Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Bush's border and illegal alien plan

  1. May 15, 2006 #1

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    To be given in a few minutes, he will offically announce the call for National Guard troops to be sent to the border for support roles with the border patrol, but with no law enforcement directly. Now, in principle I might agree with the effort. Something has to be done. But at the same time, we have ways to manage this - by enforcing the laws for starters. And after being denied the resources for decades, many interviewed such as the NM Governer (D) expresses frustration that they - the people who deal with the problem daily - don't get what they want, but instead they get something that they don't want based on a mandate from Washington.

    The really funny part for me is that five years ago, I casually bet my sister that before he was out of office, Bush would find a reason to call out the military for domestic intervention. :rofl: :uhh: :bugeye: ...at least I hope that's funny. :uhh:
     
  2. jcsd
  3. May 15, 2006 #2

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    So far it sounds pretty reasonable to me. One key limit not mentioned is a cap on the number of temp workers allowed at any time. And I don't know that we can usually determine how long someone has been here. Obviously they will all claim to have been here for years, with family members who are willing to vouch for them.

    Also, there must be a definite cut-off date for the use of Nat. Guard troops.
     
  4. May 15, 2006 #3

    Pengwuino

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Why should there be a cut-off date? As in, for when they have to stop protecting the border or a deadline for when they start protecting it?
     
  5. May 15, 2006 #4

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Since I see this as an invasion, IMO it is entirely appropriate to use the Guard to get things under control. That's is pretty much what they're for. But ultimately this is the job of the border patrol - a civilian agency that is incredibly underfunded. The soldiers are allegedly being used as a stop-gap until more border agents can be trained, and that's fine as long as they don't actually start enforcing laws, but even as advisors and observers, I would want the military out of there as soon as possible. We don't use the military as a police force.
     
  6. May 15, 2006 #5

    SOS2008

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    First off, the number of Nat'l Guard being sent is so small it won't help much (only 6,000), especially when rotation is figured in, etc. We need 36,000 at the minimum to really secure the border. I agree a militarized border is not desirable, but it's estimated that it will take about five years for other security efforts to be implemented. So we need to use what ever resources we can in the meantime. Since the Guard will do support functions (not patrolling) I don't feel it's an issue. The problem is it's too little too late.

    Second, the temp or "guest worker" program Bush proposes is to be based on employer request. That's all well and good as long as the employer pays fair wages and benefits, and can prove an American worker isn't available for the job. Still I need to be convinced that these workers will actually return home after three years before I'd support it.

    As for determining how long an illegal has been here, just require them to provide the Social Security number they've been using. How many years they've paid Social Security should be considered how long they have been here. I understand they still must pass a background check and pay a fine and any back taxes. Okay, but should they be moved to the front of the line because they have been breaking the law the longest? This would be a very bad message to send. They should have to wait in line to naturalize just like anyone else who has just applied for citizenship. Anything else is amnesty.
     
  7. May 16, 2006 #6

    SOS2008

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12816021/page/2/

    Vicente Fox called Bush the morning before the speech, and they spoke for about 30 minutes. Fox expressed alarm about securing the border (imagine that). Bush reassured Fox that he was not militarizing the border. Hmm...I wonder how the conversation went. Maybe something like this? "Vicente, mi amigo, it will only be tokenism to retain political support for my complete plan, which also is a guise for amnesty--as we planned when I was at your ranch."

    The compromise would be between criminalization of illegal entry (per the House) and amnesty (per Mexico), not between deportation and amnesty. How do they get to this as the two choices?

    I don't agree with the Minutemen that we must only have legislation to secure the border first. I feel we must address the border and the interior in order to secure the border. To do this right, I would entice illegals to come forward voluntarily to apply for citizenship. However, I would not promise that anyone would be granted citizenship--just that they would be considered for citizenship. After all, if they don't pass a background check they will be deported. As for the rest who pass the background check and are gainfully employed, they must be documented in some way, perhaps the 3-year guest worker ID. Then if they fail to pay fines or back taxes, learn English, or remain employed, they will lose the worker ID and be deported. After that three year period, those who still qualify could be given another 3-year guest worker ID while they wait for citizenship. During this process, any who don't qualify for citizenship per existing criteria should be deported regardless of how long they have enjoyed the benefits of living in the U.S.

    To me this would be a compromise that would not be a thinly veiled form of amnesty, and would be fair and solve the problem without dire disruption. Unfortunately, I believe that if congress passes anything that is not a form of amnesty, there will be violent riots. But since when does our country allow law-breaking foreigners to dictate our laws? I'm more than happy to see taxes spent on a wall and riot gear.
     
    Last edited: May 16, 2006
  8. May 17, 2006 #7
    I don't see where the NG acting in a support roll will really change the situation substantially. The NG will only have a significant effect if they are actually allowed to detain illegals.

    Just because the NG spots a group of illegals does not mean that the Border Patrol will have the manpower to stop them. The Border Patrol is already spotting more than they can persue.

    Current tactics used by the people smugglers includes feigned moves in one area to distract the Border Patrol from a large movement of illegals a few miles away.

    Rounding up a single group of just 10 to 20 illegals takes a lot of manpower on the ground because when the Border Patrol approaches, the crossers take off running every which way but south.

    When they are caught and returned to the border the next day, they just try again the next night. And they don't just cross at night which means the NG will have to work in shifts as the Border patrol does. This dilutes manpower at any given location.

    We can declare them felons when they are detained, but we will still have to release them in Mexico and they will be caught again and be declared felons again because there are no facilities to keep them in. Plus the word felon means nothing to them.

    Those illegals crossing from Mexico but who are not Mexican citizens can not be released in Mexico. Mexico will not allow it. These illegals are given a citation and a date to show up at INS for their deportation hearing. They simply vanish.

    The only truly effective solution is to prevent them from crossing the border at the border. I don't see 6,000 or even 12,000 NG troops as being able to do that even if they are allowed to detain illegals.

    The NG presence will definitely help and the catch and release numbers may increase, but that will not necessarily decrease the number of sucessful crossings.
     
    Last edited: May 17, 2006
  9. May 17, 2006 #8

    Art

    User Avatar

    The only way to stop illegal immigration is to take away their reason for entering the US i.e. Jobs.

    If employers were prevented from employing illegal labour by the certainty they will be heavily fined if caught the problem would all but disappear overnight. Bush mentioned this aspect in his speech but his solution was sketchy at best - a reference to biometric ID cards which was thin on details and no timeframe. Contrast this with the measures introduced after 9/11 when foreign countries were told to issue bio-metric passports to their citizens within 3 years or they would not be allowed entry into the US. Interestingly the US has lambasted the EU for being late in implementing this demand whilst they themselves do not yet issue bio-metric passports.

    Given that the CEOs who support Bush are quite happy to avail of cheap labour I suspect that the objective of Bush's speech was to placate non-latino voters ahead of the elections whilst not unduly upsetting the latinos by not substantially changing the status quo.
     
    Last edited: May 17, 2006
  10. May 17, 2006 #9
    How's that poem go? "Give me your tired and poor..."

    The U.S. and Canada are both nations of immigrants, 'tis what made them great. Read up on the Yellow Peril etc.

    As for the Bush league, I think he's just trying to distract from the war in Iraq. Oh sorry, insurgency in Iraq.
    Of course if he is serious about controlling the border, then that means concrete, steel and barbed wire. It means watchtowers, minefields and more coastal patrols. Hmmm, I smell an investment opportunity.
     
  11. May 17, 2006 #10
    The deployment of National Guard troops is a ploy according to the Border Patrol union leader. (yes they do have a union) This whole National Guard Fiasco is more about election year politics than it is about the border problem.

    http://www.kron.com/Global/story.asp?S=4907879
     
    Last edited: May 17, 2006
  12. May 17, 2006 #11

    SOS2008

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    A pro-illegal immigration spokesman (who was so upset about anti-amnesty groups burning the Mexican flag) was back on MSNBC the night before last--Juan Hernandez. You have to see this guy live to understand how truly lame he is, but here is the latest:

    Hmm...really?! How business in the United States might benefit from exploiting people who must leave Mexico because they can't feed their families... Yep, sounds like Bush's brand of "compassionate conservatism" to me. They continue:

    Note that he nevers answers Tucker's question directly. Even so, his response makes no sense. Why would the U.S. partner with Mexico to compete with other blocks around the world? What does Mexico bring to the table? And since when do trade agreements have anything to do with sovereignty and respect for one another's borders, laws, and culture? Back to the excerpt:

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12817650/

    Why must the U.S. create a program that is beneficial to the "whole hemisphere" (i.e., Mexico), and why should the "undocumented" (i.e., law-breaking illegals) be accomodated? And "fair" is, as Tucker points out, give and take--not just take. Juan Hernadez is a piece of work (i.e., piece of...). And talk about statistics, this is from last nights program:

    For more - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12834948/

    Sending the NG to assist border states is a start in correct thinking. Let's just hope it's sincere and not done in an inept manner--however, in view of the track record of this administration, I have grave doubts and am in agreement with edward that it is only politicking. Also, the president's proposal to spend $1.9 billion is something that is needed.

    The Senate made a good start and "voted to cut the president's war budget to put more money into border security." - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12504076/from/RL.1/ In view of the deficit, lawmakers must start asking where the money will come from before agreeing to spend it, such as on Bush's "war presidency" (and the power he has usurped with it).

    And it's good that the Senate approved 370 miles of fencing, and a crack-down on the hiring of illegals. - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12838263/page/2/

    But...so far it looks like the Senate is still pushing for questionable "legislation that could allow citizenship for millions of illegal immigrants and create new guest worker programs" (see stats above).

    The National Capital Immigration Coalition? They aren't just concerned about militarization of the border, they want an open border--oh yes, and amnesty. Keep the phone calls, letters, and emails going to your representatives...
     
    Last edited: May 17, 2006
  13. May 18, 2006 #12

    SOS2008

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Bush in Arizona

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12860863/from/RS.2/

    Why does the press insist on referring to illegals as migrants or immigrants! Okay moving on...

    Aside from the ignorant assumption that they could cross a truly secure border, this is why the magnet of jobs must be removed. Otherwise, I'll be fine with a militarized border--I'll be fine with mine fields and artillery--gees! And maybe these people will begin to hang onto their roofs and frying pans (and lose the cell phones?!) and demand improvements in their own country.

    Walls are a sign of distrust? Now Mexico is threatening to sue against increased border control. With friends like that, who needs enemies. None of these attitudes or actions are making a good case, but rather it shows their true colors and only makes people harden their position on the issue.
     
  14. May 19, 2006 #13

    loseyourname

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    I was under the impression that the bulk of undocumented people in the US were people that entered legally, but failed to leave when their visas expired. Securing the border will do nothing to stop them.
     
  15. May 19, 2006 #14

    SOS2008

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    From a 2005 Global Business Network article:

    http://www.gbn.com/ArticleDisplayServlet.srv?aid=33602

    The actual numbers are hard to determine. Based on apprehension of 2,000 a day near Tucson (March 2006 figures), and the estimate of that being 1 in 4 caught (more like 1 in 10), you can see very quickly that the number who enter illegally are the largest percentage.

    The "undocumented" illegals are why Americans tend to be against a "guest worker" program. Unless the program is properly administered and enforced, i.e., keeping tabs on workers and making them return home after the proposed three years expire, these people will meld into the already existing number of illegals, further adding to the problem. It is so easy for these people to disappear before their worker permits expire--it's ridiculous to consider it, especially for any newcomers.

    But as this article points out, the "elites," or in other words, businesses support the supply of cheap labor (note that two thirds of illegals earn less than minimum wage), and businesses contribute the most to political campaigns.
     
    Last edited: May 19, 2006
  16. May 19, 2006 #15

    selfAdjoint

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    Suppose we do erect a guest worker program. The border will still leak like a sieve and unless the program is a complete giveaway, many potential immigrants will still see advantages in illegal crossing. Many US "elites" will too. So how does a GW program solve the problem?
     
  17. May 19, 2006 #16

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    The border will only leak like a sieve if we don't fix the problem. If the Feds won't do it, then things are going to start getting ugly as people will continue to take the law into their own hands.

    This problem has reached critical mass. If things don't improve, we are going to end up with a border war. For those living with the phenomenal crime rate that this problem brings, it already is a war.

    I find it funny that people keep talking about how this problem is twenty years old. In fact, in S. Cal it was already a big problem in the early 70's.

    Btw, when I was young and very, very poor, [left home with everything I owned in a backpack] I was once denied a job because I wasn't an illegal alien; even though I was willing to work for their pay rate. I was living on tomato sandwiches at the time.
     
    Last edited: May 19, 2006
  18. May 19, 2006 #17

    Gokul43201

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I recently saw this map (on the CNN website, I think), that showed the parts of the border that are fenced. I saw long stretches that were completely unfenced - what looked like about five hundred or so miles of it. Am I wrong, and are there only 370 miles of unfenced border, or is there some reason (eg: terrain?) for fencing only 370 miles instead of just doing the whole enchilada ?
     
  19. May 19, 2006 #18

    SOS2008

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Everything Bush is doing (and the Senate) in regard to the border and English only rhetoric is merely an attempt to appease the conservative base. Why? Because if Bush can get approval for a "guest worker" program as well, it would completely undermine all these other efforts. Bush is pro-business to the end, so don't be fooled.

    However, I would like to know why people think the border will leak like a sieve no matter what we do? That's like saying we should give up on fighting crime because we can never completely stop crime. Fencing is not intended to make the entire border completely impregnable, but rather more effectively patrolled. The current use of surveillance detection has been useless because of lack of required manpower behind it. A three-layer fence, many feet deep (8-10 ft. I believe), fifteen feet high and surrounded by razor wire in key areas (where illegals can easily disappear into populated areas) WILL make a big difference--though I'm disappointed that the Senate only approved 350 miles instead of the proposed 700 miles. It will allow limited resources to be focused on the more rugged and open range that is difficult to cross and/or where illegals can easily to be seen and caught. If the flow is reduced to a trickle, that would be a greatly needed improvement.

    Many think we are overreacting to the border problem. Aside from years of criminal activities related to drugs, what we are talking about is 193 million immigrants over the next 20 years if we continue on the present course. As stated above, that is 60% of our entire current population, which would completely change the nature of our country. If terrorists were able to cross from the south, what do you think would happen? OMG, that border would most definitely be secured, and fast. The astronomical number of illegals is just as serious a threat as terrorism, possibly more so. So why isn't this issue being treated appropriately? Because of the influential power of special interests (businesses, unions, religion) who could care less about what happens to our great nation.
     
  20. May 19, 2006 #19

    SOS2008

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    "Senators at odds over English's status in U.S." - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12866975/

    As already posted, those who assimilate and learn English are more likely to advance. Aside from the poor use of tax dollars to print everything in both English and Spanish, it is discriminatory to immigrants who speak other languages, and contributes to the disillusionment of entitlement by Latin illegals.

    But the effect is even greater yet. English is the number one international language that is taught as a second language in most foreign countries. It's bad enough we are becoming a third-world country due to importation of poverty, outsourcing, and a large trade deficit. Why would we want to take our country backward with the inability to speak English? The requirement of speaking English is actually too lenient. Immigrants should also be literate, meaning the ability to read and write English too. So I wish people would stop with the anti-American propaganda, and start pitching in to preserve this great nation.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Bush's border and illegal alien plan
  1. Bush's plan for mars (Replies: 35)

  2. Bush's plan for peace. (Replies: 63)

Loading...