The US economy needs the correction that would be provided and we have the lowest labor force participation rate pretty much ever. I bet they find their workers once we fix the social hammock and get people back to work. Is funny how people are so convinced this "can't" be done. Its never been tried and we're Americans, doing the things that can't be done used to be part of our make up. Now we just quit before we start because it's too haaaard.

It's not a matter of it being hard, it's a matter of the extreme amounts of money it would cost and still not ever get them all. I think most are for better border control/monitoring. It's crazy ideas like walls and rounding them all up. Sure the private sector would LOVE to build a stupid expensive wall. 

 

It's funny how conservatives are just fine spending obscene amounts of money on programs that align with their ideals but those that are not are just plain wasteful to them. 

---

It's funny how conservatives are just fine spending obscene amounts of money on programs that align with their ideals but those that are not are just plain wasteful to them. 

It's like that on both sides of the aisle. Where do you think pork-barrel politics came from?

---

Regarding my initial post and what I believe should be done.

 

There was a bi-partisan bill introduced in The Senate that included common sense measures to address the problem of illegal immigration.  It called for securing the border with Mexico as a first step.  Next identify those here illegally and have them go through a process of screening.  Any with a criminal history would be deported.  Those allowed to remain would be given a work permit, would be required to pay a fine and would not be allowed access to things like food stamps or any other form of welfare.  They would also be required to pay taxes, learn English and assimilate into our society for a period of time (IIRC it was 10 years).  After they do those things, then they would be placed at the "back of the line" for those wanting to immigrate legally.

 

That's just a rough idea of the bill.  It was shot down by both sides of the political spectrum for various reasons, the most notable on the right is that they viewed it as "amnesty".

 

This was a common sense solution to the problem, and could have been easily implemented.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

I'm sorry, but no one on the left gets to call a conservative extreme in this incident.  Even if you are pro migrant and want to liberalize immigration policy, common sense dictates that when you have someone who has already been deported five times and is a seven time felon, you don't grant THAT person special privilege to remain free and at large when the feds have already asked you to keep him locked up because he continues to represent a threat to society. 

 

You don't have to deport everyone, just those who have continually demonstrated that they ARE rapists murderers criminals and a threat to society.  To blatantly ignore federal law and federal mandates in the name of being a SANCTUARY CITY is a fundamental perversion of constitutional government and the idea that even in the case of someone as demonstrably dangerous as this guy then THAT is bot extreme and dangerous. 

 

And incidentally, The republican party has been put to task because of something a Candidate said, regardless of how accurate it turned out to be.  Where is miss Clinton being held accountable for her direct support of the policy of municipalities ignoring federal mandates as SANCTUARY CITIES back in 2008?

---

Regarding my initial post and what I believe should be done.

 

There was a bi-partisan bill introduced in The Senate that included common sense measures to address the problem of illegal immigration.  It called for securing the border with Mexico as a first step.  Next identify those here illegally and have them go through a process of screening.  Any with a criminal history would be deported.  Those allowed to remain would be given a work permit, would be required to pay a fine and would not be allowed access to things like food stamps or any other form of welfare.  They would also be required to pay taxes, learn English and assimilate into our society for a period of time (IIRC it was 10 years).  After they do those things, then they would be placed at the "back of the line" for those wanting to immigrate legally.

 

That's just a rough idea of the bill.  It was shot down by both sides of the political spectrum for various reasons, the most notable on the right is that they viewed it as "amnesty".

 

This was a common sense solution to the problem, and could have been easily implemented.

I think you and I are in agreement; however, it would be difficult to implement. Many people wouldn't show up at all for fear of it being a scheme to deport them. And the people that really need to go, the criminals, wouldn't show up at all.

 

I'm not sure how I feel about forcing someone to learn English. I mean, legal immigrants are (to the best of my knowledge) not required to learn English as a condition of residency, they're just going to have a really tough time making it in American society without that ability.

---

I think you and I are in agreement; however, it would be difficult to implement. Many people wouldn't show up at all for fear of it being a scheme to deport them. And the people that really need to go, the criminals, wouldn't show up at all.

 

I'm not sure how I feel about forcing someone to learn English. I mean, legal immigrants are (to the best of my knowledge) not required to learn English as a condition of residency, they're just going to have a really tough time making it in American society without that ability.

 

This is purely speculation on my part, but I would bet that the civics test that is required of immigrants to pass is given in English.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

I think you and I are in agreement; however, it would be difficult to implement. Many people wouldn't show up at all for fear of it being a scheme to deport them. And the people that really need to go, the criminals, wouldn't show up at all.

 

I'm not sure how I feel about forcing someone to learn English. I mean, legal immigrants are (to the best of my knowledge) not required to learn English as a condition of residency, they're just going to have a really tough time making it in American society without that ability.

 

Regarding your other statement.  There are laws on the books that need to be enforced that currently aren't.  A very good example of this is what happened in San Francisco.  The so-called "sanctuary cities" are in direct violation of federal law.

 

I believe that the immigrant family that is here working a farm somewhere, working a landscaping or construction job, or even that of a dishwasher or hotel maid would in fact come forth if they had the opportunity to become a citizen.  If they really want a better life and the American Dream, they will go through the process.

 

Of course the criminals wouldn't come forward.  Does a criminal come forward and register a gun?  However, much like the case that I cited in my initial post, the killer would have (and should have) been turned over to immigration officials and immediately deported.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

This is purely speculation on my part, but I would bet that the civics test that is required of immigrants to pass is given in English.

That thought was bouncing around in my head, as well. I don't know that learning English is a requirement for citizenship on paper, but if the citizenship test is only given in English, it is a de facto requirement.

 

A couple of notes while doing a moment's worth of research: there is no test required for a green card (aside from a medical exam). The naturalization test is given in English only unless you receive a waiver. No idea what's entailed in getting that waiver.

---

That thought was bouncing around in my head, as well. I don't know that learning English is a requirement for citizenship on paper, but if the citizenship test is only given in English, it is a de facto requirement.

 

A couple of notes while doing a moment's worth of research: there is no test required for a green card (aside from a medical exam). The naturalization test is given in English only unless you receive a waiver. No idea what's entailed in getting that waiver.

 

As far as a medical exam to get a green card, I have no problem with that.  There must be protection against introducing some kind of contagious disease to the general public.

 

I don't understand why there is/should be a waiver for having the test given in a different language.  Like it or not (coming from someone that first learned Spanish) the language of our country is English.  As of matter of fact, English is actually the international language when it comes to aviation or ships at sea.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

Regarding my initial post and what I believe should be done.

 

There was a bi-partisan bill introduced in The Senate that included common sense measures to address the problem of illegal immigration.  It called for securing the border with Mexico as a first step.  Next identify those here illegally and have them go through a process of screening.  Any with a criminal history would be deported.  Those allowed to remain would be given a work permit, would be required to pay a fine and would not be allowed access to things like food stamps or any other form of welfare.  They would also be required to pay taxes, learn English and assimilate into our society for a period of time (IIRC it was 10 years).  After they do those things, then they would be placed at the "back of the line" for those wanting to immigrate legally.

 

That's just a rough idea of the bill.  It was shot down by both sides of the political spectrum for various reasons, the most notable on the right is that they viewed it as "amnesty".

 

This was a common sense solution to the problem, and could have been easily implemented.

Seems reasonable to me.

 

What was the extent of "Securing the borders"?

---

Regarding your other statement.  There are laws on the books that need to be enforced that currently aren't.  A very good example of this is what happened in San Francisco.  The so-called "sanctuary cities" are in direct violation of federal law.

 

I believe that the immigrant family that is here working a farm somewhere, working a landscaping or construction job, or even that of a dishwasher or hotel maid would in fact come forth if they had the opportunity to become a citizen.  If they really want a better life and the American Dream, they will go through the process.

 

Of course the criminals wouldn't come forward.  Does a criminal come forward and register a gun?  However, much like the case that I cited in my initial post, the killer would have (and should have) been turned over to immigration officials and immediately deported.

I agree completely on sanctuary cities. I'll never support "papers, please," warrantless stops, nor will I ever support the notion that police officers should have the ability to question your citizenship or check citizenship status during traffic stops. That said, once someone has been booked for a crime their residency status should certainly be checked, and appropriate action should be taken if they're here illegally, on an expired visa, etc.

 

I tend to disagree with your second point. I really think that most immigrants here illegally, even those who are genuinely doing no harm and just working on a farm, in a lumber yard or a hotel kitchen, would stay away from "registration" opportunities out of fear that it's just a government round-up and deportation. A secondary concern would be the fine you tossed out there as a hypothetical. How much would that fine be, and could the average illegal immigrant who's over here making sub-minimum wage really afford that in the first place? I'd think that getting them into the system and forcing them to pay income tax (which would need to have a new category created for amnestied immigrants, who should not be eligible for refunds based on tax credits) would be enough.

---

I don't understand why there is/should be a waiver for having the test given in a different language.  Like it or not (coming from someone that first learned Spanish) the language of our country is English.  As of matter of fact, English is actually the international language when it comes to aviation or ships at sea.

Yes, but our country has no "official" language specified by law. I don't know how stringent the requirements for that waiver are, but I do know that anyone who takes the citizenship test has been here long enough that they should be at least conversational in English, and refusing to learn English is a great way to go nowhere in American society.

---

I think the waiver requirement for English Language test depends on your age and how long you've lived in the US on a green card. A good friend of mine holds dual citizenship between her home country and the US.   She speaks good English (as well as several other languages), and took the Test in English, but she said sometimes they permit an interpreter for the test based on your situation. (She works as an interpreter herself)

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

Seems reasonable to me.

 

What was the extent of "Securing the borders"?

 

Perhaps it starts by plugging the known holes that exist.  How that is done would require assistance from the National Guard in some situations.  At other places, continue a fence.  Patrol the boarder and make policy stand.

 

Short story regarding my personal experience.  I was a Deputy Sheriff in Albuquerque, N.M. back in my younger years.  I can remember arresting a guy who was obviously an illegal.  As I was taking him to jail, I said to him that he was going to be deported.  He laughed at me and said that he would be back on the next train coming north.

 

I arrested him again about a week later.  It's that easy for people to cross our borders illegally.

 

What was he arrested for?  The first time that I arrested him was for violence.  He was a part of a mob that attacked us (police officers) at a bar as it closed down.  Second time that I arrested him was for DUI (DWI was the actual term).

 

The first time that he was arrested and deported, it was for a violent crime against police officers.  The second time it was for driving drunk.  Is this an "upstanding citizen" or someone that wants to really assimilate into our society?  Should he be given protection by the so-called "sanctuary cities"?

 

Take a look at some of the trains coming into our country.  Is that not a deliberate hole that needs to be plugged?

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

Short story regarding my personal experience.  I was a Deputy Sheriff in Albuquerque, N.M. back in my younger years.  I can remember arresting a guy who was obviously an illegal.  As I was taking him to jail, I said to him that he was going to be deported.  He laughed at me and said that he would be back on the next train coming north.

 

I arrested him again about a week later.  It's that easy for people to cross our borders illegally.

Without questioning your experience, because I don't doubt the veracity of it in the least, how long ago was this? New Mexico has one of the most comically unprotected borders out there (just shy of southwestern Arizona), so while I'd like to hope this was a couple decades in the past, it really wouldn't surprise me if it was within the last ten years. There are some places where a fence--an actual fence, not "vehicle barricades"--could help, and most of New Mexico is part of that area. It's when people start talking about building a fence that runs across jagged mountains and the length of the Rio Grande that I start to shake my head.

---

Without questioning your experience, because I don't doubt the veracity of it in the least, how long ago was this? New Mexico has one of the most comically unprotected borders out there (just shy of southwestern Arizona), so while I'd like to hope this was a couple decades in the past, it really wouldn't surprise me if it was within the last ten years. There are some places where a fence--an actual fence, not "vehicle barricades"--could help, and most of New Mexico is part of that area. It's when people start talking about building a fence that runs across jagged mountains and the length of the Rio Grande that I start to shake my head.

 

It was a couple of decades ago (actually a bit more than that) it was in the late 1980's.  I would bet that things haven't changed much.  What the majority of people don't realize, this problem has been here for decades, and has increased more during the last few years.  The adoption of "amnesty cities" doesn't help in any way, it only contributes to the problem as demonstrated by my initial post.

 

Ironically, I came across this news story  that some argue says that border fences are "too high" because the illegals coming across and attempting to climb over them are getting injured.  Guess who pays for their treatment?

 

Is a border fence sensible for the entire border?  Of course not, but it does help in stemming the tide of illegals coming into the country.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

Perhaps it starts by plugging the known holes that exist.  How that is done would require assistance from the National Guard in some situations.  At other places, continue a fence.  Patrol the boarder and make policy stand.

 

Short story regarding my personal experience.  I was a Deputy Sheriff in Albuquerque, N.M. back in my younger years.  I can remember arresting a guy who was obviously an illegal.  As I was taking him to jail, I said to him that he was going to be deported.  He laughed at me and said that he would be back on the next train coming north.

 

I arrested him again about a week later.  It's that easy for people to cross our borders illegally.

 

What was he arrested for?  The first time that I arrested him was for violence.  He was a part of a mob that attacked us (police officers) at a bar as it closed down.  Second time that I arrested him was for DUI (DWI was the actual term).

 

The first time that he was arrested and deported, it was for a violent crime against police officers.  The second time it was for driving drunk.  Is this an "upstanding citizen" or someone that wants to really assimilate into our society?  Should he be given protection by the so-called "sanctuary cities"?

 

Take a look at some of the trains coming into our country.  Is that not a deliberate hole that needs to be plugged?

I don't get the point of the essay. I was asking what the extent of the measures in the legislation you spoke about entailed. I agree borders should be secured. 

---

Ironically, I came across this news story  that some argue says that border fences are "too high" because the illegals coming across and attempting to climb over them are getting injured.  Guess who pays for their treatment?

Or we could so what we should have done in the first place, and have the angled portion at the top of the fence point towards Mexico to make it virtually impossible to scale. Instead, the angled portion at the top of the fence almost always points inwards, toward the USA, to avoid "offending" Mexico and, inadvertently, making it incredibly easy to scale that type of fence.

---

Without questioning your experience, because I don't doubt the veracity of it in the least, how long ago was this? New Mexico has one of the most comically unprotected borders out there (just shy of southwestern Arizona), so while I'd like to hope this was a couple decades in the past, it really wouldn't surprise me if it was within the last ten years. There are some places where a fence--an actual fence, not "vehicle barricades"--could help, and most of New Mexico is part of that area. It's when people start talking about building a fence that runs across jagged mountains and the length of the Rio Grande that I start to shake my head.

Southwestern Arizona is actually pretty well protected by infrastructure and manpower with low numbers crossing. The busy areas are southern Texas and central Arizona. New Mexico doesn't have a lot of infrastructure, but its a low volume area... At least until the traffic gets pushed there.

---

Southwestern Arizona is actually pretty well protected by infrastructure and manpower with low numbers crossing. The busy areas are southern Texas and central Arizona. New Mexico doesn't have a lot of infrastructure, but its a low volume area... At least until the traffic gets pushed there.

I'm thinking about the Tohono O'odham reservation, which has zero border security of any kind (you can literally walk across at will) and a tenuous, at best, relationship with the Border Patrol. I can recall a couple different times when I was attending college in Phoenix that the natives literally kicked the BP off of the reservation because of disagreements over jurisdiction, scope, money, etc.

---