Sens. Paul, Vitter introduce citizenship resolution

• ptown_trojans_1

  

  Writerbuckeye;656341 wrote:I'm wondering how many illegals would flee the country on their own if it was being decided to do a massive round up, and the deadline was nearing?

  
  Or would stay and fight it?
  What would we do if illegals took to the streets in protests or used violence?
• Writerbuckeye

  

  BCBulldog;656337 wrote:Dividing Congress and amending the Constitution do exactly what to fix the border problem?
  
  
  
  While I also have no problem with deporting illegal aliens, I'm not sure I would use our history of McCarthyism as a means for justification. But like I said above, without a secure border, don't waste the effort (and money) to deport the illegals. It's like trying to bail out a sinking boat with a strainer.

  
  Well, if the amendment passes, it takes away ANY justification now used to give benefits to children of illegals who are born here (making the argument that they are citizens because they were born in America). It clarifies and defines the matter once and for all.
  
  Part of the reason California is bankrupt is because of the hundreds of millions of dollars they spend on benefits for illegals. If those are taken away in every state, I don't see a lot of incentive for their parents to stick around.
  
  In any proposed solution, though, it's true that the border will have to be secured first. Otherwise, all of this is a waste of time and money.
  
  I have no problem with using a rotation of US service men and women to maintain border security with Mexico. In fact, I'd like to see it. If any of the cartels become disruptive, they can get a heavy dose of US military firepower for their efforts.
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  We mention securing the borders, but what does that entail?
  More national guard troops? Higher fences, walls, etc.?
  Specifics please.
  
  I'm for it as well, but I know it may involve an infringement of some of our rights and involve staging active troops inside this country-which is rare. We also have to nail down rules of engagement and exact role of DHS, ICE, etc.
• Belly35

  

  ptown_trojans_1;656359 wrote:We mention securing the borders, but what does that entail?
  More national guard troops? Higher fences, walls, etc.?
  Specifics please.
  
  I'm for it as well, but I know it may involve an infringement of some of our rights and involve staging active troops inside this country-which is rare. We also have to nail down rules of engagement and exact role of DHS, ICE, etc.

  
  
  Who about Illegal’s shooting Illegal’s?
  The plan is: All those Illegal’s wanting to be citizens go to a border States pull security duty on the border. 10 Kills and you’re a citizen...
  Win –Win situation:
  Illegal’s earn citizenship, Mexico loses population, drug dealer are shot and those wanting to come to this country will go through proper channels or die.
• BCBulldog

  

  ptown_trojans_1;656353 wrote:Or would stay and fight it?
  What would we do if illegals took to the streets in protests or used violence?

  
  Not cower in fear or backtrack on defending our way of life. We would handle it like we have always handled those that threaten our way of life.
  

  Writerbuckeye;656354 wrote:Well, if the amendment passes, it takes away ANY justification now used to give benefits to children of illegals who are born here (making the argument that they are citizens because they were born in America). It clarifies and defines the matter once and for all.
  
  Part of the reason California is bankrupt is because of the hundreds of millions of dollars they spend on benefits for illegals. If those are taken away in every state, I don't see a lot of incentive for their parents to stick around.

  For the future it would take away justification for benefits to illegals. But, the SCOTUS would not allow the Amendment to be retroactive, therefore the law would only apply to future illegals who give birth in America. I submit that if we truly secure the border, then the Amendment would not be necessary.
  

  ptown_trojans_1;656359 wrote:We mention securing the borders, but what does that entail?
  More national guard troops? Higher fences, walls, etc.?
  Specifics please.
  
  I'm for it as well, but I know it may involve an infringement of some of our rights and involve staging active troops inside this country-which is rare. We also have to nail down rules of engagement and exact role of DHS, ICE, etc.

  All valid points that would have to be hashed out. Not reasons to keep us from pushing for a secure border, though.
• Con_Alma

  BCBulldog;656384 wrote:... I submit that if we truly secure the border, then the Amendment would not be necessary.
  
  
  
  ...

  ...which is exactly what the States have been asking for all along.
  
  I agree.
• O-Trap

  

  I'm assuming this resolution has provision for things like sanctuary. I would suggest that would play a role in how it may be received.
• tsst_fballfan

  

  Cut off the teet! Eliminate any and all reason for them to stay and they will leave on their own. No more jobs, no more welfare, no more education, no more healthcare, etc etc etc. No need for deportation. :shrugs:
• I Wear Pants

  Belly35;656375 wrote:Who about Illegal’s shooting Illegal’s?
  The plan is: All those Illegal’s wanting to be citizens go to a border States pull security duty on the border. 10 Kills and you’re a citizen...
  Win –Win situation:
  Illegal’s earn citizenship, Mexico loses population, drug dealer are shot and those wanting to come to this country will go through proper channels or die.

  How is Mexico losing population good for us? And if you want to stop the drug violence we're going to have to legalize them.
• O-Trap

  

  I Wear Pants;656499 wrote:How is Mexico losing population good for us? And if you want to stop the drug violence we're going to have to legalize them.

  
  Not sure this will stop the violence surrounding drugs. Strip clubs are legal, but no stranger to "domestic violence" cases. It'll certainly change the violence, though.
  
  It WILL give the Federal Government a large new industry to tax. Most importantly, it will mean that the law is more coherent in light to alcohol, tobacco, and caffeine being legal.
• I Wear Pants

  Every study I've read shows that legalizing and emphasizing prevention and treatment instead of incarceration like we do now will lower the number of people abusing drugs as well as the violence involved.
• Belly35

  

  I Wear Pants;656499 wrote:How is Mexico losing population good for us? And if you want to stop the drug violence we're going to have to legalize them.

  
  
  According to PT1 Send illegals back to mexico is a problem for Mexico ...so weeding out those who what to try to cross the border and get shot should be a good thing and those in our country can get citizenship. win -win
  The drug dealers will be shot ... no big deal
  The other part of the Mexican population will have to come over via proper channels or be shot with the drug dealers ...
• O-Trap

  

  I Wear Pants;656550 wrote:Every study I've read shows that legalizing and emphasizing prevention and treatment instead of incarceration like we do now will lower the number of people abusing drugs as well as the violence involved.

  
  You might be right. To be fair, though, stats like that are hard to gauge, because so much of the industry goes unreported, and the studies try to take that into account (an impossible task).
• O-Trap

  

  ptown_trojans_1;656232 wrote:Option 1 would destabilize and certainily lead to the fall of Mexico.

  
  Seems that, if this was a policy that was to be enacted at a future date, Mexico might try to help us secure those borders out of pure self-interest.
  
  Soldiers telling Mexicans to "GTFI!"
• I Wear Pants

  Belly35;656564 wrote:According to PT1 Send illegals back to mexico is a problem for Mexico ...so weeding out those who what to try to cross the border and get shot should be a good thing and those in our country can get citizenship. win -win
  The drug dealers will be shot ... no big deal
  The other part of the Mexican population will have to come over via proper channels or be shot with the drug dealers ...

  Yes, shooting people will surely curb violence...
• BCBulldog

  

  I Wear Pants;656610 wrote:Yes, shooting people will surely curb violence...

  
  If the targets are the scum in the Mexican drug cartels, then emphatically, "YES!", it will curb violence. Those monsters deserve to die.
• CenterBHSFan

  

  Hmmm... What would Zell Miller do?
• I Wear Pants

  BCBulldog;656698 wrote:If the targets are the scum in the Mexican drug cartels, then emphatically, "YES!", it will curb violence. Those monsters deserve to die.

  The scum that we encourage with our drug policy.
• O-Trap

  

  BCBulldog;656698 wrote:If the targets are the scum in the Mexican drug cartels, then emphatically, "YES!", it will curb violence. Those monsters deserve to die.

  
  The scummiest ones are not the ones desperately trying to cross the borders illegally. They're the ones who can buy a passport and visa whenever they want.
• BCBulldog

  

  O-Trap;656746 wrote:The scummiest ones are not the ones desperately trying to cross the borders illegally. They're the ones who can buy a passport and visa whenever they want.

  
  Good point. Whenever the subject of the Mexican drug cartels comes up, I get fired up. I know how difficult life is down there without the current reign of drug cartel terrorism. So to see what they are doing to the innocent people who are just trying to get by, just pisses me off. I just wonder how much longer before Calderon calls on allies to come in and help get his country under control.
• O-Trap

  

  BCBulldog;656765 wrote:Good point. Whenever the subject of the Mexican drug cartels comes up, I get fired up. I know how difficult life is down there without the current reign of drug cartel terrorism. So to see what they are doing to the innocent people who are just trying to get by, just pisses me off. I just wonder how much longer before Calderon calls on allies to come in and help get his country under control.

  
  Problem is, I'm willing to bet he's afraid to. Those guys have a LOT of money, can go on vaca for as long as they want (thereby being out of Mexico if reinforcements come), and could make life hell for the Mexican government if they wanted to.
• BCBulldog

  

  O-Trap;656767 wrote:Problem is, I'm willing to bet he's afraid to. Those guys have a LOT of money, can go on vaca for as long as they want (thereby being out of Mexico if reinforcements come), and could make life hell for the Mexican government if they wanted to.

  
  I'm not sure what the answer is, but Calderon has lost control of much of his country already. At some point, either he has to get control or we will see the government overthrown.
• O-Trap

  

  BCBulldog;656822 wrote:I'm not sure what the answer is, but Calderon has lost control of much of his country already. At some point, either he has to get control or we will see the government overthrown.

  
  I'm not sure the former is even possible. Problem with the drug cartel is that it's probably better networked than the Mexican military on a global scale. I'm willing to bet most high ups in the cartels have friends where the Mexican government doesn't. It's almost like a game of tag, and that the cartel has a safe zone that Calderon can't do anything about.
  
  Eventually, it will probably end in a coup d'état.
• jhay78

  

  ptown_trojans_1;656359 wrote:We mention securing the borders, but what does that entail?
  More national guard troops? Higher fences, walls, etc.?
  Specifics please.
  
  I'm for it as well, but I know it may involve an infringement of some of our rights and involve staging active troops inside this country-which is rare. We also have to nail down rules of engagement and exact role of DHS, ICE, etc.

  It's rare because we've been spoiled for centuries. Nobody dares to invade the United States of America because there will be dire consequences. Unless they can come up with a subtle, more stealth-like way of invasion.
  
  http://www.fairus.org/site/PageServer?pagename=iic_immigrationissuecenters_defense
  

  The Mexican Agenda
  Among the U.S. domestic issues on which the Mexican government is actively exerting influence outside of normal diplomatic channels both through its broad network of consular offices and through the new structure of overseas communities are the following:
  
  Driver's licenses. Mexican consular officers and Mexican community activists have aggressively been lobbying state legislatures to adopt laws that allow illegal immigrants to obtain state driver's licenses. This effort has been successful in a number of states but met with a setback in 2005 when the REAL ID bill was adopted as part of the Iraq-Afghanistan Supplemental bill. This action led to Mexican President Fox's announcement on May 12, that his government would take unspecified actions to oppose the new U.S. law and his intemperate comment that "Mexican immigrants...are doing jobs that not even blacks want to do there in the United States."
  Mexican Consular IDs — Matricula Consular. Shortly after the September 11 terrorist attacks on the United States and the government's heightened security concerns, the Mexican government began to aggressively seek recognition of identity cards issued to Mexicans residing in the United States by local governments. Because Mexicans who are legal immigrants already have identity documents such as the 'green card' and legal nonimmigrants have documents such as a Mexican passport and U.S. visa or U.S. Border Crossing Card, the object of this ID campaign clearly was to provide an identity document to Mexicans illegally residing in the United States. The campaign was not just to issue the matricula consular to these illegal aliens, but also to get those documents accepted by local governments for law enforcement purposes and provision of services.
  In-State Tuition.The network of Mexican consular officials and local support groups has also aggressively lobbied state government to adopt laws that allow Mexican and other illegal aliens who have graduated from U.S. high schools to be able to benefit from the taxpayers' support of higher education by enrolling at in-state resident tuition rates.

  
  And of course there's La Raza, who encourages such tactics and lobbies Congress all the time.
• BGFalcons82

  

  I Wear Pants;656118 wrote:So Paul is notable for introducing unpassable legislation so far.

  
  Maybe...but at least he is fucking trying to do something and not just voting, "no", as so many Leftys accused the Pubs of doing.