"LAS CRUCES — Congressman Steve Pearce said Friday a national debate on immigration reform has become so divisive, lawmakers for now should focus on just one of three aspects of immigration reform: controlling the border.
"The thing we're hearing most (from constituents) is: 'Just enforce the laws you've got on the books,'" said Pearce, a Republican whose district covers southern New Mexico. "The deep-rooted anger appears to be from that. ... If we started enforcing the law, the anger would dissipate."
http://www.lcsun-news.com/news/ci_6098682
What do you think?
2007-06-08 19:14:58 · 10 answers · asked by DAR 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Immigration
Angela, it is certainly something to try.
2007-06-08 19:39:31 · update #1
Sam, I so agree on the screening issue.
2007-06-08 19:40:15 · update #2
this is an invasion of sorts:
they are not taking our land by force...we have allowed them to take it simply by not raising cane with our govt about our govt not upholding the oath they took to protect us and protect this land as stated in our constitution
our govt has abandoned us and is corrupt and if you and anyone else wants this to change before mexicans bankrupt our nation, then we had better attend the JUNE 14th-JUNE16th rally in Washington, D.C. to give them an earfull
2007-06-08 21:01:06 · answer #1 · answered by vote_dummy 1 · 2⤊ 1⤋
The reason this doesn't make sense to me is that the laws on the books are a mess. I agree that controlling the border is essential, but I don't understand the arguement that we should throw more money at enforcement of laws nearly everyone agrees are a joke.
It's like saying the criminal activity that exploded during the prohibition years could have been fixed through heavier enforcement of the alcohol laws. Enforcment-only did not work there because the law did not reflect the needs or desires of the citizens. When the legitimacy of a law is questioned, enforcement-only can't work, no matter how much money is spent.
2007-06-09 08:35:00 · answer #2 · answered by sb 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I agree with Jenny C (this time).
What is wrong with the government proving that they can accomplish one thing before they can get into another? This law has been shoved down our throats as if it were the ONLY answer to the problem. It's not. Break the law down into manageable parts - the first of which is stopping the flood.
Once we stop the flood, let's get rid of the bad guys. When Ted Kennedy decided that people with multiple felonies should have the same chance of getting citizenship as the apple pickers, he killed the bill (not that it should not have died anyway). No! The MS13 gang members and felonious types need to get the heck out and never return.
2007-06-09 02:30:42 · answer #3 · answered by Sam 3 · 3⤊ 1⤋
I agree we should enforce the laws we have not just make more messy laws.
I don't understand why we have so many illegals in our jails etc. I mean if they are arrested and seen to be illegal why are they kept here and paid for by us? Shouldn't the officials running the jails enforce that these guys get kicked out - instead of releasing them back into America once they have done the number of days they were sentenced for?
2007-06-09 11:01:01 · answer #4 · answered by inzaratha 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
National Security
National Security
National Security
The primary directive of the executive branch of the government is to "protect it's citizens".
Many of the 12 to 20 million criminals who have entered this country illegally have done this with the primary intent to harm the citizens of this country.
We have had spies, insurgents and conspiritors since the Revolutionary War. Is anyone naive enough to think sabatours and agents of foreign terrorist governments are not working at this moment to demolish the greatest democracy?
Is anyone really that stupid, ignorant, or naive?
Yes!
Pollyanna (people who think: we should just learn to get along) is alive and well.
I listened to a radio talkshow host today who said, "I want a wall you can see from space."
The words at the base of the Statue of Liberty have not become meaningless. IF you are the poor, tired, hungry then, yes, do come. But, don't come across our borders uninvited.
WE THE PEOPLE will decide who is to enter our country not whomever is clever enough to deceive and evade our laws.
We are, above all else, a country of laws. If lawlessness becomes the rule.
Our beloved country is lost.
2007-06-09 02:40:31 · answer #5 · answered by wroockee 4 · 3⤊ 2⤋
I agree whole heartedly -- especially with the very last part. I mentioned this in an answer I gave earlier. I think that once the public's perception is that the laws are being enforced, then they will calm down. Once that happens, maybe there a law that benefits those who truly deserve a break can be passed. Until then, we will continue having these stalemates in Congress.
2007-06-09 02:24:56 · answer #6 · answered by Jenny C 2 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Las Cruces is 20 miles from me, I live in El Paso, the largest border city in the US....Dar, during the 1986 amnesty, all businesses in this area had massive sweeps done by border agents asking all employers for "papers" of all there employees....MANY businesses were fined, some even thought they had "legal" workers, turned out they were illegal and got fined anyways....To me, this is the easiest and cheapest way to deal with this problem...Many businesses, fired all there illegal workes, and were very afraid of hiring any more illegals....What do you think? Wouldn't this be a simple solution???
2007-06-09 02:28:18 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
I agree. New laws enacted because current law is not enforced is nonsense. If a law is not enforced because it is outdated, repeal it before enacting a new posssibly conflicting law.
2007-06-09 02:28:33 · answer #8 · answered by Charles C 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
I think it's about time someone in his position acknowledged what it is the American people actually want. Let's see if this new epiphany catches on.
2007-06-09 02:25:26 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Enforce and deport and all would be fine.
2007-06-09 07:26:42 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋