Obama Administration Weak On Immigration Enforcement...

The President can only establish the guidelines and depend upon the subordinate departments to comply with them. If ICE, for example, isn't following the guidelines and that's identified then the Office of the President would need to respond. Allegations do not establish any failures go comply with the guidelines and lacking actual evidence they're not being complied with is nothing but a conspiracy theory being propagated for political purposes.

I've read no evidence that the guidelines are NOT being followed.

The only immigrants that are being exploited are those that are blackmarket laborers. They cannot report being underpayed or being paid under the table because they would be deported if they did. This is also a case of Americans breaking the law and people seem to forget that fact. The "illegal" immigrant is exploited by an American employer violating the laws of the United States. Also remember that more Americans work under the table than immigrants whether legal or illegal.

Most immigrants, legal or illegal, do have federal taxes withheld from their wages and do receive minimum wage or more. Those that don't are prediminately "illegal" immigrants because they can't report an employer that is exploiting them. The obvious solution is to make the "illegal" immigrant "legal" so they can report violations of the law by the employers.

I'm also opposed to condoning "illegal immigration" but I do so by recognizing the principles of the free market that are based upon supply and demand. If there is a demand for low-wage earning (i.e. minimum wage) immigrant workers then people will immigrant to the United States to fill those jobs. My position is that they should be allowed to immigrate legally so there isn't an "illegal" immigration problem and we'd have better enforcement of the labor laws because the exploitation of "illegal" immigrants would come to an end.

What I oppose it the "Union" protectionist policies of limiting immigration. It's strange that "Republicans" are siding with the "Unions" in advocating limited immigration to fill the job openings that exist. "Protectionism" is anti-capitalistic so why are Republicans siding with the Union in imposing "socialistic protectionism" in the United States?

Capitalism = No limits on immigration of labor based upon the principle of supply and demand.
Socialism = Limitations on immigration as a form of socialistic protectionism of the American workforce.

Why do so many "Republicans" support "socialism" in our immigration laws is a key questions. I can understand the unions wanting socialism but why do Republicans support it as well. It's very weird IMHO.

 

While Obama tries to brag using numbers and claiming that he's been tough on enforcement of the borders; it's all a game and a waste of money. The same people his administration captures are coming right back in....only to possibly be captured again at some point. Those numbers mean nothing and certainly don't prove he's been stronger on enforcement. I was on a Grand Jury here in Texas a couple years back, and police officers who had caught gang members and sent them packing back to Mexico, said the gang members laughed and said, "That's fine, I'll go home to Mexico; let things cool off; and come right back." They LAUGHED at our border control and securing the borders.... which IS the federal government's responsibility. Then we just had hundreds released by the Obama administration, in an effort to try to scare peoplel into giving him way on the Sequester. I guess we're going to have to SPEND more money at some point to recapture them.

Right now, we have so many trying to find a way to get in.....some officials have said it might be time to set up a "tent city." And that's due to the immigration bill which the illegals have been told will benefit them....as long as they are inside our country when it takes effect. So, we're opening up the flood gates and they are trying to flood in here from Central and South America......an increase of 500%. They are getting info from groups like LULAC who are instructing them to ask for a "hearing" upon arrival----and that by immediately claiming a hardship, they won't be turned away and will get into our sytem. It's their way of getting into the system.

"Contrary to the Obama administration's claim the border has never been more secure, high-ranking Border Patrol officials in Texas are considering the need for a "tent city" because of a surge of illegal immigrants in the Rio Grande Valley.


The wave of illegal immigrants, many from Central America, appears to be an unintended consequence of the debate raging in Washington over an immigration bill. In interviews after being apprehended, immigrants say federal budget constraints and expected amnesty or legalization for those already living here make it a no-lose proposition.

"We've seen a 500 percent surge in the amount of activity from August to December of last year."​

- Janice Kephart, Center for Immigration Studies

"We've seen a 500 percent surge in the amount of activity from August to December of last year," Janice Kephart, of the Washington-based Center for Immigration Studies, told Fox News


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...oss-mexican-border-say-experts/#ixzz2PnjXEFSb

BTW, you won't see much at all about this on the mainstream national news.

 

IF Democrats and Independents had wanted more workers in here....they would have been onboard when Pres. Bush tried to get a "guest worker" plan passed back early on when he was president. They were no more onboard than some Republicans.

Point is....we have not secured our borders. We have no real idea how many are here...who they here, where they are, or whether or not any of them are paying taxes. I believe that most are not. Once here, they also get free healthcare and get on our social programs. That is NOT at all fair to the American (legal) workers and taxpayers. And that's why I supported Pres. Bush's immigration plan back during his administration? IF we need more workers.....then let's have the "guest worker" plan in place....so we get them in the tax-paying system and know who they are and where they are. And if they want to become citizens, they need to go through the same LEGAL process that everyone else is made to abide by.......

 

Conservatives support a land of laws, and do not reward lawbreakers like liberals. If you wish to give the current illegal immigrant population amnesty, fine, but the border needs to be secured first....actually secured...not what the Obama Administration is spewing as a more secure border. Capitalism does not involve accepting illegal immigration, nor allowing unlimited immigration. With millions of Americans out of work, we do not need workers imported from other countries. If there were no illegal aliens to exploit, then businesses would have to make the jobs more attractive for American workers. Sure, prices of goods may go up, but I am willing to accept that to stop illegals from coming over here. Many Republicans are as bad as Democrats on this issue. That is why I consider myself a Conservative.

 

Good post. Obama is inflating his numbers because he is considering someone caught at the border and immediately returned as a deportation, when that was not counted in the past. I used to be a contract pilot for the DOJ, and have flown many illegals out of here. They do laugh, and say things like, "Thanks for the ride" and "See you next week". Border security is porous at best.

 

FACTCHECK QUESTIONS:
Were more people illegally crossing the US border annually under President Obama or former President Bush?
Were more criminal illegal aliens deported annually under President Obama or under former President Bush?
Who has the authority to grant amnesty, the President or the Congress?
If Americans will fill the jobs that immigrants have traditionally filled then why is about 25% of our agricultural product not being harvested because of a lack of labor this year?
Why are Republicans supporting "socialistic protectionist" immigration policies promoted by the unions that violate the "supply and demand" of labor in a free market under capitalism?

I'd enjoy reading the answers to these basic questions.

 

I don't really listen to President Obama on this but I do read the numbers. Illegal border crossings have dropped from a high of estimated 1.5 million per years and a low of 400,000 per year under former President Bush to an estimated 200,000 per year under President Obama. The number of "illegal" aliens in the United States increased every year on the Bush Adminstration but has remained constant under the Obama Adminstration. I've also read of effective moves to increase border security by the Obama Adminstration where, for example, he close border patrol stations that were too far from the border to be effective and moved the Border Patrol agents closer to the border where they could be effective.

This is unquestionably true because these individuals are coming here for criminal purposes and not to work and contribute to the American economy. Unfortunately we're blocking the legal immigration of those that just want to come here and work legally so the Border Patrol has to deal with hundred of thousands of people over time that we should be allowing to come here and work for a living which takes away from their ability to address the small minority of those coming here illegally for nefarious criminal purposes. If the Border Patrol only had to address the small percentage wanting to illegally cross the border for nefarious criminal purposes they would be far more effective in stopping them. As it is the Border Partrol is flooded with mostly people not interested in conducting criminal activities in the United States. We've diluted our resourses that could address the criminal illegal aliens and that makes no sense.

None of which were criminal illegal aliens and it really had nothing to do with the sequester to my knowledge.

No, the requirement for a "tent city" is because Republicans won't approve approve more taxes to pay for the authorized expendatures of Congress and because Republicans want to prohibit "Hispanic" people from legally entering the United States to fill jobs that Americans refuse to work at. Republicans like to say they're not racists but the only people they attempt to block from legal immigration to the United States are fundamentally Hispanics. Yes, we could toss in a few other "brown-skinned" minorities that Republicans block based upon racial prejudice but mostly Repubilcans oppose Hispanics legally immigrating to fill the available job openings in the US. A "white European" never has any problem with legally immigrating to the United States to work.

I've cut off the rest of the quotation because this was enough to address in a single post.

 

Well, we'd need to know how each president's administration is counting and what they are counting in order to compare. It's always the fact that in good economic times they more readily come across the borders. Besides, we all had our 8 years to criticize Bush, when is it Obama's turn for criticisms?

Is that all that matters to you? Besides, I already said Obama's claims to be deporting more is bogus. They come right back....and they laugh about our border insecurity. Obama's likely counting the same ones....over and over again.

I find it hilarious that when it was done under Reagan.....per Dems it was Reagan who did it; not congress. Democrats controlled Congress at that time.....so then I guess Democrats granted amnesty; Not Reagan. BTW, Reagan signed it because the Democrat-controlled Congress promised they'd secure the border; but they did NOT. Do you want amnesty granted for those who have broken our laws...or not?

Well, let me see. Could it be that's not the reason at all?? Could it be that Republicans would like to see our borders secured first? And remember that Democrats didn't go for Bush's "guest worker" plan either back then. So, are they going to change now and all come onboard because it's Obama trying to get it down? We could have had all this done almost 10 yrs ago.

 

Even if you prove they use the exact same methods of counting; which you cannot.......the economy was much better under Bush. That's the main reason they come.

Where's your proof we are blocking LEGAL immigration? Are you talking about the legislation Dems are trying to get passed now? Much of what's in it, we could have had 10 years ago.

They were being held for being here ILLEGALLY. Instead of sending them back, he just released them here in our country; immediate amnesty. And yes, he DID blame it on the Sequester....although everybody knows why he did it.

Oh geez. Here we go with the claims of "racism" again. It's ALL Dems use. So---why weren't Dems onboard with Bush allowing "guest workers" here in his plan that he tried twice to get through? Why wasn't Senator Barack Obama onboard then? Did you stand up for Bush back then?

Don't you find it almost laughable....if it weren't so sad....that then Senator Obama supported the poison-pill amendments that actually killed Bush's attempt to get immigration reforem back in 2007.......especially when it's virtually indistinquishable from today's legislation? Why did Obama do it back then, even angering Sen Ted Kennedy? Because the amendment weakened the "guest worker" program and a weakened guest worker program was suppported by the Unions. Were it not for Senator Obama, we could have had immigration reform then. But of course, he was running for president and he was appeasing the Unions.

Are Dems really unaware that this was Obama who helped to kill immigration reform then???

 

We only have history to use for comparative purposes regardless of who was the president. We should be able to compare one adminstration with another and I'm unaware of any changes in how "illegal" immigration estimates might have changed over the last 12 years. I've not read of any changes in how these numbers are calculated and they are an estimate as opposed to an actual head count.

If the claim is being made that the way these estimates are calculated have changed then I'd appreciate a link to the facts on how the estimates have changed instead of unsupported claims that the estimating process has changed.

I'm sure that every adminstration has counted the deportation of individuals that were deported, then returned, and were deported again. Is the claim being made that this hasn't occurred historically?

Of course I'm more concerned with immigrants, whether here legally or not, that are committing crimes in the United States as opposed to those that are here working for a living to get ahead. Isn't everyone? We have extremely limited financial resourced to spend on immigration and about 1/2 of it is being paid for with deficit spending that I oppose. Yes, we should focus that spending on catching and deporting individuals that commit crime in the United States.

Of course I'm not a Democrat and disagree with many of their beliefs and opinions. I'll be the first one to condemn the Democratically controlled Congress under the Reagan adminstration for not addressing the problem of immigration. While they granted amnesty to millions they didn't address the problem that creates illegal immigration because the problem is based upon "supply and demand" related to the labor force.

There are now, and there was in the 1980's, millions of jobs that only immigrant labor would fulfill but Congress in the 1980's failed to address this demand for immigrant labor under President Reagan. It was the demand for immigrant labor, where they couldn't immigrant legally to the United States, that created the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants we have in the United States. If there is a demand in capitalism then that demand will be met either legally or illegally. Supply and demand is a simply principle that I'm amazed so few seem to understand. Today, even with the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants, there are millions of jobs left unfilled that only immigrant labor will fill. As noted roughly 25% or our agricultural crops in the United States are going to go unharvested based upon what I've read and that's just one industry. Tens of thousands of enterprises simply don't exist because they would require immigrant labor that is can't be filled based upon our quota system and its costing the United States well over a trillion dollars annually in lost GDP.

The Democratic Congress failed to address the problem of illegal immigration under the Reagan Adminstration because they ignored "supply and demand" related to labor and that appears to be the same problem with Congress today under the Obama Adminstration.

If "supply and demand" related to the labor force is not addressed then down the road we'll have another 11 million "illegal" immigrants to deal with. In short it is supply and demand for labor that must be addressed if we don't want to simply "reset" the illegal immigration problem in the United States. The Reagan adminstration simply "reset" the problem and it returned. Doing that again is rather stupid IMHO. Fix the problem.

Every indication is that our borders are more secure than anytime in history. As noted we're spending more money on border enforcement than we actually collect in taxes to pay for. I once calculated that it would cost over $1 trillion in additional federal expendature to establish a "police state" along our borders and even that wouldn't stop illegal immigration anymore than the Berlin Wall stopped people from going from E Berlin to W Berlin.

Of course if we address immigration based upon "supply and demand" for labor then it dramatically reduces illegal immigration as there are millions of jobs that aren't being filled today because we limit immigration based upon a quota system. Of course its the unions that are the one's proposing "protectionism" when it comes to limiting immigration and I find it strange that Republicans are siding with the unions on their "socialistic protectionism" of the labor market in America. Republicans have apparently abandoned "capitalism" when it comes to immigration.

I only vaguely remember former President Bush's guest worker program. Did he openly advocate allowing legal immigration to fill all of the job openings that are historically filled by immigrant labor. Did he actually endorse capitalism? In any case I do recall him attempting to address immigration and Congress should have embraced that at the time. As noted we've been left basically with the Reagan era (Democratic controlled Congress) immigration laws that resulted in the problem of 11 million "illegal" immigrants being in the United States today.

What I do find humorous are Republican proposals to allow immigrant "college graduates" preferrential treatment. I'm not opposed to allowing them to immigrate but I also know that the US has about 45 million colllege graduates but the estimates of how many college graduates are required in the work force is only about 1/2 that many. Roughly 1/2 of US college graduates are either under-employed or working in a field completely unrelated to their college degree today. I don't see promoting the idea that foreign college graduates should have preferential treatment has any foundation based upon the facts. We actually require millions of unskilled foreign immigrants moreso that college graduates.

 

The economy was better then. Probably more illegal crossings under Bush. I never said Bush was an advocate of stopping illegals.

Most certainly more deportations under Bush. The formula used now for calculating deportations gives Obama the edge. If the same were used under Bush, then Bush would have more.

I wish Obama knew this one. He doesn't. He uses executive order to bypass Congress. He said he would do it where he could.

We have millions of unemployed Americans. Make those farm jobs more attractive.

I'm not sure what Republicans are doing. Conservatives recognize the U.S. as a sovereign nation that has every right to protect its borders, and control immigration.

 

You'll have to excuse my formatting. PF is not allowing my "return" key to work for some reason. 'We're being inundated': Arizona group documents border battle with revealing audio, images:
For all the talk in Washington about border security, the one agency charged with providing it isn't sharing a wealth of details. So a group of volunteers -- called Secure Border Intelligence -- has stepped in, working around the clock in Arizona to keep a thorough record of the front lines of the border battle.
Using tiny, motion-activated cameras hidden in the desert along known smuggling routes, the group captures images of illegal immigrants streaming into the U.S. Some carry water, others bundles of drugs slung across their shoulders. SBI also records conversations between Border Patrol pilots and agents on the ground. Excerpts from those conversations, obtained exclusively by Fox News, suggest the border may not be as secure as frequently portrayed by the Obama administration.
The following is one exchange recorded by the group:
Drone Operator: "We haven't been in that area for hours... we're being inundated where we're at."
Fixed-wing Pilot: "This is Night Owl on air four. You guys got targets out there?"
Drone Operator: "Are you kidding me? We just broke the record."
Helicopter Pilot: "We're going to need another person over here, we've got about 50 bodies out there."
Fixed-wing Pilot: "What's your plan on the group of 20 or so that's outstanding?"
Drone Operator: "Working a group of 37."
Helicopter Pilot: "Left side of the bird, left side of the bird ... bodies and bundles."
Each day, the group posts an audio track taken from the previous 24 hours. The conversations are intercepted off un-encrypted U.S. Border Patrol channels -- it's not unlike people who listen to police and fire department scanners. After listening to agents' back and forth, much of it laced with GPS coordinates, mile markers and known landmarks, the group compresses a 24-hour day into a 10-minute compressed audio file.
On Tuesday, the group noted agents caught three Chinese illegal immigrants. The next day, agents identified 223 immigrants either in or trying to enter Arizona illegally, according to Wednesday's audio download.
The material is distributed as part of an effort by SBI to '"document the porous US/Mexico border (and) to expose the 'lie' by fostered the current administration that our borders are secure," one of the founders told Fox News. "This documentation is being offered to you and any other news organization without any copyright, distribution, or other restrictions with the stipulation that credit be given."
Customs and Border Protection insists the administration is cranking up border security efforts.
"Under this administration, DHS has dedicated historic levels of personnel, technology, and resources to the Southwest border," the agency said in a recent statement to Fox News. "CBP has more than doubled the size of the U.S. Border Patrol since 2004. In FY 2012, CBP employed over 21,300 Border Patrol agents, keeping staffing levels along the border at an all-time high. Additionally, CBP continues to deploy proven, effective surveillance technology tailored to the operational requirements along the highest trafficked areas of the Southwest Border."
The SBI group also uses trail cameras to document the flow of illegal immigrants. Because the video cameras are motion-activated, batteries last for weeks. The latest pictures were downloaded and provided to Fox News on Sunday. They show groups of illegal immigrants nonchalantly walking through the desert on their way to Phoenix and Tucson, and pick-up points in between. The cameras appear to have been placed at a position that is a one-to-four days walk north of the border.
However, it's possible not everyone on the video actually escapes the Border Patrol, since the agency uses a layered approach to security. Agents do not always interdict illegal immigrants at the border -- sometimes apprehensions take place five to 10 miles north after several shifts. So it is impossible to know whether all immigrants captured by SBI camera's successfully escaped the Border Patrol.
Asked more about their membership and means, the group's founder said they preferred to remain anonymous for fear of being targeted.
"Due to the sensitive nature of our endeavor, further disclosure of the mechanism of our efforts cannot be disclosed," he said. "We would prefer that the story be about the 'smoking gun' information provided rather than about the 'messenger' providing the information."


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...le-with-revealing-audio-images/#ixzz2QLoKIdzy

 

Two relevant points.

While I haven't found specific information on SBI in the past these Arizona "civilian" groups have been linked to White Supremacy racial hate groups.

Next is the fact, that the story addresses, that what the SBI has presented doesn't reflect any lack of border enforcement by the Border Patrol. For all we know every person identified was later apprehended and there are no claims being made to the contrary.

This is really an excellent example of Fox News political propaganda as opposed to any attempt at trying to report the news in an unbiased manner. The fact that the entire story didn't actually address whether the Obama Adminstration was enforcing border security was fundamentally buried at the end of the story to try and make it appear as if it was "unbiased" reporting instead of establishing that up front in the story. It is yellow journalism at its worst done for nefarious political purposes. And Republicans wonder why Fox News is called Faux News.....

 

How can there be a change methodology for counting the number of deportations? The number is based upon the physical deportation of a person where each and every deportation is documented. How did this methodology or even how could this methodology change? It's a actual count as opposed to an estimate (estimates are made related to the number of illegal border because there isn't a physical count).

The reason for the deportation is also a matter of record. We've always been able to count those that were deported because they committed a criminal act and those that were deported based upon out-of-date documents (e.g. expired work visas). Remember that a significant percentage of "illegal" immigrants actually entered the United States legally but since then their immigration documentation has expired.

 

Yes, and every person apprehended and sent back is considered a deportation on Obama's list. It wasn't under GWB. Our borders are porous, and illegals are coming over, especially knowing how easy our government will be on them. Did you ever think that YOU are buying into the liberal propaganda?

 

Talk to the DHS. They are the ones making the counts. I just know that they are counting more now than ever. The ones caught at the border and sent right back are not processed through the legal system, and were not counted in the past. They are counted now. Hence, the increase in deportations.

 

There are many opinions on immigration policy that I believe are driven by political agendas as opposed to fundamental American beliefs. As a political outsider (i.e. Libertarians can be considered to be outside of mainstream politics) my political opinion related to immigration is driven by certain fundamental American beliefs.

First and foremost I believe in the ideals established by the Declaration of Independence that expresses our national belief in the Inalienable Rights of ALL Persons (not just American citizens) and that the purpose of our government is predominately to protect the Inalienable Rights of the Person.

I believe in the US Constitution that was a contract between the States that defined our federal government, enumerated specific roles and responsibilities of government, prohibited or restricted numerous actions of our government, and provides protections for both the enumerated and unenumerated Rights of the Person. Our Constitution is also subject to Amendment so that as we expand our understanding of the inalienable Rights of the Person or when we decide to expand or contract the roles and responsibilities of government we have the means to accomplish that.

Additionally believe in capitalism as capitalism exists in all economies even when it is "illegal" as supply and demand is always going to exist. Even under the most oppressive forms of communism there was still a black market that was based upon the capitalistic principle of supply and demand. Personally I advocate laizze faire capitalism as it provides the individual with the most economic freedom while still requiring the regulations necessary for protecting our inalienable Rights.

Finally, based upon the above I believe in the "American Dream" where each person should have equality of opportunity where they can improve their lives by being an American regardless of whether they're a citizens or resident of our nation.

While Republicans and Democrats can differ on the details of my beliefs (e.g. I support strict interpretation of the Constitution where Democrats generally support a progressive interpretation) I believe that Republicans and Democrats can all agree to the basic beliefs in the Declaration of Independence, the US Constitution, Capitalism, and the American Dream. These are beliefs that I think we all share as Americans even though we can differ on the details.

So how does this apply to immigration.

I happen to be a natural born American with deep roots to America. My mothers family immigrated to the "colonies" in the mid-18th Century and my father's family immigrated to the United States about 100 years later in the mid-19th Century. That doesn't make me any better than other Americans but highlights a point. In both cases they were immigrants coming to "America" for a better life. Some might like to claim that my family's immigration to America didn't violate the "law" but I'm sure that I could find Native-Americans that would claim otherwise.

The key question is did the immigration itself violate anyone's inalienable Rights because I believe in the ideal of inalienable Rights expressed in the Declaration of Independence (DOI). Unquestionably that later actions of European immigrants to America violated the inalienable Rights of the Native-Americans, and that is beyond dispute, but the actual immigration did not. Based upon the ideal of the inalienable Rights of a Person a person's "Liberty" (enumerated in the DOI) is an inalienable Right. We should, as individual persons (not just US citizens) be able to move around freely so long as we don't violate someone else's inalienable Rights in doing so. Immgration itself does not violate anyone's inalienable Rights anymore than walking down the street in any American town.

I also look at the US Constitution and no where in that document does it enumerate any role or responsibility to our government to control immigration. As close as it gets is in the enumeration of the role and responsibility for Congress "To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization" in Article I Section 8 but not all immigrants choose to become US citizens and this clause does not imply any role of Congress to create restrictive immigration laws. A "progressive-liberal" might want to make that interpretation but a "conservative" certainly wouldn't. I read it as written and "uniform Rule of Naturalization" means that we must have non-discriminatory laws that allow immigrants to become US citizens. I might lose a point with the progressive-liberal on the whether immigration laws are Constitutional but I should gain a point with those that believe in a conservative interpretation of the US Constitution.

Next let me address the issue based upon Capitalism that defines an economy based upon market supply and demand. As I've noted we know that even if prohibited by law that supply and demand will occur and it relates to both commodities and labor. If it can't occur legally then a blackmarket will be created to fill a demand. We obviously have a "demand" for immigrant labor that exceeds our immigration quota system. The "illegal" immigrants are overwhelmingly coming here based upon that unsatisfied demand for immigrant labor. The best numbers I have on legal immigrants is about 38 million based upon a 2007 estimate plus the additional 11 million "illegal" immigrants for a rough total of 50 million "immigrants" in the United State today. Even with that number we know that millions of job still exist that are predominately fulfilled by immigrants that have always played a vital part of the economy of the United States. Simply stated we have more market demand for immigrant labor than we have immigrants to fill that demand and if we don't allow them to immigrate legally then they will immigrate illegally based upon simple rules of Capitalism.

Finally, I will add the final argument that is the "American Dream" that I think we all believe in. The immigrants to the United States are coming here based upon the identical American Dream that lead my ancestors to immigrate to America well over one century ago. All of our ancestors (with the exception of slaves that were brought here against their will) share this common reason for why we're here today. Regardless of whether our American roots go back to the American Revolution, or our families moved here later, of if we're a newly naturalized citizen, or even if we're an immigrant today we all share this common heritage. We're all here because of the American Dream.

Allowing "open" immigration, that doesn't violate anyone's Rights, that prohibiting is of debatable Constitutionality, that is going to happen because of market demand, that benefits the US economy, and that is based upon the American Dream which is why we're all here simply makes sense. This is not an issue of welfare, it's not an issue of taxation, it's not any other issue but is instead based upon the common beliefs that I think we all share. Let's allow everyone that wants to come here to work to achieve the American Dream to do so because that is what America is really all about. It is the solution to the immigration problem and the only solution that makes any sense.

Then we can focus on those that would attempt to enter the United States for nefarious criminal purposes because there would be very few of those to deal with.

 

That's not what Facebook's, Zuckerberg says. He says the country....and his company.....needs high-skilled computer skills.
I'm all in favor of bringing it whatever we need.....the low-skilled workers and the high-skilled workers. This is why we need an Immigration policy that keeps track of this and allows the numbers we want...and need..... in.

 

Arizona has seen a doubling of illegal border crossings in the past few months with many of those crossing being criminals. The following photos were found on an abandoned cell phone near Quijotoa, Arizona just south of Casa Grande where I-8 and I-10 meet.

The Mexican Drug Cartel is getting a foothold inside the U.S.; that's fact. Chinese illegal immigrants have been caught at the border; but how many from that country and so many others are actually getting in? It's only a matter of time when somday......some group will get in here with the kind of bio or chemical weapons that will reek havoc on our country. The Mexican Drug Cartel actually works in concert with groups like the Aryan Brotherhood and others. My state spends a LOT of time and money.....and the cost in lives.....from these illegal crossings. It's not as secure as you are being told. Take it from someone who lives in a border state and reads the local newspapers every day.


exclusive-footage-shows-dangerous-and-illegal-drug-cartel-activity-in-arizona-n1555447

 

"Newly released arrest numbers show a significant increase in illegal immigrants crossing along the southwest border, despite claims as recently as Thursday by Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano that the border is more secure.


"I can tell you having worked that border for 20 years, it is more secure now than it has ever been. Illegal apprehensions are at 40-year lows," Napolitano told reporters this week in Houston.


But figures released Thursday by Customs and Border Protection to Fox News tell a different story.


Arrests are actually up 13 percent compared with the same time last year. The number was 170,223 in 2012, and is 192,298 this year.
Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, reacting to those numbers, questioned Napolitano's insistence that the border is becoming more secure.


"There is no statistic, metric or evidence that the border is more secure than ever. I went out there for a couple days and found multiple spots where you can see trails of people coming in. They were still apprehending massive amounts of drugs out there, this is a very porous border," Chaffetz said.


The numbers back up anecdotal claims that Texas is seeing a marked surge in traffic. The increase comes as Congress prepares to debate immigration legislation, which in its draft form is expected to include a pathway to citizenship for millions of illegal immigrants already here. Some have expressed concern this provision could entice illegal immigrants to cross over.


The stats show that in Texas, arrests in the last six months are up 53 percent in the Rio Grande Valley; up 22 percent in Laredo; and up 24 percent in El Paso.


While arrest figures can be interpreted in different ways, the administration generally has seen lower numbers as a sign of better security.
For the last five years, the administration claimed the border was more secure because arrest numbers declined as the economy tanked. Would-be illegal immigrants from Mexico either stayed home or went home.

Now, however, arrests are actually up by 25,000. That means more traffic, and more immigrants actually getting through.
According to the Government Accountability Office, up to 40 percent of those who make it over the southwest border never get caught.
But a new radar drone, called "VADER," showed during a three-month test in Arizona that agents are catching fewer than 50 percent of those who successfully cross the border and then disappear into the mountains, valleys and deserts. Administration sources say, however, the system is still in a testing phase, the 50 percent figure is inaccurate and VADER alone offers an incomplete picture.
Customs and Border Protection says they are using all the resources they can to crack down on the problem areas.


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ffic-despite-napolitano-claims/#ixzz2QOcPm8nP

Plus.....I can provide you my first-hand knowledge of this. I sat on a Grand Jury for 6 weeks about 1 year ago. I'm going to estimate "conservatively" that about 75-80% of the cases that came before us were crimes committed by people with Hispanic names....and who required an interpreter when they were caught. The narcs and officers could not tell us if they were illegal or not......but the implication was that they were. The NARC told us that when they come in from Mexico with the drugs to distribute, the further they go north up 35E, the more valuable those drugs become. He also said they travel right up the highway and then disperse out east and west across the country to different levels of buyers. The drugs are a HUGE business.....and Mexican Drug Cartels are very, very dangerous people. It's not unheard of to read locally here in Texas of several "headless" bodies being found near the border. This is a problem we should not ignore....or as a nation we'll be sorry some day. But am I saying that ALL Mexicans here are dangerous criminals? Not at all. Many are here to find work; they can make a heck of a lot of money here. And many are good, hard-working people. In Texas, we have worked alongside Mexicans since our state for formed and in fact, there's a lot of Texans and Mexicans who through the decades have intermarried. My Dad was a carpenter and he worked alongside Mexicans his entire life. We are not prejudiced against them. But the numbers were few then; now the numbers have gotten out-of-hand and many are directed by certain groups to come here for the group's benefit. And they are actually instructed by certain groups what to say to get in and to get a hearing and get in the system in order to be eligible at some point for benefits. That is NOT right for all the law-abiding immigrants who came here the legal way....and it's not right for the American taxpayer who is burdened with the swelling numbers on subsistence.

 

The question is whether we want "BIG GOVERNMENT" controlling the immigrant labor supply or should the free market be allowed to function as its supposed to where the demand determines the supply?

As soon as the government becomes involved then the politics corrupt the entire process. As we know the #1 group advocating "protectionism" in our immigration policies, which corrupts the supply and demand balance that is natural in capitalism, are the unions. As I've noted we have roughly 50 million immigrants in the US today from what I've found and that includes about 38 million legal and 11 million illegal immigrants that represent both workers and non-working family members and we know that's not enough. Millions of "immigrant" labor jobs are not being filled based upon the market demand for immigrant labor.

Capitalism itself will balance supply and demand naturally if we simply allow it to function as it always does. When the politicans become involved in establishing quotas then their nefarious political agendas of protectionism will always corrupt the natural balance. That's why I'm opposed to our government controlling immigration because there is no way that politicans are equal to the task and they have agendas that violate capitalistic principles.

The choice is really quite simple. BIG GOVERNMENT or CAPITALISM?

Big government will never balance supply and demand, costs hundreds of billions of dollars over time, and creates the "illegal" immigration problem related to the labor supply.

Capitalism naturally balances supply and demand, costs virtually nothing, and eliminates the "illegal" immigration problem related to the labor supply.

 

Yes, the War on Drugs does create crime and illegal smuggling of drugs across our border as well as the violence related to the black market. I have to ask why we haven't learned the lessons from the 1920-mid-1930's where alcohol prohibition created virtually the identical problem. Once again were dealing with "capitalism" where a demand exists and the supply will meet that demand legally if allowed or illegally if prohibited.

The War on Drugs is about Big Government attempting to socially engineer the American People and it is a complete failure. There is no evidence that supports the belief that the prohibitions agianst drugs, especially marijuana, has had any effect on reducing drug usage. What the War on Drugs has created is a huge crime problem related to the black market supplying the demand for the illegal drugs. The demand for illegal drugs exists and that demand it going to be met either legally or illegally.

It's Nanny-State Big Government that has driven the black market in drugs that created the drug cartels, the drug related violence, as well as the illegal criminal crossings of our borders bringing those illegal drugs to market. This is literally no different that the problems we faced during alcohol prohibition although it's much greater today because we have roughly three times and many people living in the United States do demand is much higher today for illegal drugs than it was for alcohol.

Like others I want to see an end of the drug cartels, the black market in drugs, and the violence it creates in our cities but I also understand that it's a problem that our nanny-state big government created with prohibition. Decriminalization and regulation would address this problem just as it has done with alcohol.

Will there still be a problem with some of the dangerous drugs? Absolutely but it will actually be less than the problem we have today. We know, for example, that there are drug overdoses with heroin but those are overwhelmingly related to the drug being unregulated where the purity can change dramatically. We had a dramatic increase in heroin overdoses in the 1980's when a purer form of heroin hit the black market. What we do know from international studies is that the number of addicts doesn't increase with decriminalization and regulation. We also know that associated crimes like burglary decline dramatically when addictive drugs like heroin are decriminalized and regulated.

So yes, we have a serious problem with the drug cartels and the violence associated with the prohibitions against drugs and that also includes illegal border crossings by criminals entering the United States. There is a demand that will be met by the black market and this criminal activity will never stop as long as there is a black market demand for illegal drugs. Our government is creating the problem and then we're complaining that the problem exists and cannot be corrected as long as our government is creating the problem. Next is the fact that most "illegal" immigrants are not involved in the black market for drugs so they dilute our law enforcement efforts related to stopping the illegally smuggling coming across our border that can't be stopped anyway because the demand for the drugs exists.

Once agian the choice is simple. BIG GOVERNMENT or CAPITALISM.

BIG GOVERNMENT: Creates the problem with the prohibitions laws, the demand will be met by the black market, the illegal border crossing cannot be stopped because of the demand, and even efforts to make it harder for the criminals to cross our borders is ineffective because hundreds of thousands of other "illegal" border crossings have to be addressed by the Border Patrol that are not for criminal purposes but instead attempts to fill the demand for immigrant labor.

CAPTIALISM Allows the free market to legally balance supply and demand. Free flow of labor eliminates the black market for labor to meed the demand for immigrant labor in the United States. Ending the drug prohibitions and instead imposing the regulation of dangerous drugs eliminates the black market for drugs. Between the two 99.9% of all illegal border crossings end.

We would be left with a small fraction of 1% of possible illegal border crossings for all other nefarious activities such as a terrorist trying to smuggle a biological weapon into the United States. I do have to note that since 2001 all of the attempted entries into the United States by "terrorists" have been attempts at legal entries and not illiegal entries across our borders.

While no attempts by terrorists have been made illegally across our borders that doesn't mean they couldn't attempt it but also realize that if 99.9% of all border crossings related to labor and drug smuggling are eliminated any person or persons trying to enter across our border would be easily identified and dealt with by the Border Patrol.

What part of "Nanny-State Big Government" is creating the problem do people seem to fail to understand?

 

My answer to this post: We are a sovereign nation with the right to protect our borders and control who gets in, and who does not. There is a well-established and legal way to enter the United States. We have no obligation to look the other way when our laws are concerned, and just expect to take in law-breakers. We ARE a land of laws.

 

I would agree when it comes to prohibiting those that would come to the United States for nefarious criminal purposes but no where in the US Constitution does it delegate any authority to the US government to restrict the immigration of individuals to the United States based upon "protectionism' that violates the principles of capitalism. The word "immigration" isn't even in the US Constitution.

It is ironic that "conservatives" that general advocate strict interpretation of the US Constitution advocate a progressive interpretation of the US Constitution when it comes to immigration. A "flip-flop" by conservatives on Constitutional interpretation related to immigration. "Conservatives" also typically advocate "capitalism" but want to deny the law of supply and demand inherent in capitalism when it comes to immigration and have joined with the unions in advocating "protectionism" that violates capitalism related to immigration. A "flip-flop" by conservatives on Capitalism related to immigration.

What is especially disturbing is that the "immigration" restrictions are overwhelmingly related to limiting "Hispanic" immigration based upon racial/ethnic prejudice.

 

The last statement is utterly ridiculous. We have a legal way of getting here and IF that needs to be made faster, then fine. But not just closing our eyes to the illegal crossing of our border problem. It happens to be our southern border that has the largest problem. And they are not just "hispanics" coming in through that border. It's rather difficult to believe that any American would be just okay with our pourous border and those coming here illegally after what happened in 2001 and just last week. And if one thinks terrorists aren't coming in that way....then think again...they are. And it's just a matter of time when they pull off something big:


In April 2010, CNSNews.com reported that FBI Director Robert Mueller told the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, “In Detroit, Mahmoud Youssef Kourani was indicted in the Eastern District of Michigan on one count of conspiracy to provide material support to Hezbollah. … Kourani was already in custody for entering the country illegally through Mexico and was involved in fundraising activities on behalf of Hezbollah.”


Five years ago, in an August 2007 interview with the El Paso Times, then-Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell echoed what Napolitano told Congress last week about terrorist coming into the U.S. across the Mexican border.


“So, are terrorists coming across the Southwest border?” McConnell said in that interview. “Not in great numbers.”


“There are some cases?” asked the El Paso Times.


“There are some. And would they use it as a path, given it was available to them?

In time they will,” said McConnell.


“If they're successful at it, then they'll probably repeat it,” asked the reporter.


“Sure,” said McConnell. “There were a significant number of Iraqis who came across last year. Smuggled across illegally.”


“Where was that?” asked the reporter.


“Across the Southwest border,” said McConnell."

And that's not even counting the drug dealers who work for the very dangerous Mexican cartels.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/napolitano-terrorists-enter-us-mexico-time-time