(08-06-2010 12:18 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-05-2010 10:12 PM)Grungy Wrote:  Our nation has just under 20,000 miles of edges, combining land boundaries and bodies of water. Is there any practical way to control who may or may not cross into our country somewhere along those edges?

Not 100%. Not a good reason to settle for 0%. If the criterium for making a effort at anything is total success, little would attempted. I cannot practically control who may enter my house 100% of the time, but I lock my doors anyway. Some people even have security systems and fences, and they still get burgled, or worse. The answer to protecting one's house and family is not to leave the house open.
Lots of larger countries make an effort to control their borders with varying degrees of success. So do lots of smaller countries. Iran is much smaller, but don't wander too close to their border. Ditto for North Korea. Israel may be smaller than us, but their situation is more dire, and they have reasonable success - if they didn't, they would be gone. I guess the real question is, are there good reasons to try. This country is our home. Let's treat it like our home. Invite in the guests, keep out the strangers. As best we can.

It's not 0% now. Probably about 80%. Same for drugs and, a couple of generations ago, alcohol.

Problem number one is that 80% is useless as long as people know where the 20% is.

Problem number two is that it costs about as much to go from 80% to 95% as it costs to go from 0% to 80%. And again from 95% to 99%. And you never get to 100%. So even after tripling the budget, you're only effective if you can keep people from figuring out where the 1% is. And as long as there's as much money to be made in the drug trade, people will find out where the 1% is. And the word will get to their human-trafficking buddies, too.

So, take a lot of the money out of drugs by legalizing at least marijuana, and border security gets a lot cheaper. Come up with a guest worker program that does not promise citizenship, and you take care of the people already here. Once you remove the legal taint, you can register and track them and at least know who's here. Then you do things to help the Mexican economy, and you reduce the pressures that create the supply.

(08-06-2010 08:45 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-06-2010 12:18 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-05-2010 10:12 PM)Grungy Wrote:  Our nation has just under 20,000 miles of edges, combining land boundaries and bodies of water. Is there any practical way to control who may or may not cross into our country somewhere along those edges?

Not 100%. Not a good reason to settle for 0%. If the criterium for making a effort at anything is total success, little would attempted. I cannot practically control who may enter my house 100% of the time, but I lock my doors anyway. Some people even have security systems and fences, and they still get burgled, or worse. The answer to protecting one's house and family is not to leave the house open.
Lots of larger countries make an effort to control their borders with varying degrees of success. So do lots of smaller countries. Iran is much smaller, but don't wander too close to their border. Ditto for North Korea. Israel may be smaller than us, but their situation is more dire, and they have reasonable success - if they didn't, they would be gone. I guess the real question is, are there good reasons to try. This country is our home. Let's treat it like our home. Invite in the guests, keep out the strangers. As best we can.

It's not 0% now. Probably about 80%. Same for drugs and, a couple of generations ago, alcohol.

Problem number one is that 80% is useless as long as people know where the 20% is.

Problem number two is that it costs about as much to go from 80% to 95% as it costs to go from 0% to 80%. And again from 95% to 99%. And you never get to 100%. So even after tripling the budget, you're only effective if you can keep people from figuring out where the 1% is. And as long as there's as much money to be made in the drug trade, people will find out where the 1% is. And the word will get to their human-trafficking buddies, too.

So, take a lot of the money out of drugs by legalizing at least marijuana, and border security gets a lot cheaper. Come up with a guest worker program that does not promise citizenship, and you take care of the people already here. Once you remove the legal taint, you can register and track them and at least know who's here. Then you do things to help the Mexican economy, and you reduce the pressures that create the supply.

I agree with both your premises, although people will just shift from marijauna to whatever is lucrative, and if it comes in from outside we will have just traded problems. Can't make everything legal.

And the guest worker program that doesn't lead to citizenship is perfect IMO, but not in the agenda of those who are yelling racist. For the leadership, it doesn't create voters, and for the masses, you still are asking brown-skinned people for their papers. I think the immigrants themselves would be fine with it.

But my point was that difficulty in achieving goals does not imply that they should not be strived for. We could patrol our borders like North Korea and still people would get across. The alternative is not to throw our hands up and say "Why try?"

If it costs $X to install a security system that improves the security of your home from 80% to 95%, that is a cost/benefit decision for the homeowner. If it causes a lot of strife to be grounding your teenagers to keep the illegal drug traffic in your house down, that is a parental decision. I think those who say let the kids do what they want since you can't control them 100% and, by the way, leave your doors unlocked and windows open because the burglars are going to get in anyway, are just abdicating their responsibilities.

(08-05-2010 12:48 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Give them a chance to come in legally, most will do what's right, BUT that requires registering and presenting papers, two actions most of the illegals would have no trouble with but their US "defenders" do. People like us (citizens and legal residents) generally obey the law, and I think they should too.

I'm not sure who these US defenders of illegals who don't want to register are. Right now a Mexican here "without inspection" as they say, if they become known to ICE will be "removed" and must stay in Mexico for 10 years before being eligible for any kind of legal entry. It's not surprising that those here want to avoid that. Some kind of registration and status without risk of immediate deportation would be eagerly accepted by the illegals I've met (and while that's not as many as OO, I do know a number of them).

I know a couple of illegals who have this situation: they came across the border with their parents when they were children. They have been here for 20+ years, in one case married to a citizen and for another the parent who brought them over has become a naturalized citizen. Both are barred from legal residency by current law. Both speak excellent English and have no ties whatsoever to Mexico. The 10 year wait seems ridiculous in these cases, but that's what the law requires.

(08-06-2010 12:34 PM)Old Sammy Wrote:  

(08-05-2010 12:48 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Give them a chance to come in legally, most will do what's right, BUT that requires registering and presenting papers, two actions most of the illegals would have no trouble with but their US "defenders" do. People like us (citizens and legal residents) generally obey the law, and I think they should too.

I'm not sure who these US defenders of illegals who don't want to register are. Right now a Mexican here "without inspection" as they say, if they become known to ICE will be "removed" and must stay in Mexico for 10 years before being eligible for any kind of legal entry. It's not surprising that those here want to avoid that. Some kind of registration and status without risk of immediate deportation would be eagerly accepted by the illegals I've met (and while that's not as many as OO, I do know a number of them).

You misunderstand me. I agree a registration without risk of immediate deportation would be eagerly accepted by most current illegals. Of course, registration implies papers, and papers implies the need to present them at proper times and places, which would include law enforcement stops, the same situation that opponents of the Arizona law portray as Gestapolike and racist. Papieren, bitte. So it follows that the people protesting the Arizona (and current Federal) requirement to carry and show papers would not like this.

I think implementation of a guest worker program, together with a temporary, repeat, temporary, amnesty for those who take the proper and legal steps to either become a citizen, register as a resident alien, or register as a guest worker, would be a reasonable immigration reform. Proper steps would include getting right with the IRS, and they would also require all aliens to have papers showing they are following one of the three protocols. Once again, papers must be provided when appropriate - you can't just say, I'll mail you a copy later. How temporary? Say, six months to get on one of the three tracks, then if you haven't done what is needed and you are caught, you're out of here. Your friends who came across as kids could apply for citizenship or RA status, and become legal.

As for 69's thought of legalizing marijuana, I'm OK with that.

I agree with OO's comments... and though I agree with 69/70 that going from 80-90 costs as much as 0-80 (or whatever he said) iirc, the last INS budget I saw was less than 2billion. Much less than most estimates of the "cost" of these illegals... especially when you consider the amount of money being exported. When you add to that the "cost" of devaluing our currence, lowering our standard of living etc etc to the point where we no longer are "the country of choice" for illegal immigrants, I'm willing to spend a few billion to make improvements.

(08-06-2010 10:03 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  You misunderstand me. I agree a registration without risk of immediate deportation would be eagerly accepted by most current illegals. Of course, registration implies papers, and papers implies the need to present them at proper times and places, which would include law enforcement stops, the same situation that opponents of the Arizona law portray as Gestapolike and racist. Papieren, bitte. So it follows that the people protesting the Arizona (and current Federal) requirement to carry and show papers would not like this.

I think implementation of a guest worker program, together with a temporary, repeat, temporary, amnesty for those who take the proper and legal steps to either become a citizen, register as a resident alien, or register as a guest worker, would be a reasonable immigration reform. Proper steps would include getting right with the IRS, and they would also require all aliens to have papers showing they are following one of the three protocols. Once again, papers must be provided when appropriate - you can't just say, I'll mail you a copy later. How temporary? Say, six months to get on one of the three tracks, then if you haven't done what is needed and you are caught, you're out of here.

If this was implemented and supported by the Administration, I am sure those people currently worried about and demonstrating against the checking of papers by those presumed racist cops would be just fine with the checking of guest worker papers by those same cops, during the same traffic stops, etc, and for the same reasons. I think the cops are racist only when it is desired that they be racist.

That is why I think most of the anti-Arizona law hoopla is staged and staged for a reason. What reason? The only difference I see is that now, it is a Republican governor enforcing laws not being enforced by a Democratic administration, and if the OO Plan of Sanity (OOPS) were passed, then it could be spun to the Hispanic voters as a plan passed by the Democrats to preserve their (Hispanic's) dignity and rights. Votes, people, votes. That is what this is all about. I see no difference in the implementation other than the spin. Same cops, same stops, same checking of papers, same results. Maybe some of y'all see a difference. But I don't, and unless some of you can show me a difference, I probably won't. That's why I think this uproar is political and without substance

Well, that and being familiar with several border police forces.One of my Hispanic cousins is a retired policeman of 30 years service, rising to a top position in his city. I know he wouldn't allow this so-called racism to exist in his force and on his watch, and he wouldn't work with cops who had those attitudes. And in his force, Hispanics are not an affirmitive-action minority - they are the majority. Hard to imagine squads of racist white guys coexisting in those forces and just biding their time until they can be unleashed by Republicans. Does not compute.

Back to the original topic - sanctuary cities. Whether or not the cause is a good one, and they are all debatable, the concept of certain cities where certain applicable laws are purposefully not enforced strikes me as being wrong. If it were local option, then either pass or don't pass the laws, but enforcement of Federal laws should not be local option and should be even throughout the country. What's next, a city in which Federal banking laws are not enforced? A Ponzi scheme sanctuary? If anyone knows of a city in which the Tax on Dying While in Possesion of
Assets is not enforced, I am sure my kids would pay for the move. How about a city run by environmentalists that will not collect Federal taxes on gasoline? Or tobacco? Or State sales taxes due on hybrid cars? California, here we come.

One of the bases of our country is that the laws are applied equally to everybody. I think the basic concept of a Sanctuary City messes with that.

As usual, the above opinions are JMHOs. Thank you for listening.

(08-08-2010 09:45 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Back to the original topic - sanctuary cities. Whether or not the cause is a good one, and they are all debatable, the concept of certain cities where certain applicable laws are purposefully not enforced strikes me as being wrong. If it were local option, then either pass or don't pass the laws, but enforcement of Federal laws should not be local option and should be even throughout the country. What's next, a city in which Federal banking laws are not enforced? A Ponzi scheme sanctuary? If anyone knows of a city in which the Tax on Dying While in Possesion of
Assets is not enforced, I am sure my kids would pay for the move. How about a city run by environmentalists that will not collect Federal taxes on gasoline? Or tobacco? Or State sales taxes due on hybrid cars? California, here we come.

One of the bases of our country is that the laws are applied equally to everybody. I think the basic concept of a Sanctuary City messes with that.

As usual, the above opinions are JMHOs. Thank you for listening.

You bring up an interesting point - in general, state enforcement of federal law. It doesn't happen. When was the last time you saw city or state police enforce federal banking laws? What would you think if the cop who stops you for running that stop sign checks to see if you filed your federal tax return or use food stamps illegally? Yet this is what Arizona is doing. It's not illegal or immoral, but it is unusual.

A case in point - felon in possession of a weapon (firearm). It's a federal crime that will get you about 3 years in a federal prison. It's also a state crime in Texas that will get you 2 - 10. However, there's an exception in state law that allows possession in your home if five years have passed since you completed the sentence or probation on the underlying felony. There's no equivalent federal home exception. I've seen several cases where the state prosecution was dropped because of the home exception, yet the federal charges were never pursued, either by the arresting agency or the district attorney's office. To my knowledge, arresting agencies never refer the cases to the feds. Occasionally the DA's Office will advise federal prosecutors of the offense, but the federal charges are very rarely followed up by either the state or the feds. The same story is repeated many times over on drug charges.

Say you find a counterfeiter. If you call the local police, what will they tell you? Call the feds. Violation of immigration law is a federal crime, yet you want the state to enforce this one. You seem to think that a "sanctuary city" (insofar as it refers to local police enforcing federal law) is an aberration, but it's not. It's the norm everywhere.

(08-08-2010 11:39 AM)Old Sammy Wrote:  

(08-08-2010 09:45 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Back to the original topic - sanctuary cities. Whether or not the cause is a good one, and they are all debatable, the concept of certain cities where certain applicable laws are purposefully not enforced strikes me as being wrong. If it were local option, then either pass or don't pass the laws, but enforcement of Federal laws should not be local option and should be even throughout the country. What's next, a city in which Federal banking laws are not enforced? A Ponzi scheme sanctuary? If anyone knows of a city in which the Tax on Dying While in Possesion of
Assets is not enforced, I am sure my kids would pay for the move. How about a city run by environmentalists that will not collect Federal taxes on gasoline? Or tobacco? Or State sales taxes due on hybrid cars? California, here we come.

One of the bases of our country is that the laws are applied equally to everybody. I think the basic concept of a Sanctuary City messes with that.

As usual, the above opinions are JMHOs. Thank you for listening.

You bring up an interesting point - in general, state enforcement of federal law. It doesn't happen. When was the last time you saw city or state police enforce federal banking laws? What would you think if the cop who stops you for running that stop sign checks to see if you filed your federal tax return or use food stamps illegally? Yet this is what Arizona is doing. It's not illegal or immoral, but it is unusual.

A case in point - felon in possession of a weapon (firearm). It's a federal crime that will get you about 3 years in a federal prison. It's also a state crime in Texas that will get you 2 - 10. However, there's an exception in state law that allows possession in your home if five years have passed since you completed the sentence or probation on the underlying felony. There's no equivalent federal home exception. I've seen several cases where the state prosecution was dropped because of the home exception, yet the federal charges were never pursued, either by the arresting agency or the district attorney's office. To my knowledge, arresting agencies never refer the cases to the feds. Occasionally the DA's Office will advise federal prosecutors of the offense, but the federal charges are very rarely followed up by either the state or the feds. The same story is repeated many times over on drug charges.

Say you find a counterfeiter. If you call the local police, what will they tell you? Call the feds. Violation of immigration law is a federal crime, yet you want the state to enforce this one. You seem to think that a "sanctuary city" (insofar as it refers to local police enforcing federal law) is an aberration, but it's not. It's the norm everywhere.

Actually, I know of a guy (not a friend) who was stopped by local police on a drug charge, and ending up serving 15 years in a Federal prison on possession of firearms by a felon after his wife (my ex-wife) consented to a search of their home and guns were found. The drug charge never did stick.

Either the term Sanctuary City means something, or not. If the SC is different in some way from the nonSC, in what way are they different? Sounds like you are making the case that every city is a SC. If so, why the term Sanctuary City? Why are they designated differently?

My understanding is that most cities turn over undocumented aliens to the Feds once they have finsihed with them, and SCs don't. So which is the norm? Or is my understanding wrong?

Of course, the gist of the problem is that the Arizona law is called racist, when it is exactly as racist/unracist as the Federal law that it emulates. Whether the enforcement officer is wearing a Federal badge or a city badge does not affect the innate racism or nonracism of the law itself. What is the reasoning behind the push to not enforce either the Federal or the state law? Why is it so important that immigratio9ns loaws should not be enforced? Are there any other Federal (or state or local) laws that you think should be unenforced? There are a few I think should be repealed. If the citizens of the US don't want immigration laws enforced, there are ways to take them off the books and that is the procedure to be followed. Polls I've seen show that most US citizens want the immigration laws enforced, more rather than less. Perhaps if the Feds did the job mandated to them by law, the states wouldn't feel the need for parallel enforcement.

(08-08-2010 04:32 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Either the term Sanctuary City means something, or not. If the SC is different in some way from the nonSC, in what way are they different? Sounds like you are making the case that every city is a SC. If so, why the term Sanctuary City? Why are they designated differently?

My understanding is that most cities turn over undocumented aliens to the Feds once they have finsihed with them, and SCs don't. So which is the norm? Or is my understanding wrong?

There's no definition of "sanctuary city" that I'm aware of, so I can't answer your question. I do know that Harris County advises ICE of anyone taken into custody who cannot prove citizenship [Note: This includes noncitizens who are legal permanent residents. Their offense could render them "removable"]. ICE can then place a "hold" on the individual and pick them up when the county is through with them. They are also denied bond unless they also get an immigration bond. I've heard Houston referred to as a sanctuary city, and if what Houston and Harris County do meet the definition, then I'm not upset about having the title, except for the misinterpretation those who don't understand will make.

Want to bet on whether Rick Perry's campaign will claim Bill White ran a sanctuary city?

(08-08-2010 04:32 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Perhaps if the Feds did the job mandated to them by law, the states wouldn't feel the need for parallel enforcement.

The IRS does a lousy job of finding tax cheats. They don't have anywhere near the number of auditors they need to do the job. How would you feel if the State Comptroller's Office volunteered to help?

(08-08-2010 05:16 PM)Old Sammy Wrote:  

(08-08-2010 04:32 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Either the term Sanctuary City means something, or not. If the SC is different in some way from the nonSC, in what way are they different? Sounds like you are making the case that every city is a SC. If so, why the term Sanctuary City? Why are they designated differently?

My understanding is that most cities turn over undocumented aliens to the Feds once they have finsihed with them, and SCs don't. So which is the norm? Or is my understanding wrong?

There's no definition of "sanctuary city" that I'm aware of, so I can't answer your question. I do know that Harris County advises ICE of anyone taken into custody who cannot prove citizenship [Note: This includes noncitizens who are legal permanent residents. Their offense could render them "removable"]. ICE can then place a "hold" on the individual and pick them up when the county is through with them. They are also denied bond unless they also get an immigration bond. I've heard Houston referred to as a sanctuary city, and if what Houston and Harris County do meet the definition, then I'm not upset about having the title, except for the misinterpretation those who don't understand will make.

Want to bet on whether Rick Perry's campaign will claim Bill White ran a sanctuary city?

(08-08-2010 04:32 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Perhaps if the Feds did the job mandated to them by law, the states wouldn't feel the need for parallel enforcement.

The IRS does a lousy job of finding tax cheats. They don't have anywhere near the number of auditors they need to do the job. How would you feel if the State Comptroller's Office volunteered to help?

I think Sanctuary City, like "tax cheat" is defined by actions or nonactions taken. I think the definition I gave will do until someone can give a better one.

How can Perry accuse White of running a Sanctuary City if nobody knows what that means? Seriously, I have no idea what Perry or White (or Perry White of the Metropolis Daily Planet, for that matter) will claim, or what effect such a claim might or might not have. I think the more important question would be, "Is it true?" Hard to tell from your post. Is Houston a Sanctuary City? Did Bill White run it? If the answers are both yes, then the claim would be true, but I don't know what political effect it would have to mention it. Maybe none.

As for the State Comptroller's office helping the IRS to enforce the law, I'm OK with that. Surprised? Were you working off the stereotype of all conservatives wanting to avoid all taxes? Mainly, I want fairness, and better enforcement of the tax laws is more fair, even if some of the tax laws themselves are not. Apparently Perry must be doing something right if we can spare that manpower to help out the Feds.

What exactly, are you for (or against), and why? I am for better enforcement of our immigration laws for both national security reasons and national financial reasons. I am against the demonizing of the Arizona proposal as racist when it just mimics Federal law already in place. Whether it is appropriate for a State to do the Fed job when the Feds won't is a different question, and has nothing to do with racism. What is it that I propose or support that you oppose, and why?

(08-08-2010 10:04 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  How can Perry accuse White of running a Sanctuary City if nobody knows what that means?

Easy. Politicians do that all the time.

(08-08-2010 10:04 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  What exactly, are you for (or against), and why? I am for better enforcement of our immigration laws for both national security reasons and national financial reasons. I am against the demonizing of the Arizona proposal as racist when it just mimics Federal law already in place. Whether it is appropriate for a State to do the Fed job when the Feds won't is a different question, and has nothing to do with racism. What is it that I propose or support that you oppose, and why?

I favor secure borders for security reasons. I favor a reasonable path to legal residency for those already here and some form of "guest worker" program for future arrivals.

I don't have a principled problem with states supplementing federal enforcement a la Arizona. I do have a problem with Joe Arpaio in Maricopa County who I feel will abuse this authority just as he has abused his authority in the past. The Arizona law gives him one more weapon. As discussed in the Spin Room with Hambone a few weeks ago, generally speaking the opportunities for abuse of individual rights by law enforcement (other than Arpaio) are not significantly greater with the law than without it.

(08-09-2010 10:15 AM)Old Sammy Wrote:  

(08-08-2010 10:04 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  How can Perry accuse White of running a Sanctuary City if nobody knows what that means?

Easy. Politicians do that all the time.

Oh, yeah. 2008.

(08-08-2010 10:04 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  What exactly, are you for (or against), and why? I am for better enforcement of our immigration laws for both national security reasons and national financial reasons. I am against the demonizing of the Arizona proposal as racist when it just mimics Federal law already in place. Whether it is appropriate for a State to do the Fed job when the Feds won't is a different question, and has nothing to do with racism. What is it that I propose or support that you oppose, and why?

I favor secure borders for security reasons. I favor a reasonable path to legal residency for those already here and some form of "guest worker" program for future arrivals.

I don't have a principled problem with states supplementing federal enforcement a la Arizona. I do have a problem with Joe Arpaio in Maricopa County who I feel will abuse this authority just as he has abused his authority in the past. The Arizona law gives him one more weapon. As discussed in the Spin Room with Hambone a few weeks ago, generally speaking the opportunities for abuse of individual rights by law enforcement (other than Arpaio) are not significantly greater with the law than without it.

I thought we were more in agreement than disagreement. I am more neutral on Sheriff Joe, and we may differ some on what "reasonable" means, but we are basically the same.

I was hoping you would be one of the responders to my questions in post #1, which BTW, I still don't have a coherent answer from anybody. I think maybe even the proponents of SCs don't know what they are backing and why.

In the news today is a confrontation in Juarez (?) in which rank and file police are arresting their commanders. Also, on page 3A of USA Today is an interesting human interest article on this matter.

(08-08-2010 05:16 PM)Old Sammy Wrote:  The IRS does a lousy job of finding tax cheats. They don't have anywhere near the number of auditors they need to do the job. How would you feel if the State Comptroller's Office volunteered to help?

Here's the difference.
A federal tax cheat in Houston doesn't present a particular burden on local infrastructure... plus, there is a difference between generally knowing where someone is and not being able to get around to doing anything about them... and not knowing where they are even if you WANTED to do something about it. I get the "general revenue" argument, but that spreads the cost of tax cheats across AT LEAST the state, and more often the nation. Immigration expenses are highest in certain areas... Writing local laws that mirror Federal laws force the Feds to spend money where the problem is worst... which they don't want to do (it is the basis for the lawsuit... NOT profiling as people want you to think)... Local governments are willing to expend a little to keep from having to expend a lot.

I understand. My use of that example was to point out that generally state law enforcement doesn't enforce federal law and vice versa, so the default position is that state and city law enforcement does not enforce immigration law. Houston should not be considered derelict in its duties for not enforcing immigration law.

Now if the citizens of a state or city want more vigorous enforcement of federal law than the federal gov't is willing to do and they are willing to train their cops in the vagaries of the federal law they're concerned about, I don't have a problem with it. It's akin to my subdivision hiring a contract deputy to supplement what we consider to be inadequate patrol support from HPD.

Be aware that state cops can only detain suspects and report them to the feds. If the feds decline to act, there's no recourse available to local police to keep from releasing the individual to the streets.