Illegal Immigration Debate

Question:

Danbury latest front in illegal immigration debate?

Answer:

Thousands of miles from where the so-called Minutemen volunteers patrol the Mexican border, this small city has erupted as a hotbed in a growing national debate over illegal immigration.

Danbury has been transformed in recent years with waves of new immigrants from Brazil, Ecuador and other countries. The newer immigrants often do landscaping and build the stone walls in Connecticut's richest towns and settle in Danbury, where housing is more affordable.

Mayor Mark Boughton, a Republican who has a reputation as a moderate, is asking that state police be licensed as immigration agents to crack down on illegal immigration. He's also proposed spiking neighborhood volleyball games that attract large crowds of immigrants.

Immigrants fear a citywide sweep. Boughton estimates there are 10,000 to 15,000 illegal immigrants in the city, along with Danbury's official population of 77,000 people.

He said the influx has strained schools, created overcrowded housing and led to other problems such as unlicensed and unregistered drivers.

"You can be pro-immigrant, which I am, but anti-illegal immigration," Boughton said. "We are a nation of immigrants. We are also a nation of laws."

The national debate has traditionally focused on border states. In Arizona, a group of volunteers known as the Minutemen are patrolling the Mexican border, dissatisfied with the U.S. Border Patrol's efforts there.

Why not just have Danbury police enforce the same laws against "immigrants" (illegals) that they enforce against the native-born? Being an illegal virtually requires having a fake driver's license or a fraudulently-obtained one - and local police everywhere bust native-born college kids for that, even though those college kids just do it to buy beer. Make life enough of a hassle for illegals in your town - and they'll leave.

The larger question remains; where is the President, where is the uproar in Congress? What we have is the government system in, hopefully, in it's death throes. For what use is a government that cannot protect it's citizens from illegal invaders?

That's not really the question, it's the answer to why the illegal invaders are here. NAFTA opened the floodgates (though it was supposed to close them), and now bush wants to legalise them all for his robber baron supporters.

I wonder who it was that started NAFTA?? Oh that's right, the infamous Klintoon. That's right folks, Senior Klintoon opened the pandora's box. Maybe Shrillary will get elected, and she can put up visitors' center for them as they pass through.

Actually it was all set up by Bush the First and others. Clinton just gladly signed it into law. Both are equally to blame.

The seeds for NAFTA were planted at least by 1981 at the Conference for Hemispheric Development in Cancun, Mx. Among scores of heads of state from around the world, Reagan and de la Madrid were the stars.

And it was entirely for the benefit of Mexico. At the time, there was already a free trade agreement with Canada. I ran into several Canadians in the early 90s and it was the topic of their conversation.

I beg to differ. It was not for the benefit of Mexico. It was for the benefit of a handful of transnational aristocracy.

We did already have a free trade agreement with Canada. I remember when the Candians in protest burned some American trucks to the ground, with the drivers in them, while they were parked and sleeping at a truck stop up in Canada. That happened right after the borders were opened for trucking. Too bad the Candians stopped short. It might have given the neocons more hesitation about NAFTA.