Posted on 01/15/2004 9:49:14 AM PST by Theodore R.
Yeah 15,000 Pakistanis, so. You stated that there were 50,000 illegal Pakistanis.
Psst, Saber, there are 160 times more illegals, mostly hispanic. For the same rate of success manpower would have to be increased 160 times.
JMO, the vast majority of the hispanic illegals are not terrorists or violent criminals.
In this case, a turd by any other name would smell as foul.
Can't see us actually deporting them, but the rest is doable .....with a little political will (which the Bush administration obviously doesn't have). Cutting off their free social services is a good way to get most of 'em to head back home.
Unfortunately pandering for votes and payback to special interests (that desire cheap labor) is far more important than preserving our borders, language, and culture.
I'm sure a lot of people support the concept, but how many of them would actually support the steps needed to physically round up 8 million illegals?
No, there's better ways to deal with this, but they're less sexy. Secure the border as best we can. Punish employers who hire illegals. Limited amnesties for certain classes of illegal (brought here as a very young child, been here for 30 or so years). Make it more difficult to go through everyday life without proof of citizenship/residency.
Taking these steps would lead to a gradual attrition of illegals over the long-term.
No doubt, but this isn't 1954. There wasn't a TV news camera on every street corner. The images of throwing women into a truck will cause outrage. An outrage for what, people for the most part working menial jobs.
Also the number is six times as large.
If you buy the Bush line, you have to accept that we are too weak and powerless to defend our own borders and enforce our immigration laws but we are powerful enough to successfully impose democracy on a part of the world--the Middle East--that has had despotic government for millennia.
Huh? Maybe trying to deal delicately with a neighbor we share a 2,000 mile border is a better idea. Putting up a wall ain't going to solve the problem, and solving this problem is going to be arduous. Also Mexico isn't exporting terrorism, that's a fact. Mid-east islamofacsits are.
I guess you know your turds, you seem to like to spread them around on FR.
And it's 1-2-3 what are we fighting for, don't asked me I don't give a damn, next stops the amnesty plan.
Lets hear it!
A little 60s music for our kompassionate konservatives...
All you need is love!
And why won't a fence work? We certainly have the engineering know-how to construct one. Are you afraid the Mexicans will call us names?
As we do today when they are caught. In 1999 we deported over 1.7 million undocumented immigrants. We have averaged over 1.3 million deportation each year in the previous decade. One by one they are deported, but over time many have slipped through, and have integrated into our society with varying degrees of success. It would be unconstitutional NOT to address the problem, and that is exactly what President Bush is doing, addressing the problem.
Farrah's article is mostly baloney. Doing nothing different today is what is unconstitutional, dangerous, and immoral. His lack of any suggestions on how President Farrah would handle the situation differently really means his article is all bluster.
I agree that they shouldn't be on welfare, but that is up to the states. California is generous, Texas much less so. As for schools if they aren't paying property taxes, no school. Most are probably paying property taxes since they are living in apartments where the tax is included in the rent. If they go to school, they should be taught in English. California passed such an intiative a few years ago.
Like it or not we are going to have to deal with Mexico, you just can't wish it away. Heck even Sabertooth himself said that a wall is not a good idea.
It is already the law.
Oh you of little intelligence and imagination... Have you ever heard of a bounty?
They work.
As for dealing with Mexico, so far we have dealt with Mexico by passing a ONE TIME amnesty in 1986 which was supposed to stop illegal immigration but didn't and by passing NAFTA which shipped a lot of our manufacturing down there and was supposed to stop illegal immigration but didn't. Now Bush wants to reward the illegals not caught up in the first amnesty and basically eliminate the border.
That's not dealing with Mexico. That's surrendering to Mexico.
Oh yeah, right, enforcement just happened to slip the mind of the chief executive officer in charge of enforcement.
Got another fantasy?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.