Users who Dugg This
Amit Tripathi
48 Followers
Amit Tripathi
48 Followers
mysticdave
4416 Followers
mysticdave
4416 Followers
DeadManDigging
689 Followers
stoanhartAug 3, 2010
Arrest AND deportation?
"You're illegal! You're out of here!"
"Good, I was leaving anyways."
"All right then!"
"OK!"
"Glad we're in agreement."
"Si"
steelchickenAug 3, 2010
You forgot the: " and stay out, f**kers"
dcjoedogv2Aug 3, 2010
You're a P.O.S., you know that?
Closed AccountAug 3, 2010
Honestly, if you are an illegal, I could give a rats ass what happens to you while trying to enter, stay, or leave my country...
djm19Aug 3, 2010
How compassionate. Its not like their humans, in any sort of desperate situation.
spyderveloceAug 4, 2010
What about showing some compassion to the almost 800,000 homeless Americans and all the others whose jobs and tax revenues have been taken from them by these f**kin' Mexican c**kroaches!Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountAug 4, 2010
The influx of illegals coming into this country create desperate situations for the rest of the legal citizens of this country. My compassion is with them.
newesAug 4, 2010
Yeah, lets pay to house people who are leaving.
gusterbearAug 4, 2010
It's my country too, and I say STFU fool.
araytaAug 4, 2010
Seems a little redundant.
clp727Aug 3, 2010
Guess they should've come here legally! I don't like some of the laws in my country, but I do abide by them because they are law.
hetmanAug 3, 2010
If I find a law to be unjust I do not follow it I just try not to get caught.
caramba421Aug 3, 2010
Yeah, we all know that the law always reflects what is just.
Thanks Establishment!
holygodAug 3, 2010
What country are you from? Because my guess is that it isn't a country of extreme poverty and limited opportunity mixed in with random violence and corruption. My guess is if it was you would do whatever it took to find a better life for yourself and your family. I don't think a law would stop you.
eastshoresAug 3, 2010
"... my guess is that it isn't a country of extreme poverty and limited opportunity mixed in with random violence and corruption."
Sounds like the good ol' USA to meComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
holygodAug 3, 2010
I can't tell if that is a joke or you are that dumb. but if you think the USA meets that criteria in any sort of meaningful comparison than clearly you have no clue on what is going on in most of the world.
Dawgz83948Aug 3, 2010
That is still not a reason to break the law.
hetmanAug 3, 2010
We do have ghettos in America however compared to what they are like in Mexico it is still a big improvement.
holygodAug 3, 2010
Dawgz: The average income in mexico in 2002 was $6,143. The US was $31,089.
13point1Aug 3, 2010
This is remarkable: We're talking sense and the anti-immigrant set just refuses to listen. There is no arguing with what is being said - when conditions are bad enough, you'll break the law if you think it will improve your life and the lives of your family members - so the xenophobes just stuff their fingers in their ears!
holygodAug 3, 2010
13point1: Exactly. I honestly used to be for strict immigration enforcement. Then I asked myself what I would do in their situation. The answer is I would do the exact same thing. So how could I punish people for doing something I myself would do? That would be unforgivably hypocritical. Therefore the problem to address is the immigration laws, not the immigrants. If someone wishes to come here legally, make an honest living, be a member of the community, follow the laws, and pay taxes they should be able to and right now they can't.
13point1Aug 4, 2010
The only solution I can think of that doesn't involve directly harming the immigrants is cracking down hard on their employers. Of course, that takes away the income that some immigrants are already drawing, but at least it doesn't put a bullet in their heads. And I'd rather see some CEOs go to prison for exploiting the desperate than millions of disenfranchised people living in poverty be jailed, executed or dropped in a foreign city with no more than the clothes on their back. (Because you do you really think that the deportation bus is going to make a special stop to drop Juan off in his hometown of 2,000 when they can just dump all the nameless, faceless Juans on the other side of the border and say "tough s**t"?)
eastshoresAug 4, 2010
HolyGod, I think you have perhaps idealist views of what it means to be an immigrant in the US. These people have jobs because they are working illegally, and it's not just about their status as a citizen. Their employers are paying them in many cases less than minimum wage, they aren't paying federal income taxes, they don't have social security withholding, there is no workers comp for them from their employers, etc.
The laws being broken are far reaching and cover so much more than simply immigration. I am all for people seeking opportunity in this country, and doing it according to our laws. Why should a Mexican citizen have priority over an immigrant from Vietnam, Turkey, Malaysia, China??? Why should the mere fact that they can simply bleed over our border afford them opportunity, when others want so badly to have those same opportunities?
It's a popular viewpoint right now to blindly attempt to be true to the "American Dream" and its promises; to just oppose any opposition to illegal immigration on that qualification alone. I don't disagree with the principals, just make sure you are weighing all of the points before jumping on that bandwagon.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
holygodAug 3, 2010
You ever go over the speed limit? Ever smoke a cigarette before you turned 18? Ever jay walk? Ever smoke weed? Ever have any alcohol before you were 21? Ever did a rolling stop at a stop sign? Ever litter? Ever download an mp3 illegally? Ever not wear your seatbelt? Ever bet on anything with friends? Ever loan anybody money or borrow money without putting it on your taxes?
My guess is you break laws all the time so get the f**k off your high horse and go screw yourself.
patrickrossAug 4, 2010
There's a difference between that and sneaking over a border under the cover of darkness.
Get over yourself.
ajajadudeAug 4, 2010
The difference is my going 5 MPH over the speed limit doesn't have the same repercussions as illegal immigration.
holygodAug 4, 2010
PatrickRoss: I agree those are all laws we break for our own enjoyment or to get someplace a couple minutes earlier. Sneaking across the border is something people do to better their lives and the lives of their families. I'd say that is a better reason to break the law.
Ajajadude: I never said they were equal but the jackass said: "I don't like some of the laws in my country, but I do abide by them because they are law". Which is a dumb f**k thing to say. I was pointing out that everyone breaks the law.ee
thegreat0neAug 3, 2010
I guess you probably think Martin Luther King, Jr. was a regular law-breaker.
teknic111Aug 3, 2010
Do you also live in a tool bag?
pintomp3Aug 3, 2010
Never ever got a speeding ticket?
evange106Aug 3, 2010
Free trip home.
ivanmarshAug 3, 2010
At taxpayer expense.
hardwareguyAug 3, 2010
No its not.
1) They've already bought their own ticket which is now wasted. From the immgrant point of view its same cost for ticket plus additional hassle of being detained.
2) From the tax payer point of view, we pay to have them detained for x number of days and then pay to send them home (which they were going anyway)
This is one stupid practice
matzahmanAug 3, 2010
How retarded could this immigration issue get. Arresting people who want to leave the country AND THEN DEPORT THEM? What's the point?
bustaballsAug 3, 2010
To support more government issued jobs. COMMUNISM!
bustaballsAug 3, 2010
I support the OP's comment and somehow get dugg down. Nice =/
Digg is full of idiots.
thenazzAug 3, 2010
'We the People' get to pick up the cost of shipping them out...
themazzterAug 3, 2010
RTFA, they are barred from entering legally for 10 years (not that that stopped them before I suppose).
A subsequent arrest for illegal immigration will carry a criminal charge.
ivanmarshAug 3, 2010
So their punishment for trying to get away from poverty and starvation is to be given free room and board, 3 squares a day, cable tv, a gym to work in and a prison job that pays them more than they could make in Mexico all on the American taxpayers dime.
solistusAug 3, 2010
So the sole purpose of this otherwise totally redundant and massively expensive government action is to punish people further for breaking the same broken laws that created this mess... Awesome.
Maybe we should just let them f**king leave and not worry about spending billions so we can know who to punish even more next time we catch them? If ever there's a time for amnesty, it's for people who are already voluntarily leaving back to their home countries...
serinusAug 3, 2010
Did you read the article? The purpose is to catch people who are wanted for crimes here. And it works. The issue is that even if you haven't broken (other) laws, you can still be caught by it as an illegal.
It's a fine policy; it just needs a slight tweak. I'm 100% in favor of amnesty for illegals on their way back to mexico. Checking to see if they're rapists or murders on the way out is fine with me too.
caio6939Aug 3, 2010
10 year ban? you mean waste money. Ban won't matter for an illegal that's leaving.
tntbassAug 3, 2010
To show them who's boss.
Like a boss.
LosAlamosLabsAug 3, 2010
Arrest, incarceration, deportation = $$$.
smotpokerAug 3, 2010
"IT'S THE LAW!! WE HAVE TO RESPECT THE RULE OF LAW, RIIIIIIGHT?!"
livewiredAug 3, 2010
To start the documentation that most illegals who aren't criminals otherwise don't have already.
tyhoAug 3, 2010
The Obama administration has not been prosecuting or even removing illegals, that's why Arizona voted for the new law.
Now this article would have us believe this will be a big problem for them leaving.
I don't believe itComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
ivanmarshAug 4, 2010
Yeah... this problem began with Obama?... think about what you're saying once in a while.
kasjogrenAug 4, 2010
ODS
jhshuklaAug 3, 2010
Keep a record so that repeat offenders can be punished more stringently.
spyderveloceAug 4, 2010
Are you really that stupid that you can't see the point? The point is to DOCUMENT the person committing the illegal act. This allows the officers to check for outstanding warrants, and to have a permanent record of the person. Did you even read the article?
crocodile7Aug 4, 2010
Beefing up the numbers.
If you were an immigration service official, how could you miss the opportunity to get an easy notch and justify all those federal funds spent on you? Far easier to arrest someone trying to leave and deport them than to hunt someone firmly inside, take risks and disrupt U.S. owned business that explo... relies on their labor.
laudermaleAug 4, 2010
It's an added deterrent to coming back. A second arrest for entering the country illegally is a felony.
crocodile7Aug 5, 2010
I think crossing the border (normally in a desert) with a coyote is an order of magnitude more of a deterrent than an unlikely second arrest by ICE.
If they're staying in the country for the second time, however, the border arrest does deter them from returning.
imthemanwhoruAug 4, 2010
The point is that when they are arrested they are fingerprinted and put into the ICE system so that if they come back and commit a crime and use a fake name we will know who they are by their fingerprint and put them in jail.
lukychmzAug 3, 2010
So they will arrest them when they are leaving, detain them and then deport them at a cost to the tax payers......wtf?
crocodile7Aug 4, 2010
Exactly, that's the idea.
If you're the gov't official, your performance numbers go up without having to do much work. More paperwork generated to help you and your mates keep your jobs. Wonderful.
eraptorAug 3, 2010
I think the biggest complaint isn't that they're detained as much as the fact that they can't apply for U.S. citizenship for 10 years.
ivanmarshAug 3, 2010
...they didn't apply for U.S... oh what's the f**king point.
eraptorAug 3, 2010
Who's suggesting they DID?
The loss of citizenship "eligibility" is simply "salt in the wound" following detention. THAT's the point.
serinusAug 3, 2010
The point is that if they suddenly wanted to follow US laws, they don't have a viable path to do so.
Do you really want illegals thinking, "I can't leave the country. I might get caught!"?
spinningheadAug 3, 2010
Many came as children and didn't bother reading up on immigration law before their parents dragged them here.
eraptorAug 3, 2010
@SpinningHead,
The problem with the children argument is that they're minors and don't have the same legal rights as adults. If American's were forced to leave Latin America, you can bet that they would be forced to take their children with them (regardless of their citizenship). Contrary to some opinions, it's the humane thing to do. After all, it is a parents responsibility to care for a child since they can't care for themselves.
As for the legality of the issue, while the children of illegal immigrant's don't bear the legal liability for breaking U.S. immigration laws, they also shouldn't have the right to benefit from their parent's crimes. As an example, imagine if someone's parents robbed a bank out of poverty, then handed the money to their children. Would the children have a legal right to keep the money and benefit from their parent's crime? Under current U.S. and international law, the parent's would face the penalties for breaking the law, and the children would not be allowed to benefit from the crime. Immigration law should be no different as the basic premise is the same.
smotpokerAug 3, 2010
@eRaptor
"Contrary to some opinions, it's the humane thing to do. After all, it is a parents responsibility to care for a child since they can't care for themselves."
The problem with *that* argument is it completely neglects the fact that the parents often cannot even take care of themselves in their country of origin. If you were from a small/poor Mexican village and were desperate enough to risk crossing the border with your kids, would you want them dragged back with you knowing the lack of opportunity and hardship that awaits them? How about if you were from Ethiopia or the Middle-East? Do you think it's more human for kids to live with parents who run meth labs just because they are blood kin?
"Under current U.S. and international law, the parent's would face the penalties for breaking the law, and the children would not be allowed to benefit from the crime. Immigration law should be no different as the basic premise is the same."
That may be true, but it is also true that it would also be against the law to endanger or neglect those children unnecessarily to punish their parents. Depending on the conditions those parents are being returned to, that could very much be the case if their children were returned with them.
eraptorAug 4, 2010
@smotpoker,
As someone who has lived throughout Central/South America for most of my life, I'm well aware of the quality of life in those countries. As such, there are a few things you need to know:
1) Mexico is one of the wealthiest countries in Central/South America. It has tremendous natural resources which form the foundation for it's wealth;
2) The income disparity one witnesses upon visiting most Latin American countries is a result of longstanding social policies and disproportionate income distribution (that the ruling class REFUSES to reform), NOT unsolvable poverty. Like the U.S., each nation's wealth is accumulated among a very few families and is rarely used to improve the social infrastructure (i.e., health, education, social services, etc.).
3) The responsibility in caring for most illegal immigrant's belongs with the governments of their native country's, NOT the American people (especially at a time when the U.S. is undergoing a SIGNIFICANT economic downturn).
4) The country's these people are fleeing have, in some instances (i.e., Mexico), promoted overpopulation as a means of ruling even though they couldn't care for them. The Catholic Church has exacerbated the problem by refusing to acknowledge the consequences of overpopulation and standing firm against abortion, birth control, etc. Furthermore, rather than deal with the social problem's they've created, these country's have encouraged their citizens to leave for the U.S. in hopes they'll send money back to their home country's (which they do). This money now accounts for one of the main sources of revenue for most of these country's and has come at our collective expense.
Please don't confuse my opposition to immigration reform as xenophobic, I simply understand that the quality of life for most Latin American's will NEVER improve as long as their government's continue to ignore the social reforms which are desperately needed. If anything, U.S. immigration reform will only perpetuate the abysmal living conditions and poverty these people are forced to live with in Latin America. I also sympathize with their plight, but understand that there's a better way to solve the problem's they face than create an inordinate strain on U.S. social services/infrastructure (which is an ineffective short-term fix, at best).
ivanmarshAug 4, 2010
eRaptor - "Who's suggesting they did?"
The message I replied to suggested that they might want to in the future despite the fact that their actions have already proved they don't give a damn about legal citizenship.
"The loss of citizenship "eligibility" is simply "salt in the wound" following detention. THAT's the point."
Taking away something they clearly didn't and probably won't care about is, in my opinion, not worth the enormous expense of deporting them when they're already on their way out the door.
THAT IS THE POINT.
eraptorAug 4, 2010
ivanmarsh
If illegal immigrant's aren't interested in U.S. citizenship, then why are we witnessing the enormous ruckus over immigration reform and the cherished "path to citizenship". Isn't it logical to assume that U.S. citizenship is what they're seeking (in addition to U.S. dollars)?
If we agree on anything, it's that arresting someone on their way out of the country appears to be wasteful. However, these arrests are occurring upon the discovery of their illegal presence as the U.S. border patrol attempts to curb gun/money smuggling operations INTO Mexico. I don't think they need to arrest them as a simple collection of biometric data would suffice.
deusexmachina7Aug 3, 2010
That'll just make them less likely to leave.
Closed AccountAug 3, 2010
Are people reading the article?
"The consequences of an arrest can be harsh: Those deported for unauthorized presence in the U.S. may be barred for 10 years from seeking legal immigrant papers. In addition, a later arrest for illegal entry may be prosecuted criminally.
Although the scrutiny was designed to catch smugglers delivering currency and firearms to Mexican cartels, immigrants with otherwise clean records sometimes get caught in that net, said Guadalupe Ramirez, director at the Nogales port. Port inspectors use discretion in deciding whether a person should be allowed to accept voluntary removal, he said."
They get processed. The fact that they are/were here illegally is reported .
Closed AccountAug 3, 2010
At taxpayer expense.
I thought you guys were all about cutting unnecessary government spending.
Closed AccountAug 3, 2010
That's just stupid. I'm all for processing illegals that are caught going back over the border. Are they really fleeing in fear? I'm willing to bet that a substantial portion aren't all that innocent. So, process them, by all means. Have a record of them being here.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountAug 3, 2010
"I thought you guys were all about cutting unnecessary government spending"
only when it was proposed by a liberal.....seems that way anyways
ageofmasteryAug 3, 2010
Do you think they would have snuck in if they had a reasonable chance of getting in legally in the first place? So saying they can't come back for 10 years will do nothing.
As for the threat of jail if they come back, if they were willing to risk their lives dealing with people smugglers or crossing the desert on their own do you think the risk of a few years in jail will stop them?
This is stupid, if they're leaving, let them leave and save the tax $$ arresting them will cause.
hetmanAug 3, 2010
Also if they face the same penalties leaving this country as they do living here. Why would they leave?
Closed AccountAug 3, 2010
If I'm not mistaken, both of you would prefer an amnesty, right?
hetmanAug 3, 2010
I prefer to fine all businesses as much as possible everytime the hire an illegal and or rent to them. I do not know how I feel about amnesty. Finding and deporting 20 million people is going to be really expensive. Even if you do and you do not punish people from hiring and renting to them they are just going to come back across the border after they are deported.
ageofmasteryAug 3, 2010
I'm in favor of making it easier for unskilled workers who want to come here and do the kinds of jobs they do now as illegals. As long as things are so much better here than their home countries they'll keep coming, we might as well make a legal path and help control it.
As for amnesty, I don't favor it, but if a limited one was proposed that covered say those how could prove 5 or 10 years working here with no criminal record, (apart from sneaking in obviously), I probably wouldn't oppose it either.
serinusAug 3, 2010
Amnesty for illegals leaving the country? Yes.
Amnesty altogether? Meh. I could go either way.
Closed AccountAug 3, 2010
The Arizona law included increased penalties for employers...
I'm confused as to the thinking being expressed on this matter. Hetman says penalties for employers. Age says make it easier for them to be hired.
This story is not describing a new phenomenon. People are acting as though the poor illegal immmigrants...scared by big, bad Arizona...are trying to get back into their own country.
What I'M reading is that this is nothing new and something quite important as we have issues with illegals going back and forth.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountAug 3, 2010
Yeah, it's real crazy there, Quirk. It's almost like they're two different people with different ideas.
ageofmasteryAug 3, 2010
If the laws on the books about hiring illegals were actually enforced then doing both would be ideal. Make it easier to come here legally and fine the s**t out of those that hire illegals.
Unfortunately the ones hiring them are often the one ones giving campaign donations and who wants to arrest your biggest donor? Also it's a lot easier to just arrest the guy hanging out in the Home Depot parking lot than do a proper investigation of a company that's hiring lots of illegals.
And there's the fact when the economy is good they do take a lot of jobs that would go unfilled because Americans don't want them so the local authorities turn a blind eye for that reason.
Closed AccountAug 3, 2010
Zaph - as I quoted:
"Although the scrutiny was designed to catch smugglers delivering currency and firearms to Mexican cartels, immigrants with otherwise clean records sometimes get caught in that net, said Guadalupe Ramirez, director at the Nogales port. Port inspectors use discretion in deciding whether a person should be allowed to accept voluntary removal, he said."
Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
jcimsAug 4, 2010
I understand the gut reaction to fine employers, and for cases where the employers are blatantly hiring illegal immigrants, i'm all for it. However, is it really the job of private companies to ensure that every individual applying for a job with them is authorized to physically be in this country? If so, aren't we asking these companies to essentially do what Arizona is being sued for attempting to do? Won't this push the often discussed racial profiling and discrimination deep into the private sector?
Imagine you're a third generation American that just happens to wear the surname of Cruz very well, and you were just recently laid off. Now you're looking for work, and your state is six months into a very heavy and public crackdown on companies employing illegal immigrants. Unemployment is at 9.5%. Do you think your prospects of getting a job are the same as they were a year before?
superkendallAug 3, 2010
"The consequences of an arrest can be harsh: Those deported for unauthorized presence in the U.S. may be barred for 10 years from seeking legal immigrant papers"
Or they could come right back in the way they came in before. So really it's not harsh at all, just meaningless. Until you have real control over the border there is no punishment you can really administer to an illegal alien that means anything.
Closed AccountAug 3, 2010
Well, at least it's an effort at deterrent.
dauntless1Aug 4, 2010
@quirkopatra
"Well, at least it's a deterrent."
Like the war on drugs right? Notice how well that massive failure has been working lately? Deterrents without ability to enforce are wasted money. Those immigrants here already who care about the law already know to behave, while those who would warrant such deterrents (Drug dealers, gun runners ect) certainly don't give a s**t what some puffed suit says as they're leaving the country.
crocodile7Aug 4, 2010
All the processing they need is a quick check for outstanding warrants, and adding a name / ID# to a list to tally how many are leaving and deny them visas in the future (as the law requires). No arrest or detention needed.
caramba421Aug 3, 2010
How is it that Border Patrol can inspect outbound traffic? Isn't that a Constitutional issue? Upon ingress, it makes sense that we need to secure the border and make sure that everything on the way in is supposed to be here. But upon egress, it sounds to me like it's just wholesale search and seizure without a warrant.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountAug 3, 2010
Making sure people don't leave the country with large amounts of cash, and maybe smuggling other goods out of the country.
faskippyAug 4, 2010
I think it's a result of too many people whining that the drug trade is American's fault, because we cause the trafficking in and the guns out. Remember how some stupid politicians and Mexico's president was blaming America for that s**t? The guns were coming from America? Well, we're just trying to give them what they wanted. Stop drugs in, guns out. Oh, and enforce the law.
beigemoreAug 3, 2010
Guess they should've thought about that before entering the US illegally in the first place. Oh well.
azrobotoAug 3, 2010
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _________
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ./ It’s a trap! \
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _,,,--~~~~~~~~--,_ . . . .\ ._________/
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,-‘ : : : :::: :::: :: : : : : :º ‘-, . . \/. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .,-‘ :: : : :::: :::: :::: :::: : : :o : ‘-, . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . ,-‘ :: ::: :: : : :: :::: :::: :: : : : : :O ‘-, . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .,-‘ : :: :: :: :: :: : : : : : , : : :º :::: :::: ::’; . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .,-‘ / / : :: :: :: :: : : :::: :::-, ;; ;; ;; ;; ;; ;; ;\ . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . /,-‘,’ :: : : : : : : : : :: :: :: : ‘-, ;; ;; ;; ;; ;; ;;| . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . /,’,-‘ :: :: :: :: :: :: :: : ::_,-~~,_’-, ;; ;; ;; ;; | . . . . . . .
. . . . . _/ :,’ :/ :: :: :: : : :: :: _,-‘/ : ,-‘;’-‘’’’’~-, ;; ;; ;;,’ . . . . . . . .
. . . ,-‘ / : : : : : : ,-‘’’ : : :,--‘’ :|| /,-‘-‘--‘’’__,’’’ \ ;; ;,-‘ . . . . . . . .
. . . \ :/,, : : : _,-‘ --,,_ : : \ :\ ||/ /,-‘-‘x### ::\ \ ;;/ . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . \/ /---‘’’’ : \ #\ : :\ : : \ :\ \| | : (O##º : :/ /-‘’ . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . /,’____ : :\ ‘-#\ : \, : :\ :\ \ \ : ‘-,___,-‘,-`-,, . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . ‘ ) : : : :’’’’--,,--,,,,,,¯ \ \ :: ::--,,_’’-,,’’’¯ :’- :’-, . . . . . . . . .
. . . . .) : : : : : : ,, : ‘’’’~~~~’ \ :: :: :: :’’’’’¯ :: ,-‘ :,/\ . . . . . . . . .
. . . . .\,/ /|\\| | :/ / : : : : : : : ,’-, :: :: :: :: ::,--‘’ :,-‘ \ \ . . . . . . . .
. . . . .\\’|\\ \|/ ‘/ / :: :_--,, : , | )’; :: :: :: :,-‘’ : ,-‘ : : :\ \, . . . . . . .
. . . ./¯ :| \ |\ : |/\ :: ::----, :\/ :|/ :: :: ,-‘’ : :,-‘ : : : : : : ‘’-,,_ . . . .
. . ..| : : :/ ‘’-(, :: :: :: ‘’’’’~,,,,,’’ :: ,-‘’ : :,-‘ : : : : : : : : :,-‘’’\\ . . . .
. ,-‘ : : : | : : ‘’) : : :¯’’’’~-,: : ,--‘’’ : :,-‘’ : : : : : : : : : ,-‘ :¯’’’’’-,_ .
./ : : : : :’-, :: | :: :: :: _,,-‘’’’¯ : ,--‘’ : : : : : : : : : : : / : : : : : : :’’-,
/ : : : : : -, :¯’’’’’’’’’’’¯ : : _,,-~’’ : : : : : : : : : : : : : :| : : : : : : : : :
: : : : : : :¯’’~~~~~~’’’ : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : | : : : : : : : : : Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
jdwallace14Aug 3, 2010
I couldn't help but chuckle.
keanureavesAug 3, 2010
This would discourage illegals from leaving country, which is the last thing we want right now. If the penalties for voluntarily leaving the country are the same as being involuntarily deported, then what incentive would they have to leave in the first place? Seems counter-productive.
wineincAug 3, 2010
Many illegal immigrants cross the border repeatedly as they travel between their homelands and their employment. By detaining them when they return to their original homes, we give them additional motivation for not returning.
Closed AccountAug 3, 2010
Noooooooooo......Don't leave!!
The Democrats will need LOTS of voters in November!
At least stay till then.....PUULLLLLEZE!
Closed AccountAug 3, 2010
Right, because illegal immigrants can vote...
*cue retarded ACORN bulls**t*
Closed AccountAug 3, 2010
You could be the posterboy for the "Liberalism Requires Ignorance" Foundation.....
spinningheadAug 3, 2010
But Breitbart says...
Closed AccountAug 3, 2010
@diggreiver: I know this is an exercise in futility, but let me explain myself. Non-citizens cannot vote, right? I certainly hope we can agree on that much.
There's also no grand conspiracy to commit voter fraud to elect democratic candidates. The ACORN issue involved workers who were paid a certain amount for each completed voter registration they submitted. These people then proceeded to fill out forms with fake info so they could be paid more. Furthermore, none of these fake registrations were used to cast votes. These people are guilty of being lazy assh**es, not trying to threaten democracy.
And if you believe that Democrats will be able to somehow grant citizenship to these illegal immigrants before November then you are truly too retarded for me to continue this conversation.
sapperliteAug 3, 2010
I don't know why everyone is digging down diggreiver. For one illegals commit identity fraud every day and you don't think that they are also illegally voting? Additionally, they have no problem ignoring our immigration laws. And all of you like readacook who call him retarded are truly the ignorant ones.
dauntless1Aug 4, 2010
@Sapperlite
Yeah, I'm sure that fake ID that Jose carries around for beer buying purposes totally matches what's contained in the voter registration system (social, DOB ect). Because the guy that made him the fake ID totally hacks government computers all day to make sure Jose can buy beer AND vote, right?
Or maybe, goddamn idiots like yourself could learn a basic understanding of our voting process.
spinningheadAug 3, 2010
Nevermind that we are deporting more now than we ever did under Bush and it was the Republicans who let in Mexican truckers just to break up the union port workers on the west coast.Who keeps feeding you nonsensical feel-good "solutions" like building a fence or sending people back one by one rather than shutting down the businesses that are creating demand for illegal labor? Oh, yeah. Its the Republicans.
dauntless1Aug 4, 2010
Exactly. Don't want illegal immigration? They're coming here for money. Ensure that every business who hires an illegal will face mandatory fines, fees and criminal charges. Yes, criminal. When an employer knowingly aids and abets criminal workers like thieves or embezzlers, they too are held liable. This should be no different.
spinningheadAug 4, 2010
I remember reading about a town in GA that actually did this and saw a huge boom in their local economy.
Closed AccountAug 3, 2010
so you think legal immigrants should be deported as well?
your statement does not make sense
caio6939Aug 3, 2010
Not even legal immigrants can vote.
Closed AccountAug 3, 2010
Illegals can't vote. Are you stupid?
dauntless1Aug 4, 2010
Yes, yes he is. What can you expect? He believes it when Fox tells him the dirty immigrants stole his jerb, and now his vote too!
Closed AccountAug 3, 2010
So, they won't touch them coming in and living here but if they try to leave their ass is grass ...okay.
factorof13Aug 3, 2010
This is just f**king retarded. People are getting so hysterical over this issue that they've actually resorted to being counterproductive to their goal.
Good job, idiots.
Closed AccountAug 3, 2010
You just defined in words, my exact perception of our federal government.
Closed AccountAug 3, 2010
It's all about exploitation and big business. There are entire industries from gardening, agriculture, construction to car washing that depends on exploiting millions people for cheap labor and zero protections so I'm not surprised that these same interests will do everything to keep them here.
s73v3rAug 3, 2010
I honestly had not thought about that until I read your comment.
spyderveloceAug 4, 2010
Exactly right and there are a lot of idiot Americans that happily go along with it just so they can get cheap s**t! It is really not that different from the slave trading days in the South. As long as there are people that are willing to be exploited, there will always be people willing to exploit them.
sackusmc27Aug 3, 2010
Why don't they just sneak back across the border? That's how most of them got here in the first place.
dreamacheAug 3, 2010
Good.
ruckfulesAug 3, 2010
Officer: You're under arrest!
Illegal immigrant: But I'm leaving the country, officer.
Officer: Too bad. We still have tax-payer money left over. Please come with me... jefe .
wineincAug 3, 2010
How much money do you think is required to detain and export the illegal immigrants when they are already a few feet away from their home country? It would seem to be a cheap and easy task.
azamgilAug 3, 2010
governmental bureaucracy = cheap and easy? Does not compute...
If they leave on their on volition, that costs nothing. Cheap is more expensive than nothing.
hydesAug 3, 2010
leaving != gone he is still on american soil and still committing the crime.
MP: You're under arrest
Average Citizen: But i was just leaving officer
MP: Too bad, your still in a restricted area
nothing wrong about it at all.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
ravagedsoulAug 3, 2010
I suspect the real issue arises with people who come here legally and overstay their visa or whatever, thus becoming "illegal". Then when try to go back to their home country, in some cases perhaps not even knowing they are "illegal", border patrol grabs them and suddenly they are facing huge problems.
It would be surprising if this policy ever caught an actual criminal, since they know what they are doing and take steps to avoid detection.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
serinusAug 3, 2010
Doesn't anyone here actually read the article? :(
ravagedsoulAug 3, 2010
Yeah, I read it. Not only does it not contradict my points, it kind of supports it:
"Although the scrutiny was designed to catch smugglers delivering currency and firearms to Mexican cartels, immigrants with otherwise clean records sometimes get caught in that net"
Note the "designed to" catch; not that it actually does. What it *does* do it catch people no one really cares about.
clevercommenterAug 4, 2010
@RavagedSoul try reading the end of the article.
"On a weekly basis, we make multiple seizures and pick up people who have warrants for rape, child molestation and murder," Ramirez said."
spyderveloceAug 4, 2010
And just why should this be a problem for America? You know your VISA expires on a certain date...be the f**k back in Mexico before that date... what is so f**king hard about that?
yangj08Aug 4, 2010
I know the popular assumption is that every immigrant is from Mexico, but really, "overstayed their visa" applies to other countries too. China, for instance. A MX issue on an aircraft could put you into the "overstay" category. So could a sudden illness.
korvan504521Aug 4, 2010
You don't get checked by the border patrol at the border when you leave.
ravagedsoulAug 4, 2010
From the article: "...the threat of arrest and deportation by border officers inspecting outbound traffic."
sounds like they do check people leaving.
spacem00seAug 3, 2010
Thats about as dumb as arresting someone who just quit doing drugs, but still have a trace amount in their system.
rhawk187Aug 3, 2010
I see what you did there.
dclawAug 3, 2010
Where/why the hell are they checking outbound traffic? Here in San Diego at the Tijuana and Otay Mesa crossings, you literally just drive through, or walk through a one-way turnstile. This is retarded.
faskippyAug 4, 2010
It's all in the article.
gefahrAug 4, 2010
lol.. i was thinking about that turnstile at TJ when I read this.
The turnstile there really needs an "All ye who enter here.." sign above it, IMO.
thediverAug 3, 2010
http://www.slate.com/id/2262113/
yodaofdarknessAug 3, 2010
Forget the coyote business, sneaking people INTO the country... I bet there's a boatload of cash to be made sneaking people OUT of the country!
dauntless1Aug 4, 2010
Good entrepreneurial sense sir. You win one internet.
rhawk187Aug 3, 2010
These seems like a real waste of funds that could be put elsewhere. Well, unless they are allowed to confiscate things like vehicles being used in a crime (trying to cross the border illegally), but I still don't see them likely breaking even.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
yuanhaoAug 3, 2010
I say we PAY 'em for leaving. You know, give them a sandwich or free meal or water to the thirsty or something.
gefahrAug 4, 2010
I seriously like this idea.. it's like those "guns for <x>" drives you see, where they give out toys or some such.
ravagedsoulAug 3, 2010
Yeah, I read it. Not only does it not contradict my points, it kind of supports it:
"Although the scrutiny was designed to catch smugglers delivering currency and firearms to Mexican cartels, immigrants with otherwise clean records sometimes get caught in that net"
Note the "designed to" catch; not that it actually does. What it *does* do it catch people no one really cares about.
osabr22000Aug 3, 2010
This creates jobs.
gefahrAug 4, 2010
*jerbs
chrismgtisAug 3, 2010
Good. They need to be arrested at some point for breaking the law. It makes no difference if they are coming or going. They still need to face the consequences.
cclydeAug 4, 2010
That way we can spend more money jailing them, holding hearings, and feeding them while we decide to send them where they were likely headed on their own. That way, we can pay to send them there, too.
realcoolguy9022Aug 3, 2010
Maybe we can have Get Rid of the Illegals Day. Where all the illegals get round up, and shipped off. The only questions that remains is which month needs more holidays?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
mrnaturalAug 3, 2010
If you sneak in then sneak the f**k back out.
mattb5Aug 3, 2010
Good riddance! I'm sick of all these damn Canadians!
faskippyAug 4, 2010
"It demonstrates the inconsistency and contradictions within our laws," said Isabel Garcia, co-chairwoman of Derechos Humanos, an immigrant rights group in Tucson. "Instead of permitting people who want to leave, we punish them in this fashion."
When I first saw this article, I said WTF. But I agree with it for the most part. You have politicians and Mexicans telling us that it's our fault for the drug trade, they're getting guns from us, and so on. It's all the U.S.'s fault. Well, they aint getting guns from me, maybe they are being taken over there by illegal aliens going back and forth. Bringing drugs in, guns out. It's worth exploring. If you're an illegal alien going home, take the same path back.
netlugerAug 4, 2010
The population of America has become unmanageable due to the failure of government in all of Mexico. Dearest fleeing Mexican's, please fight for your own country or support us / USA in Annexing Mexico for a better Life for Us All.
diggadiggaAug 4, 2010
Are there any other areas in the world where two neighboring democracies have such a big division in wealth?
happymaxAug 4, 2010
West Virginia and Virginia
gefahrAug 4, 2010
+1 internet
whoreableAug 4, 2010
Cause all illegals are from Mexico right? Just cause they are leaving the US doesn't mean they are going home. They could be from another country and just going into Mexico for a while till the heat dies down and plot another way back in. Also just this week 30 Cubans washed up on Sands Key in Florida. They were accepted with open arms. Immigration policy is f**king retarded.
homeburgerAug 4, 2010
The point of this is that if someone is here illegally simply letting them go won't make a record of it.
By arresting them first even when they leave it creates a record for whenever they then try to apply for a visa. You can change your name, your passport, etc. but fingerprints are forever.
You know...if I overstay in my wife's home country and then try to leave I'll be arrested/fined/deported too. Why should we give everyone else a free ride?
patrickrossAug 4, 2010
It seems superfluous, but what the hell: breaking the law has consequences.
saigumiAug 4, 2010
I don't like that law in Mexico that prohibits theft. It is an unfair law.
Anyone want to go with me to go and rob a village? If we get caught, I plan to use the "But I was just seeking to provide a better life for myself and my family, you guys have plenty of opportunity here, what is the big deal?" And if Mexico tried to enforce the law, I'll be all like "You just hate me because of my skin. No Americans = No Hamburgers" while waving around a flagstaff with an American flag above a Mexican flag.
kasjogrenAug 4, 2010
Yeah we need to make our laws like Iran so if someone enters illegally then tries to leave we hold them prisoner indefinitely!