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

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,,,,

A) Don't count on that. A checkpoint could care less what race or creed you are. there are plenty of illegal Asians here in LA and everyone here knows that. Heck Florida is over run with Cubans. new York gets a lot of Haitians.

B) Considering your religious affiliations and the sentiments that prevail this country you are literally holding up a sign saying "HERE I AM!" and on top of that with Homeland Security are asking to get yourself DRAGGED KICKING AND SCREAMING into a form of hell that will test you in ways you never thought humanly possible and you will be broken if caught in that system. Do you really think with homeland security the Fed gives a crap about your rights if they have a "need" to interrogate you?

C) I would advise you get legalized. You have no idea who will take exception to you being an illegal. Trust me, you do not want to fire up a magnet that attracts crusaders. As it stands you may already have done enough damage to yourself now openly posting you being here illegally and proud of it. You act like it is a badge of respect. In all reality it is a disrespect to me to be in my house and spit in my face like that. If someone did that to me in my presence I would probably try to kill that azzhole on the spot bare handed if necessary. I would never go into your home and show you any disrespect, extend to us the same courtesy please. There is no justification for committing crime of any kind my friend. I am not sure of your homeland. I would assume Afghanistan or somewhere in that region? Possibly Palestinian?

If you are here to make a life for yourself without having to live in the shadow of war I have no issue with you being here as long as you do the right thing or try to do the right thing! I know dozens of immigrants to this country who came here illegally but GOT legal! I know a host of others who did come here legally. It isn't impossible! I actually respect a poor person out to make something of themselves with honest effort a LOT more than some socialist dweebs from another country coming here for free handouts!

Are you in this for respect or just to piss us off? Seriously! You know this issue is super sensitive.

Go to Arizona and test your claim.

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.

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 are on the same side on this . but it never supprises when the rats this country has comes out against us .
they are easy to find though there are the ones with the funny breath oder .

why did obama want to be the top law enforcement officer in the usa if he wasn't willing to do the job .IS HE JUST ANOTHER WH ORE .

The Bill passed.

Those kind of risks are what guns, insurance, and private defense agencies are for.

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 think the point is that their status is ASSUMED until after the search and seizure, meaning that many citizens will indeed be wrongfully searched,,,,

There should have been a stipulation in the bill that states all illegals caught will be taken out to the desert on a chain gang and pick up all the trash these people leave, its killing our desert and wildlife.

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.

Well..good luck getting your man Obama to start ENFORCING the law.

He's talking " Comprehensive Immigration Reform " which is just a REALLY slick way to say " AMnesty ".

After all..he's going to NEED all 12 million of those votes.

The property owners do indeed face this risk-this is where "DROs" or private protection agencies come into play.

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."

I'm just saying if Natives built fences around America and didn't allow people in, they would still have their land.

I'm not trying to rewrite history.