87% in a 2006 DU poll supported better border control as an important first step

I think this is where the focus should be and it would be better if the AZ law became the catalyst to address the border. I do wonder how a poll like this would turn out now.

Here is how the 2006 poll was written:

"Poll question: Poll: Do you support getting better control of the Southern U.S. border?

Whether you are for immediate amnesty, a path to citizenship, or another response to the the current situation, do you believe an important first step is to gain better control of our borders...and no, I am not talking right-wing minutemen here.

Poll result (95 votes)

Yes, better control of the border is an important first step to any solution (83 votes, 87%) Vote

No, we do not need better control of our borders (12 votes, 13%) Vote"


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1078240

:eyes:

100,000, imo. Also it only represents those that chose to respond which isn't a legit poll at all.

There is really no need to control who crosses the border, if there is effective control over who can work. The enforcement of who can work was laughable under Dubya, with a 95% reduction in enforcement actions against illegal employers. I'm all for letting anyone who wants visit (with a few exceptions), but as in other countries, who gets to live and work is another matter entirely.

You make a very convincing argument, whatever it is.

:eyes:

Then ask how many people support apple pies imported from China.

Then ask how many people support apple pies imported from China laced with melamine.

in other words, your poll doesn't pass the sniff test.

People can argue all they want, but the folks here trying to represent the idea that liberals don't want immigration limits are a minority in the party.

Which boarder? Jake Burton Carpenter?

At least when you are bullshitting us with ersatz polls, try to spell your subject correctly.

come on guys, argue your point, but stick to facts. And the fact is that most of the country, and yes, the majority of our party, want border enforcement and limits to the amount of immigration. You have a lot of work to do if you think folks need to be convinced otherwise.

So make the arguments, but all I see folks doing is spinning and acting emotionally. That isn't something that works as well in liberal circles as it does in conservative ones. People at DU are generally much better read.

Your attempt to apply an informal board poll then to now is missing something: reality. We are living in the early post Juan Crow moments of the New Confederacy rearing its ugly head. We were not in 2006. Today, we must consider that which is happening, and factor that into any such poll, formal or informal.

If you want to ask what people think of border security, why not just ask it? Why the cutesy "but you said in 2006" premise?

All of a sudden the dems want border control. It's just for show so they can get elected. The only Bush policy proposal I ever agreed with was the comprehensive immigration bill that Congress did nothing with. We do need border control. But we also need to fix our broken immigration system so that people can come here legally.

illegals.

that would have been the better choices

the borders. do you think border patrol and others are simply twittling their fingers.

Actually you haven't. I do not know what the best solution would be, but construction of a fence could provide some good jobs. That may be the way to go.

Are you against the idea of securing it?

up against the fence they built and the illegals jumping over it while they interviewed. and that is in a space they have the fence.

do i believe it is wasting time in effort and money in something most realists KNOW doesn't work? ya, i do

i think the smarter people, in the know, with a job in this area have put lots of thought how to "secure" the borders.... as good as they can. but they know they will not be secured. no one is delusional enough to think they can be secured. they do work hard at reducing. on the el paso border, where crime is rampant on the other side, they continue to receive higher technology that helps them, aides them. and still they know it will not be secure. just better secured.

in the 80's they went after the businesses and corps. companies did not miss around in ensuring hires were citizens. it was the most effective way to eliminate the reason for illegals.

now, what makes sense to you. an unrealistic demand, or a known effective measure.

I understand that no solution will be 100% effective, but I think high 95% percent is quite achievable.

I admit I may not know the issue as well as you, but with a quick search on the issue I found the following on the NPR website.

April 6, 2006 As Congress looks to revamp immigration policy, some lawmakers are pushing to extend fencing along the U.S. border with Mexico. Proposals range from beefing up existing fences in Arizona to constructing new fences that would span 700 miles. Those advocating expanded fencing already have a model they can look to: a fence the federal government built more than a decade ago along a 14-mile-stretch in San Diego, Calif., that borders Tijuana, Mexico.

Before the fence was built, all that separated that stretch of Mexico from California was a single strand of cable that demarcated the international border. Back then, Border Patrol agent Jim Henry says he was overwhelmed by the stream of immigrants who crossed into the United States illegally just in that sector. "It was an area that was out of control," Henry says. "There were over 100,000 aliens crossing through this area a year."

Today, Henry is assistant chief of the Border Patrol's San Diego sector. He says apprehensions here are down 95 percent, from 100,000 a year to 5,000 a year, largely because the single strand of cable marking the border was replaced by double — and in some places, triple — fencing.

The first fence, 10 feet high, is made of welded metal panels. The second fence, 15 feet high, consists of steel mesh, and the top is angled inward to make it harder to climb over. Finally, in high-traffic areas, there's also a smaller chain-link fence. In between the two main fences is 150 feet of "no man's land," an area that the Border Patrol sweeps with flood lights and trucks, and soon, surveillance cameras. "Here in San Diego, we have proven that the border infrastructure system does indeed work," Henry says. "It is highly effective."

Rancher Carol Kimsey, who lives in a valley near the Pacific Ocean on the U.S.-side of the fence, says the border barrier has improved the quality of life in the area. "It was pretty seriously bad," she recalls of the prefence days. "They were tearing up everything. They'd just go through fences. They didn't care."

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5323928

Going after the employers alone still leaves the drug smuggling and potential for terrorist to enter with ease. I know they will still try even if a fence or other security measures are put in place, but I still think such measures should be implemented, immediately.

Then maybe AZ would be more likely to repeal its new law.

and living with the issue forever, i simply see it as, it is what it is. over half over stay visas. there are over 40 tunnels in that area in san diego you talk about. the smugglers, dealers and gangs get in regardless. seems like the reduction are the people least of our concerns. in el paso, illegals are running across freeways, and they have a fence.

again, i am open to solutions. i am confident that the people working the areas are continually progressing to find new and different ways of dealing with it. it appears as they come up with ideas, they implement them. but, .... i dont approach with a pollyanna approach.

many of the people loudest on the issue dont want to touch the companies and business. we have seen that to be the most effective way of dealing with the issue. so really, .... how serious are we on this.






No amount of border security will stop illegal immigration; the reality is that roughly half the estimated 12 million undocumented foreigners in the United States entered on bona fide visas and stayed after they expired.

While the interview process for visas has become tougher, it has failed to stop these so-called “overstays” from reaching for the American dream.

If they cannot get a visa, there’s a smuggling business that moves millions of people from Mexican towns to employers throughout the United States.

The increased enforcement that began with Operation Gatekeeper in 1994—and produced the corrugated metal and chain-link fence—dramatically cut illegal border crossings in the Tijuana-San Diego area, but overall, they kept their pace. Total arrests along the nearly 2,000-mile border with Mexico has ebbed and flowed since then but changed little: 1.3 million in 1995, compared with 1.2 million in 2005.

http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/200601007_border_fence_not_expected_to_curb_immigration/

And I am in favor of more enforcement against employers. I also think that employers need to be enabled to easily check the status on employees or applicants.

We also have to anticipate that more enforcement against employers will lead to improved false documentation to get past the employers efforts.

When a lot of this is done, more focus can be placed on the "overstays" and perhaps those overstays can be hit will steep fines to discourage overstaying.

If there were a sincere effort to substantially reduce tunnels and smuggling I think it would be effective.

Weak leaders on the left and right have let these problems continue, in not grow.

and they also screw up wildlife patterns.

If I were Spanish I could travel to Slovakia at will; I live right next to the border and need a passport to enter the U.S. Suck my socialist balls, reich-wing asshats. (not referring to DUers)

suck "your socialist balls"? Do I have that right?

But I also support far more lenient immigration policies. I'm not particularly moved by exhortations to keep out undocumented immigrants.

Sure. Just not the constant RW - "secure the border", "got to secure the border 100%", "bigger wall", "more troops". Than we say, "OK, but while we're doing more on the border, how about we talk about other aspects of immigration and look for a comprehensive solution?"

RW answer, "NO! More troops, bigger fence, shoot first, ask questions later. We'll talk about other immigration issues, when the 2,000 mile border is 100% secure (meaning, of course, that they never intend to talk about anything but spend more billions on "border security".

The beauty of the RW mantra of "border security" is that even if another "brazillion" dollars spent on wall and troops (instead of health care and the social safety net) achieved total "border security" (which it never will, of course), the right could shift to the fact that 40-50% of the illegal immigrants in the US don't even come over that border, according to DHS. I'm sure they would try to shift the hysteria to these folks - maybe more troops to check ID everywhere since you can't catch them at the border. And on the spending bonanza will go. And down health care and the safety net would go.