“Send them back,” McDonald said. “Build a damn wall and be done with it.”
Yeah, like 25 years ago ... when such a deportation event could have been possible. Now that illegal immigrants are estimated as 12 million people, I wonder if deportation is even possible? In other words, I wonder if the number of people deported could surpass the number of newly arriving illegal aliens to the point that number of illegals actually decreased.
Given the choices of [1] give them amnesty/citizenship (not my choice), [2] enroll them in a work permit only program (my #1 choice), or [3] send them back, and throw up a fence that cannot be tunneled under or climbed over or cut through ... #3 may be the option that both removes the current illegals and prevents more from entering illegally in the future (very important).
Of course, the Post reveals where they stand on the issue by referring to the “plight” of illegal immigrants as if sneaking across the border, purchasing forged social security and/or green cards, and trying to stay one step ahead of Homeland Security represents a hardship brought upon the illegals by anyone other than themselves.
Valid point.
most pro-enforcement advocates actually support increased legal immigration.
Interesting.
But you would never know this if the only information you received was from the pro-illegal groups.
The stuff I have seen in media looks at how to realistically deal with the problem. Certainly, the "magic wand" idea would be to teleport all of the illegal immigrants to Mexico ... but we don't have a magic wand, and as I mentioned in another thread, this act (unfortunately) would be like trying to squeeze the toothpaste back into the tube (just saying it's very difficult, not that it isn't the correct thing to do) ... even, if it were, in the long run, the most-effective way to address the problem.
Both sides set up strawmen that enable them to say whatever it is that they really want to say. That's how modern debate goes. "Itellectual Dishonesty" in a political issue? Can't be true. Surely not.
Me thinks the squeeky wheel (the extremes) always get the grease when it comes to media attention. The folks in the middle having meaningful conversation aimed at a workable soution are passed over ... they're not loud enough.
=======================
-- Every morning brings opportunity;
Each evening offers judgement. --
Yeah, like 25 years ago ... when such a deportation event could have been possible. Now that illegal immigrants are estimated as 12 million people, I wonder if deportation is even possible? In other words, I wonder if the number of people deported could surpass the number of newly arriving illegal aliens to the point that number of illegals actually decreased.
Given the choices of [1] give them amnesty/citizenship (not my choice), [2] enroll them in a work permit only program (my #1 choice), or [3] send them back, and throw up a fence that cannot be tunneled under or climbed over or cut through ... #3 may be the option that both removes the current illegals and prevents more from entering illegally in the future (very important).
Of course, the Post reveals where they stand on the issue by referring to the “plight” of illegal immigrants as if sneaking across the border, purchasing forged social security and/or green cards, and trying to stay one step ahead of Homeland Security represents a hardship brought upon the illegals by anyone other than themselves.
Valid point.
most pro-enforcement advocates actually support increased legal immigration.
Interesting.
But you would never know this if the only information you received was from the pro-illegal groups.
The stuff I have seen in media looks at how to realistically deal with the problem. Certainly, the "magic wand" idea would be to teleport all of the illegal immigrants to Mexico ... but we don't have a magic wand, and as I mentioned in another thread, this act (unfortunately) would be like trying to squeeze the toothpaste back into the tube (just saying it's very difficult, not that it isn't the correct thing to do) ... even, if it were, in the long run, the most-effective way to address the problem.
Both sides set up strawmen that enable them to say whatever it is that they really want to say. That's how modern debate goes. "Itellectual Dishonesty" in a political issue? Can't be true. Surely not.
Me thinks the squeeky wheel (the extremes) always get the grease when it comes to media attention. The folks in the middle having meaningful conversation aimed at a workable soution are passed over ... they're not loud enough.
=======================
-- Every morning brings opportunity;
Each evening offers judgement. --
Last edited by:
TripleThreat: May 4, 06 8:19