Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: KLP who wrote (113722)	5/14/2005 1:16:55 PM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793914

Gosh, I wish it were easier to talk about illegal immigration dispassionately. But it just isn't. There are so many sides to the argument, and many of them make sense, even those that are in direct contradiction to each other. I have no position on it, though my perspective is based for the most part on national security. Yes, we have to do what we can to promote that paramount interest. On the other hand, we have seen little or no evidence that the Mexican border has been actually used by terrorists. On the other other hand--vbg--I have always maintained that it is the most convenient way to introduce terrorists and WMD surreptitiously into the US. On the other other other hand--vvbg--an economically healthy Mexico is essential to US national security, perhaps more so than tight borders. After all, who the hell wants a Cuba or a Venezuela on the border? And remittances from the US by illegal immigrants make up a huge percentage of Mexican national income. We simply do not want to put an economic squeeze on Mexico in any substantial way because the ultimate price is political instability. And, yes, illegal immigrants cost a lot when times are tough. But think of the cost of having a radical leftist government on the border. Cooperation on drug interdiction would come to a halt, terrorism and security cooperation would be non-existent, the maquiladoras would be harassed, expropriation of American assets could take place, restrictions on repatriation of cash might be made, the list is literally endless, etc. We could easily end up with a serious security and terrorism problem next door to us. We would be forced to spend untold billions securing the border, a cost that might dwarf the cost of simply letting illegal immigration act as a safety valve for Mexico's social, economic and political problems. It's a tough, complex problem in which there are no easy answers.

To: KLP who wrote (113722)	5/14/2005 1:55:10 PM
From: Neeka	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793914

Karen: I don't think what you are asking is possible. I want all laws to be obeyed or enforced, but I don't think it can or will happen. How often do people break the law and get away with it? People tailgate and run stop signs as well as regularly travel over the posted speed limit all the time. People regularly buy "illegal" drugs or cop a pack of cigarettes or a pack of gum at the local 7/11 . Thousands under report their income, trespass, assault others, steal, slander ect and there are no arrests? We've always had to deal with the overwhelming number of people who don't follow the rules. Even at Disney World last week I saw people using all kinds of tricks to cut in line ahead of others who waited their turn and followed the rules. Then there are those who work in immigration or with border patrol who have their own agenda and support illegal immigration: washingtontimes.com And those who want to enlist more help from citizen volunteers: govexec.com It's just a fact.......regardless of how many laws we pass there always seems to be those who will break them and those who will wink and nod. Not a reason to not have those laws, but I'm sceptcal enough to believe they just won't ever be enforced.

To: KLP who wrote (113722)	5/14/2005 2:00:34 PM
From: Neeka	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793914

Here is an example of a law the Congress desperately needs to pass, but if they do, how effectively will it be enforced? M Congress weighs bill to counter violent street gangs Associated Press May 9, 2005 GANGS0510 NEW YORK — The rapid spread of vicious street gangs such as MS-13 is causing alarm in cities and suburbs nationwide, igniting bitter debate about how best to combat the threat and inspiring a comprehensive anti-gang bill in Congress. The measure is depicted by supporters as the only effective way to counterattack gang violence, and assailed by critics as an overreaction that could clog both federal courts and adult prisons with youthful offenders, most of them minorities. Sponsored by Rep. Randy Forbes, R-Va., the bill moved swiftly through the House Judiciary Committee last month and is scheduled for a House floor vote Wednesday. It would turn many gang-related violent offenses into federal crimes punishable by mandatory sentences of at least 10 years, expand the range of crimes punishable by death, and enable U.S. prosecutors to try 16- and 17-year-old gang members as adults in federal courts. "These aren't petty hoodlums,' Forbes said. "They're cutting people's heads off, doing countersurveillance on police. ... They're trained in a type of violence we've not seen heretofore.' In Virginia recently, gang victims have been hacked by machetes and had fingers cut off. Affiliated gangs in Central America are suspected in several recent beheadings of young women. The bill's supporters include the National Sheriffs' Association and the Fraternal Order of Police, the nation's largest law enforcement union. If approved, it would move to the Senate where Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) have introduced a bill combining tough anti-gang measures with new funding for crime prevention programs. Opponents include numerous high-powered civil rights groups — the NAACP, the American Civil Liberties Union, Human Rights Watch and others. They cite FBI findings that serious youth crime is declining, say states — not the federal government — can best address the gang problem and worry about long-term consequences for teenage offenders sent to adult prisons. "We too want to do something about gang violence,' said Angela Arboleda of the National Council of La Raza, a Hispanic civil rights organization. "But punitive measures that lock up youths with adults is not a smart approach.' Arboleda says that Forbes' measure — which the congressman has nicknamed "The Gangbusters Bill' — "is one of the worst bills we've ever seen.' According to Forbes, street gang membership in the United States has grown steadily to more than 750,000, outnumbering police officers. He said a federal approach is needed because gangs like MS-13 — the Central American-influenced Mara Salvatrucha — have spread to many states. "They're organized; they have a board of directors inside prison and outside prison,' Forbes said. "Even while in prison, they recruit — teens, even down to elementary school.' Critics of the bill say state and local police agencies could escalate the fight against such gangs under existing laws. They also say the Bush administration and Congress have cut back social programs that could deter youths from joining gangs in the first place. "Because there are alarming stories about gang violence, members of Congress are under pressure from constituents to offer solutions,' said Morna Murray of the Children's Defense Fund. "The fear makes it hard to focus on crime prevention. 'Tough on crime' sells, but it doesn't work.' The bill's opponents include some conservatives who question the concept of federalizing law enforcement tasks traditionally handled by states. "It's better that it stays state law — that's the true conservative position,' said Rep. Robert Inglis, R-S.C., the only Republican opposing the bill when the Judiciary Committee approved it on an otherwise party-line vote. Forbes said of Inglis, "He's a nice guy — but he's dead wrong.' "In the past, these gangs were in just one area — now they have networks across the country,' Forbes said. "We want to create enforcement teams that will do six- or seven-month investigations, and then have trials that will bring whole networks down. States can't do that.' Federal statutes already target Mafia-style organizations. Forbes said his bill is needed because some judges and juries balk at applying such anti-racketeering laws to street gangs. Among those testifying against the bill was Bob Shepherd, a retired law professor and former assistant attorney general in Virginia. "The amazing thing to a lot of us was how it got on this fast track,' Shepherd said. "They're trying to ramrod it through without a lot of deliberation.' He expressed alarm over provisions that would allow federal prosecutors to transfer 16- and 17-year-olds to adult court without judicial review and impose mandatory minimum sentences regardless of circumstances. Critics say the sentencing provisions could require an additional 24,000 prison beds over the next decade. However, the Fraternal Order of Police said mandatory minimums are appropriate for gang offenders who tend to commit multiple violent acts. "They're not deterred by the prospect of 90 days on the state farm,' union executive director Jim Pasco said. startribune.com

To: KLP who wrote (113722)	5/14/2005 5:45:47 PM
From: haqihana	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793914

KLP, The American taxpayers should not be funding him for anything. Foreign aid is one thing, but funding an individual leader is not supposed to be done. There may not be a Fox in the Mexican hen house very much longer. I have read, and heard, rumblings of dissatisfaction with him, but that could be a different kind of disaster. If leftists take over the government of Mexico, we have built in enemies with nothing but a river in between us. Laws pertaining to possible long term immigrants, should not be changed, but for the good of our nation, there should be some sort of agreement for seasonable immigration for those that harvest the crops, and when they are not doing so, they should be sent home until the time comes around again. There are millions of people that are collecting welfare, and have been for three generations, and I will bet you that none of them will get off their butts to get a job. They have settled into the government sofa, and are not about to get out. They have altered their life styles to have enough government money to get along, which includes federal, state, county, and city, programs. I'll bet you that not one of them would go into the fields and bend over all day long, in the heat of the day, just to get the amount of money a Mexican peon does. Face it! There is a significant number of our citizens that are lazier than a hound dog under the front porch. Those people don't deserve the government money any more than a migrant illegal, but I don't think either category should receive such benefits. The migrants because they are not citizens, and the citizens because they don't deserve one thin dime of what they are already getting.