[ridetoofast]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,171668,00.html

LOS ANGELES — A fence already marks the U.S. border with Mexico but in some places, it's no more than a strand of wire or metal rail.

Where a real barrier exists, it works. Illegal immigrants (search) are forced to travel long distances to get around miles of tall steel and razor wire.

Click in the video box to the right for a complete report by FOX News' William LaJeunesse.

Now, a group of border activists are pushing for a new, bigger fence — more like a Berlin Wall — from the Gulf of Mexico to the Pacific Ocean.

"If we don't stop the illegal immigration problem at the border, the problem will grow in far more dangerous ways ... because illegal immigration from Mexico provides easy cover for terrorists," says one national television ad sponsored by Weneedafence.com, a project of Let Freedom Ring, Inc.

The TV spot focuses not on the politically charged issue of illegal Hispanic immigration but border crossers who may be a security threat, especially those caught who originated from suspected sponsors of state terrorism (search).

(Story continues below)

ADVERTISEMENTS
Advertise Here

"What are people from Yemen and Syria and Iran doing in Mexico trying to enter the U.S. illegally? This is an issue that requires a wall," said Colin Hanna of Weneedafence.com. "We are absolutely not anti-Hispanic, we do not think the fence should be perceived as anti-Hispanic, or anti-Mexican, we are not anti-immigrant, we are pro-immigration, but we are pro- legal immigration."

Hanna's group hopes to persuade Congress to take on the $8 billion project but aside from the cost, Hispanic activists claim that good neighbors build bridges, not fences, and that a fence will stigmatize people fighting for their shot at the American dream.

"I think what we're doing is criminalizing work and criminalizing the need of families to be together," said Angela Sanbrano of the Central American Resource Center, an open-borders interest group.

Years ago, the idea of a great wall on the southern border would have been dead on arrival in Congress, but times have changed. Polls now show that more than 80 percent of Americans like the idea, and it has bipartisan support. One House bill has bipartisan support but is nowhere near ready for passage by the entire Congress.

Many Democrats favor the concept because the downward pressure on wages from illegal immigrants is hurting organized labor (search). Republicans, meanwhile, also like the wall for national security reasons

 

[preppie]

... because illegal immigration from Mexico provides easy cover for terrorists"

...but border crossers who may be a security threat, especially those caught who originated from suspected sponsors of state terrorism.

...What are people from Yemen and Syria and Iran doing in Mexico trying to enter the U.S. illegally? This is an issue that requires a wall"

Years ago, the idea of a great wall on the southern border would have been dead on arrival in Congress, but times have changed. Polls now show that more than 80 percent of Americans like the idea, and it has bipartisan support.

They need a fence to defend the US against terrorists?
Do they really think that terrorists will be stopped by building a bigger fence?

That’s a good joke.




Ps. We are not anti-Hispanic...we just want to keep our jobs and our [BS]freedom[/BS]

 

[ohio]

We have 3000 miles of land border with Mexico, and another 3000 miles with Canada. Do we REALLY think we can build a fence that would prevent terrorists from walking into our country if they are determined to... if they make the trip all the way from Saudi Arabia, a chainlink fence is going to stop them?

People can say all they want that this is not anti-Hispanic, but they're either fooling the public or fooling themselves. You want to cut down on illegal immigration, just come out and say it. Don't show up at my door with a Trojan turd.

 

[ohio]

I moved this to a separate post, because I didn't want to cloud my original reply with tangential comments... but if you DID come out and say your goal was to reduce illegal immigration, I'll tell you "yes, that WILL cut down on illegal immigration. You know what else will? Spending all the money we drop guarding the border, helping Mexico build up a viable infrastructure... unfortunately, that will just help them compete against American labor. So we have ourselves a dillemna since we both want to keep them out, AND want to keep them industrially handicapped... I guess we just need to build a bigger, stronger 3000 mile wall. What good neighbors we are."

 

[DRB]

I moved this to a separate post, because I didn't want to cloud my original reply with tangential comments... but if you DID come out and say your goal was to reduce illegal immigration, I'll tell you "yes, that WILL cut down on illegal immigration. You know what else will? Spending all the money we drop guarding the border, helping Mexico build up a viable infrastructure... unfortunately, that will just help them compete against American labor. So we have ourselves a dillemna since we both want to keep them out, AND want to keep them industrially handicapped... I guess we just need to build a bigger, stronger 3000 mile wall. What good neighbors we are."

Either way they compete against American labor.

 

[Westy]

Either way they compete against American labor.

For the most part illegal immigrants take the jobs most Americans don't want. Building an infrastructure in Mexico would create jobs there that could compete with *good* 'merican jobs.

I work with a lot of projects that send machinery to other countries. A lot of the manufacturing type jobs already went south in the late 90's. Not the big surge espected by the NAFTA naysayers. Mexico has a good supply of skilled labor, but they are really not a threat. Mexico, like the US, has lost a lot of work to China. We should be partnering with our neihbors to compete with China not fearing them.

 

[DRB]

For the most part illegal immigrants take the jobs most Americans don't want. Building an infrastructure in Mexico would create jobs there that could compete with *good* 'merican jobs.

I work with a lot of projects that send machinery to other countries. A lot of the manufacturing type jobs already went south in the late 90's. Not the big surge espected by the NAFTA naysayers. Mexico has a good supply of skilled labor, but they are really not a threat. Mexico, like the US, has lost a lot of work to China. We should be partnering with our neihbors to compete with China not fearing them.

Okay so no illegal immigrants to fulfill those jobs, what happens? The employers have to make them where Americans would want them.....

 

[Westy]

Okay so no illegal immigrants to fulfill those jobs, what happens? The employers have to make them where Americans would want them.....

First thing that would happen would be the cost of food would go way up. Second thing that would happen would be me buying a lot of John Deere stock because a lot more emphasis would be put on automating what is an archaic industry. I would think that food costs would eventually come down.

 

[Tenchiro]

Either way they compete against American labor.

Yeah because there are so many Americans that want to be landscapers and maids.

 

[ohio]

Either way they compete against American labor.

I'm not sure what your "either way" is referring to. Do you mean
A) illegal immigrants working in the US vs. those same people working in Mexico
or
B) non-industrialized labor in Mexico vs industrialized labor in Mexico

I don't know the dynamics of illegals in the US well enough to know what the impact of option A would be. I know the impact of option B, would be increased competition for low-end manufacturing jobs (obviously already occuring) and soon increased competition for high-end manufacturing jobs. Mexico could potentially pose the same industrial threat as the Far East, but with much lower shipping costs and lead times for manufactured goods. In fact this was a key factor in a business plan I once pitched. The big question mark was whether we could develop highly skilled labor in Mexico...

 

[splat]

Lets look at one poinmt that has not been brought up , and this is true for both the Dems and Reps.

Wages Paid to Illegal workers Don't get taxed! Both Sides want the $$$ They won't say that they will say Making Jobs for americans ( so they can Tax) or For National Security ( get the Tax $$$ to pay for it ) but in the end it just comes down to the almighty Dollar. at least that is how I see it ,I could be wrong.

 

[Damn True]

The illegal immigration issue will never really be addressed. The dim's wont because they fear pissing off the latin vote which they think they own (however the last presidential election, and the last gubanatorial (sp?) election in CA indicate otherwise). The Republicans won't because they fear pissing off the big corporate agriculture companies.

The result is you and I get hosed. Because illegal immigrants use public services such as hospitals and schools without supporting those institutions through taxes.

 

[ohio]

The illegal immigration issue will never really be addressed. The dim's wont because they fear pissing off the latin vote which they think they own (however the last presidential election, and the last gubanatorial (sp?) election in CA indicate otherwise). The Republicans won't because they fear pissing off the big corporate agriculture companies.

The result is you and I get hosed. Because illegal immigrants use public services such as hospitals and schools without supporting those institutions through taxes.

Well, we could address 2 out of 3 of those by naturalizing those living and working in the US... it would just take the government sucking it up and angering the Aggies.

 

[Changleen]

You're all talking like you also live in a poor country... What wrong with this picture?

 

[Damn True]

Well, we could address 2 out of 3 of those by naturalizing those living and working in the US... it would just take the government sucking it up and angering the Aggies.

You do realize that you just agreed with George W. Bush?

This is an enormous can of worms. I mean, we are talking about over 10 million undocumented illegal immigrants. The logistics of anything, be it deportation, naturalization or anything in between are staggering.

I am in favor of somehow getting them onto "the grid" so to speak so that their incomes are taxed and they therefore help foot the bill for the public services they use.

Of course if we had an NRST instead of income taxes that issue would be taken care of. But that is another issue entirely.

Would you be in favor of also granting voting rights to an illegal immigrant or someone on a guest worker visa?

What do you think of placing restrictions on how much money can be sent out of country? Should somoene be allowed to earn an income in this country but have "X" percentage of that money wind up in another countrys economy?

 

[ohio]

You do realize that you just agreed with George W. Bush?

I would be surprised if that were the case. I can almost guarantee that he proposes several related policies that I am very opposed to, but please do fill me in, as I'm not particularly familiar with his stance on the issue.

I am in favor of somehow getting them onto "the grid" so to speak so that their incomes are taxed and they therefore help foot the bill for the public services they use.

There are quite a few reasons to get them on the grid, but I agree that above are two of them.

Of course if we had an NRST instead of income taxes that issue would be taken care of. But that is another issue entirely.

Yes it is, and imagine the traffic it would cause at the borders, not to mention the huge black/grey market it would create.

Would you be in favor of also granting voting rights to an illegal immigrant or someone on a guest worker visa?

Obviously not. Since when did folks on legitimate working visas get a right to vote, and why would they? I do think the green card process should be faster and cheaper, and citizenship should come sooner, but there's a reason you apply first for a green card and not citizenship. However, if you work here, you should pay taxes. And if you pay taxes, you should be eligible for the other benefits of being part of our society.

What do you think of placing restrictions on how much money can be sent out of country? Should somoene be allowed to earn an income in this country but have "X" percentage of that money wind up in another countrys economy?

Absolutely not. It's already taxed as income. Many people NEED to send that money home, either because they can't afford to bring the whole family over at once, or they're supporting many family members who choose not to come to the US (often the elderly). As long as they pay taxes, who are we to say what they need to do with the rest of their money?

 

[Damn True]

I would be surprised if that were the case. I can almost guarantee that he proposes several related policies that I am very opposed to, but please do fill me in, as I'm not particularly familiar with his stance on the issue.

Well not word for word, but at various times he has floated the ideas of an amnesty package for people who have been in country "x" years and guest worker visas. I don't believe there is a solidified plan or policy that the current admin has commited to.

Obviously not. Since when did folks on legitimate working visas get a right to vote, and why would they? I do think the green card process should be faster and cheaper, and citizenship should come sooner, but there's a reason you apply first for a green card and not citizenship. However, if you work here, you should pay taxes. And if you pay taxes, you should be eligible for the other benefits of being part of our society.

Just wondering where you stood. Heard some wack-job proposing just that on the basis of "taxation w/o representation". The problem is, that most of them are not being taxed appropriately.

Absolutely not. It's already taxed as income. Many people NEED to send that money home, either because they can't afford to bring the whole family over at once, or they're supporting many family members who choose not to come to the US (often the elderly). As long as they pay taxes, who are we to say what they need to do with the rest of their money?

If and only if they are being taxed.