I'm on the side of property rights, myself, but mostly because I look at illegal immigration as largely a non-issue.

http://www.unobserver.com/layout5.php?id=4250&blz=1

I think there's no way the government could possibly lose in court, and I do think it would set a very bad legal precedent if the courts ruled that the government couldn't seize lands for national security purposes.

On the other hand, the purpose the government is seizing this land for is absurd. The notion that a wall will solve our immigration problems is positively medieval. If we do build the wall we should add an alligator-infested moat just to complete the picture, in case there are a few people in the world who are not yet convinced Americans are a bunch of xenophobic morons.

Wow, the U.S. taking land from Indians, history does repeat itself.

I'm not sure how I feel about this.

stealing land, building walls to keep people out. america just keeps making itself look more and more like the assholes and racists it is filled with.

home of the brave, land of the free, yeah, right. if you have enough money.

Well personally I don't think we should pay for medical expenses for illegal aliens when we can't even provide healthcare for all our citizens! Hmm, well maybe birth control pills, but I'm not for building any wall. That seems like a huge waste of money. I live in California and we depend a lot on the illegal mexican work force!

what's the name of that movie? a day without a mexican?

yes, but you don't see a massive wall and heavy patrols on the canadian border. it has nothing to do with the amount of illegal travel from canada. mostly racial. more educated, lighter skinned people come across the canadian border.

yes, but you don't see a massive wall and heavy patrols on the canadian border. it has nothing to do with the amount of illegal travel from canada. mostly racial. more educated, lighter skinned people come across the canadian border.
It's more about the education than the skin color. People who come across the Canadian border are not illegal, and they tend to bring something of value to Canada... And of course, they generally have money, and won't become burdens on Canada's welfare system.

I don't see how anyone could call us xenophobic, or other even less complimentary terms, if they know how many legal immigrants we let in. At my school, there are thousands of international students, from 70 different countries, here on student visas. If Mexicans want to give their children more opportunity, why not just send them to school here, and then when they come back they'll be well educated and able to get some of the best jobs in Mexico.

if they get paid more here than in mexico, where do you think they'll go?

don't bring anything valuable from mexico? if they didn't no one would hire them. even if it is the will to bend and pick.

i saw where a lot of vegetables and fruit never got harvested last year because the mexicans were working elsewhere doing something else besides harvesting food. if the growers paid more...........

i heard of one mexican here who works shit jobs, for what most americans would never do for the pay he is getting. he has bought 3 restaurants IN mexico and his family runs them. they will never get rich there, but they survive.

It seems a little stupid to own land on the border and then feign surprise when the Border Patrol has a presence on your premises.

I'm getting more and more fed up with illegal immigrants. My grandfather, who runs a small construction business, hires some illegal workers. He pays them just as much as he would pay legal guys, but he hires them because he feels they are better workers. However, one of them just fell on the job and broke a bunch of his bones. Now he is threatening to sue my grandfather - apparently he has some lawyer from the ACLU or something who feels he should be able to sue for his injuries. Now how the fuck can an illegal immigrant, who is committing a crime just by being there and working there, sue for injuries he sustained on the job (and it's a better paying job than most he could get)?!

Personally I think its a step in the right direction for the US to borders.

The Southern one from illegals and would-be bombers,

the Northern one from bombers [and Canadians]:)

Apart from that,in a lot of open land, if your not a local, I would think its
extremely difficult thing to know exactly were the border is.

My only beef with an actual physical wall would be its impact on migrating
wildlife :(.

My only beef with an actual physical wall would be its impact on migrating
wildlife :(.
You know, I didn't even think about that. I wonder how many animals would be adversely affected.

I'm getting more and more fed up with illegal immigrants. My grandfather, who runs a small construction business, hires some illegal workers. He pays them just as much as he would pay legal guys, but he hires them because he feels they are better workers. However, one of them just fell on the job and broke a bunch of his bones. Now he is threatening to sue my grandfather - apparently he has some lawyer from the ACLU or something who feels he should be able to sue for his injuries. Now how the fuck can an illegal immigrant, who is committing a crime just by being there and working there, sue for injuries he sustained on the job (and it's a better paying job than most he could get)?! Well how about some sort of fine for people that hire illegal aliens that take jobs away from American citizens?

Well how about some sort of fine for people that hire illegal aliens that take jobs away from American citizens?
Of course I support that. I don't think anyone should hire illegals, period, and I think I've always been very clear on that.

DF-do you not think the illegal should be compensated for his injury?

well, yer gramps is gonna be liabel for even hiring the illegal. that's illegal in itself. the illegal sueing? that's dumb and greedy. i'd say it is fair if gramps paid for his hospital bills and that's all. don't blame the illegals for the jobs they "take". blame the people hiring them.

leper, i believe the land is "owned" by indians for a very long time. it is just the govenrment using excuses to take something, again.

leper, i believe the land is "owned" by indians for a very long time. it is just the govenrment using excuses to take something, again.

A) Calling themselves Apache does not not make "Eloisa Garcia Tamez" or "Enrique Madrid" Apaches. Well, I suppose it's possible that Apaches have started adopting Spanish surnames, but I think it's more likely that these people are full of shit or Apaches are getting overrun by illegal immigrants also.

B) Being Native American does not give you greater rights than any other citizen. Sorry, but the continent was colonized three hundred years ago back when there were maybe ten thousand people living in all of Texas. Get over it.

Now, I'm all for returning the land to that pristine state, but good luck proposing the American extermination program that would be necessary to achieve that.

C) You should know this article is full of shit when it says "The Texas communities along the international boundary zone are largely made up of Native Americans and of land grant heirs who have resided on inherited properties for hundreds of years."

Um, I've been to the "international boundary zone" and it doesn't even remotely resemble some sort of Native American sanctuary.....unless you consider Mayan/Spanish descendents "Native American." Here, we just call them Hispanic.

DF-do you not think the illegal should be compensated for his injury?
Of course. My grandpa is taking money out of his own pocket (which is nowhere near full - if he had any savings he'd be retired by now, with all his health problems) to help pay for the guy's hospital bills. He can't pay all of them, since that would mean taking money away from his own family. My uncle, who is 24, lives with his parents still, and my aunt, who is 20, is in college.

Leper - I believe the people are Native Americans. Having Spanish names means nothing, just that they're in an area that has been colonized by Hispanics for centuries. You see Indians in other places with English names, and you don't say "Oh he can't be Indian, his name is Bobby Jones" or whatever. Obviously they could be (and probably are) part Hispanic, but can't you be officially part of a tribe if you're as little as 1/8 Native American or some little fraction like that?

It's no different that a freeway/highway as far as the border fence is concerned. Imminent domain will allow the government to use the required land as needed. There should be a fair price given to the landowners for what is required.

BTW I am 1/8 Cherokee (and 1/1 American)... the laws of imminent domain apply to me as much as any citizen.

It's no different that a freeway/highway as far as the border fence is concerned. Imminent domain will allow the government to use the required land as needed. There should be a fair price given to the landowners for what is required.

BTW I am 1/8 Cherokee (and 1/1 American)... the laws of imminent domain apply to me as much as any citizen.
You're right. I'm not sure I agree with eminent domain being used so freely, but the law is the law and it applies to everyone in the country.

I take it all land up against the border is not federal land, but the government has the right to access, and/or to purchase it at market price.

I take it all land up against the border is not federal land, but the government has the right to access, and/or to purchase it at market price.
exactly!:thumbs:

on the upside, if you're going to be selling, the Feds are the best buyer you're ever going to get-they always pay retail.

exactly!:thumbs:
Not that there is any distinct border in Ireland, on the roads the markings change from north and south, tho in open fields, the field itself may cross
the border.

Government can demand access here also, and the right to buy.
Its called a 'Compulsory Purchase Order'. Tho they're not obliged to pay
market prices :( .

DF-do you not think the illegal should be compensated for his injury?
he should be the same as any other worker-no more, no less.....but then he should be deported too.-jmo

Not that there is any distinct border in Ireland, on the roads the markings change from north and south, tho in open fields, the field itself may cross
the border.

Government can demand access here also, and the right to buy.
Its called a 'Compulsory Purchase Order'. Tho they're not obliged to pay
market prices :( .
sorry:(

I find all this deportation for simly being there a bit much to be honest.

Dont forget,these people are doing what virtually all Americans ancestors done-seek a better life.

I think that you guys should ask yourselves, would I personally qualify for entry with my qualifications today.

Maybe the way forward is to do away with Immigration all together :(

or, treble the quota allowed in, the system at present sure dont work.

Leper - I believe the people are Native Americans. Having Spanish names means nothing, just that they're in an area that has been colonized by Hispanics for centuries. You see Indians in other places with English names, and you don't say "Oh he can't be Indian, his name is Bobby Jones" or whatever. Obviously they could be (and probably are) part Hispanic, but can't you be officially part of a tribe if you're as little as 1/8 Native American or some little fraction like that?

Fair enough. I disagree that that means nothing, however. If you adopt a name from another culture, I think that makes you a member of that culture for all practical purposes. Being 1/8th Apache and 7/8's Hispanic, bearing a Hispanic name, and living in "the Valley" of Texas makes you Hispanic, no matter how you try to slice it. (In Texas, if you say you're from "the Valley," that's code for growing up in a poor, Hispanic area...and you almost certainly speak Spanish, no matter what race you are)

Reading between the lines here, it sounds to me like a few Mexicans with some small part Apache blood are trying to use their Native American blood to engender some sort of sympathy for their pro-illegal immigration beliefs.

Btw, I'm 1/32 Cherokee, and I have no problem admitting that it would be incredibly disingenuous of me to try claim myself as a Native American for a political cause.

Here's a map of present day Apache settlement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Apachean_present.png

Here's one of 18th century Apache population centers:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Apachean_ca.18-century.png

Notice that none of the Apache areas cover a place where a border fence is proposed.

I find all this deportation for simly being there a bit much to be honest.

Dont forget,these people are doing what virtually all Americans ancestors done-seek a better life.
that's what deportation is for, getting people out that aren't supposed to be here. if you're not supposed to be here, you're not supposed to be here.
I think that you guys should ask yourselves, would I personally qualify for entry with my qualifications today.
get in line with everyone else, but remember that all the unskilled labor from Latin America is holding up your line.
Maybe the way forward is to do away with Immigration all together :(

or, treble the quota allowed in, the system at present sure dont work.
it works, when the rules are followed.

Unfortunatly-with an estimated 12 million illegals-I'd suggest the system isnt
working.

About getting in line-ah no thanks, too old for that starting again shit :)

Paul, we let in PLENTY of legal aliens. I bet we let in more than Europe does (comparative to our population of course). We can't just let in every single person who wants to come... Or is that what you want us to do?

Paul, we let in PLENTY of legal aliens. I bet we let in more than Europe does (comparative to our population of course). We can't just let in every single person who wants to come... Or is that what you want us to do?
Hmmm-Im just trying to provide options for dealing with your present Illegal problem.
As nobody would say the present system is working properly.

PS: The population of the EU is 450 million-as far as I can see, 1.7 million
Immigrants are allowed in each year,no idea how many illegals arrive tho.

Of course the system's not working properly - but letting in more people isn't the answer. Even if we up our legal immigrant amounts, we can't let in all of them, and the rest will continue to come illegally. We need secure borders, period. At this point we shouldn't even worry about the illegals already here - we should focus on getting the borders secure first, or else it's like shoveling the driveway while it's still snowing - they'll keep coming and our efforts to get them out will always be eclipsed by the amount coming in. Also, as I believe you've pointed out before, unsecured borders are a HUGE potential national security threat. If millions of poor Mexicans can get over the border, then you can bet some terrorists could too, if they wanted to.

zzzzzzz-dont know why I post a link and it shows up as something different in USA. :(

'Under plans drafted by Justice and Security Commisioner Franco Frattini, member states will be required to increase from 2%-10% the companies that are inspected annually for the employment of illegal immigrants, in a move that reflects concerns about the immigrants welfare and the stream of around 300,000 foreigners entering Europes shadow economy every year.

Of course the system's not working properly - but letting in more people isn't the answer. Even if we up our legal immigrant amounts, we can't let in all of them, and the rest will continue to come illegally. We need secure borders, period. At this point we shouldn't even worry about the illegals already here - we should focus on getting the borders secure first, or else it's like shoveling the driveway while it's still snowing - they'll keep coming and our efforts to get them out will always be eclipsed by the amount coming in. Also, as I believe you've pointed out before, unsecured borders are a HUGE potential national security threat. If millions of poor Mexicans can get over the border, then you can bet some terrorists could too, if they wanted to.
Yeah-I'd have to agree with that.
[1] A secure border is vital to National Security. Only one of which problems is illegal Immigration.

[2] Illegals already settled in the US should be allowed to remain-as permanent residents.
There are a number of reasons for this.
It would be impracticable to round up and deport all illegals and their children
born in the US.
Any illegals spouses who are US citizens are also committing a crime by getting married, knowingly to an illegal, the courts would collapse if they were all prosecuted.
The economy would suffer, as low paid jobs would be difficult to fill in some regions.
The cost of the whole operation would be astronomical.

As the system stands at present-an amnesty would be required every 10 years-so whats the point.

Here's an interesting tidbit from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_the_United_States#Contemporary_immi gration):
Since 2000, legal immigrants to the United States number approximately 1,000,000 per year, of whom about 600,000 are Change of Status immigrants who already are in the U.S. Legal immigrants to the United States now are at their highest level ever at over 35,000,000 legal immigrants.
The article estimates illegal immigration as between 700,000 and 1.5 million per year... So we let in legally about as many as are coming in illegally.

Paul, I shy away from supporting amnesty from an ideological standpoint, but I agree with you that it's basically necessary from a practical standpoint. However, I think we should get rid of "sanctuary laws" forbidding police from asking a person's immigration status, and any illegal who commits a crime should be deported. Law abiding illegals who do nothing wrong can stay.

Here's an interesting tidbit from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_the_United_States#Contemporary_immi gration):

The article estimates illegal immigration as between 700,000 and 1.5 million per year... So we let in legally about as many as are coming in illegally.
Doesnt that raise an argument for doubling the quota of green cards issued?

Paul, I shy away from supporting amnesty from an ideological standpoint, but I agree with you that it's basically necessary from a practical standpoint. However, I think we should get rid of "sanctuary laws" forbidding police from asking a person's immigration status, and any illegal who commits a crime should be deported. Law abiding illegals who do nothing wrong can stay.
I wasnt aware until I joined AF that an illegal can walk out of a courthouse in America, with a criminal record and NOT be deported-I find this amazing.

Doesnt that raise an argument for doubling the quota of green cards issued?
No... Why would it? I don't think that we should have to let in every single person who wants to get into the country. I think a million per year is enough, although I wouldn't be opposed to increasing it a little, to maybe 1.2-1.5 million per year. Also, I think we have laws in place to make sure that we get immigrants from a wide variety of countries, and since almost all illegals are from Mexico and other Central American countries, we would have to give them an unfair share in order to "solve" the illegal problem in that way... Look around on that Wikipedia page I linked to; there are some very interesting maps about the numbers/rates of immigration to the U.S. from each country.

If there are as many illegals as legals entering each year-these illegals must be surviving some way.

If the economy is sucking up this amout of people per year, there must be a demand for them.

I believe Mexicans have an unfair advantage in entering the US anyway.
But I understand that a imbalance of Latinos will only add to larger ethnic problems in the US itself.

I wasnt aware until I joined AF that an illegal can walk out of a courthouse in America, with a criminal record and NOT be deported-I find this amazing.
It's pretty astounding, I know.

As far as the economy goes, I think we'll be ok if less people are coming in. The big businesses that like to hire illegals in order to pay them low wages will just have to suck it up and pay a little more for legal citizens/residents to work for them.

So-have ya figured out how to build a wall/fence to stop people, but allow wildlife to migrate.

Ive thought about this several times this week, and drawn a blank. :(

Looks like the wildlife will probably just have to suck it up too. I wonder just how much migration is going on there though... the only animals I know of that would migrate over that area are birds and butterflies, so they're not affected.

Looks like the wildlife will probably just have to suck it up too. I wonder just how much migration is going on there though... the only animals I know of that would migrate over that area are birds and butterflies, so they're not affected.
If there aren't any land animals migrating there-good.

I find the lack of will among Presidential hopefuls to address the issue with the importance it demands.

In my opinion,this is easily the most important issue facing the United States at present, with the potential to destroy the USA as a nation in the long run.

Senator McCain seems to talk sense on the issue, the others seem to sidestep it, this is a serious mistake.

Leper - I believe the people are Native Americans. Having Spanish names means nothing, just that they're in an area that has been colonized by Hispanics for centuries. You see Indians in other places with English names, and you don't say "Oh he can't be Indian, his name is Bobby Jones" or whatever. Obviously they could be (and probably are) part Hispanic, but can't you be officially part of a tribe if you're as little as 1/8 Native American or some little fraction like that?


like russell means, john trudell, etc.. all native.

being part of a nation depends on the nation itself. some nations you have to be 1/4, some 1/8, etc.. but a lot of indians will not consider you native or part of their people if you do not know the language, customs, and etc.. even if you are a full blood. because you end up with nations like the tsalagi (cherokee) who almost all look like either blacks or whites, don't know the language, never lived with their people , etc..
i am 1/32 native. i do have a couple of customs handed down through my father, but no more than that. i have an interest in my ancestors. and not just the indian part. i refuse to ignore my ancestors all because one part of myself is "fashionable". but above all else, i see myself as your typical appalachian mutt.

A) B) Being Native American does not give you greater rights than any other citizen. Sorry, but the continent was colonized three hundred years ago back when there were maybe ten thousand people living in all of Texas. Get over it.

.


but they do have legalities on their side. the LEGAL paperwork ENDS at the 1763 royal proclamation. i see myself and just about anyone west of the blue ridge line as being occupied by an illegal government.
in the future when the population of "america" is mainly of darker skin how things work then. the borders may be opened wide and never shut ever again. and maybe darker skinned people being the major part of the population ,and thus the government, will deal more fairly with the first nations people.

In a nutshell, eminent domain is the taking of private land for public use. I would like to know how, exactly, a wall is considered a "public use." Nobody can really use it, anyway.

And where's the just compensation in all this?