Which is one reason why one of the first orders of business needs to be securing our borders. Once secured we can open them as wide as we’d like or make them as tight.
Yes. That was the question. Twice. You still haven’t answered. Let’s try again. I asked: what do you think is wrong with what that site is trying to do?
Here is their mission from the front page:
Do you have a problem with their mission statement? Some part of the expanded explanation? Please be specific. It’s really not enough to hold your nose, express indignation and say “that site, eww”.
I agree we should start seriously working on this issue. But it’s a highly complex problem and I think there’s a good possibility we may never be able to secure the borders fully.
Maybe. I think we can get pretty close. Of course, not being able to do something 100% is not a reason to not do it at all. (Not that I think that is what you’re saying.)
But you do have to be careful what you do. The Law of Unintended Consequences operates here, as it does in everything else. If we try to solve this issue in the wrong way, we might end up with worse problems than we started with. Blindly “doing something that looks like it might work”, without thinking about possible consequences, is dangerous.
Naturally. But that pertains to every single decision made government or man alone. No snark intended, really, but isn’t that an almost useless admonition?
I think unintended consequences might be more likely here. It’s a hot political issue, so there’s an incentive to Do Something Right Now that there isn’t on a lot of other issues. Illegal immigration and drugs are also emotional issues for some people, which makes unintended consequences more likely (see: sex offender laws for a good example of this).
Yeah, those are good points. I guess as the complexity of an issue and the emotions tied to it go up, it’s waise to take an extra hard look at what unintended consequences might arise. Throw politics into the mix and it even gets worse. But at some point you have to actually act, so that has to be kept in mind, as well.
This is one of the reasons why I think we should secure our borders. There is no sown side to doing so. After we have complete (or near) control we can open them wide or tighten them up. The only thing you’d be stopping is people sneaking in illegally. And there is simply no justification for that. I also feel safe going after employers of illegals, and as per the OP, if someone is dealing drugs and gets arrested for that, I see no downside to looking into his residency status, the same way we’d look into his criminal record. Even leaving aside that they are one and the same.
I think it is legit to capture during the booking process down at the station what someone’s status is. Get all of their identification information, if only to make sure that the person is not wanted for something else and that you have the right guy (or gal).
Now, ASSuming that is all entered into the computer (along with fingerprints and DNA nowadays), why can’t the feds get a weekly report of the people with uncertain residency status? If the Feds follow-up, great.
When it comes time to determine bail, then perhaps we should not allow bail for those without legal residency status. After all, they have a country they can run to, and they know that they are not welcome here either.
I don’t see how adding a couple additional bits to the booking process is going to bog down our justice system. It will also let municipalities have a better idea of what percent of felons are also Federal felons for being here illegally.
There’s nothing wrong with that site. Lawyers have a right to drum up business.
My mistake, then. From your tone I took it that you had a problem with the site was trying to accomplish. If you don’t, I must have misunderstood you.
The devil is in the details, unfortunately. How, exactly, we should go about securing our borders is a very important question. There are acceptable and unacceptable methods of doing so- most people wouldn’t think shooting anyone who tried to cross the border was an acceptable way to accomplish this goal.
Securing the borders also costs $$$$, which has to come from somewhere. Would you be willing to pay higher taxes, live with some program cuts, or suffer inconveniences like having it take longer to get through customs when you come back into the country to achieve secure borders? How much cost or inconvenience would most people be willing to live with? You have to find a way to do it that most people would find acceptable, at a cost that most people would accept, and that’s the problem.
I’m not saying this to argue that we shouldn’t secure our borders- I’m just saying that doing so wouldn’t be a simple problem, and simple solutions to complex problems are likely to fail.
I absolutely think we need to do this if we’re serious about dealing with the problem of illegal immigrants. If there is demand (ie, jobs) for them, enforcement measures aimed at cutting off supply (illegal immigration) aren’t going to work. See Prohibition and the war on drugs for an example of how and why an approach like that would fail.
Yes.
I think the government is duty bound to do this. The debate is not an academic one. There are 12 million people in the country illegally.
Okay. But I would say that if we’re serious about it, and understand the resources are an issue, that a fence on sections of the border, effectively shrinking the amount of it that has to be patrolled by agents, is a place to start.
Exactly.
I’ve made my argument as to why I don’t want police dealing with immigration issues. Neither of you has posted anything to rebut my arguments. Of course, that’s your choice, but until someone bothers to rebut my arguments, I will continue to be of the opinion that the two of you are advocating a policy which (1) will do nothing to stop illegal immigration, (2) will waste my tax money, and (3) will compromise my safety and security.
Well, since the last Congress refused to fund the border fence, this is largely an academic discussion. But before I get behind the idea of a border fence, I’m going to need to see some empirical studies showing that a partial border fence has more benefits than drawbacks.
Algher, please ignore my last post directed at you. I misread your comments. Let me speak to them more specifically.
In California, if someone is booked, then their fingerprints, name, photo, etc. is all entered into a database, similar to most states. The Feds already have access to all of this information.
The Feds can get a minute-by-minute report if they want it. They already have access to all the info, and if the Feds wanted to, they could cross-reference the booking info against birth records, social security numbers, and visa information to determine if someone is an illegal immigrant.
Now this is where I have the problem. I don’t want my tax money that I pay to the city and county being used to determine immigration status. I’ve explained the reasons before in this thread, and this is a policy that I think wastes my money, will do nothing to combat illegal immigration, and will compromise my safety and security.
Little bits add up, and the local booking system is already strained.
And this will accomplish what? We deport the felon so he can come back the next day?
-
There are two parts to the imimgration issue: the illegals that are already here and the ones coming in every day. Deporting any number of them, by definition, goes to the former.
-
Illegals are a net drain on the economy, receiving much more in benefits (medical, education, public assistance) than we see in taxes (federal states and sales).
-
How? Keep in mind we’re talking about people that the police have* already arrested*. The question is simply whether they should look into their residency status. The next question is whether or not they should deport them. Your argument seems to be, and please correct if I misstate it, that any time the LAPD might spend looking into immigration status at all tales away from their ability to protect you. Is that right? If so, shouldn’t you also factor in the fact that for each person they deport—initially due to a non-immigration status arrest mind you—is one less criminal they have to protect you from.
Instead of LA, let’s look at a small town, Shinyville. They have no illegals and no crime. Illegal A comes in and lives and works. Illegal B comes in and does the same. Neither commit any crimes. Illegal C comes in and sells drugs, or breaks into a car, or a house, somehting relatively minor. He is caught. Why should the town NOT look into his status and deport him? He has no right to be there. Sure they can prosecute him and have him serve time, but why not deport him afterwards?
700 miles have been approved. Funding has been approved, though not dispersed.
Before we get into this too deeply, tell me, what do you think should be done about the illegal immigration problem? Do you think it is a problem? Should we do nothing or something. And if it is something, what might that something be?
Like if that had a definitive answer or is not a controversial position.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/05/21/MNGFQIVN991.DTL&type=politics
Even I agreed before that protecting the border more is a good thing, but I also mentioned that not funding that effort properly would make it a joke in the long run, in the short run there is now a better effort to police the border thanks to all the pressure to do so, but paradoxically some results are not what the proponents of the fence expected: