I'm wondering if it will gain any traction in Congress. The basis of the plan is:
Use National Guard troops for monitoring, training, and building of border infrastructure
increasing border patrol agents even more, by another 6,000 agents by 2008
Use technology such as motion sensors, aerial recon drones and infrared cameras to search for illegals
Increase funding to border towns for local law enforcement
End "catch and release" by increasing the space in detention facilities and drastically cutting the time it takes to deport illegals to their home countries
Create an immediate temporary guest worker program
Create a tamperproof ID system using biometrics and digital fingerprinting, so employers can be sure of who they are hiring, and everyone can be sure they are not forgable.
Allow established illegals who have worked here for years to work towards citizenship, by learning English, paying a penalty, taxes. But citizenship wouldn't be automatic, they'd still have to go to the back of the line.
A lot of good stuff in there, but I'm wondering how they verify how long an illegal has been here, and how they will then proceed to round up everyone who does not qualify and send them home. That's still more than a million people. Bush said himself in the speech that it is "neither wise nor realistic" to round up millions and send them home.
I like a lot of what he is suggesting, and while the plan has its faults, I've yet to see a far reaching plan that is any better.
Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
While I like a few parts of this plan, it seems a little overboard. For one thing, I really don't see any reason for the nationla guard to be called out.
Also, is the ID system part of the guest worker program, or is it meant for the general public.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
ID system is just for the guest worker program, and maybe for legal immigrants too, he wasn't really specific on that, but it isn't for the general public. Though I'm not sure how long behind it a full on program for the general public would be. I think we're headed for that type of thing in the future, and I don't see any obvious red flags for why there shouldn't be.
I don't think it's overboard at all though. The National Guard is being called out on a temporary basis, mostly to do training for border control agents, and for the building of patrol roads, natural barriers and other high tech surveillance stuff. They will not be involved in policing actions.
Illegal immigration aside, the border SHOULD be monitored. If not for illegals, then for drug runners, or terrorists, spies, whatever. We should know what is happening on our own doorstep. This should have been done a long time ago, it just looks drastic because he's proposing we do it all at once.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
quote:Originally posted by ricree101: While I like a few parts of this plan, it seems a little overboard. For one thing, I really don't see any reason for the nationla guard to be called out.
That's partly because of how the media, especially the Latin media have been slanting it. Univision for example talks about 'militarizing the border.' The national guard will not be bringing tanks, artillary, etc. From what it sounds like, most of them will be in a logistics/support role.
It's very enlightening to watch Latin news programs. You really see how the biases of the news corporations comes into play when you look at how CNN vs. Univision reports the same event. It's also interesting to see what stories are emphasized and hwat are ignored.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: [*]End "catch and release" by increasing the space in detention facilities and drastically cutting the time it takes to deport illegals to their home countries
Let the Prison-Industrial Complex rejoice!
-Bok
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I think that's a bit of an overstatement Bok.
When it comes down to it, people are breaking the law and then being released into society with a piece of paper that tells them to come back to court, and it's usually ignored.
Would you support a system that caught and released everyday criminals in major cities or rural areas?
These aren't PRISONS. They are detention centers. Really it's a glorified holding area for illegals until they can be sent home to their nation of origin.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
I’m not sure if this was a suggestion or part of the plan, but I heard them saying that the National Guard would be there on their two week drills. In other words units all across the US would just do their two week training doing something very constructive and that way the cost would be minimal since they would be going somewhere for training anyway. At least that was how I understood the thought.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
This plan has a lot of merit, IMO.
Before you scoff, think of this...
When was the last time you heard me say that about any of Bush's plans for anything?
Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jay: I’m not sure if this was a suggestion or part of the plan, but I heard them saying that the National Guard would be there on their two week drills. In other words units all across the US would just do their two week training doing something very constructive and that way the cost would be minimal since they would be going somewhere for training anyway. At least that was how I understood the thought.
By the way, who is going to pay for their transportation? The states?
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
I can understand the need to decrease border permeability with regard to things like the drug trade and organized crime.
As far as illegal immigrants go, especially those who work to support others on the other side of the border, there are root causes that need to be dealt with before we can stem the tide of the desperate. Anything else is a finger in the dike.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:These aren't PRISONS. They are detention centers.
Toe-MAY-toe, toe-MAH-toe.
-pH
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Big difference when a prison holds someone for a long term, and a detention center is just holding them until they can be sent home, a process that should be expedited much quicker than it used to be.
The suggestion that this is going to balloon the US prison population is dishonest and false.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nato:
quote:Originally posted by Jay: I’m not sure if this was a suggestion or part of the plan, but I heard them saying that the National Guard would be there on their two week drills. In other words units all across the US would just do their two week training doing something very constructive and that way the cost would be minimal since they would be going somewhere for training anyway. At least that was how I understood the thought.
By the way, who is going to pay for their transportation? The states?
I read that the states will pay for it, and then be reimbursed by the federal government for everything-including use of the troops.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: I can understand the need to decrease border permeability with regard to things like the drug trade and organized crime.
As far as illegal immigrants go, especially those who work to support others on the other side of the border, there are root causes that need to be dealt with before we can stem the tide of the desperate. Anything else is a finger in the dike.
Yes, much of Bush's speech was focused on the root cause of people coming here illegally- the chance to get a leg up on their countrymen (doing things the legal way) on coming here and finding work. There were even some more specific suggestions, such as ID cards that include biometric data and increased employer verification.
Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Big difference when a prison holds someone for a long term, and a detention center is just holding them until they can be sent home, a process that should be expedited much quicker than it used to be.
The suggestion that this is going to balloon the US prison population is dishonest and false.
That wasn't exactly the claim, though. It will help the "prison-industrial complex" or perhaps just Halliburton with more profit-assured contracts. Like the one they got in January:
quote:from here: Plus, there was that curious development in January when the Army Corps of Engineers awarded Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg Brown & Root a $385 million contract to construct detention centers somewhere in the United States, to deal with "an emergency influx of immigrants into the U.S., or to support the rapid development of new programs," KBR said. [Market Watch, Jan. 26, 2006]
Later, the New York Times reported that "KBR would build the centers for the Homeland Security Department for an unexpected influx of immigrants, to house people in the event of a natural disaster or for new programs that require additional detention space." [Feb. 4, 2006]
The contract they mention is yet another to Halliburton, despite their drastic overcharging of the US or failure to deliver services on armloads of othercontracts.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Thanks for providing the link. I started to watch and then decided to listen to my new Pete Seeger CD instead.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I suspect the root cause of people coming here illegally is the lack of opportunity to come here legally, not any particular desire to get a leg up on other immigrants.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Comments:
1) Guest Worker--where the government backs your boss in setting the work and wage rules you must obey or be shipped home. IE--Indentured Servitude.
2) Prisons are where people are kept for a judicially decided amount of time. Detention Centers are where people are held for as long as the Government finds it in thier interest. GITMO is just a detention center too.
3) If the National Guard spend there training time building fences and walls and patroling borders, when do they train? When do they learn how to fight forest fires, rescue hurricane victims, discover and defuse roadside explosives, learn how to be soldiers, and how to be peace keepers in a hostile country.
4) 6000 National Guard is about equal to the expect recruiting shortfall for the National Guard this year.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
It'll ballon the same folks who built all those prisons though. They are the big winners of that bullet point.
*read thread further* What Nato said. So I guess this plan has been in the works for a while now.
-Bok
Posted by Robin Kaczmarczyk (Member # 9067) on :
Let me explain politics for you kids.
1. Bush sent the troops to contain problems between Mexicans and the Minutemen. A shooting war could be catastrophic for both countries, and anytime you have a bunch o' yahoos with guns at the border, looking for Mexicans, yer asking for trouble.
2. Bush also understands that elections are coming up, and he needs to show he's not weak on the Mexicans.
3. Fox's reaction is pretty much standard politics as well, he can't show that he's weak on the stupid Americans.
4. Both Fox and Bush are trying to avoid a war. The fact remains that a war is inevitable unless the border is dissolved. Too many latins want in, to many anglos want to keep them out. Historically, that means war, as in the 100 years war between the French and the English.
5. The only logical solution to the border long-term (and time is running out) is to utterly dissolve it so that folks can come and go as they please. Anything less than that will probably means the destruction of the USA as we know it.
6. A United Latin America is inevitable as well. Already, Chile, Venezuela, Argentina, Brazil and Uruguay are on the same team. Chavez is leading the effot, but this will not occur until sombody in the leading Latin American nation (Mexico) joins in. This is also inevitalbe, as it is inevitable that Manuel Lopez Obrador wins the election in 06, and joins ULA. The USA will have to deal with ULA one way or another, and there's only two ways: dissolve the border or fight. A fight against a ULA will end in the utter elimination of the USA as we know it, kind of the way Germany was eliminated by the Allies in WWII.
Sorry, kids. Politics is an elimination game. We are either a global society and accept the economic implications globally, or we are rouges and thieves and murderers, and must accept the implications of that.
The time is running out. 2012 is the goal for the Latin Americans, wether you accept this or not. There's after all a unifying Mayan Prophecy to think about.
Americans must choose between: Life and Unity or Death and Isolation.
Posted by Robin Kaczmarczyk (Member # 9067) on :
Regrading the drug trade.
FORGET ABOUT IT. ITS A STUPID RUSE. LEGALIZE EVERYTHING. EDUCATE YOUR PEOPLE!
Instead, follow the money and think about something far more dangerous and terrible, please: The Weapons Trade. Bottom line on that, stop building them.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: I suspect the root cause of people coming here illegally is the lack of opportunity to come here legally, not any particular desire to get a leg up on other immigrants.
If were talking root causes though, then the reason they lack an opportunity to come here legally in a reasonable timeframe is because of the amount of illegal immigration that has been going on for 20 years.
I'm not saying they're desiring to get one up on other immigrants, but that's effectively what they are doing. They desire to get the work/money right now, which just makes the wait longer for those who are legally trying to work their way through the nightmare process that our government has set up. Until the borders are secure, and it becomes difficult for people that slip through to find work, it wouldn't make much sense to really increase immigration quotas. Then you'd just bring in a bunch of people legally that would have to compete with those here illegally for the same jobs. It's not a pretty scenario.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
I like this plan a whole heck of a lot better than what I've heard in the past. He is focusing at least some effort on allowing "established illegals" to remain in the states, given certain expected fines and what-not. IMO, that is leaps and bounds ahead of the round-em-up-and-ship-em-out plan.
And creating and guest worker program will do a lot to stem the continuous flow of illegals. I think that comparing a guest worker program to indentured servitude is a little over the top. With the rates that illegals are getting under the table, right now, I think that anything the gov't regulates has got to be at least as much, probably more.
How does this plan relate to the Immigration Act that was being discussed earlier in the month?
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
I'm still in favor of a benefit of the doubt plan. Make it clear that anyone who registers at the border can get a temporary worker's visa, with an id number that employers must file, and THEN we can start talking about getting those that don't bother doing this in dentention center's and shipped out. If they can't do the simplest thing, that's when more serious consequences come in.
-Bok
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
No, I think you'll find our nationalist protectionism on immigration far predates large masses of illegal immigrants.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
We're each entitled to our own opinion then. Yours boils down to precedent as the reason for the situation. Mine is essentially a supply and demand viewpoint. No doubt there's some of both. I'm convinced though, that our country historically has been willing to overturn years of tradition to solve a problem.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
It isn't tradition that's kept our borders too closed, its racism, nationalism, and fear. Our country has been historically obstinate at overturning things founded on those.
As for your attempt at a supply and demand model, it is inadequate. It fails to adequately deal with that there are already great costs for illegal immigrants to come here. It fails to recognize that the number of places available for immigration is not one supply divided between legal and illegal immigration. It fails to reconcile with the reality of businesses being greatly in favor of increased legal immigration even without stronger controls on illegal immigration.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
It wasn't an attempt at a model, I'm not an economist or an expert in that area.
Although I don't accept your premise that our current immigration policy is based on racism, I think our country has done better and better at eradicating policies based on racism.
I'm certainly not racist and I oppose massive illegal immigration and controlled borders for many reasons. One big reason is to avoid problems of some European countries with very loose immigration laws.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Oh, I don't know to what degree racism currently plays a role, but one only need look at the congressional records from as little as 20 and 30 years ago to know it definitely did fairly recently.
Oddly, EU countries have, as a rule, far stricter immigration laws than the US (excepting wrt each other, of course). Perhaps they should be loosening their laws to reach the same level of economic growth we enjoy .
Posted by Robin Kaczmarczyk (Member # 9067) on :
[QUOTE]Originally posted by fugu13: [QB] It isn't tradition that's kept our borders too closed, its racism, nationalism, and fear. Our country has been historically obstinate at overturning things founded on those.
Bravo!
Posted by Robin Kaczmarczyk (Member # 9067) on :
But you forgot the most important: $$$.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
The Mexican/American border won't be dissolved until Mexico manages to pull itself into the first world. And really, I don't want it dissolved. There's all sorts of crap down there, and I don't trust their border security any more than I trust ours, and ours is pretty crappy at the moment as it is. Why should we put our safety in their hands?
Bok -
quote:I'm still in favor of a benefit of the doubt plan. Make it clear that anyone who registers at the border can get a temporary worker's visa, with an id number that employers must file, and THEN we can start talking about getting those that don't bother doing this in dentention center's and shipped out. If they can't do the simplest thing, that's when more serious consequences come in.
Right, and while thousands or millions who don't trust us continue to pour across the border undocumented, how are we supposed to track or catch them? Even if we were to do what you suggest, there still needs to be heavy border security for those that refuse to follow the rules, and there needs to be consideration for those who take the worker pass and simply disappear into the population. I think your basic idea hinges on trust. And that trust just isn't there, unless there's a part of the idea that I'm missing.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Robin Kaczmarczyk: Regrading the drug trade.
FORGET ABOUT IT. ITS A STUPID RUSE. LEGALIZE EVERYTHING. EDUCATE YOUR PEOPLE!
Instead, follow the money and think about something far more dangerous and terrible, please: The Weapons Trade. Bottom line on that, stop building them.
Well, thanks for clearing that all up.
Chess anyone? Now that all our problems have been solved....
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Well, considering in my plan you could easily get a valid id card, I don't know what you mean? In reality there may not be a huge difference outwardly between how immigration is enforced between today and my scenario, but the ethical burden would have shifted, it seems to me, don't you think?
-Bok
Posted by Robin Kaczmarczyk (Member # 9067) on :
Lyrhawn..
Huh... Because the only other alternative is a 100 years war?
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Y'know, I can think of a few more alternatives than ending up in a scenario like the 100-Years-War...
-Bok
Posted by Robin Kaczmarczyk (Member # 9067) on :
Such as?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Robin -
Why in god's name would there be a 100 years war? Your scenario above reads like a bad Tom Clancy novel.
Bok -
Who is the ethical burden on now? Us? How does this shift it to them? I don't think you'll get a majority of the population, let alone Congresss, to agree to an unrestricted guest worker program. I see the benefits of such a program, you get a name, and a good count on everyone entering the country, but what makes you think everyone is going to trust the United States government enough to actually go through that process?
At the end of the day, they'd still have to go home right? And they still won't want to go home. So like now, they WON'T go home. That puts us right back where we are now, except now we probably have a good idea of where everyone works, what they look like and what their names are. And that leaves us with a huge forced exodus out of the nation.
Probably it won't be that extreme, but that's what will be on the mind of every Congressman voting against it. I should say, that I do like some of the basics of your plan. If we force employers to use only a valid temporary ID number, and give everyone coming through an ID (still a complicated process), then we have a lot more control over the situation.
But that still only puts us on a better footing with the same outcome.
Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
Lyrhawn, I was wondering when someone would bring up the Tom Clancy thing...
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
Mexico has tougher laws than we do on this issue. No one complains about that. I think we could easily match them.
Posted by Robin Kaczmarczyk (Member # 9067) on :
Why 100 years? Hmmm. Because that's how long it would take us to kill you all?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Robin, one of the long-standing traditions we have here at Hatrack is that you're not supposed to threaten the other members with death until you have at least 1000 posts. Please respect our silly ways.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Who is the US in there Robin? South Americans?
And how the hell are you going to win any sort of war against us? Assuming it really came to that.
You aren't making much sense Robin. It's going to take longer than a two sentence post to make any sense out of your Clancy threats.
Posted by Son Of Kerensky (Member # 9233) on :
One day perhaps there will be a completely unified Americas, but we're definately jumping the gun on that a bit I'd say. If it came to war the cost would be too terrible for anyone so that would be unlikely. Anyone who thinks that this would come out good for anyone on this side of the Earth has to be a fool. If anyone has seen what a M1 tank can do and the amount of firepower required to stop one knows what I mean. Besides which unless Mexico has a revolution that succeeds in which Chavez backs there is no way they can wage war around Mexico. The US Navy could stop any attempt at amphibious assault by a South American power or their combined power. The death toll would be the only thing impressive about any war on this hemisphere and that is one thing we don't need. If The United States wants to close the borders they have the right to do so. If you want to get angry about this because you want to go there and work, perhaps you should consider fixing the problems that have you leaving your homeland to work on foreign soil.
Prosperity comes at a price usually payed by an entire generation for their decendants. You cannot acquire it for your people by leaving your country and taking a little money from one economy and taking it to another that only will further the decline over time and create dependance on other nations. If you want to change things then do so, but trying from war is a foolish idea since the carnage and ruin wrought by such things will only make it take even longer.
Poverty is the parent of revolution and crime. Aristotle (384 BC - 322 BC)
Which will you choose?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Well said, for the most part.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Who is the US in there Robin? South Americans?
And how the hell are you going to win any sort of war against us? Assuming it really came to that.
You aren't making much sense Robin. It's going to take longer than a two sentence post to make any sense out of your Clancy threats.
Lyrhawn- I tried having a conversation on this topic with him in the other side of the forum. After admitting that he was quite into recreational drug use, the weirdness in his posts kind of made sense.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Morons unite, you have a new leader!
(BTW, I am speaking about trolls, not any ethnic group. )
Posted by Robin Kaczmarczyk (Member # 9067) on :
Shamn Troll Chief sez:
You stupid Americans. You are doomed. Big Troll chief not tell you his warplans, because you have good Mormon elf-thinngies that tell on us.
Surrender now or face consequences!
Tommy boy.. Me Troll Leader of Non-violent Troll group. I no make threats, just historical prophecies. I prophet, not killer.
Ork and Ogre nations might have other ideas.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I see your point, Baoq.
Posted by Robin Kaczmarczyk (Member # 9067) on :
Kids, kids, kids..
It is so easy to put off my ramblings as the ramblings of a druggie when you are ever so sober and wise. But consider this. In the year 2008, I will be elected Precidente Municipal of my town. By 2012, Mexico might very well have declared war on the USA.
You will never think of Dungeons & Dragons the same way again!
Posted by Robin Kaczmarczyk (Member # 9067) on :
Actually, by 2012 there will be Mariachis singing 'las mananitas' inside the pentagon, and El Presidente de Mexico will be planting the flag of La Virgen de Guadalupe in the White House.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
riiiiight....
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
At about the same time, Sherpas will carry the victorious Tibetans through the Gate of Heavenly Peace in triumph as they celebrate their glory.
Posted by Robin Kaczmarczyk (Member # 9067) on :
Lyrhawn, Kwea..
I am so sorry you do not have any faith in the Mexican Army. We have an ancient and proud tradition of doing dirty things. The USA bit more than it can chew with the middle east, and we Mexicans are a sneaky bunch, we know to strike a man when he's down.
So laugh all you want. He who laughs last..
But like I said, it might take a while. But as long as you don't let our people come and go in OUR LAND, provocatively stolen by your bandidos from our honorable Presidente Santa Anna, we will never rest, and, sorry to say, neither will you.
Posted by Robin Kaczmarczyk (Member # 9067) on :
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
)