From: "Robert Comer" 

> Come on Bob, you think these guys all live in air conditioned townhomes in
> Mexico??

Heavens no, I'm not talking just about air conditioning, where they came
from they probably did live in buildings that mitigated the heat more than
a tent would.

Sanitation and meals would be a much bigger problem than A/C.

--
Bob Comer


"Gary Britt"  wrote in message
news:43664f98{at}w3.nls.net...
> Come on Bob, you think these guys all live in air conditioned townhomes in
> Mexico??  Living in a tent city for their punishment would likely be as
> good
> or better than their home environment.  Food and medical care would
> certainly be better.
>
> Jail isn't supposed to be fun.
>
> Gary
>
> "Robert Comer" 
wrote in message
> news:43664950{at}w3.nls.net...
>> > 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