I can see it now, 20 million Mexicans hanging out at the embassy ...Bubba wrote: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 current drug laws have been ineffective? They've been effective, I know quite a few people who were arrested and fined .... that's not meaningless, especially to those individuals who got caught. It would also not be meaningless if illegals were deported and a strong fence was there to thwart the next intrusion.Bubba wrote: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.
My analogy is reasonable, but not the way I meant it? Huh? Which way would it have "worked"?
I'm not going over this again. If the law is enforced, that's not amnesty.Bubba wrote: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.
You can think what you want, but you're incorrect in my opinion.Bubba wrote: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.