America, are you ready to take in 1/3 of Mexico?

[240 is Back]

Please read a list of the crimes that illegals commit just by waking up and eating breakfast:
http://www.fairus.org/issue/illegal-immigration-is-a-crime

I know it's a crime.  

The solution? Deport the illegals that commit crimes

The ones that commit crimes you send their asses back        

But you cannot send everyone back

[syntaxmachine]

Oh, even without advanced technology, the US managed to lock up thousands of japanese, keep tens of thousands of slaves for centuries....

The scale is different in both absolute and relative terms: 12 million persons = ~3.7% of the entire population (legal + illegal).

[240 is Back]

The scale is different in both absolute and relative terms: 12 million persons = ~3.7% of the entire population (legal + illegal).

Simple changes to the law could force most to SELF exit the USA.

Fine any employer who knowingly hires an illegal 100,000.
Fine any person who knowingly rent to an illegal 100,000.
Fine any person who knowingly feeds, drives, enables an illegal 100,000.
GIVE a reward for $10,000 for anyone that turns in an illegal.
And make it very easy for them to leave.  Maybe even give them $5000 exit incentive, and/or a chip, so we get radio pings if they ever try coming back.  Is it really that unreasonable to put a low-jack on a criminal to make sure they don't commit that crime again?

That 12 million number will start shrinking very quickly.   We wouldn't be putting 12 million people in handcuffs.  Most would just drive out of here.  They could start applying LEGALLY, from mexico, not from here.   And we could set up some mnfg/housing towns right across the border to help with the transition.  MEX would love the boost to their economy.   

Above all - these people ARE breaking the law.  They are.  No denying there.  There's nos such thing as "ONLY Kick out the illegals that are breaking the law" - because they ALL are. 

[bears]

Simple changes to the law could force most to SELF exit the USA.

Fine any employer who knowingly hires an illegal 100,000.
Fine any person who knowingly rent to an illegal 100,000.
Fine any person who knowingly feeds, drives, enables an illegal 100,000.
GIVE a reward for $10,000 for anyone that turns in an illegal.
And make it very easy for them to leave.  Maybe even give them $5000 exit incentive, and/or a chip, so we get radio pings if they ever try coming back.  Is it really that unreasonable to put a low-jack on a criminal to make sure they don't commit that crime again?

That 12 million number will start shrinking very quickly.   We wouldn't be putting 12 million people in handcuffs.  Most would just drive out of here.  They could start applying LEGALLY, from mexico, not from here.   And we could set up some mnfg/housing towns right across the border to help with the transition.  MEX would love the boost to their economy.   

Above all - these people ARE breaking the law.  They are.  No denying there.  There's nos such thing as "ONLY Kick out the illegals that are breaking the law" - because they ALL are. 

totally fair.  although people would find 10,000,000 reasons why it is unfair and that those who are prosecuted were racially profiled.  which I always found strange.  if we're looking for illegal Mexicans, don't we have to zero in on...................uh. ...............Mexicans?
 

[240 is Back]

totally fair.  although people would find 10,000,000 reasons why it is unfair and that those who are prosecuted were racially profiled.  which I always found strange.  if we're looking for illegal Mexicans, don't we have to zero in on...................uh. ...............Mexicans?
 

Ainsi sera, groinge qui groinge.

"Let them grumble".

People will complain no matter what.  Let's improve the country and let them say what they will. 

[bears]

Ainsi sera, groinge qui groinge.

"Let them grumble".

People will complain no matter what.  Let's improve the country and let them say what they will. 

word.

[Shockwave]

totally fair.  although people would find 10,000,000 reasons why it is unfair and that those who are prosecuted were racially profiled.  which I always found strange.  if we're looking for illegal Mexicans, don't we have to zero in on...................uh. ...............Mexicans?
 

I dont think we can lo-jack foreign nationals.... hell i cpildnt support lo-jacking anyone.

Thats absolutely unconstitutional on many levels.

[LurkerNoMore]

Dario73 is Mexican though 

HAHAHA.  Dude is too ashamed to say what he is.  Self loathing is a bitch.

[240 is Back]

I dont think we can lo-jack foreign nationals.... hell i cpildnt support lo-jacking anyone.

Thats absolutely unconstitutional on many levels.

The Constitution doesn't apply to non-Americans.

They've sued and sued, but really, they're not americans.
http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/rightsandfreedoms/a/illegalrights.htm

[Shockwave]

The Constitution doesn't apply to non-Americans.

They've sued and sued, but really, they're not americans.
http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/rightsandfreedoms/a/illegalrights.htm

Regardless, its morally wrong on way to many levels and youll never (and rightfully so) get anyone to agree to put GPS trackers on people.

[240 is Back]

Regardless, its morally wrong on way to many levels and youll never (and rightfully so) get anyone to agree to put GPS trackers on people.

We put ankle bracelets on people ALL THE TIME in america.

When people break the law, this can happen.
If you're an illegal alien, you are indeed breaking the law by being here.

If they'll do this to an american lawbreaker, monitor them with GPS trackers... why not do it to foreigners?

[Skeletor]

Fine any employer who knowingly hires an illegal 100,000.

I posted the same thing years ago and some "hard liners" on illegal immigration suddenly had issues with it thinking that businesses would suffer financially (even doing an eligibility to work check obviously was an obstacle to those "entrepreneurs".) Maybe these people were/are actually employing illegals?

[Shockwave]

We put ankle bracelets on people ALL THE TIME in america.

When people break the law, this can happen.
If you're an illegal alien, you are indeed breaking the law by being here.

If they'll do this to an american lawbreaker, monitor them with GPS trackers... why not do it to foreigners?

Because they're foreign nationals, you can't just implant a GPS tracker on a dude and send him home to be constantly monitored by a foreign country.

Criminals here wear ankle bracelets when they've committed a crime and its part of their punishment as US citizens. They get the bracelet off after a short period and go about their lives.

You're talking about forcefully using trackers on people who are sent home to live in their own country, not subject to our laws.

That's a massive violation of privacy and a huge abuse of authority.

[240 is Back]

That's a massive violation of privacy and a huge abuse of authority.

And that is why we will give them 30 days to exit the nation before we install them with RFID chips.

And let's be honest, the US doesn't give a single shit about "violations of privacy", IE, they read anything they want.  If they'll read the mail of actual americans, who cares about the rights of foreign criminals? 

Also, abuse of authority?  LOL we start wars over "what this nation MIGHT do one day".  LOL.   We do so much shady shit in the world, I'm pretty sure "abuse of authority" would bring any congress to fall down laughter. 

Again, if they wanted to keep the illegals out - they could.  Tracker, or whatever.  If we have the technology to watch porn on cell phone as we drive while texting our grandmothers while buying from ebay simultaneously... I'm thinking we could build something to keep carbon-based people from crossing over into the USA.

[240 is Back]

I posted the same thing years ago and some "hard liners" on illegal immigration suddenly had issues with it thinking that businesses would suffer financially (even doing an eligibility to work check obviously was an obstacle to those "entrepreneurs".) Maybe these people were/are actually employing illegals?

yeah, libs/dems are pretty consistent on their love for amnesty.

Repubs try to play the "Let's close the border" then suddenly soften up whenever Palin or Romney or Limbaugh or whoever tells them to.  Seeing them excuse it for "well, if they're working, it's okay" or "well, any illegals BEFORE 2015 can stay", or my fave, "look, only deport that ones that actually break the law..."


They're trying to convince themselves that 85% of the lib plan is A-okay, but they're hardcore repub because "hey, any illegal after 2015 with a murder rap and improperly filled-out paperwork - we will TOTALLY kick HIM out!"

Sorry, doesn't fly.  If you are okay with letting the lawnreaking illlegals stay - for any reason - you are a fcking lib on the subject.  Plain and simple.  it's like being "kinda pregnant".  Nope.  If you're a conservative, you respect the fcking law, and anyone here today that is "undocumented" is committing a crime.  Daily.   If you excuse breaking of law, you're not a repub.  Plain and simple.

[bears]

yeah, libs/dems are pretty consistent on their love for amnesty.

Repubs try to play the "Let's close the border" then suddenly soften up whenever Palin or Romney or Limbaugh or whoever tells them to.  Seeing them excuse it for "well, if they're working, it's okay" or "well, any illegals BEFORE 2015 can stay", or my fave, "look, only deport that ones that actually break the law..."


They're trying to convince themselves that 85% of the lib plan is A-okay, but they're hardcore repub because "hey, any illegal after 2015 with a murder rap and improperly filled-out paperwork - we will TOTALLY kick HIM out!"

Sorry, doesn't fly.  If you are okay with letting the lawnreaking illlegals stay - for any reason - you are a fcking lib on the subject.  Plain and simple.  it's like being "kinda pregnant".  Nope.  If you're a conservative, you respect the fcking law, and anyone here today that is "undocumented" is committing a crime.  Daily.   If you excuse breaking of law, you're not a repub.  Plain and simple.

in all fairness to both sides.  the logistics of this are incredible.  there is no solution that doesn't require a firm hand.  it's a matter of having people in power who want to do what's fair and right and not worrying about being criticized.  it's one of those things where if you try and please everyone you will end up pleasing no one.

[Archer77]

in all fairness to both sides.  the logistics of this are incredible.  there is no solution that doesn't require a firm hand. 

This!  I would also add that any solution requires long term planning and more importantly follow through.

[Shockwave]

This!  I would also add that any solution requires long term planning and more importantly follow through.

And this is why were fucked.

We all know politicians like to make big sweeping speeches and promises but not actually do anything that may alienate voters....

Theyll never take any action that could make them look bad.

[OzmO]

The only real.solution I see is put up a path to citizenship for the illegals that are here, seal the borders and increase the penalties for hiring illegals

[Archer77]

And this is why were fucked.

We all know politicians like to make big sweeping speeches and promises but not actually do anything that may alienate voters....

Theyll never take any action that could make them look bad.

We only need to look at the aftermath of the 86 amnesty to know you are correct.   We were told that after the 86 amnesty the border would be secured and no further amnesty would be required.  How did that turn out?

The only real.solution I see is put up a path to citizenship for the illegals that are here, seal the borders and increase the penalties for hiring illegals

I agree, its the only rational plan with any hope of working.  The problem is follow through.

[syntaxmachine]

We only need to look at the aftermath of the 86 amnesty to know you are correct.   We were told that after the 86 amnesty the border would be secured and no further amnesty would be required.  How did that turn out?

Did the 1986 bill call for securing the border and increasing prosecution of illegal border crossings? The current bill does, complete with certification of the following before illegals can even begin the process of applying for LPR status: 700 miles of fencing, 38k+ border patrol agents deployed, an e-verify employment verification system in place, and much more. Since all of that is supposed to take 10 years, the bill clearly emphasizes enforcement/border security for years before a single illegal applies for LPR status (many will be granted temporary 'RPI' status in the meantime).

That's all very different from the 1986 bill, if I understand things correctly.

[George Whorewell]

Have any of you idiots been paying attention to politics for the past 6 years?!

Osama and the rest of the retards on the left have no intention of enforcing immigration law or sealing the borders. Who gives a shit about some meaningless "certification"? Name one instance where Osama, Reid and the rest of the communist thugs in power have cared one bit about the rule of law-- go ahead... I'll wait.  

While you're fumbling over yourselves trying to find a single instance of respect for the rule of law, consider this-- The GOP establishment (US Chamber of Crony Capitalism, et.al) wants the cucarachas to be legalized for the cheap labor. The left wants a permanent underclass of illiterate, disease ridden welfare beneficiaries to disrupt the electorate and turn Texas blue.

All this horseshit about a path to citizenship and all the rest is nonsense. The ruling class has set out to destroy the United States. Anyone who says otherwise is either a liar or a moron.

[RRKore]

If I was lived in London or Paris and it was the 4th I might a do something "American" but I wouldn't do what these people do. I might have a flag in front of the home I lived in.....but hell I don't even do that here, nor have a single thing ID'ing me as a soldier on either car. I think I'd make a damm effort to speak French as well.

LOL at the video below. 

If Brits give you any shit about being an American, I recommend responding with some version of Doug Stanhope's bit here:

[TheGrinch]

[COMMENT DELETED BY THE N.S.A.]

[Archer77]

Did the 1986 bill call for securing the border and increasing prosecution of illegal border crossings? The current bill does, complete with certification of the following before illegals can even begin the process of applying for LPR status: 700 miles of fencing, 38k+ border patrol agents deployed, an e-verify employment verification system in place, and much more. Since all of that is supposed to take 10 years, the bill clearly emphasizes enforcement/border security for years before a single illegal applies for LPR status (many will be granted temporary 'RPI' status in the meantime).

That's all very different from the 1986 bill, if I understand things correctly.

You are correct.  As always, I appreciate your clarification.  The promise at the time was that a future amnesty would not be necessary.