The "fence" is a horrible idea

[myp]

During the last GOP debate, a few of the candidates stressed that they wanted to see a fence on the US-Mexico border to deter illegal immigration. The idea does not really make sense logistically or financially. It most likely wouldn't work either. It is a very costly investment and ironically shows that a lot of the GOP is still all about the private sector only in rhetoric and not reality (a fence= big federal govt spending, government jobs, etc.).

 

[Patrick]

During the last GOP debate, a few of the candidates stressed that they wanted to see a fence on the US-Mexico border to deter illegal immigration. The idea does not really make sense logistically or financially. It most likely wouldn't work either. It is a very costly investment and ironically shows that a lot of the GOP is still all about the private sector only in rhetoric and not reality (a fence= big federal govt spending, government jobs, etc.).

It's a bad idea, but not because of any "big government" nonsense - the fundamental task of a government is to protect the country from external invasion and external lawbreakers. It's a bad idea, because the problem could easily be taken care with real ID, overturning the bad century old USSC decision re anchor babies, and enacting stiff penalties for scofflaw employers.

 

[myp]

It's a bad idea, but not because of any "big government" nonsense - the fundamental task of a government is to protect the country from external invasion and external lawbreakers. It's a bad idea, because the problem could easily be taken care with real ID, overturning the bad century old USSC decision re anchor babies, and enacting stiff penalties for scofflaw employers.

Oh brother. Or should I say big brother? Real ID is not only unconstitutional, but a major invasion into the lives of Americans and their liberties. It is also a costly investment not only financially, but when it comes to morale.

As for the fence- you can spin it any way you want, but such a huge government project (regardless of whether or not it is ran through the army) will lead to an expansion of government in a very poor dollar-for-dollar "investment" (I put investment in quotes because it is arguable that illegal immigration actually helps this country in which case such spending is not only wasteful, but also not an investment).

 

[David]

Triple the border patrol presence on the southern border and start guarding our northern border, stop Wet Foot, Dry Foot, crack down on employers who hire illegals and streamline the immigration process so people don't come illegally out of frustration with the system.

 

[CatholicCrusader]

During the last GOP debate, a few of the candidates stressed that they wanted to see a fence on the US-Mexico border to deter illegal immigration. The idea does not really make sense logistically or financially. It most likely wouldn't work either. It is a very costly investment and ironically shows that a lot of the GOP is still all about the private sector only in rhetoric and not reality (a fence= big federal govt spending, government jobs, etc.).

1) It makes sense financially when you take into acount the millions & billions of dollars that get wasted because of illegal aliens, in healthcare, social services, crime, schools, etc.

2) The "fence" does not neccessarily mean a physical fence. It can be a barrier enforced through various electronic means and ground troops.

 

[Patrick]

Oh brother. Or should I say big brother?

Sounds like if someone suggested, say, a police department, it would trigger "big brother" nightmares for you.

Real ID is not only unconstitutional, but a major invasion into the lives of Americans and their liberties.

Proof? Supporting arguments?

It is also a costly investment not only financially, but when it comes to morale.

The illegal alien invasion is costly to this country in many ways, way beyond the immense financial cost. Real ID and real enforcement would be a microscopic fraction of that.

 

[David]

1) It makes sense financially when you take into acount the millions & billions of dollars that get wasted because of illegal aliens, in healthcare, social servicesd, crime, schools, etc.

2) The "fence" does not neccessarily mean a physical fence. It can be a barrier enforced through various electronic means and ground troops.

To your 1st point you're not wrong but you're not right ether. The economic impact they have is a net gain (which is to say they make more money then they cost) which ironically is the problem as everyone wants to hire them.

To your 2nd point everyone in the CNN debate was talking about an actual fence, only Perry and Paul (the 2 most qualified to speak on the issue in fact) actually wanted boots on the ground.

 

[myp]

Triple the border patrol presence on the southern border and start guarding our northern border, stop Wet Foot, Dry Foot, crack down on employers who hire illegals and streamline the immigration process so people don't come illegally out of frustration with the system.

No! That not only will not stop illegal aliens, but it is costly.

1) It makes sense financially when you take into acount the millions & billions of dollars that get wasted because of illegal aliens, in healthcare, social servicesd, crime, schools, etc.

Except the figures are not that high. Considering they can't qualify for a lot of welfare and they still add productivity to the economy, it is arguable they might even be helping (more so than new legal immigrants who have access to entitlements).

2) The "fence" does not neccessarily mean a physical fence. It can be a barrier enforced through various electronic means and ground troops.

Either way it won't stop illegal immigration. All about incentives Any electronic means or troops is still costly.

Sounds like if someone suggested, say, a police department, it would trigger "big brother" nightmares for you.

If it is unneeded police, sure.

Proof? Supporting arguments?

It cuts into liberties- at the least privacy. It also hands everyone's private info to bureaucrats under a government system. As for the Constitution- it violates the 10th amendment, the long forgotten amendment (but two wrongs don't make a right).

The illegal alien invasion is costly to this country in many ways, way beyond the immense financial cost. Real ID and real enforcement would be a microscopic fraction of that.

Illegal immigration arguably helps our country and has a negative cost (as in creates wealth, not destroys it). Even then, it is no where near as costly as a fence and arguably not so much as Real ID.

 

[David]

No! That not only will not stop illegal aliens, but it is costly.

I'm not really all that worried about illegals, stopping businesses from hiring them and making legal immigration easier will suffice. What I'm worried about is the fact that people can cross our northern border at will (which is why the terrorism argument is stupid in regards to the southern border) while Mexico's civil war (because that's what it is at this point) is spilling over. And when I say border patrol I only really mean that on our northern border, I want the NG and at least 2 cavalry companies (mostly helicopters but a few tanks for intimidation) on the southern border.

 

[myp]

stopping businesses from hiring them and making legal immigration easier will suffice.

How does that solve anything if you keep the entitlement system in place? If anything, it might make things worse.

 

[David]

How does that solve anything if you keep the entitlement system in place? If anything, it might make things worse.

If they cant find jobs and if coming legally is easier in the long-term then coming over illegally (able to get good paying jobs without having to keep an eye out for the cops) the it's a non-issue. That isn't to say that entitlements don't need to be looked at, just that it'll no longer be an immigration issue.

Or we could just do thing my way and annex Mexico into the US.

 

[myp]

If they cant find jobs and if coming legally is easier in the long-term then coming over illegally (able to get good paying jobs without having to keep an eye out for the cops) the it's a non-issue. That isn't to say that entitlements don't need to be looked at, just that it'll no longer be an immigration issue.

Illegal immigration is arguably good for the country (especially economically). Even if it weren't, it is undoubtedly cheaper and still provides benefits, whereas legal immigration is a lot more expensive for the government and people. Not sure why making legal immigration easier is a positive, especially if you don't reform the entitlement system.

Or we could just do thing my way and annex Mexico into the US.

Oh brother. This isn't Civ IV.

 

[David]

Illegal immigration is arguably good for the country (especially economically). Even if it weren't, it is undoubtedly cheaper and still provides benefits, whereas legal immigration is a lot more expensive for the government and people. Not sure why making legal immigration easier is a positive, especially if you don't reform the entitlement system.

Oh brother. This isn't Civ IV.

That was kind of my argument. Read my reply to CC.

No, it's the real world where America tends to conquer the world every 75 years or so before giving some of it back for a pay off. The fact that Mexico even exits today is a fitting example.

 

[myp]

That was kind of my argument. Read my reply to CC.

No, it's the real world where America tends to conquer the world every 75 years or so before giving some of it back for a pay off. The fact that Mexico even exits today is a fitting example.

You said you wanted to make legal immigration easier as a solution, did you not? That doesn't help.

As for America "conquering the world" every 75 years- no idea what you are talking about (and moreso, are you saying that past military aggression justify future aggression?)

 

[David]

You said you wanted to make legal immigration easier as a solution, did you not? That doesn't help.

As for America "conquering the world" every 75 years- no idea what you are talking about (and moreso, are you saying that past military aggression justify future aggression?)

illegal immigration is an issue, for every 20 people looking for a better life you get a hardened criminal. Making it easier to immigrate means fewer people coming illegally and more of those criminals getting found out.

As to your 2nd point, yes. Aside from the genocide which would be political suicide or anyone to allow today, to be conquered by the US was to be liberated. That would be even more true today with the greater freedoms we have now.

 

[myp]

illegal immigration is an issue, for every 20 people looking for a better life you get a hardened criminal. Making it easier to immigrate means fewer people coming illegally and more of those criminals getting found out.

Legal immigration can be very costly, especially when it is to unskilled workers. And legal immigrants (as well as their kids) can be criminals too

As to your 2nd point, yes. Aside from the genocide which would be political suicide or anyone to allow today, to be conquered by the US was to be liberated. That would be even more true today with the greater freedoms we have now.

Arrogant much? Self determination>pushing your views on people because you THINK they will be better off.

 

[David]

Arrogant much? Self determination>pushing your views on people because you THINK they will be better off.

I'm no American-Exceptionalist but I do see Western Civilization as superior and have no problem with spreading it.

 

[myp]

I'm no American-Exceptionalist but I do see Western Civilization as superior and have no problem with spreading it.

So you don't have a problem with forcefully spreading (or should I say ramming?) ideas based on a government and system that was built around just the opposite?

 

[David]

So you don't have a problem with forcefully spreading (or should I say ramming?) ideas based on a government and system that was built around just the opposite?

I never said I wanted to spread 'democracy', I said I wanted to spread our way of life. Democracy is a relativity new thing to the West after all, it's only existed as the primary form of gov't for about 70 years.

 

[Patrick]

It cuts into liberties- at the least privacy. It also hands everyone's private info to bureaucrats under a government system.

Sort of like driver's licenses, income tax returns, medicare and medicaid info, social security cards - like all THAT stuff, huh?

As for the Constitution- it violates the 10th amendment, the long forgotten amendment (but two wrongs don't make a right).

Nonsense.

Illegal immigration arguably helps our country

RIIIIIIIIIIIIIIGHT - LOOTS THE WELFARE SYSTEM, SUCKS IN LOW IQ ILLITERATE RURAL MEXICAN PEASANTS WHEN WE NEED TOP QUALITY IMMIGRANTS TO COMPETE IN THE WORLD, BANKRUPTS ERs AND WHOLE HOSPITALS IN CALIFORNIA, FILLS THE PRISONS, BALKANIZES THE COUNTRY, IN THE FUTURE WILL LOAD UP THE COUNTRY WITH DEMOCRAT VOTERS - RIIIIIIIGHT - IT "HELPS" THE COUNTRY. YOU'VE TAKEN LEAVE OF YOUR SENSES.