{OT} YAY! I WIN!!!

Thanks, Pres Bush!
Cooler heads have prevailed. The Illegals will NOT get preferential
treatment, and, best of all, Temporary Guest Workers will be allowed, but
they will have to get their papers and pay their taxes! (Um, what was *MY*
solution to the problem, again?)

This means there will be no reason to hire illegals, and I am assuming these
laws will be enforced more rigorously.

Sounds like a Win-Win to me (unless you're an Illegal, of course!)

Hachiroku <Trueno@ae86.GTS> writes:
[color=blue]
> [...] Temporary Guest Workers will be allowed, but they will have
> to get their papers and pay their taxes![/color]


So...at the end of the stated period during which they're allowed
to legally work in the U.S., these "guest workers" can be counted
on to voluntarily go back home and take their places at the end of
the immigration line? Riiiiight...




Geoff

--
"So is a Macpherson strut the way you walk when you've got
your underwear stuck up your backside?" -- Jeremy Henderson

"Geoff Miller" <geoffm@u1.netgate.net> wrote in message
news:e4clcb$jqc@u1.netgate.net...[color=blue]
>
>
> Hachiroku <Trueno@ae86.GTS> writes:
>[color=green]
>> [...] Temporary Guest Workers will be allowed, but they will have
>> to get their papers and pay their taxes![/color]
>
>
> So...at the end of the stated period during which they're allowed
> to legally work in the U.S., these "guest workers" can be counted
> on to voluntarily go back home and take their places at the end of
> the immigration line? Riiiiight...
>
>
>
>
> Geoff[/color]

Better than what we have now, which is....NOTHING!
And, they will be paying their taxes, which right now we get....NOTHING!
The older ones will be culled from the younger ones. The younger ones will
be deported without penalties.
Right now we have....NOTHING!

The card will have an electronic fingerprint. When the card expires, the
Guest Worker gets sent back.
I can imagine if you are caught still here with an expired card the
penalties will be substantial, and probably moreso for the people that hire
Guest Workers with an expired card.


[color=blue]
>
> --
> "So is a Macpherson strut the way you walk when you've got
> your underwear stuck up your backside?" -- Jeremy Henderson
>[/color]

Hachiroku <Trueno@ae86.GTS> writes:

: So...at the end of the stated period during which they're allowed
: to legally work in the U.S., these "guest workers" can be counted
: on to voluntarily go back home and take their places at the end of
: the immigration line? Riiiiight...
[color=blue]
> Better than what we have now, which is....NOTHING!
> And, they will be paying their taxes, which right now we get....
> NOTHING! The older ones will be culled from the younger ones.
> The younger ones will be deported without penalties. Right now
> we have....NOTHING![/color]

Oh, I'll grant you all of that. But if we're going to fix the problem,
why not fix it right? Your reply above reminds me of the Politicians'
Syllogism:

P1: Something must be done.
P2: This is something.
C: This must be done.

If we're going to do :something," then let's make that something count.

[color=blue]
> The card will have an electronic fingerprint. When the card expires,
> the Guest Worker gets sent back.[/color]

What will be the occasion for the card to be read in the first place?
If the worker gets pulled over for a traffic stop and asked for ID?
I hope it's more proactive than that. Illegal immigrants have demon-
strated that it isn't terribly difficult to stay below the radar. If
that weren't the case, there wouldn't be so many of them here.

[color=blue]
> I can imagine if you are caught still here with an expired card the
> penalties will be substantial,[/color]

Yeah -- they'd be deported, only to come back in illegally later.

[color=blue]
> and probably moreso for the people that hire Guest Workers with an
> expired card.[/color]

How will that be enforced? The Border Patrol lacks the manpower to
quard the border adequately, even now. Where will they find the
manpower to guard the border *and* go around to farms and businesses
to check workers' cards?



Geoff

--
"The others scattered before our gathered hordes like
freeze-dried fetuses sucked out of a hotel window
during a firestorm..." -- Peter Bell

Geoff Miller, 5/16/2006, 1:05:51 PM, <e4d0pf$qfd@u1.netgate.net> wrote:
[color=blue]
>
>
> Hachiroku <Trueno@ae86.GTS> writes:
>
> : So...at the end of the stated period during which they're allowed
> : to legally work in the U.S., these "guest workers" can be counted
> : on to voluntarily go back home and take their places at the end of
> : the immigration line? Riiiiight...
>[color=green]
> > Better than what we have now, which is....NOTHING!
> > And, they will be paying their taxes, which right now we get....
> > NOTHING! The older ones will be culled from the younger ones.
> > The younger ones will be deported without penalties. Right now
> > we have....NOTHING![/color]
>
> Oh, I'll grant you all of that. But if we're going to fix the
> problem, why not fix it right? Your reply above reminds me of the
> Politicians' Syllogism:
>
> P1: Something must be done.
> P2: This is something.
> C: This must be done.
>
> If we're going to do :something," then let's make that something
> count.
>
>[color=green]
> > The card will have an electronic fingerprint. When the card expires,
> > the Guest Worker gets sent back.[/color]
>
> What will be the occasion for the card to be read in the first place?
> If the worker gets pulled over for a traffic stop and asked for ID?
> I hope it's more proactive than that. Illegal immigrants have demon-
> strated that it isn't terribly difficult to stay below the radar. If
> that weren't the case, there wouldn't be so many of them here.
>
>[color=green]
> > I can imagine if you are caught still here with an expired card the
> > penalties will be substantial,[/color]
>
> Yeah -- they'd be deported, only to come back in illegally later.
>
>[color=green]
> > and probably moreso for the people that hire Guest Workers with an
> > expired card.[/color]
>
> How will that be enforced? The Border Patrol lacks the manpower to
> quard the border adequately, even now. Where will they find the
> manpower to guard the border and go around to farms and businesses
> to check workers' cards?
>
>
>
> Geoff[/color]

You are good at finding fault; can you suggest a solution?

I was wondering when somebody was going to ask him that question.. We should
know by now the Bush haters have not ideas of their own, only criticism for
those that do.



mike hunt


"badgolferman" <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:xn0emaor1603vx8001@news.readfreenews.net...[color=blue]
> Geoff Miller, 5/16/2006, 1:05:51 PM, <e4d0pf$qfd@u1.netgate.net> wrote:
>[color=green]
>>
>>
>> Hachiroku <Trueno@ae86.GTS> writes:
>>
>> : So...at the end of the stated period during which they're allowed
>> : to legally work in the U.S., these "guest workers" can be counted
>> : on to voluntarily go back home and take their places at the end of
>> : the immigration line? Riiiiight...
>>[color=darkred]
>> > Better than what we have now, which is....NOTHING!
>> > And, they will be paying their taxes, which right now we get....
>> > NOTHING! The older ones will be culled from the younger ones.
>> > The younger ones will be deported without penalties. Right now
>> > we have....NOTHING![/color]
>>
>> Oh, I'll grant you all of that. But if we're going to fix the
>> problem, why not fix it right? Your reply above reminds me of the
>> Politicians' Syllogism:
>>
>> P1: Something must be done.
>> P2: This is something.
>> C: This must be done.
>>
>> If we're going to do :something," then let's make that something
>> count.
>>
>>[color=darkred]
>> > The card will have an electronic fingerprint. When the card expires,
>> > the Guest Worker gets sent back.[/color]
>>
>> What will be the occasion for the card to be read in the first place?
>> If the worker gets pulled over for a traffic stop and asked for ID?
>> I hope it's more proactive than that. Illegal immigrants have demon-
>> strated that it isn't terribly difficult to stay below the radar. If
>> that weren't the case, there wouldn't be so many of them here.
>>
>>[color=darkred]
>> > I can imagine if you are caught still here with an expired card the
>> > penalties will be substantial,[/color]
>>
>> Yeah -- they'd be deported, only to come back in illegally later.
>>
>>[color=darkred]
>> > and probably moreso for the people that hire Guest Workers with an
>> > expired card.[/color]
>>
>> How will that be enforced? The Border Patrol lacks the manpower to
>> quard the border adequately, even now. Where will they find the
>> manpower to guard the border and go around to farms and businesses
>> to check workers' cards?
>>
>>
>>
>> Geoff[/color]
>
> You are good at finding fault; can you suggest a solution?[/color]

badgolferman <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> writes:
[color=blue]
> You are good at finding fault; can you suggest a solution?[/color]


I'm good at that, too. I'm a real Renaissance Man.

My proposed solution, and the only one I think makes sense,
is to take a two-pronged approach: stem the influx first,
and then tackle the issue of the illegals who are already
here.

The first would involve building a real barrier along the
entire length of our southern border, all the way from Chula
Vista to the Gulf Of friggin' Mexico, to replace that half-
assed corrugated metal fence that's in place now. (The Coast
Guard could patrol the waters off of either end, 24/7/365. If
they could hack Ocean Station duty, this would be a cinch.)

I don't know why so many people react to that idea with such
horror; do we want to keep illegal aliens out, or don't we?
If we have a problem with keeping people out, then the obvious
solution is to do all that we can to physically impede their
getting in. Humanely, I mean; I'm not talking about DDR-style
minefields, razor wire, gun towers and attack dogs. Passive
security would be adequate, at least as the first line of
defense.

I envision a tall concrete wall, far too tall to even consider
scaling, topped with a metal pipe, like the Berlin Wall but
taller. Say what you will about that one, its final (1970)
iteration was damned effective. (Maybe Halliburton could bid
on that project. If the Bush Administration has a sense of
humor, it would award them the contract as a final "fuck you"
gesture to its detractors.)

Additionally, I'd like to see the Border Patrol's manpower
increased to a realistic level that's commensurate with the
task at hand, and augmented by the National Guard in the
short term. Or maybe even in the long term; what the hell.
Think of it as federalism made visible, with each state
assuming part of the responsibility for the security of its
own border. Troops could do their one weekend a month at
the border, on a rotating basis with no undue disruption of
their civilian lives.

As for the illegals who are already here, amnesty is a non-
starter with me. One, it would be a slap in the face to all
the people who played by the rules and waited a long time,
often years, for the privilege of coming here legally. And
two, whatever their underlying motivation, these people
demonstrated a lack of respect for this country and its laws
by crashing the gate, so to speak.

Let them go back home, go to the end of the line, and then
wait their turn. They'd be getting off easy; theoretically,
we'd be justified in incarcerating them before deporting them.
They broke our laws, after all, and whether lawbreakers go
to jail for a given offense is up to any country's discretion.
Compared to what'd be possible, sending them back to Square
One on their journey to El Norte wouldn't even constitute a
slap on the wrist.

(Yeah, I know: they just want to feed their families, make
better lives for themselves, and all that. I'm not unsym-
pathetic to that. But...how did it get to be *our* problem?
We can't save the world. Let Mexico take care of its own.
If it can't, then it'd better learn how. This offloading
of its underclass onto the United States is unfair to the
U.S. It's geopolitical parasitism.)

So what to do? Round them up and ship 'em home. This could
be done through sweeps of businesses most likely to employ
illegal aliens, starting in the northern states with the
losest density of illegals first and working toward the
Mexican border. That would give the Border Patrol and the
National Guard an opportunity to ramp up the pace of their
activity gradually while accumulating operational experience,
without being overwhelmed -- while at the same time tending
to push remaining illegals southward and concentrate them
closer to the border where their density would make them
easier to locate and apprehend.

It would have to be an incremental process due to manpower
limitations and the sheer numbers of illegals who are already
here, but like the old Chinaman said, even the longest of journeys
begins with a single step. Let the first step in the illegal
aliens' journey home be in the direction of a Border Patrol bus.
One with bars across the windows.

The last stage of the process could make use of aircraft pressed
into service from the Air National Guard and the National Reserve
Air Fleet. Logistical advice could be sought from charter airlines
that work the annual Hajj trade to Mecca.

Why return the illegals home by air? Two reasons. One, the use of
jumbo jets would allow the movement of more people per unit time
than ground transportation would. And two, it would make it pos-
sible not only to send them back to Mexico, but to drop them off
at the far southern end of Mexico, making any future journey to a
the border that much more difficult. Kind of like trapping raccoons
in a Havahart trap and driving them miles away before releasing them.

How to ensure that Mexico allows this? With the threat of economic
sanctions, or if that doesn't get their attention, with the threat
of military ones. This is a national-security matter, after all.
And we're a superpower, are we not?

How's that, badgolferman? Good enough for you?



Geoff

--
"The others scattered before our gathered hordes like
freeze-dried fetuses sucked out of a hotel window
during a firestorm..." -- Peter Bell

Mike Hunter <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> writes:
[color=blue]
> I was wondering when somebody was going to ask him
> that question.. We should know by now the Bush haters
> have not ideas of their own, only criticism for those
> that do.[/color]


"Bush hater?" Hardly; I voted for Bush twice. That doesn't
mean I'm obligated to agree with everything the man says and
does. I think immigration control is one of the areas where
he's weakest.



Geoff

--
"The others scattered before our gathered hordes like
freeze-dried fetuses sucked out of a hotel window
during a firestorm..." -- Peter Bell

Mike Hunter <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> writes:
[color=blue]
> I was wondering when somebody was going to ask him
> that question.. We should know by now the Bush haters
> have not ideas of their own, only criticism for those
> that do.[/color]


And furthermore...

There are people across the political spectrum who are
critical of Bush. That being said, just by sheer numbers,
a habitual Bush-basher is most likely to be on the Left.

But someone who criticizes Bush for his immigration policies
is most likely to take issue because Bush's policies are too
lax, as I did. And such a person is overwhelmingly likely to
be on the Right, as I am.

So to tie this up with a pretty little bow, even apart from
the silliness of your calling me a Bush hater just because I
critized one Bush policy, it doesn't compute that I'd be a
Bush hater due to my criticizing his immigration policy spec-
ifically.



Geoff

--
"The others scattered before our gathered hordes like
freeze-dried fetuses sucked out of a hotel window
during a firestorm..." -- Peter Bell

Geoff Miller, 5/16/2006,3:34:05 PM, wrote:
[color=blue]
>How's that, badgolferman? Good enough for you?[/color]

Not bad, but I would also include removing the incentive for them to come
here. That means severely fining businesses that employ illegal
immigrants in order to get around employment laws and minimum wage. They
are the biggest reason this problem exists. Yes, that may mean more
expensive housing or less restaurants etc. but at least the playing field
will become level for workers and law-abiding companies.

--
"Politics is supposed be the second oldest profession. I have come to
realise that it bears a very close resemblance to the first." ~ Ronald
Reagan.

badgolferman <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> writes:

: How's that, badgolferman? Good enough for you?
[color=blue]
> Not bad, but I would also include removing the incentive for
> them to come here. That means severely fining businesses that
> employ illegal immigrants in order to get around employment
> laws and minimum wage. They are the biggest reason this problem
> exists. Yes, that may mean more expensive housing or less res-
> taurants etc. but at least the playing field will become level
> for workers and law-abiding companies.[/color]

Agreed 100 percent.

[color=blue]
> "Politics is supposed be the second oldest profession. I have
> come to realise that it bears a very close resemblance to the
> first." ~ Ronald >Reagan.[/color]

"Politics is just show business for ugly people." -- Jay Leno



Geoff

--
"The others scattered before our gathered hordes like
freeze-dried fetuses sucked out of a hotel window
during a firestorm..." -- Peter Bell

On 16 May 2006 12:34:05 -0700, [email]geoffm@u1.netgate.net[/email] (Geoff Miller)
wrote:
[color=blue]
>
>
>badgolferman <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> writes:
>[color=green]
>> You are good at finding fault; can you suggest a solution?[/color]
>
>
>I'm good at that, too. I'm a real Renaissance Man.
>
>My proposed solution, and the only one I think makes sense,
>is to take a two-pronged approach: stem the influx first,
>and then tackle the issue of the illegals who are already
>here.
>
>The first would involve building a real barrier along the
>entire length of our southern border, all the way from Chula
>Vista to the Gulf Of friggin' Mexico, to replace that half-
>assed corrugated metal fence that's in place now. (The Coast
>Guard could patrol the waters off of either end, 24/7/365. If
>they could hack Ocean Station duty, this would be a cinch.)
>
>I don't know why so many people react to that idea with such
>horror; do we want to keep illegal aliens out, or don't we?
>If we have a problem with keeping people out, then the obvious
>solution is to do all that we can to physically impede their
>getting in. Humanely, I mean; I'm not talking about DDR-style
>minefields, razor wire, gun towers and attack dogs. Passive
>security would be adequate, at least as the first line of
>defense.
>
>I envision a tall concrete wall, far too tall to even consider
>scaling, topped with a metal pipe, like the Berlin Wall but
>taller. Say what you will about that one, its final (1970)
>iteration was damned effective. (Maybe Halliburton could bid
>on that project. If the Bush Administration has a sense of
>humor, it would award them the contract as a final "fuck you"
>gesture to its detractors.)
>
>Additionally, I'd like to see the Border Patrol's manpower
>increased to a realistic level that's commensurate with the
>task at hand, and augmented by the National Guard in the
>short term. Or maybe even in the long term; what the hell.
>Think of it as federalism made visible, with each state
>assuming part of the responsibility for the security of its
>own border. Troops could do their one weekend a month at
>the border, on a rotating basis with no undue disruption of
>their civilian lives.
>
>As for the illegals who are already here, amnesty is a non-
>starter with me. One, it would be a slap in the face to all
>the people who played by the rules and waited a long time,
>often years, for the privilege of coming here legally. And
>two, whatever their underlying motivation, these people
>demonstrated a lack of respect for this country and its laws
>by crashing the gate, so to speak.
>
>Let them go back home, go to the end of the line, and then
>wait their turn. They'd be getting off easy; theoretically,
>we'd be justified in incarcerating them before deporting them.
>They broke our laws, after all, and whether lawbreakers go
>to jail for a given offense is up to any country's discretion.
>Compared to what'd be possible, sending them back to Square
>One on their journey to El Norte wouldn't even constitute a
>slap on the wrist.
>
>(Yeah, I know: they just want to feed their families, make
>better lives for themselves, and all that. I'm not unsym-
>pathetic to that. But...how did it get to be *our* problem?
>We can't save the world. Let Mexico take care of its own.
>If it can't, then it'd better learn how. This offloading
>of its underclass onto the United States is unfair to the
>U.S. It's geopolitical parasitism.)
>
>So what to do? Round them up and ship 'em home. This could
>be done through sweeps of businesses most likely to employ
>illegal aliens, starting in the northern states with the
>losest density of illegals first and working toward the
>Mexican border. That would give the Border Patrol and the
>National Guard an opportunity to ramp up the pace of their
>activity gradually while accumulating operational experience,
>without being overwhelmed -- while at the same time tending
>to push remaining illegals southward and concentrate them
>closer to the border where their density would make them
>easier to locate and apprehend.
>
>It would have to be an incremental process due to manpower
>limitations and the sheer numbers of illegals who are already
>here, but like the old Chinaman said, even the longest of journeys
>begins with a single step. Let the first step in the illegal
>aliens' journey home be in the direction of a Border Patrol bus.
>One with bars across the windows.
>
>The last stage of the process could make use of aircraft pressed
>into service from the Air National Guard and the National Reserve
>Air Fleet. Logistical advice could be sought from charter airlines
>that work the annual Hajj trade to Mecca.
>
>Why return the illegals home by air? Two reasons. One, the use of
>jumbo jets would allow the movement of more people per unit time
>than ground transportation would. And two, it would make it pos-
>sible not only to send them back to Mexico, but to drop them off
>at the far southern end of Mexico, making any future journey to a
>the border that much more difficult. Kind of like trapping raccoons
>in a Havahart trap and driving them miles away before releasing them.
>
>How to ensure that Mexico allows this? With the threat of economic
>sanctions, or if that doesn't get their attention, with the threat
>of military ones. This is a national-security matter, after all.
>And we're a superpower, are we not?
>
>How's that, badgolferman? Good enough for you?
>
>
>
>Geoff[/color]

Good enough for me!

I've sent some stinging emails to the White House and my two idiotic
Senators.

My emails will continue...
--

Scott in Florida

You still are avoiding the guestion asked by the previous poster. Aparently
it is not only the Bush haters that have no ideas of their own, only
criticism for those that do ;)



mike hunt
,


"Geoff Miller" <geoffm@u1.netgate.net> wrote in message
news:e4dat6$2sk@u1.netgate.net...[color=blue]
>
>
> Mike Hunter <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> writes:
>[color=green]
>> I was wondering when somebody was going to ask him
>> that question.. We should know by now the Bush haters
>> have not ideas of their own, only criticism for those
>> that do.[/color]
>
>
> And furthermore...
>
> There are people across the political spectrum who are
> critical of Bush. That being said, just by sheer numbers,
> a habitual Bush-basher is most likely to be on the Left.
>
> But someone who criticizes Bush for his immigration policies
> is most likely to take issue because Bush's policies are too
> lax, as I did. And such a person is overwhelmingly likely to
> be on the Right, as I am.
>
> So to tie this up with a pretty little bow, even apart from
> the silliness of your calling me a Bush hater just because I
> critized one Bush policy, it doesn't compute that I'd be a
> Bush hater due to my criticizing his immigration policy spec-
> ifically.
>
>
>
> Geoff
>
> --
> "The others scattered before our gathered hordes like
> freeze-dried fetuses sucked out of a hotel window
> during a firestorm..." -- Peter Bell
>[/color]

You are entitle to your opinion but the President has been in the forefront
of immigration reform, ever since he was Governor of Texas. As President he
can no act without the authority of law passed by the Congress. I'm amazed
that so many America do not understand how their government functions. It
is no wonder the politician can fool them so often on so many subjects.


mike hunt




"Geoff Miller" <geoffm@u1.netgate.net> wrote in message
news:e4da9n$2fm@u1.netgate.net...[color=blue]
>
>
> Mike Hunter <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> writes:
>[color=green]
>> I was wondering when somebody was going to ask him
>> that question.. We should know by now the Bush haters
>> have not ideas of their own, only criticism for those
>> that do.[/color]
>
>
> "Bush hater?" Hardly; I voted for Bush twice. That doesn't
> mean I'm obligated to agree with everything the man says and
> does. I think immigration control is one of the areas where
> he's weakest.
>
>
>
> Geoff
>
> --
> "The others scattered before our gathered hordes like
> freeze-dried fetuses sucked out of a hotel window
> during a firestorm..." -- Peter Bell
>[/color]

I seems to me you did not listen to the Presidents propose, and you do not
even know what is actually being done now at the southern border by the
states and the Border Patrol, if that is your 'alternate' plan. Rather than
post in an automotive NG you should be writing to you Senator and
Congressman to get THEM to take the action THEY need to take to secure the
border. ;)


mike hunt


"Geoff Miller" <geoffm@u1.netgate.net> wrote in message
news:e4d9fd$21u@u1.netgate.net...[color=blue]
>
>
> badgolferman <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> writes:
>[color=green]
>> You are good at finding fault; can you suggest a solution?[/color]
>
>
> I'm good at that, too. I'm a real Renaissance Man.
>
> My proposed solution, and the only one I think makes sense,
> is to take a two-pronged approach: stem the influx first,
> and then tackle the issue of the illegals who are already
> here.
>
> The first would involve building a real barrier along the
> entire length of our southern border, all the way from Chula
> Vista to the Gulf Of friggin' Mexico, to replace that half-
> assed corrugated metal fence that's in place now. (The Coast
> Guard could patrol the waters off of either end, 24/7/365. If
> they could hack Ocean Station duty, this would be a cinch.)
>
> I don't know why so many people react to that idea with such
> horror; do we want to keep illegal aliens out, or don't we?
> If we have a problem with keeping people out, then the obvious
> solution is to do all that we can to physically impede their
> getting in. Humanely, I mean; I'm not talking about DDR-style
> minefields, razor wire, gun towers and attack dogs. Passive
> security would be adequate, at least as the first line of
> defense.
>
> I envision a tall concrete wall, far too tall to even consider
> scaling, topped with a metal pipe, like the Berlin Wall but
> taller. Say what you will about that one, its final (1970)
> iteration was damned effective. (Maybe Halliburton could bid
> on that project. If the Bush Administration has a sense of
> humor, it would award them the contract as a final "fuck you"
> gesture to its detractors.)
>
> Additionally, I'd like to see the Border Patrol's manpower
> increased to a realistic level that's commensurate with the
> task at hand, and augmented by the National Guard in the
> short term. Or maybe even in the long term; what the hell.
> Think of it as federalism made visible, with each state
> assuming part of the responsibility for the security of its
> own border. Troops could do their one weekend a month at
> the border, on a rotating basis with no undue disruption of
> their civilian lives.
>
> As for the illegals who are already here, amnesty is a non-
> starter with me. One, it would be a slap in the face to all
> the people who played by the rules and waited a long time,
> often years, for the privilege of coming here legally. And
> two, whatever their underlying motivation, these people
> demonstrated a lack of respect for this country and its laws
> by crashing the gate, so to speak.
>
> Let them go back home, go to the end of the line, and then
> wait their turn. They'd be getting off easy; theoretically,
> we'd be justified in incarcerating them before deporting them.
> They broke our laws, after all, and whether lawbreakers go
> to jail for a given offense is up to any country's discretion.
> Compared to what'd be possible, sending them back to Square
> One on their journey to El Norte wouldn't even constitute a
> slap on the wrist.
>
> (Yeah, I know: they just want to feed their families, make
> better lives for themselves, and all that. I'm not unsym-
> pathetic to that. But...how did it get to be *our* problem?
> We can't save the world. Let Mexico take care of its own.
> If it can't, then it'd better learn how. This offloading
> of its underclass onto the United States is unfair to the
> U.S. It's geopolitical parasitism.)
>
> So what to do? Round them up and ship 'em home. This could
> be done through sweeps of businesses most likely to employ
> illegal aliens, starting in the northern states with the
> losest density of illegals first and working toward the
> Mexican border. That would give the Border Patrol and the
> National Guard an opportunity to ramp up the pace of their
> activity gradually while accumulating operational experience,
> without being overwhelmed -- while at the same time tending
> to push remaining illegals southward and concentrate them
> closer to the border where their density would make them
> easier to locate and apprehend.
>
> It would have to be an incremental process due to manpower
> limitations and the sheer numbers of illegals who are already
> here, but like the old Chinaman said, even the longest of journeys
> begins with a single step. Let the first step in the illegal
> aliens' journey home be in the direction of a Border Patrol bus.
> One with bars across the windows.
>
> The last stage of the process could make use of aircraft pressed
> into service from the Air National Guard and the National Reserve
> Air Fleet. Logistical advice could be sought from charter airlines
> that work the annual Hajj trade to Mecca.
>
> Why return the illegals home by air? Two reasons. One, the use of
> jumbo jets would allow the movement of more people per unit time
> than ground transportation would. And two, it would make it pos-
> sible not only to send them back to Mexico, but to drop them off
> at the far southern end of Mexico, making any future journey to a
> the border that much more difficult. Kind of like trapping raccoons
> in a Havahart trap and driving them miles away before releasing them.
>
> How to ensure that Mexico allows this? With the threat of economic
> sanctions, or if that doesn't get their attention, with the threat
> of military ones. This is a national-security matter, after all.
> And we're a superpower, are we not?
>
> How's that, badgolferman? Good enough for you?
>
>
>
> Geoff
>
> --
> "The others scattered before our gathered hordes like
> freeze-dried fetuses sucked out of a hotel window
> during a firestorm..." -- Peter Bell
>[/color]