more jobs are being lost to automation and outsourcing than to immigration,,,,If job loss is truly the issue, I would think it more reasonable to protest THOSE things first,,,

The flaw in your argument is that automation and outsourcing are both legal and result in improved productivity. The sanest solution is to eliminate the government's role in all this-privatize the land and allow property owners to defend it. This is what the landowners in Southern AZ do, to the extent that they can afford it. There is a small, privately built fence down there that has deterred aliens to a degree. Thus, it is safe to assume that if market forces were allowed to work, the problem would be solved by those who have vested interest in it.

how's this not racially motivated..i bet the arizona police aren't pulling over any asians or russians.
<<<<illegal and proud :D

how's this not racially motivated..i bet the arizona police aren't pulling over any asians or russians.
<<<<illegal and proud :D

Protest is a reasonable method of choice for LEGAL practices which one opposes. It is arguable of outsourcing results in improved productivity or just higher profit margins ,,,,,

privatizing land is also an option except that I wouldnt want private citizens owning the borders,,,,

They wouldn't own the borders-they would own the land near the borders. The means of traveling across the borders (roads/waterways) would be owned privately too, but not necessarily by the same person. This system of ownership works better than the public model, as Dr Walter Block showed in his book about private ownership of roads.

illegal is not a race

illegal is a crime

illegal is not a race

illegal is a crime

The border itself has an area of no-mans land. The rest that the Gov. don't own is privately owned.

The property owners who detain the Illegal risk people like Farakhan representing them in lawsuits against the property owners. The property owners also face risks of attacks from Illegals as well as illegals passing drugs.

I agree.

Taking away citizens civil rights to legal search and seizure is not the way to go.

There's just one TEENY TINY little thing you are forgetting.

THEY ARE NOT CITIZENS!!!!

They are here ILLEGALLY!

Why can't you people get that through your heads??

THEY BROKE FEDERAL LAW!!!

I just want current immigraion laws enforced, without adding room for people to ASSUME ON SIGHT rather someone is a legal citizen or an illegal immigrant.

The border itself has an area of no-mans land. The rest that the Gov. don't own is privately owned.

The property owners who detain the Illegal risk people like Farakhan representing them in lawsuits against the property owners. The property owners also face risks of attacks from Illegals as well as illegals passing drugs.

We have to learn this lesson...

Just look @ Native Americans...

They kept letting Europeans steal their land...

Now look at them....

decimated....

If only the Natives had stronger immigration policies....

Well, most of us wouldn't be here.

Not much truth to this. The narrative we are fed from popular sources about the Indians is mostly fable. For example, as historian Thomas Woods writes-

"Were American Indians Really Environmentalists?

Mises Daily: Thursday, July 19, 2007 by Thomas E. Woods, Jr.

The traditional story is familiar to American schoolchildren: the American Indians possessed a profound spiritual kinship with nature, and were unusually solicitous of environmental welfare.

According to a popular book published by the Smithsonian Institution in 1991, "Pre-Columbian America was still the First Eden, a pristine natural kingdom. The native people were transparent in the landscape, living as natural elements of the ecosphere. Their world, the New World of Columbus, was a world of barely perceptible human disturbance."

If we are to avert environmental catastrophe, the not-so-subtle lesson goes, we need to recapture this lost Indian wisdom.

As usual, the real story is more complicated, less cartoonish, and a lot more interesting.

In his 1992 book Earth in the Balance, then-Senator Al Gore cited a nineteenth-century speech from Chief Seattle, patriarch of the Duwamish and Suquamish Indians of Puget Sound, as evidence of the Indians' concern for nature. This speech, which speaks of absolutely everything in the natural world, including every last insect and pine needle, as being sacred to Seattle and his people, has been made to bear an unusually heavy share of the burden in depicting the American Indians as the first environmentalists.

The trouble for Gore is that the version of the speech he cites is a fabrication, drawn up in the early 1970s by screenwriter Ted Perry. (Perry, to his credit, has tried without success to let people know that he made up the speech.) Still, it was influential enough to become the basis for Brother Eagle, Sister Sky, a children's book that reached number five on the New York Times bestseller list in 1992.

Earlier versions of the speech, also cited by environmentalists, are suspect for reasons of their own. But experts say that the intention of Chief Seattle is clear enough, and that it wasn't to say that every created thing, sentient and non-sentient, was "holy" to his people, or that all land everywhere had an equal claim upon their affection. "Seattle's speech was made as part of an argument for the right of the Suquamish and Duamish peoples to continue to visit their traditional burial grounds following the sale of that land to white settlers," explains Muhlenburg College's William Abruzzi. "This specific land was sacred to Seattle and his people because his ancestors were buried there, not because land as an abstract concept was sacred to all Indians." Writing in the American Indian Quarterly, Denise Low likewise explains that "the lavish descriptions of nature are secondary" to the purpose of Chief Seattle's argument, and that he was saying only that "land is sacred because of religious ties to ancestors."

Environmentalists who have cultivated the myth of the environmental Indian who left his surroundings in exquisitely pristine condition out of a deeply spiritual devotion to the natural world have done so not out of any particular interest in American Indians, the variations between them, or their real record of interaction with the environment. Instead, the intent is to showcase the environmentalist Indian for propaganda purposes and to use him as a foil against industrial society.

The Indians' real record on the environment was actually mixed, and I give the details in my new book, 33 Questions About American History You're Not Supposed to Ask. Among other things, they engaged in slash-and-burn agriculture, destroyed forests and grasslands, and wiped out entire animal populations (on the assumption that animals felled in a hunt would be reanimated in even larger numbers).

On the other hand, the Indians often succeeded in being good stewards of the environment — but not in the way people generally suppose.

Although we often hear that the Indians knew nothing of private property, their actual views of property varied across time, place, and tribe. When land and game were plentiful, it is not surprising that people exerted little effort in defining and enforcing property rights. But as those things became more scarce, Indians appreciated the value of assigning property rights in (for example) hunting and fishing."