Full Version: It's not about Immigration

From: Mike (BIGPIXEL) [#3]
 2 May 2006
To: Mick [#2] 3 May 2006

Ditto but unfortunately they're already here, illegal or otherwise. Hold on to your seats, this isn't going away in any of our lifetimes.

From: Ken D. (KDEVORY) [#4]
 2 May 2006
To: Mike (BIGPIXEL) [#3] 2 May 2006

quote:
Hold on to your seats, this isn't going away in any of our lifetimes.
The longer it's put off the more difficult it'll become. I see no reason to drag it on, other then politicians not wanting to take action. At the same time it would be a mistake to do something rash. It needs to be explored, broken down, and the separate components addressed taking their interrelation into account.

From: Harvey only (HARVEY-ONLY) [#5]
 2 May 2006
To: Ken D. (KDEVORY) [#4] 2 May 2006

But first do what can be done. Close the borders to illegals. Then you will have the same time to sort out the problems, just one less problem.

Let's not just wring our hands and say it is too big to handle at this time. Take the steps that can be taken and then work on the rest.

From: Ken D. (KDEVORY) [#6]
 2 May 2006
To: Harvey only (HARVEY-ONLY) [#5] 3 May 2006

I totally agree. (3682.17) Aside from illegal Mexicans I think most people would agree.

***

Contrast this situation with slavery where the owner had to supply all the basic needs: food, clothes, shelter, medical. It was not very cost effective by today's standards. The people looking for cheap labor today don't want to pay a living wage / take responsibility. (Unfortunately, as has been discussed in other threads, medical can be cost prohibitive.)

From: UncleSteve [#7]
 2 May 2006
To: Ken D. (KDEVORY) [#6] 3 May 2006

quote:
slavery where the owner had to supply all the basic needs: food, clothes, shelter, medical.


Not just slavery..... The law reads (or at least id did 25 years ago) that if you wanted to bring someone into the country to work, ie, be a nanny for your kids, you had to guarantee them a job for a minimum length of time (one year?) and take responsibility for their room, board, etc.

No guarantee, no nanny!

From: UCONN Dave & Lynn too (DANDL48) [#8]
 3 May 2006
To: ALL

I wrote our Rep and Senator's telling that that I have never been a single issue voter but since I feel so stongly on this issue, I told them all if they don't vote to secure our borders FIRST I will vote against them. Our Republican Rep answered in about 2 days saying he feels the same, time will tell with him. Our Republican Senator who's in deep crap with the Lobbiest that was recently nailed to the wall wrote me on his stand re Immigration. Wrote back to him saying He needs to vote to secure the borders first than deal with the immigration problem later. Haven't heard back from him and am still waiting to hear from the other Senator.

From: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#9]
 3 May 2006
To: UCONN Dave & Lynn too (DANDL48) [#8] 3 May 2006

Dave,

That's the way to do it. You're setting a good example.

Thank you.

From: kmccutch [#10]
 3 May 2006
To: ALL

If you go to WWW.numbersusa.com you can send your Senators
and Rep faxes about the immigrant situation.
Keith

From: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#11]
 3 May 2006
To: kmccutch [#10] Unread

Keith,

I think we should mention that people on "either side" of the issue should let their wishes be known.

It's not a one-sided issue.

Thanks for the link.

EDITED: 3 May 2006 by DGL

From: Ken D. (KDEVORY) [#12]
 3 May 2006
To: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#11] 3 May 2006

Even if you don't support it, is anyone here familiar enough with the arguments against securing the boarder to post a summary here? (I'm talking about having uncontrolled/unrestricted passage, not the terms of a policy based passage.) I honestly don't understand what's controversial about this part of the debate.

From: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#13]
 3 May 2006
To: Ken D. (KDEVORY) [#12] 3 May 2006

Ken,

Can the borders ever be truly secure?

From what I've heard, if the proposed 700-mile-long fence were to be built, along the Mexican border, to be effective, it would have to be 100 ft. tall, with half of that height underground.

Welcome to East Berlin.

What about the Canadian border? What about the coasts? What about airspace?

From: Harvey only (HARVEY-ONLY) [#14]
 3 May 2006
To: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#13] 3 May 2006

What about trying and at least reducing the problem? (devil) 

From: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#15]
 3 May 2006
To: Harvey only (HARVEY-ONLY) [#14] 3 May 2006

Harvey,

I'm not opposed to that at all.

If the fence idea doesn't fly, electronic surveillance will probably be the next best thing, but that can easily become heavy grist for the conspiracy theorists, knowing it can be used on anyone.

Good luck to those having to make the crucial decisions.

From: Ken D. (KDEVORY) [#16]
 3 May 2006
To: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#13] 3 May 2006

edited to add: the last two posts were made as I was typing.

Is an impenetrable wall necessary, how about the ability to detect and intercept as an alternative?

Detect: Satellite, ground vibration, string two wires as a capacitance based sensor. Infrared, computer vision... go high tech.

Intercept: helicopters, and ground vehicles.

How about a plant based barrier to slow those that have passed the sensor line.

Those caught need to be identified by some means not perceived as easy to mutilate (finger prints); Use a retina scan or some other biometric.

Currently there is no deterrent. It's taken for granted if you get stopped on your first attempt, you'll make it on your second. -No risk, easy, lots of perceived potential gain...

EDITED: 3 May 2006 by KDEVORY

From: UCONN Dave & Lynn too (DANDL48) [#17]
 3 May 2006
To: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#15] 3 May 2006

What the hell David, Bush has already been tapping our phones and taking away more and more of our Constitutional rights in the name of security, all the while the borders are basically wide open for anyone to walk in.

Spending 40 Billion in 2005 alone for Homeland Security is a joke. Even Halburton in a non bid contract could build your fence for that kind of money and still have money left over to give Foreign Aid to the Saudi's; who really need it since the price of oil is so low.

From: Dave Jones (DAVERJ) [#18]
 3 May 2006
To: UCONN Dave & Lynn too (DANDL48) [#17] 3 May 2006

I think it was Saudi Arabia that just lowered their price of gas in their country because the previous 60 cents per gallon was a "hardship for their citizens".

From: UncleSteve [#19]
 3 May 2006
To: UCONN Dave & Lynn too (DANDL48) [#17] 3 May 2006

quote:
Bush has already been tapping our phones


Does this mean you are coming out of the closet? The only calls being "tapped" according to the reports in the news AND from the White Tower, er, House were int'l calls to the middle east.....

Salam!

From: Mick [#20]
 3 May 2006
To: UCONN Dave & Lynn too (DANDL48) [#8] 3 May 2006

Hi Dave,

Here in Colorado if someone trespasses on your property and you feel your life is threartened, it is cool (legal) to shoot them.

The (illegals, immigrants, aliens etc., etc.) are trespassing on our country, and they are threatening my (way) of life.

Maybe don't shoot em, but sure as HELL get them outa here !

There are many LEGAL ways to immigrate to OUR country.

Mick

EDITED: 3 May 2006 by MICK

From: UCONN Dave & Lynn too (DANDL48) [#21]
 3 May 2006
To: UncleSteve [#19] 3 May 2006

You caught me :S 

From: UCONN Dave & Lynn too (DANDL48) [#22]
 3 May 2006
To: Mick [#20] 3 May 2006

Mick,

Now don't you go shooting ET. He's a good Alien. Where is Agent's Scully & Mulder when you need them to track down the bad ones

It was great seeing you in Vegas!

Show messages:  1-2  3-22  23-35

Back to thread list | Login

© 2024 Project Beehive Forum