Reports say illegal U.S. entry not difficult

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • joazinha
    June 17, 2008 5:35 p.m.

    It's IRRATIONAL and SHAMEFUL that OUR government cares MORE about borders HALF a WORLD away instead of it's OWN home turf!

  • Stephen
    June 17, 2008 1:00 a.m.

    This is the beginning of Mexican Revolution II. You have a corrupt government that can't rely on it's police and military, both being bought off by drug cartels. A memo was released from Calderon's administration that banned reporting kidnappings and killings of tourists after 4 Americans were found shot to death near Rosarita Beach. Tourism in Mexican border towns is down 90%. Wealthy Mexicans who own homes and busiesses are selling them and moving to the US LEGALLY thru E-1 and E-2 visa programs. It allows foreigners to immigrate to the US indefinitely by investing or opening businesses that hire US citizens and legal immigrants. It's like rats abandoning a sinking ship. Once tourists stop coming to Mexico, millions of illegal aliens are deported from the US, and Pemex oil resources run dry, you will see Mexico explode in revolution. This time, form a government that is run for "We the people..." like the US used to be.

  • dharc
    June 16, 2008 11:24 p.m.

    How do you stop the flood by legalizing it? You don't! The flood of Mexicans will keep flooding in, legal or not legal.Don't you get it? The life boat of the U.S.A. is sinking. By 2050 there will be 450 million people here not including ILLEGAL ALIENS. The elites like Bush do not give a rats ass ,they want that border open.There is a freight train coming down the track and our children will be paying the price. Both the Republican and Democrats
    will be more hated than child molestors,rapist and murderers.And they deserve all the hate they get.

  • A Reader
    June 16, 2008 11:07 p.m.

    A guy who wroye "Vote Cannon!" must be in Cannon's pocket (or out of his mind).

    For otherwise how anyone at his right mind would even suggest voting on a politician so nototious for his support of pro-illegal mass migration from Mexico and one of the stanuchest backer of Bush's "don't you dare calling it amnesty" amnesty program?

    Hit the road, Mr. Cannon. We are fed up with your quasi treasonous stance on illegal "immigration". We need to elect someone who will openly and truly side with us and not with the Mexican invaders.

  • Buzzm1
    June 16, 2008 10:54 p.m.

    San Diego----------- 66 miles--- 110,164----------1669
    El Centro------------ 71 miles---- 29,130-----------410
    Yuma--------------- 118 miles----- 6,877------------ 58
    Tucson------------- 262 miles--- 235,883----------- 900
    El Paso------------- 268 miles----- 23,653------------ 88
    Marfa--------------- 510 miles----- 3,912--------------8
    Del Rio-------------- 210 miles-----14,804------------ 70
    Laredo-------------- 171 miles---- 31,353------------183
    Rio Grande Valley-- 316 miles-----52,860----------- 167

  • Emily E
    June 16, 2008 10:28 p.m.

    If anyone here thinks that we're just going to round up all the illegals and send them home, you've got another thing coming. Illegal immigration is an extremely complex issue which starts with legal immigration. If it wasn't so hard to get in here legally, and if there weren't so many incentives for being here illegally, we wouldn't need a fence. That's where we need to start. Giving temporary visas is not amnesty, it is registration, and then sending them to the back of the line.

  • Doubtful
    June 16, 2008 10:14 p.m.

    I don't think so, James. I'm a GOP delegate (supporting Chaffetz, yes) and got no such email. There's no grand conspiracy.
    Sorry your guy (Leavitt) didn't win. He was pretty darn soft on immigration too, wasn't he? Those sour grapes must really have your teeth on edge right about now.
    I guess we'll see on the 24th, won't we? I think Jason's message resonates VERY well with LOTS of people. Even then, voter turn-out is expected to be in the 5% range. . . Will Chris get the voters out or will Jason? Based on yard signs and talk on the street, it will be Jason.

  • James
    June 16, 2008 9:57 p.m.

    I just got an email from a friend who is a GOP delegate.

    The Chaffetz team apparently had some sort of brain storming session where they are going to talk his visa up. They are going to fill in the holes and make it sound like it is not amnesty after all.

    They are going to stick to the idea that since at the end of his visa they have to go home, that is the new definition. That has already been tried on this list but it doesn't hold water.

    Some M-A-J-O-R spin and damage control is about to get thrown in the fan.

    Jason threw something out to cover for the fact his aggressive 'blank' tents came across as Japanese-American internment camps. And in so doing it went so far the other way that his proposed visa will be the biggest magnet for more illegal immigration ever proposed.

    If Jason is our Congressman and even files this bill you will see a major surge at the border. His bill doesn't even do background checks, health screenings or pay a fine. Think about that. With a visa like this, why even have a border!

    Bad, bad attempt at pandering.

  • David Edward Garber
    June 16, 2008 9:29 p.m.

    I'm so very upset with Dubya for working to erase our borders, prosecuting our border patrol agents for doing their jobs, failing to nab bin Laden, and ticking off the entire population of the Middle East at us even more than it already was through foreign policies that would appall our nation's founders. I certainly don't feel much safer knowing that any number of would-be mass-murderers from abroad can saunter across our nation's borders almost anytime they please.

    And, then, of course, there's the rest of Bush's legacy of huge budget deficits leading to price inflation and a falling dollar, putting us back into UNESCO, doubling our darn Department of Education, adding prescription-drug benefits, advancing North American "integration", trying to get amnesty for illegals, calling for more central economic planning in energy and health care, backing the U.N.'s Law of the Sea treaty, et cetera, and generally trampling on your conservative base (myself included) on issue after issue after issue for seven long years.

    We could desperately use some better Republicans in D.C. these days--especially ones who won't eagerly collaborate with RINOs like Dubya who are leading our party toward self-destruction.

  • wehategringos
    June 16, 2008 6:07 p.m.

    Actually fences do work if built and maintained properly. The Fence Act requires a double layered fence with a road between them. Vehicle barriers were also included. What is actually being built is not what was required and is certainly not going to be very effective. Glenn Spencer of the American Border Patrol will soon be releasing a documentary exposing the entire fence deception.
    The barrier in San Diego resulted in a 48% decrease in crime. The fence is not a stand alone all in one solution, although many would like many would like to portray it as such. It is only a small part of an overall enforcement strategy. The other components include more agents on the ground, heavy interior and job site enforcement. Those 3 elements would produce a net reduction of illegal crossings and a process of attrition. Many illegals not most would repatriate themselves when they could no longer find employment.

    Other possible options include arresting and jailing any illegal alien caught. Jailed illegal aliens would be unable to send money back home. Jailing would be a very strong deterrent. Ending automatic birthright citizenship and social services for illegal aliens would finish off the illegal problem.

  • dharc
    June 16, 2008 5:57 p.m.

    Actually you don't need a fence. At Area 51 north of Las Vegas there are no fences. But there are sound sensors and every so often on a hilltop there are white trucks and below them signs that say "Deadly Force is Authorized" do not enter.I would love to see the Mexicans try there B.S. up there.

  • Robert H
    June 16, 2008 5:54 p.m.

    To answer the question, I agree that no benefits should be paid to those who are not here legally. If I understand correctly this was part of the bill that Senator Hickman ran that Jason Chaffetz did nothing to help in any way. So while he talks about being tough, it is all talk.

    I support visa reform though we must also have serious enforcement that includes E-verify, no welfare benefits, and those types of things. We also need to make a system that tracks those here in the US on valid visas. From what I understand the largest percentage of people here illegally came here on a visa, then simply didn't go home.

  • Just a question
    June 16, 2008 5:17 p.m.

    Sombody answer me, seriously.
    What is wrong with the idea of absolutlely NO benefit granted to an individual who cannot prove citizenship OR legal entry/current legal status. NO Benefits like employment, education(ANY LEVEL), medical(Beyond EMS), food, and housing? I still believe that if there are no benefits, NONE!! there is very little if any illegal immigration. Does ANY Candidate or serving representative come close to this idea?

  • arc
    June 16, 2008 5:09 p.m.

    I am not the only one that picked this paragraph:

    "Cornelius said rather than focusing on border security, a better approach to curb illegal immigration would be to legalize the undocumented, reform the nation's guest-worker visa program and get tough on workplace enforcement."

    We do not need to legalize the undocumented, we need to document the undocumented. If they came here without permission, they can leave here with permission. If the came here with permission, the can get permission to stay using a temperatry worker visa. That includes people that came here legally, and the system failed them.

    We need to fix legal immigration first.
    We need to secure the boarder.
    We need to require English for anyone that wants to stay. If you can't speak english in 2 years, by.

    Those from all around the world that have come here can learn English. It is only those that Speak Spanish that think they are above this. If it wasn't for George Washington the USA would have been a German speaking country when it was founded. If it wasn't for our vets, we would have been speaking German after WWII. I, for one love people from all over the world.

  • Really, Skyler?
    June 16, 2008 3:37 p.m.

    Boy, if that would work, I'd be all for it. Unfortunately, there's an awful lot of border and Cannon's state isn't on any of it! One vote anywhere won't change this mess.

  • James
    June 16, 2008 3:30 p.m.

    Skyler Jackson, I remember the 2004 interview. The campaign worker who was doing that was taken before the FEC, had their hand slapped lightly then was fired by Cannon. Losing his job was pretty big punishment.

    Getting rid of Cannon and you end the illegal immigration problem, do you really believe that? Chaffetz is proposing an amnesty ten times larger than anything Cannon even thought of, and under terms that would make Ted Kennedy blush.

    You honestly think electing Jason "Amnesty for 20 million people" Chaffetz is going to solve the problem??

    I am guessing you aren't serious about the problem, you are just likely a founding member of the Anybody But Cannon (ABC) club. Attila the Hun could be running and you would vote for him.

    That club lost credibility a LLLOOONNNGGG time ago! Sorry.

    As for the Throckmorton thing, I don't know if that is the right approach either. Of course sitting down with anyone is always a good idea but what they did included state leaders, drafting attorneys, and other big wigs. Maybe you could duplicate it but it would be hard.

    I've never had a hard time talking to Cannon. Try not yelling for starters.

  • Skyler Jackson
    June 16, 2008 2:58 p.m.

    Chris Cannon did this to us. In 2004 he was on a Spanish radio station pleading for the illegals to give his campaign money "USING THEIR LEGAL CHILDREN"!

    Get rid of Chris Cannon on June 24th (Primary), and you get rid of the immigration problem.

  • DCF
    June 16, 2008 2:38 p.m.

    During convention the name Matt Throckmorton came up. One Cannon delegate defended him saying that he is the reason that Cannon has voted for all of these tough enforcement bills since that election in 2004. If you don't remember Matt Throckmorton served in the state legislature and ran against Cannon on immigration.
    A couple other delegates really went after Matt, as a turncoat for talking to Cannon. Talking to the other side is how government works. And if Throckmorton is the reason that Cannon has voted as tough as he has, maybe BBKing is right.
    People say they called Cannon's office and he doesn't do anything. If they talked to his office the same way they handled themselves at convention, I wouldn't do anything either. Booing Sentator Bennett, screaming like they were. Who wants to work with that.
    I'm not voting for Chaffetz and I think it is obvious why. When this is over those that have a real problem or question about Cannon's voting record should try and sit down with him. Not the convention way either.
    Obviously the screaming act isn't getting through.
    Or vote for Chaffetz and his amnesty for 30 million illegal aliens.

  • BBKing
    June 16, 2008 1:32 p.m.

    Sorry to disappoint you, this is not Chris Cannon. Just a former employee of the state, former Republican delegate and minor policy geek.

    I just wanted to get ahead of the curve for the deluge of Chaffetz supporters blaming Cannon for sun spots. Chaffetz's plan would not work at all and is by any standard amnesty for 20 million plus. Bear sterns placed it at 30 million, so amnesty for up to 30 million.

    There are answers out there and it includes border security though that will not fix everything. And the E-verify is BIG, if done correctly. I think the states are headed in the right direction, which is why Chaffetz's complete INACTION on that really bothers me. Almost 60% of the delegates voted for him so he could have used his influence to maybe get that law passed in a better form. Instead Chaffetz sat on the sideline talking fancy. Good law that could have been better.

    Now that people are getting a sense that Chaffetz is just playing PR games to get elected, have you thought of sitting down with Cannon as a group and making a plan? I know others have with success.

  • No to NAU
    June 16, 2008 1:24 p.m.

    The root problem to illegal border entry are too many American government officials who don't care about American sovereignty. They prefer open borders to facilitate their controllers' North American Union goals. They march to the tune of those who control them with money for their election campaigns. The Federal Reserve Note fiasco is intended to lead to the Amero. Observe what happened to Europeans who now regret they lost their rights to the European Union.

  • Brian
    June 16, 2008 1:22 p.m.

    To Fence Farce- I live on the border (San Diego). Ever since Operation Gatekeeper, the difference has beem like night and day. No, it doesn't stop everyone- but stops about 90%. Before, hundreds of people would pore across the border at once, and then nonchalantly walk up the freeway. That is over. A double fence would work even better.

  • Fence Farce
    June 16, 2008 1:00 p.m.

    Are there still people out there that think a fence would stop anybody from crossing the border?


  • Here's an idea
    June 16, 2008 12:40 p.m.

    I'm a border gal--grew up in Yuma, now live in Cochise County AZ, which has a hundred miles of border with Mexico--quite a bit of it rough country.
    When I was a kid in Yuma, the Mexican workers came up, worked the season, and went home.

    Now, not just workers come up, but women and families, who have babies, who are citizens
    (by Supreme Court Definition of an Amendment that was never intended to be so interpreted) The families, legal OR illegal, collect food stamps, get housing help, free medical care, and other welfare benefits. Since the children are citizens, the family gets preferential immigration treatment. The children, even if the parents live back across the border, go to American schools, free. Many say the don't want to become American citizens, they just want the benefits of living in America.

    The solution: 1. a documented guest worker program (workers only), 2. a better way for people who WANT to become citizens to become so--no criminals, health screening, verified work, and a sponsor (Ellis Island, anybody?). 3. NO CITIZENS' BENEFITS FOR NON CITIZENS!

    Fences are stupid and wasteful and won't work. This would work and benefit everybody fairly.

  • More complicated than fences
    June 16, 2008 12:32 p.m.

    I wonder how many folks on here actually know the illegal community. There are some pretty simple clues to know that someone is illegal. Often, they have two namesone they use at work and one their family uses. That's the first clue. Second, when they hear about raids, they don't go into work the next day. The list goes on, but the point is that Steve is right; getting across the fence is just the first step. Illegals have to stay here once they cross. One way to do that is to lay into the employers so that it's economically dissuading. But what really is at the heart of the problem is our national ID cards, which are flimsly blue pieces of plastic without ANY identifying marks! I've been in several other countries, all of whose nat'l ID cards are plastic, with a thumb-print, photo, and must be renewed regularly. If we really want to make getting a job more difficult for illegal immigrants, we need to get a real Nat'l ID card. That's a first step.

  • re: Steve
    June 16, 2008 12:31 p.m.

    You've forgotten, if they don't work then they'll be on our welfare rolls - but then again, they'll be on them whether they work or not.

  • Driving across
    June 16, 2008 12:28 p.m.

    I know personally a person who recently flew into Canada and drove across the border. She had once been here dealing with all the laws of legality for 10 yrs. She stayed out of the country for too long (if you stay out for over a year, you lose your permanent residency status). The immigrations folks told her she couldn't come back but then never took her residency card away (remember, she was legal and had done everything to stay legal while here). So, she was able to pass through a port of entry in which they only checked her ID and not her passport. B/c of that, everything checked out and she is, according to the law, here legally again because someone didn't do their job.

    If we're really interested in tightening security, the first step is for people to start doing their job.

  • veedub
    June 16, 2008 12:26 p.m.

    I don't agree with amnesty. However, I do agree with better border enforcement. I also agree that workplace enforcement will have the best results. In addition to that, a more liberal guest worker and/or immigrant program that lets many more people in legally without the high cost and risk of illegally entering the company will encourage people who really want to come here to work, and not terrorize or escape their country. This could also have the added benefit of illegals who can no longer get work here, returning to their country and applying to come legally. Save us the trouble of deporting them.

    But no, no amnesty!

  • Steve
    June 16, 2008 12:00 p.m.

    Building a larger fence is a joke. Any politician who voted for that has never been anywhere near the border. The only way to stop illegal immigration is to penalize the employers. There are employers out there that issue a Social Security number to their employees because they cannot legally work with an iTIN number. If a person can't work, they can't live here. Simple as that.

  • In other news today....
    June 16, 2008 10:15 a.m.

    Scientists determined the sun is hot, and water is wet.

  • They don't care!
    June 16, 2008 9:31 a.m.

    From this article and the government's track record, it is obvious - they don't care! In fact, I firmly believe, they want the boarders between us, Mexico and Canada, wide open. Bush's motivation has always been to eliminate our boarders.

    Wait, didn't he swear under oath to uphold our soverignty, to protect us,and to uphold and protect our Constitution? Now I understand why so many want him impeached!

  • BBking?
    June 16, 2008 9:21 a.m.

    Thanks Chris Cannon. Thanks for ignoring the laws of the land. Also thanks to the administration for doing the same. Also our 2 candidates now will give amnesty to the 20-25 million illegals that are hear. I would say our country is in deep crap!

  • enforce the law
    June 16, 2008 8:58 a.m.

    How about actually enforcing the laws? Better yet, how about building a fence and wall across the entire border?... How about placing sniper towers every two miles along the border?... How about shooting anyone who crosses illegally? How about kicking all the illegals in the country out? How about starting with the illegal criminals?

    The absolute farce that is called our border security is underfunded and undermined by our own federal and state governments. Maybe we should start by getting rid of our politicians who are not listening to the people.

  • Workplace enforcement
    June 16, 2008 8:53 a.m.

    Both Feere and Cornelius are correct that the one most lacking area is workplace enforcement. Next time ICE raids a Swift packing plant and rounds up another 300 illegal immigrants, take the CEO, CFO and all the members of the Board of Directors and put them in jail for 30 days and fine each of them $5 million dollars. I guarantee Swift will never knowingly hire another person without a green card.

  • Terry
    June 16, 2008 7:23 a.m.

    "Cornelius said rather than focusing on border security, a better approach to curb illegal immigration would be to legalize the undocumented, reform the nation's guest-worker visa program and get tough on workplace enforcement."

    I will never understand the stupidity of some peoples thought process.

    The question is will congress ever ignore special interest in favor of what is in the best interest for the general public? The answer is a resounding NO.

  • The Gov't fails again
    June 16, 2008 7:16 a.m.

    This reminds me of the airport security tests that invariably reveal that determined terrorists can still get past the TSA.
    We dutifully put up with screening at the airport and all the paperwork nonsense for a drivers license or employment application. Not to mention passport fees and delays in processing.
    Meanwhile, the bad guys still get through.
    Another example that our form of government is inadequate for governing an immoral society. (John Adams)
    I wish I knew how it will all end.

  • BBKing
    June 16, 2008 6:52 a.m.

    Before the Chaffetz people start blaming Cannon remember that Chris has voted for over 1,000 miles of fence and barriers, thousands of new officers, equipment, and training.

    And unlike Chaffetz, Cannon has also focused on other methods that make it more difficult get/remain in the country. Let's remember that Cannon voted Yes on E-verify, while Chaffetz did not lift a single finger to help pass the Utah law. He did NOTHING to help solve this, well he has TALKED about it. But when given a chance to actually do something, remember that he did nothing for E-verify.

    We should also keep in mind that any new Guest Worker visa must have not only stringent guidelines, a very specific purpose, realistic time frames and be a substantial investment as a method of ensuring immigrant participation.

    Cannon has shown he understands the key elements of this as his proposed visa is very well thought out.

    Chaffetz on the other hand is just basically leaving the barn yard door open. Applying a visa in such a hap-hazard way is nothing but trouble, and with not even one red penney of a fine is nothing but amnesty for 20 million people.

    Vote Cannon!