[QUOTE=Warfish;4501932]Probably because it's a really bad idea, that isn't cost or manpower efficent or effective, needlessly involves millitarization of home territory when other better options exist, needlessly places a potentially violent confrontation situation in the mix (where peopel will be killed wrongly), and at the end of teh day still would not be effective givent he size and scope of the U.S.-Mexico, U.S.-Canada and U.S.-Maritime Borderns and Ports on Entry.
Far more efficient and effective to siply make basic steps to ensure illegals cannot work here. Cannot rent or buy property here. Cannot recieve social benefits or welfare of any kind here. Can not birth anchor babies here if not here themselves legally. And can only get lifesaving medical care here, followed by removal.
And not a single soldier is required to do that. Only sane, solid, basic processes of verification at employment, rental/homebuying processes, etc.[/QUOTE]
We have a war being raged already at the borders between drug cartels and smugglers. Why have a national guard if not to guard the boarders?
[QUOTE=chiefst2000;4501949]We have a war being raged already at the borders between drug cartels and smugglers. Why have a national guard if not to guard the boarders?[/QUOTE]
Sorry President Bush, but local organized crime activity is not a "War", and we cannot declare such a War on a non-Nation State criminal enterprise.
if teh purpsoe of teh troops is to defend against foreign millitary activity, fine. Declare War on Mexico and do it right and legal.
if it's just to stop illegals, it won't work, doesn't work, and can be done cheaper and better in other ways.....but as a Pro-Romney guy I don't expect your support in making life harder for the businesses who hire illegals, rent to illegals, and provide business to illegals.
Like I said, "secure the border" means "trust us this time, really, we like, totally care and stuff". Sorry, fooled me once under Bush, won't be fooled again.
[QUOTE=brady's a catcher;4501677]If you add real border security (permanent Natl guard troops, etc), I would sign up for this in a nano-second. Which makes me sure that WF bolded point is absolutely correct.
When you're holding a straight flush, why would you chop the pot?[/QUOTE]
Sorry for disappearing, guys. Took the day off to spend with the kids, then had a friend's engagement party tonight. So more tomorrow, but I can address this quickly:
Because nobody is holding a straight flush on this. Everything - everything - the Democrats have gained on immigration can be wiped away in November. A Republican president simply reauthorizes 387(g), cooperates with Arizona, Alabama, and other "show us your papers" states, and stops doing DREAM by executive order. A Republican senate and Republican house write a law authorizing states to take their own immigration measures, and the impact of this ruling disappears.
All of their gains are temporary - or, at least, have the possibility (if not likelihood) of being temporary. A bi-partisan piece of legislation makes some of those gains permanent, at the cost of giving up others (the ones easiest for a republican president to disappear regardless of whether the Senate goes Republican).
[QUOTE=Warfish;4501518]Not to dismiss your efforts, but I have two brief (for me) points:[/quote]
[QUOTE]1. Why would democrats/the left compromise now, after what can only be viewed as a total victory for them on the issue? The SC in effect struck down the entire deal in AZ (with only a VERY temporary stay on the one portion not struck down, until enough folks complain of being racially profiled). Combine with Obama getting away with choosing to simply not enforce (you say "prosecutorial discretion") an entire swatch of the Law.[/QUOTE]
See above. It's the same reason companies settle litigations they think they can win - risk, certainty, and leverage. A permanent solution is better than one that can be reversed the next time a Republican wins the White House (and since most Democrats are aware that may well be in January, that's not an abstract possibility) - that's the certainty aspect of it. More, if they don't strike a deal now, it's always possible, with just a loss of the whitehouse and a few-senator shift in the Senate, that Republicans will at some point be able to pass their own bill on immigration without needing to compromise - that's the risk aspect. And because they will [B]never[/B] be in a stronger position to negotiate than they are right now (it's all downhill from here) - leverage.
I see no reason whatsoever for them to give an inch now. They've effectively already won.
2. What portion of your listed plan is actually a compromise or bargain for my side? I see nothing in your listed plan that I would or could support.
Think it through. It takes enforcement away from being solely in the control of the federal government (i.e. the people who, in the main, feel the least disruption and are least responsive to local concerns) and gives it back to the states, who can set their own priorities. If the Federal Government is ignoring illegal immigration (and it shouldn't) then Arizona can take steps on its own to make its state less of a destination for illegal immigrants. And while that won't be enough, in and of itself, to end the problem, it will start pushing it from state to state, and either end the problem because once enough states are facing it, the Federal Government will step in (simply as a matter of who gets elected) or end it because the states, individually, will have made it a no-win proposition for the illegals.
In other words, while the Federal compromise doesn't do anything particularly substantive for "your side", it sets the conditions for states to take the very steps you would like to see happen.
[QUOTE]No my friend, the reason some of us are "on the cliff" is because we see how close we to this issue being a total and complete loss for the side of limited, controlled immigration, the rule of law, and any form of real meaningful immigration enforcement. Reform will not correct the problem, anymore than accounting tricks correct fiscal deficientcies. You plan, like most, simply corrects the issue via amnesty (generally) with a few tacked on, never going to actually be enforced, rules after the fact.
The "never going to be enforced" portion is objectively false. Once states are empowered by law not only to refer cases to the Justice Department for prosecution but to prosecute immigration proceedings themselves, enforcement will be backstopped by the states
Just saw the Healthcare decision came out. Stopping to read it