Cessna forced down by the Feds

"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.

"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.

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

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?

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 08:54:49 -0800, Joe Feise wrote
in ::

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

Thanks for the information.

A rose by any other name is still a rose....

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

Just so you understand that it does so only in theory, and that in practice
there are many impediments to healthy, educated, skilled laborers being
admitted to our country, even when doing so would not in any way cause any
harmful effects.

Pete

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 15:57:24 -0800, "Peter Duniho"
wrote in
::

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
.. .
[...]
The current system legally admits healthy, educated, skilled labor,
and limits immigration of others.

Just so you understand that it does so only in theory, and that in practice
there are many impediments to healthy, educated, skilled laborers being
admitted to our country, even when doing so would not in any way cause any
harmful effects.


How can you know that "doing so would not in any way cause any
harmful effects" if it isn't occurring?

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
How can you know that "doing so would not in any way cause any
harmful effects" if it isn't occurring?

Because my sister-in-law was an applicant rejected by the INS. I am
familiar enough with her situation to know that admitting her as a permanent
resident to the US would not have any harmful effects.

I have other personal acquaintances who have had similar troubles moving to
the US, and have way more familiarity with the arbitrariness and exceptions
to your claim that "the current system legally admits healthy, educated,
skilled labor" than I really would like to have.

You accuse CJ of being naive, when in fact you appear to exhibit the same
characteristic. The "current system" does not work nearly so well as it
seems you think it does.

Pete