For those who are curious...

[LucasJamison]

In many cases it is not whether the laws are on the books, it is whether they are enforced. Many of the current penalties on the books would be quite effective if they were simply enforced.

I don't think there are many laws against providing aid such as you go on to describe... might fall under conspiracy or accessory after the fact statutes, in some cases, I suppose.  Primary enforcement would continue to be against the principals, in this case the aliens themselves, and as far as I know that's what's happening.

There are several towns along the border that are so afraid of the consequences of enforcing border securitry that they have built bridges with special student lanes to help students who live in Mexico get to school in the USA faster. Other groups provide maps to Mexicans so they will find the best way across the border.

Happen to know which towns?

In addition to various maps available, some groups also actively seek desert-area border crossers to provide transportation, first aid, water, and food.  I could see possible prosecution of those individuals as accessories after the fact to the crime, but from what I can tell the top penalties for that would be 1 year in prison and $125, plus other possible fines.  Of course this is just federal law - some states may have other applicable provisions.

If we at least started with the Mexican border as far as fences go, it would help greatly.

Granted, the majority of illegal aliens of the type people are concerned about, are coming across the southern US border.  That's only about 2000 miles.  Still a pretty big fence.  Figure the initial cost of a 2000 mile long triple-layer fence, complete with redundant power supplies, sensors, and full time human monitoring (in addition to patrolling)... millions?  billions?  Obviously, they're not going to build a 2000 mile long fence.  They'd pick, as we do now, the easiest places to cross, then shore those up.  Then the next most easiest, and so on, until it was effective.  It would  be incremental, and take, what, at least 10-20 years to play it out until the only places not fenced and heavily patrolled are those so naturally deadly that no one wants to try.  But that's at least more sensible and cost effective than a giant fence all at once.  I think we're still talking billions, though, and decades.

The cost would be defrayed some by the savings of not providing schooling for illegals or medical care, not to mention welfare benefits.

Well, what DO those cost?  Does it come close to balancing out?

As far as making so most buisinesses won't hire illegals for fear of huge fines, this is a deterrant for those crossing the border if they know there will not be work, healthcare or places for them to live.

Well, there're always going to be places to live, and some measure of healthcare and human services provided to anyone in the US.  This isn't so much a welfare/handout thing as a public health and safety thing.  "Hey, we can't turn the hoses on until you show us your papers" isn't going to wash as a firefighting policy, for a slightly absurd example.

Those who help illegals cross should face severe penalties, such as fines and jail time. Any municipality that does not enforce federal laws should have federal funds stripped from them. If a bandaid is put on a huge cut it will do nothing.

You go from "enforce the existing laws", to "Those who help illegals cross should face severe penalties, such as fines and jail time." That's not what existing laws do, so you want new laws, right?

And, typically speaking, all federal funding is supplied with stipulations attached, but each source of funds has its own requirements attached, and generally different agencies or groups are responsible for compliance and enforcement, depending on which funds we're talking about.  I suppose you could establish a new bureaucractic layer for overseeing these disparate operations (or there might actually be one now), and create penalty like the one you describe.  Again, what would this cost, versus what it would save?  Not just in terms or money, but overall.

You initially reacted with concern that the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007 tried to do too much.  Have you read it?  Almost all of it does what you are asking for: the very first section is about extensive changes and enhancement to border enforcement.  Thousands of new border patrol positions are required, and 80% of those are to be allocated along the US-Mexico border.  Hundreds of miles of fencing are called for, and varioues new techniques, such as the use of UAVs and better interoperation with the US military and national guard.  Visa allocation and qualifying requirements are redefined, and as I noted in my initial resposne on the thread an enhanced EEVS is called for which would have a dramatic impact on the employability of, well, everyone, but especially unauthorized aliens.

What parts of the proposed legislation are you actually unhappy with?

[LucasJamison]

One of the many e-news letters I get mentioned it. I'll see if I can find it again and post it if I do.

I'd appreciate that.

But even if Kennedy did not say that, the point remains, there are people who will call you racist simply for wanting better border security.

There are people who say a lot of weird things.  There's a big difference between a US Senator saying that any call for border security form is necessarily motivated by racism and a nebulous "some people" calling some other people racists based on their immigration policy positions, I think you'd agree.  The most important difference being: why should anyone care about those "some people", if that's all it is?

Several years ago McDonalds was sued for the coffee incident. The lady initially won several tens of millions, but the award was substantially reduced on appeal. I know this example is true, but it is long ago that it would be harder to find any references than it is worth.

Oh, sorry - brain fart on my part.  Stella Liebeck, right?  1993, Liebeck v. McDonalds Restuarants et. al.?  New Mexico.  $2.9 million, dropped to like, half a million, further reduced, and then settled while pending further appeal by both parties?  Only THE most commonly cited example of so-called frivolous lawsuits EVAR?  So hot a topic on the WWW, even today, that the actual court records on the New Mexico courts website don't crack first few pages of results in a Google search?

I do remember that one.  's the problem with juries, I suppose.  As you noted, however, that's what the appeals process is for.  It got fixed, a settlement was reached, and the parties involved moved on.  If you have a better suggestion for how to set up the US legal system, I'd be interested in hearing it.

As for the Burger King case, I'll concede that I did not follow that one enough to know what happened with it. But just the fact that such a case was filed is a travesty. The lawyer who represented the case should be disbarred and publicly humiliated.

I was pretty sure you were referring to the 2003ish case where a NY lawyer filed on behalf of several individuals, I think relating to its business practices contributing to obesity.  Probably some kind of consumer protection law was the justification.  It was dismissed, and never went to trial or settlement, and I'm pretty sure BK wasn't the only named party in the complaint.  But there've probably been some others.  They just got hit with a new one in DC for violation of a DC consumer protection law, I think, again related to transfats, which seems to have slightly better grounds, and may move forward.  I suppose we'll see.

Again - people are allowed to file suit for pretty much anything.  If they get really obnoxious or annoying about it, I think there's a way to hold them accountable as individuals.  But "nuisance suits" don't tend to be a handful of people repeatedly filing complaints, so those sorts of actions aren't all that common.

As far as I know, disbarment typically occurs when one violates the bar associations code of ethics, or some personal misconduct or criminal activity.  Obviously this wasn't criminal or other private misconduct, and I'm pretty sure it doesn't violate the Association of the Bar of NY code of ethics, so I'm not sure where you're going with that.  People laughed about the suit, at the time, and it was dismissed.  's about as much as one could hope for, I'd say.

Again the point is, however, that even if I am wrong with these two examples, I could list several more, including some from friends of mine who are cops and prison guards and even a couple lawyers, about the nuisance suits that are filed all the time.

That's pretty dangerous thinking "even if all my supporting evidence is actually wrong, I'm still right, and I'll provide more hearsay that reinforces my existing biases", I mean, 's hardly reasonable or reponsible.

This was an odd tangent to go off on - I don't mind continuing it, but how'd we get here from immigration?

[Horace]

This was an odd tangent to go off on - I don't mind continuing it, but how'd we get here from immigration?

Probably because I see both issues as being different faces of the same big problem.
We spend so much time being distracted by the frivolous cases, even if it is just enough time for a judge to dismiss, that we arent actually fixing the real problems, like illegal immigration (among others)
Instead of spending the money to close the border, we spend many times more dealing with the costs illegal aliens incur. (free medical, education, welfare, the costs of the crimes illegals commit, the drugs they sometimes bring, etc)

As to the friviolous suits by prison inmates,
This one has a list of some of the frivolous cases that have been filed.
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/fun30.htm

Its not just hearsay. ;-)
Still looking for the Kennedy quote.

Brian

[LucasJamison]

Probably because I see both issues as being different faces of the same big problem.
We spend so much time being distracted by the frivolous cases, even if it is just enough time for a judge to dismiss, that we arent actually fixing the real problems, like illegal immigration (among others)  Instead of spending the money to close the border, we spend many times more dealing with the costs illegal aliens incur. (free medical, education, welfare, the costs of the crimes illegals commit, the drugs they sometimes bring, etc)

Well, judges actually don't have much to do with immigration law enforcement OR legislation, so I fail entirely to see how civil court divisions case backlog anyway impacts on dealing with illegal immigration.

Also, really, how much do aliens residing in the US without proper authorization to do so cost the US?  A ballpark figure, accurate to within even $10 billion, would be a good starting point for discussion.

As to the friviolous suits by prison inmates,
This one has a list of some of the frivolous cases that have been filed.
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/fun30.htm

The only way to determine whether or not a suit has some justification to continue, or not, is to have a judge look at it.  This is what is happening in the example you provided.  Are you suggesting that anyone who files a claim that is dismissed for any reason be fined, as a deterrent from filing merit-less suits?

Also, one of the frivolous cases, regarding the franchise of convicted, incarcerated prisoners, isn't all that frivolous in a general sense.  A constitutional challenge may have been inappropriate, but it's not something that hasn't generated reasonable discussion on its merits in the past.

Its not just hearsay. ;-)

To be clear: I was not calling the idea that there are frivolous lawsuits hearsay.  I was saying that otherwise unsubstantiated claims attributed to non-present third parties, such as those you stated you could provide as further support for your statements, would be hearsay.  Not that this makes them untrue, just that it makes them... less than convincing, unless there's enough detail provide to double check the stories from other sources.

[SigmaCaine]

Dave:

If I ever need a lawyer, I'm finding you. 

[Horace]

Well, judges actually don't have much to do with immigration law enforcement OR legislation, so I fail entirely to see how civil court divisions case backlog anyway impacts on dealing with illegal immigration.

As I said two DIFFERENT faces of the same BIG problem.
And I didnt mean to say it ONLY impacted on dealing with immigration, but more that 'how many people arent getting their day in court (immigration cases included), or have to wait longer to get it, because the courts are dealing with these friviolous cases?'

Also, really, how much do aliens residing in the US without proper authorization to do so cost the US?  A ballpark figure, accurate to within even $10 billion, would be a good starting point for discussion.

To me it doesnt matter. If its $100, then its $100 too much. Its $100 more that we could be spending to fix our schools.
How much does a burglar who snuck in to your house have to take before you care?

And please, tapdancing always makes me laugh. They are called "illegal aliens". aka "criminals".
"Undocumented alien/worker" or the verbose name you give them is just a bunch of PC garbage meant to dull the point that they are criminals and breaking our laws simply by being here. (I recognize that you personally might not have meant it that way)

The only way to determine whether or not a suit has some justification to continue, or not, is to have a judge look at it.  This is what is happening in the example you provided.  Are you suggesting that anyone who files a claim that is dismissed for any reason be fined, as a deterrent from filing merit-less suits?

Actually, several of the examples on that page were beyond friviolous.
Not digging up a body and taking it to his church is a violation of his religion because he believes in resurrection, and doing so would clear him of murder charges?
Suing because "the dept of corrections planted an electronic device in his brain."
Sorry, these may not be related to immigration, but if you disagree that these are beyond friviolous, there is nothing more to say.

And no, if there was some reasonable basis for the filing, such as someone with religious prohibition of eating pork being fed something laced with pork, then I want the person to get a fair day in court, and compensation as appropriate. But suing because you didnt get your parole hearing on time, because you had escaped, (thats another from that site) is not a reasonable basis.

And the "big problem" is, at least in part, a  segment of our culture, that wants to always shift blame. "Its not my fault, mcd's made me fat". "mcd's poured the coffee in my lap" "he stole because he's poor" etc ad nauseum. Or of course, my all time favorite, heard by me, at a motor vehicle accident that involved the death of two children of a friend of mine, "Its not my fault, the bartender made me drive drunk." (it was later determined that the bartender had flagged him and wouldnt serve him any more, and when the guy became beligerent about it, had the bouncers remove him.) And yes, two weeks later, after he got out of the hospital, he did say the same thing in court.

Now, back to immigration.
Wonderfull news.
The Immigration travesty is dead in congress. (There is some debate on if it is actually "dead", but it didnt get passed, and thats the point)
Maybe now the congress (yes, both parties) will get their collective case of cranio-rectal insertion cured (even just momentarily) and come up with a bill that actually does something to stop and then correct the problem. THEN we can talk about some kind of "guest worker" program.

Brian

[Frigemall]

I believe the Heritage Foundation did a study that concluded that if this bill goes into effect and all illegals presently in the US are granted legal status through a Z Visa, it will cost tax payers @ $2.2 Trillion, in health care, schooling and government benefits, over I think 10 years. This is a significant cost. Even if this is a slightly inflated estimate due to political adgenda, if it is half that it is a rediculous amount. The tax revenue brought in by them paying taxes will not be significant because they usually do not make enough to make even a dent in this amount. When Legislators tried to put in 2 provisions that would cause all those who recieve this Visa must 1) be non-felons (perish the thought) and 2) must pay for their own healthcare, the provisions were met with scorn saying those Legislators were trying to kill the bill. The Visa's would be granted to any who have been here since Jan 1, 2007 (How can they know if someone came across illegally in Dec, or today?) and would grant them full access to Government services as a legal resident. This is a slap to all those who went through the proper steps to be legal. They do not have to learn the language, or our culture. I agree with most of the provisions that will sure up the border within this bill, but as I stated earlier the other stuff is where my objections lie.

[LucasJamison]

As I said two DIFFERENT faces of the same BIG problem.
And I didnt mean to say it ONLY impacted on dealing with immigration, but more that 'how many people arent getting their day in court (immigration cases included), or have to wait longer to get it, because the courts are dealing with these friviolous cases?'

I was not able to find statistics on civil suits in the US district courts which are dismissed on their merits, at least not ones comprehensive or recent enough to be relevant.  It looks like less than 10% typically reach trial, but it doesn't say why the suits don't reach trial, or who filed them.  Maybe you can?  The US District Courts terminate over 250,000 cases per year on average, not including certain property or banruptcy cases (bankruptcy cases alone run over 1 million a year).  How many are frivilous?  If it's a few thousand, then not so much a big deal.  If it's tens of thousands, getting to be a significant percentage of the courts workload, then I could see your point to some degree.

The question remains: how do you fix that?  Is there another option?  If so, what is it?

To me it doesnt matter. If its $100, then its $100 too much. Its $100 more that we could be spending to fix our schools.
How much does a burglar who snuck in to your house have to take before you care?

Not much at all.  However, I don't think it's fair to characterize immigrants as thieves, as a rule.  If the overall cost to the US economy of leaving these aliens alone is less than the cost of deporting over 3% of the US population, then what is the benefit?  Not saying it's bad to enforce the laws, but if it doesn't do something GOOD for everybody, then what good is a law in the first place?

And please, tapdancing always makes me laugh. They are called "illegal aliens". aka "criminals".
"Undocumented alien/worker" or the verbose name you give them is just a bunch of PC garbage meant to dull the point that they are criminals and breaking our laws simply by being here. (I recognize that you personally might not have meant it that way)

You say criminal, I say unauthorized resident, and we both choose those terms for certain reasons relating to their connotations.  So long as we both understand what group of people the other is referring to, do you really want to argue the linguistic validity of our respective terminology?

Still, I think your reference to "PC garbage" is worth addressing.  What, in particular, do you consider political correctness to be about, and what are the criteria for calling something "PC" and thereby "garbage"?  I'm curious because this varies a lot and your answer could provide with a better overall understanding of where you're coming from.

Actually, several of the examples on that page were beyond friviolous.
Not digging up a body and taking it to his church is a violation of his religion because he believes in resurrection, and doing so would clear him of murder charges?
Suing because "the dept of corrections planted an electronic device in his brain."
Sorry, these may not be related to immigration, but if you disagree that these are beyond friviolous, there is nothing more to say.

Look at what I said.  I said that one of the cases noted as frivolous was not so much so as it iits inclusion on the list implied.  I pointed that out because a lot of people dismiss given cases as "frivilous" without understanding what that means in legal terms, or bothering to research the case.  I can't think of any circumstances where exhuming a corpse in order drag it into a church to give an idividual's chosen god a chance to resurrect it being a reasonable request, and evidently neither could the judge.

And no, if there was some reasonable basis for the filing, such as someone with religious prohibition of eating pork being fed something laced with pork, then I want the person to get a fair day in court, and compensation as appropriate. But suing because you didnt get your parole hearing on time, because you had escaped, (thats another from that site) is not a reasonable basis.

And if the suit was dismissed, then the legal system worked.  What would you change, was the question I asked you in my previous post.

And the "big problem" is, at least in part, a  segment of our culture, that wants to always shift blame. "Its not my fault, mcd's made me fat". "mcd's poured the coffee in my lap" "he stole because he's poor" etc ad nauseum. Or of course, my all time favorite, heard by me, at a motor vehicle accident that involved the death of two children of a friend of mine, "Its not my fault, the bartender made me drive drunk." (it was later determined that the bartender had flagged him and wouldnt serve him any more, and when the guy became beligerent about it, had the bouncers remove him.) And yes, two weeks later, after he got out of the hospital, he did say the same thing in court.

People not taking some responsibility for what they do is definitely a problem.  What do you think can be done about it, generally speaking?

Now, back to immigration.   Wonderfull news.  The Immigration travesty is dead in congress. (There is some debate on if it is actually "dead", but it didnt get passed, and thats the point)  Maybe now the congress (yes, both parties) will get their collective case of cranio-rectal insertion cured (even just momentarily) and come up with a bill that actually does something to stop and then correct the problem. THEN we can talk about some kind of "guest worker" program.

What would you consider an apropriate action which would stop immigration?

[LucasJamison]

I believe the Heritage Foundation did a study that concluded that if this bill goes into effect and all illegals presently in the US are granted legal status through a Z Visa, it will cost tax payers @ $2.2 Trillion, in health care, schooling and government benefits, over I think 10 years.  This is a significant cost.  Even if this is a slightly inflated estimate due to political adgenda, if it is half that it is a rediculous amount. The tax revenue brought in by them paying taxes will not be significant because they usually do not make enough to make even a dent in this amount.

The Rector figure was 2.6 trillion, over 18 years, assuming all 10 million adult aliens granted that status were about the same age, and that 8.5 million:

a) survived to collect social security
b) took the necessary steps to qualify for social security and medicare benefits
c) qualified for and received benefits averaging around $17000 / year

And even then, he notes that these costs will not be at their highest until 25-30 years from now.  So, take that into consideration.

Also, figures noting that tax revenues from this population do not outweigh the costs they incur from utilizing various "welfare" programs, all seem to assume that a large population of individuals classified as low-skill, with relatively lower incomes as a result, will be simultaneously taking advantage of a large number of social programs, including education, and REMAINING POOR AND LOW-SKILLED for the rest of their lives.

This is not the general trend with legal immigrants, which this population would essentially become.

When Legislators tried to put in 2 provisions that would cause all those who recieve this Visa must 1) be non-felons (perish the thought) and 2) must pay for their own healthcare, the provisions were met with scorn saying those Legislators were trying to kill the bill.

The non-felon thing did get through, as far as I can tell.  As did, I believe, barriers to Z visa holders gaining access to means-tested programs.  Access to emergency / charity care would not be limited, that I can tell.

The Visa's would be granted to any who have been here since Jan 1, 2007 (How can they know if someone came across illegally in Dec, or today?) and would grant them full access to Government services as a legal resident. This is a slap to all those who went through the proper steps to be legal. They do not have to learn the language, or our culture. I agree with most of the provisions that will sure up the border within this bill, but as I stated earlier the other stuff is where my objections lie.

Well, I suppose they'll know by asking for documentation.  The evidenciary burden will be light for the provisional visas, and much higher for the longer term work visas established down the road, which can't be established until certain border security improvements are made and verified.

It won't make them LPRs, and non-LPRs don't get access to the same programs LPRs do.

[Horace]

Still, I think your reference to "PC garbage" is worth addressing.  What, in particular, do you consider political correctness to be about, and what are the criteria for calling something "PC" and thereby "garbage"?  I'm curious because this varies a lot and your answer could provide with a better overall understanding of where you're coming from.

"PC garbage" is things like choosing words to describe a person or act so as to try to make it sound like its not so bad.
"Undocumented worker". Gee, he just forgot to fill out some paper work. Few people will care too much about someone who made a mistake on or lost/failed to fill out a form.
"Illegal alien/criminal" He broke the law to get her.
Also, illegal aliens did not "forget" to fill out the forms. They deliberatly avoided filling them out.

Look at what I said.  I said that one of the cases noted as frivolous was not so much so as it iits inclusion on the list implied. 

I misread your post.

And if the suit was dismissed, then the legal system worked.  What would you change, was the question I asked you in my previous post.

Yes, the legal system usually does work.
As to what I would change? Some cases, tho found to be without merit, are claims that a reasonable person would agree should be heard. These cases SHOULD be heard. As I said earlier, if for example, someone has dietary restrictions, and believes he is being forced (as in prison) to eat food violating that restriction, then the case should be heard and investigated at least long enough to find out if the claim is true. And if true, the plaintiff should be appropriately compensated.
However, if upon investigation, a  case is found to not only be meritless, but to have been filed only to harass, or some other malicious reason, then the person filing it should be punished in some way. Perhaps starting with having to reimburse the court and the target of the suit for the expenses the suit caused.

What would you consider an apropriate action which would stop immigration?

How about;
-Fence, connected to several dozen windmill generators and set to extra crispy.
-more border patrols (with national guard/military if needed)
-stiffer penalties for those who employ illegals
-Penalties for aiding someone to enter the country illegally, such as putting up water/food stations, or elected officials declaring a city or state a "sanctuary" where immigration laws are not enforced.
-Not minimizing what the illegal immigrants are doing by calling them anything but what they are. Illegal immigrants and criminals.

Something you said when responding to Mark
"And even then, he notes that these costs will not be at their highest until 25-30 years from now.  So, take that into consideration."

We are already passing too much debt to our children. Do you really want to add more?

And
"This is not the general trend with legal immigrants, which this population would essentially become."

Their status would change to legal, but they would not be in the same category as those who originally entered the country legally, and therefore such trend would not necessarily apply.
Just because you forgive someone does not mean they did no wrong.

[LucasJamison]

"Undocumented worker". Gee, he just forgot to fill out some paper work. Few people will care too much about someone who made a mistake on or lost/failed to fill out a form.
"Illegal alien/criminal" He broke the law to get her.

"Undocumented worker" is a relatively neutral term, in that it neither assumes innocence or guilt.  It's popular with some people for the reasons you describe, but it is appropriate to use because until a given individual is proven to be guilty of the crimes you mention, that person is presumed to be innocent.

However, if upon investigation, a  case is found to not only be meritless, but to have been filed only to harass, or some other malicious reason, then the person filing it should be punished in some way. Perhaps starting with having to reimburse the court and the target of the suit for the expenses the suit caused.

To the best of my knowledge, this IS the current state of things.  There are torts for abuse of process as well as wrongful prosecution for this reason.  So, that being the case - what would you change?

How about;
-Fence, connected to several dozen windmill generators and set to extra crispy.

Well, as I mentioned to Mark, that's about a 2000 mile long border.  To be an effective physical barrier, rather than a symbol, it would have to be relatively high, sturdily constructed, and probably multi-layer.  Wind power is a relatively unreliable source in most places (I am not sure what the weather is like along this 2000 mile stretch, when it comes to reliably gusting wind for power generation), wind farms use MANY windmills to generate power, not just one or two, and these are expensive to build and maintain.  This is unreasonably expensive.  I think, given the region this is in, that solar would probably work better, but even that makes less sense than just attaching them to the local grids.

Plus, "extra crispy"?  A fence electrified to the point where it could be reliably counted on to quickly kill anyone who came into contact with it would be a MASSIVE drain, economically speaking, would be difficult to construct, and a huge public health hazard.

-more border patrols (with national guard/military if needed)

This was included in the bill under discussion, actually, including using the national guard to supplement patrols.  The problem with the National Guard is that while they can stand there and watch, they can't actually do anything - they have to call the border patrol and wait for them to apprehend someone.

-stiffer penalties for those who employ illegals

I'm definitely in favor of that, actually.

-Penalties for aiding someone to enter the country illegally, such as putting up water/food stations, or elected officials declaring a city or state a "sanctuary" where immigration laws are not enforced.

There are some penalties for this.  I suppose they could be increased.  Which cities and states have established themselves as open sanctuaries?

-Not minimizing what the illegal immigrants are doing by calling them anything but what they are. Illegal immigrants and criminals.

That's hardly something a law can do.

Something you said when responding to Mark
"And even then, he notes that these costs will not be at their highest until 25-30 years from now.  So, take that into consideration."
We are already passing too much debt to our children. Do you really want to add more?

I'd rather my kids pay for some people's healthcare and food than a giant electric fence, if those're my choices.

Their status would change to legal, but they would not be in the same category as those who originally entered the country legally, and therefore such trend would not necessarily apply.  Just because you forgive someone does not mean they did no wrong.

I'm not sure how the wrongness of prior actions would impact their ability to get ahead economically, in this case.

[SigmaCaine]

-Fence, connected to several dozen windmill generators and set to extra crispy.

Heated political debate is one thing. Saying that KILLING PEOPLE is a suitable punishment for running from a bad situation is just SICKENING. Loss of life should be the last recourse, not the first. Or do you believe they're not people?

Morality aside, a fence like that would provide a terrible safety hazard for everyone on both sides. Not to mention it would likely interfere with the local wildlife.

Just because you forgive someone does not mean they did no wrong.

Watch yourself. Everyone has skeletons in their closet.

[Horace]

Heated political debate is one thing. Saying that KILLING PEOPLE is a suitable punishment for running from a bad situation is just SICKENING. Loss of life should be the last recourse, not the first. Or do you believe they're not people?

Morality aside, a fence like that would provide a terrible safety hazard for everyone on both sides. Not to mention it would likely interfere with the local wildlife.

Watch yourself. Everyone has skeletons in their closet.

"Or do you believe they're not people?"  It is usually best to not make such blind and unfounded assumptions about the beliefs someone holds on a subject you have never discussed with them. Besides, such ad hominums do not further your arguements.
Do I want to just kill them? No. if that were all I wanted, I could come up with cheaper, easier and just as effective ways.
I want to discourage them from violating our law.
In order for an electric fence to kill someone, they must make the conscious choice to attempt to bypass it. Considering it would be well marked on both sides in both words and universally accepted pictograms so that anyone seeing it would know the danger, then should they decide to ignore the warnings, they accept the consequences.
I know that sticking my hand in a fire might hurt. Should I make the decision to do so anyway, it is my fault that I get burned.
These people know they are breaking the law, and as always, I have more compassion for the victim than I do the criminal.
As to why they are breaking the law, I dont care. There are all kinds of crimes committed, and all kinds of reasoning given for them. The reason does not justify the crime. Being poor is not an excuse for committing crimes.

As to the wildlife, you have that point. Some way would have to be found to accomodate wildlife.

"watch yourself." I dont want to jump to any conclusions, so correct me if I'm wrong, but is this a threat of some sort?

Yes, we all have skeletons in our closets. I'm not sure what particular skeletons you are suggesting, but I guarantee, with no doubt, that mine are not what some have been told.

"Undocumented worker" is a relatively neutral term, in that it neither assumes innocence or guilt. It's popular with some people for the reasons you describe, but it is appropriate to use because until a given individual is proven to be guilty of the crimes you mention, that person is presumed to be innocent.

And considering I am refering specifically to those who broke the law to get here, the presumption of innocence does not apply. So, "criminal" and "illegal immigrant" are the correct and accurate terms.

To the best of my knowledge, this IS the current state of things. There are torts for abuse of process as well as wrongful prosecution for this reason. So, that being the case - what would you change?

If the number of such cases is declining, then we dont need a change. If not, then we need stiffer penalties.

Plus, "extra crispy"? A fence electrified to the point where it could be reliably counted on to quickly kill anyone who came into contact with it would be a MASSIVE drain, economically speaking, would be difficult to construct, and a huge public health hazard.

Well, the term "extra crispy" was perhaps too aggravating (wise assed? shocking?) a term, (something at least your character lucas is well acquainted with, at least imho). I'd have no problem having such a fence designed to work in a similar way to a stun gun. Strong enough to make you stop and regret the attempt.
As for the power drain, I have heard of some prisons (on court tv, discovery channel, or the like) having electric fences that, while not grounded consume miniscule amounts of power. Then only going to full power when grounded.

This was included in the bill under discussion, actually, including using the national guard to supplement patrols. The problem with the National Guard is that while they can stand there and watch, they can't actually do anything - they have to call the border patrol and wait for them to apprehend someone.

I believe that was (or also was) when the National Guard was on the border a year or so ago.
But I mean put them there and give them the authority to apprehend.

There are some penalties for this. I suppose they could be increased. Which cities and states have established themselves as open sanctuaries?

This is another of those things that I can not point you to a solid source about. I believe that San Francisco is one such city.
If I run accross any such sources, I'll post them for you.

I'd rather my kids pay for some people's healthcare and food than a giant electric fence, if those're my choices.

How about neither?
Or how about the aid we send mexico every year being used to provide such medical care? I believe that is one of the things it was meant for.

I'm not sure how the wrongness of prior actions would impact their ability to get ahead economically, in this case.

They are two groups of people. One came in to this country legally, waiting in all the lines, filling out all the forms, taking the chance of being turned down. The other packed a sack, maybe paid a coyote, and snuck accross the border, having not attempted to get permission.
Passing a law that forgives the second group does not make them the same as the first. They still broke the law to get here. As I said, forgiving a crime does not mean it did not happen.


Brian
The very often politically incorrect and proud of it. (dont ya love freedom?)

PS. Because this conversation, as they usually do, is taking up more time than I ever wanted to give it, please do not be surprised if my responses in the future are much less verbose, if they exist at all.

[LucasJamison]

And considering I am refering specifically to those who broke the law to get here, the presumption of innocence does not apply. So, "criminal" and "illegal immigrant" are the correct and accurate terms.

Which presumes guilt - as I'm pretty sure only a small number of those 12 million or so projected residents who we are discussing have been tried and found guilty in a court of law, they aren't guilty - yet.  Hence the need for neutral terminology.

If the number of such cases is declining, then we dont need a change. If not, then we need stiffer penalties.

You made a big to do about how terrible they are and what an awful drain they are, calling for a solution to the problem, which you believe to be great, which in fact already exists.  The REASON the penalties are not huge and are relatively rarely applied is because there is definite need NOT to discourage people from seeking remedy through the courts if they have even a shred of validity to their claims.  I suppose my problem is this - if the system is as good as it can be, and it seems to meet all your definitions, and there's just no way to discourage the ridiculous filings without also discouraging a few non-ridiculous ones, and it's simply unacceptable to have a system which discourages ANY valid claims, then... what the hell are people complaining about?  Yeah, there's some ridic claims.  Laugh at the stupid people who file them, and shame them.  It's a legal, valid, social recourse - the best solution.  But don't make claims about how the system needs to change, and don't be part of a mindless echo chamber repeating the supposed need for systemic reform unless you know the system, and have an idea about how it needs to reform.

This is how we get credit card companies rewriting bankruptcy laws -- which is pretty f'ing sick, if you think about it.

Well, the term "extra crispy" was perhaps too aggravating (wise assed? shocking?) a term, (something at least your character lucas is well acquainted with, at least imho). I'd have no problem having such a fence designed to work in a similar way to a stun gun. Strong enough to make you stop and regret the attempt.
As for the power drain, I have heard of some prisons (on court tv, discovery channel, or the like) having electric fences that, while not grounded consume miniscule amounts of power. Then only going to full power when grounded.

I should note that Lucas Jamison is a complete tool and social pariah, largely ignored and considered more of a nuisance than someone to be taken seriously.  He's a racist, misogynist, murderer, rapist, thief, liar, traitor, general deviant, and a host of other things it is not acceptable to be.  Hardly someone to compare oneself to. 

One of the few things I have in common with my character is an appreciation for sarcasm and dark humor.  I did understand your meaning, and chose to take it more seriously because I suspect, and feel justified in that by the fact that despite your claim to sarcasm you go on to note how it's morally defensible to actually build such a barrier, there was some element of, if not desire for, then at least lack of any real concern for the possibility of people dying as a result of an electrified barrier, whether it was set to "stun" or "extra crispy".  I find that very objectionable, but rather than argue on human or moral grounds (which I felt pretty certain, and again feel justified as a result of the rest of your statements, would be unconvincing to you), I decided to present the purely practical reasons for not doing so.  That having been said, I will continue to do so, for the same reasons.

The amount of electricity used in an execution by electric chair (or, actually, a LOT more than that) would be drawn from the system every time it grounded, be it to fry a person or a dog or a cow or a pickup with a tool-box on its accelerator that was used to ram the fence.  That's a LOT of electricity.  Plus, while not nearly as much, the amount necessary to keep up to 6000 miles of fencing fully electrified would be decidedly non-trivial.

How about neither?
Or how about the aid we send mexico every year being used to provide such medical care? I believe that is one of the things it was meant for.

You suggested the building of a giant electric security fence and adding tens of thousands of additional border guards - that's not an expense which will come due for years, and when it does, who's going to  be paying for it?  Many future generations.  So, which is it?

Look, if the point of all this is that it makes you mad that millions of people have flouted our shockingly weakly enforced border protection and immigration for decades, and it really sucks that they're all going to get away with it, then hey - vent away.  Kinda pisses me off, too.  But if you want to discuss possible remedies to the very real current problem, then keep it rational within the realm of reason, please.

They are two groups of people. One came in to this country legally, waiting in all the lines, filling out all the forms, taking the chance of being turned down. The other packed a sack, maybe paid a coyote, and snuck accross the border, having not attempted to get permission.
Passing a law that forgives the second group does not make them the same as the first. They still broke the law to get here. As I said, forgiving a crime does not mean it did not happen.

ETA -- I still don't see how this affects their future earning potential and likely economic improvement over time.

The very often politically incorrect and proud of it. (dont ya love freedom?)

The idea of political correctness, as it's been come to be used by people such as yourself, is that it's BS terminology used to whitewash uncomfortable topics.  Proudly claiming to be free-thinkers and speakers of their minds, such people say objectionable things, often for the thrill of saying the forbidden or the negative attention they receive by doing so.  I get that - have totally been "that guy" myself, still am sometimes.  The difference from intentionally using shocking or uncomfortable statements to generate discussion or change people's perceptions, and parroting them because you believe them and don't see anything wrong with causing offense to others, should be clear.

This concept of PC that you are rejecting, is in fact bullshit.  It is a strawman set up by those who reject a move to more inclusive language and object to a voluntary limiting of the use of objectionable or offensive statements.  There are no "PC police", but there is a strong, predominantly leftist, movement (or rather, combination of movements which use the same principle to advance their own agendas which overlap to varying degrees) toward more inclusive, or at least less exclusive and offensive, language.  Without getting into the reasons for why this is desirable to these groups, I will note emphatically that it is not just that they're all "a bunch of sissies who can't take a little ribbing".

The reason for the creation of this bullshit version of "PC" that you so proudly reject, is that more inclusive language and society diminishes the specialness and reduces certain assumed privileges of the power classes in society, which necessarily threatens those people.  They, and those who identify with them or hope to be like them, set out to intentionally sabotage a move towards social progress.  It's been a very effective campaign.

PS. Because this conversation, as they usually do, is taking up more time than I ever wanted to give it, please do not be surprised if my responses in the future are much less verbose, if they exist at all.

I will not be at all surprised if, due to an inability or lack of desire to do the necessary work to understand and engage in a worthwhile fashion in a discussion that pushes the bounds of your comfort zone, you wish to withdraw at this point.

I would be pleased, however, if you did continue, even if you limited your responses to when you have more time to devote to them.

[Frigemall]

I'm pretty sure only a small number of those 12 million or so projected residents who we are discussing have been tried and found guilty in a court of law, they aren't guilty - yet.  Hence the need for neutral terminology.

There is only one problem with this statement. If they are not citizens, they do not have the rights (like trial by jury and presumption of innocense) afforded by our laws. If they are here and are not ciizens, they are guilty and should be deported.

I should note that Lucas Jamison is a complete tool and social pariah, largely ignored and considered more of a nuisance than someone to be taken seriously.  He's a racist, misogynist, murderer, rapist, thief, liar, traitor, general deviant, and a host of other things it is not acceptable to be.  Hardly someone to compare oneself to. 

This much is true, it is scary how different you are from your character, yet pull it off very well.

You suggested the building of a giant electric security fence and adding tens of thousands of additional border guards - that's not an expense which will come due for years, and when it does, who's going to  be paying for it?  Many future generations.  So, which is it?

I am not a big fan of an electric fence, however I do agree with a fence and additional border patrol agents. The cost is paltry in comparison with what we will save in schooling, social programs, major cultural changes that will come as the country becomes more of a Mexican American Union, and Health Care.

To sum up my position, I believe we could start with suring up the border, then we could deal with those who are here already. It would make these plans to integrate those who are already here more palatable to those who live in the border states especially that are seeing their economies getting devastated. Many of these illegals are otherwise law abiding residents. After we insure there will not be another surge of illegals that are given hope by amnesty, measures can be drafted to help those who we can integrate into our melting pot. One of the biggest mistakes Ronald Reagan made was giving amnesty without significant border enforcement measures. The surge of immigrants coming across the border dramatically spiked after that measure. I simply want to see us do it right this time.