Well it depends on definition of wall. In some areas a brick and mortar or steel wall seems appropriate. But, obviously a wall is not going to be built in the middle of the Rio Grand. In this area some enhanced electronic means would serve as some sort of wall if you define wall as a barrier.
Also, authorization of deadly force would serve as a deterrent.
This whole wall thing makes you ask a few questions... For instance instead of spending 30B dollars on something that is, at least, Somewhat questionable as far as success is concerned, why don't we make laws HERE that put pressure on any business hiring illegals??
The truth is we HAVE immigration laws. We (meaning every administration) has turned a blind eye to enforcing them. Now we have a real problem with what that decision is costing us as fall out. It seems to me it would be cheaper if we just discouraged them by putting pressure on our own companies and employers to not hire illegals. They have ALL played a part in their being able to exist here.
Building an expensive wall doesn't seem practical when we can intact laws that would work if they were enforced.
Does anyone know HOW they should be enforcing the laws?? I mean what do they do to prove violation and what are the consequences??
I agree new laws might not be needed but I was thinking of making them address this issue of employment here in a direct and penetrating way and not sure if the old ones were truly very effective even if observed as they should have been?
Also, no public funds or services of any kind should go to any illegal alien.
What services do you believe they receive? They aren't eligible for food stamps, social security (despite paying into it) welfare and other federal benefits. While yes, there are exceptions to every rule, it's a lie that they abuse the system. A white male living in Kingwood is more likely to receive and abuse benefits than an undocumented immigrant.
Illegals get free medical care at ERs. Parents of anchor babies do get assistance for the child. Illegals get free legal assistance. As a result of the 1982 SCOTUS decision states are required to provide education through k12 regardless of legal status. That includes meals.
"Current federal policy is to prohibit federal tax funding of health care to unauthorized immigrants through either Medicaid or Obamacare. Nevertheless, rough estimates suggest that the nation's 3.9 million uninsured immigrants who are unauthorized likely receive about $4.6 billion in health services paid for by federal taxes, $2.8 billion in health services financed by state and local taxpayers, another $3.0 bankrolled through "cost-shifting" i.e., higher payments by insured patients to cover hospital uncompensated care losses, and roughly $1.5 billion in physician charity care. In addition to these amounts, unauthorized immigrants likely benefit from at least $0.9 billion in implicit federal subsidies due to the tax exemption for nonprofit hospitals and another $5.7 billion in tax expenditures from the employer tax exclusion."
Laws COULD matter if we enforced them. But we haven't. Now to build a wall that costs so much and is a question mark as far as efficiency, why not just enforce our laws, tweak them, address the issue of what we're dealing with now, but be consistent and enforce.
Yes, the wall is dramatic, and expensive, but it almost sounds outrageous compared to enforcing laws?? Whyyyyyyy.......(insert Nancy Kerrigan wailing)
It's out in the open. Always has been. People have been screaming about unregulated immigration for 100 years, or more. But it gets drowned out by the cacaphony of consumers wanting cheap prices. "
I meant WHY the USA is afraid to actually enforce the existing laws and seems to avoid doing so like the plague. It's obvious to the people that they chose not to. It most likely a political move that they're afraid of looking like the bad guys.
meant WHY the USA is afraid to actually enforce the existing laws and seems to avoid doing so like the plague. It's obvious to the people that they chose not to. It most likely a political move that they're afraid of looking like the bad guys.Â
Democratic (socialist) politicians desperately need the illegals as a future voting block. If you can't see that, you are in denial. Certain republicans like the cheap labor requiring no benefits.
If you read the whole study, they are pretty far behind other legal immigrants eligible for citizenship. I'll try and post it. But when asked why they don't apply, they cited lack of English skills, the fee and something else as to why.
There shouldn't be a ballot in anything but English. i f you can't speak /read the language, you shouldn't be able to vote. It used to be that you had to take your citizenship test in English. Why did that change??
How is it the law hasn't changed, but all gov't tests are offered in other languages? How do you become a citizen if you don't speak/understand English? Pledge allegiance to the USA, but hang the Mexican flag?
Yes I know that. I mentioned it bc Dvaz said the reason politicians don't push for enforcement of laws is bc they could be a voting block. Annnd my point is, was, even the majority of the legal ones who are eligible for citizenship, don't actually go through with it, only 42% do. So no illegals are gonna end up voting lol