In the end, the only difference between a legal and an illegal immigrant is a piece of paper.

Without excusing illegal immigrants, it is worth considering that many of them would qualify as legal if only we had laws and a bureaucracy that worked properly.

Unfortunately, when President Bush proposed amending our federal laws to make it possible for immigrants to come in as guest workers, thus without breaking the law, he was rebuffed by the less enlightened members of his own party.

What a lot of our citizens don’t understand is that the U.S. imposes quotas and unbelievable red tape and costs upon would-be immigrants. If you apply for a visa and are told your application cannot be considered for ten years, or if it takes months and months to process your application, what do you do? Well, what do you do when you encounter a traffic light stuck on red for two minutes, five minutes, ten minutes? Doesn’t there come a time when you look around to see if there’s any traffic and any cop, and then you show you’re more intelligent than a defective red light and you go through anyway?

People have always had a way to run around unintelligent laws. If we elected more intelligent legislators, we’d have more intelligent laws.

Please note that would-be immigrants pay fairly substantial fees to the U.S. government when they submit applications for visas. The income from these fees should be used to provide proper staffing and adequate prompt service to these paying “customers.” The rest is a matter of having laws which make sense. When King Canute ordered the tide not to rise, he got soaking wet. There are things in life you can’t stop, but there are intelligent ways of coping with them, and our federal legislators ought to try a better approach than King Canute’s.

Unfortunately, you haven't considered all the differences between a legal and illegal immigrant. You also seem to think that anyone who can make it to this country should be welcomed. That's a nice thought, but it would really endanger the lifestyle that many legal residents now enjoy. It really is hypocritical that a very large number of illegal residents come from Mexico where they treat illegal immigrants very poorly. Most notably, it includes the shooting and raping of illegals in Mexico.

Consider these difference between legal and illegal immigrants:

(1) Legal immigrants have not broken our immigration laws and have waited patiently to enter the United States.

(2) They have cleared health screenings to make sure that they are not exposing legal residents to diseases that are more common in other less affluent countries.

(3) They have cleared criminal screenings to make sure that they are not known criminals or terrorists that endanger our legal population.

(4) Many have been selected due to the higher level work skills that they will bring to this country. How many roofers and poultry processors do we really need in this country. It would be far cheaper to pay legal residents a fair wage to do these jobs than to provide all the educational benefits and social services to any and all illegals entering this country.

(5) Many legal residents have made real efforts to assimilate to the culture of America. Many have learned to speak English before they immigrate. Should we have a country where we have to press a different button for English, Spanish, French, German, Thai, Korean, Chinese...do you get the picture?

I'm sorry that you can see any good approaches to dealing with illegal immigration. Why not pass legislation so that we punish those who employ illegal immigrants? How long would they stay if they where unable to work in this country?

The "difference" between a legal immigrant and an illegal one is the legality of the act. Legal immigrants contact our government and jump through the hoops. Illegal immigrants knowingly skip all the hullabaloo. The disparity of use between the two is a completely other topic.

If you have laws, enforce them. If the accepted or best practice is something other than standing law, change that law.

There is a little more to it than everyone stand in line to get in, and those who sneak in. The immigration laws are extremely complicated.
First, we show partiality to certain countries. Then we show partiality to certain skills. Then we show partiality to those with money who want to start a business here (7/11s for instance). Then we show partiality to those recommended by government officials. Then we show partiality to those "escaping" certain countries (Cuba) we don't like. Then we show partiality to those who can touch our land illegaly, if they are from certain places. There are many other exceptions (ball players, for instance, we want part of the money).
It isn't hard to see why many think we are unfair. Do you really think that a day laborer from Mexico thinks he isn't as good a person as say a tool and die maker from Japan? Guess who can come first?
Just to say "illegal" isn't the whole story.

Now why don't you go educate yourself on "why" there are differences.

Please tell us, oh great one, of what you know about the NAFTA negotiations and the resulting trade agreements.

Please enlighten us with your great knowledge of "Favored Nation Status" and immigration law.

Better yet, just shut up and go away.

I am interested in your response to your own questions and a few of mine. Why are there differences between the treatment (and admission) of immigrants from different countries to the US? Why does Viet Nam enjoy Favored Nation Status while the US places trade embargoes on Cuba? It's not like Cuba ever started a 6-year war with the US. And why is it that a Cuban illegal is magically legal if they can just get one foot onto American soil while Haitian illegals get sent back to be hacked up by machete-wielding thugs? Aren't they both being repressed by a dictatorial regime?

I'm not trying to pick a fight but if the citizens of the US are really concerned about an immigration "problem" then, why is that "problem" always defined in terms of immigrants from a certain geographic region? Maybe the cold, ugly truth is that they're calling it an "immigration problem" because that sounds less xenophobic than a "Mexican problem." And, if that's the case, I'd just like people to be honest about the real "problem."

-------------------------------
If you and I are always in agreement, one of us is likely armed and dangerous.

To start off I want you to understand that I don't personally agree with all of the "why" part but that I understand (some) of it. If anyone said they understood all the reasons, I would be inclined to say they were lying.

For Cuba and to some extent Haiti:

U.S policy on this dates back to 1962. Then we had the Cuban missile crisis and the Kennedy imposed sanctions.

Wet-Feet Dry-Feet

Now try and keep in mind that one of Castro's goals was to empty his prisons by sending the inmates to the U.S. His rational was simple, "let them be the U.S's. problem".

As for general immigration policies start with:

Immigration Policy In Focus

NAFTA and all that came with it I think was to "supposedly" benefit the average American by the manufacturing and trade of goods at lower production costs.

When the talks were ongoing the theory was that the primary impact would be to lower paying jobs that American workers were no longer interested in doing. Again, those people that were making these determinations’ were the industry "owners". They were the ones briefing the politicians.

Where free trade blew-up, in the politician’s faces, is just after the trade agreements were signed, it opened the proverbial "Pandora’s box" and everything was up for grabs. Not just the manufacturing of shoes but high tech. jobs too.

What I've never seen is an explanation where industrial leaders knew it was going to happen and somehow none of the politicians at the time saw it coming.

Not that anyone cares, but if you think we have it bad, try looking as some of the shifting demographics in the EU. Do it by education, age and just for fun religion. France and Britain are just as bad off if not worse then we are.

As for getting much better information than I could possibly provide, Google “NAFTA”, “Wet-Feet Dry-Feet”. The WEB can provide you with many pro’s and con’s so that you can decide for yourself what seems right and wrong.

It’s going to take you the better part of a day to search and digest the info. but I think you’ll have a better understanding of what’s happening.

Remember this didn’t just start last year. It’s been happening for decades.

.

Put autonomous .50 cal's up about every mile or so along the border.

Anything that comes within range, kill it.

Problem solved.

To pay for it I would mount live WEB cams and charge everyone to watch.

You would have to pay extra to actually control/fire them.

Would that solve your problem?

Cal is only a local newspaper editor. I don't think he would be very effective on the border no matter how many .50's he had. Better come up with another solution.
meow

"cal" is short for caliber. As in the size of the round.

Had not thought of this simple solution at the border. Independent shooters, answering to no one, just killing everything.
Let me see now, shouldn't be hard to find as many as we need to man these guns: two per gun times four (weekends) shifts = eight required per gun times 20% for sickness, vcations, etc., = ten per gun.
Ten per gun times 3000 miles = 30,000 gunners needed.
Delivery of ammunition and food to the 3000 miles of border could be done by Halliburton. A shack for sleeping, breaks, recreation for the guards would have to be built every mile, so 3000 shacks are needed, fully furnished, and air conditioned.
I'm not sure how accurate 50s are at one-half mile however. Maybe we need twice as many or 60,000 shooters. Can we shoot accurately at one quarter mile?
We will worry about Canada and sea entrance and piper cub and helicopter entrance later.
Stores, brothels, restaurants, cook shacks, and first aid stations would be needed every five miles and helicopters to pick up the wounded and sick shooters for treatment.
If the shooter's stations were very close to the border, then shoulder mounted rockets could take those stations out pretty quickly unless we straffed with F-16s across the border often. Cannons could also be used.
One straffing run of 3000 miles by Mexican Air Force could wipe out the entire 3000 stations if done in relays.
I see no problems with your wonderful suggestion----short thinker.

I said "autonomous" .50 cal's mounted on 50' tripods.

Computer controlled from the Internet. Sell time slots for say $20.00/hour.

It would be like the guy who offered dear hunting via the Internet from Texas.

The range on a .50 is close to 1/2 mile or better depending on the environmental conditions at the time.

With computer aided sighting, night vision and inferred capabilities add a 1,000 rounds of depleted uranium and you have the ultimate "fence".

You aren't interested in an intelligent solution to the problem. You are simply a hater of immigrants and would not do what you say if allowed to try it.

But you're a bigger fool then I previously thought you were.

It's amazing how easily the ignorant bite.

Good job of outlining the problem. Solutions are difficult. Even the obvious knee-jerk reaction of building a wall has problems. In fact all solutions have problems.

Best thing to do at this point is let everyone who is already here stay and let those that are coming in as well. But, tax them. If they want to send their kids to school and vote and receive social security and medicare - tax them for crying out loud!

Register them and tax them. At least that way they sort of pay their own way.
meow

We had a couple done over here. 1 job was all Angeleos. The other had 1 SOTB (south of the boarder) & they seemed to treat him like he was an Angelo.
It's interesterring the buzz in Oklahoma about the aftermath of the raids at the chicken plants. They replaced the workers with half-way hse help, and prison labor. PETA is now worried that felons will, I guess enjoy, kill the chickens worse. I think the community is more concerned about the quality of the workers coming to their community. They have still only replaced 50% of the work force.
I hope everyone is prepared to pay more for roofing jobs, chicken and probably pork. You might have to bus your own table when you go out to eat. Well, after you cut your own grass, you'll be too tired to go out.

I'm spreading my own pine straw from now on.

How do you know the workers were non-documented immigrants? Did the foreman tell you this information? I had my roof replaced by a company that hires Mexicans. The workers came on time and worked hard breaking only for a quick lunch. Many people work hard because that is what they were hired to do, not because they are afraid of being deported or some other fear.

Your denial that illegals exist is exactly what those who hire them do. If they were legal they wouldn't be on your roof, now would they? Worst job one can possibly have!
Why don't you simply say that you are for things the way they are about illegals? Nothing wrong with that. You being for it, that is---however, it is wrong.