Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
What better mechanism to increase border security than focus agents on that rather then deporting people here working any paying taxes.
Then why wasn't that done in the first place? If border security had been the priority before the undocumented(illegal) immigrants arrived we wouldn't have to be concerned about deporting them. The "rather than" situation would not have occurred if the tried and true "better than" mechanism had been applied, as in "an ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure."
Why didn't all the promised border security happen the last time we "fixed" the immigration problem? And why is the same thing about to happen again--the "undocumented" ones get to stay before any border security "mechanism" is seriously put into gear? Why didn't Obama write an executive order which would actually be constitutional--to faithfully execute and enforce the previous legislation, including building the fence, spending all or most of the money on more border guards "rather than" on making illegals comfortable and ensconced throughout the country? Why should we believe that he is serious about border security when his orders and actions, or lack thereof, invite rather than discourage more illegal immigration?
I believe undocumented workers account for some $12B every year.
What the heck does that mean--"account for"? What Jim in CT said.
As for it being fair to those playing by the rules, I think you have to draw the line somewhere.
I kinda think the rules do "draw the line." If not, why have rules? The point of making rules is to keep situations from getting out of hand in the first place. If we allow the rules to constantly be broken without immediate correction, then, of course, the rules will only be for suckers who "obey the law," and the "smart" folks will resort to the allowed crime in greater and greater numbers. As in illegal immigration.
Deporting everybody isn't practical. Optimizing your resources is critical. By kicking the can down the road you can better address some short-term needs without really giving anything up.
|
Spence . . . come on. Is there any "there" in what you said? The words just swirl around in a high-toned kind of conference talk that really doesn't get anywhere.
"Practical" for what and for whom? And on what basis? Allowing multi-millions to stay must be practical for somebody with some "agenda." Otherwise, this wouldn't have happened.
"Optimizing your resources is critical" sounds like desperation. This situation has been allowed to happen over time without applying the proper resources to stop it . . . and it is now "critical"? And we can now say, OK, it's so "critical" that it wouldn't be "practical" to do much about it and mostly just accept it as a "new norm"? We can, like the Wizard of Oz, pull some levers behind the curtain and pass an "executive order" which by proclamation fixes it. And there is that sneaky undercurrent also emanating from behind the screen of the fix--"don't let a crisis go to waste." The Wizard magically fixes the "critical" problem with a wave of his executive wand, in the meantime making the crisis a "practical" tool for furthering his agenda of rule by smoke and mirrors rather than by some old restrictive rule of law. He magically becomes even more powerful, and seemingly all-wise and leads a new multi-million cadre into the sphere of his party. He has "kicked the can down the road" for a temporary practical gain, and by not "really giving anything up" he has "drawn the line" created by the crisis and moved closer to his party's agenda of fairness and equality for a borderless world.