From: "Robert Comer" 

> The costs are far less than the costs of NOT doing this.

That's the part I'm not sure of.

>Its about time to
> treat people intentionally entering the country illegally as criminals.

I absolutely agree.

> We could erect tent cities as the county sheriff once did in Arizona
> (maybe
> still does) to house these 3 month to 6 months illegal immigrants.  While
> they are so incarcerated we can process their deportation, etc.

That seems a bit harsh, inhuman punishment type stuff.

--
Bob Comer


"Gary Britt"  wrote in message
news:43664150{at}w3.nls.net...
> The costs are far less than the costs of NOT doing this.  Its about time
> to
> treat people intentionally entering the country illegally as criminals.
> The
> judge stuff won't be that bad because with maximum penalty at less than 6
> months, then it would be like a USA citizen going to municipal court on a
> traffic ticket or similar bottom class misdemeanor.  Just that formal,
> just
> that fast, and just that certain they will be found guilty.
>
> We could erect tent cities as the county sheriff once did in Arizona
> (maybe
> still does) to house these 3 month to 6 months illegal immigrants.  While
> they are so incarcerated we can process their deportation, etc.
>
> Gary
>
> "Robert Comer" 
wrote in message
> news:43663e31{at}w3.nls.net...
>> > 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