National Association of Former Border Patrol Officers States Position on Illegal Immigration

I think you will find this site interesting from the position of people who were formerly in charge of protecting our nation's borders. Here is there position statement on Illegal Immigration:
=============================================
"Statement in Support of Our Position Against Illegal Immigration
Every sovereign nation, in order to protect its citizens, has the right and the duty to control who enters, passes through, or remains within its borders. Only United States citizens have a right to enter and remain in the United States. All others are granted this privilege through various acts of the Congress.

We wish to state immediately that there is no bias, ethnic, racial, or national, in our position. We recognize that those from Mexico who are in the United States illegally, while highly visible, are only a part of the problem. Calling these positions "racist" or "xenophobic" are simply loser's arguments, the last resort of those who cannot think about issues. It's not about race; it's about a nation's right to make its own decisions about what is good for it, not have them dictated by anyone who can break the law.

The U.S. has traditionally adopted immigration laws aimed at protecting us in four areas. To the nation's demonstrable detriment, we have ignored those reasons for forty years and more. We now pay the price. "

and here's their statement supporting that position:
============
"Statement in Support of Our Position Against Illegal Immigration
Every sovereign nation, in order to protect its citizens, has the right and the duty to control who enters, passes through, or remains within its borders. Only United States citizens have a right to enter and remain in the United States. All others are granted this privilege through various acts of the Congress.

We wish to state immediately that there is no bias, ethnic, racial, or national, in our position. We recognize that those from Mexico who are in the United States illegally, while highly visible, are only a part of the problem. Calling these positions "racist" or "xenophobic" are simply loser's arguments, the last resort of those who cannot think about issues. It's not about race; it's about a nation's right to make its own decisions about what is good for it, not have them dictated by anyone who can break the law.

The U.S. has traditionally adopted immigration laws aimed at protecting us in four areas. To the nation's demonstrable detriment, we have ignored those reasons for forty years and more. We now pay the price.

* Public safety - Criminals (variously described over the years) may not enter the U.S. legally or remain here absent extraordinary permission. Alien criminals have become so common that they contribute heavily to crime statistics, and they are a very expensive portion of the population of all our prisons (statistics available upon request). If our immigration laws were rigorously enforced we could reduce the impact of criminal aliens on our society. A secure border is the first line of defense. However, there must be vigorous follow-up with interior enforcement.

* Public health - At one time carriers of contagious diseases, or those afflicted with diseases affecting their ability to support themselves, were not allowed to enter the U.S. Now we see aliens with diseases seldom found among Americans in recent history working in service positions, such as waiters, cooks, housekeepers, or even domestic servants. Aliens by the thousand avail themselves of U.S. medical care, with the burden borne by the taxpayer - many come here specifically for that purpose. While it may be good for them and for us that they be healthy while they are here amongst us, it is not good that they be here at all.

* Jobs - Like any other commodity, sweat becomes cheaper as it becomes more available. A surfeit of cheap labor cannot help but depress wages. At this time illegal aliens are filling, not just traditional jobs in agriculture (which is no small thing - within our recollections Americans did that work until they were priced out of the market), but unskilled or low-skilled jobs in service, construction, and industry. This is happening at a time when tens of thousands of jobs are being sent overseas.

Employers argue that they need to have cheap labor to compete with foreign companies. Well, perhaps - that is a subject for discussion beyond the scope of this paper, and if it is true it can be addressed by law. But there are products and services that do not face foreign competition - drywall for an American house, for example, cannot be hung in China. Those jobs are becoming all the more precious in our country and those employers should pay what the untainted domestic labor market would demand. American workers should not have their wages depressed by foreign competition within their own borders, but they do.

* National Security. Need we say anything other than "September 11, 2001"? While that was a spectacular, tragic example, it is far from the only example -- but it should be enough to make this point: We must guard our borders closely.

Statement in Support of Our Position Against Amnesty
Backers of a plan to permit aliens who are here illegally to remain here wish that their program were not referred to as "amnesty". However, the term is commonly understood by both the public and those who would benefit from it, so we will use it.

All of us who are endorsing this position paper have vivid recollections of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986. We note that most of the arguments made now for reform echo precisely those made then.

Many of us participated in its administration, and saw first-hand its defects. We list them here.

* Rampant Fraud. Then, as is similarly proposed now, applicants for amnesty had to have been in the U.S. for certain periods, or had to have worked in the U.S. for certain periods. By the literal hundreds of thousands they submitted fraudulent documents showing presence in the U.S. or employment in agriculture during the requisite periods. No statistics on how much fraud there was were kept, but anecdotal evidence at the time from some offices indicated that it was as high as thirty percent.

Absent absolute proof of fraud, which in practical terms meant an admission from the applicant, it was expected by program management in Washington that applications would be approved. An office with too many denials was subject to close scrutiny.



[edit on 21-5-2010 by manta78]

Source of the above material:

nafbpo.org...

Check it out. It is interesting and comprehensive site from those who
were formerly on the inside.

[edit on 21-5-2010 by manta78]

First, just to clarify. These are some former border patrols, but not all former border patrols views. As any group, I am sure there are some who might have different or doesn't agree totally with the organization.

Second, surprised this thread hasn't got much attention.

Finally, I agree with almost everything they are saying. And as a friend of a BP agent, I can tell you that they are very committed at what they do. They have my full respect.

Statement in Support of Our Position Against Amnesty
Backers of a plan to permit aliens who are here illegally to remain here wish that their program were not referred to as "amnesty". However, the term is commonly understood by both the public and those who would benefit from it, so we will use it.

All of us who are endorsing this position paper have vivid recollections of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986. We note that most of the arguments made now for reform echo precisely those made then.

As far as the above, the 1986 Amnesty worked. It incorporated millions of illegals to adapt to the way we do things in this country. Several of my friend received amnesty and doing what they are supposed to as a legal citizen of this country.

What failed is simply the lack of enforcement. The number one way to keep illegals out is to simply ensure that there is no possible way for them to get a job. The fact that we are still using the same old social security card, don't allow social security to coordinate cooperation, and do very little to employers who blatantly go out of their way to hire illegals prove that nobody seriously want to address the issue.

Yet, politicians are usually the first one to blame the illegals for our problems. The same politicians who do nothing about the problem. All they do is create hate and division by not addressing the issue.

I am not against protecting our country. I am against those who want to treat illegals as a plague and want to blame them for our problems. Is there a cost to them? I would be a fool to say no.

But IMO, that cost is minimal or a drop in the bucket compared to the trillions we have already racked up. Furthermore, people are quick to post illegals cost us this much. Yet, many of those figures include legal immigrants or are based on incomplete numbers. The fact is that many of the hospitals, schools, and jails don't ask who is legal and who is not. Some are prohibited by law and some just don't bother.

If people want this issue solved, then get the Congress to address the issue once and for all. Simply asking every person who you think is illegal for papers is not going to solve the issue.

Like I have said before, if this was booming economy, all of these illegals threads wouldn't even exist.