Pages

Jump to bottom

35 comments

1 researchok  Tue, Feb 21, 2012 7:10:06am

While there may be some who want to 'keep America white' there are plenty of Dems and Hispanics who understand a 'secure border' to be exactly that- a secure border.

I believe Granderson is over reaching here.

Every nation must secure her borders for a myriad of safety reasons.

America is the exception and not the rule when it comes to unguarded borders

2 shecky  Tue, Feb 21, 2012 7:34:44am

When the concern is over the southern border, then the concern really is over keeping America white. The US southern border isn't actually a security risk. Illegal immigration isn't a security issue. Ironically, the best way to secure the border is to greatly liberalize immigration policy. This encourages entry at official crossing points, leaving unofficial entry to folks with genuinely nefarious intent. Border control is no longer wasting resources chasing folks looking to clean houses and follow crops.

So, why not just liberalize immigration policy again?

3 Political Atheist  Tue, Feb 21, 2012 8:59:26am

If this accusation is true-How would we explain the legal immigration quotas from all these non white nations? They have not tried to end legal immigration as far I I have seen.

4 Locker  Tue, Feb 21, 2012 8:59:39am

re: #1 researchokAmerica is the exception and not the rule when it comes to unguarded borders

Do you really think this is true? Of any country with a border even remotely as large as ours?

And what does a "secured border" actually mean? Can't build a fence or wall that will stop anyone, can't station a man every 10 feet and we can't have drones randomly zapping anyone who might be a threat.

I think shecky has the right of this one... same solution for bad drug laws.

5 Political Atheist  Tue, Feb 21, 2012 9:24:28am

Unguarded borders are a security issue. Under guarded borders are a security issue. An earnest immigrant may not be a risk, but who else slips in? Drug runners, counterfeit goods, or worse.

6 Political Atheist  Tue, Feb 21, 2012 9:51:24am

His point seems to be to avoid racism we would have to precisely equate Canadian coverage with Mexican border coverage. Which ignores an awful lot of drug cartel killings and violence right near the border as well as elsewhere in Mexico. Where is the Canadian equivalent of that? Inconveniently non existent.

7 Political Atheist  Tue, Feb 21, 2012 9:57:46am

re: #2 shecky

When the concern is over the southern border, then the concern really is over keeping America white. The US southern border isn't actually a security risk.

Really?

[Link: www.wired.com...]

8 Locker  Tue, Feb 21, 2012 10:44:35am

re: #6 Daniel Ballard

His point seems to be to avoid racism we would have to precisely equate Canadian coverage with Mexican border coverage. Which ignores an awful lot of drug cartel killings and violence right near the border as well as elsewhere in Mexico. Where is the Canadian equivalent of that? Inconveniently non existent.

Wre: #7 Daniel Ballard

Really?

[Link: www.wired.com...]

What the fuck does that prove? The point is that if this issue is about security and not about the wrong color people getting across the border then Canadian border is just as likely to be crossed by potential terrorists and other threats to our national security as the Mexican border but it seems to be missing from the conversation.

Are you deliberately ignoring this restated point or what?

9 JEA62  Tue, Feb 21, 2012 11:15:41am

Isn't Canada a relatively prosperous, peaceful, and stable country?

Is Mexico?

I think that says a lot more than anything else about why we're paying attention to one border more than the other.

10 researchok  Tue, Feb 21, 2012 11:30:17am

re: #4 Locker

Fair points, all.

That said, the fact remains there are Dems and Hispanics that want to see a more secure border.

I'm much more concerned with draconian stop and search laws and demanding immigration status than I am with policing the border.

11 Political Atheist  Tue, Feb 21, 2012 11:48:56am

re: #8 Locker

You have far more downdings to give than answers to the questions. Kinda undermines your whole point.

I'll try again- If the motive is racial, how do we explain the lack of objection from these same Republicans to the legal immigration from Mexico and Africa?

Tell ya what angry man, you like way too many many others conflate objections to illegal immigration into various false accusations such as objecting to any and all immigration from Mexico, Latin America and Africa. Oh and with the catch all of racism.

I am an opponent of illegal immigration. I support legal immigration, with policies designed to throttle that to what is best for this economic zone, North America. That seems to be enough to get swept up in broad partisan accusations of racist motives.

Please note I'm not answering your downdings with the same. That would be petty of me.

12 Obdicut  Tue, Feb 21, 2012 12:05:22pm

re: #11 Daniel Ballard

I'll try again- If the motive is racial, how do we explain the lack of objection from these same Republicans to the legal immigration from Mexico and Africa?

Because it's allowed in relatively small amounts?

I am an opponent of illegal immigration.

But what do you actually want to do about it?

And do you get that as far as national security goes, the Mexican border is no bigger threat than the Canadian one?

Keeping that border 'secure' is not about national security.

13 Obdicut  Tue, Feb 21, 2012 12:09:03pm

re: #11 Daniel Ballard

I'll try again- If the motive is racial, how do we explain the lack of objection from these same Republicans to the legal immigration from Mexico and Africa?

Oh, and what lack of objection? They objected their asses off to the DREAM act.

14 Political Atheist  Tue, Feb 21, 2012 1:10:19pm

re: #12 Obdicut

Because it's allowed in relatively small amounts?

But what do you actually want to do about it?

And do you get that as far as national security goes, the Mexican border is no bigger threat than the Canadian one?

Keeping that border 'secure' is not about national security.

From the top
Small amounts (a highly subjective term) would be what we want in times of high unemployment, except in a niche that has a labor shortage.

What do I want to do about it? Reduce illegal immigration and issue legit credentials to the quantity and quality of people that our economy needs and has a hard time getting without it.

I for one am not going to pretend a border with a nation that is at war with violent cartels is the same as Canada which is at peace with itself. No matter what stupidity comes out of a candidates or congressman's mouth.

Keeping that border secure is a national responsibility that it is just foolish to deny. Keeping it insecure is asking for security problems. Like smuggling of many kinds. Drugs, women, weapons.

These facts do not change with GOP or democratic party policy. Or motives. Some people just seem to deny the need for borders at all. That amazes me in it's naivete. Especially given the fighting to the south of us.

15 Political Atheist  Tue, Feb 21, 2012 1:11:19pm

re: #13 Obdicut

Oh, and what lack of objection? They objected their asses off to the DREAM act.

I do not equate objections to the dream act as an attempt to end immigration from non white countries.

16 Political Atheist  Tue, Feb 21, 2012 1:11:53pm

re: #9 JEA62

Isn't Canada a relatively prosperous, peaceful, and stable country?

Is Mexico?

I think that says a lot more than anything else about why we're paying attention to one border more than the other.

Of course it is.

17 Obdicut  Tue, Feb 21, 2012 1:21:45pm

re: #14 Daniel Ballard

What do I want to do about it? Reduce illegal immigration and issue legit credentials to the quantity and quality of people that our economy needs and has a hard time getting without it.

I'm asking how.

I for one am not going to pretend a border with a nation that is at war with violent cartels is the same as Canada which is at peace with itself. No matter what stupidity comes out of a candidates or congressman's mouth.

It's not the same. From the point of view of terrorists entering, the Canadian border is more vulnerable.

Keeping that border secure is a national responsibility that it is just foolish to deny. Keeping it insecure is asking for security problems. Like smuggling of many kinds. Drugs, women, weapons.

Sure. Which are highly aided by good information from illegal aliens. Which is why it's really foolish to demonize them and threaten them with mass deportation.

I do not equate objections to the dream act as an attempt to end immigration from non white countries.

I didn't say it was. It is still objection to even legal immigration, though, right? How is it not?

18 Political Atheist  Tue, Feb 21, 2012 1:27:42pm

re: #8 Locker

Canada is not just as likely because it has effective governance, a lack of violent battles between criminal cartels and is pretty careful about who gets in to begin with. All of these things are meant in comparison with Mexico.

19 Obdicut  Tue, Feb 21, 2012 1:30:53pm

re: #18 Daniel Ballard

Canada is not just as likely because it has effective governance, a lack of violent battles between criminal cartels and is pretty careful about who gets in to begin with. All of these things are meant in comparison with Mexico.

There's thousands and thousands of completely untracked illegal immigrants in Canada.

Terrorists generally don't have criminal backgrounds, you know.

20 Political Atheist  Tue, Feb 21, 2012 1:31:54pm

re: #17 Obdicut

I'm asking how.

It's not the same. From the point of view of terrorists entering, the Canadian border is more vulnerable.

Sure. Which are highly aided by good information from illegal aliens. Which is why it's really foolish to demonize them and threaten them with mass deportation.

I didn't say it was. It is still objection to even legal immigration, though, right? How is it not?

How is it not? This is how. from Wiki. It specifically addresses consequences of illegal immigration.

This bill would provide conditional permanent residency to certain illegal aliens of good moral character who graduate from US high schools, arrived in the US as minors, and lived in the country continuously for at least five years prior to the bill's enactment.

Please stop conflating objections to illegal immigration as objections to legal immigration. It's in error, and unfair to many ordinary commenters.

21 Obdicut  Tue, Feb 21, 2012 1:33:53pm

re: #20 Daniel Ballard

How is it not? This is how. from Wiki. It specifically addresses consequences of illegal immigration.

This bill would provide conditional permanent residency to certain illegal aliens of good moral character who graduate from US high schools, arrived in the US as minors, and lived in the country continuously for at least five years prior to the bill's enactment.

Um, right, that's providing a path to legal citizenship for kids. You surely don't think the kids did anything wrong when their parents took them here, right?

Please stop conflating objections to illegal immigration as objections to legal immigration. It's in error, and unfair to many ordinary commenters.

Oh, so you are blaming the kids?

Do you want to deport all illegal immigrants or something?

22 Political Atheist  Tue, Feb 21, 2012 1:46:10pm

re: #21 Obdicut

It's still not about legal immigration. We already did amnesty, and a path to citizenship. This was supposed to reduce illegal immigration. FAIL.

I'm not blaming the kids. Here you digress from the subject I attempt to address. Lets bring it back in. If the border had been more secure in the past decade or two, we would not face this issue to such a large degree would we? Imagine if you will a reduction in illegal immigration and a natural decline of consequences from such.

23 Obdicut  Tue, Feb 21, 2012 1:50:21pm

re: #22 Daniel Ballard

I'm not blaming the kids. Here you digress from the subject I attempt to address. Lets bring it back in. If the border had been more secure in the past decade or two, we would not face this issue to such a large degree would we?

Securing the border to that extent isn't possible. If we had a better plan for temporary workers, more legal immigration, not a stupid random lottery system but one actually tied to something meaningful, then we wouldn't be facing the problem.

You're not going to be able to stop illegal immigration through physical control of the border without spending an insane, insane amount of money.

Imagine if you will a reduction in illegal immigration and a natural decline of consequences from such.

Sure, I'm imagining it. However, where we are now is that those kids are there, and those illegal immigrants are here. What do you want to do about it?

24 Obdicut  Tue, Feb 21, 2012 1:52:11pm

re: #22 Daniel Ballard

If you're against amnesty and a path to citizenship, doesn't that mean that you do want to deport all undocumented aliens?

25 Political Atheist  Tue, Feb 21, 2012 2:10:22pm

I should be for amnesty because it worked so well? Why do another fail?
No that does not mean I want to arrest and deport all the illegal immigrants.

I'm wondering why you keep suggesting I support the strongest measures, instead of say any of the many possibilities short of that.

How would I reduce illegal immigration? One, a good strong border, and have real penalties for commercial employers of illegal immigrants. It's stupid to ignore the demand side. I would make employers liable for fines and or jail. Jail in the event of repeat offenders. Jail then deportation for all the violent felons. Many of the non violent felons. Some of the lessor criminals.

Then maybe we can afford patience. Only then.

26 Obdicut  Tue, Feb 21, 2012 2:23:09pm

re: #25 Daniel Ballard

I should be for amnesty because it worked so well? Why do another fail?
No that does not mean I want to arrest and deport all the illegal immigrants.

Then what do you want to do with them?

I'm wondering why you keep suggesting I support the strongest measures, instead of say any of the many possibilities short of that.

Because you keep not talking about what to do about illegal aliens who are already here.

How would I reduce illegal immigration? One, a good strong border,

What does this comprise?

and have real penalties for commercial employers of illegal immigrants.

Combined with a much larger guest worker program, right, to avoid the economic devastation we can see in places where illegal immigrants have actually been forced out of the economy?

27 Political Atheist  Tue, Feb 21, 2012 2:31:43pm

In answer to the real question, as in the one at the top of the thread
Does 'Secure the Border' Mean 'Keep America White'?

Perhaps for a few bigots. But as a sweeping generalization it's a scurrilous accusation and insult that deserves to be held to account for the broad brush and partisan motivated hostile assumptions it entails. This time the CNN writer is wrong.

28 Political Atheist  Tue, Feb 21, 2012 2:32:42pm

re: #26 Obdicut

Then what do you want to do with them?

I'll await a topic or page on that specific subject. This is a dead thread, or nearly so.

29 Obdicut  Tue, Feb 21, 2012 2:34:58pm

re: #28 Daniel Ballard

I'll await a topic or page on that specific subject. This is a dead thread, or nearly so.

Wow. I'm not worth giving an answer to. I see.

Jesus.

30 Obdicut  Tue, Feb 21, 2012 2:36:12pm

re: #27 Daniel Ballard

In answer to the real question, as in the one at the top of the thread
Does 'Secure the Border' Mean 'Keep America White'?

Perhaps for a few bigots. But as a sweeping generalization it's a scurrilous accusation and insult that deserves to be held to account for the broad brush and partisan motivated hostile assumptions it entails. This time the CNN writer is wrong.

I think you're underestimating the number of bigots by a wide margin. I agree there's many people who believe the border can be made secure (which is not, actually, possible, not while remaining the US) who have no racial animus whatsoever.

There are also lots and lots and lots of racists in the US. It really is a problem that we should face honestly.

31 Political Atheist  Tue, Feb 21, 2012 2:50:45pm

re: #29 Obdicut

Don't take that personally. A dozen comments should do it. But okay since I mean no insult to you.

When I say secure I do not mean I expect 100%. I also believe we can do better than recent years would show. What would I do with them? No blanket amnesty. Given a record clean of felonies or serious misdemeanors, a fine and a work visa. Not necessarily citizenship at first. Maybe never. Not sure. For the minors, a lifetime visa, and the right to live and work here. Perhaps citizenship at adulthood or with public service. Not sure how detailed to get here.

Perhaps you get the gist of my feelings on this by now?

32 Obdicut  Tue, Feb 21, 2012 2:57:04pm

re: #31 Daniel Ballard

When I say secure I do not mean I expect 100%. I also believe we can do better than recent years would show.

How?

What would I do with them? No blanket amnesty. Given a record clean of felonies or serious misdemeanors, a fine and a work visa.

That is a form of amnesty, you know.

Not necessarily citizenship at first. Maybe never. Not sure.

This is a kind of thing you should figure out.

For the minors, a lifetime visa, and the right to live and work here. Perhaps citizenship at adulthood or with public service. Not sure how detailed to get here.

Which is what the DREAM act was.

Perhaps you get the gist of my feelings on this by now?

Yes, a quite broad amnesty, broader than has been proposed by either party at this point. But somehow you don't think of it as amnesty.

33 Political Atheist  Tue, Feb 21, 2012 3:15:50pm

re: #32 Obdicut

From the top
Further enlarge ICE. Use efficient technology as per the lay of the land. Drones for example.

If there were no legal penalties it would be amnesty. I refer to fines as a legal penalty. If they can't pay the fine or do some service like others who can't pay a fine, then out. That's probably not amnesty. Making sure every felon caught gets the boot is not amnesty. Ditto for serious misdemeanors. ID theft, larceny, violence like assault of gang membership. All those get the bus out. Many after jail.

I'd need some help from some experts to work up a proper answer on exactly how or if we would grant citizenship to illegal immigrants that stay on new work vise credentials. But some perhaps the majority would not ever get it.

The DREAM act is a far better plan if it were in addition to what I outlined.

34 Obdicut  Tue, Feb 21, 2012 4:28:46pm

re: #33 Daniel Ballard

Further enlarge ICE. Use efficient technology as per the lay of the land. Drones for example.

And how much will that cost? And what reduction in illegal immigration will it actually achieve?

If there were no legal penalties it would be amnesty. I refer to fines as a legal penalty. If they can't pay the fine or do some service like others who can't pay a fine, then out.

It's still amnesty. The fine doesn't change the basic nature of the forgiveness. how big a fine do you want to make it, by the way?

And if they don't have the money to pay the fine, you just want to deport them, correct? So, I'm assuming you'll make the fine something rather small, since we really can't afford to deport millions of people.

Making sure every felon caught gets the boot is not amnesty.

Do you seriously, seriously think previous amnesty offers have included felons?

35 Political Atheist  Wed, Feb 22, 2012 11:38:43am

re: #34 Obdicut

And how much will that cost? And what reduction in illegal immigration will it actually achieve?

It's still amnesty. The fine doesn't change the basic nature of the forgiveness. how big a fine do you want to make it, by the way?

And if they don't have the money to pay the fine, you just want to deport them, correct? So, I'm assuming you'll make the fine something rather small, since we really can't afford to deport millions of people.

Do you seriously, seriously think previous amnesty offers have included felons?

Figure the cost to be proportional to what we have-1 15% expansion would up personnell costs 15%. Cheap & effective IMO.
I said if they had no money they could do public service like you or I might.
Previous amnesty were inadequate in resources for hunting the felons down and kicking them out.

So now you know I'm an unapologetic secure border hawk or conservative. Pick your phrase.

Now, will you admit none of that makes me racist and that my motives have nothing to do with racism?

Perhaps like many others.


This page has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT
LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal
Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh
Best of April 2024 Nothing new here but these are a look back at the a few good images from the past month. Despite the weather, I was quite pleased with several of them. These were taken with older lenses (made from the ...
William Lewis
2 days ago
Views: 143 • Comments: 1 • Rating: 5
Texas County at Center of Border Fight Is Overwhelmed by Migrant Deaths EAGLE PASS, Tex. - The undertaker lighted a cigarette and held it between his latex-gloved fingers as he stood over the bloated body bag lying in the bed of his battered pickup truck. The woman had been fished out ...
Cheechako
3 weeks ago
Views: 399 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1