Is "securing the border" even possible?

I think we’re making headway. You seem to concede that an illegal workforce does suppress wages. Is that right? Now, as far as us needing more workers at some point, we need to be able to address that. As I’ve proposed a hundred times on theses boards:

  1. secure the border: we should know everyone that is coming in
  2. revise immigration laws to make it easier immigrate here
  3. institute a guest-worker program

Based on our needs at a particular time, there is some ideal number of immigrants we should allow in. One year it might be very low. Other times it might be very high. We should be able to open the spigot to the degree that it serves our interests. I do think, for the foreseeable future at least, that there will always be more people wanting to come here than it makes sense for us to welcome. So, a secure border is the foundation on which any immigration policy must be built. We should also use a guest-worker program, similar to Canada’s, that allows people to come here for seasonal work legally, being able to travel back and forth as many times as they desire.

Any country should set its immigration policy to benefit itself. The U.S. should do that, Mexico should do that. Just like France, South Africa, Vietnam, Spain, Italy, Australia, Ecuador, Sweden, Turkey, England, Oman, Malaysia, and Jamaica should do that.

I know how important you find it to play the race card and hurl the accusation, but looking for people who are trying to sneak in in the desert does make anyone racist. The fact that the vast majority of them are hispanic is an accident of that who is trying to sneak in through the desert. And you are aware that a good portion of those patrolling the desert are Hispanic-Americans, right?

No I am not aware of that. How about posting a cite?

What are you asking for a cite for, specifically?

Is it your position that that none of the people patrolling the border are Hispanic-Americans? Or do you quibble with “a good portion”?

And how about commenting on the meat of my post?

You asked me a specific question which I answered. I then asked if you could support your statement with a cite. What seems to be the problem? Do you have a cite or not?

I was asking for clarification. If you were serious and not just playing the “CITE!” game, I would have though you eager to let me know what part of what I said was questionable.

But, as luck would have it, I was able to find a cite for your question much more easily than I anticipated. As of December 2008, 52% of border agents were Hispanic.

Even higher than I would have guessed.

Now, since the substantiation of a cite was SO important, and we now see that not only a “good portion” but a majority of border agents are Hispanic-Americans, whatever points that were hinging on this crucial substantiation are conceded by you. Right?

And now that this crucial substantiation has been supplied, perhaps you will deign to comment on the meat of my post.

I guess it is my fault you didn’t understand what I meant by “racist play soldiers”. I was referring to the assholes in the vigilante groups like the American Patrol.

I was not referring to federal employees whose job it is to apprehend people illegally entering the USA. They of course are not “play soldiers” but official law enforcement officers. And I do know there is a night and day difference between the two.

Which is a change from historical norms, per your cite.