Invest money in a massive fence..... Wouldn't we be better off using that same money to track down the illegal immigrants who are already here, legalize all the immigrants who are willing, and deport those who refuse? Maybe my idea is a little unrealistic without heavy funding, but there's got to be a better way than building the world's largest fence..... It seems so Soviet. There, I've said it. Now go ahead and tell me how wrong I am.

Prog, you are right---and wrong. We definitely have to track down the illegal aliens who are here, no doubt about it. But doing so without first making sure they can't just stroll back across the border would be an act of futility.

We need a lot of laws put in place to make fixing this problem possible.

It was a very minor offense to cross into this country illegally. It is simply not realistic or fair to suddenly make a retroactive law increasing the level of criminality for something that may have been done decades ago.

We could initiate a registration program and give illegals sixty days or so to register, and make failure to register a felony. Something like that would be a carrot-and-stick approach to the problem, would get millions in the system with names and birth dates and fingerprints and so on, and would give us a good weapon to uae against those who refuse to register. But without a weapon like that, even if we find illegals, they are guilty only of a misdemeanor-level offense.

It is not against the law to use forged documents. That has to be addressed. I would make it a major felony to produce false documents, and a slightly lesser felony to use them. This would be another weapon in the arsenal.

But as long as the flow of illegals into the country is unchecked, kicking them out would be like trying to empty a lake by pumping its water into a connected lake---it will just flow back.

Prog, it would be a disaster to legalize those who are here. That would be like punishing a bank robber by giving him money.

Law is a funny thing. It is a real, tangible, thing, but also a subliminal, abstract concept. Why would we want to establish a huge percentage of our population based on the bltatant ignoring of one our laws? And why would we want the offspring of that population convinced that they can pick and choose which laws to obey and which to ignore? Sending that message would be a terrible thing.

And where would we stop? After we created a huge population segment which is based on breaking the law and then being rewarded for it, how do we address any other people, or segment, who claim they have the right to decide which laws they will and will not respect? And in all fairness, how can we address those who break those laws?

And what about those who sacrificed so much to be here legally? Do you know what they went through, and how much it cost, for them to respect this country and its laws? What do we do about them? Tell them their efforts were not important, that we do not respect them? How about reparations? Do we repay them for the time, effort, and money they expended? And how can we tell them how much we appreciate their respect for our country and its laws after we GIVE the same benefits to those who flipped us off?

We already have a two-tiered system of justice in this country. Legal residents and citizens are held to a much higher standard than immigration scofflaws. Personally, as a native-born American who had a warrant issued for her arrest when a trafffic ticket payment was lost in the mail, I am already ticked off at learning that an illegal alien stopped for driving a vehicle listed on a national stop list, found to be carrying forged ID, with no license or registration or insurance, was held for three days till a magistrate dropped all charges. (He later dragged a woman to death behind his pickup.) Americans can't get away with driving with no license or insurance, but illegals can.

Expanding that to create an even larger and more significant privileged class, of people who not only do not have consequences for their lawbreaking but who are rewarded for it, while others are not, would be simply wrong.

No, Prog, on the surface your "solution" sounds simple and cheap and even compassionate. But it is inherently unfair, inherently unreasonable, and would create huge problems in the Unintended Consequences category.

Hooray for fences... heaven forbid they just go around...

Border fence! Finally! Yah!
:)

Good fences make good neighbors.

It's a start, but much more needs to be done.

The ultimate question is whether they've actually put legitimate funding behind building the fence. Otherwise the whole thing will be meaningless.

Almiranta, you should have your own blog or even your own radio show.

It's a start, but I am doubtful anything will come of this fence. I'll be surprised if half of it will be built at all.

Baby steps indeed, I'm not ready to believe enough in congress is ready to work on this problem yet.

"The ultimate question is whether they've actually put legitimate funding behind building the fence. Otherwise the whole thing will be meaningless." Posted by: Warriornation

I believe they have.

I'll second Donovan16's suggestion and follow it with one of my own. Almiranta, have you ever thought about running for elected office? You'd make a terrific senator!
:)

"Wouldn't we be better off using that same money to track down the illegal immigrants who are already here"

The Border Patrol has admitted in the past that most of their apprehensions are of illegals LEAVING the country: They're going back home to spend their earnings. IOW, they deport themselves.

Along with this, the Wall Street Journal reports that it's recently gotten very hard to find illegals to pick crops up and down the West Coast. According to the WSJ the very rumor that the US is cracking down on the borders has discouraged migrants from crossing, in large numbers.

The Border Patrol has, under pressure, dropped its "catch and release" routine for illegals caught in this country: They would catch an illegal and then release him w/o bail to await his deportation hearing. Not surprisingly most never showed up for trial; they'd just move on. Now they're locking them up which again is discouraging them from entering the country.

Taken all together it's clear that improved border enforcement BY ITSELF curbs illegal immigration and reduces the # of illegals already in this country. I'm hoping we get to a point where instad of devoting massive resources to finding and deporting someone's house maid we can use those to catch the real bad guys entering the country - drug runners and terrorists.

One thing I do not want to see is another round of amnesty for illegal immigrants. Anyone notice how many more came after the last round.

I agree that there needs to be more consequences for using forged documents, both for the individual who does it and the employer who accepts them. Also, more needs to be done to encourage immigrants to use legal means, meaning spending time in jail, unable to work or earn income for coming over illegally.

A guest worker program MIGHT work, but it would have to be funded and policed properly. That would mean the companies that want to use guest workers should have to pay a fee for the privileage of using a guest worker rather than a legal resident or citizen.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15149231/

No sooner did Congress authorize construction of a 700-mile fence on the U.S.-Mexico border last week than lawmakers rushed to approve separate legislation that ensures it will never be built, at least not as advertised, according to Republican lawmakers and immigration experts.

thanks, donovan and freedom---you are too kind.

But I am just a typical conservative. I read, I research, I study, and I think. I am not driven by hatred or fanaticism. Few things give better time for pondering than hours on a tractor or hauling hay, so I may have more time for reflection than many.

I try to keep emotion out of my thinking, though I clearly fail when I get so frustrated with the obdurate determination of some Libs to be as silly and stupid as they can, thinking they are making points when in fact they are really just regurgitating talking points they have been fed by their minders. But my philosophy is not emotion based.

Prog seemed to be sincere and genuinely interested in fairness and in finding a solution. And he was clearly expecting to be attacked. There is nothing wrong with a civil discussion of opposing points of view, and this is what most of us strive for here, though there is an intolerance for drivel and talking points.

I believe that the main difference between conservatives and the radicals we see intruding here is that conservatives have a political philosophy. This philosophy is, for the most part, one of smaller government (as a goal, anyway) and personal responsibility and lower taxes and freedom and fairness and national security and general decency. We are realists. We understand that none of these goals can be achieved in totality, all the time. But they are worthwhile goals, and we try to work toward them.

And then we base our political affiliation on the party most likely to achieve as many of those goals as possible. In our case, the Republican Party is clearly the one most likely to at least try.

But the Liberals seem to be the exact opposite. They appear to start with the political affiliation, and then build what passes for a philosophy on the emotional basis of who they like and who they don't.

And they like easy answers. Poor people? Give them money. Illegals? Make them legal. Often it just takes following one of their "ideas" to its logical conclusion to rnf up with the points I try to make here.

But acknowledgement is always nice---thanks....

You know, grosseMann is the only one that has (so far) addressed the objective reality of the situation. I only wish he would complete the thought, because I don't have time to document it. But the fact is (and more or less under the radar) congress did enact legislation that will essentially preclude the construction of an actual fence in favor of a "virtual" fence which, if you think about it, makes far more sense.

So, grosseMann, are you going to step up to the plate?