1 Adios, amigos!

2 I laughed through the whole ad. Is anyone in Arizona stupid enough to buy this shit?

3 I just wonder if Obami is gonna campaign for McCain? Ya know kinda like returning the favor.

4

I'm yearning for a third Rep candidate.  Right now, I'd probably vote Hayworth just because McCain is such a waffle and I want him gone (term limits, anyone?).  Can't see the video right now, so am unable to comment on that.

5 In the immortal words of Ace Ventura: la-hoo za-her.

6 I don't care how bad JD Hhayworth was, it's time to send McLame, his bimbo wife and slut daughter into retirement from the GOP.

7 My cat's breath smells like cat food.

8 Damn typos.

9 At least Hayworth isn't insulting the intelligence of the Arizona voters with his every breath...

10 Dunno. Can we be happy with one RINO chasing himself into a party switch, and probable oblivion (Benedict Arlen), plus another rejected by his state party (Bennett in Utah)?

11

"... looking at McCain as the lesser of two evils..."

The starting point is that McCain will sell out the Republicans at some future date. This is a certainty.

Hayworth? Unknown.

Does this frame it any differently?

12 Hayworth's a conservative. Just ask him, he'll tell you he is. Over and over and over again. And he'll be even more eager to talk to you if you're a lobbyist. Especially if you're a lobbyist for an Indian casino. While McCain ain't exactly a conservative either, better the frying pan you know than the fire you don't. "Anybody is better than (insert name of politician here) is what got Obama elected. I'd prefer not to fall into that well more than once.

13 I hate it when they insult our intelligence but we have no other choice. I'm with DrewM -- glad not to be in AZ right now.

14

I try not to comment on other state's politics, as it isn't my state -- and from what little I gather this Hayworth isn't much to brag about, nor to vote for.

But this ad is a bit much; or "what is a great way to piss everyone in Arizona off and make them hate your guts, John McCain?...for a thousand Alex".

15 Pray tell, what, exactly, is a fence expected to accomplish?

I spend 10 hours a day watching aliens climb over, crawl under, or cut through miles of steel fence.

16

I try not to comment on other state's politics, as it isn't my state -- and from what little I gather this Hayworth isn't much to brag about, nor to vote for.

Two things. What other states do, particularly with regard to the Senate, matter a great deal to us all. Exhibit A: Delaware's own Joe Biden.

 

Once again; I apologize to you all.

17

"Senator, you're one of us."

If by one of us you mean a worthless, Democrat-felching RINO cockholster who needs to have his flabby, MFM-loving collaborationist ass booted out of office to East Buttfuck, I agree.

Drew, at this point I'd put Barbara Friggin' Boxer in McVain's seat.  He had made a career out of knifing conservatives in the back and then scrambling back to us like a whiny titty-baby whenever he needed our votes.  Oh sure, maybe the savaging from his 'good friends' in the MFM finally gave him a come to Jesus moment and he's really sincere about finishing "the danged fence," but I don't believe him as far as I could throw that smegma-encrusted lard-filled Obama-fellating dunderwit.

PortaJohn McStain needs a punch in the face from the voters he's spent a lifetime betraying.  Screw, you asshole, and stay screwed.

18 In this case, the "devil you know" has a maddening tendency to screw us with his spiny, chancre-pocked member on a regular basis. I'll take the other guy.

The same would go for his buddy from South Carolina.

19 McCain will stab you in the back in a non-election year. He will personally lead the fight to tear down the "danged fence" next year if re-elected. He will go all Mavericky on the big issues in the end, such as amnesty. Better an honest (heh) Dem than RINO. I will take my chances with Hayworth. His spending was no worse than anyone else and he paid for it by losing his seat. That sends a message and I believe he learned from that. His 95+ lifetime conservative rating goes a long way for me.  McCain had a 68 rating last (non-election) year.

20 that smegma-encrusted lard-filled Obama-fellating dunderwit. Bravo. Bra-VO.

21

"better the frying pan you know than the fire you don't"

Yeah, that always works out.  Just keep getting burned, over and over again by the pan.  I'd rather take my chances with the fire than with the same old pan with the same old rhetoric.  I used to go with that adage until I realized the stupidity behind it.  Why continue the torture when the fire might actually bring some relief?

McCain plays at being a conservative during elections and then goes back to the good old boys' club once reinstated.  Maybe Hayworth will actually abide by his campaign.  In any case, it would send a message that we won't stand for bullshit like McCain's anymore.  I'm tired of these entrenched politicians.  If we get rid of McCain, it is possible that better contenders might come forward to fight in the next round.  Without that entrenchment, we might be able to find the right representatives.

22

You guys want to know why people like me call it "your goddamned fence", or "that fucking fence you people want"? Grab a chair and I'll tell you.

Because it's a big government "solution" that will somehow overturn the law of supply and demand.

Don't tell me it isn't big government--it will cost a fortune and, as we've seen over and over, will be mishandled, botched, cost-overran and ultimately ineffective.

And once again, we're to take it on faith that somehow, this time, unlike the War on Drugs or entitlement disincentives, economic realities will quail before your mighty goddmaned wall.

Sorry, I am very suspicious of big government solutions that defy supply and demand. You should be too.

23 John McCain: This time, he really, honestly, seriously means it!

24 Because it's a big government "solution" that will somehow overturn the law of supply and demand.

Uh-huh. And I guess you're also opposed to enforcing immigration laws in general, as they're also "big government"?

25

I have to agree with the above poster.

I am in AZ and will vote for anyone but this senile crapholster, including a Democrat.

Anyone.....

These backstabbing RINO's are worse then Dems, as they give the commicrats "bipartisan" cover for their illegals laws, all it takes is one and the other ball-less RINOs have an escuse to bolt

and he will take the boot to all the conservitives if re-elected

 

26 Heh!  Our local a.m. guy, Bryan Suits played this ad on his show earlier today.  I lol'd.  (Plus as WTR and kbdabear know, Bryan always puts such a funny spin on things.)

27 My head! It hurts!

28
spongeworthy, you've held that positions for years, now. I'd thought you'd come around.

We need secure borders or else we're not a nation of laws, or even a sovereign nation, at all.

29 My problem with Hayworth is he's not exactly the poster boy for small government and on a tactical level, I'm not sure turning into a tossup is the way to go.

IF it is a solid Republican seat then it will not be a tossup. ANYTHING is better than McLame and it is time for him to go. 

30

<i>Uh-huh. And I guess you're also opposed to enforcing immigration laws in general, as they're also "big government"? </i>

My comments refer to the "goddamned wall" as being an ineffective big government "solution". No more, no less.

31 Talk is cheap and actions speak louder than words. Especially with professional politicians like McCain. He has clearly demonstrated through his actions just how cheap his talk is.

It's time for McCain to retire or be retired through the electoral process.

32 Wouldn't it be fun to watch Hayworth & Al Franken get snippy with each other on the floor of the Senate?  There's some a+ comedy right there.

33 American Thinker: Tale of the Tape. Feb 16, 2010. Sorry, the magic of linking to articles has eluded me. It's McCain vs Hayworth. Looks Like I shorted Hayworth a couple of points and overestimated McCain.

34
IF it is a solid Republican seat then it will not be a tossup. ANYTHING is better than McLame and it is time for him to go. 

Posted by: Vic at May 10, 2010 03:13 PM (6taRI)

Anything?

35

My comments refer to the "goddamned wall" as being an ineffective big government "solution". No more, no less.

The "goddamned wall" is intended to increase the cost and risk of the initial violation. We also need to decrease the potential rewards by cracking down in the interior. I don't think either one can work without the other.

36 *My problem with Hayworth is he's not exactly the poster boy for small government and on a tactical level, I'm not sure turning a sold Republican seat into a toss up is the way to go.

This is the type of thinking that gave us the recent re-election of Grahamnesty in SC.  If it costs an election cycle to rid the seat of a RINO, so be it.

37

 I'd thought you'd come around.

I'm soft on the beaners, no question. I'm all for workplace enforcement and I think AZ is on the right track, not the wrong one. But given the choice between rounding up illegals and shipping them home by force and amnesty, I'd have to choose amnesty.

Also, I would be wildly in favor of any method of securing the border that would be cheap and effective. I appreciate the chance to elaborate here.

38 IF it is a solid Republican seat then it will not be a tossup. ANYTHING is better than McLame and it is time for him to go.

Agreed. The Dems have not fielded a serious candidate for this race. If Hayworth's the nominee it goes to Lean R, at worst.

39

HOF (Hall Of Fame) thread winner on #22.

New keyboard...........check

new monitor..............check

memorizing rant to scorch the Earth here in New Joisey..........................check

That does it for me.

Just sayin'

40 But given the choice between rounding up illegals and shipping them home by force and amnesty, I'd have to choose amnesty.

That's fine. How many families are you offering to take in then?

41 21  I live in IL -- one doesn't throw rocks too often when one lives in a very flimsy glass house.

42

The "goddamned wall" is intended to increase the cost and risk of the initial violation.

I believe that if the wall turns out to perform as you wish, illegals will enter by other, less risky methods. Demand creates supply. Always.

Seriously, you have to deal with this. If not here and now, at least to be intellectually honest with yourself. I would think each of us would have a response to this question before we'd advocate the kind of spending the goddamned wall would require.

43
Back in '06 & '07 I was willing to make a compromise: Amnesty in exchange for a secure border.

But all they wanted to do was amnesty. They had no problem with allowing millions of more illegals cross the border after Amnesty for the 20-30 million already here.

Now I'm sick of it and want ALL of them gone.

44 McCain would be a great conservative senator if he had to run for re-election every year.

Otherwise, not so much.

45 19 I try not to comment on other state's politics, as it isn't my state

That's a rule I try to stick to with statewide and legislative offices, as those are entirely the business of the state in question and none of the others.

We ALL have a stake in the federal races, though, so AFAIC it's no holds barred.

46 "Demand creates supply." Always. Posted by: spongeworthy at May 10, 2010 03:21 PM (rplL3)

Demand doesn't create supply. Demand seeks supply.

47 And I personally am not convinced the fence solution is a better way to solve the problem than merely enforcing the law (maybe put stiffer penalties into place, enforce them all rigourously???) vis a vis illegal immigration.  I really don't see how a big fence isn't going to be a large dollar amount boondoggle, nor how it is going to be such a deterrent to illegal immigrants -- unless it has some super, secret special powers.

48

on a tactical level, I'm not sure turning a sold Republican seat into a toss up is the way to go.

On a tactical level, this time to dump McCain is in a year where the GOP looks to pick up a number of seats in the Senate, but not enough to achieve a Senate majority. If McCain looked like he'd be the 51st GOP Senator, then yes, it would be worth keeping him to reach that magic number. But if he's going to be the 49th (or even the 50th, given Biden's tiebreaking vote in the Senate), then it's better to get rid of him now and worry about replacing Hayworth in 2016 if he doesn't prove before then to be a good Senator.

49

That's fine. How many families are you offering to take in then?

Weak and non-responsive. Lame.

I am aware that this goes down like cod-liver oil, but I'm not sticking my neck out here as troll-bait. If you believe this big-government solution can overturn supply and demand, please elaborate. Save the non-sequiters for ergie.

50 The important thing at this point is to remove the existing members of Congress (who have not, as a body, done a good job) to show the new members that they, too, can be removed if they, too, do a bad job. Our politicians have gotten unserious about their work and we need to show them we haven't. And yes, I mean throw out even the 'good' ones: the lesson's important and the baby-to-bathwater ratio isn't high enough to worry about.

51 Aw, thanks, Big Rob (blush).

52 Does it have super, secret, special powers? Because nobody said anything about them. That would give me pause to rethink...

53
I don't agree that something so fundamental as securing our nation's border and controlling immigration is 'big' govt -- it's simply what the govt is supposed to do.

Big Govt, to me, is social security, nationalized health care, medicare, etc.

54

Seriously, you have to deal with this. If not here and now, at least to be intellectually honest with yourself. I would think each of us would have a response to this question before we'd advocate the kind of spending the goddamned wall would require.

Posted by: spongeworthy at May 10, 2010 03:21 PM (rplL3)

The spending the goddamned wall would require is pretty small compared to nearly any other "vital" Federal priority.

Byron York, Washington Examiner:

The Kyl-McCain plan would require double- and even triple-layer fencing in several areas of the border and beefed-up barriers in others. "According to the Border Patrol, it would have a very significant positive effect," says McCain. "Just as it has had a positive effect in San Diego and Texas."

How much would it cost? Given that much of the basic structure already exists, perhaps $1 million per mile. Revamp the whole 700 miles and it's $700 million.

Kyl and McCain would add 3,000 new Border Patrol agents. A back-of-the-envelope cost estimate is about $100 million per 1,000 new agents, so the plan would cost about $300 million. The proposal also calls for hiring more U.S. marshals, clerks, and administrative staff, which would mean more costs.

Then there is the jailing program, called Operation Streamline, which sends all illegal crossers to jail for a period of 15 to 60 days. When it has been tried selected areas, it has caused the illegal crossing rates to plummet. "Very effective," says McCain. "A huge deterrent," says Kyl.

The senators are waiting for an estimate of how much a bigger an expanded Operation Streamline would cost, but so far, the Obama administration has not come up with a number.

There are other expenses. For example, McCain and Kyl want to send a few thousand National Guard troops to the border. When this was done in 2007 and 2008, it cost a total of $1 billion.

There is little doubt such moves would work. In one part of the Arizona-Mexico border where authorities installed double-layered fencing and implemented Operation Streamline, the yearly number of illegal crossers went from 118,000 to 8,000.

Total cost? It's hard to say, but it seems fair to guess that for a relatively low price -- perhaps $5 billion? -- the nation could radically increase the security of the Southwest border. The columnist George Will recently called the cost of securing the border "a rounding error on the [$50 billion] GM bailout." He's right.

55

Border control is a Constitutional mandate. Therefore, I have no problem with lots of money being spent on providing a secure border, instead of handouts for those who sneak over.

56

Seriously, you have to deal with this. If not here and now, at least to be intellectually honest with yourself. I would think each of us would have a response to this question before we'd advocate the kind of spending the goddamned wall would require.

Which is why I mentioned inland enforcement in the piece you cut out.

57 50
Back in '06 & '07 I was willing to make a compromise: Amnesty in exchange for a secure border.

That was Reagan's calculation in 1986, which in recent years has been grossly distorted by the amnesty boosters. Then, we were only talking about some 3-5 million illegals; a not inconsiderable number but one that RR felt was an acceptable price for the promise of securing the border once and for all. Reagan's number-one priority re: illegals was a secure American border; his mistake (and it was, admittedly, a pretty big mistake) was in believing that the Democrats, who went on to take the Senate that year, had any intention of holding up the "enforcement" end of the bargain.

In '06/'07 and today, on the other hand, we're talking about anywhere from 30-50 million illegals with the promise of many millions more who will pour in from Mexico via chain-migration provisions. There can be no possibility of compromise with numbers like that.

58

Weak and non-responsive. Lame.

Pot. Kettle.

Amnesty would not decrease demand. It would leave demand unchanged while cranking up the reward for getting in before the deadline.

Amnesty is an admission we're no longer a nation. Amnesty is surrender.

59

But given the choice between rounding up illegals and shipping them home by force and amnesty, I'd have to choose amnesty.

Posted by: spongeworthy at May 10, 2010 03:16 PM (rplL3)

Only Democrats in their speeches are offering that choice

60

I am aware that this goes down like cod-liver oil, but I'm not sticking my neck out here as troll-bait. If you believe this big-government solution can overturn supply and demand, please elaborate. Save the non-sequiters for ergie.

Posted by: spongeworthy at May 10, 2010 03:26 PM (rplL3)

There is a high and very inflexible demand for money.  Almost every citizen wants it, and wants more of it than he or she has at present.

As it happens, there are a lot of places where money is just lying around: banks and cash registers, for example.  Ready supply meets vast demand.  Why, then, aren't all consumers simply reaching into cash drawers and helping themselves?

Turns out there is a big government apparatus that has been set up to make it risky for persons to simply take cash they see lying around in other people's premises.  We call it "the police." It works in conjunction with private initiatives, like alarms and window bars and armed guards and armored trucks, that augment the big government program in recognition of the fact that the government agents can't be everywhere at once.

61 Weak and non-responsive. Lame.

No, I asked you a fucking question. YOU want to grant amnesty to up to 50 million Mexicans in this country illegally. YOU now tell US exactly what sacrifices you personally plan to make to accommodate this vast tide of Third World humanity. The microphone goes to you.

62

Uh-huh. And I guess you're also opposed to enforcing immigration laws in general, as they're also "big government"?

Exactly. The same people who used to whine about defense cost overruns need to be reminded about government expenditures that are constitutional and those that are not.

Of course government overspends. That's a given. What it overspends *on* is the issue.

63 I'm all for rounding them up and shipping them home...and gun towers rather than a fence (or maybe a fence with gun towers -- if it must be built then at least make it an effective fence).

64

But given the choice between rounding up illegals and shipping them home by force and amnesty, I'd have to choose amnesty.

Posted by: spongeworthy at May 10, 2010 03:16 PM (rplL3)

Only Democrats in their speeches are offering that choice

Posted by: logprof at May 10, 2010 03:34 PM (Mmw0q)

Yes, spongeworthy, I'm surprised you didn't include death camps or machine-gunning into mass trench graves as one of your alternatives.  It's really hard to take your pleas for intellectual honesty seriously when you rely so heavily on straw-man arguments.

65 But to show that I can be kind hearted and nuanced: round them up -- those who have not broken the law, have or are in the process of getting employment, and are willing to take a citizenship test (which includes at least the barest functional level of  English) can get a restricted visa for a period of time and allowed to gain legal status and legally immigrate into the country. 

66 My pleasure Christopher, that was a thing of beauty!

67

But given the choice between rounding up illegals and shipping them home by force and amnesty, I'd have to choose amnesty.

Which is why we want a border wall to stop more from coming in, or at least make it damn difficult to do so. Please stop offering us false dichotomies.

Also, I would be wildly in favor of any method of securing the border that would be cheap and effective. I appreciate the chance to elaborate here.

There isn't one. We want the expensive in the short run solution that ultimately saves the nation. As opposed to you no-cost "solution" that pleases no one except for the Commiecrats, who want to keep importing an underclass to vote for them.

68 I'm come down real damn hard on Hayworth.  I honestly just have a visceral dislike for him.

But Mccain is a liar at this point.  His 'honor' message is completely trumped now.  I don't think Hayworth will turn out to be a massive improvement, but maybe the fact that he must cater to the conservatives to survive means he will be a solid reliable vote.  At this point, I'll take the chance of making the seat a tossup.  I don't think it's a serious risk of going to the democrats, but hell, at some point, you have to just accept some level of risk.

Mccain: that this is still a problem is partly, even largely, your fucking fault.  You learned the lesson from Obama: pretend your very worst traits are your best traits, and idiots can't keep up.  You, unlike most veterans I know, have been overpaid for your heroism.

69 I have a novel idea....how about putting "our visitors" to work building the fence?  They want work, then give them cheap labor (minimum wage) work. Once completed, offer anyone who worked satisfactory on the fence amnesty along with their immediate families.  Show the rest the door and shut it tight behind them.  Have the National Guard provide work detail security.

70 Then there is the jailing program, called Operation Streamline, which sends all illegal crossers to jail for a period of 15 to 60 days. When it has been tried selected areas, it has caused the illegal crossing rates to plummet. "Very effective," says McCain. "A huge deterrent," says Kyl.

Typical moonbat BS. What we need is jailing the people who hire the illegals. Do that and it would be a huge determent and not cost much of anything.

71 If you believe this big-government solution can overturn supply and demand, please elaborate.

And one other thing: Anyone who tries to frame the defense of the country as a "big-government solution" has no business calling anyone else on a conservative site a "troll".

72 I love how democrats become such fiscal hawks on shit we need.

It's OK to waste billions, even trillions, on pork and union wages and teachers who can't teach.

It's not OK to secure the border at a realistic price, despite the huge price.

I get it.  You don't want to secure the border at all.

I say $100,000 fine for any illegal immigrant plus the cost of any benefits they have received while here, plus 1000 hours community service.  And after they pay that, they do not become citizens.  They are kicked out.  After the border is secure and illegal immigration has become nearly non existent for at least a few years, we permit any English speaker who understands and appreciates and swears to defend our nation's values, and has a valuable skill, can become a citizen if they have never committed a serious crime (traffic tickets aren't serious, drug charges are serious).

This is common sense shit.

73 A point on why amnesty would not lower demand:

The criminals who employ illegals do so because illegals will work for lower than minimum wage, won't complain about violation of work place safety requirements, and generally will put up with conditions actual legal residents won't -- because complaining could end up with them being deported.

Now, you legalize the illegal aliens via amnesty. Now they can complain about sub-minimum wages, unsafe conditions, etc. So what do the criminals who hire illegals do?

They hire a coyote to bring in a new crop of near-slave labor illegals.

And we're right back where we were, with the addition of a bunch of former illegals who got handed US citizenship without doing anything to earn it, who can't find work in the US anymore because they've got to compete with US natives as equals.

So, bluntly, amnesty leaves us worse off than we are. It doesn't solve anything, and just makes our other problems bigger.

74

Maybe not on topic....but is it normal for a border agent to star - in uniform - in a political ad?

I like his attitude, mind you. Just wonderin....

75 stuiec@55,

+1

This is the election when you dump the currently most damaging to your brand... assuming the GOP still wants a brand other than Dem-Lite. This is exactly the seat you sacrifice, and momentum indicates that the GOP doesn't lose in AZ. Even McCain is moving Right and so much so that he can't walk it back assuming he survives the primary.

Why is America in the state it's in? Mavericks like McCain who are so entrenched as to be detrimental and so Beltway as to be statist. His tenure must end.

76  Up thread is the problem, Don't know much about J.D except what I heard. Yeah and you heard it all from McCainiacs and those concerned on the left. First he's a crook, when proved false they move on to he's for pork etc. Never do you hear that he's a staunch conservative with a 100% better voting record than McCain. Never do you hear that he's a Christian family man with children. No you hear people like Drew W say silly things about someone she obviously know little to nothing.

 People we will never get out from under the Elites in Washington if we keep spreading the garbage they put out. McCain has proven that he can't be trusted, and yet people that are supposed to be on our side can't see the forest because the trees get in the way. J.D. is a man of his word on immigration, boarder problems, and what's McCain? He's been in office for about as long as the problem has existed, and his only stab at fixing it was amnesty. McCain Feingold, that McCain  knew to be unconstitutional was his life time work. Please stop with this McCain is a good man garbage when you have seen all the evidence to the contrary.

77 Given that such a large number of illegal immigrants are criminals (not immigration; DUI, domestic, child molesters, gangbangers), what good would it do to offer them visas, since so many are ineligible for them to begin with?

78

Typical moonbat BS. What we need is jailing the people who hire the illegals. Do that and it would be a huge determent and not cost much of anything.

You are seriously calling Kyl a moonbat? We need a wall, regular patrolling, welfare cutoff, *and* employer sanctions. We need it all. Now that's real "comprehensive" immigration reform.

79 Come on Mr. Undead.  You do not need to exagerrate in order to make your point.  1/6 th of our Country are not illegal aliens.

Am I exaggerating? Possibly. 50 million is the high-end estimate I've seen; it may be only 40 million. It may even be as little as 30 million. (The minimum official estimate a few years ago was 12 million, but we all know what a load of bullshit that was.) The point is that we really don't know, because they're illegal and flying under the radar. We have no idea of the actual number of Third-World criminals now residing within the borders of our country, except that it's somewhere in the neighborhood of eight digits. And that illustrates the magnitude of the problem right there.

80 We need a wall, 

Posted by: Curmudgeon at May 10, 2010 03:53 PM (ujg0T)

But what will that accomplish?

81 Given that such a large number of illegal immigrants are criminals (not immigration; DUI, domestic, child molesters, gangbangers), what good would it do to offer them visas, since so many are ineligible for them to begin with?


It makes me feel warm and fuzzy.  For the children.

82

i don't even know who mccain is anymore......the guy fought like a pussy during the election and NOW goes after obama?  the guy outraged the majority of people that voted for him for senator when he started talking amnesty.....he NOW claims to have seen the light.....this is the same idiot who voted to confirm janet napolitano for homeland security czar when she couldn't be bothered with securing the border while govenor but whined and complained daily that the fed's needed to reimburse us for the expense of jailing, feeding, housing, paying the medical and education bills of the illegals..........now she's in charge of the entire country's border and she still won't secure a border!!!!!!

 

if mccain is reelected.....watch out.......he will be secure for 6 yrs and go right back to his maverick ways......the maverick ways he now denies....because it's an election year.  hayworth may be a blow hard but he is a conservative and mccain voting for the stimulus out spent hayworth by billions in one fell swoop

83

#81 has it spot on.

#81 also explains why employer sanctions, alone, without border enforcement, will not work. The underground economy is huge. Frankly, given all the day laborers hanging around the Home Depot, it isn't so underground anymore either.

This is also why anyone who suggests "a path to citizenship" so "they can come out of the shadows", is either a fool or a despicable liar. The illegals LIKE living in the shadows. Minimal taxes and minimal interference. And even when they don't, there are millions waiting to fill the shadows that the newly amnestied leave.

84 Minimal taxes and minimal interference.

The rest of us should be so lucky.

85

85  I was trying to be nuanced and sophisticated.

Seriously, I had an aunt (now deceased) who came here as an illegal -- not because she was a criminal or wanted to engage in such things -- out of circumstance only.  She eventually managed to get her citizenship and was a loyal, tax paying patriot.  So, I don't mind being kind to the 1% or so that are like her.

86

"But what will that accomplish?"

Stemming the flow, duh. The more obstructions and barriers to illegal entry, the better. This isn't rocket science.

87 I'm on record as supporting a mine field, mixed high-density, Sprengmine 44's, Shumine 42's, Pot mines, A200's, the little wooden bastards that the mine detectors don't pick up.  Throw in some dragon teeth and a berm.


Then sit and drink some coffee.

88  By reading the arguments her, on a conservative blog, I'm more worried than ever. We have people making excuses for illegal aliens, the treachery of John McCain, the go along to get along crowd. It's disheartening to say the least. I don't care if we exchange McCain for a saguaro cactus, it has to be done, and you could do a whole lot worse than J.D.

89 pinche migra: "But what will that [fence] accomplish?"

It's but one link in the chain of defense/sovereignty. Physically, it is a non-biased, apolitical entity that serves as a force multiplier for limited personnel. By itself it's not that useful, but with the concomitant reforms of internal enforcement of current law, employer sanctions for illegal hires, and the termination of "anchor baby" law, we have a real comprehensive solution to this crisis. The fence, long-term, saves money since expensive police labor will be reduced.

90

Thank you #98:

A Wall / Concertina Wire Fence, ALONE, will not work. It needs to be patrolled and manned at stations along the way, a la Israel.

Employer Sanctions, ALONE, will not work. The Underground for cash Economy is vast.

Welfare Cuts to illegals, ALONE, will not work. Illegals are Faking IDs.

But together, combined, interlocking? They work damn well.

91  No McCain suspended his campaign to go back to Washington to do absolutely nothing, so whats the difference. doing NOTHING to stop it is the same as voting for it now isn't it.

92 I don't get what's so complicated about this issue.  When your boat springs a leak, you plug it first, then you scoop out as much water as you can.  You won't get all of it, but what remains will eventually evaporate.

93

Posted by: jainphx at May 10, 2010 03:51 PM (EJP/T)

 

Kudos. I suspect that Drew doesn't know squat about JD.

94 Why is everyone so afraid of Obama?

95 As if he couldn't have seen to it the fence was completed years ago.  Fuck this lying fuck.

96 "An effective obstacle needs to be covered with observation and fire." (paraphrasing several hundred years of land combat doctrine) -- a fence only isn't going to work, flyboy.

97 He makes a huge leap that even after employers are fined or jailed for hiring illegals they will then hire coyotes to bring over more illegals because its ecomonically to their advantage.  That's a grand canyon leap in logic.

I did not mention the case of employers who get fined because I was talking about the effects of amnesty alone. And, be honest -- if we let them pass amnesty, then all we'll get is amnesty. We'll never see enforcement unless we make effective enforcement for at least a decade a precondition for amnesty.

BTW -- you can (and should) fine and jail the criminals who employ illegals, but should not ignore the siren's song of hiring illegals. Other employers will hire them. You can't just drive up the potential cost to employers; you've got to make it hard for them to satisfy their desire for cheaper labor. That goes for individuals as well as companies.

You could also lower the regulations and costs associated with hiring Americans. That would help drive down the desire for hiring the illegals.

98 You could also lower the regulations and costs associated with hiring Americans. That would help drive down the desire for hiring the illegals.

So, like, the exact opposite of everything Pelosi-Reid-Obama have done to date.

99 The fake I.D's is easy to stop, the IRS knows that people are working on false or stolen I.D's, and could stop it simply by telling the employer that fact, but NO we can't do that. they see every deduction from employers for SS on every worker and they know, but yet nothing is done. McCain could pitch a b-tch about it, but he wont, telling you exactly whose side he's on and it ain't ours.

100
So, like, the exact opposite of everything Pelosi-Reid-Obama have done to date.

Yep.

101

If you believe this big-government solution can overturn supply and demand, please elaborate

If defending our border is "big government" then so is providing for our national defense. Guess what? We're not anarchists here. Some government is necessary - cost overuns and and inefficiency be damned. This is one of the few legitmate areas where our federal government should be involved.

I won't address the supply and demand thing becaue stuiec did it far better than I could. It's a weak argument you made -- sorta like saying we should just give kids condoms because they're going to have sex anyway.

Deterrants work. They're not perfect, but they do affect human behavior. The argument is not about supply and demand. It's about incentives and disincentives.

102

stuiec, read the other responses on these threads. Roundups are proposed multiple times EVERY TIME.

I agree that other options exist besides roundups. By and large I am in favor of those, especially workplace enforceement. Remove the conomic incentives and you will see this problem abate. Fences?

Oh, and this ridiculous bullshit about how this is a constitutionally authorized big government boondoggle is really no defense for a boondoggle. I agree that we ought to control our borders. I disagree that a fence will be a cost-effective way to do so.

And we dealt with Byron York's very flawed cost analysis last week and shot a variety of holes in it. The largest one was his cost estimate of simply augmenting the fence on 700 miles of border. We have a 2,000 mile long border with Mexico. most of which does not have a fence already built upon it. He did not account for that cost, a serious hole.

103 94 Stemming the flow, duh. The more obstructions and barriers to illegal entry, the better. This isn't rocket science.

See Post 20

104

And we dealt with Byron York's very flawed cost analysis last week and shot a variety of holes in it. The largest one was his cost estimate of simply augmenting the fence on 700 miles of border. We have a 2,000 mile long border with Mexico. most of which does not have a fence already built upon it. He did not account for that cost, a serious hole.

Deserts and mountains are harder to cross than farms and cities. Just getting 1/3 of the border done would put a serious dent in the problem. Of course, plugging one area leads to inflows in another area, as the Tohono O'odham Indians are finding out? What is the solution? To keep on plugging the holes.

Moreover, to act as if one approach to combat illegal aliens excludes another is nonsense. Each approach helps another and each reinforces the effectiveness of the other approach.

105 A government unwilling to police it's borders is not going to enforce internally either.  The fence and it's attendant guardians is a symbol of seriousness and a warning of intent.

106  It's a little like the argument of how or when to discipline your children. In the old days I was disciplined by loving parents to show respect and to live a good life, now they tell us we can't do that, and look where that got us. You show a person that they will be punished and just watch the improvement. A fence is a must first and for most. The problem is Washington, we have people here in Arizona that are trying to stop this, Like sheriff Joe  and what help does he get? He gets a civil rights investigation from the DOJ, and just what has  McCain done to stop this? absolutely nothing.

107 and the termination of "anchor baby" law, we have a real comprehensive solution to this crisis.

As of 2008, anchor babies now return to homeland with Mommy.  Baby remains a USC, but Mommy doesnt get to stay.

108

See Post 20

See posts 98, 100, and 115

109 I agree that we ought to control our borders.
Posted by: spongeworthy at May 10, 2010 04:21 PM (rplL3)

You're a liar and you're boring. According to the statements you've made here, controlling our borders is a "big government boondoggle" and amnesty should be granted to everyone who's already broken in.

110

 The argument is not about supply and demand. It's about incentives and disincentives.

A distinction without a difference as I see it.

There are tons of ways to get into this country. Somebody used the of plugging a leaking boat. To correct this analogy, picture a boat with multiple leaks and it's pouring rain besides. Go ahead, spend your time and energy plugging the one hole (granted, the largest one.) What have you accomplished for your effort and money? Can you count on the security of your boat now?

Seems to me there's so much emotion about this issue that this fence becomes like a child's toy lying outside its crib. That toy becomes the most important toy even though plenty more are within reach. And the whining and crying-"I want my damned fence!" It's like reason flies out the window.

Finally, like many of you I don't see workplace enforcement being THE solution since so many illegals don't work for large employers--that number is overstated. The economic incentives have to be removed. One way is a working guest-worker program that requires illegals to pay their way while they are here. Slap them in TooncesCare for one thing. That'll have them swimming back in short order.

111

There are tons of ways to get into this country. Somebody used the of plugging a leaking boat. To correct this analogy, picture a boat with multiple leaks and it's pouring rain besides. Go ahead, spend your time and energy plugging the one hole (granted, the largest one.) What have you accomplished for your effort and money? Can you count on the security of your boat now?

That's where the bilge pump of employer enforcement, and the boat Roof of an Improved  ICE, comes in. To be a broken record (how quaint), One action does not preclude another. In fact, each action helps us undertake another.

The economic incentives have to be removed. One way is a working guest-worker program that requires illegals to pay their way while they are here.

112 I also support 12 months in prison for illegal entry.  Possibly at hard labor, building a fence.

113

(ack posting error in #123)

The economic incentives have to be removed. One way is a working guest-worker program that requires illegals to pay their way while they are here.

And in the absence of dreaded "big government" enforcement, they just might find it advantageous to work for cash, underground economy style. Once again, there is some government that is appropriate, no matter how big, and some that is not.

114

If the people whom Latinos have selected as their spokespeople  would exercise common sense and tell the leaders of radical, Communist groups like La Raza and other labor unions to sit down and to shut up, it would go a long way in reducing anxieties and frictions, enabling calm and rational discussions and solutions to these issues.

I suspect that many of their leaders are just self-annointed demagogues who seek to attain power for themselves and who are just muddying the water (deliberately) with their irresponsible positions on isssues, much like street hustlers Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton did during the civil rights movement.

But hey, I could be wrong.  

115

 The argument is not about supply and demand. It's about incentives and disincentives.

-----------------------------------------

A distinction without a difference as I see it.

Posted by: spongeworthy

I may want something really really badly (demand), but if you make it extremely difficult for me to get it (a disincentive), I may not make the effort.

Demand isn't fixed. It responds to incentives and disincentives.

Does that help?

116

I suspect that many of their leaders are just self-annointed demagogues who seek to attain power for themselves and who are just muddying the water (deliberately) with their irresponsible positions on isssues, much like street hustlers Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton did during the civil rights movement.

You are absolutely correct. And the solution is not to appease them, but to bash them without mercy. Point out how they undercut wages and overcrowd schools for legal Mexican Americans. Point out their treasonous anti-Americanism of Santa Anna meets Lenin.

When they start crying "Waah! You're questioning my patriotism!" you have hit paydirt.

117

3-hahahaha

PBO--As I have said many times, Sen. McCain is an honorable man, a nice family man.  You have nothing to fear from a Senatory McCain.  [hey, uh, what time is tee off at The Boulders?]

118

According to the statements you've made here, controlling our borders is a "big government boondoggle" and amnesty should be granted to everyone who's already broken in.

Case in point right here. Tell me where I said any of that. Come on now, cite it, cut-and-paste it. Don't take a statement and tell me what I really meant by it.

You people have an annoying problem of dismissing reason when this issue comes up. It almost like arguing with liberals. Almost.

I said  the FENCE looks to me like a boondoggle. I don't believe the fence = controlling our borders. Not even close. In fact, I'll go as far as saying only a fool would believe the fence equals "controlling our borders". Are you a fool? How else could you make such an error, fool?

And I never said we should grant amnesty to anyone, only that I prefer it to roundups. I agree it's a false dichotomy and I only brought the false dichotomy up in the first place because there are many here who prefer roundups and it clarifies my claim that I am "soft on the beaners".

Do you prefer roundups? Is that what fools are touting these days? Should we use cattle cars, Corky?

119

Demand isn't fixed. It responds to incentives and disincentives.

Moreover, given the political machinations of the Left, some demand (in the form of welfare goodies) will always be there.

120

stuiec, read the other responses on these threads. Roundups are proposed multiple times EVERY TIME.

I agree that other options exist besides roundups. By and large I am in favor of those, especially workplace enforceement. Remove the conomic incentives and you will see this problem abate. Fences?

Oh, and this ridiculous bullshit about how this is a constitutionally authorized big government boondoggle is really no defense for a boondoggle. I agree that we ought to control our borders. I disagree that a fence will be a cost-effective way to do so.

And we dealt with Byron York's very flawed cost analysis last week and shot a variety of holes in it. The largest one was his cost estimate of simply augmenting the fence on 700 miles of border. We have a 2,000 mile long border with Mexico. most of which does not have a fence already built upon it. He did not account for that cost, a serious hole.

Posted by: spongeworthy at May 10, 2010 04:21 PM (rplL3)

Triple York's estimate.  Quintuple it.  It's still small beer compared to the vast array of bullshit Progressive programs that this President and this Congress are shoving down our throats -- all of which will skyrocket in cost when inevitably they are expanded to cover illegal immigrants.

It's really amazing what fences can do.  Ask the Israelis: before their separation fence was constructed, suicide bombers infiltrating from the West Bank were a fixed feature of the Israeli social landscape.  With the fence in place -- and most parts of it are just that, a fence -- well, not so much.  In fact, not at all.

Now, of course, Israel is a small country, so its fence can't be anywhere as big as the US-Mexico fence, right?  Well, it's 423 miles long, which is a pretty appreciable fraction of the 2,000 miles you say that would be needed on the US-Mexico border.

Yes, by all means, remove economic incentives for people to come to America illegally: prosecute employers who hire illegals, create documents and databases that make it exceedingly difficult to fake documentation, deport illegals who are caught working illegally, and require people drawing public assistance or taxpayer-provided services to show proof of legal residency.  But don't think that all or even any of these measures can and will be enforced so well that they make basic physical border security unnecessary.

121 Force multipliers include the extensive use of sensors, camera towers, mobile FLIR scope ,all of which are derided here and elsewhere as the "virtually useless" virtual fence.  What a physical fence does is give us time to react.  I wish I had the numbers, but the vehicle barriers widely used in much of the open desert I daresay have dramatically reduced drive-throughs.

No, each is not a monolith, and used together they can be effective.  I just can't seem to wrap my head around the notion that THE FENCE would be solution number uno. (see what i did there? cute, no?

122

Warden, yes, it clarifies. Would you agree that people don't always respond to disincentives the way we predict? In this case, finding an alternate way in rather than just turning back?

Rob at 108: I disgaree with basically nothing in that comment, if that helps.

123

You people have an annoying problem of dismissing reason when this issue comes up. It almost like arguing with liberals. Almost.

Wow, how obtuse are you?

I said  the FENCE looks to me like a boondoggle. I don't believe the fence = controlling our borders. Not even close. In fact, I'll go as far as saying only a fool would believe the fence equals "controlling our borders". Are you a fool? How else could you make such an error, fool?

Only a fool would believe that an improved fence / wall is NOT a part of controlling our borders. And yes, you ARE a fool if you don't understand how increased barriers to illegal entry decrease illegal entry. 

Do you prefer roundups? Is that what fools are touting these days? Should we use cattle cars, Corky?

When you oppose border fence and wall improvements, you aren't giving us much choice are you? A fence / wall means less to round up. And in the absence of a fence / wall, roundups only mean the illegals are back the next month.

124 Tell me where I said any of that. Come on now, cite it, cut-and-paste it.

I just DID, shit-for-brains, for the second or third time. You're as dense about this thread as you are about the issue of illegal immigration.

125 Why all the hatin' on roundups?  And what exactly is a "roundup" in this context? Are stings and raids also somehow disreputable?

126

you're assuming that they want to come here legally to begin with..

Fair enough. But you just blew any argument against granting amnesty since no great numbers would apply by your logic. And by your logic we'd get the best of the lot through amnesty since they want to be here legally.

127 No, each is not a monolith, and used together they can be effective. I just can't seem to wrap my head around the notion that THE FENCE would be solution number uno. (see what i did there? ¿ingenioso, no? )

Posted by: pinche migra at May 10, 2010 04:50 PM (pEKxc)

FIFY.

128

Cut and paste it! Back up what you claimed. ControlC then ControlV. A child could do it.

Back it up or eat it, dipshit. I admit when I make mistakes--done it here many times. Be a man about it and admit I never said any of that. Or go somewhere and sqaut to pee. I really don't care which.

129 Posted by: stuiec at May 10, 2010 04:55 PM (7AOgy)

¡Ay Dios mio! Gracias por fijar mi mierda floja, paisano.

130

Would you agree that people don't always respond to disincentives the way we predict? In this case, finding an alternate way in rather than just turning back?

Most, I assume, don't have the means to go hundreds or thousands of miles out of their way to find a way in.

And if they do, they're gong to create one hell of a figurative traffic jam, making it easier to net them.

Are we going to stop every illegal? Uhmmm... no. But if we slow down the flow significantly it reduces a lot of problems, including overburdened social services and issues of assimilation.

131 Whee!

On to the Nazi Death Camps!

132
Do you prefer roundups? Is that what fools are touting these days? Should we use cattle cars, Corky?

Oh, dear, the Nazi Germany comparison raises its ugly head.

I prefer the arrest of lawbreakers. But if you want to call it roundups, so be it. And no, not cattle cars--air conditioned buses to transport them back across the border will do nicely, I should think. Or do you think it would more merciful to consign them to the American prison system? I don't.

133

And no, not cattle cars--air conditioned buses to transport them back across the border will do nicely, I should think.

I'm even willing to include a margarita machine.

134

And no, not cattle cars--air conditioned buses to transport them back across the border will do nicely, I should think.

I favor air-conditioned flights to Cancun. Our airline industry gets subsidized, and the illegals get to make a 2,000 mile trek back up to the border. It would be a Continent-size game of "Chutes and Ladders".

135 I'm even willing to include a margarita machine.

Saltist!

136 If we treat our southern border the way Mexico treats theirs, there'd be no problem.  Except the screaming and crying from all the leftists.

137

I'm even willing to include a margarita machine.

Chevelas would be more incentive.

138 Or better yet, air conditioned flights to Cozumel. Although that would spoil one amazing dive tourist spot, it would make for an illegal alien triathalon: swim to Cozumel, hike up to the border, pole vaulting or tunnel digging.

139 There's a case to be made that the situation in AZ has gotten much worse recently, and that the escalating violence is what made McCain finally change his mind.

I don't really care if McCain is being honest or not, or even if the fence will work. (Answer: It won't.) What worries me is that I'm seeing the same sentiment here toward McCain that I saw in the Presidential elections: McCain sucks! He's not a real conservative! Anybody's better than McCain!

That didn't work out so well. And neither the Tea Parties nor the Republicans will be able to completely curtail or repair the damage.

McCain has many faults, but he's not the worst possible alternative. Consider that before you let your anger run away with you.

140

What worries me is that I'm seeing the same sentiment here toward McCain that I saw in the Presidential elections: McCain sucks! He's not a real conservative! Anybody's better than McCain!

That didn't work out so well. And neither the Tea Parties nor the Republicans will be able to completely curtail or repair the damage.

Hayworth isn't Obama. If we can't express discontent in a *primary*, when can we? I know, I know, we should just shut up and take whatever crap the party leaders throw at us? Sorry, screw that.

141 I don't really care if McCain is being honest or not, or even if the fence will work. (Answer: It won't.) What worries me is that I'm seeing the same sentiment here toward McCain that I saw in the Presidential elections: McCain sucks! He's not a real conservative! Anybody's better than McCain!

Posted by: Bryan C at May 10, 2010 05:08 PM (T3KlW)

Wait.  You're blaming the electorate for that?  Uhmmm.  Shouldn't McMaverickRock-RibbedConservative take a tiny bit of blame?

142

What about the simple expedient of requiring proof of legal residency with every trans-national money transfer?  You need to send money out of the USA, prove that you are here legally - whether a citizen, a legally-resident alien, or a temporarily-resident student or tourist.

I suppose it would require the companion law that made it a felony to perform a third-party money transfer on behalf of a person unable to provide proof of legal residency.

143 pinche migra: "As of 2008, anchor babies now return to homeland with Mommy.  Baby remains a USC, but Mommy doesnt get to stay."

Yes, I remember the media narrative as poor mothers and newborns were being torn away from each other. Oh, the humanity! So what happened? Jails, an expensive, limited resource, were turned into makeshift housing projects while cases were adjudicated so that the family could bond. Their lives had become tortured, stressful, disenfranchised and numerous other horrific adjectives and made for a great sob story at 5:00PM weekdays.

That was not a solution and it clearly does not disincentivize the border-crossers and, more often than not, stayers who, if forced out, come right back and "live in the shadows" while their children enjoy the rights (and subsidy) of citizenship.

That milquetoast law is superficial and is not the end of anchor baby abuse.

144 Still waiting for that cut-and-paste. Or the retraction. A retraction, that's what a man would do. Doesn't mean you agree, just that you misstated my case in an obnoxious and dishonest fashion and that it was wrong to do so.

145 Re-elect McCain-Lieberman-Feingold-Kennedy:  If you don't, it'll be YOUR fault!

146 McCain has many faults, but he's not the worst possible alternative. Consider that before you let your anger run away with you.

Posted by: Bryan C at May 10, 2010 05:08 PM (T3KlW)

The only operant question at present is whether McCain is a better or worse alternative to Hayworth.  "Re-Elect McCain: He's Not As Bad As a Steaming Cowpie" is not a valid or useful argument.

(By the way, if fences don't work, why do they build them around prisons?  You'd think the inmates have a powerful incentive to leave the prison grounds, yet apparently physical barriers are sufficient deterrents to the vast majority of them.  It's a puzzler.)

147 I'm still hoping to find out what a "roundup" is.  I might be in favor of it.

148 Still waiting for that cut-and-paste. Or the retraction. A retraction, that's what a man would do. Doesn't mean you agree, just that you misstated my case in an obnoxious and dishonest fashion and that it was wrong to do so.

Posted by: spongeworthy at May 10, 2010 05:14 PM (rplL3)

Thanks for the illustration.  Stamping his foot and demanding a retraction is obviously what a pussy would do.  Especially one who demands intellectual honesty that he himself doesn't possess.

149

Now, here's a novel idea worthy of consideration, and it's quite simple:

We've been letting the wrong women into this country illegally.

The mixture of indigenous Latino genetics with the genetics of Germans who fled to South America after World War II produced some luscious women in Venezuela ...., and I do mean really, really extraordinary super babes.

Now, if Latino leaders could get those luscious women from Venezuela to come to the USA in droves illegally, that could change everyone's perceptions and the dynamics of all of these issues drastically. Seriously. 

Every straight male and every liberal lesbian in this country would would be falling all over themselves to vote to give those babes amnesty and citizenship ASAP, achieving unity between most Republicans and most Democrats like we haven't seen since 9/11.

 

150 JM is such a pussy. He takes the "complete the dang fence" position only after the female governor does all the heavy lifting. What a complete douchebag.

151

(By the way, if fences don't work, why do they build them around prisons?  You'd think the inmates have a powerful incentive to leave the prison grounds, yet apparently physical barriers are sufficient deterrents to the vast majority of them.  It's a puzzler.)

Posted by: stuiec at May 10, 2010 05:17 PM (7AOgy)

Exactly.  Why does anyone build fences?  Oh, and why have the fences already proven to be effective in the areas they've been build?  They aren't virtual fences, they're concrete and razor wire fences.  How are those not effective?

152

I'm still hoping to find out what a "roundup" is.  I might be in favor of it.

Posted by: damian at May 10, 2010 05:18 PM (4WbTI)

The roping and hogtying is the best part.

153

Now, if Latino leaders could get those luscious women from Venezuela to come to the USA in droves illegally, that could change everyone's perceptions and the dynamics of all of these issues drastically. Seriously. 

Given what Hugo Chavez is doing to Venezuela, they will be treated as Cubans soon.

154

The mixture of indigenous Latino genetics with the genetics of Germans who fled to South America after World War II produced some luscious women in Venezuela ...., and I do mean really, really extraordinary super babes.

Posted by: A Casual Observation at May 10, 2010 05:18 PM (ITzbJ)

And Brazil too.

155

Still waiting for that cut-and-paste.

We're still waiting for reasons why fences don't work. Saying they don't work alone doesn't cut it.

156 22) Oh sure, maybe the savaging from his 'good friends' in the MFM finally gave him a come to Jesus moment and he's really sincere about finishing "the danged fence," but I don't believe him as far as I could throw that smegma-encrusted lard-filled Obama-fellating dunderwit.

Posted by: Christopher at May 10, 2010 03:01 PM (zF6Iw)

Don't mince words, Christopher - tell us how you REALLY feel......  ;-) 

157

Especially one who demands intellectual honesty that he himself doesn't possess.

That is your claim, but you fail to back it up with any examples. So, if you were me, how much time would you spend worrying about your claim?

Once again, arguing like a child, or a liberal (BIRM). All emotion, false claims and vitriol.

Do better.

158

Exactly.  Why does anyone build fences?  Oh, and why have the fences already proven to be effective in the areas they've been build?  They aren't virtual fences, they're concrete and razor wire fences.  How are those not effective?

Posted by: FUBAR at May 10, 2010 05:19 PM (1fanL)

As I noted above, the Israeli security barrier is a fence along 96 percent of its length and a wall along 4 percent (where sniper attacks had been frequent).  It's been phenomenally effective at reducing cross-border attacks against Israel from the West Bank -- and the "demand" for such cross-border attacks is very inelastic, driven as it is by ideology and hatred.

159 That was not a solution and it clearly does not disincentivize the border-crossers and, more often than not, stayers who, if forced out, come right back and "live in the shadows" while their children enjoy the rights (and subsidy) of citizenship.

The fact that such a case gets to be ajudicated in an immigration court speaks more for the court system than the law that at least attempted to do something approaching the right path.  Jus soli is in the Constitution, and its not easily waived simply because of the parent's status.

Subsidies? Look for the large numbers of legal residents who choose to remain in Mexico, work in Mexico, and use a US address near the border to collect unemployment.  Hence, border towns (admittedly often aggie areas) have such astronomical unemployment rates.

160 The roping and hogtying is the best part.

Is it culturally sensitive to use boleadoras?

161 sTevo: "JM is such a pussy. He takes the 'complete the dang fence' position only after the female governor does all the heavy lifting."

So when he's not leading the GOP from behind, he's stabbing it? Seems a little harsh. I'm not saying it's not true, however.

162 (By the way, if fences don't work, why do they build them around prisons?  You'd think the inmates have a powerful incentive to leave the prison grounds, yet apparently physical barriers are sufficient deterrents to the vast majority of them.  It's a puzzler.)

The fences at the prisons aren't the deterrent. It is the guard towers with armed guards and orders to shoot to kill if a prisoner climbs the fence.

Now if the put guard towers every 200 yards on the fence with a 30-06 and shoot to kill orders that WOULD be a deterrent.

163 The fences at the prisons aren't the deterrent.

You aren't familiar with the fences around prisons, are you?

164

I believe that if the wall turns out to perform as you wish, illegals will enter by other, less risky methods. Demand creates supply. Always.

Seriously, you have to deal with this. If not here and now, at least to be intellectually honest with yourself. I would think each of us would have a response to this question before we'd advocate the kind of spending the goddamned wall would require.

Posted by: spongeworthy at May 10, 2010 03:21 PM (rplL3)

Exactly, it's like what Polanski said... everyone wants to f*** little girls.  Of if you will "Demand creates supply. Always."

Sure you can try to stop people from doing what Polanski did; but there's a supply demand thing here, why prosecute? There will still be more of it.

The FBI hunting child predators a "Big Government solution" boondoggle that doesn't solve the problem and isn't cost-effective.  I mean when you're done there will still be child molestation and you've spent billions on the FBI and not really solved anything. 

If you believe this big-government solution can overturn supply and demand, please elaborate.. but let be intellectually honest and admit that we all know regardless what you do, girls will still get molested. So quit trying to solve a problem that you can't solve.

Yeah, it was mean, and a cheap shot... but both are illegal enterprises.  I've not seen many people upset that government actions make things harder on criminals, or that law enforcement isn't "cost effective".

How much do we spend on a team to find and arrest serial killers?  Do we have ROI for serial killers caught?  Or do we just pay even more to jail them afterward?  Looking for "cost effective" law enforcement seems a questionable game unless you're writing speeding tickets.  Is that the only law enforcement we should do?

165

You aren't familiar with the fences around prisons, are you?

Looking at the concertina wire, I was thinking the same thing.

166 pinche migra: "Jus soli is in the Constitution, and its not easily waived simply because of the parent's status."

I'm not advocating a waiving. The current interpretation of the Constitution gives them cover and it has to be defended. The abuse to me is one of intent and the misuse of the law as a loophole. I blame the judicial system and think the amendment should be, well, amended. So I blame both the actors of this transient event whereby illegals birth a legal citizen and the law as it has been, I believe, misinterpreted. It's a Constitutional crisis to be addressed.

167 Posted by: Gekkobear at May 10, 2010 05:32 PM (X0NX1)

Brilliant, monsieur.  I keep trying to explain, but you know how parochial and backward Americans are, with their child rape laws and their fences.

Thank heaven, for little girls...

168 The fence is just to keep the cattle out of the minefield.

169 I blame the judicial system and think the amendment should be, well, amended. So I blame both the actors of this transient event whereby illegals birth a legal citizen and the law as it has been, I believe, misinterpreted. It's a Constitutional crisis to be addressed.

Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at May 10, 2010 05:37 PM (FFIq0)

Damn skippy.  I can't believe there wouldn't be support for an amendment that said "Only persons born legal citizens of the US are citizens of the US."  Seems like common sense.

170 You aren't familiar with the fences around prisons, are you?

You mean like this one?

http://tinyurl.com/35u3fdb

171

I'm familiar and if there were no guards, there would not be a single prisoner left inside the fence.

Posted by: polynikes at May 10, 2010 05:38 PM (m2CN7)

I beg to differ.  If the fences were intended to keep people in the jail in the absence of guards, they could.  But even if you're right, that doesn't mean the fence isn't a deterrent, does it?

172

I'm familiar and if there were no guards, there would not be a single prisoner left inside the fence.

Wow, did any of us advocate cutting the Border Patrol? Of course a fence has to be patrolled. It is still superior to an unfenced border that is patrolled. Period.

173 So I blame both the actors of this transient event whereby illegals birth a legal citizen and the law as it has been,I believe, misinterpreted. It's a Constitutional crisis to be addressed.

Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at May 10, 2010 05:37 PM (FFIq0)

Absolutely.  The intent, as written, was to protect freed slaves after Emancipation.  I don't believe it even applies in today's situation, but alas, a whole lotta things would have to be um, dis-misinterpreted (or something?!) before we even begin to examine that!

174 Arizona: No one can stand up to Obama like me... I have never considered myself a Maverick... Complete that danged fence... You can't get pregnant this way... Sound familiar ? How big of a crapweasel can Hayworth be to make you swallow this guy's load (of BS, that is...) ?

175

Wow, did any of us advocate cutting the Border Patrol? Of course a fence has to be patrolled. It is still superior to an unfenced border that is patrolled. Period.

Posted by: Curmudgeon at May 10, 2010 05:41 PM (ujg0T)

Can't tell if these folks are splitting hairs, or are just being argumentative, or are really clueless.

176 174 sTevo: "JM is such a pussy. He takes the 'complete the dang fence' position only after the female governor does all the heavy lifting."

So when he's not leading the GOP from behind, he's stabbing it? Seems a little harsh. I'm not saying it's not true, however.

Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at May 10, 2010 05:24 PM (FFIq0)

 

Where do you people get your disinformation? Ten or fifteen years ago, JD pushed for the legislation that Brewer just passed in Arizona. But Mr. Magoo ridiculed and trivialized JD's position on that issue.

177

But Mr. Magoo ridiculed and trivialized JD's position on that issue.

Please call the Hayworth campaign. McCain as Mr. Magoo is a campaign cartoon that is just begging to be animated.

178 Cut and paste error?

179

Cut and paste:

You guys want to know why people like me call it "your goddamned fence", or "that fucking fence you people want"? Grab a chair and I'll tell you.

Because it's a big government "solution" that will somehow overturn the law of supply and demand....

Sorry, I am very suspicious of big government solutions that defy supply and demand. You should be too.

Posted by: spongeworthy at May 10, 2010 03:08 PM (rplL3)

Intellectual dishonesty, if not outright ignorance.  The laws of supply and demand dictate a market-clearing level of supply and demand.  A border fence makes the "price" of illegal entry higher, forcing down demand.  You think coyotes won't raice their cash prices for conduct across the border when the number of points of entry becomes severely restricted?

In fact, your own appeal to economic incentives and disincentives based on employer sanctions and other internal controls recognizes that increasing the price to the illegal entrant in terms of difficulty of finding employment at a subsistence wage will reduce demand for entry.  Of course, the cost and intrusiveness of a big-government solution that sends enough enforcement agents into our businesses and homes to enforce those disincentives would dwarf by an order of magnitude or two the cost of a border fence -- but if it's YOUR pet big government program, it must be A-OK, yes?

But given the choice between rounding up illegals and shipping them home by force and amnesty, I'd have to choose amnesty.

Posted by: spongeworthy at May 10, 2010 03:16 PM (rplL3)

Intellectually dishonest debating trick: the False Choice.  Marks you as a shill for one of the two choices.

How about, as one example out of an endless array of other alternatives, a program that requires illegal aliens to allocute to their crime of illegal entry, slaps them with a fine and requires them to pay back taxes, and grants them a legal residency status that prohibits them from ever applying for full citizenship and makes them liable for deportation in the event they are convicted of a felony?  The one grant to the illegal alien in this scenario is allowing him to continue to live and work in the USA;  the penalties are the fine and the permanent disqualification from citizenship (no citizenship = no family reunification).  Is there a round-up implied in there somewhere?  Forced mass deportation?

There are tons of ways to get into this country. Somebody used the of plugging a leaking boat. To correct this analogy, picture a boat with multiple leaks and it's pouring rain besides. Go ahead, spend your time and energy plugging the one hole (granted, the largest one.) What have you accomplished for your effort and money? Can you count on the security of your boat now?

Posted by: spongeworthy at May 10, 2010 04:36 PM (rplL3)

Intellectual dishonesty and another cheap debating trick: The Only Solution is the Perfect Solution.  "Let's not plug the biggest hole because that won't fix everything."  Any rational person in that situation would plug the biggest hole and then move on to plugging the next biggest, and so on.  If the nature of the work and size of the crew permitted, while one team was plugging the biggest hole, other teams would be plugging the other holes.  Assuming the pumps are going to keep you afloat while you ignore the inrush through the biggest hole is insanity.

Unless you have an ulterior motive for leaving the big hole open.  You wouldn't happen to be an employer who relies on illegal labor, would you?  Because you argue like one.

180 193-Soft on beaners.  He/she/it's words above.

181 McCain as Mr. Magoo is a campaign cartoon that is just begging to be animated.

Posted by: Curmudgeon at May 10, 2010 05:48 PM (ujg0T)

Please no! If only because I could stand to see Meggie on TV waxing indignant about sight-ism and whatever else comes to her stream-of-conscious mind.

Nix that.. it would be fun, actually

182 A Casual Observation@190,

I'm riffing off sTevo's lead. I know JM is a snake WRT illegal immigration. And when I say "snake," I mean a "snake and a liar."

JD != JM

183

You're the one who dismissed Vic's perfectly logical post with the sarcastic comment.

Posted by: polynikes at May 10, 2010 05:50 PM (m2CN7)

Nope.  The only way someone could think that a prison fence isn't a deterrent is if they weren't familiar with prison fences.  How can that possibly be logical?  Only if you're unfamiliar with prison fences, and fences in general, or if you don't know what "deterrent" means.

184

You aren't familiar with the fences around prisons, are you?

I'm familiar and if there were no guards, there would not be a single prisoner left inside the fence.

Posted by: polynikes at May 10, 2010 05:38 PM (m2CN7)

You are absolutely right.  And if there were no fences, the guards would have to shoot a lot of prisoners -- and a lot more would manage to get out of range before being shot.

The neat thing is that the fence slows down a prisoner's attempted run to freedom enough so that the guards have a chance to attend to him.  We have a Border Patrol -- lots of armed guards -- but no fence to help them by slowing down the border crossers and funneling them to more controllable places.

185 Why do prisons waste all that time and money and material building fences that aren't a deterrent?  Like I said, either splitting hairs, or just arguing to argue, or clueless.

186 Only if you're unfamiliar with prison fences, and fences in general, or if you don't know what "deterrent" means.

I am very familiar with "fence theory" having worked with security for many years. A fence by itself is worthless and I have posted that on this site MANY times. Putting up an unmonitored fence in the middle of a desert is worthless.

I still maintain that a reliable verification system and jailing people who hire illegals is the best route to take since the politicians will never actually seal the border.

Every law that they have passed or tried to pass did not make any real effort to stem the tide of illegals coming in and they will never do that.

187

You're the one who dismissed Vic's perfectly logical post with the sarcastic comment.

Posted by: polynikes at May 10, 2010 05:50 PM (m2CN7)

Nope.  The only way someone could think that a prison fence isn't a deterrent is if they weren't familiar with prison fences.  How can that possibly be logical?  Only if you're unfamiliar with prison fences, and fences in general, or if you don't know what "deterrent" means.

Posted by: FUBAR at May 10, 2010 05:55 PM (1fanL)

I note that there are numerous non-prison, private establishments in the USA that have on their premises valuable items.  I also note that many have tall fences topped with razor wire, and while many of those fences are backstopped by electronic alarms. few of the fences are equipped with guard towers.

Now, we know from general experience that sometimes persons manage to cross these fences and make off with the valuable items... but not nearly as many as if the fences didn't have razor wire, or alarm systems behind them (we can tell that by seeing how people behave when the fences and alarms are overwhelmed, as in the L.A. Rodney King riots: there are a lot of people who would be willing to take stuff from these establishments when the DETERRENT effects of physical security and detection are neutralized).

188 Why do prisons waste all that time and money and material building fences that aren't a deterrent? 

why bother wiping down the arm of a death row inmate?

189 A fence by itself is worthless and I have posted that on this site MANY times. Putting up an unmonitored fence in the middle of a desert is worthless.

I still maintain that a reliable verification system and jailing people who hire illegals is the best route to take since the politicians will never actually seal the border.

Every law that they have passed or tried to pass did not make any real effort to stem the tide of illegals coming in and they will never do that.

Posted by: Vic at May 10, 2010 06:02 PM (6taRI)

If a fence by itself is worthless, why do people build them?  Also, you can't possibly be saying that having a fence is the same as having no fence.  So the fence must be a deterrent, and must be worth something.

And nobody suggested only a fence, with no guards and no other provisions to deter illegal immigration.

I'm starting to lean toward hair splitting.  But when you say a fence by itself is worthless, I lean back toward clueless.

190 Voted on Senate floor in favor of amendment to kill border fence in 2006 Sen. McCain voted in favor of the Manager's Amendment (SA 418 , offered by Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA), to the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006. The Manager's Amendment made many minor changes to S. 2611, none of have significant numeric impacts on the overall bill. However, the Manager's Amendment included a provision that requires consultation with the government of Mexico concerning the construction of additional fencing and related border security structures along the international border between the United States and Mexico. This would virtually guarantee that the fence along the U.S.-Mexico border would never be completed. The Manager's Amendment passed by a vote of 56 to 41 to 1 (the 1 denotes a "present" vote)

191 I am very familiar with "fence theory" having worked with security for many years. A fence by itself is worthless and I have posted that on this site MANY times. Putting up an unmonitored fence in the middle of a desert is worthless.

Posted by: Vic at May 10, 2010 06:02 PM (6taRI)

How about a monitored fence?

Despite the many pictures being shown in the international media of a tall concrete wall, more than 97% of the planned 720 km. (480 mile) anti-terrorist fence will consist of a chain-link fence system.

The anti-terrorist fence forms a strip approximately the width of a four-lane highway. At its center is the chain-link fence that supports an intrusion detection system. This technologically advanced system is designed to warn against infiltrations, as are the dirt "tracking" path and other observation tools.

Less than 3% of the fence will be constructed of concrete. The short concrete sections are intended not only to stop terrorists from infiltrating, but also to block them from shooting at Israeli vehicles traveling on main highways alongside the pre-June 1967 line, at nearby Jewish residential areas, and at other targets. In a few cases, because of the density of housing and other construction in the area, the building of a fence is impossible and, therefore, a concrete barrier becomes necessary.

192 I'm starting to lean toward hair splitting.  But when you say a fence by itself is worthless, I lean back toward clueless.

If you think the government will ever put up a fence with the necessary monitoring and patrolling it is you who are clueless.

This is my last post on this thread since it is not logical to argue with idiots who want to indulge in name calling. .

193

I'm starting to lean toward hair splitting.  But when you say a fence by itself is worthless, I lean back toward clueless.

The keywords are "by itself". No one here is suggesting that. Moreover, even if we are to grant the "straw fence" of a fence by itself, even *that* discourages and reduces illegal entry.

194 If you think the government will ever put up a fence with the necessary monitoring and patrolling it is you who are clueless.

Posted by: Vic at May 10, 2010 06:18 PM (6taRI)

Why won't it?  Israel did.  At an installed cost of $3 million a mile, 480 miles of fence (actually 4 percent of that is concrete wall).  And it's been devastatingly effective in preventing terrorist intrusion from the West Bank.

Why do you want to cling to the notion that it's an impossible task to replicate that on the US-Mexico border?

195 197 A Casual Observation@190,

I'm riffing off sTevo's lead. I know JM is a snake WRT illegal immigration. And when I say "snake," I mean a "snake and a liar."

JD != JM

Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at May 10, 2010 05:53 PM (FFIq0)

 

When I was a juvenile delinquent in high school, I was occasionally forced to watch C-SPAN as punishment, and I remember JD's speeches on the floor of the House, from which I came to conclude that he was a staunch and inflexible conservative and one of the good guys, who was pretty damned good at articulating the positions of conservatives on issues ...., further evidence of which is that he and Rush Limbaugh have been buddies for the past 20 years, as Rush has remarked on his radio show many times.

But I don't live in Arizona. So the outcome of that election will have little effect on my life.

 

196

While McCain ain't exactly a conservative either, better the frying pan you know than the fire you don't. "Anybody is better than (insert name of politician here) is what got Obama elected. I'd prefer not to fall into that well more than once.~ExurbanKevin

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. -Declaration Of Independence

Americans with guts risked the fire.   I hope Arizonians make an example of Maverick McCain and point the way to the Right for the GOP which seems to have lost it's way, Sarah Palin included.

197 How many incursions of the Israeli fence have there been? And whats the ROE if/when it does happen?

The USBP's number 1 mission is stopping terrorism, yet, its day-in-day-out job is deter, detect, and apprehend aliens/smugglers.  We cannot simply open fire on IAs and claim we are protecting our borders.

198

My friends, as I have alway said:  the brown-skinned "God's Children" need the stay the hell out of Gringo-land.

 

 

199

If you think the government will ever put up a fence with the necessary monitoring and patrolling it is you who are clueless.

And yet, you want to tell me the same government will be able to muster up the necessary monitoring and patrolling of thousands of private employers, without turning into a police state against US citizens (especially given this Obamunist bunch), and without incurring many times the cost. Wow.

Once again, a fence and employer sanctions are not mutually exclusive--I say do both. But get real.

200 What a shameless douche-bag.  Hayworth may not be great but I think he is better than the Maverick pandering to the conservative voters.  We know we can't trust McCain;  the same can not be said for Hayworth.

201 How many incursions of the Israeli fence have there been? And whats the ROE if/when it does happen?

The USBP's number 1 mission is stopping terrorism, yet, its day-in-day-out job is deter, detect, and apprehend aliens/smugglers.  We cannot simply open fire on IAs and claim we are protecting our borders.

Posted by: pinche migra at May 10, 2010 06:29 PM (pEKxc)

I don't know what the Israeli ROE for fence incursions are.  Whenever terrorists attempt to infiltrate and are detected by the IDF, they're either arrested or killed -- and the terrorists truly fear detection if they try to cross the fence.

1. PIJ leader Ramadan Abdallah Shalah was interviewed in Damascus by the Qatari newspaper Al-Sharq. He said that the second intifada was currently characterized by rocket fire , which had replaced the previous stage of suicide bombing attacks. That, he said, was because the enemy [i.e., Israel ] had found ways and means to protect itself from such attacks: “… For example, they built a separation fence in the West Bank . We do not deny that it limits the ability of the resistance [i.e., the terrorist organizations] to arrive deep within [Israeli territory] to carry out suicide bombing attacks , but the resistance has not surrendered or become helpless, and is looking for other ways to cope with the requirements of every stage [of the intifada]…” (Al-Sharq, March 23, 2008 ).

2. It was not the first time that senior figures of the PIJ and Hamas, the two terrorist organizations which carried out the greatest number of suicide bombing attacks against Israel, have publicly admitted that the security fence makes it difficult for them to carry out suicide bombing attacks within Israel :

1) PIJ leader Ramadan Abdallah Shalah told Hezbollah's Al-Manar TV that the terrorist organizations had no intention of abandoning suicide bombing attacks but that their timing and the possibility of carrying them out from the West Bank depended on other factors. “For example,” he said, “there is the separation fence which is an obstacle to the resistance [i.e., the terrorist organizations], and if it were not there, the situation would be entirely different” ¹ (Al-Manar TV, November 11, 2006 ).

2) Mousa Abu Marzouq , deputy chairman of Hamas's political bureau in Damascus , was asked by a group of Egyptian intellectuals and politicians why the suicide bombing activity had decreased during since the Hamas government came to power. He said that “ [carrying out] such attacks is made difficult by the security fence and the gates surrounding West Bank residents ” ² (Abd al-Muaz Muhammad, Ikhwan Online, the Muslim Brotherhood Website, June 2, 2007 ).

3. The security fence (which is still under construction) and successful Israeli security forces' counterterrorist activities are the two main factors behind the sharp decrease in suicide bombing attacks carried out by the PIJ, Hamas and other terrorist organizations. PIJ and Hamas leaders, when asked why there have been fewer suicide bombing attacks, repeatedly admit that the security fence is in fact an obstacle to their capabilities to infiltrate Israel to carry out suicide bombing attacks . That is in direct contradiction to Palestinian propaganda (including propaganda disseminated by the Abu Mazen-led Palestinian Authority), aimed chiefly at Western ears, which represents the security fence as an “apartheid” measure whose objective is to isolate and oppress the Palestinian people, and which demands that Israel dismantle the sections already built.

202

The fence shouldn't be the only issue here.  The issue should be:  Dependable representatives or not?  McCain has shown he can't be trusted and should be kicked to the curb.  This fence and McCain's position on it in 2007-2008 are one of the big reasons that Republican voters stayed home.

Arizona is just one of the places the illegals come in.  Once they're in they could end up anywhere in the U.S.

203

I reiterate; to have lost to that empty suit, Obama, McCain has to be the worst politician in the history of civilizations.

But he's like Jimmy Carter, another narcissistic, pompous ass. In their malignant narcissism, those two old fools can't come to terms with the fact that they have become irrelevant and relegated to obscurity. I wish that both of those old fools would shut up and go away. Their 15 minutes of fame have ended.

204

My wife and I have been chuckling at this ad for about a week now, he's running them during the Sun's playoff games.  However, there is no 3rd choice and I won't pull the lever for Hayworth or sit out, so I'll be voting McCain.

The only thing Hayworth ever gave Arizonans is bad pork, embarrassment and Democrat representative Harry Mitchell.

205 In the end, it doesn't matter -- a third GOP candidate will most likely split the vote in favor of the incumbent.  Regardless, remember that when the smoke clears in the primaries, it will be one Republican running against one Democrat for that seat.  If John McCain made the difference between having 50 or 51 R's in the senate, you could hold your nose, right?

206 If John McCain made the difference between having 50 or 51 R's in the senate, you could hold your nose, right?

Posted by: Gryph at May 10, 2010 07:33 PM (YDK25)

Except that he won't.  The number of GOP Senate pickups won't get to the magic number of 51 with McCain, so why pretend it's vital to keep him for a phantom majority scenario?

207

Opponents of a fence/barrier system say it won't stop everyone. If the system cost $20 billion and cut annual infiltration in half, that would be a hugely cost effective thing to do.

 

208

Some prison fences are electrified with sufficient voltage to result in instant death. Besides decreasing the need for perimeter guards, it is sold as both just and energy efficient, as no current flows until someone voluntarily completes the circuit with their body.

 

209

I'm not so much an opponent of the fence as a skeptic -- I can see this government building the fence as a sop to throw to the electorate, and then not bolstering it or enforcing the law which would render said fence a joke.

As for making excuses for illegal immigrants -- no, I am not.  I do not believe in amnesty.  I will make exception for the rare (and they are rare) special case as I do have personal experience that tells me they do exist; however, personal experience tells me that these are people who would emigrated legally if that option had been open to them at the time (my aunt was from mainland China -- applying for emigration to the U.S. at the time she came over was an option not open to her, and probably risky as all get out; suffice it to say that if she could have she would have and had no intention of being a leech or breaking the laws of this country other than her immigration status, which she worked to change as soon as she could).

210

  A border fence makes the "price" of illegal entry higher, forcing down demand.  You think coyotes won't raice their cash prices for conduct across the border when the number of points of entry becomes severely restricted?

See, you're on to something here, but you haven't taken it to the next logical conclusion. Coyotes are not the only way to get into this country. Suppose you actually put them out of business. So what? I'll even concede that the cost of illegal labor would rise then.

So now the cost is higher and other methods of entering the country become cost-effective. Like skipping out on a visa, or riding in the back of a tractor-trailer. The cost has risen, but so has the price. Until the price of illegal labor approaches that of legal labor, you're just plugging leaks. And you can't be everywhere at once except at great cost.

Of course, the cost and intrusiveness of a big-government solution that sends enough enforcement agents into our businesses and homes to enforce those disincentives would dwarf by an order of magnitude or two the cost of a border fence -- but if it's YOUR pet big government program, it must be A-OK, yes?

I don't have a big intrusive government program that A-Ok. It is intellectually dishonest for you to claim I do. Also, you offer no proof on the costs of this enforcement and as far as I know, none exists. In fact, I specifically stated in this thread that workplace enforcement is unlikely to be very effective.

Intellectually dishonest debating trick: the False Choice.  Marks you as a shill for one of the two choices.

Totally incorrect. I stated at least once that it was a false dichotomy and that I only used the dichotomy to burnish my credential as one who is "soft on beaners" compared to the rest of you. And thus a target for a lot of abuse. In fact, your solution here sounds fine to me.

Any rational person in that situation would plug the biggest hole and then move on to plugging the next biggest, and so on.

No. A rational person would first establish if there is any reason he should be in the boat at all. Running around plugging leaks is a fools game unless it is the only possible alternative. You yourself offered a better one.

Unless you have an ulterior motive for leaving the big hole open.  You wouldn't happen to be an employer who relies on illegal labor, would you?  Because you argue like one.

And that's why I am fine with workplace enforcement even though I doubt its effectiveness? Who's being intellectually dishonest now?

I give you credit for finally arguing like a rational conservative rather than a whiny liberal--it's a welcome relief. Not everybody who sees this issue differently is motivated by personal greed or is being intellectually dishonest. Frankly, I fail to see where you found the grounds to claim otherwise.

As I see it, there are a lot of jobs Americans won't do until the the price rises very very high, like picking fruit. Until the price of illegal labor rises  a hell of a lot higher than it is now, we're just running around plugging leaks. You might disagree, but it is unfair to call that "dishonest".

 

211 If McCain loses he'll be that much closer to retiring from public life, which means we can finally stop hearing from his sorry ass. (Nobody will care what the new junior senator from Arizona says. Quick, who's the junior senator from New Mexico.)

212 It isn't difficult.

Pound employers.

Good-bye demand.

213 And no amnesty needed.

Adios, muchachos.

214 157 Still waiting for that cut-and-paste. Or the retraction. A retraction, that's what a man would do. Doesn't mean you agree, just that you misstated my case in an obnoxious and dishonest fashion and that it was wrong to do so.

Posted by: spongeworthy at May 10, 2010 05:14 PM (rplL3)

In case I didn't mention it before, Spongebrain, go fuck yourself in the ass with an AIDS-ridden porcupine. You explicitly and directly endorsed amnesty for all illegals in this country, derided plans for enforcing the border as "big government boondoggles", and then tried to tell us you didn't say what you said, sometimes within the same paragraph.

I don't like people who have this little regard for my intelligence, I'm not going to go digging through the thread to C&P all things you and everyone else know very well that you said (especially since I already did that and you just ignored it), and I don't need to retract factual statements to satisfy the pleas of craven liars.

215 No. A rational person would first establish if there is any reason he should be in the boat at all. Running around plugging leaks is a fools game unless it is the only possible alternative. You yourself offered a better one.

The "boat" in the metaphor is the S.S. United States: we live within the "hull" of its borders, and we crewmen rely on one another to do our jobs and earn our daily rations.  And through the breaches in the hull, vast swarms of intruders are coming aboard -- some to insinuate themselves into the crew (without signing onto the crew contract), some as saboteurs.

And your suggestion is that we get off the boat?  How do you propose we do that?  And why is it in our best interest simply to let our vessel be overrun with intruders, as opposed to insisting that anyone who comes aboard come up the gangplank and be recognized?

Further, I offered an alternative to your false choice of amnesty or "round-ups."  My suggestion wasn't an alternative to plugging the leaks, but a necessary complement to a border fence.

As I see it, there are a lot of jobs Americans won't do until the the price rises very very high, like picking fruit. Until the price of illegal labor rises a hell of a lot higher than it is now, we're just running around plugging leaks. You might disagree, but it is unfair to call that "dishonest".

As I see it, there are one in five American men between the ages of 25 and 55 out of work now, ones that might gladly take up John McCain on his infamous offer to pick Arizona lettuce for the entire season. I seem to recall that before we had illegal aliens to do these jobs, we had people like Okies who were grateful for the chance to earn their daily bread when the farms and jobs dried up in their home states.

But let's leave aside the grown men and turn to the teenagers. There are many millions of teenagers, especially teens of color, who could benefit from the chance to enter the workforce in these "jobs Americans won't do." But somehow it's easier to let those kids languish, maybe get into trouble or become welfare dependent, and meanwhile pay illegal aliens subminimum wages (leaving them likewise dependent on public assistance) to pick fruit.

Seems you're not really all that interested in solving the problem. Like I said, you talk like someone who thinks exploiting illegal aliens is just peachy for the American economy.

216 God forbid the American lettuce industry goes under. Whatever will we do.

Curse you, lack of lettuce self-sufficiency!

217

My problem with Hayworth is he's not exactly the poster boy for small government and on a tactical level, I'm not sure turning a sold Republican seat into a toss up is the way to go.

McCain = "A SOLD REPUBLICAN SEAT"

LOL!  Funniest thing I've read today!

218 What good is a 'solid Republican seat' if John McCain's sitting in it? No dang good.

219 Screw you, handbag fag. McCain is the reason that we have Toonces in the WH. There is no better reason to toss him out of the Senate. I wonder how long it took after that video was shot to remove the stick up his ass.

220 IP = 59.175.0.62

221 Please tell me that was another SNL skit. Please.

222 Ban Hammer for the handbag fag, please.

223 IP = 115.193.175.154

224

Further, I offered an alternative to your false choice of amnesty or "round-ups."

Again, you're repeating this "false choice" as if I hadn't repudiated it as such several times already. It wouldn't be nearly so obnoxious if you hadn't accused me of intellectual dishonesty prior. When we both agree it's a false choice, there's really no purpose in assaulting a hill you (and I) already hold.

And why is it in our best interest simply to let our vessel be overrun with intruders, as opposed to insisting that anyone who comes aboard come up the gangplank and be recognized?

It isn't. I would never claim that it is. I might claim that we should look into some way we could allow the intruders to board as guests and document their arrivals and departures. Also, we ought to bill them for grog and any time they spend with the sawbones. When their work aboard is done, they should leave, and clean up after themselves. Get their bunks shipshape.

I guess I fail to see why the suggestions you offered need to be augmented by a hugely expensive border fence that ( I think, could be wrong) we will fail to patrol and that promises to be a massive boondoggle. In fact, what little we have completed is, lo and behold, an utter failure and far more expensive than predicted.

We really don't see the labor issue at all the same. As I see it, as long as we have a welfare state--and that's not going anywhere in this, the real world--there's just no way you're going to get kids to harvest fruit and vegetables. You think we will, I say never no way it's happening. No point in arguing about it.

I wish all illegals would pack up and GTFO, really. Get in line if you want to come here or FO. But in this reality, I can't see it happening without real ugliness, without measures that make a joke out of our liberties and freedom and that betray our values as human beings. I wish it were otherwise, truly, that the problem had never been allowed to get this far out of hand. The fact that is was allowed gives me my first clue about how effective I expect that wall to be.

225

 I'm not going to go digging through the thread to C&P all things you and everyone else know very well that you said ...

Well of course you're not going to. You can't. We both know you already went looking and came up empty.

Here's your Participant medal, Corky, to go with your others!

226 Right now, I'd probably vote Hayworth just because McCain is such a waffle and I want him gone (term limits, anyone?)

That's funny. Hayworth had a term limit pledge before he had his crooked ass handed to him the voters in AZ DC05 reminded him. Now he's got one in his bid to take out McCain. Not that it matters, since he's polling behind Glassman, who hasn't even begun to campaign.

227 But Hayworth's old seat occupied by Bill Mitchell, that is a race Republicans should be focusing on.

228

McCain = "A SOLD REPUBLICAN SEAT"

LOL!  Funniest thing I've read today!

There are two Senators and eight Representatives in AZ. McCain has held that seat since Barry Goldwater. He has lifetime relationships throughout the state. He has political favors to call in. Hayworth couldn't hold onto his tiny libertarian-leaning district, and he is expected to perform well in a high profile Senate campaign?

McCain may have a record of bipartisanship, but he is respected and still votes more conservatively than Hayworth, who is not well liked or respected throughout the state. Hayworth is a loudmouth and a poor spokesman for the conservative cause,, especially in a year when immigration is going to fire up the Democratic base and drives hordes of voters to the polls.

This insane talk of Hayworth as the best hope for conservatives is pure mental masturbation for hardline immigration extremists who hate McCain to the point where it blinds them to reason. Yes, McCain is an arrogant vain old fool, but you haven't any real alternative but a Democrat.

229 Sorry, Harry -- not Bill -- Mitchell.

Americans with guts risked the fire.   I hope Arizonians make an example of Maverick McCain and point the way to the Right for the GOP which seems to have lost it's way, Sarah Palin included.

NCLB, Medicare Part D, Sarbanes-Oxley, 2005 Highway Bill, 527 Reform Act, top recipient of Abramoff funds, six-figure PAC payouts to his wife... on which planet is any of this conservative?

230 I think that I am going to throw up...

231 blue led watch blue led watches watch pimp pimp watch