Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
The Big Lie: Protecting Our Borders
If you were told that “Obama says it’s okay to come to the US,” wouldn’t you make the trip? That’s what people in Mexico are told, and they are also learning that they only need to say the right words to be able to stay here: “political asylum.”
Based on a piece produced by KUSI TV in San Diego, it’s clear that the Obama administration has no regard for the American people or for protecting our borders. Daniel Plante, a reporter with the TV station spoke to Chris Harris of the National Border Patrol Council about the current border issues in San Diego.
https://youtu.be/FsTMt1WHHJU
In the video, Harris reminds Plante that Congress approved funds for 2,000 more border patrol agents, but the funds have not been used to hire new agents. The partial walls are not walls, but are fences that provide little security for our border. They are sometimes destroyed or crawled over. In his comments, Harris explained that the border patrol is little more than a welcoming committee: illegal aliens are given food, blankets and medical supplies by the border patrol. They are then driven to the San Ysidro bus stop on our side of the border and dropped off. And they are also provided with more food, blankets, and medicine to take home with them.
To replace fences with walls, according to Harris, will be extremely expensive. Meanwhile, fences without an appropriate infrastructure to support them, will be useless.
The most telling story was about a man who crossed illegally and explained he had a heart condition. Of course, he was provided heart surgery in a US hospital.
Do people think the wall, with the necessary support technology will ever happen?
Published in Immigration
First, I’m not on the right.
Second, I don’t see what’s wrong in appealing to compassion, or decency, or respect for human life.
Third, I don’t think that is the “favored cudgel of the left.” Most conservatives I know are all about compassion, decency, and respect for human life.
What I found shocking was this line from the OP:
As if, by virtue of breaking an unjust an unworkable long, and therefore becoming “criminals,” these people are somehow no longer humans, or worthy of basic decent treatment. It’s as if giving them food and blankets is somehow coddling them.
However, I strongly suspected that Susan had more human decency than that, thus mine line of questioning. And yes, I was trying to appeal to her compassion for her fellow human beings. I don’t see that as a bad thing.
I don’t think my tax money should pay for your sense of “human decency”.
Your very formulation is set up to say anyone who disagrees with you is a horrible human being. Just like the Left.
Translation, taking money by force from one set of people and using it to take care of non-citizens in the act of breaking the law is “compassion”.
Seems odd , from a man who thinks that being forced to fight to defend your fellow citizens from invasion is immoral. Oh, you might do it on your own, but you are against people being forced to do it. Here you want to force people to pay for this, and that is OK.
Really, Fred, just admit you think that transfer of wealth is moral. Seems totally un-libertarian to me. But, hyper-consistency is a libertarian thing, so I’ll just keep pounding you on this inconsistency.
Speaking of which, you still have refused to answer this Fred:
How does the poor guy pay in your open borders world? He had no money in Mexico. He gets money the moment he moves to America?
Of course they are human and they are breaking the law. It is possible to be both. We didn’t lure them to our country, Fred, they chose to come. We didn’t promise them anything. But if you think I lack human decency, that’s your choice. I show my compassion to those in this country who need it. I am not required to show compassion to everyone. I will let my overall words and actions speak to whether I am a decent person or not.
Actually the complete opposite. That’s why I found the implications of your words to be so shocking.
He pays it off the way the rest of us would. Probably in installments.
It’s be a hell of a lot easier to pay it off here in America, where his labor is more valuable, than in Mexico.
Uh, what part of your medical ethics training lead you to believe you could share a patients medical records in a public forum? You should have your license pulled.
I’ll remind you of this the next time you want to tell me what color to paint my house.
I love logical fallacies especially when spouted by someone with a PhD.
Don’t they have hospitals in Mexico? Is it ok that Mexico doesn’t care for their sick, and tacitly encourages them to come here?
I don’t know if the wall will happen, but I don’t think it matters. What is important is the attitude of the people who enforce the laws. The biggest hole is overstaying visas and disappearing. Every airport is a border so is every thousand miles of our coasts. If we don’t have a way to enforce our laws nothing will make a difference. What we hope is that we can see a wall that is a symbol of a serious administration. A wall without seriousness isn’t serious.
We already take in more than 1 million legal immigrants annually. Are you saying you think that number should be higher? How high? Because the reality is that hundreds of millions of people around the world would choose to come here. Then what?
I really don’t mean to be rude, but that is incredibly naive. What does heart surgery cost?
Do people think the wall, with the necessary support technology will ever happen?
In my more fanciful moments I’d like to think that Hillary might want to do a Nixon to China on this issue to reposition the Dems with the deplorables. Then I come back to reality.
I think there isn’t a correct number. Whatever the market demands.
And while surveys may indicated hundreds of millions of people would choose to come here, the fact of the matter is, realistically, most of them wouldn’t. It’s expensive to come to the United States.
Some people will come and stay. Some will work, send money home, and then leave. And the remittances, combined with the reduced population pressures will make their home countries better, so there will be less pressure for others to leave.
And in the meantime, we as a nation will benefit from there presence. Don’t believe the nativist disinformation. Immigration is a net benefit for the United States, economically and socially.
Duh.
Money. Always money. Some are running from the law or other issues. But it is usually money.
Mexico has 10s of millions of tourist a year. Not many people go to hell for vacation. Truth is if it was not next to the US many illegal immigrants would be stopping in Mexico. That and the 2 year jail sentence for first time offenders of their immigrantion laws. Laws they enforce.
Yes you can. People do this every day. It’s called filing for bankruptcy protection. Or, for citizens of other countries, it’s called “returning home.”
The normal market forces don’t work when our government provides an alternative to work.
It is you who don’t understand the rules. No HPI was shared there. Sorry, no cigar for you.
Is Fred Cole the grand inquisitor of Ricochet?
I’m really happy to see this, but I think it’s too late. The OP is correct: Obama, with DACA and his “dreamer” meme, has sent the consistent message that if you get in you can stay in.
We’ve let the Left control the language about illegal immigration and deportation:
“Breaking up families”? The whole family can leave, who’s stoppin’ em?
“A better life”? That means making more money (and since when does the Left find that such a laudable goal?).
“In the shadows”? That’s when illegals march down our streets waving foreign flags and when Mrs. Bill herself proudly announces she’s going to employ them in violation of federal law to go out and ring doorbells for her campaign. That’s when large American cities receiving billions in Federal aid flaunt US law: and our government approves.
“Where are they going to go”? Back to the relatives who’ve been benefitting by their remittances all these years.
Only one candidate actually spoke up for secure borders. Yes, a wall. And even a former Mexican official admits its perfectly possible Mexico could be made to pay for it. (Now that it’s not a white American saying this, maybe the Left will stop ridiculing the idea.)
For his position on this issue alone, we all should have been behind Trump from day one.
No borders, no country.
Federal Immigration and Nationality Act
Section 8 USC 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv)(b)(iii)
“Any person who . . . encourages or induces an alien to . . . reside . . . knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such . . . residence is . . . in violation of law, shall be punished as provided . . . for each alien in respect to whom such a violation occurs . . . fined under title 18 . . . imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.”
Section 274 felonies under the federal Immigration and Nationality Act, INA 274A(a)(1)(A):
A person (including a group of persons, business, organization, or local government) commits a federal felony when she or he:
* assists an alien s/he should reasonably know is illegally in the U.S. or who lacks employment authorization, by transporting, sheltering, or assisting him or her to obtain employment, or
* encourages that alien to remain in the U.S. by referring him or her to an employer or by acting as employer or agent for an employer in any way, or
* knowingly assists illegal aliens due to personal convictions.
Penalties upon conviction include criminal fines, imprisonment, and forfeiture of vehicles and real property used to commit the crime. Anyone employing or contracting with an illegal alien without verifying his or her work authorization status is guilty of a misdemeanor. Aliens and employers violating immigration laws are subject to arrest, detention, and seizure of their vehicles or property.
There are probably a billion poor in the third world who would come here if they could. Do we let them all in? Just the ones who can walk in? What will labor be worth in America with another 100 million migrants?
Heart bypass surgery typically costs about $70,000-$200,000 or more, and heart valve replacement surgery typically costs $80,000-$200,000 or more. According to the United Network for Organ Sharing , the total cost of a heart transplant can reach almost $800,000 or more.
Can you identify the patient?
Perfectly acceptable.
As the Supreme Court has noted, “the Due Process Clause applies to all ‘persons’ within the United States, including aliens, whether their presence here is lawful, unlawful, temporary, or permanent.” While aliens outside the United States are not entitled to constitutional protections, aliens physically present in the country—lawfully or otherwise—enjoy LIMITED protections. What process is due depends on specific facts and circumstances and varies from case to case, and illegal immigrants DO NOT have rights coextensive with those of citizens: “[A] host of constitutional and statutory provisions rest on the premise that a legitimate distinction between citizens and aliens may justify attributes and benefits for one class NOT ACCORDED to the other.” The entire structure of immigration law represents line-drawing of a sort that would be impermissible in other circumstances. Thus, as the Supreme Court has made clear, distinctions between citizens and immigrants, or between different classes of immigrants, do not give rise to any presumption of a violation of due process or equal protection.
A major question to me is whether we are called to provide aid to illegal aliens who choose to cross the border. They know they’ve broken the law (otherwise they wouldn’t need Obama’s lawless approval); they know they are not welcome; they know there are consequences when they break the law, in everyday circumstances. Even if they believe Obama can supersede the law, since when is ignorance of the law a defense? Fred raised the question of compassion. It’s worth looking at that question. What is compassion? If we offer more than the basics (like a drink of water) are we abetting the crime? Can we justify compassion in the face of lawless behavior? These are questions worth looking at. For example, I know people who keep getting themselves into trouble (personal and legal) over and over again. At some level they realize they are responsible for their situation (although they often blame others). To what degree do I offer “comfort”? Am I encouraging their poor decisions if I do?