Doug Miller wrote:
In article , Robert Gammon wrote:

Ok, we all accept that the act of crossing the border without permission
is an illegal act.

The question is, what do we do about it?

Once here, very very few EVER do anything to hurt anyone or anyone's
property.


Nonsense.

All of us are paying higher auto insurance rates because of the large number
of illegal aliens driving without any insurance. Or licenses. They
bring their third-world driving habits with them, too, resulting in higher
accident rates.

Prove it. Point to statistics from the Auto Insurance companies that
uninsured motorists from third world countries have a higher
proportional accident rate than long term residents/citizens in the USA.

The number that smuggle in drugs, incests (knowingly or
unknowingly), disease, etc. is also quite small.


You must live in a small town.

4th largest in the USA, Houston TX.

Ok, if you 50 people to cross the border illegally with 2 pounds each of
some illegal drug in their guts, you have 100lbs of the stuff. pack
that same amount into a small aircraft or hide it inside a crate of good
coming in thru air or sea, and you have LESS risk of discovery, less
risk of contamination of the product, and lower costs of importation
plus instead of 100lbs, you can bring in 1000lbs or more a week

Drug smuggling is a BIG time business and the small amounts that a
single person could carry across is not worth very much to the folks
that move tons of stuff a year on aircraft and boats.


You haven't thought that one through very far, have you?

Sure, one guy can't carry very much on his person. But how much can he put in
the trunk of his car?

Undocumented illegals DO NOT COME ACROSS IN AUTOMOBILES EXCEPT AS HIDDEN
CARGO!! Have you ever watched what goes on at the border crossings with
Mexico AND Canada? I have seen both, and cars/vans do get REGULARLY
searched. Citizens of the USA are FAR more likely to attempt to carry
across drugs than illegal immigrants.

I suggest that you talk to a Border Partol officer about what they
expect to see from the Mexicans or Canadians, tens of thousands of which
LEGALLY cross our border EVERY single day.

I have also seen what appeared to be an auto/truck repair vehicle down
near Brownsville headed north then make a violent turn to turn south and
stop, 8-10 people then emerged from the guts of the truck bed, each with
a small sack and a jug of water and ran to the woods/fireld that
bordered the road. The truck then fled south, and a few minutes later
Border Patrol vehicles were screaming north with sirens and lights flashing.
Now multiply that by a couple million times a year.

So again, the question is what do we do about it???


If they obey the law while they're here, nothing. And that means *all* of our
laws, including having a valid license, registration, and insurance before
driving _one_inch_ on a public road, and paying taxes on their wages just
like the rest of us do. Those that break the law should be deported the
instant we figure out where they came from.

There are those who argue for IMMEDIATE deportation of ALL those who
violate immigration law. The US Border Patrol puts hundreds of people
a day if not thousands of people a day back across the border. The
borders are LONG and sparsely populated.


That's why we need a fence along that border.


Once here, it is DIFFICULT to
find the undocumented immigrant as they SPREAD OUT all across the USA.
This will be an EXPENSIVE process, just to collect and export the
undocumented workers.


See above -- as long as they're obeying the law, leave them alone.


There are those who argue for complete amnesty as these are, by and
large, economic refugees who make a large and valuable contribution to
the USA economy.


Nonsense. They're a net *drain* on the economy. Measure the amount of social
services that the illegals consume. Look at the hospitals in California that
are closing because they can't afford to keep treating people that can't pay,
but aren't allowed under Federal law to turn them away.


Amnesty has a price as it then says OK, we don't care
who comes across our borders.


Right, that's why it's a bad idea. It didn't work in the 1980s, and it won't
work now.

And we have the status quo. That is, the US Border Patrol catches those
that it can and deports them. It raids businesses that have a history of
using undocumented workers, imposing fines and exporting the
undocumented workers. They try to get more employees and a bigger
budget from Congress, and depending on the whims of the political
process, they get it or not.


*That* is the right place to start: *enforce* the laws already on the books
that prohibit hiring illegal aliens.



The Border Patrol has a thankless job. They have to concentrate their
efforts along the Canadian and Mexican borders and at airports with
international flights. An economic refugee who make his/her way to
Smallville Nebraska (you name it for a town anywhere thats 500 miles
away from the border, has no international airport) and the risk that
they will EVER get caught and deported is very small. Even in Houston
TX area where we have 10s of thousands of such, the risk of detection is
small.

Doug Miller wrote:
In article , Robert
Gammon wrote:
Ok, we all accept that the act of crossing the border without
permission is an illegal act.

The question is, what do we do about it?

Change the law so they can enter without the current restrictive limits?

Once here, very very few EVER do anything to hurt anyone or anyone's
property.

Nonsense.

All of us are paying higher auto insurance rates because of the large
number of illegal aliens driving without any insurance. Or
licenses. They bring their third-world driving habits with them, too,
resulting in higher accident rates.

So were is your source of these "facts." They sound like the "facts"
that all Jews are evil, or all blacks are stupid etc. The facts of hate and
fear.


The number that smuggle in drugs, incests (knowingly or
unknowingly), disease, etc. is also quite small.

You must live in a small town.

Your facts please your comment adding nothing of value, other than to
reinforce my thought that you are speaking without knowing the facts.


Drug smuggling is a BIG time business and the small amounts that a
single person could carry across is not worth very much to the folks
that move tons of stuff a year on aircraft and boats.

You haven't thought that one through very far, have you?

Have you. Bringing in red herrings does not help your case.


Sure, one guy can't carry very much on his person. But how much can
he put in
the trunk of his car?

Now multiply that by a couple million times a year.

So again, the question is what do we do about it???

How about outlawing cars?



If they obey the law while they're here, nothing. And that means *all* of
our laws, including having a valid license, registration, and insurance
before driving _one_inch_ on a public road, and paying taxes on their
wages just like the rest of us do. Those that break the law should be
deported the instant we figure out where they came from.

And you are saying you never even once disobeyed a law?

Should we isolate all those who have at one time or another been found
guilt of breaking a law. I suggest we could use New Jersey, most of the
people there would have to go there anyway. ;-)



Nonsense. They're a net *drain* on the economy. Measure the amount of
social services that the illegals consume. Look at the
hospitals in California that are closing because they can't afford to keep
treating people that can't pay, but aren't allowed under
Federal law to turn them away.

Why don't we pack everyone who is a drain on our economy (receiving any
kind of public assistant (like public schools) and send them to some other
country? Maybe we could add them to all the criminals in New Jersey.

I have to really object to that comment. It sounds like a plank in the
Know Nothing party's platform. Had they had there way, likely my
grandparents would not have been allowed to come to the US and they would
have died in Ireland.


Amnesty has a price as it then says OK, we don't care
who comes across our borders.

Right, that's why it's a bad idea. It didn't work in the 1980s, and it
won't work now.

What is your idea of "work." Do you mean keep all those who don't look
like, or think like, or speak like you out?

....
--
Joseph Meehan

Dia duit

George wrote:
Joseph Meehan wrote:


You can't get a driver's
license
without an SSN.


That I know is not true today.


Drivers licenses have become a national ID card. All of the states
must get your SSN before they will issue or renew a license.

Funny thing. Mine does not have an SSN and the last time I got it
renewed, no one asked. In fact I can't remember any time they asked. I got
my license when I was 16 years old and I did not get a SSN for a year after
that.

--
Joseph Meehan

Dia duit

Joseph Meehan wrote:
George wrote:

Joseph Meehan wrote:


You can't get a driver's
license
without an SSN.


That I know is not true today.


Drivers licenses have become a national ID card. All of the states
must get your SSN before they will issue or renew a license.


Funny thing. Mine does not have an SSN and the last time I got it
renewed, no one asked. In fact I can't remember any time they asked. I got
my license when I was 16 years old and I did not get a SSN for a year after
that.


Mine is the newer uniform national ID card style and doesn't have the
SSN printed on it either. When the national ID card rules kicked in a
few years ago the camera card did have my SSN which I never gave to them.

When you go in for renewal they see your photo from the last time on
their monitor plus it can also flag them to request your SSN card and
other info such as a copy of a rental lease and utility bills.

In article , "Doug Kanter" wrote:
"Doug Miller" wrote in message
.com...
In article , "Joseph Meehan"
wrote:
Jim Yanik wrote:...
I note that now many illegals are bringing illegal drugs along with
them to help defray the cost of their being smuggled into the US.
IOW,mules.

Really! So if we were to open the boarders then we could stop this
kind of drug trade.

Think it through...

If we open the borders, then the ones who are now bringing drugs across to
pay
for their passage can just as easily -- probably *more* easily -- continue
to
bring drugs across, this time to sell, and *keep* the money instead of
having
to give it to the people who smuggle them across.

In other words, open borders = dramatically *increased* incentive to
smuggle
drugs into the country. And dramatically increased *opportunity* to do so.
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)


Why are you so focused on drugs? There's little or nothing we can do to stop
them. Where there's demand, someone will appear with a supply. Prohibition
didn't work. Neither does the "war on drugs".

"Focused on drugs"? Not me. I was just responding to the silly idea that open
borders would somehow reduce the drug problem. Of course you're right that the
"sar on drugs" isn't working, and for exactly the same reason that Prohibition
didn't.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

In article , "Joseph Meehan" wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:
...


No, the problem is that we have a vast ocean of people pouring in here,
with no verification at all of who they are, or what they're going to
do when they get here. If they don't have a criminal history, and aren't
going to be a drain on society (i.e. get a legal job
and pay taxes, instead of being on welfare), let 'em come. But we have
to know who they are before we can determine that.

I see fast oceans of people pouring into the shopping mall. I guess we
should start demanding verification that they don't have a criminal history
(forget the part about being innocent before proven guilty)

Do you suggest that the operators of shopping malls should *not* have the
right to keep out people who have, for example, a known history of
shoplifting?


....

You're still missing the point. Maybe the guy really hasn't ever committed
a crime -- but without positive identification of who's coming in, YOU
DON'T KNOW THAT.

So you are considering them all guilty until proven otherwise.

For the third time, Joseph: Don't presume to tell me what I think.

I consider that the United States has the right to determine who is, and is
not, allowed to come here, and that the reasons for keeping some people out
while allowing others in would include a criminal background. Unless we know
who's trying to come in, we have no way of separating those with a criminal
background from those without.

It
sounds like you live a miserable life suspecting everyone.

Unable to counter my arguments, you've now degenerated into personal insults.
How very persuasive.


I guess I just
agree with being innocent until proven guilty

So on that basis, do you also object to an employer performing criminal
background checks on prospective employees? Should a bank, for example, not be
allowed to find out if an applicant has prior convictions for theft or
embezzlement before deciding to hire that person? Innocent until proven
guilty, remember.

and I also believe that people
deserve a second chance.

That's fine. Let Mexican criminals have their second chance in Mexico. Not
here.

I also believe that all men and women are created
equal no matter where they were born.

Created, yes -- but what they do with themselves after that is something
altogether different. Some people are honest; other people steal. Some people
work for a living; other people sit on their butts and collect welfare. Do you
contend that we should make no distinctions whatsoever between these groups
when deciding who should be allowed into the US and who should be kept out?
....

You have not provided evidence that undocumented immigrants with
the type of real crimes we worry about.

And you're not paying attention to what's going on around you. It must be
nice to live in such a sheltered world.

Where is your evidence?



--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

In article , wrote:
On Sat, 06 May 2006 14:25:36 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:


I didn't say you had to show the card. I said you had to have the number.

Without ID any number will work, (I use my phone number and "46" in
the middle for all those folks who don't have a valid need for mine)

And is that the number you used to get your drivers license?

I thought not.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

In article , wrote:
On Sat, 06 May 2006 14:30:07 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:

If it is crimes against property and people, then you need to look at US
citizens who commit far more crime in this country that immigrants who have
not become citizens yet.

Again -- without reliable identification, YOU DON'T KNOW THAT.



Release Jose on bond, and an hour later, he has a new false ID. Jose
is now
Carlos, and Jose disappears forever.


That souinds good in a chat room but the cops fingerprint everyone
they charge with a crime. The first name the guy uses will pop up the
next time he is arrested.

In theory. *If* the fingerprint database has been updated. *If* the guy gets
arrested in the same state. And so on...

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

In article , Robert Gammon wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:
In article , Robert Gammon
wrote:

Ok, we all accept that the act of crossing the border without permission
is an illegal act.

The question is, what do we do about it?

Once here, very very few EVER do anything to hurt anyone or anyone's
property.


Nonsense.

All of us are paying higher auto insurance rates because of the large number
of illegal aliens driving without any insurance. Or licenses. They
bring their third-world driving habits with them, too, resulting in higher
accident rates.

Prove it. Point to statistics from the Auto Insurance companies that
uninsured motorists from third world countries have a higher
proportional accident rate than long term residents/citizens in the USA.

Get your head out of the sand.

The number that smuggle in drugs, incests (knowingly or
unknowingly), disease, etc. is also quite small.


You must live in a small town.

4th largest in the USA, Houston TX.

If that's true... how do you manage to be so ignorant of the *huge* social
problems that the influx of illegal aliens is producing?

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

Doug Miller wrote:
In article , "Joseph
Meehan" wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:
...


No, the problem is that we have a vast ocean of people pouring in
here, with no verification at all of who they are, or what they're
going to do when they get here. If they don't have a criminal
history, and aren't going to be a drain on society (i.e. get a
legal job
and pay taxes, instead of being on welfare), let 'em come. But we
have to know who they are before we can determine that.

I see fast oceans of people pouring into the shopping mall. I
guess we should start demanding verification that they don't have a
criminal history (forget the part about being innocent before proven
guilty)

Do you suggest that the operators of shopping malls should *not* have
the
right to keep out people who have, for example, a known history of
shoplifting?

Generally they do not. I worked in retailing for a long time. The
only time we had that right that I know of was a teenage girl who was caught
stealing a copy of Playboy. Even then the only restriction was for a year
while she received treatment and she was allowed in the store with her
therapist or parents.

Of course that is a diversion from the real question. Do you believe
that shopping centers should be allowed to prevent access by anyone who can
not prove the have never been charged with a crime?



....

You're still missing the point. Maybe the guy really hasn't ever
committed a crime -- but without positive identification of who's
coming in, YOU DON'T KNOW THAT.

So you are considering them all guilty until proven otherwise.

For the third time, Joseph: Don't presume to tell me what I think.

I am only asking. So how about answering the question. Do you consider
(or let me add) do you believe the government should consider all those
wishing to enter the US guilty until they prove they are not.

Further, would you extend that to citizens of Canada, England etc.


I consider that the United States has the right to determine who is,
and is
not, allowed to come here, and that the reasons for keeping some
people out
while allowing others in would include a criminal background. Unless
we know
who's trying to come in, we have no way of separating those with a
criminal
background from those without.

So are you saying we should consider them all guilty until proven
otherwise?


It
sounds like you live a miserable life suspecting everyone.

Unable to counter my arguments, you've now degenerated into personal
insults.
How very persuasive.


I guess I just
agree with being innocent until proven guilty

So on that basis, do you also object to an employer performing
criminal
background checks on prospective employees? Should a bank, for
example, not be
allowed to find out if an applicant has prior convictions for theft or
embezzlement before deciding to hire that person? Innocent until
proven
guilty, remember.

Frankly I have some reservations about it. I certainly don't think it
is appropriate for many jobs.


and I also believe that people
deserve a second chance.

That's fine. Let Mexican criminals have their second chance in
Mexico. Not
here.

I also believe that all men and women are created
equal no matter where they were born.

Created, yes -- but what they do with themselves after that is
something
altogether different. Some people are honest; other people steal.
Some people
work for a living; other people sit on their butts and collect
welfare. Do you
contend that we should make no distinctions whatsoever between these
groups
when deciding who should be allowed into the US and who should be
kept out?
....

You have not provided evidence that undocumented immigrants with
the type of real crimes we worry about.

And you're not paying attention to what's going on around you. It
must be nice to live in such a sheltered world.

Where is your evidence?

Again, where is your evidence?

--
Joseph Meehan

Dia duit

In article , "Joseph Meehan" wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:
In article , "Joseph
Meehan" wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:
...


No, the problem is that we have a vast ocean of people pouring in
here, with no verification at all of who they are, or what they're
going to do when they get here. If they don't have a criminal
history, and aren't going to be a drain on society (i.e. get a
legal job
and pay taxes, instead of being on welfare), let 'em come. But we
have to know who they are before we can determine that.

I see fast oceans of people pouring into the shopping mall. I
guess we should start demanding verification that they don't have a
criminal history (forget the part about being innocent before proven
guilty)

Do you suggest that the operators of shopping malls should *not* have
the
right to keep out people who have, for example, a known history of
shoplifting?

Generally they do not. I worked in retailing for a long time. The
only time we had that right that I know of was a teenage girl who was caught
stealing a copy of Playboy. Even then the only restriction was for a year
while she received treatment and she was allowed in the store with her
therapist or parents.

Of course that is a diversion from the real question. Do you believe
that shopping centers should be allowed to prevent access by anyone who can
not prove the have never been charged with a crime?

No, but rather the converse: they should be allowed to prevent access by
anyone that *they* can prove *has* been convicted of one.


....

You're still missing the point. Maybe the guy really hasn't ever
committed a crime -- but without positive identification of who's
coming in, YOU DON'T KNOW THAT.

So you are considering them all guilty until proven otherwise.

For the third time, Joseph: Don't presume to tell me what I think.

I am only asking. So how about answering the question. Do you consider
(or let me add) do you believe the government should consider all those
wishing to enter the US guilty until they prove they are not.

Further, would you extend that to citizens of Canada, England etc.

Entering the United States, or any nation, is a privilege, not a universal
right. Any nation has the right to control who it allows to come in, and who
it decides to keep out.


I consider that the United States has the right to determine who is,
and is
not, allowed to come here, and that the reasons for keeping some
people out
while allowing others in would include a criminal background. Unless
we know
who's trying to come in, we have no way of separating those with a
criminal
background from those without.

So are you saying we should consider them all guilty until proven
otherwise?

I'm saying that we have the right to exclude anyone with a criminal history.


It
sounds like you live a miserable life suspecting everyone.

Unable to counter my arguments, you've now degenerated into personal
insults.
How very persuasive.


I guess I just
agree with being innocent until proven guilty

So on that basis, do you also object to an employer performing
criminal
background checks on prospective employees? Should a bank, for
example, not be
allowed to find out if an applicant has prior convictions for theft or
embezzlement before deciding to hire that person? Innocent until
proven
guilty, remember.

Frankly I have some reservations about it. I certainly don't think it
is appropriate for many jobs.

Answer the question. Should a bank not be allowed to find out if an applicant
has prior convictions for theft or embezzlement?


and I also believe that people
deserve a second chance.

That's fine. Let Mexican criminals have their second chance in
Mexico. Not
here.

I also believe that all men and women are created
equal no matter where they were born.

Created, yes -- but what they do with themselves after that is
something
altogether different. Some people are honest; other people steal.
Some people
work for a living; other people sit on their butts and collect
welfare. Do you
contend that we should make no distinctions whatsoever between these
groups
when deciding who should be allowed into the US and who should be
kept out?
....

You have not provided evidence that undocumented immigrants with
the type of real crimes we worry about.

And you're not paying attention to what's going on around you. It
must be nice to live in such a sheltered world.

Where is your evidence?

Again, where is your evidence?

I see it all around me. Open your eyes.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

In article , wrote:
On Sat, 06 May 2006 18:37:05 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:

Do you suggest that the operators of shopping malls should *not* have the
right to keep out people who have, for example, a known history of
shoplifting?

If someone contested it the mall would lose. Public accomedation laws
trump "private bans".

Shopping malls are *private* property FYI.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

Entering the United States, or any nation, is a privilege, not a universal
right. Any nation has the right to control who it allows to come in, and
who
it decides to keep out.

Not to detract from the current discussion... but...

I'm a Canadian. I would *LOVE* to move to the US, become a citizen, pay
taxes, etc. Doing so is pretty much impossible, unless I want to spend years
going to school. Canadians can't even participate in the VISA lottery.

Considering that my wife and I earn over $100,000/year, I doubt we'd be any
burden.

Well, we should all recognize that the US Border Patrol and the INS have
a list of KNOWN international criminals with their names and pictures
coded on the computers that scan everyone's id (citizen or not) that
comes in. If there is a match, the person is shunted aside for further
questioning.

No the system is not foolproof in that a terrorist with no prior history
can easily enter the USA from Europe, Canada, Mexico...... There is no
foolproof system to keep a terrorist out!!!

Known criminals CAN be dealt with by proper information sharing between
nations.

Noozer wrote:
Entering the United States, or any nation, is a privilege, not a universal
right. Any nation has the right to control who it allows to come in, and
who
it decides to keep out.


Not to detract from the current discussion... but...

I'm a Canadian. I would *LOVE* to move to the US, become a citizen, pay
taxes, etc. Doing so is pretty much impossible, unless I want to spend years
going to school. Canadians can't even participate in the VISA lottery.

Considering that my wife and I earn over $100,000/year, I doubt we'd be any
burden.



And I talked to some young English speaking Canadians from the Western
Provinces a number of years ago who appeared to believe STRONGLY that
the Nations of Canada and USA should unite into one nation. Course the
residents of Quebec appear to STRONGLY resist this idea, and many other
Canadian groups oppose this idea as well.

Individuals have different ideas from groups.

(Doug Miller) wrote in
news
In article , Robert
Gammon wrote:
Ok, we all accept that the act of crossing the border without
permission is an illegal act.

The question is, what do we do about it?

Once here, very very few EVER do anything to hurt anyone or anyone's
property.

That is not what the nearby ranchers are saying.
They lose cattle or other livestock,have fires started,trash left all over
their property,families threatened.

Nonsense.

All of us are paying higher auto insurance rates because of the large
number of illegal aliens driving without any insurance. Or licenses.
They bring their third-world driving habits with them, too, resulting
in higher accident rates.

The number that smuggle in drugs, incests (knowingly or
unknowingly), disease, etc. is also quite small.

You must live in a small town.

Drug smuggling is a BIG time business and the small amounts that a
single person could carry across is not worth very much to the folks
that move tons of stuff a year on aircraft and boats.

You haven't thought that one through very far, have you?

No he hasn't;look at how many people swallow several or more condoms filled
with illegal drugs in order to smuggle them into the US,at the request of
foreign drug cartels.One can probably carry more drugs externally than
internally.


Sure, one guy can't carry very much on his person. But how much can he
put in the trunk of his car?

Now multiply that by a couple million times a year.

So again, the question is what do we do about it???

If they obey the law while they're here, nothing. And that means *all*
of our laws, including having a valid license, registration, and
insurance before driving _one_inch_ on a public road, and paying taxes
on their wages just like the rest of us do. Those that break the law
should be deported the instant we figure out where they came from.


There are those who argue for IMMEDIATE deportation of ALL those who
violate immigration law.

Yes,no reward for breaking our laws.

The US Border Patrol puts hundreds of
people a day if not thousands of people a day back across the border.
The borders are LONG and sparsely populated.

That's why we need a fence along that border.

Once here, it is DIFFICULT to
find the undocumented immigrant as they SPREAD OUT all across the USA.
This will be an EXPENSIVE process, just to collect and export the
undocumented workers.

Hey,it will give Amtrak a boost.More good jobs for US citizens.


See above -- as long as they're obeying the law, leave them alone.

But they are NOT "obeying the law";they entered illegally,use fraudulent
documents,drive without a license or insurance;all sorts of laws broken.

There are those who argue for complete amnesty as these are, by and
large, economic refugees who make a large and valuable contribution to
the USA economy.

Nonsense. They're a net *drain* on the economy. Measure the amount of
social services that the illegals consume. Look at the hospitals in
California that are closing because they can't afford to keep treating
people that can't pay, but aren't allowed under Federal law to turn
them away.

Amnesty has a price as it then says OK, we don't care
who comes across our borders.

Right, that's why it's a bad idea. It didn't work in the 1980s, and it
won't work now.

It was not enforced,but only given token attention.



And we have the status quo. That is, the US Border Patrol catches
those that it can and deports them. It raids businesses that have a
history of using undocumented workers, imposing fines and exporting
the undocumented workers. They try to get more employees and a bigger
budget from Congress, and depending on the whims of the political
process, they get it or not.

trouble is;only the Feds are allowed to enforce the immigration
laws;anytime a local or state LEO catches illegals,they end up having to
let them go,and then they disappear.Or they are told to not inquire into
their immigration status to begin with.


*That* is the right place to start: *enforce* the laws already on the
books that prohibit hiring illegal aliens.




--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

wrote in
:

On Sat, 06 May 2006 14:46:44 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:

Sure, one guy can't carry very much on his person. But how much can he
put in the trunk of his car?
The wetback is in the trunk, along with 20 other guys. Not much room
for drugs. These folks usually walk and carry as much WATER as they
can, again not much room for drugs.



http://www.usbc.org/media/pr9708.htm
says otherwise.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

(Doug Miller) wrote in
. com:

In article , "Doug Kanter"
wrote:
"Doug Miller" wrote in message
y.com...
In article , "Joseph
Meehan" wrote:
Jim Yanik wrote:...
I note that now many illegals are bringing illegal drugs along
with them to help defray the cost of their being smuggled into the
US. IOW,mules.

Really! So if we were to open the boarders then we could stop
this
kind of drug trade.

Think it through...

If we open the borders, then the ones who are now bringing drugs
across to pay
for their passage can just as easily -- probably *more* easily --
continue to
bring drugs across, this time to sell, and *keep* the money instead
of having
to give it to the people who smuggle them across.

In other words, open borders = dramatically *increased* incentive to
smuggle
drugs into the country. And dramatically increased *opportunity* to
do so. Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)


Why are you so focused on drugs? There's little or nothing we can do
to stop them. Where there's demand, someone will appear with a supply.
Prohibition didn't work. Neither does the "war on drugs".

"Focused on drugs"? Not me. I was just responding to the silly idea
that open borders would somehow reduce the drug problem. Of course
you're right that the "sar on drugs" isn't working, and for exactly
the same reason that Prohibition didn't.


People here made the claim that illegals don't commit many crimes,generally
"obey the law". The fact that they smuggle drugs is one more datapoint
proving otherwise.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

In article Dx87g.133246$7a.73639@pd7tw1no, "Noozer" wrote:

Entering the United States, or any nation, is a privilege, not a universal
right. Any nation has the right to control who it allows to come in, and
who
it decides to keep out.

Not to detract from the current discussion... but...

Actually, this is *very* pertinent to the present discussion.

I'm a Canadian. I would *LOVE* to move to the US, become a citizen, pay
taxes, etc. Doing so is pretty much impossible, unless I want to spend years
going to school. Canadians can't even participate in the VISA lottery.


That's the other side of the immigration problem: the U.S. makes it WAY too
hard to come here LEGALLY. Your situation is pretty similar to that of a
friend of mine who came here (legally) from Poland about six years ago, along
with his wife. They're employed (legally) in professional jobs, speak English,
pay taxes, have valid driver's licenses and auto insurance, have never
committed any sort of crime, and want to remain here and eventually become
citizens. But every couple years, they have to go through an extended
rigmarole to get their work visas extended, and they never know if they're
going to be allowed to stay here.

So why the hell does our government make it so hard for people like them, and
you, to come and stay? That makes NO sense.

Considering that my wife and I earn over $100,000/year, I doubt we'd be any
burden.

I shouldn't think so. :-) So how come we keep you out, and let unskilled
workers in? Should be the other way around in my mind...

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

wrote:
On Sat, 06 May 2006 13:47:59 -0400, George
wrote:


When you go in for renewal they see your photo from the last time on
their monitor plus it can also flag them to request your SSN card and
other info such as a copy of a rental lease and utility bills.

How can that simple SS card be any sort of ID? There is no
description, DOB, picture or any other personally identifiable
information on iot. That is by design. When SS was established they
went out of there way not to make it a national ID card. In fact there
used to be federal laws against using SS numbers as an ID. That went
by the wayside when the IRS started using it as your "mark of the
beast".

Thats why they made the drivers license into a national ID card without
calling it that. They want the SSN so they can associate it. They do
verify (later) that the SSN belongs to the same named person so printing
your own won't help. They also require stuff like a lease and utility
bills in your name.





Of course any 10 year old with a color printer can make a perfect copy
of a SS card with any name or number you want. They even sell them as
a perfect copy on plastic or metal. You just need to provide the name
and number you want on the card.

Jim Yanik wrote:

Have you ever broken a law? Have you dropped a candy wrapper? Have you
ever went over the speed limit?

--
Joseph Meehan

Dia duit

Doug Miller wrote:
In article ,
wrote:
On Sat, 06 May 2006 18:37:05 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:

Do you suggest that the operators of shopping malls should *not*
have the right to keep out people who have, for example, a known
history of shoplifting?

If someone contested it the mall would lose. Public accomedation laws
trump "private bans".

Shopping malls are *private* property FYI.

Do some research on public accommodation laws. You will find that there
are rules. For example most places must provide for the handicap and may
not prevent certain races etc to come in.

--
Joseph Meehan

Dia duit

Jim Yanik wrote:


People here made the claim that illegals don't commit many
crimes,generally "obey the law". The fact that they smuggle drugs is
one more datapoint proving otherwise.

You got the numbers on that?

--
Joseph Meehan

Dia duit

On Sat 06 May 2006 05:43:19a, Thus Spake Zarathustra, or was it Joseph
Meehan?

Jim Yanik wrote:...
I note that now many illegals are bringing illegal drugs along with
them to help defray the cost of their being smuggled into the US.
IOW,mules.

Really! So if we were to open the boarders then we could stop this
kind of drug trade.

It would be far simpler to legalize drugs. I doubt it would significantly
increase drug use and it would eliminate a significant amount of crime. And
no, before you ask or assume, I have never been nor am I presently a drug
user.

Eliminating the current illegal population is a moot point. Preventing more
from entering the country is possible.

My only objection in the virulent influx of aliens is the changing culture.

--
Wayne Boatwright @¿@¬
_____________________

wrote:
On 6 May 2006 21:51:48 GMT, Jim Yanik wrote:


No he hasn't;look at how many people swallow several or more condoms filled
with illegal drugs in order to smuggle them into the US,at the request of
foreign drug cartels.One can probably carry more drugs externally than
internally.

This is getting stupid now. Why would someone swallow condoms full of
drugs if they are sneaking in? That is a trick they use to go through
CUSTOMS, usually at the airport.


And I still argue that the quantity of drugs involved in moving PEOPLE
across the border illegally is a drop in the bucket compared to the
total traffic in drugs. Why take the risk of having a significant
amount of it lost, confiscated, contaminated, when it is FAR easier to
bring the stuff in on airplanes, boats, in trucks, in cargo containers,
etc. in LARGE quantities, i.e. hundreds of pounds to thousands of pounds
at a time.

Areas that have HIGH influx of illegals moving thru the area DO have
problems, there is no disagreement there. Many of the houses in
downtown Brownsville have iron grilles over the windows to keep out the
thirsty, hungry, desperate folks that manage to wade across the river
undetected by the US Border Patrol. This is repeated in almost all the
border towns that lie next to the US/Mexican border. Until they can get
to their eventual destination, life is miserable and very very risky.
Yes, farmers have problems with lost cattle and trash.

This is true however for transients all over. In the big cities we have
the folks who sleep under bridges, scrounge for cans to sell to
recyclers, beg for money from passerby. Few of these are immigrants,
these are desperate, largely home grown folks who have fallen on
horrible circumstances. Stores and homes near where these folks spend
most of their time have problems with missing/stolen items, foul odors,
trash, and unsightly messes.

"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
.. .
(Doug Miller) wrote in
. com:

In article , "Doug Kanter"
wrote:
"Doug Miller" wrote in message
gy.com...
In article , "Joseph
Meehan" wrote:
Jim Yanik wrote:...
I note that now many illegals are bringing illegal drugs along
with them to help defray the cost of their being smuggled into the
US. IOW,mules.

Really! So if we were to open the boarders then we could stop
this
kind of drug trade.

Think it through...

If we open the borders, then the ones who are now bringing drugs
across to pay
for their passage can just as easily -- probably *more* easily --
continue to
bring drugs across, this time to sell, and *keep* the money instead
of having
to give it to the people who smuggle them across.

In other words, open borders = dramatically *increased* incentive to
smuggle
drugs into the country. And dramatically increased *opportunity* to
do so. Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)


Why are you so focused on drugs? There's little or nothing we can do
to stop them. Where there's demand, someone will appear with a supply.
Prohibition didn't work. Neither does the "war on drugs".

"Focused on drugs"? Not me. I was just responding to the silly idea
that open borders would somehow reduce the drug problem. Of course
you're right that the "sar on drugs" isn't working, and for exactly
the same reason that Prohibition didn't.


People here made the claim that illegals don't commit many
crimes,generally
"obey the law". The fact that they smuggle drugs is one more datapoint
proving otherwise.


Maybe you should define WHAT TYPE of illegals you're talking about.
Certainly, you'd agree that the largest sheer numbers consist of people
coming over the border with Mexico, looking for work. There have been plenty
of news stories about them, and the task faced by border patrol cops.
Virtually none of those stories mention drugs as the main concern.

The View From the Borderland

If I want to fly from Tucson to Phoenix,
( a distance of 100+ miles )
I must;
Provide two ID's ( one of them, "picture" )
Have my name checked against a "no-fly" list
Not have any of dozens of "forbidden" items in my pockets
Submit to a body search
Have my luggage scanned and possibly searched,

HOWEVER

There are THOUSANDS of "illegals"
slipping into this country EVERY DAY !!

We don't know their country of origin,
We don't know their intent
We don't know what they're bringing with them;
( drugs, weapons, diseases, contraband )
We don't know if they're criminals.
They COULD be terrorists from other parts of the world.

And apparently, our government doesn't care !

Borderland states have been screaming for federal help
with the streams of illegal aliens crossing into this country.

They're a burden on our school system, our law enforcement,
our welfare system, our hospitals, and our national safety.

But unfortunately, this administration is preoccupied
with "the adventure in Iraq" !
*
*
Some people say;
"But they're only here to work !"
( as though that covers everything )

Lets say you wake up one night,
hear noises... go downstairs
and find a half-dozen strangers in your kitchen !
You don't know who they are
You didn't invite them into your house.
What will YOU do ???
*
*
*
The latest "whine" from Washington is;
There are tens of millions of "illegals".....
the problem is too big"

Thank God we didn't have this government in 1941.
Half of the country' would be speaking German,
the other half, Japanese.
*
*
Want to come to this country ?
Get in line !
Come here LEGALLY !
Learn to speak ENGLISH.
Become a citizen.


( amen )

rj

wrote in
:

On 6 May 2006 21:51:48 GMT, Jim Yanik wrote:

No he hasn't;look at how many people swallow several or more condoms
filled with illegal drugs in order to smuggle them into the US,at the
request of foreign drug cartels.One can probably carry more drugs
externally than internally.
This is getting stupid now. Why would someone swallow condoms full of
drugs if they are sneaking in? That is a trick they use to go through
CUSTOMS, usually at the airport.

you ought to include the text posted BEFORE my comment so that others can
understand the CONTEXT you evidently missed.

R.Gammon said;
Drug smuggling is a BIG time business and the small amounts that a
single person could carry across is not worth very much to the folks
that move tons of stuff a year on aircraft and boats.

D.Miller said;
You haven't thought that one through very far, have you?

J.Yanik said;
No he hasn't;look at how many people swallow several or more condoms filled
with illegal drugs in order to smuggle them into the US,at the request of
foreign drug cartels.One can probably carry more drugs externally than
internally.

To explain it to you;

The OP was claiming that illegals crossing the border could not backpack
enough drugs to be worthwhile,but since individuals ALREADY swallow many
condoms to smuggle through LEGAL entry points,a viable and oft-repeated
method,that the quantity of drugs smuggled by a single person IS
worthwhile.
IOW,if individuals swallowing drugs in condoms moves a worthwhile amount of
drugs,then certainly a person could CARRY externally an even greater
quantity and still be worthwhile.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Robert Gammon wrote in
. com:

wrote:
On 6 May 2006 21:51:48 GMT, Jim Yanik wrote:


No he hasn't;look at how many people swallow several or more condoms
filled with illegal drugs in order to smuggle them into the US,at
the request of foreign drug cartels.One can probably carry more
drugs externally than internally.

This is getting stupid now. Why would someone swallow condoms full of
drugs if they are sneaking in? That is a trick they use to go through
CUSTOMS, usually at the airport.


And I still argue that the quantity of drugs involved in moving PEOPLE
across the border illegally is a drop in the bucket compared to the
total traffic in drugs.

So what? It's STILL an ILLEGAL ACT,a CRIME, a FELONY.
You said that the illegals("most of them") were not committing any crimes
except the crossiing itself.
I think you have your blinders on.

Why take the risk of having a significant
amount of it lost, confiscated, contaminated, when it is FAR easier to
bring the stuff in on airplanes, boats, in trucks, in cargo
containers, etc. in LARGE quantities, i.e. hundreds of pounds to
thousands of pounds at a time.

then why do the cartels still get people to swallow drug-filled condoms??
The answer is that they'll use any and every way they can.Including using
illegals as "mules".



--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

"Doug Kanter" wrote in
:


"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
.. .
(Doug Miller) wrote in
. com:

In article , "Doug Kanter"
wrote:
"Doug Miller" wrote in message
igy.com...
In article , "Joseph
Meehan" wrote:
Jim Yanik wrote:...
I note that now many illegals are bringing illegal drugs along
with them to help defray the cost of their being smuggled into
the US. IOW,mules.

Really! So if we were to open the boarders then we could
stop this
kind of drug trade.

Think it through...

If we open the borders, then the ones who are now bringing drugs
across to pay
for their passage can just as easily -- probably *more* easily --
continue to
bring drugs across, this time to sell, and *keep* the money
instead of having
to give it to the people who smuggle them across.

In other words, open borders = dramatically *increased* incentive
to smuggle
drugs into the country. And dramatically increased *opportunity*
to do so. Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)


Why are you so focused on drugs? There's little or nothing we can do
to stop them. Where there's demand, someone will appear with a
supply. Prohibition didn't work. Neither does the "war on drugs".

"Focused on drugs"? Not me. I was just responding to the silly idea
that open borders would somehow reduce the drug problem. Of course
you're right that the "sar on drugs" isn't working, and for exactly
the same reason that Prohibition didn't.


People here made the claim that illegals don't commit many
crimes,generally
"obey the law". The fact that they smuggle drugs is one more
datapoint proving otherwise.


Maybe you should define WHAT TYPE of illegals you're talking about.
Certainly, you'd agree that the largest sheer numbers consist of
people coming over the border with Mexico, looking for work.

And committing all sorts of crimes besides illegal entry.
(the drugs are allegedly carried as part-payment for the smuggler's
guidance in getting to the US undetected)



--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Wayne Boatwright wayneboatwright_at_gmail.com wrote in
8.19:

On Sat 06 May 2006 05:43:19a, Thus Spake Zarathustra, or was it Joseph
Meehan?

Jim Yanik wrote:...
I note that now many illegals are bringing illegal drugs along with
them to help defray the cost of their being smuggled into the US.
IOW,mules.

Really! So if we were to open the boarders then we could stop
this
kind of drug trade.

It would be far simpler to legalize drugs. I doubt it would
significantly increase drug use and it would eliminate a significant
amount of crime. And no, before you ask or assume, I have never been
nor am I presently a drug user.

Eliminating the current illegal population is a moot point.
Preventing more from entering the country is possible.

My only objection in the virulent influx of aliens is the changing
culture.



Perhaps also the lack of regard for our LAWS?
Or maybe their bringing drug-resistant diseases like TB and others that
have been eradicated in the US? (definitely "virulent"!)

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

posted: "all immigrants to stay here should pay taxes
and be required tom learn
english, the official us language.. "


This has probably been covered already, but English is not the official
language of the USA. We have no "official" language.

This has probably been covered already, but English is not the official
language of the USA. We have no "official" language.

And here I thought this country was founded by English-speaking settlers
from England. My bad.

Of course, English is the de facto official language of the WORLD, most
specifically including the United States of America. Why would someone
immigrate to the United States expecting to have to speak French?

Hint to the clueless . . . some things are so obvious that they don't need
to be written down somewhere. Speak English, or go home. -Dave

Yes, English is the language most people speak, yet there are no laws
or ordinances that make it the official language of the USA.

I'm not disagreeing with the point, but I think it's important for us
to realize that our congress has not taken a step that could help
resolve some of these concerns and added costs (printing materials in
multiple languages for diversity's sake, etc.). Maybe if we urge them
to take action on some of these issues, this debate will be simpler.

This has probably been covered already, but English is not the official
language of the USA. We have no "official" language.

And here I thought this country was founded by English-speaking settlers
from England. My bad.

That has nothing to do with an official language. The official
language of politicians (in any country) is the LIE. If you don't
speak it, forget about getting very far as a politician.

Of course, English is the de facto official language of the WORLD, most
specifically including the United States of America. Why would someone
immigrate to the United States expecting to have to speak French?

Hint to the clueless . . . some things are so obvious that they don't need
to be written down somewhere. Speak English, or go home. -Dave

"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
.. .
wrote in
:

On Sat, 06 May 2006 14:46:44 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:

Sure, one guy can't carry very much on his person. But how much can he
put in the trunk of his car?
The wetback is in the trunk, along with 20 other guys. Not much room
for drugs. These folks usually walk and carry as much WATER as they
can, again not much room for drugs.



http://www.usbc.org/media/pr9708.htm
says otherwise.
Jim Yanik


Nice comment in that article:

"These diplomats are well aware of the fact that their citizens are being
exploited, robbed and even murdered by the coyotes who smuggle them into our
country. They are aware that many are carrying drugs into America that will
wind up in the veins of American children."

I wonder if Mr. Nelson would like to volunteer some of his officers to crack
down on liquor stores that sell booze to minors.

"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
...
"Doug Kanter" wrote in
:


"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
.. .
(Doug Miller) wrote in
. com:

In article , "Doug Kanter"
wrote:
"Doug Miller" wrote in message
digy.com...
In article , "Joseph
Meehan" wrote:
Jim Yanik wrote:...
I note that now many illegals are bringing illegal drugs along
with them to help defray the cost of their being smuggled into
the US. IOW,mules.

Really! So if we were to open the boarders then we could
stop this
kind of drug trade.

Think it through...

If we open the borders, then the ones who are now bringing drugs
across to pay
for their passage can just as easily -- probably *more* easily --
continue to
bring drugs across, this time to sell, and *keep* the money
instead of having
to give it to the people who smuggle them across.

In other words, open borders = dramatically *increased* incentive
to smuggle
drugs into the country. And dramatically increased *opportunity*
to do so. Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)


Why are you so focused on drugs? There's little or nothing we can do
to stop them. Where there's demand, someone will appear with a
supply. Prohibition didn't work. Neither does the "war on drugs".

"Focused on drugs"? Not me. I was just responding to the silly idea
that open borders would somehow reduce the drug problem. Of course
you're right that the "sar on drugs" isn't working, and for exactly
the same reason that Prohibition didn't.


People here made the claim that illegals don't commit many
crimes,generally
"obey the law". The fact that they smuggle drugs is one more
datapoint proving otherwise.


Maybe you should define WHAT TYPE of illegals you're talking about.
Certainly, you'd agree that the largest sheer numbers consist of
people coming over the border with Mexico, looking for work.

And committing all sorts of crimes besides illegal entry.
(the drugs are allegedly carried as part-payment for the smuggler's
guidance in getting to the US undetected)
Jim Yanik

So what? Deal with the demand, not the supply. I can get heroin, pot, meth
and anything else I want, any time I want. I choose not to. Write to your
erected slobs and tell them to legalize drugs. Then, we'll all have no
choice but to speak to our children honestly about ALL substance abuse. Oh
my. What a concept.

Doug Kanter wrote:
"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
.. .

wrote in
:


On Sat, 06 May 2006 14:46:44 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:


Sure, one guy can't carry very much on his person. But how much can he
put in the trunk of his car?

The wetback is in the trunk, along with 20 other guys. Not much room
for drugs. These folks usually walk and carry as much WATER as they
can, again not much room for drugs.


http://www.usbc.org/media/pr9708.htm
says otherwise.
Jim Yanik



Nice comment in that article:

"These diplomats are well aware of the fact that their citizens are being
exploited, robbed and even murdered by the coyotes who smuggle them into our
country. They are aware that many are carrying drugs into America that will
wind up in the veins of American children."

I wonder if Mr. Nelson would like to volunteer some of his officers to crack
down on liquor stores that sell booze to minors.



We can agree that the coyote abuse the HELL out of their customers in
all sorts of ways. Well publicized case here in South texas where a 18
wheeler driver walked away from a rig in 90+ degree heat leaving 20 some
odd Hispanic refugees to nearly all die in the heat last year.

However, the quantity of heroin and other controlled drugs sold in the
USA cannot be accounted for solely by the actions of mules. Yes, there
are drug mules, but I doubt that the folks who crontrol the bulk of the
narcotics trade use mules to move their product. Yes Jamacians use
mules to move drugs into Europe. I have doubts that the massive
cocaine production in South America, the massive poppy fields across
Asia move into the markets of the USA and Europe to any significant
degree in the guts of mules. Its hundreds of tons of this stuff
consumed each year, it can't all be coming in the guts of mules, only a
very very minor portion can be accounted for in this manner.

After all a 1/2 kilo each in the guts of even 20 passengers on an
airplane bound for the USA (note all the stories are about mules on
airplanes, not folks wading or walking across a national border) will
only supply a neighborhood with product for a few weeks. The total
supply of narcotics coming into the western world is simply too large
for mules to play anything but a minor role in transport of the product.

Jim Yanik wrote:
...

So what? It's STILL an ILLEGAL ACT,a CRIME, a FELONY.
You said that the illegals("most of them") were not committing any
crimes except the crossiing itself.
I think you have your blinders on.

....


then why do the cartels still get people to swallow drug-filled
condoms?? The answer is that they'll use any and every way they
can.Including using illegals as "mules".

Think man, if someone is coming across illegally, why bother swallowing
it. Just keep it in the back back and carry far more.

I fear you are looking for the type of arguments that fit your opinion
and not taking the time to think critically about them.


--
Joseph Meehan

Dia duit

Jim Yanik wrote:
....

Maybe you should define WHAT TYPE of illegals you're talking about.
Certainly, you'd agree that the largest sheer numbers consist of
people coming over the border with Mexico, looking for work.

And committing all sorts of crimes besides illegal entry.
(the drugs are allegedly carried as part-payment for the smuggler's
guidance in getting to the US undetected)

Do you have some facts to present? Accurate verifiable facts?

--
Joseph Meehan

Dia duit