K Visa Fee Increase

[piglett]

Now at age 75, dear old Dad is trying to make the USA rail road system as competitive and efficient as foreign nations, and I tell you, it isn't easy with the short sighted crew in Washington DC now. Our best USA rail road locomotives and technology is used overseas and not in the USA and he wants to help change that. France and England, not to forget Japan, find our RR's laughable

laughable ........Gee do you think?? i takes 6 weeks or more on average to get a load of steel from 1 coast to the other. I know because i used to haul steel when they wanted it there fast , about 6 days coast to coast. the only real upside is trails will haul it there really cheep & a trail car will haul 2.5 times what a truck will.


piglett

[robert angel]

Re:

>>takes 6 weeks or more on average to get a load of steel from 1 coast to the other<<

I think that's on the long side of coast to coast timelines for loading to unloading. Besides--because our trains can't move fast on the antiquated tracks, and the train yards and technology are also almost as out dated as the tracks themselves, the whole system basically is in need of an over haul--upgrade. Thus the length of time is sometimes unacceptable.

As your official 'off topic' guy here, on a different note, failure to invest in upgrading our postal system is also a big mistake. We still probably have the best postal system in the world, (ever try mailing a letter within Canada?) especially given our nation's size, but the likes of UPS, Federal Express, etc have technology that provides faster and even sometimes cheaper service and are putting pressure on the USPS. It's probably inevitable at this rate for Saturday mail to go by the wayside.

Mail going by internet, avoiding stamp revenue, will only make things worse for the USPS.

Govt subsidies? Hmmmm--how else do roads, high ways and bridges get built in this day and age? The same way in which then President Eisenhower developed the national highway (Interstate Highway System--I-95, I-75, etc) back in the 1950's--the system we use to this day. The private enterprise 'toll roads and bridges' are still few and far between. Capitol improvement--improvement in infrastructure isn't cheap, but in the long run, it pays dividends.

It isn't about having something all shiny and new, or just keeping up with other developed nations. It's more about maintaining our competitiveness with the rest of the world or otherwise letting our antiquated systems deteriorate even more.

I agree with Jm that we have to be very careful about spending billions for rail systems for public transportation, but in dense areas, they're still worth doing serious studies on. Atlanta Georgia has the widest--most multi lane highways in the world and that hasn't helped move people in cars any faster. Wider highways simply aren't the answer.

[jm21-2]

Besides--because our trains can't move fast on the antiquated tracks, and the train yards and technology are also almost as out dated as the tracks themselves, the whole system basically is in need of an over haul--upgrade. Thus the length of time is sometimes unacceptable.

So some company will notice how profitable trains can be if they go through and upgrade the system, they will get some capital together, and they'll do it. If there's no company that thinks it's a good idea that tells me it probably isn't....so why should taxpayers shoulder the burden?

As your official 'off topic' guy here, on a different note, failure to invest in upgrading our postal system is also a big mistake. We still probably have the best postal system in the world, (ever try mailing a letter within Canada?) especially given our nation's size, but the likes of UPS, Federal Express, etc have technology that provides faster and even sometimes cheaper service and are putting pressure on the USPS. It's probably inevitable at this rate for Saturday mail to go by the wayside.

So why not let USPS die and just use UPS or Fedex if they can do it better?

Govt subsidies? Hmmmm--how else do roads, high ways and bridges get built in this day and age? The same way in which then President Eisenhower developed the national highway (Interstate Highway System--I-95, I-75, etc) back in the 1950's--the system we use to this day. The private enterprise 'toll roads and bridges' are still few and far between. Capitol improvement--improvement in infrastructure isn't cheap, but in the long run, it pays dividends.

I think it's too bad we don't see/allow more private roads. I expect we will see it more in the future. But building new roads is different from upgrading old trains. A company could come in and revamp the train system pretty easily, but they can't use eminent domain to make huge straight international freeways. It's not that we needed govt to build the roads, but it's a lot more convenient when there are holdouts to say "too bad, we're the government" than a private sector company trying to bribe them to move.

I agree with Jm that we have to be very careful about spending billions for rail systems for public transportation, but in dense areas, they're still worth doing serious studies on. Atlanta Georgia has the widest--most multi lane highways in the world and that hasn't helped move people in cars any faster. Wider highways simply aren't the answer.

No, but there are also multi-tiered freeways and underground freeways which have been utilized successfully in other countries. Private ones even. Roads are a lot more adaptable (don't have to replace the whole system to upgrade the vehicles) which is good for the future. But why should our government do studies rather than a private corporation? Let them figure out which way is the most efficient and have at it. That's what they do best.

[Ray]

Open borders doesn't mean no borders.

We essentially had open borders for most of our history to one extent or another and did just fine. The only real bar on citizenship and controls on immigration up until the '50s or so were related to race. You couldn't become a USC unless you were white until the 14th amendment when blacks could become citizens. Asians, and Filipinos in particular, were denied naturalization until well into the 20th century (Almost all Asians were not allowed naturalization until 1943). The current immigration scheme with preferences for certain groups (family members, skilled workers, etc) wasn't set up until much later (1965). So to say we can't survive without some complicated immigration scheme with quotas and so forth (quotas weren't introduced until 1952) is bogus.

Libertarians are the open border types generally (myself included) and most would not consider them leftists.

Who was allowed to become citizens in the past is unrelated to the subject of “open borders” as advocated by today’s leftist whackos. They want an uncontrolled border with no enforcement of immigration laws.

And they aren’t Libertarians either. They are mostly all far left Democrats like Obama, who see illegal aliens as future Democratic party voters. That’s why he won’t do anything serious to control the borders or enforce immigration laws and keeps ranting about “comprehensive immigration reform”, which is just a dishonest way of advocating amnesty and eventual citizenship for anyone who is here now.

To have uncontrolled borders is like having no borders at all.

And if anyone thinks there is no harm in just letting anyone in with no controls, take a look at California and the “sanctuary cities”. The state is virtually bankrupt after years of providing unrestricted freebies to those who ignore our laws.

[Capstone]

Look at all the money China is wasting on lines that doesn't get used much.

I am curious as to which lines that you are referring to here? Rail travel is by far the most commonly used mode of long distance transportation within China. Every train that I have ever ridden on in China has been packed to capacity. The only train line that I know of that has been built in China but that does not get used much is the Maglev in Shanghai but that was never built for local consumption anyway but rather to showcase the 300mph train technology to foreigners - it costs too much for your average Chinese to ride.

On the other hand the recently opened and extremely expensive to build Beijing–Tianjin Highspeed line is very popular and highly used as the tickets are moderately priced. The Beijing-Shanghai highspeed line that is due to be completed in the next year or two will be a total success as far as usage goes, it is going to cut the travel time down to 4 hours from 10 and the current 10 hour train is always full. The most expensive railway project ever built is currently under construction that will link Hong Kong To Guangzhou via a high speed rail and I can guarantee that all of those trains will be full every day. I have taken the existing Hong Kong-Guangzhou train on several occasions and it was standing room only. The new line will cut the travel time down to 45 minutes which will be very enticing to many.

Rail travel works great and is extremely popular in China because there are so many highly populated areas which are connected via the lines and the fares are very affordable for the average person. Sure you may find an occassional line that is underused but for the most part rail usage is very high in China.

[piglett]

So some company will notice how profitable trains can be if they go through and upgrade the system, they will get some capital together, and they'll do it. If there's no company that thinks it's a good idea that tells me it probably isn't....so why should taxpayers shoulder the burden?

we are talking billions here & why do it . the big train companys already have a small cash cow. they will milk it until it no longer gives ANY milk.


piglett

[piglett]

As a side note on Robert's post...railways are usually only successful if heavily subsidized. They're a thing of the past and we should be running away from them. Same for solar power, wind power, and nuclear power for the most part.

my understanding is that railways that haul freight not passengers can & do make money.  solar, wind , & nuclear are things of the past



piglett

[jm21-2]

Who was allowed to become citizens in the past is unrelated to the subject of “open borders” as advocated by today’s leftist whackos. They want an uncontrolled border with no enforcement of immigration laws.

And they aren’t Libertarians either. They are mostly all far left Democrats like Obama, who see illegal aliens as future Democratic party voters. That’s why he won’t do anything serious to control the borders or enforce immigration laws and keeps ranting about “comprehensive immigration reform”, which is just a dishonest way of advocating amnesty and eventual citizenship for anyone who is here now.

To have uncontrolled borders is like having no borders at all.

And if anyone thinks there is no harm in just letting anyone in with no controls, take a look at California and the “sanctuary cities”. The state is virtually bankrupt after years of providing unrestricted freebies to those who ignore our laws.

First, a lot of the hispanic vote could easily go to the republicans if they tried for it. Bush II got a significant portion of the vote and it could easily keep going up.

Second, if there were more legal ways of setting foot in the country, more would use them. That would free up the border patrol to secure our borders more thoroughly rather than spending all their time chasing down border jumpers (which is a futile effort anyways).

Thirdly, I'm certainly not advocating freebies to anyone.

I am curious as to which lines that you are referring to here? Rail travel is by far the most commonly used mode of long distance transportation within China. Every train that I have ever ridden on in China has been packed to capacity. The only train line that I know of that has been built in China but that does not get used much is the Maglev in Shanghai but that was never built for local consumption anyway but rather to showcase the 300mph train technology to foreigners - it costs too much for your average Chinese to ride.

On the other hand the recently opened and extremely expensive to build Beijing–Tianjin Highspeed line is very popular and highly used as the tickets are moderately priced. The Beijing-Shanghai highspeed line that is due to be completed in the next year or two will be a total success as far as usage goes, it is going to cut the travel time down to 4 hours from 10 and the current 10 hour train is always full. The most expensive railway project ever built is currently under construction that will link Hong Kong To Guangzhou via a high speed rail and I can guarantee that all of those trains will be full every day. I have taken the existing Hong Kong-Guangzhou train on several occasions and it was standing room only. The new line will cut the travel time down to 45 minutes which will be very enticing to many.

Rail travel works great and is extremely popular in China because there are so many highly populated areas which are connected via the lines and the fares are very affordable for the average person. Sure you may find an occassional line that is underused but for the most part rail usage is very high in China.

I think the articles I read were mainly dealing with some of the more expensive lines like the mag-lev you mentioned. That sort of project seems more similar to what a lot of people in the US are proposing. Make some flashy expansive high speed lines to show up Europe and Japan when we really don't need them...

Piglett,

If there is a profit to be made from upgrading the rails, someone will do it eventually. Maybe just a small part at a time, but there are plenty of huge companies out there looking for investments. Right now, It doesn't seem the potential profit is worth it, and it may never be...in which case just let the old system be replaced by something new. If it's such a bad investment that no one in the private sector will touch it, why should taxpayers fund it?

I just meant we shouldn't subsidize technologies like highs peed rail, solar, wind, and nuclear. They're all technology that doesn't seem to work here and are supported by subsidies. Maybe they work in other countries, but in the US they are just pet projects of politicians. We are using a huge amount of tax money to prop up the bad investments and pipe dreams of billionaires and politicians.

[bcc_1_2]

Open borders doesn't mean no borders.

We essentially had open borders for most of our history to one extent or another and did just fine. The only real bar on citizenship and controls on immigration up until the '50s or so were related to race. You couldn't become a USC unless you were white until the 14th amendment when blacks could become citizens. Asians, and Filipinos in particular, were denied naturalization until well into the 20th century (Almost all Asians were not allowed naturalization until 1943). The current immigration scheme with preferences for certain groups (family members, skilled workers, etc) wasn't set up until much later (1965). So to say we can't survive without some complicated immigration scheme with quotas and so forth (quotas weren't introduced until 1952) is bogus.

Libertarians are the open border types generally (myself included) and most would not consider them leftists.

As a side note on Robert's post...railways are usually only successful if heavily subsidized. They're a thing of the past and we should be running away from them. Same for solar power, wind power, and nuclear power for the most part.

In terms of the immigration you never hear any real solutions to the problem. Even if BP can stop the oil from blasting into the gulf we still have the issue of the mess it caused. Well even if the US government did lock down the border the issue of all the people here undocumented and not paying taxes is the major issue.

I look at it from the perspective that I want to know who is in this country, and I want to make sure they are paying their taxes. But I don't see the republicans or dems doing anything about it as it all runs together. First we'd have to admit we've lost the so called war on drugs and take away any incentive criminals have to smuggle in drugs and it gets even more complicated and would require too much practical reasoning and compromise.

I think high speed rail makes long term sense and don't see it as part of the past. Long term it is a project that would payback over time (plus a 250mph train would drastically improve our lifestyle). The issue of course is we don't have the money to do it right now... and that's kind sad considering the countries that do it.

In terms of wind, solar, nuclear, etc I'll give you that. There is too much ideology and not enough practicality in politics. The fact of the matter is (considering the dams already built across this country) that hydroelectric is the cheapest and most effective way to go (it sure works for china). But the rednecks would rather drill and the liberals worry too much about fish migration (there are practical ways to solve this issue).

The bottomline is I don't have much faith in either of the big parties and its unfortunate that soo many people (even on this forum) regurgitate what they watch on FoxNews or MSNBC.

So yea figure out how to balance the budget by 2012, switch to the cheapest power source (hydro), remove troops and control airspace, make drugs legal for consumption and illegal to operate a vehicle under, beef up border security, ah well... not gonna happen.

Plenty of good ideas... I don't ever want to see cheap money being tossed at shiity banks again. What pisses me off is that I can't even get 1.50 on a CD right now. It is horrible.

[fathertime]

First, a lot of the hispanic vote could easily go to the republicans if they tried for it. Bush II got a significant portion of the vote and it could easily keep going up.

Second, if there were more legal ways of setting foot in the country, more would use them. That would free up the border patrol to secure our borders more thoroughly rather than spending all their time chasing down border jumpers (which is a futile effort anyways).

Thirdly, I'm certainly not advocating freebies to anyone.

This issue is not a matter of 'getting votes' for republicans, it is about representing what the people of this country want which is to do a lot better job of closing off the border. 
As to your second point, YEAH it would a lot easier for the border patrol if our govt. let most everyone in. Then the border control could sit around and chug beer instead of chasing 'border hoppers'.  Our country is under no obligation to allow ANYONE in.  I would hope that the govt would chose a limited amount of people that would help our society, not people that are simply going to be a net drain which is what is happening now. 


Well JM, now that this turned into an immigration discussion, I’d be curious to hear what you believe we should do about our pathetic immigration non policy.  I realize you are likely from a state/area that is not too impacted by the bigtime negativity’s  like we are in CA. 

I find it simply incredible that our leader(s) still to this day refuse to make a genuine effort to curtail the constant flow of illegal immigrants, despite the righteous public outcry.  It would be as simple as enforcement of existing laws and serious workplace enforcement.  Eventually it will happen, but why Bush and now Obama are resisting is a curiosity.  Most of the Spanish speakers I know are agitated like myself about our pathetic govt. which no longer represents the citizens of this country.

Fathertime!

[jm21-2]

This issue is not a matter of 'getting votes' for republicans, it is about representing what the people of this country want which is to do a lot better job of closing off the border. 
As to your second point, YEAH it would a lot easier for the border patrol if our govt. let most everyone in. Then the border control could sit around and chug beer instead of chasing 'border hoppers'.  Our country is under no obligation to allow ANYONE in.  I would hope that the govt would chose a limited amount of people that would help our society, not people that are simply going to be a net drain which is what is happening now. 


Well JM, now that this turned into an immigration discussion, I’d be curious to hear what you believe we should do about our pathetic immigration non policy.  I realize you are likely from a state/area that is not too impacted by the bigtime negativity’s  like we are in CA. 

I find it simply incredible that our leader(s) still to this day refuse to make a genuine effort to curtail the constant flow of illegal immigrants, despite the righteous public outcry.  It would be as simple as enforcement of existing laws and serious workplace enforcement.  Eventually it will happen, but why Bush and now Obama are resisting is a curiosity.  Most of the Spanish speakers I know are agitated like myself about our pathetic govt. which no longer represents the citizens of this country.

Fathertime!

I guess one thing to think about is that it would take such an enormous amount of resources to block all border jumpers on the southern border it would be absolutely ludicrous. You would basically have to build a replica of the berlin wall all the way along the southern border and have it constantly patrolled. The current defenses are nothing. All major fences do is divert them to areas where there are no or less fences. All the fences that have been proposed can be defeated in a matter of minutes (there was a good Penn & Teller episode where they hired a group of illegals to build a fence similar to those proposed and then get through it...hours to build and a few minutes to go under, through, or over it).

Fining employers who hire illegals is a much better idea, but there seems to be an immense amount of political pressure against that.

The idea is that if you have some sort of program which allows decent foreign citizens (pass background checks, medical exams, and so forth) to come and try to find work here. By doing that you have more resources freed up to track down the baddies (smugglers, terrorists, border jumpers with too bad a record to immigrate legally, etc.). Then we might actually be able to have some control over our borders.

Again, the idea is premised on us eliminating welfare programs, at least for non-citizens. That way they can only be a drain on charitable organizations which volunteer to help.

I understand the situation in CA somewhat. I lived in SoCal for about a year, which I know is not long. But this has been a constant complaint throughout American history. PA was up in arms about the influx of German immigrants, fearing that they would germanify the area. There were the Italians, the Irish, the Chinese, and so many others who we thought would absolutely not assimilate and would take over the culture. What happened is that after a while a large percent of most of these people eventually moved back to their home countries and the rest assimilated after a generation or two. This is really American history. I'm pretty sure when my Scandinavian ancestors came to the Pacific NW in droves for the fishing industry people said the same thing about them.

[michaelb]

Fining employers who hire illegals is a much better idea, but there seems to be an immense amount of political pressure against that.

Actually, they're doing that right now (fining employers). http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38176981/ns/us_news-the_new_york_times/  Now, whether they're doing it the right way or doing enough of it is up for debate, but they are doing it.

As for how the other waves of immigrants were treated, remember this line from Blazing Saddles? "OK, we'll take the N's and the C's....but we don't want the Irish."

[Ray]

First, a lot of the hispanic vote could easily go to the republicans if they tried for it. Bush II got a significant portion of the vote and it could easily keep going up.

Second, if there were more legal ways of setting foot in the country, more would use them. That would free up the border patrol to secure our borders more thoroughly rather than spending all their time chasing down border jumpers (which is a futile effort anyways).

 

In general, the Republicans are less interested in buying votes than they are in upholding principles and doing what’s right. For today’s Democrats, they seem willing to do anything to stay in power, including pandering to every special interest group that will help then get re-elected.

And besides, a “significant portion” of the vote doesn’t win elections. The Democrats know that a very high percentage of Hispanic votes have historically gone to their side, so they fully understand that giving amnesty and citizenship to illegals will help them get elected.

There are plenty of legal ways to come here to work but they are not fully utilized because it’s so much easier and cheaper to just sneak in. Take the H-2A temporary agricultural worker visas for example. Employers can get needed labor through this system, but they have a lot of paperwork, including Labor Dept certification, and they need to provide free housing and transportation for laborers and their families. When the government refuses to enforce our immigration laws, the whole world sees that as an opportunity to ignore our laws and sneak in, rather than go through the cumbersome legal channels and that also goes for employers hiring illegals.

I think most people, myself included, have nothing against allowing foreign workers to come here legally on a temporary basis to perform work where American workers are not available. But I don’t want to see them taking jobs from citizens or legal residents.

I think the main thing that pisses most Americans off is that illegals could get American citizenship under Obama’s and previously Bush’s comprehensive plans. I think many or most of the illegals already here could be allowed to stay and work if they never became eligible for US citizenship and they would not become a burden on our system. Still, many of the illegals would have to be deported if they are not gainfully employed or have other criminal records. Thinking that all 25 million illegals in the country should be allowed to stay and be rewarded with citizenship is S-2-PID!

Ray

[jm21-2]

In general, the Republicans are less interested in buying votes than they are in upholding principles and doing what’s right. For today’s Democrats, they seem willing to do anything to stay in power, including pandering to every special interest group that will help then get re-elected.

They talk a lot about moral values and principles, but hardly walk the walk. Dems say the same things about republicans. They're all politicians through and through.

And besides, a “significant portion” of the vote doesn’t win elections. The Democrats know that a very high percentage of Hispanic votes have historically gone to their side, so they fully understand that giving amnesty and citizenship to illegals will help them get elected.

Bet you if a rep promises to fight for amnesty he gets a big chunk of the hispanic vote...

There are plenty of legal ways to come here to work but they are not fully utilized because it’s so much easier and cheaper to just sneak in. Take the H-2A temporary agricultural worker visas for example. Employers can get needed labor through this system, but they have a lot of paperwork, including Labor Dept certification, and they need to provide free housing and transportation for laborers and their families. When the government refuses to enforce our immigration laws, the whole world sees that as an opportunity to ignore our laws and sneak in, rather than go through the cumbersome legal channels and that also goes for employers hiring illegals.

Certainly streamlining things is always a good idea.

I think the main thing that pisses most Americans off is that illegals could get American citizenship under Obama’s and previously Bush’s comprehensive plans. I think many or most of the illegals already here could be allowed to stay and work if they never became eligible for US citizenship and they would not become a burden on our system. Still, many of the illegals would have to be deported if they are not gainfully employed or have other criminal records. Thinking that all 25 million illegals in the country should be allowed to stay and be rewarded with citizenship is S-2-PID!

Have to also think of the immense amount of resources it would take to deport millions or tens of millions of people, especially considering so many are from overstayed visas and not from Canada or Mexico. Aren't republicans about fiscal responsibility?

[/quote]

[Ray]

They talk a lot about moral values and principles, but hardly walk the walk. Dems say the same things about republicans. They're all politicians through and through.

Yes, but it’s clearly today’s Democrats who are willing to sell out their country if necessary for them to stay in power. They are nothing but traitors in my book.

Bet you if a rep promises to fight for amnesty he gets a big chunk of the hispanic vote...

You lose! Evidence the overwhelming vote for Obama by Hispanics, while McCain aggressively championed amnesty for illegals.

Have to also think of the immense amount of resources it would take to deport millions or tens of millions of people, especially considering so many are from overstayed visas and not from Canada or Mexico. Aren't republicans about fiscal responsibility?

That’s nothing but a copout!

Reasoning that it’s too expensive to deport them, so we might as well let them all stay, is nothing but pure nonsense. I’d much rather spend our tax dollars enforcing our immigration laws than have the Democrats continue to throw it down the toilet supporting their socialist agenda.

Ray

[fathertime]

Bet you if a rep promises to fight for amnesty he gets a big chunk of the hispanic vote...

What you are indirectly saying here is that ‘latins’ are simply going to vote in a direction that allows more spanish speakers in the country simply because they are spanish speakers.  I’m going to give this segment of the population more credit than you are willing to give.  The latins I know tend to be on the same side of issue as I am.  All of this is besides the point anyway, this issue should not be about votes. It should be about the rule of law being enforced, as the majority of us ‘little’ and unrepresented citizens want. 

Have to also think of the immense amount of resources it would take to deport millions or tens of millions of people, especially considering so many are from overstayed visas and not from Canada or Mexico. Aren't republicans about fiscal responsibility?

   We are spending billions each year on illegal immigrants, schooling, health care, incarceration, and social programs for their children.  This simply can not go on and in the end whatever the cost, the border must be closed and a portion of those that don’t self-deport must be forced to deport.   It would cost a lot less if we just started shooting people, and let the buzzards eat them.  The crossings would essentially stop overnight, but that is just not the way things work in this country, but as things continue to fall apart I would foresee crimes being dealt with more harshly and swiftly. 

Once the govt. has proven it is dealing with this issue more responsibly, then I don’t see why we can’t look at getting the right people in here at the right price so we can get all the work done that needs to get done.  In the case of temporary worker programs, I’d like to see most of the pay held until the worker is in his/her come country.  Then he/she receives the check when there is no danger of him remaining in the USA illegally.


Fathertime!

[jm21-2]

So you'd rather spend hundreds of billions (maybe even trillions) catching and deporting border jumpers and visa overstays instead of doing some fairly simple reforms that could produce nearly the same results for a fraction of the cost (and would be more in line with our historic immigration policy)? As a matter of principle, despite America's long tradition of open immigration?

[Ray]

So you'd rather spend hundreds of billions (maybe even trillions) catching and deporting border jumpers and visa overstays instead of doing some fairly simple reforms that could produce nearly the same results for a fraction of the cost (and would be more in line with our historic immigration policy)? As a matter of principle, despite America's long tradition of open immigration?

Yep! Let’s start spending those billions enforcing our laws instead of pissing it away on giveaway programs for illegal aliens and Obama’s socialist agenda. That’s my vote.


"As a matter of principle, despite America's long tradition of open immigration?"

Huh? Counselor, have you ever read the current US immigration law? Are you going to follow the law, or some obsolete "historic immigration policy"?

I suggest that you read the law and stop with this nonsense of "open immigration".

Ray

[Capstone]

So you'd rather spend hundreds of billions (maybe even trillions) catching and deporting border jumpers and visa overstays instead of doing some fairly simple reforms that could produce nearly the same results for a fraction of the cost (and would be more in line with our historic immigration policy)? As a matter of principle, despite America's long tradition of open immigration?

I don't think that the government needs to spend billions/trillions of dollars on catching/deporting illegal aliens - all they need to do is have the backbone to actually enforce existing immigration & employment laws, stop all the free handouts for illegals and increase the fines for employing illegals. If they were to actually make an effort to fine the hell out of companies and individuals who employ illegals then the problem would take care of itself in short order but of course that would not be PC and will never happen.

I whole heartily support immigration reform that would make it easier for family members and those with skills which would be beneficial to our economy to enter the country but very much oppose any type of amnesty as all that does is reward criminal behavior - yes entering the country illegally or overstaying a visa is a crime. Why should those who have shown contempt for our laws be given preferential treatment over all of those immigrants who have and are in the process of entering the country legally? It would be a slap in the face of all legal immigrants who have shown respect for our laws.

I don't agree with open immigration because I really want the government to know who is being admitted into the country. My fear is not terrorism but rather opening our borders to the dregs of society. We all saw what happened when Castro emptied out his prisons and our government welcomed them with open arms back in 1980 - what a disaster.

[piglett]

Piglett,
If there is a profit to be made from upgrading the rails, someone will do it eventually. Maybe just a small part at a time, but there are plenty of huge companies out there looking for investments. Right now, It doesn't seem the potential profit is worth it, and it may never be...in which case just let the old system be replaced by something new. If it's such a bad investment that no one in the private sector will touch it, why should taxpayers fund it?

GOOD LORD IT MITE JUST SNOW IN JULY
This sure is rare, JM you & i are on the same page here , i say give the stupid trains NOTHING. If they make money sweet !!! if not i would love to grab my cutting torch & start chopping up all of the rails in the area, I would be very rich in a short amount of time.  

I just meant we shouldn't subsidize technologies like highs peed rail, solar, wind, and nuclear. They're all technology that doesn't seem to work here and are supported by subsidies. Maybe they work in other countries, but in the US they are just pet projects of politicians. We are using a huge amount of tax money to prop up the bad investments and pipe dreams of billionaires and politicians.

Nuclear does work however after the 3 mile island incident in 79' the American public is rather gun shy to say the least. even though no one here in the US has EVER died from a nuclear power plant. Oh well it is what it is. I guess all of those plans on the table to build lots & lots of coal fired electric plants will go forward
i think France gets something like 25% of all of it's electric from nuclear so why can't we do the same? we can we just don't choose to. solar ....well it's good on sunny days, same with wind good If the winds blows, i think the maintenance cost for those huge wind generators is not cost effective though. i have seen large wind farms out west & there is always at least a few units that are not turning (out of service due to maintenance) High speed rail   the US is a HUGE country i don't see it working well except in & around city's. If you look at a map you will see that most of the country is NOT covered with city's, there is lots of nothing between MOST city's. I could maybe see it working between LA & SF but the rest of the country is just to sparsely   populated.


piglett

[fathertime]

So you'd rather spend hundreds of billions (maybe even trillions) catching and deporting border jumpers and visa overstays instead of doing some fairly simple reforms that could produce nearly the same results for a fraction of the cost (and would be more in line with our historic immigration policy)? As a matter of principle, despite America's long tradition of open immigration?

What are you talking about? What ‘basic reforms’ are you talking about?  You are wildly exaggerating when you talk about trillions of dollars to deport illegal aliens, so lets take that number off the table and get real. 

Shutting the border consists of building a real wall which we have already partially completed, and having people there to monitor it.  Having a much stricter law that we enforce would also discourage some people from even bothering to come here.  Having strict workplace enforcement would also be a good step, as well as to stop giving food stamps, free lunches, etc, to children of illegal aliens. 

It is silly to think we can have ‘open’ immigration as you suggest.     Without such a silly policy if we were to merely grow at the rate we have over the past two decades we will have over 1 billion people in the USA by the end of any of your potential future childen's lifetime.  With your open border policy this would happen much sooner,  although we would suffer food shortages/droughts etc far before this could ever happen. I would be ok if our population had a little slower growth then 11.5% per decade. 

Earlier I asked you, what your solution is to the current problem and you did not really answer clearly.  You mentioned what you WOULD NOT do, and that you supported workplace enforcement.  Was that the entirely of your ideas? Perhaps you don’t think the current immigration situation is a problem, if that is the case, then just say it, so we know where you are coming from.

Thanks,
Fathertime!

[jm21-2]

I don't support every statute that's ever been passed. Many are absolute BS, others I don't think are fair, others I just don't like.

The current immigration system is a problem, but I don't see it as a major one compared to other problems we have. Social security, medicare, and medicaid reform come to mind as larger problems, along with national debt issues.

We would starve to death with an increase in immigration? We produce somewhat over 1/3 of the world's food supply last time I checked. If there's any country that can support a huge populace then it's us. A very large portion of our food just goes to waste because we can't use it, other foodstuffs get shipped out...we are nowhere near capacity and food production is still increasing.

I don't want to waste money on freebies for anyone, much less illegals. Neither do I want to spend massive amounts of money on deporting people and building a secure border wall (which would have to be similar to the Berlin wall or those in Gaza to be effective). The current wall can be beaten in a matter of minutes with extremely basic tools, and we have nowhere near enough border patrol agents. The only reason our current system seems anywhere near effective is because there's almost always a completely  unfenced and unpatrolled area just a few miles down the way that's even easier. So, the first order of business is to create an immense wall that is patrolled 24/7, preferably with a kill zone of at least 100 yards where border jumpers are shot on sight (that would do great things for international relations). So after building the wall for many years and hiring a huge number of border patrol agents, you can get around to deporting the rest of those still here. The cost of deporting someone is around $3,000 currently, but those they are deporting right now are incredibly easy to find (such as those incarcerated for a crime). When you get down to finding those illegals living decent normal lives you are looking at a much higher cost per deportee. How much it would be, who really knows? If we use Ray's figure of 25mil illegals (and that number would increase before the wall was finished) that's a minimum of $75 billion, but would in reality almost certainly be much higher.

Now the problem is that most estimates put nearly half of illegals as those who overstayed legally issued visas. Border wall won't help there. So you've got an ongoing cost associated with deporting those folks, probably at least tens of billions a year. You would probably also see those who would previously have jumped the border committing visa fraud instead. So now you have to beef up the immigration system and make it even more onerous, jacking up visa fees for normal citizens in the process no doubt. How onerous would you have to make the process to eliminate all those who would overstay a visa (if it can be done, which I don't think it can)?

Then there's the fact that with fiance/spousal visas (which are of interest to those on this board) some studies have shown that those who commit visa fraud are often more successful at obtaining a visa than those who apply legitimately, since the fraudsters know how to work the system. So if you make the system stringent enough to keep out fraud you're going to deny visas for a huge number of legitimate applicants.

Allow a basic form of visa where there's relatively simple and efficient checks (criminal background, medical, etc.) and foreigners will use it. The vast majority of border jumpers will use it instead. People who are here illegally can return to their country (voluntary cost-free deportation) and apply. That is a very cost-effective way to deal with the problem. The vast majority will go through the process instead of entering illegally, leaving border patrol to track down the misfits, smugglers, or criminals who don't meet those very basic requirements. It would also make it so we knew who was in our country rather than having 12-25 million undocumented illegals.

I concur with Capstone that those here illegally should get preferential treatment over those who have been waiting.

I think the current immigration law doesn't really serve America or Americans well. Am I now forbidden to oppose laws I don't think work well? Ah, America, the land of the free.

If/when I apply for a K visa, I will do the paperwork and pay the fees (there, that's a little back on topic) because thats the law, but it won't stop me from saying "damn that's a stupid law" or "damn those fees are high." I will probably not smuggle her in over the Canadian border to spite the law. But I will wish there was an easier, faster, more efficient way of doing things.

[piglett]

I don't support every statute that's ever been passed. Many are absolute BS, others I don't think are fair, others I just don't like.
The current immigration system is a problem, but I don't see it as a major one compared to other problems we have. Social security, medicare, and medicaid reform come to mind as larger problems, along with national debt issues.
We would starve to death with an increase in immigration? We produce somewhat over 1/3 of the world's food supply last time I checked. If there's any country that can support a huge populace then it's us. A very large portion of our food just goes to waste because we can't use it, other foodstuffs get shipped out...we are nowhere near capacity and food production is still increasing.
I don't want to waste money on freebies for anyone, much less illegals. Neither do I want to spend massive amounts of money on deporting people and building a secure border wall (which would have to be similar to the Berlin wall or those in Gaza to be effective). The current wall can be beaten in a matter of minutes with extremely basic tools, and we have nowhere near enough border patrol agents. The only reason our current system seems anywhere near effective is because there's almost always a completely  unfenced and unpatrolled area just a few miles down the way that's even easier. So, the first order of business is to create an immense wall that is patrolled 24/7, preferably with a kill zone of at least 100 yards where border jumpers are shot on sight (that would do great things for international relations). So after building the wall for many years and hiring a huge number of border patrol agents, you can get around to deporting the rest of those still here. The cost of deporting someone is around $3,000 currently, but those they are deporting right now are incredibly easy to find (such as those incarcerated for a crime). When you get down to finding those illegals living decent normal lives you are looking at a much higher cost per deportee. How much it would be, who really knows? If we use Ray's figure of 25mil illegals (and that number would increase before the wall was finished) that's a minimum of $75 billion, but would in reality almost certainly be much higher.
Now the problem is that most estimates put nearly half of illegals as those who overstayed legally issued visas. Border wall won't help there. So you've got an ongoing cost associated with deporting those folks, probably at least tens of billions a year. You would probably also see those who would previously have jumped the border committing visa fraud instead. So now you have to beef up the immigration system and make it even more onerous, jacking up visa fees for normal citizens in the process no doubt. How onerous would you have to make the process to eliminate all those who would overstay a visa (if it can be done, which I don't think it can)?
Then there's the fact that with fiance/spousal visas (which are of interest to those on this board) some studies have shown that those who commit visa fraud are often more successful at obtaining a visa than those who apply legitimately, since the fraudsters know how to work the system. So if you make the system stringent enough to keep out fraud you're going to deny visas for a huge number of legitimate applicants.
Allow a basic form of visa where there's relatively simple and efficient checks (criminal background, medical, etc.) and foreigners will use it. The vast majority of border jumpers will use it instead. People who are here illegally can return to their country (voluntary cost-free deportation) and apply. That is a very cost-effective way to deal with the problem. The vast majority will go through the process instead of entering illegally, leaving border patrol to track down the misfits, smugglers, or criminals who don't meet those very basic requirements. It would also make it so we knew who was in our country rather than having 12-25 million undocumented illegals.
I concur with Capstone that those here illegally should get preferential treatment over those who have been waiting.
I think the current immigration law doesn't really serve America or Americans well. Am I now forbidden to oppose laws I don't think work well? Ah, America, the land of the free.
If/when I apply for a K visa, I will do the paperwork and pay the fees (there, that's a little back on topic) because thats the law, but it won't stop me from saying "damn that's a stupid law" or "damn those fees are high." I will probably not smuggle her in over the Canadian border to spite the law. But I will wish there was an easier, faster, more efficient way of doing things.

let them all in & if they start causing "trouble" around here the good ol' boys will straighten it out themselves with their deer rifles ...........is that really what you would like?? not me


piglett

[piglett]

Really if the people running this country had 1/2 a brain they wouldn't let 1 more person in till every American who wants one had a job. then if there are extra jobs then OK


piglett

ps the real problem is that if you let 100 million foreigners in this year most Americans would be with out jobs & therefore would soon be homeless. don't you think there would be blood in the streets if there were 100 million jobless homeless Americans that were made that way because of a sudden huge wave of foreign workers?? come on think about it.

[Ray]

I don't support every statute that's ever been passed. Many are absolute BS, others I don't think are fair, others I just don't like.

OK, so either change the law or just keep ignoring it and rant on about some dumb idea of “open borders” that you think was the norm LOOOONG before you were even born. But you will lose if you think the people of this country are ready to sell out their birthright for some stupid amnesty scheme. Only the leftist whackos and uninformed know-nothings would support amnesty for illegals.

We would starve to death with an increase in immigration?

Well, look at what is happening to California if you want a look into the future with those STUPID sanctuary cities and the coddling of illegals. The schools are overcrowded with illegals, the hospitals are going broke providing mandatory free care to every illegal who walks in, and now the state is virtually bankrupt thanks to the invasion of millions of illegal aliens. We will all be starving very soon if this BS continues much longer.

Neither do I want to spend massive amounts of money on deporting people and building a secure border wall (which would have to be similar to the Berlin wall or those in Gaza to be effective). The current wall can be beaten in a matter of minutes with extremely basic tools

Now that’s 2 of you who don’t have any idea what you are talking about. Instead of parroting the leftist nonsense that you hear on MSNBC, why not come down to San Diego and see for yourself how the new border fence system really works. It is NOTHING like the Berlin Wall and it did not cost “massive amounts” of money! Now please stop making a fool of yourself and do a little research before spouting the party line on the fence. The most stupid argument of all against the fence is that people will find a way to get over or around it, so let’s just leave the border wide open and not even attempt to enforce the law, The FACT is that the fence works fine and the leftist whackos are selling you a load of BS.

So, the first order of business is to create an immense wall that is patrolled 24/7, preferably with a kill zone of at least 100 yards where border jumpers are shot on sight (that would do great things for international relations).

HUH?

Now you sound just like the lefties on MSNBC. Lies, exaggerations, and pure BS! Sorry, but we aren’t as stupid as the leftists think the American people are.

Allow a basic form of visa where there's relatively simple and efficient checks (criminal background, medical, etc.) and foreigners will use it. The vast majority of border jumpers will use it instead.

No they won’t. See my previous comments on the relatively unused H-2A farm laborer visas. Why should anyone follow the rules and spend money for visa fees, etc., when they know perfectly well that we don't have guts to enforce our laws. What is the penalty for sneaking in? NOTHING! They even get a free meal and free ride home.

I concur with Capstone that those here illegally should get preferential treatment over those who have been waiting.

Was that a typo? Is so, make up your mind. By NOT deporting illegals, you ARE giving them preferential treatment over everyone playing by the rules!
 

I think the current immigration law doesn't really serve America or Americans well.

It doesn’t serve anyone well if it isn’t even enforced.

Ray