"I think if you polled most people in this country they would rather not have a big ugly wall along our southern border. A wall is nothing more than a last resort, a physical symbol of a failed policy or a lack of policy."

Hmm, maybe I don't have to completely reevaluate. I don't think you are right about the poll. I believe most would support it, ugly or not.

As to its being a symbol of a failed policy, that is probably accurate. More to the point, to me it is a symbol of the broken promises of the 1980s. No other approach will convince me the feds are serious about enforcing the border. More manpower and a "smart fence" are just gimicks that will be taken down or handcuffed the moment it is politically expedient.

We pick up illegals by the truckload now, and just release them back into the country with instructions to report for a hearing in a few weeks, knowing they won't.

The illegal flow needs to stop. Then everything is doable.

You can't ask that as a standalone question as if a wall was the only viable solution. If there are policies that can be put in place that will curb illegal immigration and help our economy and prevent the exploitation of migrant workers then I think most people would take those policies over a wall any day. Give people viable options and I thiink the wall is close to the bottom of their list.

---

_____________________________________


You call yourself a Christian, I call you hypocrite. You call yourself a patriot well, I think you're full of s**t

NeoCon by the Rolling Stones

If there are policies that can be put in place that will curb illegal immigration and help our economy and prevent the exploitation of migrant workers then I think most people would take those policies over a wall any day.

Great. What are those policies? Remember, they have to actually curb illegal immigration.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

There is an easy answer to that question..

The policy that would work to achieve the idea of curbing illegal immigration would be to make immigration not illegal.

To do that would require a few things:

1) Open mindedness and the reduction of anxiety/bigotry associated with cultural shift/change/assimilation.

2) Acceptance of the fact that the correlation between immigrants and crime is not the key correlation. BTW, it's poverty.

3) Dramatic change of the current social program system in a fashion that does not make it entice those who want to live off the system but rather those who would like to contribute.

4) Elimination of this nonsense that some kind of wall (physical or otherwise) is actually going keep out a dedicated and determined terrorist.

The answer to your question is simple... opening the borders* would definitely remove the current idea of undocumented worker, illegal, second tier working class, etc.... what is not simple is the ideas of Open Mindedness, Acceptance, Change, Assimilation, etc.

FWIW Joe Moya

* footnote: Opening the borders does not mean you should not know who is coming into the country.

Why is it that almost all immigrants form other countries assimilate well, but Mexican immigrants seem to refuse to do so?

Can you really make this statement based on knowledge and experience?

What experience do you have with illegal and legal Chinese immigrant assimilation? Or Ukranaian? Or whatever?

Because they're silent and stay in the native speaking neighborhoods, they assimilate well?

In major US cities, particularly in Caliuformnia some classrooms have as many as 17 different types of ELL's (English Language Learners). To my knowledge, Mexicans speak Spanish ... so that means there's 16 other foreign languages being spoken in American classrooms. Is that what you mean by "assimilated"?

That they stay in their own little neighborhoods speaking their own native language, and having their own stores and restaurants featuring their native language? Is that what you mean by assimilated?

I think what we are witnessing is a difference in culture. Latins are a stand-up, be-loud-if-you-have-to, revolt-machismo, type of culture. Asian, etc ... are not. They are a keep silent or you'll get crushed type of people. They are not going to contribute in any type of way of making a stink. God forbid.

Perhaps upper class Asian/Indian immigrants have become the "face" of Asian/Indian immigrants and that creates a skewed eprception, whereas the "face" of Latin immigrnats is the leather-skinned, field worker.

large number of both American flags and Mexican Flags with a very light sprinkling of flags from other countries (Puerto Rico). Why is it that these people are protesting to become American citizens, and yet they insist on waving their Mexican flags. It seems to me they are just looking to Annex part of the US for Mexico? Do they realize they are not winning the hearts and minds of the multi generation Americans?

Both USA and Mexico flags. Doesn't that sum it up? They're expressing their pride in both America and where they came from. Why do you intentionally focus on your negative interpretation?

Also, you're from NoIll, why are there so many Ireland and Italy flags being flown up here? Are these people trying to Annex part of Chicagoland for Ireland and Italy? Or is it possible that they are both proud of USA and the country of their origin?

Why do you discriminate the events where one is negative and the other is cultural pride? Why has no one complained about any other flags being flown in THIS country ... except when the Mexican flags is flown (even alongside the American flag)? [Granted if my neighbor was flying a China or USSR flag, people would complain bigtime]

I'm surprised many people, on a daily basis, don't tell some of my buddies to "Go the F*** back to Ireland if you love it so much". It seems it's cool and acceptable to only be proud of certain heritages, no?

I think, outside of those issues/comments, I agree with basically everything else.

---

=======================
-- Every morning brings opportunity;
Each evening offers judgement. --

Shit, I'm agreeing with Art.

Both sides have to give-in, though neither wants to, and the entire topic has been screeched to death on the cable & radio shows. I don't think either side wants this to fade: it panders to both bases, the right want to keep all focus off gas prices + Iraq, and this is a beautiful diversion, and the left get to trumpet that they are the defenders of the downtrodden.

1. The Left has to give in: The flow has to stop. Build a fence, man & monitor it properly, and stop the illegal flow first. Of course similar resources need to be brought to bear on visa overstays and smuggled Chinese/eastern Europeans.

2. The Right has to give in: Loosen up the timeframe/restrictions/red tape that is required to let people immigrate to the US.

3. The Right has to give in: Enforce & severely penalize any company that has illegals on its payroll. Not the usual publicy fine/privately acquiesce that goes on nowadays.

4. The Left has to give in: Ship back the thousands of illegals in our prisons. I really don't want to pay for their criminal post-doctorate education.

5. Both have to compromise: Then give amnesty to the rest, but certainly not to their cousins/aunts/etc.

6. Americans have to get ready for higher prices: day laborers are already $12 per hour in most of California: labor costs are going to go up dramatically as a result, as are the associated costs of food and service related industries. Everyone better be ready to bite the bullet on this, and the gov't better be prepared to talk about sacrifice to the US public (which actually should be an easy sell if framed correctly).

Fair enough?

---

____________
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." John Rogers

Seems reasonable to me.

I forget what American politician said it, but it goes something like, "A good compromise leaves both sides mad."

---

=======================
-- Every morning brings opportunity;
Each evening offers judgement. --

The devil is lacing up his ice skates as we speak. I agree with just about that entire post. (Not sure about the part about loosening up the "timeframe/restrictions/red tape"- I'm fine with it as long as we still get to decide how many immigrants we're going to let in.)

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

To do that would require a few things:

1) Open mindedness and the reduction of anxiety/bigotry associated with cultural shift/change/assimilation.

You can't legislate a reduction of any of these.

2) Acceptance of the fact that the correlation between immigrants and crime is not the key correlation. BTW, it's poverty.

But, what if a lot of the immigrants live in poverty because they came here without a job? Are we supposed to let them come in illegally, and then create jobs for them to avoid a high crime rate?

3) Dramatic change of the current social program system in a fashion that does not make it entice those who want to live off the system but rather those who would like to contribute.

We can't even create a workable social security program for our own people, how are we going to do this with another 100 million or so that are sure to come into the country under these policies. Of course, in addition to trying to create work for them, we will have to make the social security sufficient enough to avoid having them live in poverty, and thereby resort to crime, which of course is not their fault, it's ours.

4) Elimination of this nonsense that some kind of wall (physical or otherwise) is actually going keep out a dedicated and determined terrorist.

I think the idea of a wall is to keep out illegal immigrants, and is not designed for terrorists. We have taken care of the terrorist problem by fighting the war in Iraq:)

The answer to your question is simple

I wonder what our new tax rate will be to make your social changes? We have a country in arms because gas is going up a dollar a gallon, what do you think will happen when we implement your simple changes?

---

__________________________________________________

You sir, are my new hero! - Trifan 11/13/2008

Casey, you are a wise man - blueraider_mike 11/13/2008

Casey, This is an astute observation. - Slowbern 11/17/2008

Now I know I have my head up my ass.

I agree 100% with mopdahl.

Off to get a new set of core beliefs. If you don't like these, I have others.

And people say the country is divided on this issue!



Ohhh Lord kum bye yaaaaaaaaaaaa.

---

----------------------------------------------------------
"A society is defined not only by what it creates, but by what it refuses to destroy."
John Sawhill

I enjoyed the open freeways ,and lack of jabber in the home depot parking lot. A day without my colored cousin from the south , pinch me I think I am dreaming.



Helitecho

Now I know I have my head up my ass.

I would bet that there's a few folks here that would to have that statement put on a t-shirt for you. =)

---

=======================
-- Every morning brings opportunity;
Each evening offers judgement. --

1) Open mindedness and the reduction of anxiety/bigotry associated with cultural shift/change/assimilation.

You can't legislate a reduction of any of these.

No you can't... this is why this would be difficult... didn't say it would be easy OR even possible. But, that's not really the point. I think a similar arguement could be made with regard to de-segregation of the school system.... it didn't eliminate bigotry...but, it did create an integrated school system... which did have a direct impact on the society and it's acceptance of racial differences. That may be a weak analogy... but, it's close enough in my book.

2) Acceptance of the fact that the correlation between immigrants and crime is not the key correlation. BTW, it's poverty.

But, what if a lot of the immigrants live in poverty because they came here without a job? Are we supposed to let them come in illegally, and then create jobs for them to avoid a high crime rate?

That's the point... the idea of illegal would be eliminated... they would just come in and apply for a job like anyone else. If they get a job... so be it... if they don't, then they leave or starve (see change of social program below). I admit this is a pretty radical idea... but it's the only way to achieve the ultimate goal of enticing those with skills and who want to be productive.

As for crime (which is what I noted),... that is not a problem based on immigration...its is a problem based on poverty... and, poverty is not something exclusive to other countries. There are both wealthy and poor in all countries. Sometimes we worry too much about "letting in" the poor at the expense of keeping out the productive and wealthy.

3) Dramatic change of the current social program system in a fashion that does not make it entice those who want to live off the system but rather those who would like to contribute.

We can't even create a workable social security program for our own people, how are we going to do this with another 100 million or so that are sure to come into the country under these policies. Of course, in addition to trying to create work for them, we will have to make the social security sufficient enough to avoid having them live in poverty, and thereby resort to crime, which of course is not their fault, it's ours.

Hey... I didn't say it would be easy... In fact, this probably the biggest hurdle. While I was thinking in terms of social programs such as welfare, it is interesting that you noted the Social Security problem. I see the new influx of a foreign workforce as a plus to the success of the Social Security program. The new labor would provid funding for an aging America with fewer children per household. Ironic how immigrants would the saving force to a crappy manipulated retirement system.

4) Elimination of this nonsense that some kind of wall (physical or otherwise) is actually going keep out a dedicated and determined terrorist.

I think the idea of a wall is to keep out illegal immigrants, and is not designed for terrorists. We have taken care of the terrorist problem by fighting the war in Iraq:)

I sense a bit of sarcasm... hmmm.... go figure. The key is that illegal immigrants simply become immigrants. The "wall idea" is simply a waste of resources that is politically popular among those who are not recent immigrants.

The answer to your question is simple

I wonder what our new tax rate will be to make your social changes? We have a country in arms because gas is going up a dollar a gallon, what do you think will happen when we implement your simple changes?

Tax rate... I assume you me what would be the cost. I don't know... but, if you eliminated the welfare system... I get the feeling it would not be a cost at all... in fact, it would be net benefit. I didn't say the changes would be simple... I said the solution/answer is simple... the implementation would be VERY difficult.

FWIW Joe Moya