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

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

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Choux

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dark_crow

Interestingly enough all of Europe is rising up against immigration.

---

Hello again, DC:

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

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dark_crow

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

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,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dark_crow

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.

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

“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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

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!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dark_crow

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

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!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skell

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dark_crow

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skell

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?

Quote:

---

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.”

Quote:

---

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.