Some rancher donates fifty acres of his own land. Cost to me: $0
The gov’t buys land from rancher using taxpaper dollars. Cost to me: $$
Yeah, right. Everything is going to be “donated.” Yeah, that’ll happen. :dubious:
Acceptable to whom? Acceptable by which standards?
It’s stupid that I wasn’t born speaking with a Scottish accent. Unfortunately, I wasn’t born anywhere near Scottland. If I wanted to live and work in Scottland, I accept three facts, a) I’d have to offer a desireable skill/value to the host country, b) enter legally according to the host country laws, and, c) obey the laws of the land.
Until such time as all people are seen as citizens of the world and not their respective nations, I’ve a hard time taking such a naive view or what’s “right” vs. what can reasonably be expected.
Boy, “cynic” is right. 
Well, no, but that isn’t the point. The point is, if the private sector handles it, there will be competition for the job and a desire to make $$$, and that will lower the price. This is why government is so bloated, inefficient, and expensive. If there is profit to be made, there is motivation to be as efficient as possible, in order to keep prices low, and therefore be awarded more contracts. The Government is not profit-seeking and has no competition, so there is no motivation in this area.
But where do we draw the line? Dudes crossing the borders also include:
1.Mules/Coyotes smuggling other Illegals across.
2. Drug dealers- some of which are well armed- smuggling drugs across.
3. Terrorists.
The point being is that if we have a secure border, forcing everyone to go through a check point, we eliminate (hopefully*) #2 & #3. This is why I am in favor of a secure border, but an open guest worker program. Let 'em come (to work, anyway)- but openly, legally, and with ID & fingerprints checked.
*well, at least hamper.
And it’d be inconsistent.
It’d be like the railroads used to be before standard gauge.
I don’t know…the link I provided above looks like a good plan. It’s not like a group in Texas is building one while one in Arizona is building another, with no knowledge of the other. Gotta love the internet!
Yeah, gotta love the intenet. A bunch of white supremacist rednecks have a plan to build a fence on the cheap. If it’s on the internet it must be a damn good plan.
The idea itself is offensive and the idea that it can be done at no cost to the tax payer is laugh out loud ridiculous.
Perhaps he did mean it ironically, but it’s still a valid point of view. That’s one of the things that makes this a good poem. There are limits to everything, including personal relationships. Phrases such as “invading my space” and “respecting my boundaries” are current and common.
No one forces them to try to enter the US. That’s their choice. The important questions that are being strenuously avoided are [ul][li]What’s so fucked about Mexico that people are willing to risk death to get to the US?[]Why isn’t anyone outraged at Mexico? Why is the US accepting illegal immigrants the only solution deemed moral and righteous?[]Why is the Mexican government, instead of solving its own problems, publicly trying to get the US to solve them?[*]Why should we accept illegal immigrants from Mexico when we sent Elian Gonzales back to Cuba, which is in far worse shape?[/ul][/li][quote=js_africanus]
It’s stupid that I cannot move to Ireland and get a job because I’m an American
[/quote]
When Ireland changes its stupid immigration policy to suit you, then we’ll talk. I won’t hold my breath.
But what is the difference between the fence and the inbound immigration security at America’s international airports?
Both are taxpayer-funded, both do the same job. Nobody is suggesting open airports, so why is the fence such a big deal?
[ul][li]What’s so fucked about Mexico that people are willing to risk death to get to the US?[]Why isn’t anyone outraged at Mexico? Why is the US accepting illegal immigrants the only solution deemed moral and righteous?[]Why is the Mexican government, instead of solving its own problems, publicly trying to get the US to solve them?Why should we accept illegal immigrants from Mexico when we sent Elian Gonzales back to Cuba, which is in far worse shape?[/ul][/li]
Good points all. I further object the fact that, apart from those relating to the immigrants themselves, most of the arguments in favor revolve around the benefits of cheap labor. They naturally don’t revolve around the concept of environmental preservation and keeping the regional population within the carrying capacity of this arrid area.
Cite? How many terrorists have crossed the border illegally into the States from Mexico? Even if the US were to completely seal the border with Mexico, any terrorist could just as easily come over from Canada – more easily, actually. The terrorists responsible for 9-11 came over on airplanes and stood in line to go through customs.
The supposed constant threat of terrorism is our new bogyman that gets waved around suspiciously more frequently as elections draw near.
It only takes one. But still, how about armed drug smugglers? Are they are harmless as migrant farm workers? Should our border be open to them?
rowrrbazzle
Thank you for asking. I also want to know. Wasn’t NAFTA supposed to make Mexico so much more economically viable? Why isn’t anyone talking about how to get people to want to stay in their own countries?
Also, I just get this funny queasy feeling in my stomach at the thought of living in a country with walls around it and armed guards… It somehow makes me think I should be planning an escape tunnel.
Yes and yes.
Hyperbole as usual, my dear.
This is what this discussion usually boils down to. One side gets shrill and begins to whine, “But what about the drug dealers and the terrorists!” while the other gets sanctamonious and laissez fair, “You must be some kind of white supremist! What drug dealers and terrorists? I’ve never seen any!” as if the only people who cross borders illegally are law respecting agri workers.
:rolleyes:
I don’t believe that leaving the border so porous is a unique characteristic of this administration. 12 million people didn’t suddenly appeare while Bushco were busy picking a fight in Iraq. Previous administrations were just as willfully neglectful.
So my question continues to be why is this matter of relative unimportance to U.S. authorities. And if it’s now become a matter of importance (not an unreasonable concern), why such knee jerk indignation about enforcing a standing law which simply and reasonably states that immigrants must enter the country through legal means; anyone who does or has not is, in fact, in violation of state laws.
And what’s this about tunneling out of the country? :dubious: As far as I know, anyone who wishes the leave the U.S. may do so without any objection.
FWIW, I’m a Canadian working legally in the U.S. for many years now. I’ve never been refused entry.
If there were really a serious threat of a single terrorist slipping accross the border then why isn’t there a call for militarizing the border with Canada? The most likely terrorist is not going to originate from Mexico.
It’s this Chicken Little’s argument which was used to invoke everything from the Iraq war to spying on US citizens. Enough already.
QuickSilver:
And d) learn to spell the host country’s name correctly 
(one t)