This AmericanThinker blog post shows what most Americans never see, and what most American libs would prefer we didn't see. Perhaps Dan, Geoffrey and Marty can buy about fifty 50 gallon drums to serve as garbage cans so the poor illegals seeking a better life have some place to throw out their crap so as not to despoil the land they really, really want to inhabit. And like this news report highlights (takes a few seconds to load---be patient), it points out a more sinister aspect of the border issue: those that want to do us harm enter in the same way.
These two reports show that members of terrorist groups actually learn Spanish so as to more easily sneak across the border. The Mexican scumbags that are preying on the poor that libs think they are considering will also help the terrorists get across the border to do whatever it is they are planning and hoping to do. Sure, perhaps some of these people from Arab lands are also seeking a better life but, like the Mexican illegals and S. American illegals, are illegal themselves.
But just meditate on the pictures, libs. In addition to the trash littering the desert, throw in the occasional dead body of an illegal who didn't make it, or was murdered by the thugs preying on those seeking a better life. Now think on just how open borders would work. Would there be simply open borders, get here as best you can? Or would you be insisting the feds spend my tax dollars to facilitate their entry? And what of those who live on the AZ side of the border, who own the property through which the illegals are now trespassing, would you insist that they sell part of it to the feds, or should the feds just take it under a lib interpretation of public domain?
For now, I insist that all you libs who think our current laws need amending or eliminating, those of you who think the United States provided the motivation for these illegals to leave their shithole environs governed by corrupt and/or incompetent politicians, those of you who insist that these invaders are just hard working people seeking a better life despite an apparent inability to clean up after themselves, I insist you all go to the Arizon desert and clean up after these forlorn people and maintain the area for as long as they need it to ignore our laws. And tell those terrorists you really want to be their friends. See how well that goes over.
UPDATE: I just had to add this absolute gem. Note at the bottom of the piece that the author is a grad of Berkeley and Harvard. Sure, he was there in the 70's, but it's amazing he got through those schools with his common sense intact.
UPDATE II: Two more relevant articles here and here.
48 comments:
Along the same lines I haven't noticed a lot of posts about the BP Spill from the the typical environmentalists. I guess the environment is only important when a Republican is President.
What's the big deal? Dan and Geoffrey think we should open the borders and yell, "Welcome" to one and all.
Dan even thinks letting terrorists stream over our borders at will would be the best way to protect the US against terrorism.
He still hasn't offered an explanation of why he thinks that. I don't suppose he ever will.
For now, I insist that all you libs who think our current laws need amending or eliminating... I insist you all go to the Arizon desert and clean up after these forlorn people
Gladly. Honestly. As soon as you go and clean up the Gulf of Mexico.
Let me know when you get back.
Correct me if I'm wrong, Dan, but aren't clean up efforts now underway in the Gulf? AND, they are being undertaken by the very people responsible, aren't they? So, by your always shakey reasoning, right-wing big oil supporters are on the job, while left-wing whiney illegal invader supporters are letting their beloved line-jumpers leave crap all over the place. So get on your bike and peddle on over there.
Since Obama took more money from BP than any other politician and Obama called for more off shore drilling shouldn't this be his problem.
How many times have accused Bush of being an "oil barons-in-chief" for far less.
Its pretty obvious that your only an environmentalist when you can point the finger at a republican.
http://tinyurl.com/2fryc4j
aren't clean up efforts now underway in the Gulf? AND, they are being undertaken by the very people responsible, aren't they?
Predicting finish date: 2200 AD... IF things go spectacularly well.
The point being, if you are casting your support behind the BPs and the feds who allowed such disastrous plans ("drill, baby, drill" ring a bell?), you currently have a grand total of ZERO credibility to talk about concerns for the environment and litter.
What, pray tell, has El Jefe Calderone done to alleviate the deplorable conditions that cause his citizens to want to flee at such an alarming rate. If these poor folks are such wonderful citizens, all hard working and such, why wouldn't the Mexican government want to keep them in Mexico to be productive there? Could it be corruption on the part of the Mexican government? Could it be that Mexico just wants to "reclaim" their "stolen" lands so they can screw up AZ, NM, and CA as bad as the rest of Mexico.
I asked a similar question in the other thread. If the US is puting such a strain on the environment at our current population levels, would not open immigration increase said strain. Unless you can convince these folks to live without the things that drew them to the US in the first place. You know electricity, clean running water, cars, etc.
Under the "let em all in" banner.
The KING 5 Investigators have learned that an illegal immigrant accused of raping a woman in Edmonds Sunday has been deported nine times. That’s much more than previously reported.
Immigrations and Customs Enforcement won’t comment on the case of Jose Lopez Madrigal. But KING 5 got the information through confidential sources and documents.
Larry Klein was the man who heard the alleged victim’s cries for help.
…Klein called police, who quickly arrested the suspect. But learning his identity took much longer because of some 30 aliases. It was only through fingerprints that they identified him as Madrigal, a Mexican citizen.
Madrigal’s arrest and immigration record includes a staggering number of contacts with law enforcement since 1989. That’s the year he was convicted of theft using a firearm in California. He was deported a couple of times after that. Then in 1999, he was arrested for drug sales in both San Diego and San Francisco. Records show that he was deported three times that year between April and August. He was arrested for drugs again in Stockton, Calif. in 2000. In 2002, he pleaded to third degree sexual assault in Denver. Later that year, he was deported again. And in 2003, records show he was deported three more times.
People who live near the scene of Sunday’s alleged rape wonder how it could keep happening.
As everyone has stated, it would be wise to not allow criminals in and to jail criminals for breaking actual crimes. That you can find an example of a "bad" Mexican is not evidence that all Mexicans misbehave. Or even that all illegal immigrants are "bad."
Was that your point?
Funny, because I was going to write about the whole oil leak (not spill, folks, ongoing leak a mile below the surface).
This is why we need more, and better, immigration. Open borders. These folks wouldn't have to resort to desperate measures like coyotes and drug smugglers to get themselves across the border. The garbage left behind in their travels and travails would disappear for the neat and orderly march across open checkpoints on open roads on the border. Work permits, residency permits - all right there, just line up.
It is folks who want to restrict immigration that are causing this problem, Marshall. Apparently that little factoid just kind of shot right through your brain without making an impact.
And, obviously, I would be more than happy to go and not only help clean up the various messes that result from horrible immigration legislation, but I would even be willing to participate in sanctuary movements that would get folks across the border far more safely than either illegal human trafficking or drug smugglers could.
As far as terrorists using the border, that canard has sometimes included the Chinese military, the Russian military, and back in the days of WWI, the Germans. It didn't happen then, and it isn't happening now. So please, educate yourself.
Yeah Dan, Drill, baby, drill!
Not Spill, baby, spill.
It was an accident. It couldn't have been foreseen. The possibility that an oil rig might explode isn't one of the concerns voiced by environMENTALists. At least, it wasn't until now.
Hindsight is 20/20 isn't it?
But, now...Terrorists and criminals strolling over our borders because of lax enforcement policies are not only expected, they are documented.
Foresight, when it comes to illegal immigration is 20/20, too.
It was an accident. It couldn't have been foreseen.
As I said, you all have very little credibility when it comes to tending God's creation.
Couldn't be foreseen? Did you not HEAR the massive cry on the Responsible Citizenry saying, "NO! Don't Drill, not if we can't do it responsibly and safely!"
As it turns out, we were right. You and BP and others who worship comfort and ease and wealth over personal responsibility were wrong and God's creation will pay, and our children will pay, and our grandchildren will pay, and millions of innocent bystanders will pay.
I hope you can sleep.
Actually, no, I hope and pray God convicts you and you can't sleep until you repent for your careless approach to responsibility and good stewardship of GOD'S creation.
God have mercy on us all.
Dan,
Nice conclusion jumping, My point was not that all Mexicans are bad. It is that our "border security" is already so loose (and you would suggest it get looser) that this guy just kept coming in over and over. This is why folks have such problems with how the feds "control" our borders. How do you propose to screen out the criminals, terrorists, and others if you just throw open the doors and let 'em come. Maybe it would make sense as well as be fair to simply mirror image Mexico's immigration laws.
It appears that your argument against drilling is that it can't be done with 100% safety. Since nothing can be done with 100% safety then we should just stop everything.
I know this goes against everything the left believes, but maybe this is just an accident and there is no one to blame. This is a tragedy on numerous levels and great pains should be taken to avoid things like this, but I'm not sure shutting down all offshore drilling is a reasonable proposal.
Dan, The only thing that keeps me awake is the horrifying possibility that idiots like you and Geoffrey might someday attain positions of responsibility in our government...
Oh wait. They already are. My bad.
Hey Dan,
If we institute the wide open border policy you advocate, none of us will have to worry about who will pay.
When the terrorists who strolled across our borders totally unmolested, they will blow us all to Kingdom come, and no one will be left to pay.
Not God's creation. Not you. Not me. Not our children. Not innocent bystanders.
BTW, When will you and Geoffrey learn to worship God instead of His creation.?
It was an accident, couldn't be foreseen. Except, of course, they are foreseen by regulators in other countries that mandate certain redundant safety equipment. We don't, and one missing fail-safe switch, which BP lobbied hard as a voluntary regulation, was not on that rig. As I write at my own site, one would think that BP would understand the multiple dangers inherent in what they do, and act accordingly. They didn't, and the blood and oil is on their hands; it is also, sadly, on the hands of all those who insisted that the state has no role in regulating safety in the workplace, has no role in limiting oil exploration, has no role in protecting endangered species and eco-systems.
In other words - all you folks need to actually read your words and think about what they actually mean in the real world. Dead oil rig workers, a leaky pipe a mile down that no one seems to know how to plug, endangered wetlands that protect our shorelines and are homes to thousands of plant and animal species, the destroyed economies of fishermen, shrimpers, and others along the Gulf Coast.
Sorry, but you folks who insist that the state has no business stifling industry should at least admit some culpability in all this. You are incapable of accepting responsibility for any harm done, though, so I doubt you will.
Craig, I'm sure someone is to blame for the leak in the Gulf.
Probably some middle management guy failed to watch the pressure or something.
But to assume "big Oil" is to blame simply because they make profits is something only crazy leftists would do.
Believe me, the Oil producers of the world would never let that much profit leak away. This is no conspiracy.
Maybe Dan would willingly throw away billions of dollars, but "Big Oil" is smarter than Dan.
Did you not HEAR the massive cry on the Responsible Citizenry saying, "NO! Don't Drill, not if we can't do it responsibly and safely!"
No, Dan, I didn't hear that. I heard them saying "don't drill." Period. They never suggested drilling for oil would be alright with them as long as the oil companies drilled responsibly. That's because they are anti-capitalism.
They never said, "don't Drill because it might explode and leak oil all over the gulf."
Even the environmentalists didn't foresee this kind of accident.
Mark, of course we do. Environmentalists and real conservatives (note the word "conservative" found within "conservativeS") recognize that accidents happen. They WILL happen, it is a required assumption. Human error, greed, stupidity, ALL of these along with just dumb luck WILL lead to accidents.
This is why environmentalists and true conservatives are PRUDENT about such notions as digging for oil in thousands of feet of water. PRUDENT people put regulations in place or don't allow it at all.
After all, IF we know that accidents WILL happen (and only the goofiest of pollyannas would suggest that we could keep digging for coal, oil, gas, etc without accidents), then responsible people would count those costs. They would put into place bans or regulations, at least, overseeing such productions. Regulations that would require a proven plan and backup plans for when accidents WILL happen. Regulations like the ones we actually had in place that Big Oil asked to not have to obey and the feds (first the Bush administration, then eventually the Obama administration) went along with Big Oil and didn't enforce the rules and regulations that were in place.
Which was wrong and butt ugly stupid and greedy as Hell, and I mean that quite literally.
Because if we're going to be greedy, lazy and irresponsible enough to actually dig for oil in such an uncontrolled environment, we OUGHT to have planned for EXTREME regulations for such operations - regulations above and beyond what were actually in place. And we certainly ought not ignore the less than adequate regulations that ARE in place.
OF COURSE, we foresaw accidents happening. That was an inevitability and only those blinded by greed and laziness would ignore such wisdom.
Maybe next time, you WILL listen to us. Of course, some will always choose to be willfully ignorant and irresponsible, but hopefully this will at least serve as a painful bit of wisdom for the majority.
Never again.
Mark suggested, incredibly...
They never said, "don't Drill because it might explode and leak oil all over the gulf."
Even the environmentalists didn't foresee this kind of accident.
Wise people, environmentalists and true conservatives have for years detailed the problems of offshore drilling.
You can see here just days before this latest catastrophe, Culture Change pointing out problems with offshore drilling, including...
"Offshore drilling exposes wildlife to the threat of oil spills that would devastate their populations."
Do you really think that no one foresaw this coming? What kind of fool would say humans could dig for oil in thousands of feet of water, over and over for years, without ever having an "accident?"
Ambrose Pierce in his famous "Devil's Dictionary," defines the word for us...
ACCIDENT, n. An inevitable occurrence due to the action of immutable natural laws.
If you fail to plan, you plan to fail. We probably should not have been drilling in such a ridiculous place to begin with and, if we were going to drill there, we should have had regulations out the wazoo to be prepared for when the inevitable "accidents" happen.
"Regulation, regulation, regulation. Until the U.S. can make the switch to renewables, insists professor and author Charles Perrow, regulation is the best way to prevent disasters like the Gulf oil spill.
Q. So, is more regulation the answer?
A. Yes. This is capitalism and it HAS TO BE heavily regulated where there are chances of large catastrophes. Because otherwise profit concerns WILL push managers to take risks that we should not be willing to take. Whenever there can be a large catastrophe -- 100 or more of what they call ‘prompt' deaths, 1,000 'soon' deaths, or irretrievable environmental damage -- then you need regulations.
Q. What about contingency plans? With the Gulf oil spill it seems that beyond the "blowout preventer," there really weren't any other contingency plans. Don't oil companies model worst-case scenarios and make plans for how to handle them?
A. Lee Clarke, [Rutgers University sociology professor and author of Mission Impossible: Using Fantasy Documents to Tame Disaster], calls the contingency plans ‘fantasy documents.' People want to believe in them, so even people in the firms or the government get kind of spooked into thinking that these fantasy plans can work and that everything will come together correctly. You need redundancies, backups. [BP] should have had that big dome sitting there, because they have a lot of deep drilling rigs in the Gulf, and because this is not the first blow out.
source
I'm going to leave alone the oil disaster for now. Dan is famous for only seeing such things from one side, a side that is very alarmist, and until I can get the time to truly look at both sides, I'll abstain for now. I will say, however, that if the steps BP is accused of sidestepping are known without question to have prevented this disaster, then the answer is clear: the redundant safeguard must be in place in all future rigs and the problem is solved. Drill, baby, drill!
In addition, the problem in the gulf has nothing to do with the trash left behind by illegals that you libs want to defend as victims.
But as to this pearl from Geoffrey:
"Work permits, residency permits - all right there, just line up."
We've already got this stuff, as well as the line, and these invaders are not willing to stand in the line, that's why they're illegal. Apparently that little factoid just kind of shot right through your brain without making an impact. And to say that restrictions or limits on immigration are what's causing the problem shows a marked moral corruption in your mind. Even if our limit was one, and only one immigrant per year, anyone trying to line jump and sneak in is the one who bears the guilt for breaking the law, not those who decide the quota. The max is what it is and whether you approve of whatever number that is, and I think it's like 600K per year or something on that scale, is beyond the point. The point is that whatever that maximum number is is the law and it must be followed until people like you can show why it should be increased and how it can be without negative result.
I mean, really Geoffrey. That is so typical to put the blame on someone other than the people breaking the law.
Seriously Geoffrey, did you think there was no legal immigration process? Did John Stewart tell you that, or did you hear it from Obama?
Marshall said...
I'm going to leave alone the oil disaster for now.
Unfortunately, you can't "ignore" it. It's coming soon to a gulf coast near you. It's coming at a cost of tens of billions - if not hundreds of billions - of dollars.
As I noted over at my place...
Back on May 3, BP was estimating it would spend $12 billion on clean up, but I suspect that figure is 1. Way too low and 2. Does not factor in all the costs (lost income for all those who depend upon tourism for a living, lost income who feed those tourists, who supply the hotels/motels/condos/cabins, etc, lost income for those who fish for a living, the societal costs to those who will lose their homes due to lost income, etc, etc. This disaster will, sadly, have an on-going and impossible to pay cost.
Also, as noted here, the costs of "clean up" will likely be dwarfed by the cost to the Gulf region in terms of jobs and tax dollars.
The costs related to the spill will far surpass the clean up costs. The impacted coastline produces tens of billions in state revenues from tourism, the Washington Post reports.
BP may pay $12 billion, but the tens of billions more that this will cost our environment and our economy will have to be borne by someone - most likely, our "tax dollars" will pick up the tab. In other words, those who advocate "drill, baby, drill" are living large off the public teat like the worst welfare cheat times a gazillion.
How about stepping up and proving you are indeed all about personal responsibility? If you and Palin and all the greasers truly think that offshore drilling is the way to go, then be prepared to pay for the mess you leave behind. I estimate that a check from each and every McPalin voter for somewhere around $1,000 to the Gulf Coast clean up efforts would begin to start covering the costs.
In the meantime, I'd like a pristine coastline back, please.
And this relates because your "concern" for litter in the desert is belied by your lack of concern for devastation elsewhere. Until you and BP and Mark, et al begin picking up something approximating the full bill for your devastating policies, I have a hard time taking much you say seriously.
How 'bout it? Ready to man up and pay your own way, demonstrating that you truly are about being responsible?
"And this relates because your "concern" for litter in the desert is belied by your lack of concern for devastation elsewhere."
No kidding.
Cleaning up the litter in the desert will be a piece of cake compared to cleaning up the Gulf Coast.
Edwin - no, I didn't know there was such a thing! Thank you for enlightening me!
God, you people can't even READ can you.
I.
Want.
The.
Process.
Completely.
Open.
Period.
You walk up to any border crossing - any road between Mexico and the US - give your name, let the border guard do a quicky internet background check (and, yes, they really are quick these days), then have them sign a couple things and they're off and running with their work visas and residency permits.
The reason we have people deported multiple times returning again and again is not the fault of open-border advocates like me. It is the fault of people who want to keep our southern border closed to people who want to come here to make their lives better. Thus, immigration itself from south of the border becomes tainted with criminality, whether or not it actually is. Criminals, thus, run immigration from Mexico - and that includes getting criminals to come here and do all sorts of horrible things!
I've asked you this before, Geoffry. How do you plan to arrange for every possible country south of us to provide us an accurate database so we can conduct this quick internet search. How will you prevent or regulate those who would obtain false ID in order to evade your search? What, if any i your opinion, are the criteria that should prevent people from crossing the border?
What criteria should prevent people from crossing the border? What databases should we use?
Since no system will ever be 100% fool-proof - nefarious people use nefarious means to do nefarious things all the time - I'm not sure of the relevance of the whole "Ooo! Fake IDs! Gotcha!" nonsense.
A criminal record, depending upon the crime, should be at least a temporary bar. Since computers exist in countries south of us, and our computers talk to their computers pretty much all the time, and our cops talk to their cops, and all this info is on the computers, I'm not sure where your problem is here. For a small fee, I can use any of a number of people-search tools on the internet to get info on all sorts of people, if I wanted to do so.
Again, I'm not sure why you demand that I declare what my exceptions are. For the most part, I have yet to here any positive discussion concerning immigration, in particular from Mexico, from you folks.
Would it surprise you to know there are thousands of illegal immigrants from Europe and Africa and Asia living in the US? Would it surprise you to know most of them came here not across the Mexican border, but the Canadian border, like the 9/11 hijackers did? Would it surprise you to know that these men and women, like their counterparts from Mexico, came here to make their lives better, but the whole process of immigration to the US is so convoluted, so obscure and obtuse and abstruse, that it was far easier to just skulk in?
These folks are here, working, making a living, making their lives, and all our lives, better. Grant them citizenship, then open the doors. Reinstate open border crossing with Mexico and Canada (none of this passport crap to visit Niagara Falls or Neuvo Laredo), and let 'em come on in.
Geoffry,
You seem be assuming that the government of Mexico (for example) has the same amount of accurate record keeping as does the US. While it is true that no system is 100% foolproof, it does seem that since you are arguing for a complete redesign of US border control that some idea of what your criteria for entrance would be. I'm not sure why you feel it is unreasonable to try to determine some sense of the scope of your ideas,
It seems as though the issue here is not the existence of immigration controls, but what controls are appropriate. You are advocating an absolute minimum of control over who enters our country, others feel that it is appropriate to exercise more control.
Yes there are a number of criminal entrants who are working and otherwise being "good citizens". This is one side of the issue. As much as I feel that it sends the wrong message to those who play by the rules, I believe that there will have to be some sort of "amnesty" for those whose only crime is illegally entering the country. However for this to be meaningful it is necessary to establish control over the borders. Now this could be the minimal level of control your support, or it could be simply enforcing our existing laws consistently. Either way that is simply a question of degree.
So, It would be interesting to hear what your criteria for entrance are. It would be interesting to know if you are proposing that your proposal means a similarly easy road to citizenship. But if it is too intrusive or inappropriate to ask for more detail then, that's your prerogative.
Honestly I'm just curious.
We can play little games about who should clean up what. As I stated, those involved with the oil situation are taking care of business. Whether they're doing it quick enough to satisfy a faker like Dan is irrelevant. But who's cleaning up after the mess made by illegals? Would that be the supporters of open borders? Those who think God wants us to welcome everyone who decides to wander in, like perhaps 19 radical Muslims back in 2001? Did you open borders people clean up after them and pay for all those who lost lives, jobs and income from THAT disaster? Are you willing to put up your cash to deal with the next disaster brought to us by those who didn't bother with our laws or got here due to others who didn't enforce our laws regarding immigration?
It's kinda funny. You progressives accuse us of idolizing the Bible, but here you are expecting perfection for the sake of the environment, putting off progress that benefits all in the end over concerns that can never be perfectly met as long as human beings are involved. You guys ALWAYS overstate the situation and now you do it to sidestep the issue being discussed here. In that I give Geoffrey props for staying on point, even though his position is naive.
This from Wiki:
"As of 2006, the United States accepts more legal immigrants as permanent residents than all other countries in the world combined."
...and this...
"A record 1,046,539 persons were naturalized as U.S. citizens in 2008."
Anyone who thinks we're not doing enough in the realm of welcoming those from foreign lands are not paying attention. Geoffrey thinks that more points of entry on every road crossing the border is the way to go. All that does is increase the lines, but it does nothing to mitigate the fact that the problem isn't the lines or the quotas. The issue is those who don't want to wait in line and those who don't want to be citizens of our country and just how many can we handle flowing in, paticularly during a period of economic difficulty. As I stated earlier, one must first understand what reasons exist for the current quotas and determine whether the limits per year can reasonably be increased or even if they should be decreased for the sake of all those already here. No one advocating open borders here has made a case for eliminating or rethinking the criteria for citizenship. It's been simply, "open the doors!" THat's just stupid.
Marshall...
We can play little games about who should clean up what.
No games. My initial point was and remains that you have little credibility with me if you're trying to express concern for some litter in the desert.
I'll always come down on the side of we ought to clean up after ourselves and we ought not make messes we are physically incapable of cleaning up.
No, Dan. You will always come down on the immoral side of the fence.
[Rolls eyes]
Mark, we've already been over this, demonstrating conclusively that you and I - for all our differences - probably agree on 90% of moral issues. So if I am "always" coming down on the wrong side morally, then so are you a vast majority of the time.
Say stuff that means something. Grade school demonization of those you disagree with is not suitable behavior for adults and certainly not for Christians.
Dan,
No crediblity? Why? Did I ever mention or express a lack of concern for the environment? Or is it that I don't consider the earth to be as fragile as most enviro-nazis that somehow I'm disallowed from speaking? Have I ever expressed support for progress without concern for the environment? I've only expressed dismay at loons that would stifle progress due to man's inability to see the future to prevent every negative possibility. As I stated, if it can be shown without doubt that this event was caused directly by the elimination of safeguards used by other companies, then YOU might have some credibility regarding your disdain for capitalism. But you'd still have to prove that anyone had certainty that such a disaster will happen or is extremely likely.
The point here is not the mess itself, but the fact that there is far more than sob stories about unfortunates seeking a better life that goes uncovered and definitely ignored by those who support open borders. If we concede that all illegals are just the sweetest and kindest and hardest working souls in the history of mankind, none of that is evident in the mess they leave behind. Indeed, as this isn't a new phenomenon, these sweet & kind, hard-working souls are repeating a pattern of sloppiness and disregard of which they cannot in any way be unaware, given how many have crossed multiple times.
In addition, the quest for new sources of oil (as well as any other necessary resource) is not merely a self-serving profit making exercise, but one that benefits all sorts of people considering the many products made from petrol. (Dan should appreciate the source of this info)
But who are the illegals benefitting besides themselves? One cannot speak about any money they spend in this country without subtracting any costs left for the rest of the nation to absorb. (Those would include the cleanup of their crap left behind.) So at the very least, such comparisons (oil leak to illegals' garbage) fail without taking into account the benefits provided by each group. In that you're way behind.
But who are the illegals benefitting besides themselves?
Studies estimate that undocumented workers have a net benefit for the US.
"At the heart of the debate over illegal immigration lies one key question: are immigrants good or bad for the economy? The American public overwhelmingly thinks they're bad. In a recent New York Times/CBS News poll, 74 percent of respondents said illegal immigrants weakened the economy, compared to only 17 percent who said they strengthened it. Yet the consensus among most economists is that immigration, both legal and illegal, provides a small net boost to the economy."
newsweek
Of course, different economists, different studies have different conclusions. It's a bit hard to measure since so much of the audience in question is rather clandestine, but from what I've read, overall, undocumented immigrants are about a wash or perhaps a small net benefit.
"As far as terrorists using the border ... It didn't happen then, and it isn't happening now."
I was struck by the absolute certainty of this statement. "Didn't happen. Won't happen. Shut up about it." Odd thing is that when I looked around for information about it, turns out that there have been reports on this for some time from a variety of sources including the government, so I'm fascinated that this commenter can be so certain that all sources are false. (A 2005 report from Homeland Security tells that in one year some 650 people were caught crossing the border from Mexico who were from "special interest countries", countries "designated by the intelligence community as countries that could export individuals that could bring harm to our country in the way of terrorism". So the absolute certainty of the comment amazes me.
Is it a divine source of information (you know, inerrant and infallible), or is it just based on the certainty that terrorists surely wouldn't want to break any U.S. immigration laws? I can't tell. Fortunately, terrorists crossing the border can't be a problem, so we ought to make the environment our concern and simply open it the border. That's a relief to have that out of the way!
Stan, here's a history lesson. During and after the 1911 Revolution, the US fought an undeclared border war with Mexican bandits, with Mexico coming out on the losing end. In 1916, Germany used its talents for subtlety and nuance to offer Mexico all sorts of benefits if it declared war on the US as an ally of the Central Powers. This diplomatic note, known as the Zimmerman Telegram, was decoded by the British and given to the US State Department, which released it in full to the press. Afterward, there were reports of whole German divisions massing on the US-Mexico border, of raids in TX and AZ by German troops. Like the early WWI reports of Russian troops knocking snow off their boots in train stations in Scotland (in August!), these reports were false.
During the Cold War, it was the Russians who were going to invade our southern border via Mexico after using proxy states to take over Central America. Reagan's CIA actually mined harbors in Nicaragua in violation of international law (it is actually a legal casus belli to do this, but Nicaragua was smart enough not to declare war on the US) in order to deter Russian troop deployments that never took place.
After 9/11 one heard, by turns, of Chinese troops in Mexico, of Muslim terrorists in Mexico. One report I read back in '03 actually had Chinese troops training Muslim terrorists (why? they have their own problems with Muslim terrorists in their western territories) in Mexican camps near the border.
Is it possible, in some kind of logical sense, that our southern border is vulnerable from terrorists and others crossing it to wreak havoc? Of course it is, and neither a strict, labyrinthine immigration policy, or an open one will change that. Yet, it should be remembered that the 9/11 hijackers crossed the border not from Mexico but Canada. Indeed, it was the US/Canada border that was the scene of much excitement, as the men who were planning on bombing LAX attempted to cross near Vancouver.
So why aren't you all concerned with the US/Canada border?
Gee, let me guess . . .
Is there some kind of universal liberal thought wave that told all of you to accuse non-liberals of being racists? This is the second one I've seen today.
The reason whey Canada's border is not monitored as much is because of a vast forrest, extreme climate and wild animals that kill people. We can control the northern border at the air ports and bus stops and roads that were cut through the thick forests.
Next you'll want to call the bears racists I guess.
Edwin, why is it that you suddenly assume I was calling folks racist? Why do conservatives get their collective and individual panties in a bunch at the mere suggestion that such is taking place?
As soon as I read the anti-immigration folks carrying on about blonde-haired or red-haired, blue eyed Irish crossing the border from Canada in the still of the night, I guess your point will be taken. As soon as Arizona passes a law that says that anyone can be stopped and have ID demanded of them, whether or not they "look" like an illegal immigrant, I'll change my mind.
On a related note, I've been reading quite a bit about something known as "agnotology" - the deliberate, purposive inculcation and support of ignorance - and the description fits this discussion so well, it could be used as a template for anyone interested in the subject. In that vein, I find it fascinating that, rather than comment on the factual material - which is highly relevant to accusations that our southern border is under siege from potential terrorists - you glom on what you see as a thinly veiled accusation of racism, outside any context, and take it personally.
Geoffrey: "here's a history lesson"
Let's see if I follow your logic correctly. It didn't happen before, so, quite obviously, it is not and will not happen now. Clear enough. Naive, but clear enough.
Geoffrey: "So why aren't you all concerned with the US/Canada border?
Gee, let me guess . . ."
Gee, let me guess ... you assume that because someone cares about regulating our borders that 1) they don't care about the northern (western, or eastern, I would guess) border and 2) the only reason is that they are racist. Nice. Pretty package with which to tie up anyone who has a different view.
Am I concerned about the northern border? Truthfully, not as much. There is less traffic there, sure, but I live on the southern border. That is, I'm living in the problems it causes right here ... as opposed to the woeful conditions being caused by the streams of illegal aliens pouring into North Dakota.
"Geoffrey, your house is on fire. Why are you only paying attention to the part that's burning? Oh, gee, let me guess. You hate kitchens!"
Geoffrey,
Is this study of "agnotology" a means of self-reflection and understanding? What term is used for those who bring up irrelevant crap as if it has any meaning to the discussion at hand? So you found a few stories about infiltrations that never happened. So freakin' what? And is there a term that describes a lib who focusses on one point of many and thinks he's somehow, without even having proven anything about that one point, successfully countered the concerns raised by the listing of all the points made?
This post could easily have been added to previous posts regarding illegal immigration and the situation in AZ. First, Dan goes on a tangent about the Gulf oil leak and thinks he's scoring points against the concern about the trash the poor innocent illegals leave while invading. Of course, he doesn't consider that other illegals have caused far more damage by flying planes into a major financial center murdering 3000 in the process and interfering with the livlihoods of so many more. Yet, those of us who know drilling for our own oil is the way to go somehow should feel shame that this one incident occurred, though those responsible are actually working to amend their unfortunate situation.
The point I'm clumsily trying to make here is that trash is merely one more issue that needs to be out in the open and not set aside as if it has no real impact. Add it to all the other obvious negatives surrounding border security and the reality of the problem is brought forth more honestly.
Furthermore, if you want to pretend we're ignoring relevant facts, it would be nice if you present a few examples. But speaking of ignorance:
"As soon as Arizona passes a law that says that anyone can be stopped and have ID demanded of them, whether or not they "look" like an illegal immigrant, I'll change my mind."
The AZ law clearly prohibits stopping people based on their race. There is nothing in the law that suggests anyone be stopped and questioned because of their looks. You should really read the law. If a red or blonde haired white guy was stopped for, say, a broken tail light, and upon request could not provide any ID, nor could he speak English, what makes you think he would automatically be treated differently under this law, than someone who looks Hispanic and doesn't speak English or have ID? You race baiter. Indeed, the only thing keeping you from being deported, or held for deportation, if YOU are stopped without ID is that you probably speak like an American. But you would still be expected to provide some kind of identification. Immigrants, those here on visas or those on their way to legitimate naturalization, are REQUIRED to have and be ready to present their documentation. THAT'S the law and has been for quite some time. Only an idiot would have a problem with a cop insisting such ID is presented upon request. The problem is your attitude about AZ law enforcement, or any cops anywhere, and the expectation that they have any desire to simply stop people without cause, fishing for some reason to arrest and/or deport someone. I'm sure their chiefs would love the attention should their patrolmen harrass someone who's done nothing wrong. Makes perfect sense. What term do you have for THAT kind of ignorance?
The problem with Geoffrey and Dan, is, like Eric Holder and Janet Napolitano and Barack Hussein Obama, they have not read the law.
Geoffrey even admits terrorists have illegally entered the country before, then insists it has never happened before and can't happen again.
But, Geoffrey, these are your words:
"Would it surprise you to know most of them came here not across the Mexican border, but the Canadian border, like the 9/11 hijackers did?"
A border is a border, Geoffrey. Whatever border they crossed, they entered illegally.
And, by the way, Geoffrey, how do you know terrorists haven't crossed the Mexican border yet? How do you know there aren't hundreds of terrorists in America today who crossed over from Mexico? Perhaps they just haven't completed their plans yet, and/or are waiting for the go ahead from Osama or Obama.
Funny, I don't see Dan mocking you for reading minds now.
Again, what makes Geoffrey think any one, including terrorists, will stand in line to register as they come across the border even if his ingenius(cough) plan were adopted as a rule of law? They sneak across now. They would no doubt sneak across then. ESPECIALLY if they are criminals or terrorists.
See, Geoffrey, people aren't considered criminals unless they do something illegal. If background checks were required to enter America, the criminals (and terrorists) would simply bypass the checkpoints to avoid being stopped.
As they do now.
Look at it this way. If I was going to burgle a house, I don't think I would walk up to the door, knock, and announce myself by name, and proceed to tell the owners that I came to rob them. I'd wait until they are gone and break in.
Mark, I never said that illegals never entered the country. I said that one of the points being used by those who support the AZ anti-Latino law is that there is some threat of invasion, and that this invasion never happened.
One would have thought a self-declared genius would understand that.
Marshall, all this is completely relevant because it is you and others who support this law that bring up "They're Going To Invade Us!!!" That's why I brought it up, to show this is neither new, nor interesting. Terrorists aren't scheming to come across to Laredo or San Diego in the dead of night.
As you may have missed, I granted that this is certainly a possibility in the logical sense. As I also noted, no immigration policy, strict or lax, will change that possibility. I know you missed it because you write as if I had never said those words.
That is agnotology - deliberately inculcating ignorance, rather than passively refusing to learn anything. That, too, is relevant, precisely because this entire discussion is so full of ignorance that can only be explained by understanding it can only exist as something people actively pursue. I'll leave you folks to your smug serenity in defending us from the brown hordes about to steal Texas (which, as far as I'm concerned, they can have back), while the rest of the world actually deals with what is really happening in the world.
And, to repeat - yes, you read it right, I think ridding ourselves of Texas would go a long way toward solving so many national problems.
Geoffrey, you self righteous elitist bigot.
You complain, "Mark, I never said that illegals never entered the country. I said that one of the points being used by those who support the AZ anti-Latino law is that there is some threat of invasion, and that this invasion never happened."
Number 1, this is NOT an anti-Latino law, and it requires an enormous stretch of fantasy to believe that it is. It is an anti-illegal immigration law, and it has been Federal law for decades. Arizona simply voted to enforce it.
I would think one who would scoff at others intelligence, thereby implying they believe they are more intelligent, would understand that.
Number 2, How do you know such an invasion never happened? Have you some personal knowledge of, or personally interviewed each and every person who sneaked across our southern and northern borders in the last 10 years or so?
You are wrong anyway. The 9/11 terrorists invaded our country illegally and killed almost 3000 innocent people, some of whom were illegal and Muslims themselves. And, as long as Islamo-fascism remains a threat, there will always be a threat to this country from illegal aliens.
Geoffrey, for all your attempts to convince us that you have even a modicum of intelligence, you have failed miserably.
It takes someone really stupid to believe the crap you spew.
But, Geoff, go ahead and mock. And, you too, Dan.
"When a true genius appears in this world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."
Jonathan Swift
Geoffrey,
How idiotic are you? We have been continually invaded since the Reagan amnesty deal. Whether the invader is "poor Mexicans seeking a better life" or terrorists (who may do nothing for years until being told to) or drug and people running thugs, we are being invaded all the time. And whether or not we can completely stop it for good is NOT the issue. What is the issue is that laws on the books are not being enforced. The negative impact is not one thing, but a list of things (the crap they leave behind being only one). Thus, you engage in your own "agnotology" and do so with gusto and expertise. Your poorly thought out alternatives are further evidence of your self-delusion regarding the severity of the issue.
As to "brown hordes", that's just stupid. This isn't, nor has it been, a racial issue in the least. It's a law issue. Now, I know libs have no regard for laws they don't like, laws that cramp their personal styles, laws that "superficially" (because what are libs if not superficial) seem unjust, but that's why there's controversy here. It's not because what we want to see is in the least bit unreasonable. But again, it's about law enforcement. If a white guy was stopped by the cops for a traffic violation, and he had no ID, and he said to the officer, "Yah, hey dare, Officer. I was aboot to get a new taillight, but da hoser at da hardware store didn't have one." I would hope that he'd be deported back to Vancouver immediately, if he could not prove he was here legally (Don't go and get too fixated on my semi-humorous scenario---that would be too agnotological).
So instead of running off as if the comments here are "ignorant", try showing us the light as only a better mind truly can. Start with this: Explain why there's no difference between someone coming here to seek a better life and someone coming here to be an American.
In the meantime, read the two articles I'm posting as updates to this thread.
Post a Comment