I’ll try and think of it as a water leak and how much damage your house gets compared to the size of the leak.

Thanks to you and Flagstaff.

But you stated my thoughts better that I as usual, and for that I appreciate you immensely.

There are PROBLEMS, not one problem.. The fence IS the 99% answer to the problem of illegal entry and that issue is THE MAIN issue before we could ever begin to deal with all the social and legal issues involving dealing with the illegal already here.

John Stoessel, of all people, trotted out that “it won’t stop illegal immigration” red herring on O’Reilly tonight. O’Reilly effectively countered him.

But because this is a set of related problems, discussing solutions to each of them can be complicated, especially if we don’t keep stressing that there are “PROBLEMS, not one problem.” MOST of the solution for the illegal entry problem is an effective physical barrier to entry. In fact, that’s the primary part of the solution that is missing, and it’s the part that the government refuses to provide. Its also the most cost effective part, because once it’s erected, it only needs to be observed and maintained. It doesn’t need a salary or employee benefits.

And as you say, this problem HAS to be addressed before some of the related problems. “We can?t deal effectively with those here while still vulnerable to millions more illegal entry.”

It strikes me that these problems are very similar to the Deepwater Horizon disaster, but they require reverse attacks. While the gusher in the Gulf should be stopped ASAP they don’t know how to do that yet, so while they figure that out we should simultaneously be directing ALL our other efforts at containing the oil already in the water, because it’s easier and we know how to do it.

The set of problems called “illegal immigration” is the reverse. We KNOW how to stop the flow, but we don’t really know what we want to do about the illegals already in the country. That tells me address the border first, then the illegals.

I’m presently listening to AZ AG Terry Goddard spout nonsense about why we can’t secure the border, but if we eliminate the coyotes it will stop the flow. As if there were only a few of them. A**hole.

We also know that the presence of a fence would substantially reduce the number as compared to those that could get in thru subterfuge over or under a fence.

So that, when our side makes a huge point of a fence being only a part of the solution, we play into their hands.

Lets get specific about “the problem” and “the solution”. There are PROBLEMS, not one problem.. The fence IS the 99% answer to the problem of illegal entry and that issue is THE MAIN issue before we could ever begin to deal with all the social and legal issues involving dealing with the illegal already here.

We can’t deal effectively with those here while still vulnerable to millions more illegal entry.

So that the fact that we can’t create heavan on earth with only a fence is not worth uttering. A fence solves lots of problems by itself.

A fence won’t STOP all, but it will stop most and slow them all down.

NO system can guarantee that every single gate-crasher will be caught. A well-designed border barrier can insure that MOST of them will be caught, even with the attractions still extant. As callawyn so rightly points out, current law, IF ENFORCED, is the right start, with the addition of the already authorized fence to help. The number can be reduced to manageable size.

The reason the problem is so big right now is that the number of current and future gate-crashers is so huge, and that many of them have been living here so long. I agree with the idea of ‘self-deportation by attrition.’ I wouldn’t have any objection to simply ignoring the presence of those who don’t commit any felonies. They and their children should NOT receive citizenship, however. How they will be able to earn a living wage is an open question, which might be a reason for some limited amnesty process (which itself might include legal residency permits but must prohibit naturalized citizenship for those who crossed the border illegally {not necessarily their minor children at the time of crossing}), all AFTER THE FLOOD OF NEW GATE-CRASHERS IS STOPPED. This means that what the left calls ‘comprehensive immigration reform’ cannot be part of, or even concurrent with, any new border enforcement law.

Somebody else needs to help me out–aren’t there already significant federal penalties to employers caught knowingly using illegal workers? I know there are in Arizona.

could be changed to

“All persons born of a citizen of the United States, or of a legal resident of the United States while in the United States, or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,”

or something like that.

And now we have a stand-up comedian (Al Franken) questioning a prospective Supreme Court Justice. That should be funny, but it isn’t.

IMO existing federal law is sufficient to pursue a policy of ?attrition through enforcement’….

The beauty of it is you don?t need to get anything through Congress, just need a President with the cojones to actually enforce existing law. The problem is getting such a person to actually be our next nominee?

I agree completely, but the words didn’t go into my diary as it went from mind to keyboard. I should have included that very point. In fact, I’m embarrassed I didn’t. Thanks for improving the message.

No new laws are needed, only enforcement. I assume the laws are still on the books to build an effective fence. Once enforcement is shown to be working, the other efforts can start.

The fact that current laws are not being enforced now is proof that our current Congress and President cannot be trusted to create ‘comprehensive immigration reform’ satisfactory to the majority of Americans. In fact, IMHO the majority of us don’t see a need for reform, only better enforcement. Then perhaps new legislation to deal with the existing gate-crashers could be considered, if necessary.

The first sentence is pretty clear. At the time it was passed it probably made sense, but not anymore. We really need to amend this amendment. Probably the vast majority of Americans would support doing so, but only a small minority of our legislators would be willing to support the change.

We need to be sure the next R for president is committed to ENFORCEMENT of immigration law. That alone will make a huge difference. IMO existing federal law is sufficient to pursue a policy of ‘attrition through enforcement’, meaning most illegals will leave the country if there’s a serious effort at enforcing existing law.

The beauty of it is you don’t need to get anything through Congress, just need a President with the cojones to actually enforce existing law. The problem is getting such a person to actually be our next nominee…

It doesn’t really matter much what Obama is, only what he does. And what he’s doing is removing the US from its position as leader of the free world. The biggest reason it’s not going well for him is that his methods are hurting the rest of the world faster than it hurts us.

Lovely riots in Canada today, eh?