And if it's the position of the government of Mexico that he has the right to be in the United States...

What do you mean "if"? Everything the Mexican government has said and done in the last few years indicates this is exactly what they think.

I'd have to agree with McGehee, the Mexican government has not been pussy-footing around with their intentions. Seems like an ass-backwards way to treat their people ("Hey, go and enter that country illegally. Send money!") but they obviously don't really care about our rights.

I would think that, were this to be considered an act of war, it'd be one of the shortest wars on the planet (save for the Seven Day War) - Mexico's "army" probably came here a long time ago, and they're no Jihadists...

I hope.

If the Bush admin. gets involved it would not be surprising if our new US AG joined the defense as co-council and if that doesn't work there might be a chance of a Presidential pardon. OK, kind of off the wall but I don't see any chance of them going against Mexico. Whatever Vicente wants...

Presidential pardon? I sure as heck hope not! That'd be just what we need...set a precedent. Sure, a pardon is issued to just one person, but where's the distinction between him and the other gazillion here illegally just like him? How could it be argued successfully that he gets the pardon but no one else does?

The US needs to make the ENTIRE US/spixico border a bombing range. Open continuously and USED continuously. Blow up enough of that sewage that is seeping into the US and the sewage will begin to question whether it wants to risk trying to sneak over the border.

I am still learning Texas history, but I am sure that some motivated legal beagle could find something in what Santa Anna ceded to Sam Houston that would make it legitimate to just send the Army in and annex Mexico. Replace the corrupt Mexican government with our own corrupt politicians and make all the illegals legal in one swift action.
Just a thought.

The US needs to make the ENTIRE US/spixico border a bombing range.

You're a real crass act, Enigma.

Don't be silly, if it weren't for illegal immigrants, who's going to clean your rich, white guy mansions?

Oh yeah, negroes ...

Jamal, has it occurred to you that one of the reasons why wages for such jobs as nannies, farm laborers and yes, domestics is because illegal aliens will work for such low wages? Raise the wages high enough and even us white guys (not the rich ones, of course) might apply for them.

Insert the words "so low is" between the words "is" and "because" (^^) and it might make more sense. (sigh)

That chip must be pretty heavy, Jamal, you're leaning waaaaaay left.

Rich, white guy mansion? The only person who cleans my poor white girl, falling-down house is ME.

I find your blanket statement quite offensive.

:P

Actually, if we could get John Edwards to take time out from his busy schedule to examine the issue, he might find some reason to force the U.S. to give Texas back to the Mexicans. Which might rid us of both ScottJ and the Dallas Cowboys.

Hmmm...

McGeehee
Did you hear the illegals here in Arizona are trying to organize a "work stopage" to hurt the economy?
No, really....the politico's are having a hard time finding illegals willing to give up their jobs, even for a day.

The US needs to make the ENTIRE US/spixico border a bombing range. Open continuously and USED continuously. Blow up enough of that sewage that is seeping into the US and the sewage will begin to question whether it wants to risk trying to sneak over the border.

You are a disappointment to the entire human species. I can't believe that you actually took the time to make such hate-ridden thoughts known. I'm sure you feel really powerful by writing that. To me, it makes you look like a coward, and an ass.

The Mexican government has no business doing what its doing, IMO.

It doesnt make any sense that they would even be able to interfere in that way, especially since the guy is here illegally. It makes no sense for Mexico to defend someone who is breaking immigration laws.

fatman wrote:

Jamal, has it occurred to you that one of the reasons why wages for such jobs as nannies, farm laborers and yes, domestics is because illegal aliens will work for such low wages? Raise the wages high enough and even us white guys (not the rich ones, of course) might apply for them.

But you gotta admit, that's a two way street. Companies here pay those low wages, and knowingly hire illegal workers. That's an example of Americans screwing other Americans. Not good. The workers come here, in my opinion, because there are jobs. If they werent getting hired, I dont think the influx would be the same.

So immigration enforcement has to be improved, but also Americans here have to be held responsible for their end of the deal when they hire illegally. Otherwise, something else needs to be done.

This story is both silly on its face and enraging at the same time. The guy is here illegally, period. It's that cut and dry. He is a criminal once he set foot in our country with out the proper clearances and authority. There should be no defense of this criminal. He should be sent back once he can't provide the necessary paperwork to show that he is here as a legal immigrant.

I hope this story gets national attention so many of the dimwitted people out there that think the Mexican Government is our friend can realize how they are using us. I hope the judge laughs at the new attorney and in the face of El Presidente Fox as he/she sends the criminal back to his native land!

My biggest concern for securing our borders is terrorism...I really think most all Americans, especially Texans really don't mind Mexicans coming in to the country to work!...Of course the illegalality is not a good thing! BUT...we just need to work on that!...The real problem is protecting our citizens from the Bin Ladens and all the others who would like to kill us just because!...I love the Mexican people. I just don't like terrorists!

Ryan:

You"ll get no argument from me on the subject of employers who knowingly hire illegal aliens or turn a blind eye to their employees' immigration status. The way to deal with them is to hit them in the wallet. Fine every employer who knows (or should have known) that the guy cooking or washing dishes or the kid mowing the lawn or the woman cleaning the office is here illegally an amount equal to five or ten times the minimum wage per hour worked by the illegal and see how fast the problem clears up.

And it wouldn't be all that hard to do. Simply mandate that the Social Security Administration share the names of every employer who turns in more than ten bogus S.S. numbers in a calendar year with I.N.S., Customs and the Border Patrol. It wouldn't completely solve the problem (a lot of illegals presumably work off the books), but I think it would make a sizable dent in it. (At the moment I believe the S.S.A. is prohibited from doing that.) But that would be too easy. And it won't happen.

The Republicans view immigrants--legal or illegal--as a source of cheap labor, and they don't want to offend the Hispanic vote, which isn't the Democrat-voting monolith that the black vote is. And the Democrats won't do it because they view immigrants--legal or illegal--as a source of votes (mostly their children, who , if born here, are U.S. citizens). And they wouldn't mind turning the Hispanic vote into a Democrat-voting monolith.

TERM LIMITS NOW!!!

And notice that I didn't use the word obviously even once in that post.

fatman:

You"ll get no argument from me on the subject of employers who knowingly hire illegal aliens or turn a blind eye to their employees' immigration status.

It's a weird paradox: There are lots of Americans who are complaining about illegal immigration, yet at the same time there are lots of Americans who like to hire them and benefit from their labors.

Your idea of a punitive measure via social security could do something to alleviate this, although I think that a large percentage of the workers are paid off the books, as it goes. From my experience in southern california, you would have alot of businesses take a hard hit with such measures.

If Americans want to hire them, then maybe the process should be regulated and legalized. Or at least maybe we should look at why Americans want that labor, and what the benefits/costs are. It all depends on how many Americans are really a part of this, and I think the number is pretty high. I think that it's an economic system that is pretty well entrenched in many border states...California, Texas, etc.

I have a feeling that there are alot more Americans who partake in the whole thing than most of us think. Not alot of people are going to speak up and say "Ya I hire illegal workers."

I understand completely why Americans get pissed off about this, but I also think it's alot more complex than many make it out to be.

All in all I wish there was a way to find out the actual numbers of American businesses that are a part of the system, and that help keep it going.

Another side of the story is all the American workers who dont have jobs because they cant work for such low wages, or without insurance, etc. The blame is usually directed at the workers who come over here illegally, but hell, they're just trying to do the same thing that the American workers are, which is survive. Both sides get screwed: No jobs for some Americans, and low wages and bad working conditions for illegals (since they literally have zero rights).

People sometimes get mad at me for my views about this. I can understand both sides of this deal. There isn't some easy solution.

Ryan:

Again, no argument from me. I have zero problems with legal immigrants or with some kind of guest worker program that provides protections for the workers AND keeps out or at least makes it more difficult for terrorists and the more usual type of criminal to get across the border. And not just the Mexican border.

Interesting statistic, if true: illegal aliens account for thirty percent of the population in U.S. prisons (it'll take a better internet researcher than me to verify or debunk it, though).

If I didn't articulate that, it's because I'm kind of long-winded to begin with; if I tried to cover every point in a debate in one post, they'd take longer to read than Bill Clinton's speech at the 1988 Democratic Convention.

fatman:

Again, no argument from me. I have zero problems with legal immigrants or with some kind of guest worker program that provides protections for the workers AND keeps out or at least makes it more difficult for terrorists and the more usual type of criminal to get across the border. And not just the Mexican border.

The most difficult part, I think, is the second part of the equation: how to allow more workers in and still keep the nasty people out at the same time.

I agree that some kind of guest worker program might be an answer. It would have to be a big improvement over the old Brazero program, which was full of problems and abuses. But I think we could come up with something. If the workers were all documented, and here legally, they could be protected, and also wouldnt have to be continually paranoid about getting caught.

As for being long winded...I keep thinking that someone is going to start charging me by the letter here. I can never seem to say anything in one or two lines.

lol

Did you think the USA would just take one half of Mexican territory without any consequence? Don't you know that after 1848 it is Americans who have invaded Mexico? Or rather, do you think imperialist policies taken by our country will always remain unquestioned? Yes, many Mexicans come illegaly to the USA, but now, what is legal turns out to be just a point of view. Mexico is a country that has never stepped on other countries; has never created a war of its own so to take land or resources from other countries. Now that mexicans invade us in some other way, we have the guts to blame them and not blame Americans of having taken a piece of land far more valued than what we gave them as war indemnization? And if Americans hire illegals for job opportunities, shouldn't we be grateful of heving them occupied rather than having them mad?