From: "Robert Comer" 

> If we start scooping them up and putting them in jail for 3 to 6 months
> with
> no income for their families during that period of time, they will stop
> coming in such large numbers.

In theory not a bad idea, but think of the costs for the jail and courts...
Even if there is no jury trial, they still have to go through a judge.

--
Bob Comer


"Gary Britt"  wrote in message
news:43663607{at}w3.nls.net...
> True, but in this fantasy world we are discussing where the congress
> suddenly has the will to seal the borders that problem could be solved.
> Further, by making more serious criminal penalties for people who hire
> illegal would encourage them to work through the new job placement
> situations for immigrants.
>
> And one very important thing I forgot to mention previously.  While we
> have
> people talking about putting increased criminal penalties on employers
> that
> USA citizens/residents, we should also put a mandatory 3 month or 6 month
> sentence on people entering the country illegally.  If you keep it under 6
> months than the constitutional rights to counsel and jury trials don't
> apply
> (at least they don't apply to USA citizens so maybe the illegal immigrants
> wouldn't be given more rights than USA citizens).
>
> If we start scooping them up and putting them in jail for 3 to 6 months
> with
> no income for their families during that period of time, they will stop
> coming in such large numbers.
>
> Gary
>
> "Ellen K."  wrote in message
> news:fblbm1tn740bhnfgk8341canjv60oc8hkv{at}4ax.com...
>> A large percentage of them don't get the kind of jobs that employers
>> post ads for.  They get jobs as a cleaning lady, busboy, gardener's
>> helper etc.
>>
>> On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 23:24:58 -0500, "Gary Britt"

>> wrote in message :
>>
>> >It could be set up that people seeking entry must have already secured a
>> >job, and that would be part of the requirements for entry.  Methods for
>> >these two groups (employers here and workers there) to connect and make
> and
>> >receive job offers could be established.  Then the government wouldn't
>> >be
>> >deciding.  Still if there is no other possible solution, then I'd rather
>> >have the government decide than to in effect have open borders.
>> >
>> >I do like your idea of no way to get government benefits and force the
>> >unemployed immigrants to leave, if only it could be done.
>> >
>> >Gary
>> >
>> >"Ellen K."  wrote in message
>> >news:1bsam1t8d79q35g3089f530u8m1baa38kn{at}4ax.com...
>> >> The Hispanics who come in through Mexico looking for
work, always find
>> >> work.  The trouble with deciding what workers we need and
then letting
>> >> in matching people is that GOVERNMENT would be trying to manage the
>> >> private economy.
>> >>
>> >> Again, my vision (which is an ideal I recognize as
unacheivable) would
>> >> be secure BORDERS (by means of intensive security vetting
of would-be
>> >> immigrants) but no quotas, and no possibility for
immigrants or their
>> >> minor children to get public benefits.  That would be a free-market
>> >> solution, because only those wanting to work would come in, and if
>> >> unable to find work, they would leave again because they
couldn't get
>> >> welfare etc.
>> >>
>> >> On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 13:14:14 -0500, "Gary Britt"
>> >> 
>> >> wrote in message :
>> >>
>> >> >Well when you said let in everyone from Canada I
mistakenly took that
> to
>> >me
>> >> >European looking whites.  I don't agree with open
immigration.  A
> secure
>> >> >border that everyone is allowed to pass for the
asking is again no
> border
>> >at
>> >> >all, in effect, and without borders you can't be a country.
>> >> >
>> >> >I think we should control immigration for what those
immigrants can
>> >> >do
>> >for
>> >> >the country once they are here.  We shouldn't set
quotas necessarily
> on a
>> >> >country by country basis, so that educated white
Europeans from the
>> >former
>> >> >eastern bloc countries are discriminated against in favor of
> non-educated
>> >> >people from some other country.
>> >> >
>> >> >I don't mean to say that we shouldn't admit people
who will do labor
> and
>> >> >don't have college educations.  We need certain
numbers of those
>> >> >types
> as
>> >> >well.  I just think the influx should be managed to the extent
> possible
>> >to
>> >> >match immigrants to meaningful employment for the
benefit of the
> country
>> >as
>> >> >a whole.  Right now immigration is a net drain on our
government
>> >resources,
>> >> >and it doesn't need to be that way.
>> >> >
>> >> >Gary
>> >> >
>> >> >"Ellen K."
 wrote in message
>> >> >news:plr8m153n9h46shv0vh4oosulvcnt3rrts{at}4ax.com...
>> >> >> Actually I said "open immigration",
not "open borders".  Obviously
> the
>> >> >> BORDERS have to be secured.  What I meant by
"open immigration" was
>> >> >> doing away with quotas etc, IOW letting in as
many as want to come
>> >> >> PROVIDED there would be rigorous security
vetting and they couldn't
> get
>> >> >> any public benefits.  (Since the latter will
never happen, this
> would
>> >> >> really require a magic wand.)
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I didn't say "just white people", and
I didn't say those would be
> the
>> >> >> *only* ones the "authoritarian" folks
would like to let in, if you
> look
>> >> >> again you will see that I was talking about
which countries would
>> >> >> be
>> >> >> given preferential quotas.  But FWIW, the person
with whom I have
> most
>> >> >> frequently argued about this thinks we should
only let in people
> from
>> >> >> groups documented to have a high average IQ.  He
probably would be
>> >> >> perfectly happy to let in an unlimited number of Japanese.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 01:39:00 -0500, "Gary Britt"
> 
>> >> >> wrote in message :
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >I don't agree that libertarians favor open
borders.  At least not
> open
>> >> >> >borders in the sense that there is open flow
of uncontrolled and
>> >illegal
>> >> >> >immigration.  If you meant libertarians
would be in favor of
> letting
>> >> >people
>> >> >> >in legally on a controlled basis to compete
for jobs, etc., then
> that
>> >may
>> >> >be
>> >> >> >true.  The most prominent libertarian I know
is Neal Boortz and he
>> >> >> >definitely does NOT favor our current border
situation.  He wants
> the
>> >> >> >borders sealed.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >I also don't agree with the implications in
your post that
>> >> >non-libertarian
>> >> >> >republicans want to just let white people
in.  I think that is an
>> >unfair
>> >> >> >characterization and stereotype.  They want
legal immigration as
>> >> >necessary
>> >> >> >to meet the needs of our country's economy. 
They and the
> libertarians
>> >> >> >believe you can't have any kind of
immigration policy if you don't
>> >have
>> >> >> >borders.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >As Reagan aptly put it, a country that
doesn't control its borders
>> >isn't
>> >> >> >really a country.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Gary
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >"Ellen K."
 wrote in message
>> >> >> >news:p1h8m1hvag45v36sgf6r5igbl7hn95kpc9{at}4ax.com...
>> >> >> >> The border issue has a built-in
divisiveness in that generally
>> >> >> >> libertarian types favor open
immigration while the other flavor
> of
>> >> >> >> Republicans (some call them
"authoritarian" but I bet they don't
>> >like
>> >> >> >> that label) would like to even reduce
legal immigration and also
> go
>> >> >back
>> >> >> >> to giving preference to certain
countries' nationals (which
>> >definitely
>> >> >> >> would not include any from the Western
Hemisphere other than
>> >Canada).
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Personally I am very concerned about
the security issues of lax
>> >border
>> >> >> >> control (I'm sure plenty of Islamist
militants are coming in
>> >> >> >> from
>> >> >Mexico
>> >> >> >> because it's so easy to get in that
way), but assuming that
>> >> >> >> could
> be
>> >> >> >> separated (yes, I know, huge
assumption), regarding immigration
> per
>> >se
>> >> >I
>> >> >> >> would like to be able to wave a magic
wand and say anybody can
> come
>> >in
>> >> >> >> but they can't get any public benefits
and (except for public
>> >school)
>> >> >> >> neither can their children below the
age of majority.   IOW let
> in
>> >the
>> >> >> >> ones that want to work, BUT couple this
with extensive security
>> >> >vetting.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Unfortunately it would really take a
magic wand to accomplish
> that.
>> >> >> >> :(
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> On Fri, 28 Oct 2005 23:24:27 -0400,
"Mark" 
>> >wrote
>> >> >in
>> >> >> >> message :
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >"John Cuccia"
 wrote in message
>> >> >> >>
>news:asp5m1l753qsstbceo4lafn6mf5i9h4h40{at}4ax.com...
>> >> >> >> >> Mr. "I'm a uniter, not a
divider" is even dividing his own
> party
>> >> >now.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >Hmm, Lott stands on his own two
feet, you blame Bush for what
>> >> >> >> >he
>> >said
>> >> >and
>> >> >> >> >where he ended up? Sounds like
"Bushdementia" to me.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >Too, I wouldn't risk too much money
on that division bet John.
>> >Sure,
>> >> >some
>> >> >> >> >are pissed off at his lack of
seriousness about the border (me
> for
>> >> >one),
>> >> >> >> >some others didn't like Miers (me
too again), yet others have
>> >issues
>> >> >with
>> >> >> >> >him on this policy or that (me yet
again, on a variety of
> issues),
>> >but
>> >> >> >> >never, *ever* confuse those
disagreements by any of those
>> >> >> >> >groups
>> >with
>> >> >a
>> >> >> >> >fantasy that any of them would ever
support a Democrat in an
>> >election
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >agree that Bush thinking he could
unite people like Kennedy,
>> >Durbin,
>> >> >> >> >Schumer, Daschle (whoops Reid) with
anyone, anywhere, anytime
> was a
>> >> >> >foolish
>> >> >> >> >thought, they're not interested>
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >
>>
>
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5