliamentary seats.

In Norway, where theft and rape committed by immigrants has become a regular news item, the far right Progress Party also won 26 seats by promising to cap immigration at 1,000 people per year.
In Denmark, the Danish People’s Party is now the country’s third largest. It advocates harsh policies against those seeking political asylum, as well as a demand to curb aid to the third world.

In France, the rightist Jean-Marie Le Pen lost in the final elections. Nevertheless, it was his best showing. Some six million French men and women voted for him, underscoring the popularity of his anti-immigration policies in the wake of Muslim riots.

This suspicion and hostility to foreigners is not exclusive to the other side of the pond. The Bush administration crashed and burned when it announced that a United Arab Emirate company was in line to guard U.S. ports.
New York governor Eliot Spitzer recently announced plans to grant undocumented immigrants their own drivers’ licenses. This plan to “bring illegals out of the darkness” was pitilessly mocked, pilloried and hooted down. Spitzer’s remarkable rise came to a full stop. It will be very difficult for him to restart the engine.
Hillary Clinton’s John Kerry moment (“I voted for it before I voted against it”) came when she ambiguously defended Spitzer’s move. Her rivals for the Democratic presidential candidacy made much of this; she is still in the recovery room while her aids administer oxygen and adrenalin to a once-confident campaign

Political Mavens » OUT OF THE DARKNESS (http://politicalmavens.com/index.php/2007/11/03/out-of-the-darkness/)

DC,

This article is turning the issue into an "anti-immigration" issue. That's not what it is or what it should be. This is an anti- ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION issue. There's a major difference. I don't think that there is anyone who is seriously saying that we should stop immigration into the USA. What pro-enforcement people are arguing is that we need an end to people coming here ILLEGALLY. We NEED immigration. It brings new blood and new ideas. But it needs to be done LEGALLY to prevent crime, terrorism, disease, weak border security, increasing taxes, poverty, etc.

Simply letting people in regardless of how they get here or who they are is not the solution. Letting NOBODY in is not the solution either. What most people advocate is streamlining of the legal immigration process, and better enforcement of the laws against illegal immigration. There's a huge difference between that and what a guy like Le Pen supports.

Elliot

DC,

This article is turning the issue into an "anti-immigration" issue. That's not what it is or what it should be. This is an anti- ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION issue. There's a major difference. I don't think that there is anyone who is seriously saying that we should stop immigration into the USA. What pro-enforcement people are arguing is that we need an end to people coming here ILLEGALLY. We NEED immigration. It brings new blood and new ideas. But it needs to be done LEGALLY to prevent crime, terrorism, disease, weak border security, increasing taxes, poverty, etc.

Simply letting people in regardless of how they get here or who they are is not the solution. Letting NOBODY in is not the solution either. What most people advocate is streamlining of the legal immigration process, and better enforcement of the laws against illegal immigration. There's a huge difference between that and what a guy like Le Pen supports.

Elliot
Elliot, it is an anti-immigration problem here, in the sense we have always been against immigration of one class of people over another, and the laws have changed over time depending on circumstances. There is no way to stop illegal immigration or it would have been done, that’s the problem…what to do with illegal immigrants is another. If one is found to be here illegally they are deported. To be anti-immigration is to be anti against certain classes of people.

“Simply letting people in regardless of how they get here or who they are is not the solution” is a straw man; it is not even an issue because it is not being advocated. So far as stopping all immigration I can see where that might be a viable option for some countries at one time or another, including the U.S.

What I believe should be investigated is the concept of an Western Hemisphere passport that would freely allow travel between the different countries

DC,


Elliot, it is an anti-immigration problem here, in the sense we have always been against immigration of one class of people over another, and the laws have changed over time depending on circumstances. There is no way to stop illegal immigration or it would have been done,

Respectfully, that is simply not true. It has been done. It was done rather well prior to the 1960s. Illegal immigration was minimal because border security was TOUGH and because the government enforced employment laws. It is only since the 1960s and the rise of the political power of the far left with the civil-rights and anti-war movements that enforcing our borders became "too difficult". So I don't buy the argument that it can't be done, because it has been done.


that’s the problem…what to do with illegal immigrants is another. If one is found to be here illegally they are deported. To be anti-immigration is to be anti against certain classes of people.

Agreed. That is why I am not illegal immigration, but rather anti-ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION. In fact, I can't think of any major political figure that is calling for an end to all immigration. You are putting forth a staw man, an argument that nobody who is anti-illegal immigration and pro-border-enforcement has argued for. Even the Minute Men, the citizen border enforcement group, does not advocate such a position. Who do you know of that supports such a position?


“Simply letting people in regardless of how they get here or who they are is not the solution” is a straw man; it is not even an issue because it is not being advocated.

Please see excon's various posts on the subject. He seems to be advocating exactly that. As are the various open-border supporters (including some presidential candidates) who claim that we need open borders in order to obtain a cheap labor supply. Essentially their argument (like excon's) is that all they want to do is wash our dishes and blow our leaves, so we should let them in, regardless of who they are. My argument is not a straw man. It is, in fact, the mainstream argument coming from the open borders crowd.


So far as stopping all immigration I can see where that might be a viable option for some countries at one time or another, including the U.S.

I can't. Nor is that what I see anyone advocating. Some people are advocating LIMITS on immigration, and lots of people support border enforcement and employment law enforcement. But I don't see anyone advocating a complete stop on immigation.


What I believe should be investigated is the concept of an Western Hemisphere passport that would freely allow travel between the different countries

Why? What is wrong with national passports? In what way would a "Western Hemisphere Passport" be a better solution to the illegal immigration problem? In what way does such a passport enhance our nation's border security? Why would you trust a passport issued by some nebulous multi-government entity, or worse, a non-government entity, more than one being issued by a recognized government? Who would we hold accountable if terrorists get ahold of such a passport and use it to travel to places that they then attack?

In the global arena, a multi-national passport SOUNDS like a great idea. But when we look at it more closely, it doesn't actually solve any of the issues that plague our current system, and in fact makes accountability harder.

You can't solve the illegal immigration/border security problem by creating a new bureaucracy. ENFORCEMENT is the key.

Elliot

It was done rather well prior to the 1960s. Illegal immigration was minimal because border security was TOUGH and because the government enforced employment laws. It is only since the 1960s and the rise of the political power of the far left with the civil-rights and anti-war movements that enforcing our borders became "too difficult". So I don't buy the argument that it can't be done, because it has been done.Hello El:

What??

That's what's so funny about you righty's. You think all you need to do is pass a law, put it in a book, and then enforce it. But, in your haste, and your law and order zeal, you forgot that we have 4,500 miles of open borders - 3,000 up north, and 1,500 down south. Dude. I don't know if you've spent much time out west. But, it's BIG out there.

The borders are not enforceable now, they never have been, and they never will be. That's not the fault of liberals. Bwa, ha ha ha.

excon

excon,

First of all, I'm not talking about passing new laws. We already have good laws on the books. I'm just talking about enforcing them as the law requires.

Second, I am talking about creating coverage for that 4500 miles of open border. That's the point. And I already talked in another post about a cost-effective way to do that. We take our military units that need training in desert warfare and place them along the borders. They train in desert warfare AND border security, both of which have applications to the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan. That makes it effective training. Stopping border crossings in the southwestern part of the USA is not radically different from stopping border crossings in Iraq and Afghanistan. Good training environment. We rotate units in and out of the area as needed, with each unit rotated through becoming responsible for border security. It's cheap in terms of labor (these soldiers are already on the government payroll) and cost effective in terms of training environments and practical training. Andf a few thousand troops with the appropriate equipment on the borders at any one time will certainly close most of the gaps in border security, don't you think?

So, no, I'm not just throwing out the idea of "making a new law" without any consideration of the consequences. I've followed through with a cost-effective, practical, workable idea for implementation. The border CAN be enforced effectively. It just takes a bit of thinking outside the box.

Elliot

excon,

First of all, I'm not talking about passing new laws. We already have good laws on the books. I'm just talking about enforcing them as the law requires.

Second, I am talking about creating coverage for that 4500 miles of open border. That's the point. And I already talked in another post about a cost-effective way to do that. We take our military units that need training in desert warfare and place them along the borders. They train in desert warfare AND border security, both of which have applications to the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan. That makes it effective training. Stopping border crossings in the southwestern part of the USA is not radically different from stopping border crossings in Iraq and Afghanistan. Good training environment. We rotate units in and out of the area as needed, with each unit rotated through becoming responsible for border security. It's cheap in terms of labor (these soldiers are already on the government payroll) and cost effective in terms of training environments and practical training. Andf a few thousand troops with the appropriate equipment on the borders at any one time will certainly close most of the gaps in border security, don't you think?

So, no, I'm not just throwing out the idea of "making a new law" without any consideration of the consequences. I've followed through with a cost-effective, practical, workable idea for implementation. The border CAN be enforced effectively. It just takes a bit of thinking outside the box.

Elliot
OMG! Why not set a security perimeter and mine the damm area.:eek:

Or, we could make it a hate crime to hire anyone here illegally, or rent to, sell to, or associate with.

Maybe Blackwater could use their heavy handed ways to keep them out!

Or, we could make it a hate crime to hire anyone here illegally, or rent to, sell to, or associate with.

Like I said to excon, we don't need new laws. The ones that already exist are just fine. We just need to start enforcing them.

Elliot

Like I said to excon, we don't need new laws. The ones that already exist are just fine. We just need to start enforcing them.

Elliot
I can just imagine similar conversations taking place about the borders of the Mandate for Palestine by the British between 1923 and 1948 regarding illegal Jewish immigration. :)

DC,

The British mandate was very effective at border control in what was then Palestine. I may not like the fact that they did it, but there is no doubt that it was effective.

That said, they managed to do it through military control of the borders. That's exactly what I'm proposing here. And I believe that it can be just as effective, or more so, than the British were in Palestine.

Rather than turning my argument off, you are actually proving my point for me. If you want effective border control, get the military involved.

Elliot

DC,

The British mandate was very effective at border control in what was then Palestine. I may not like the fact that they did it, but there is no doubt that it was effective.

That said, they managed to do it through military control of the borders. That's exactly what I'm proposing here. And I believe that it can be just as effective, or more so, than the British were in Palestine.

Rather than turning my argument off, you are actually proving my point for me. If you want effective border control, get the military involved.

Elliot
So there were no illegal Jewish immigrants into the mandate between 1923 and 1948 according to you. Well, that’s some news the world should hear about. That’s like denying the Holocaust.

I didn't say there were NONE. But it is fairly clear that not as many got in as wished to. In fact, the vast majority of Jewish immigrants never made it to Palestine until AFTER Israeli statehood in 1948. That is part of the reason that so many Jews died in the Holocaust despite warnings from various Zionist leaders like Hertzl, Jabotinsky, and others to get out of Europe and return to our historical homeland. They couldn't get into Palestine, the USA wasn't taking them, and nobody else wanted them either. (And in a few cases, they didn't want to leave Europe anyway... but that is a topic for another string.) For the most part the British border control over Palestine in the 20s and 30s and early 40s was very tight.

After 1944 or so things started changing because the Jews inside Palestine were starting to organize into an effective anti-British force that was able to counter the British border security. It was only with indiginous help from Jews already inside Palestine that the tight security began to weaken.

The USA does not have an indiginous organized movement that is willing to take on the US military in combat to weaken border security. So there is no parallel to the reasons that the British Mandate's border security failed at the end. There IS quite a bit of parallel as to why their tight security worked for as long as it did.

Elliot

I didn't say there were NONE. But it is fairly clear that not as many got in as wished to. In fact, the vast majority of Jewish immigrants never made it to Palestine until AFTER Israeli statehood in 1948. That is part of the reason that so many Jews died in the Holocaust despite warnings from various Zionist leaders like Hertzl, Jabotinsky, and others to get out of Europe and return to our historical homeland. They couldn't get into Palestine, the USA wasn't taking them, and nobody else wanted them either. (And in a few cases, they didn't want to leave Europe anyway... but that is a topic for another string.) For the most part the British border control over Palestine in the 20s and 30s and early 40s was very tight.

After 1944 or so things started changing because the Jews inside Palestine were starting to organize into an effective anti-British force that was able to counter the British border security. It was only with indiginous help from Jews already inside Palestine that the tight security began to weaken.

The USA does not have an indiginous organized movement that is willing to take on the US military in combat to weaken border security. So there is no parallel to the reasons that the British Mandate's border security failed at the end. There IS quite a bit of parallel as to why their tight security worked for as long as it did.

Elliot
As I have persistently argued, illegal immigration cannot be stopped, and what success the British had was because they were brutal, and shot illegals' trying to enter Israel. What will stop it is saturation, if there is no work available the number will dwindle on its own. Even now the numbers are going down. Have you forgotten supply and demand?:D

You don't need "saturation" to make that happen. If you enforce the laws so that illegals can't get jobs, it will have the same effect as if the jobs didn't exist at all or were saturated.

And yes, brutality works. Where's the problem with that? We have 11 million people who have invaded our borders. Doesn't that constitute an "invasion in force"? And if so, why should I have a problem with brutality in turning back that invasion?

But it doesn't take butality. It does take being unrelenting in the enforcement of the border. Not brutal, not hurtful, just unrelenting, unstopping, and not letting anything get past you. You can enforce the laws with a smile and without hitting or shooting anyone. Just as long as you do enforce the laws. And soldiers, in my experience, are very good at enforcing the rules with complete politeness and respect for the person they are enforcing against.

Elliot

I say we all come up with our own plans... write them down... take a vote (between the people not government) and try it out...
Nothing is being done so far so what could it hurt? Sheesh!

My swipe about blackwater was just that. A swipe. I don't really appreciate how big a problem it is for the US with illegal immigration but I do understand it is a major issue.

In actual fact I didn't mind the idea of the military. So long as they acted legally and ethically.

Brutality though, no.

If you find a way that works let us know and maybe we'll be able to stop all these whinging poms and stinkin New Zealanders that find a way in down here by the thousands each year.

They're taking up my spot on the beach and they're ugly without their shirts on!

My swipe about blackwater was just that. A swipe. I dont really appreciate how big a problem it is for the US with illegal immigration but i do understand it is a major issue.

In actual fact i didnt mind the idea of the military. So long as they acted legally and ethically.

Brutality though, no.

If you find a way that works let us know and maybe we'll be able to stop all these whinging poms and stinkin New Zealanders that find a way in down here by the thousands each year.

They're takin up my spot on the beach and they're ugly without their shirts on!
I don’t have a problem regarding illegal immigrants; they fill a very useful slot in society. As I mentioned to Elliot, supply and demand will control it.
Interestingly enough employment is not a problem either, except for employers.

“In Florida, a line technician makes a base wage of $53,000 and with overtime can earn up to $100,000. That's pretty good money, for a job that can't be offshored and is unlikely to be nabbed by an illegal immigrant. But the electrical industry is getting awfully nervous because, well, kids today don't seem to want to become line technicians, and the ones that are on the job are getting a little gray around the temple. Half of Florida's line technicians are reportedly set to retire within five years.”

How the World Works: Globalization, Globalization Blogs - Salon.com (http://www.salon.com/tech/htww/2007/11/08/energy_workforce/index.html)

I don’t have a problem regarding illegal immigrants; they fill a very useful slot in society. As I mentioned to Elliot, supply and demand will control it.
Interestingly enough employment is not a problem either, except for employers.



Does your opinion change depending on what country they originate from?
Do you like illegals from one area but not from another?

Does your opinion change depending on what country they originate from?
Do you like illegals from one area but not from another?
Yeah, I’m a Western Hemisphere kind of guy. I picture it as being like the EU someday. The illegal immigrant does not effect regular immigration, and regular immigration is selective enough that it does not effect the poverty stricken illegal. So it works just fine to fill two separate needs

I can see your point. Seems fair enough!

How is illegal immigration fair to legal immigrants? If anything illegal immigrants are cutting front of good people that are trying to follow the laws. Why should we reward people that break the law and punish those that follow the law. If we need people to fill jobs lets open up more legal immigration. I don't see any racism in that statement. How can you?

How is illegal immigration fair to legal immigrants?

There is an assumption being made with that line of thinking that is made about money. And that is that there is only so much money to divide. As I mentioned earlier, “The illegal immigrant does not effect regular immigration, and regular immigration is selective enough that it does not effect the poverty stricken illegal. So it works just fine to fill two separate needs.”



Why should we reward people that break the law and punish those that follow the law. If we need people to fill jobs lets open up more legal immigration.

First, they are not being rewarded because when they are caught they are deported. Legal immigration is expensive, too expensive for the laborers who make-up the great majority of illegals.

There are certainly some racist, but I think they are very relatively few.

There is an assumption being made with that line of thinking that is made about money. And that is that there is only so much money to divide. As I mentioned earlier, “The illegal immigrant does not effect regular immigration, and regular immigration is selective enough that it does not effect the poverty stricken illegal. So it works just fine to fill two separate needs.”

On what basis do you make this statement? As I understand it, quite a few legal immigrants coming here are poverty stricken/lower class immigrants, who's livlihoods in this country are DIRECTLY EFFECTED by the influx of illegals.


First, they are not being rewarded because when they are caught they are deported.

No they aren't. THat's the point. The laws aren't being enforced. And in the few cases where they are deported, they just climb right back over the fence again the next day? The deportation isn't being enforced.


Legal immigration is expensive, too expensive for the laborers who make-up the great majority of illegals.

Again, what is the basis for this statement? What is the cost of legal immigration? I don't know the answer, and I suspect that you don't either. How do you know that it is too expensive for a laborer to come here legally? You have been TOLD that, but what is the economic/financial basis for that statement?


There are certainly some racist, but I think they are very relatively few.

I tend to agree. This isn't a racial issue. It's an issue of following the law. I have no problem with any legal immigrant to this country, regardless of race, religion, sex, age, income level, etc. And I don't think that most border-enforcement advocates have a problem with legal immigration either.

BTW, DC, what is your position with regard to illegals who travel back and forth across the border at will carrying infectious diseases such as Tuberculosis? There is a recent story of an illegal who came across the border on more than 20 sepparate occasions while infected with TB. Without border/immigration enforcement, how are we to protect ourselves from imported diseases brought in by illegal immigants? Do you feel that it isn't a major problem? That the economic benefits of having cheap labor outweigh the risks of a TB epidemic?

Elliot

On what basis do you make this statement? As I understand it, quite a few legal immigrants coming here are poverty stricken/lower class immigrants, who's livlihoods in this country are DIRECTLY EFFECTED by the influx of illegals.



No they aren't. THat's the point. The laws aren't being enforced. And in the few cases where they are deported, they just climb right back over the fence again the next day? The deportation isn't being enforced.



Again, what is the basis for this statement? What is the cost of legal immigration? I don't know the answer, and I suspect that you don't either. How do you know that it is too expensive for a laborer to come here legally? You have been TOLD that, but what is the economic/financial basis for that statement?



I tend to agree. This isn't a racial issue. It's an issue of following the law. I have no problem with any legal immigrant to this country, regardless of race, religion, sex, age, income level, etc. And I don't think that most border-enforcement advocates have a problem with legal immigration either.

BTW, DC, what is your position with regard to illegals who travel back and forth across the border at will carrying infectious diseases such as Tuberculosis? There is a recent story of an illegal who came across the border on more than 20 sepparate occasions while infected with TB. Without border/immigration enforcement, how are we to protect ourselves from imported diseases brought in by illegal immigants? Do you feel that it isn't a major problem? That the economic benefits of having cheap labor outweigh the risks of a TB epidemic?

Elliot
Elliot

I keep hearing this ridicules claim from you that that the Border Patrol is not doing their job, what impertinence to suggest they are not. No, I'm not repeating something I have read. I have sat and watched many times while they made raids, they do it everyday. This business about “climbing right back over the fence” is far too simple minded too even consider. Are you a Racist, because your arguments sure should as irrational as does racist?

Here is an interesting read on the activities of anti-immigrant rights groups in the United States and their war on day laborers. Politicians like Tom Tancredo, Dana Rohrabacher, Joe Biden, and people like John Tanton. “John Tanton took $1.3 million -- the Federation for American Immigration Reform, FAIR, took $1.3 million from the Pioneer Fund, a group that advanced Nazi propaganda in the 1930s and which exists to fund the science of Hitlerian eugenics. This was a huge scandal, and John Tanton was sort of forced to retreat into the dark.”

Lou Dobbs is up to his neck in the movement and groups like the John Birch Society. The movement is rooted in the beliefs of David Duke.

“David Duke drove around in a car marked “Klan Border Watch” looking for undocumented immigrants on the border, and he was pursued by about forty reporters.
This was an enormous PR coup for the Ku Klux Klan, and it's been copied by grassroots pressure groups like the Minutemen, who -- they're adopting specifically a white nationalist strategy from the Ku Klux Klan, and they're working closely with.”

Democracy Now! | A Look at the Forces Behind the Anti-Immigrant Movement (http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/05/02/1427217)

DC

How do these posts answer any of my questions or counter any of my points?

Calling me racist for wanting to enforce the laws is childish and beneath what I have come to expect from you. So the KKK used to patrol the borders too. So what? Does that make it wrong to patrol the borders? The KKK marched in protests. Doe that mean that anyone else who maches in protests are like the KKK? Are the civil rights groups that marched in protests in the 60s racists because they are using the "methods" the KKK did?

C'mon, DC, you're better than that.

We have 11 - 12 million illegal immigrants in this country. That number alone tells me that the border patrol isn't doing their job. I'm not saying that it is their fault. They are under-funded and under-staffed. They are doing the best that they can with what they have. But that clearly isn't getting the job done. I am proposing better funding, cooperation with the resources of the military to solve staffing issues, and stronger support for their job by the government. Which part of that do you disagree with?

And you still haven't answered my question with regard to illegals coming across the borders with diseases like TB.

You can do better than this, DC.

Elliot

DC

How do these posts answer any of my questions or counter any of my points?

Calling me racist for wanting to enforce the laws is childish and beneath what I have come to expect from you. So the KKK used to patrol the borders too. So what? Does that make it wrong to patrol the borders? The KKK marched in protests. Doe that mean that anyone else who maches in protests are like the KKK? Are the civil rights groups that marched in protests in the 60s racists because they are using the "methods" the KKK did?

C'mon, DC, you're better than that.

We have 11 - 12 million illegal immigrants in this country. That number alone tells me that the border patrol isn't doing their job. I'm not saying that it is their fault. They are under-funded and under-staffed. They are doing the best that they can with what they have. But that clearly isn't getting the job done. I am proposing better funding, cooperation with the resources of the military to solve staffing issues, and stronger support for their job by the government. Which part of that do you disagree with?

And you still haven't answered my question with regard to illegals coming across the borders with diseases like TB.

You can do better than this, DC.

Elliot
First, let me clear the air…I did not call you a racist, surly with your education your reading and comprehension should tell you that. I clearly referred to the language you used. Not only that, I do not for a moment believe you are racist. I do however believe the anti-immigration crowd are white nationalist; and therefore racist.

Secondly, I am not an advocate of illegal immigration I do not recommend anyone break the law; I just don’t believe it is nearly as big a problem as it has been made to out to be. It is congress who causes the problem and pressure groups of nationalist that hang-up such things as H2B visas.

Please read the link, it's very short:

“For years the three men have traveled to and from their homes in Mexico to Aurora, Colo., to work as seasonal employees for JBK Landscaping. The trio would seem to be the kind of foreign workers this country needs.
They are legally employed in jobs Americans won't do.

So it comes as a surprise that America's immigration system keeps throwing roadblocks in their way and the way of others who want to be like them.

By law, all three men must return to Mexico at the end of this month. All three leave with the very real fear that they may not be able to return to their jobs in the spring because the visa program that keeps them employed is bogged down in the immigration debate.”


Colorado Confidential:: With Visa Impass, Uncertainty Grows for Legal Workers, Employers (http://www.coloradoconfidential.org/showDiary.do?diaryId=3075)

And the problem is not something new:

“April 10, 2004
A Shortage of Seasonal Workers Is Feared
By EDUARDO PORTER

Even as economists worry about the lackluster growth in employment, and politicians rail against the loss of jobs to overseas outsourcing, many employers across the country are sounding alarms about an impending shortage of foreign temporary workers this summer.
From roe processors in Alaska to innkeepers in Martha's Vineyard to landscaping contractors in Arkansas, businesses are beseeching Congress to raise the ceiling on the number of visas for seasonal workers.
With this year's limit of 66,000 already reached, the employers are pressing for an immediate increase. Otherwise, many of the companies say, their businesses will be in jeopardy -- and so will the jobs of many Americans who also work for those businesses.
''Six hundred to 700 American jobs are at stake if I can't get the six foreign technicians that I need,'' said Larry Nelson, the president of Great Northern Sea Products. The company employs Japanese specialists during the summer at processing plants in Alaska to grade and sort salmon roe for sale in Japan.
Employers began writing panicked letters to members of Congress last month after the Department of Homeland Security clamped off this year's program of H-2B temporary visas for foreign workers, announcing it had reached the 66,000 limit, six months before the end of the fiscal year of 2004. “


We are creating the “illegal immigrants” by listening to the “Nationalist anti-immigrant groups.”

A Shortage of Seasonal Workers Is Feared - New York Times (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940CE6D81338F933A25757C0A9629C8B 63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print)

So it comes as a surprise that America's immigration system keeps throwing roadblocks in their way and the way of others who want to be like them.


Why should it be a surprise? That is probably what I find most difficult to understand. The fact that we want people to come here LEGALLY rather than ILLEGALLY shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. The fact that we want to enforce our laws shouldn't be surprising to anyone.

What should be surprising to any reader is that someone would have the chutzpah to assume that he should have a free run of this country if he's coming here illegally. I find it absolutely stunning that these three illegals (and others like them) think they have some sort of basic right to violate our borders just because they feel like it, and that they should evince surprise when the majority of honest Americans want that practice to stop. The presumption of a "right" to cross our border that these people have is amazing to me. Don't you find that to be a problem, DC?

No this isn't a new problem. Illegal immigration is a very old problem. But it has now reached epidemic proportions. (11 million definitely qualifies as an epidemic) And it needs to be dealt with, sooner rather than later.

We are not creating illegal immigrants. THEY create themselves by crossing the border illegally. It is simply a question of whether we are going to allow it to continue uncontrolled, or whether we are do something about it. But we are no more at fault for this than we are at fault for terrorists flying planes into the WTC. The people who commit illegal acts are responsible for their actions, not us.

Also, note that your second article is talking about increasing the number of visas to bring workers here LEGALLY. I have no problem with that. Again, I am against ILLEGAL immigration, not legal immigration.

Elliot

Why should it be a surprise? That is probably what I find most difficult to understand. The fact that we want people to come here LEGALLY rather than ILLEGALLY shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. The fact that we want to enforce our laws shouldn't be surprising to anyone.

What should be surprising to any reader is that someone would have the chutzpah to assume that he should have a free run of this country if he's coming here illegally. I find it absolutely stunning that these three illegals (and others like them) think they have some sort of basic right to violate our borders just because they feel like it, and that they should evince surprise when the majority of honest Americans want that practice to stop. The presumption of a "right" to cross our border that these people have is amazing to me. Don't you find that to be a problem, DC?

No this isn't a new problem. Illegal immigration is a very old problem. But it has now reached epidemic proportions. (11 million definitely qualifies as an epidemic) And it needs to be dealt with, sooner rather than later.

We are not creating illegal immigrants. THEY create themselves by crossing the border illegally. It is simply a question of whether we are going to allow it to continue uncontrolled, or whether we are do something about it. But we are no more at fault for this than we are at fault for terrorists flying planes into the WTC. The people who commit illegal acts are responsible for their actions, not us.

Also, note that your second article is talking about increasing the number of visas to bring workers here LEGALLY. I have no problem with that. Again, I am against ILLEGAL immigration, not legal immigration.

Elliot
Your reading and comprehension annoys me; you are so anxious to rant on with the nationalist rhetoric you missed the fact that the three illegal men (As you called them) were here on H2B visas, and so in fact were not illegals. They also said they would not come here illegally, and the employer said he would not hire illegals. So much for clarity of thought.:)

You are correct, I did misread the article. My apologies.

But I don't see how this creates a problem. I am not in favor of ending the temporary worker visa program. As you have said, we need those workers. What I am against is people coming here illegally to do those jobs that these LEGAL immigrants (or American citizens) would and should be doing.

We're not really disagreeing with each other. You are saying that we should make the temporary visa system work more easily. I agree. But that has no impact whatsover on what I am saying, which is that we need to stop the flow of ILLEGAL immigrants. Both of these points are true, and neither one contradicts the other.

Where we seem to be disagreeing is with regard to two points: 1) How big is the problem, and 2) what methods should we use to enforce the borders. Those two issues are open for debate.

Sorry about the misunderstanding. You are correct, I wasn't reading it carefully. I'll try to do better next time.

Elliot

Thank you Elliot:
Yeah, I don't think we are very far apart on most matters. I agree, those do appear to be the only points of contention.

YouTube - We Are the World - Lionel Richie, Tina Turner, Jackson (http://youtube.com/watch?v=ne7fPpxAnuM)
Sorry, it was getting to serious in here for me... woahoahoah!

YouTube - We Are the World - Lionel Richie, Tina Turner, Jackson (http://youtube.com/watch?v=ne7fPpxAnuM)
Sorry, it was getting to serious in here for me...woahoahoah!
Well, if you believe it is too serious there is the option…just walk on by

I have really been reading all the way through... I just wanted to lighten your guys' day. That's all. I do appreciate all the different views on politics and the different discussions, I just notice that it gets pretty heated with the name calling and bashing...
Just a little sunshine... Dark Crow... close your eyes, if it's too bright!
I am still thinking on my take with this ILLEGAL immigration thing... if we are going to stop it, we are going to have to put our humanity away for a while. Sad but true... :(

How about we designate them as an "unlawful Enemy combatant”.

Naw, what we need to do is get the damn list of all that are leagal, and then start form there... They have every right to be here...
I am not real into these types of conversations, but I really think both sides are very sad sides... ours and theirs. If I lived somewhere, and I couldn't feed my family or anything to that extreme, and there was a place I could go to make sure that is done, HELL yes I am going to do it!
So I really do feel for them... I respect the immigrants that come legally, but for some, that is just not an option. The problem really needs to start where their homeland is! I guess that is where I would start!

Naw, what we need to do is get the damn list of all that are leagal, and then start form there....They have every right to be here....
I am not real into these types of conversations, but I really think both sides are very sad sides...ours and theirs. If I lived somewhere, and I couldn't feed my family or anything to that extreme, and there was a place I could go to make sure that is done, HELL yes I am gonna do it!
So I really do feel for them.....I respect the immigrants that come legally, but for some, that is just not an option. The problem really needs to start where their homeland is!! I guess that is where I would start!
I agree and there is a movement that advocates capital investments in the southern hemisphere for bioenergy farms that would allow for economic growth, as well as less oil consumption in the more industrialized countries.

I guess the question is really... How do we get it started with out a bunch of corruption!

I've been reading this thread for a while and I'd agree, any fix to this problem has to start with making staying in the country of their birth a better place. If people can find jobs where they are they won't enter another coutnry illegally.

I still think the whole thing about illegal immigrants voting is ridiculous. I understand that with the current ID laws it's possible in New York (and maybe other places) but how many illegal immigrants are actually going to follow politics and try to vote? It seems like it's just another scare tactic to make people hate illegal immigrants more "they are screwing up our elections"... okay where is the hard data on the number of illegal immigrants that go vote?

I don't think there is even any hard data as to how many there are in the U.S.

You all make very good arguments. I do agree that issuing a driver's license to an illegal entitles them to the same rights as U.S. citezens. I don't think that should be done but at this point, illegal immigrants have the same rights as americans and if not more in some cases-- or so it sure seems that way. What can we do about it?

“States are trying various ways to get around a 1986 federal immigration law that forbids states from punishing businesses directly – with either fines or jail time for owners – for hiring illegal workers.

Starting in January, for example, Arizona companies caught twice knowingly hiring illegal immigrants will lose their business licenses.

The Arizona Employers for Immigration Reform attacked the law in federal court on July 13. The employers say the state is trying to usurp federal powers while leaving companies no way to defend themselves if they're accused of hiring illegal workers.

But Arizona is one of a vanguard group of states – including Colorado, Georgia and Oklahoma – requiring certain employers to check on the legal status of its workers. The other three require state contractors to confirm their workers are legal. Idaho and North Carolina also verify the status of state government workers.

The states required affected employers to verify their new hires with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, which operates a Web-based program to check out employees.

But Oklahoma didn't stop there. It also enacted other provisions to give employers even more incentive to make sure their workers are legal.

The Sooner State is giving American citizens fired from a job the right to sue their former employer if an illegal immigrant works for the company. The law applies to all companies in Oklahoma, not just those with government contracts.”


State immigration laws face legal doubts (http://www.stateline.org/live/details/story?contentId=227691)


We will see where this takes us but it is not real promising except temporally unless the 1986 federal immigration law can be overturned.

Maybe it's time for a little civil disobedience…

Maybe it’s time for a little civil disobedience…Hello DC:

Yeah... Throw a taco at a cop.

excon

excon

Naw, I'm not going to throw away a perfectly good taco.

I was thinking more along the lines of the “National Association of Reformed Offenders” marching on the White-House.