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.

Yeah, mostly between Ajo and Tucson is where the traffic is at. The Yuma area is pretty shut down.

---

Yeah, mostly between Ajo and Tucson is where the traffic is at. The Yuma area is pretty shut down.

Let's deport all of Tucson! There's an idea I could get behind!

---

You mean Took Sone.

---

Yeah, mostly between Ajo and Tucson is where the traffic is at. The Yuma area is pretty shut down.

Call in Christian ( Batman ) Bale

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZeroJ1BK6GQ

---

Blakes Life Matters

Build the damn wall and deport them all

---

Wants to join the "cereal box" dating service. I've dated enough flakes and nuts...all I want is the prize now.

Build the damn wall and deport them all

Have you bothered to read anything in this thread (or previous immigration threads) about why that approach is guaranteed to cost untold billions of dollars and fail miserably?

---

Have you bothered to read anything in this thread (or previous immigration threads) about why that approach is guaranteed to cost untold billions of dollars and fail miserably?

 

 

Yes I read the thread, and my opinion for the last 30+ years has been the same...... Build the damn wall and deport them all...... then send in the National Guard to the border and have a free fire zone........ get caught in that zone........ You're greased

---

Wants to join the "cereal box" dating service. I've dated enough flakes and nuts...all I want is the prize now.

Yes I read the thread, and my opinion for the last 30+ years has been the same...... Build the damn wall and deport them all...... then send in the National Guard to the border and have a free fire zone........ get caught in that zone........ You're greased

Wow. Ok then.

---

So by closing down the southern borders entirely, as you seem to want to do, you're punishing the many for the actions of a small minority.

 

How is that any different from arguing that all guns should be taken away before a minority of gun owners use them to murder other people?

 

It's funny just how similar you liberals and you conservatives really are.

 

I think his point is to have a meaningful boarder where illegals can't just keep coming back.  While an obviously extremely large majority of the people that come here want something better, the fact remains that the bad guys are coming too.

 

Why not make it MUCH harder for people to come across and require documentation to come here?  Go through the legal process of crossing the boarder for work.  That way the good guys come across, and the bad guys that were sent back cant come back.

---

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. 

 

Didn't mean to confuse you.  I was just pointing out a couple of common sense ideas as a start for securing the boarder.

 

Regarding the legislation, I don't think that it got into specifics regarding securing the border.

---

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

Why not make it MUCH harder for people to come across and require documentation to come here?  Go through the legal process of crossing the boarder for work.  That way the good guys come across, and the bad guys that were sent back cant come back.

Or, on the flip side, why not make it much easier to come across legally on a guest worker permit, but make the punishments for illegally crossing/being here illegally much harsher, and set up a "zero strike" system where if a documented guest worker is found guilty of any misdemeanor or felony offense, they're barred from entering the US indefinitely?

---

Yes I read the thread, and my opinion for the last 30+ years has been the same...... Build the damn wall and deport them all...... then send in the National Guard to the border and have a free fire zone........ get caught in that zone........ You're greased

Stay classy there pal. 

---

Yes I read the thread, and my opinion for the last 30+ years has been the same...... Build the damn wall and deport them all...... then send in the National Guard to the border and have a free fire zone........ get caught in that zone........ You're greased

Out of curiosity, and I don't even know why I'm entertaining this conversation, what happens if an unarmed American citizen exercises their right to be on public land within the "free fire zone" and gets blown away by the National Guard? I'm not in favor of any plan that would effectively cede American soil to the cartels (which yours would), and certainly not in favor of any plan that would cause American citizens who are committing no crime to be "greased".

 

It figures that a guy from Frederick freaking Maryland would have an idiotic approach to border control.

 

*Edit to add: much of the border, especially in Arizona, lies on private ranch land. What do the ranchers who live in the "free fire zone" do? Dodge bullets while tending to the cows?

---

Didn't mean to confuse you.  I was just pointing out a couple of common sense ideas as a start for securing the boarder.

 

Regarding the legislation, I don't think that it got into specifics regarding securing the border.

This seems to be an ongoing problem in "the debate". The only people offering solutions are the extremes on each side. The vast majority agree that something needs to be done on immigration. On one hand you've got amnesty folk on the left  sounding crazy and on the other you've got drifter and his ilk. 

 

It seems everyone else has nothing of substance to offer, for the most part. It really should not be this hard to get something in place that deals with legal paths to citizenship along with securing the boarder in a reasonable and efficient manner. I liked the points you quoted from the failed legislation. Just out curiosity, is that the one Rubio proposed than either didn't vote on it or voted against it (can't remember). 

---

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.

 

The problem was they never built the fence that was promised in 2006. Only a fool would believe the border would actually be secured before the legalization began. Based on that, it WAS an amnesty bill.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

I don't see the bid to-do about immigration. Who cares. Plenty more people get murdered by tax paying Americans than they do the random illegal. So that's not an argument. What is exactly the problem with the status quo?

---

This seems to be an ongoing problem in "the debate". The only people offering solutions are the extremes on each side. The vast majority agree that something needs to be done on immigration. On one hand you've got amnesty folk on the left  sounding crazy and on the other you've got drifter and his ilk. 

 

It seems everyone else has nothing of substance to offer, for the most part. It really should not be this hard to get something in place that deals with legal paths to citizenship along with securing the boarder in a reasonable and efficient manner. I liked the points you quoted from the failed legislation. Just out curiosity, is that the one Rubio proposed than either didn't vote on it or voted against it (can't remember). 

 

The bill that I have been talking about is in fact what Marco Rubio proposed, along with Democrats in Congress.

 

As of matter of fact, he did vote on the bill in The Senate (which passed), but it got shot down when it went to The House.  What many are calling "flip-flopping" is simply not true.  He simply stated that he learned that you can't do a large, comprehensive bill and have it pass.  You must do it a bit at a time.

---

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

The bill that I have been talking about is in fact what Marco Rubio proposed, along with Democrats in Congress.

 

As of matter of fact, he did vote on the bill in The Senate (which passed), but it got shot down when it went to The House.  What many are calling "flip-flopping" is simply not true.  He simply stated that he learned that you can't do a large, comprehensive bill and have it pass.  You must do it a bit at a time.

 

It wasn't shot down when it went to the house.  It never went for a vote in the house.  Not even for debate. The Senate passed it 84-15, and the house refuses to do anything on it at all.  Boehner won't put it up for vote, citing the Hastert Rule (Majority of the Majority party must support a bill before he puts it up, though this informal 'rule' has been broken many times by many speakers.  Many by Hastert himself.) 

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

Or, on the flip side, why not make it much easier to come across legally on a guest worker permit, but make the punishments for illegally crossing/being here illegally much harsher, and set up a "zero strike" system where if a documented guest worker is found guilty of any misdemeanor or felony offense, they're barred from entering the US indefinitely?

There already is a law that bans felons from re-entry indefinitely.


The law already permits up to 6 months for entry and longer for re-entry after a prior removal.


The laws are sporadically enforced, at best, and in the last year or two, prosecution is being deferred even more.

---

The bill that I have been talking about is in fact what Marco Rubio proposed, along with Democrats in Congress.

 

As of matter of fact, he did vote on the bill in The Senate (which passed), but it got shot down when it went to The House.  What many are calling "flip-flopping" is simply not true.  He simply stated that he learned that you can't do a large, comprehensive bill and have it pass.  You must do it a bit at a time.

Ah OK. I thought the situation was he ended up not voting/voting it down. Rather he just pulled support from it. I knew it wasn't a flip flop but thought it was more that bunch of nonsense got added that ruined the spirit of the bill. 

---