Dobbs on the Money again ... rips Bush and Kennedy

[Bubba]

Well, you're advocating that citizen children be deported, which legally cannot be done. If the parents don't take their kids with them, they're our responsibility, draining our tax dollars for up to 18 years and, in some cases, becoming totally dysfunctional and turning to crime. Alternatively, we set up boarding schools around the country for them, pay for their private education, etc. Does that work for you? Or maybe we'll just reopen our WW II vintage internment camps that the Japanese were placed into out west. How will that sit with you?

No, re-read what I wrote. I said that their parents should be deported and what they do with their kids is up to them seeing as how they were the one that endangered their child's welfare.

I would think very few would leave their children, but for those who do, I'd prefer my taxes go to supporting US Citizens versus a family of illegals.

If the children grew-up in English speaking households, there is a great chance they would actually be more successful then if they grew-up with their law-breaking, border jumping, uneducated, Spanish speaking parents. The same percentage for success exists that exists for the child to turn to crime and illegal activities ... same as it does for children of bona fide US Citizens.

Deport the parents ... let them choose what to do with their children, for those children left in the US that are citizens, I don't object to may tax dollars going to their care .... the alternative is far worse in my opinion.

Why should any leave on their own? They came here illegally and they've been here in most cases for years. What makes you think they'll all start marching quietly toward the border? As for the rest, you think we have the resources to even begin processing, incarcerating and deporting even 1 million people? Damn, the jails will be filled; new jails will have to be built; and the justice system will be tied up in knots for years.

Um, why shouldn't we? Some will leave the US and some won't. Heck, some will live their whole lives and never get caught, but many will and many will consequently be deported or start the path of citizenship.

No we don't, which is why illegals should be deported when they're caught. I'm not hoping for a mass round-up, just deport those that are caught. If we don't have the resources, let's allocate some.

Don't jail any of them, just deport them ... unless of course they committed murder, etc.

Beating their drum? No. Just explaining the illogic and impracticality of what you advocate. I should also be amazed at your ignorance but, having read your posts here for the past few years, amazement has waned.

Hmm .... enforcing the law is illogical and impractical and the "cost effective, tax payer conscious, no-amnesty-giving" alternative is ....?

My ignorance? I'll admit it when I'm being dense, ignorant, or difficult, but this is not one of these cases. Please select at which points you beleive I'm being ignorant. Sure, my point-of-view and solution may be different then yours, but I don't see how my solution is any more ignorant then your own?

Anyways, to keep things interesting, what's your alternative? I'm all ears.

Personally, having all the numbers/costs would sure help this debate. If I had the time and I knew someone somewhere had the interest, I'd bust all the costs out into a spreadsheet and see what were really talking about. Quite frankly, both you and I are just throwing costs and tax dollars around with no real perspective unto how the numbers really workout.

I'm certainly not advocating that "citizens" be deported, not sure how you got that from what I said, but OK. Maybe you're referring to the illegals "anchor children" that were born in the US and are now citizens. Fortunately, this isn't our problem. We deport the parents, what happens to the kids is, up to the parents ... after all, the parents got their kids in the mess to begin with.

Ah no they are potentially OUR problem. They are citizens. They can't be deported. If the parents decide to leave them here - which many may well do figuring life as an orphan in the US is preferable to going home -
they become society's problem.

And that's completely beside the point that it would be immoral for us as a society to force millions of parents to make that choice.

Yes, yes they are our problem. See what I wrote above.

As for being immoral, what do you mean? Is it immoral for us to send a crack whore to jail and leave her child alone and in some type of orphanage? Is it immoral when we split up a family and send someone to jail as is the case with some of the Enron executives? Is it immoral for a supporting father to go to jail for three consecutive DUI's when he has to support a family of 4?

Do you see a trend? All of these parents made that choice when they broke the law. They put their family and children lives and well being at risk and it's not immoral for us to remind them of that just like we do to average US citizens everyday.

If you're advocating that the "family situation" should be taken into account, then in all the cases above, their family situation would have to be taken into account and the charges brought by the prosecutor should fit for the "criminal's" "family situation".

Just a guess here, but you never read or saw Sophie's Choice, did you.

[XtremeJibber2001]

Just a guess here, but you never read or saw Sophie's Choice, did you.

No, but I'm guessing their is a punch-line coming?

I'm still curious to hear your solution or thoughts on the process ... don't make me break out the Google Maps, I'll do it!

[Dr. NO]

...There is a bill to increase boarder security and to build a fense to help slow the flow. Do it now and then work on getting rid of or doing something about those already here. We do not need another get to stay in America Free bill.

Dr. NO you ignorant slut.

The bill that you're so against says, in effect, exactly what you're demanding. In effect, the bill:

1. Increases border security with increased funds, fences, high tech security and more border guards.

2. Only after the southern border is secure, those already here as of January 1, 2007 will be allowed to pay a significant fine, spend something like 8 additional years here during which they must work, pay taxes, learn English, stay out of criminal trouble and only then be allowed to become citizens.

That bill, which you're so against, does exactly what you want it to. It's far from free.

Why do we need #1 AGAIN? The law is already on the books and money already alocated from over a year ago for patrols, high tech security and the fence. Use it and enforce the current laws. AMnesty will not work. By any name you or the government calls it, it is an Amnesty bill. Enforce the law and procecute felons.

[Bubba]

...There is a bill to increase boarder security and to build a fense to help slow the flow. Do it now and then work on getting rid of or doing something about those already here. We do not need another get to stay in America Free bill.

Dr. NO you ignorant slut.

The bill that you're so against says, in effect, exactly what you're demanding. In effect, the bill:

1. Increases border security with increased funds, fences, high tech security and more border guards.

2. Only after the southern border is secure, those already here as of January 1, 2007 will be allowed to pay a significant fine, spend something like 8 additional years here during which they must work, pay taxes, learn English, stay out of criminal trouble and only then be allowed to become citizens.

That bill, which you're so against, does exactly what you want it to. It's far from free.

Why do we need #1 AGAIN? The law is already on the books and money already alocated from over a year ago for patrols, high tech security and the fence. Use it and enforce the current laws. AMnesty will not work. By any name you or the government calls it, it is an Amnesty bill. Enforce the law and procecute felons.

More money needs to be allocated, that's why #1 is needed. The fence and the allocation last year wasn't even close to covering the whole border with Mexico. #2 does not begin until #1 is complete.

Anyway, you said we need do "nadda" on deportation so you're for not enforcing the law, thus in favor of amnesty. You've apparently seen the light.

[Bubba]

Just a guess here, but you never read or saw Sophie's Choice, did you.

No, but I'm guessing their is a punch-line coming?

I'm still curious to hear your solution or thoughts on the process ... don't make me break out the Google Maps, I'll do it!

I've already stated the solution. Secure the border first, then give those here a path to legal status and citizenship. In other words, the bill (as I understand it) that is currently in the Senate.

[XtremeJibber2001]

Well, at least we all agree we need to secure the boarder. I'll bet you that quite a few Dem's oppose the fence, however.

[Bubba]

Well, at least we all agree we need to secure the boarder. I'll bet you that quite a few Dem's oppose the fence, however.

So they oppose the fence. So what? Why do you oppose the bill? You're in favor of building the fence and securing the border. You don't think it's practical to deport millions of people. You know you can't legally deport their citizen children. And you want people to become legal and potentially become citizens. Why, then, do you oppose the bill that actually accomplishes what you want?

[BigKahuna13]

Well, at least we all agree we need to secure the boarder. I'll bet you that quite a few Dem's oppose the fence, however.

So they oppose the fence. So what? Why do you oppose the bill? You're in favor of building the fence and securing the border. You don't think it's practical to deport millions of people. You know you can't legally deport their citizen children. And you want people to become legal and potentially become citizens. Why, then, do you oppose the bill that actually accomplishes what you want?

cause then there wouldn't be anything to argue about??

[XtremeJibber2001]

Well, at least we all agree we need to secure the boarder. I'll bet you that quite a few Dem's oppose the fence, however.

So they oppose the fence. So what? Why do you oppose the bill? You're in favor of building the fence and securing the border. You don't think it's practical to deport millions of people. You know you can't legally deport their citizen children. And you want people to become legal and potentially become citizens. Why, then, do you oppose the bill that actually accomplishes what you want?

I oppose the bill because making the illegals return to Mexico is not practical, not the slightest.

I agree it's not practical to deport 12 million illegals, but over time, if the laws are enforced, the number will dwindle and after 50-100 years, the picture will be quite different.

Don't need to deport their children, they'll opt to go with their parents or visa-versa and the alternative is an acceptable risk in my opinion.

It doesn't accomplish what I want, only 1 item in the bill is 100% what I want.

[Bubba]

Well, at least we all agree we need to secure the boarder. I'll bet you that quite a few Dem's oppose the fence, however.

So they oppose the fence. So what? Why do you oppose the bill? You're in favor of building the fence and securing the border. You don't think it's practical to deport millions of people. You know you can't legally deport their citizen children. And you want people to become legal and potentially become citizens. Why, then, do you oppose the bill that actually accomplishes what you want?

I oppose the bill because making the illegals return to Mexico is not practical, not the slightest.

The bill doesn't do this, does it?

I agree it's not practical to deport 12 million illegals, but over time, if the laws are enforced, the number will dwindle and after 50-100 years, the picture will be quite different.

The bill includes stiff penalties for employers who hire illegals. It requires certain specific, rather difficult to forge, identification requirements and includes a guest worker program so those business that require immigrant labor on a temporary basis can hire. This should, over time, change the picture.

Now, as to your continuous references to "enforcing the law", the law makes these people illegal at present. Your enforcement require deportation. You cannot be for enforcement but believe that deporting 12 million is impractical. The statements are clearly and obviously contradictory on their face.

:::::Holds insults about XJ's apparent lack of intelligence:::::

Don't need to deport their children, they'll opt to go with their parents or visa-versa and the alternative is an acceptable risk in my opinion.

Your confidence in this thesis is overshadowed by your lack of logical thought elsewhere. What if you're wrong?

It doesn't accomplish what I want, only 1 item in the bill is 100% what I want.

[XtremeJibber2001]

Well, at least we all agree we need to secure the boarder. I'll bet you that quite a few Dem's oppose the fence, however.

So they oppose the fence. So what? Why do you oppose the bill? You're in favor of building the fence and securing the border. You don't think it's practical to deport millions of people. You know you can't legally deport their citizen children. And you want people to become legal and potentially become citizens. Why, then, do you oppose the bill that actually accomplishes what you want?

I oppose the bill because making the illegals return to Mexico is not practical, not the slightest.

The bill doesn't do this, does it?

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. Read much?

The Y-2B visa would be effective for 10 months, after which the guest worker would be required to return home for at least two months. Those visas could be renewed an unlimited number of times. Unlike the Y-1 visa program, those extensions would not count against the
annual limit. Guest workers also would be able to bring their spouses and children into the United States with them. Implementing this program would not depend on the Secretary of DHS’s certification, but would begin shortly after enactment of the legislation.

Senate Bill
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:S.1348:

The House plan (HR 1645) gives illegal immigrants in the US a chance to move toward legal status and citizenship, with a couple of hurdles:

* Illegals who have been in the US almost a year can apply to stay in the country after paying a $500 fine and proving that they were working before June 2006.
* After six years of crime-free living - and learning English - immigrants can apply for permanent status that can lead to citizenship after paying an additional $1,500.
* Before the process is up, working immigrants would have to "touch back" in their home country - that is, go home at least once.
* The House is considering limiting family visas to just spouses and children (as opposed to other family members, as the law now permits).

House Bill
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.1645:

Are you sure when you called me ignorant you weren't referring to yourself? You seem awfully ill informed about the subject matter to be calling me ignorant

The bill includes stiff penalties for employers who hire illegals. It requires certain specific, rather difficult to forge, identification requirements and includes a guest worker program so those business that require immigrant labor on a temporary basis can hire. This should, over time, change the picture.

Now, as to your continuous references to "enforcing the law", the law makes these people illegal at present. Your enforcement require deportation. You cannot be for enforcement but believe that deporting 12 million is impractical. The statements are clearly and obviously contradictory on their face.

:::::Holds insults about XJ's apparent lack of intelligence:::::

Deporting 12 million illegals at one time is impractical, but doing so over 50-100 years is not. Nothing contradictory about it. You assume I have this lack of intelligence, but I don't think you've really looked at the bills yourself ... as is evident in your failure to understand what the bill actually entails. Its also not clear which version of the bill you're referring to.

Your confidence in this thesis is overshadowed by your lack of logical thought elsewhere. What if you're wrong?

Thesis? Hardly. I love how you attempt to belittle my intelligence purely for the fact that I disagree with some of your ideas/opinions.

Maybe I am wrong, but what if you're wrong? What if we all die tomorrow? What if GWB was actually intelligent? What if you never replied to my posting? What if, what if, what if.

[Bubba]

Well, at least we all agree we need to secure the boarder. I'll bet you that quite a few Dem's oppose the fence, however.

So they oppose the fence. So what? Why do you oppose the bill? You're in favor of building the fence and securing the border. You don't think it's practical to deport millions of people. You know you can't legally deport their citizen children. And you want people to become legal and potentially become citizens. Why, then, do you oppose the bill that actually accomplishes what you want?

I oppose the bill because making the illegals return to Mexico is not practical, not the slightest.

The bill doesn't do this, does it?

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. Read much?

The Y-2B visa would be effective for 10 months, after which the guest worker would be required to return home for at least two months. Those visas could be renewed an unlimited number of times. Unlike the Y-1 visa program, those extensions would not count against the
annual limit. Guest workers also would be able to bring their spouses and children into the United States with them. Implementing this program would not depend on the Secretary of DHS’s certification, but would begin shortly after enactment of the legislation.

Senate Bill
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:S.1348:

The House plan (HR 1645) gives illegal immigrants in the US a chance to move toward legal status and citizenship, with a couple of hurdles:

* Illegals who have been in the US almost a year can apply to stay in the country after paying a $500 fine and proving that they were working before June 2006.
* After six years of crime-free living - and learning English - immigrants can apply for permanent status that can lead to citizenship after paying an additional $1,500.
* Before the process is up, working immigrants would have to "touch back" in their home country - that is, go home at least once.
* The House is considering limiting family visas to just spouses and children (as opposed to other family members, as the law now permits).

House Bill
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.1645:

Are you sure when you called me ignorant you weren't referring to yourself? You seem awfully ill informed about the subject matter to be calling me ignorant

I agree, the "touch back" provision could be an issue but I believe if people have gone as far as to pay the fine, etc. they would more than likely "touch back" if necessary. I thought you were referring to something more meaningful than that.

The bill includes stiff penalties for employers who hire illegals. It requires certain specific, rather difficult to forge, identification requirements and includes a guest worker program so those business that require immigrant labor on a temporary basis can hire. This should, over time, change the picture.

Now, as to your continuous references to "enforcing the law", the law makes these people illegal at present. Your enforcement require deportation. You cannot be for enforcement but believe that deporting 12 million is impractical. The statements are clearly and obviously contradictory on their face.

:::::Holds insults about XJ's apparent lack of intelligence:::::

Deporting 12 million illegals at one time is impractical, but doing so over 50-100 years is not. Nothing contradictory about it. You assume I have this lack of intelligence, but I don't think you've really looked at the bills yourself ... as is evident in your failure to understand what the bill actually entails. Its also not clear which version of the bill you're referring to.

So you're going to deport 12 million people over 50 - 100 years? LOL...they'll mostly be dead and buried over that time period. In effect, you're saying they can stay - amnesty - which is what you don't want.

Your confidence in this thesis is overshadowed by your lack of logical thought elsewhere. What if you're wrong?

Thesis? Hardly. I love how you attempt to belittle my intelligence purely for the fact that I disagree with some of your ideas/opinions.

Your logic is barely existent in repeated threads, therefore I must question the underlying intelligence that drives such illogical statements. One can hold a differing opinion and back it up with fact and logic. You've repeatedly shown little capacity to meet that minimum standard.


Maybe I am wrong, but what if you're wrong? What if we all die tomorrow? What if GWB was actually intelligent? What if you never replied to my posting? What if, what if, what if.

If I never replied to your posting, you'd still be back in the dark ages, relying on Fox News as your sole point of reference and believing everything Sean Hannity says. In other words, you'd be a certifiable idiot.

[JerseyGuy]

Deporting 12 million illegals at one time is impractical, but doing so over 50-100 years is not...

... What if we all die tomorrow?...

... What if GWB was actually intelligent?

In fairness to JibJab, Bubba, deporting 12 million illegal immigrants over 50 years sounds perfectly practical. Why, that would only be 657.53 "illegals" per day, or 10.95833333 "illegals" per minute. Sure, we might have to speed up the deportation machines a bit if, say, we took weekends and holidays off, but still, that'll work, right?

Unless, of course, we all DO die tomorrow. Then someone would probably have to hire new illegals to deport the old illegals. And without all of, you know, US around to manage the new illegals, they'll probably lose focus after a while and spend all day watching Telemundo, eating tacos and sitting around waiting for the welfare checks to roll in. Which won't happen, of course, 'cause we'll all be dead.

But as for Dubya being "actually intelligent"... well, JibJab, I really don't think we'll have to worry about that particular hypothetical...

[XtremeJibber2001]

I agree, the "touch back" provision could be an issue but I believe if people have gone as far as to pay the fine, etc. they would more than likely "touch back" if necessary. I thought you were referring to something more meaningful than that.

Bob and weave Bubba ... Bob and weave! Saying you were wrong is much more gratifying for me (Just an FYI for future reference!). More meaningful then that? I have a hard time imagining something more meaningful then leaving the country you've lived in for several years illegally, but heck, what do I know.

So you're going to deport 12 million people over 50 - 100 years? LOL...they'll mostly be dead and buried over that time period. In effect, you're saying they can stay - amnesty - which is what you don't want.

It's not amnesty at all. If someone smokes crack their whole life and never gets caught, is that amnesty? That's what you're saying. JG made a good point, thanks buddy.

Your logic is barely existent in repeated threads, therefore I must question the underlying intelligence that drives such illogical statements. One can hold a differing opinion and back it up with fact and logic. You've repeatedly shown little capacity to meet that minimum standard.

Fine, I'll give you that (didn't I say this in this thread previously), but where is the missing logic this go-around? Can you point it out? Seems fairly clear to me.

If I never replied to your posting, you'd still be back in the dark ages, relying on Fox News as your sole point of reference and believing everything Sean Hannity says. In other words, you'd be a certifiable idiot.

You're right, I sure would. I'm not afraid to admit people know more then myself, sometimes I'm not as informed as I'd like to be, and sometimes I bite off more then I can chew ... in all these circumstances, I'm honest about it ... that's more then I can say for some

[Bubba]

I agree, the "touch back" provision could be an issue but I believe if people have gone as far as to pay the fine, etc. they would more than likely "touch back" if necessary. I thought you were referring to something more meaningful than that.

Bob and weave Bubba ... Bob and weave! Saying you were wrong is much more gratifying for me (Just an FYI for future reference!). More meaningful then that? I have a hard time imagining something more meaningful then leaving the country you've lived in for several years illegally, but heck, what do I know.

Well, since I thought you were talking about some other "send back to Mexico" issue and not the touch back provision, all I can say is I misinterpreted what you were saying. If that makes me wrong, so be it. By the way, you'd also have to send people back to the rest of Latin America, Europe, Asia and Africa under this provision. Of course, since embassies are considered foreign soil, the touch back provision might be satisfied by a trip to Washington. Either way, if one is going to file papers for legalized status and pay the fine needed, the touch back provision should not be a major hurdle.

So you're going to deport 12 million people over 50 - 100 years? LOL...they'll mostly be dead and buried over that time period. In effect, you're saying they can stay - amnesty - which is what you don't want.

It's not amnesty at all. If someone smokes crack their whole life and never gets caught, is that amnesty? That's what you're saying. JG made a good point, thanks buddy.

It's effectively amnesty if you assume enforcement will take 50 - 100 years. And, if it takes that long, what's the point of enforcement? We'd be far better off with the path to citizenship provisions in the bill. As for your drug analogy, most of our drug laws are essentially unenforceable so that may be a reasonable analogy, just not in the way you meant it. Laws that are unenforceable are meaningless. Enforcement of deportation law for 12 million potential criminals is, essentially, impossible thus unenforceable, thus meaningless.

Your logic is barely existent in repeated threads, therefore I must question the underlying intelligence that drives such illogical statements. One can hold a differing opinion and back it up with fact and logic. You've repeatedly shown little capacity to meet that minimum standard.

Fine, I'll give you that (didn't I say this in this thread previously), but where is the missing logic this go-around? Can you point it out? Seems fairly clear to me.

Damn, you may be more dense than I thought. You want enforcement of the laws against illegal immigration for 12 million people that are already here, yet you don't support deportation as it is impractical. Doh! You can't enforce without deportation. Oh, wait, I'm sorry...you support deportation over a 50 - 100 year period. Yeah, I guess you're right. Your logic holds. Sorry, I must have overlooked your implicit logic.

If I never replied to your posting, you'd still be back in the dark ages, relying on Fox News as your sole point of reference and believing everything Sean Hannity says. In other words, you'd be a certifiable idiot.

You're right, I sure would. I'm not afraid to admit people know more then myself, sometimes I'm not as informed as I'd like to be, and sometimes I bite off more then I can chew ... in all these circumstances, I'm honest about it ... that's more then I can say for some


There are times I think that the quantity required for you to bite off more than you can chew is something the size of an M&M.