Cessna forced down by the Feds

On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 08:33:41 -0800, "C J Campbell"
wrote in
::

Apparently an immigrant smuggling operation. AP is reporting a Cessna was
forced down Tuesday morning near San Antonio with four Chinese nationals on
board. The plane, N98873, is supposedly owned by Afzal Hameed and Alyce S.
Taylor.

Are you able to provide a link to the AP article?

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 08:33:41 -0800, "C J Campbell"
wrote in
::

Apparently an immigrant smuggling operation. AP is reporting a Cessna was
forced down Tuesday morning near San Antonio with four Chinese nationals
on
board. The plane, N98873, is supposedly owned by Afzal Hameed and Alyce
S.
Taylor.

Are you able to provide a link to the AP article?

Every time I provide a link it starts a whole sub-thread about spyware. I
will look and see if I can find it again, though.

Okay, I did not find it, but I found this somewhat more sensationalized
version he

http://makeashorterlink.com/?P2412325A

The original AP article said that there was no link to terrorism, so this
article must have used different sources. Note that they had to backtrack a
little in a follow-up article. Of course, if you are really paranoid, maybe
the Department of Homeland Fear suppressed the terrorism link "in order to
avoid widespread panic." Who knows?

Ah, here is a more subdued AP link:

http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/plane25.html

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 07:25:39 -0800, "C J Campbell"
wrote in
::

Every time I provide a link it starts a whole sub-thread about spyware.

Consider the fact that copyright laws Fair Use policy permits the
inclusion of excerpts (as opposed to the complete article) of
copyrighted material. So it is appropriate to include some of the
salient portions of articles in such a post.


Okay, I did not find it, but I found this somewhat more sensationalized
version he

http://makeashorterlink.com/?P2412325A

The original AP article said that there was no link to terrorism, so this
article must have used different sources. Note that they had to backtrack a
little in a follow-up article. Of course, if you are really paranoid, maybe
the Department of Homeland Fear suppressed the terrorism link "in order to
avoid widespread panic." Who knows?

Ah, here is a more subdued AP link:

http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/plane25.html


Thank you for the links.

About 4,000 illegal immigrants of various nationalities enter the US
through the southern border daily. The INS interdicts only about 20%
of them. Ranchers on the border are beginning to take matters into
their own hands. The Department of Homeland Security is another
pathetic joke on the citizenry of this noble nation perpetrated by the
baby Bush administration, IMNSHO.

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...

Thank you for the links.

About 4,000 illegal immigrants of various nationalities enter the US
through the southern border daily. The INS interdicts only about 20%
of them. Ranchers on the border are beginning to take matters into
their own hands.

I personally find American xenophobia very tiresome and even
counterproductive. Huge resources are devoted to this 'problem' that could
be better used elsewhere. Suppose we just said that we will let anyone come
into the country that wants to? Everyone who was just coming in to work or
pick up a welfare check then would be entering through the legal border
entry points and would stop breaking fences, harassing ranchers, etc. The
few that would be left crossing illegally would be obvious criminals engaged
in smuggling, terrorism, and kidnapping. They would therefore be a lot
easier to catch. I think relaxing restrictions on immigration would make
things a lot easier on law enforcement. Our relations with our neighbors
would be greatly improved, also.

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 08:19:18 -0800, "C J Campbell"
wrote in
::


"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
.. .

Thank you for the links.

About 4,000 illegal immigrants of various nationalities enter the US
through the southern border daily. The INS interdicts only about 20%
of them. Ranchers on the border are beginning to take matters into
their own hands.

I personally find American xenophobia very tiresome and even
counterproductive.

To characterize illegal entry into the US as 'xenophobia' is to put
your personal spin on the issue.

Huge resources are devoted to this 'problem' that could
be better used elsewhere. Suppose we just said that we will let anyone come
into the country that wants to? Everyone who was just coming in to work or
pick up a welfare check then would be entering through the legal border
entry points and would stop breaking fences, harassing ranchers, etc.

And in your egalitarian view, how would terrorists be prevented from
mass entry into our country?

The
few that would be left crossing illegally would be obvious criminals engaged
in smuggling, terrorism, and kidnapping.

In the open border scenario you propose, what's to prevent those
immigrants with criminal intent from entering through the "legal
border entry points?"

They would therefore be a lot
easier to catch. I think relaxing restrictions on immigration would make
things a lot easier on law enforcement. Our relations with our neighbors
would be greatly improved, also.

My point was that the DHS is harassing the populous without policing
our borders; Ludicrous!

Your view seems quite altruistic, but a little naive to me. Without
some regulation on the VOLUME of immigrants entering the country, it
would soon be awash in hoards of poor people that we citizens would
have to find the means to support. Our social services (schools,
hospitals, jails, ...) would soon be overwhelmed. So your view would
be more plausible if you provided some solutions to the issues open
borders would create.

May I humbly suggest that you do a little research on the subject?

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...

I personally find American xenophobia very tiresome and even
counterproductive.

To characterize illegal entry into the US as 'xenophobia' is to put
your personal spin on the issue.


I prefer to call it 'values.' I value people more than money.

Huge resources are devoted to this 'problem' that could
be better used elsewhere. Suppose we just said that we will let anyone
come
into the country that wants to? Everyone who was just coming in to work
or
pick up a welfare check then would be entering through the legal border
entry points and would stop breaking fences, harassing ranchers, etc.

And in your egalitarian view, how would terrorists be prevented from
mass entry into our country?


They are being stopped now? I am saying that people coming into the country
for legitimate purposes such as work should not be stopped from doing so. A
terrorist would still have to sneak in or come in under false pretenses,
just as they do now.

The
few that would be left crossing illegally would be obvious criminals
engaged
in smuggling, terrorism, and kidnapping.

In the open border scenario you propose, what's to prevent those
immigrants with criminal intent from entering through the "legal
border entry points?"

What stops them now? Pretty much nothing. The only thing we are doing now is
forcing huge numbers of people to become criminals for wanting nothing more
than a job and a decent living. You run the same checks on people at the
border that you do now.


They would therefore be a lot
easier to catch. I think relaxing restrictions on immigration would make
things a lot easier on law enforcement. Our relations with our neighbors
would be greatly improved, also.

My point was that the DHS is harassing the populous without policing
our borders; Ludicrous!

Your view seems quite altruistic, but a little naive to me. Without
some regulation on the VOLUME of immigrants entering the country, it
would soon be awash in hoards of poor people that we citizens would
have to find the means to support. Our social services (schools,
hospitals, jails, ...) would soon be overwhelmed. So your view would
be more plausible if you provided some solutions to the issues open
borders would create.

Immigrants are also taxpayers. They do not stay poor. The only thing that
keeps them poor now is that they must work in the underground economy in
constant fear of being deportation. They are vulnerable to con men, thugs,
and thieves just because they want to work. Many are killed every year. If
we have a welfare problem, it is not because of immigrants. It is a problem
with the idea that it is our responsibility to support everyone who does not
want to work.

It is hysterically funny to have a Democrat accusing a Republican of being
egalitarian or altruistic.

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 12:05:39 -0800, "C J Campbell"
wrote in
::


"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
.. .

I personally find American xenophobia very tiresome and even
counterproductive.

To characterize illegal entry into the US as 'xenophobia' is to put
your personal spin on the issue.


I prefer to call it 'values.' I value people more than money.

So then, if you don't really think Americans are guilty of fear and
hatred of strangers or foreigners, why did you use the word
'xenophobia'?

What has money got to do with the government policing the country's
boarders?

Surely you're not proposing wide open boarders without any check to
see who is entering or leaving. That would be irresponsible.

Huge resources are devoted to this 'problem' that could
be better used elsewhere. Suppose we just said that we will let anyone
come
into the country that wants to? Everyone who was just coming in to work
or
pick up a welfare check then would be entering through the legal border
entry points and would stop breaking fences, harassing ranchers, etc.

And in your egalitarian view, how would terrorists be prevented from
mass entry into our country?


They are being stopped now?

I have no information on the number of terrorists who are currently
prevented from illegally entering the country, only the number of
souls: 4,000/day illegally cross the southern boarder.

I am saying that people coming into the country
for legitimate purposes such as work should not be stopped from doing so. A
terrorist would still have to sneak in or come in under false pretenses,
just as they do now.

So what you're actually advocating is a quotaless system of
immigration into the US?

That would be terrific for business, but displaced employees would
surely find their wages declining. Declining wages would reduce
purchasing power. That would ultimately impact business, because
folks wouldn't have adequate income to purchase products and services.
Or am I overlooking something?

The few that would be left crossing illegally would be obvious criminals
engaged in smuggling, terrorism, and kidnapping.

In the open border scenario you propose, what's to prevent those
immigrants with criminal intent from entering through the "legal
border entry points?"

What stops them now? Pretty much nothing. The only thing we are doing now is
forcing huge numbers of people to become criminals for wanting nothing more
than a job and a decent living. You run the same checks on people at the
border that you do now.


Thanks for clarifying that. I thought you were suggesting no barrier
to immigration at all. So what you're really advocating is removal of
any restriction on the NUMBER of people permitted to immigrate into
the US.

They would therefore be a lot
easier to catch. I think relaxing restrictions on immigration would make
things a lot easier on law enforcement. Our relations with our neighbors
would be greatly improved, also.

My point was that the DHS is harassing the populous without policing
our borders; Ludicrous!

Your view seems quite altruistic, but a little naive to me. Without
some regulation on the VOLUME of immigrants entering the country, it
would soon be awash in hoards of poor people that we citizens would
have to find the means to support. Our social services (schools,
hospitals, jails, ...) would soon be overwhelmed. So your view would
be more plausible if you provided some solutions to the issues open
borders would create.

Immigrants are also taxpayers. They do not stay poor. The only thing that
keeps them poor now is that they must work in the underground economy in
constant fear of being deportation.

I see. That's reasonable.

They are vulnerable to con men, thugs,
and thieves just because they want to work. Many are killed every year.

That is consistent with my understanding.

If
we have a welfare problem, it is not because of immigrants. It is a problem
with the idea that it is our responsibility to support everyone who does not
want to work.

So how would you suggest that be reformed? If we do not provide basic
health care, we will be awash in sick people who infect the healthy.

It is hysterically funny to have a Democrat accusing a Republican of being
egalitarian or altruistic.

Be that as it may, I support the underlying premise of your
suggestion. I just don't think it is workable. It is a pro business
anti labor proposal. But it is shortsighted.

The current system legally admits healthy, educated, skilled labor,
and limits immigration of others.

Regardless, the DHS's failure to adequately police illegal immigration
while arresting US citizens without benefit of due judicial process is
a failed policy, that underscores the DHS farce.

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...

Thank you for the links.

About 4,000 illegal immigrants of various nationalities enter the US
through the southern border daily. The INS interdicts only about 20%
of them. Ranchers on the border are beginning to take matters into
their own hands.

I personally find American xenophobia very tiresome and even
counterproductive. Huge resources are devoted to this 'problem' that could
be better used elsewhere. Suppose we just said that we will let anyone come
into the country that wants to? Everyone who was just coming in to work or
pick up a welfare check then would be entering through the legal border
entry points and would stop breaking fences, harassing ranchers, etc. The
few that would be left crossing illegally would be obvious criminals engaged
in smuggling, terrorism, and kidnapping. They would therefore be a lot
easier to catch. I think relaxing restrictions on immigration would make
things a lot easier on law enforcement. Our relations with our neighbors
would be greatly improved, also.

I agree.

There's the self-interest argument as well. Immigrants self-select for
traits we want in our country: a willingness to take a calcuated risk
for gain, an ambition to get ahead and improve their lives and their
childrens, a drive to do better.

It's no accident that with each peak of immigration into the US there's
been an economic rise in innovation, business formation, and employment
in the long term over the previously existing trends. The less we put
legal or social strictures on immigration the more true this is.

Besides, making things illegal just attracts the criminals - immigrants
wouldn't be smuggled if it were easier to get in. Clearly immigrants
are doing work that most of us don't want to do - otherwise there'd be
no demand for them and they wouldn't be coming in.

-Malcolm Teas

Larry Dighera wrote on 1/28/2005 07:46:

About 4,000 illegal immigrants of various nationalities enter the US
through the southern border daily. The INS interdicts only about 20%
of them.

The INS interdicts 0% of them, because the INS doesn't exist anymore and
hasn't for a while now (since the DHS was created a couple of years back.)
It would be CBP (Customs and Border Protection), a department of DHS,
that intercepts illegals.

-Joe