BREAKING: New Law Doesn't Actually Solve Problem

David Weigel | November 15, 2007

The head of the Memorial Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism—founded in 1995 after the Oklahoma City bombing—is saying the state's new anti-illegal immigration law won't actually stop terrorism.

"We should remember that the 9/11 terrorists ... all had visas and entered this country legally," Don Hamilton said Wednesday in an interview after speaking to members of the Council of State Governments.

The new law seeks to bar illegal immigrants from obtaining jobs or public benefits and penalizes those who harbor or transport them.

About half the illegal immigrants in the United States entered legally but overstayed their visas, he said.

"If you put death rays on the border with Mexico that were 100 percent effective, you would only have solved less than half of the illegal immigration problem," he said.

Oklahoma Southern Baptists don't like the law, either. I'm waiting on Lou Dobbs to tell them why they're all wrong.

Comments

thoreau|11.15.07 @ 11:27AM|#

I agree with MikP.

|11.15.07 @ 11:32AM|#

"If you put death rays on the border with Mexico that were 100 percent effective, you would only have solved less than half of the illegal immigration problem,"

Ok, don't give them ideas

thoreau|11.15.07 @ 11:36AM|#

Sharks with laser beams on their foreheads in the Rio Grande!

|11.15.07 @ 11:40AM|#

<troll>No, you're all right -- especially right is that death-ray less-than-third solution. A <33% solution is yet a significant movement towards a complete solution! We'll start with border deathrays, and then move into roving "Are you an illegal? WRONG ANSWER BZZT" internal death rays, and then move into some grander scheme I haven't thought of. Death rays at the border! A not-quite-1/3 plan is worlds better than the 0% plan proposed by the Democrats and Republicans who don't care about you, and still far better than the -100% plan offered by this hate-filled libertarian.</troll>

Nigel Watt|11.15.07 @ 11:41AM|#

Is anyone else disturbed that the suggestion of death for illegal immigrants is even within the range of acceptable hyperbole?

thoreau|11.15.07 @ 11:43AM|#

Nigel-

Yeah, it is a shame that we feel free to talk so cavalierly about sharks with laser beams on their foreheads. Those sharks are endangered, and we shouldn't be trying to exploit them. We should be seeking sustainable substitutes for our jokes.

Like sea bass.

jimmydageek|11.15.07 @ 11:46AM|#

BREAKING: New Law Doesn't Actually Solve Problem

The problem of break-dancing?

robc | November 15, 2007, 9:08am | #
Karen,

Lifetime? Wasnt this the plot of Breakin' 2 - Electric Boogaloo?

robc | November 15, 2007, 9:09am | #
Okay, after posting my last comment, I went to IMDB. Now I am scared at what is stored in my brain.


Plot Outline:
A developer tries to bulldoze a community recreation center. The local breakdancers try to stop it.

|11.15.07 @ 11:49AM|#

I've always considered them to be economic and political refugees.My family got here in very similar fashion 100 years ago.

Bingo|11.15.07 @ 11:51AM|#

When are we going to get a movie where a greedy developer is going to tear down an orphanage and groups of lovable ne'er-do-wells performing Souljaboy's Crank That are the only way to stop him?

jimmydageek|11.15.07 @ 11:55AM|#

You just haaaad to mention that junk, Bingo. Here I thought work was a safe refuge from it. :(

VM|11.15.07 @ 11:55AM|#

Doktor T:

are they ill tempered sea bass?

jimmydageek|11.15.07 @ 12:02PM|#

Hmmm...stay with me here...

Mexicans are fond of gold jewelry...
Barracudas like shiny things...

Eureka!

robc|11.15.07 @ 12:05PM|#

jimmydageek,

You know, I thought someone would comment on my B2EB comment, I just expected it to be in the original thread. Instead, joe is supporting muggers.

DannyK|11.15.07 @ 12:05PM|#

Well, SkyNet has a new line of killbots that could be deployed to secure the border. What's the worst that could happen?

jimmydageek|11.15.07 @ 12:07PM|#

robc,

His heart bleeds for muggers...

|11.15.07 @ 12:38PM|#

"I've always considered them to be economic and political refugees.My family got here in very similar fashion 100 years ago."

That is what makes this problem a very emotional one. It's not just about the welfare state and hospitals and schools, it is about people wanting to work.

I grew up in Texas in the 70's and worked with many illegals who were the hardest working people I had ever seen (the late James Brown excluded).

They would work for a few month and then go back to Mexico to be with their families. Now, they can't go back for fear of being discovered and they are compelled to bring their families with them.

SO AMERICAN IT HURTS|11.15.07 @ 12:53PM|#

If you put death rays on the border with Mexico that were 100 percent effective, you would only have solved less than half of the illegal immigration problem,"

THIS WAS MY PROPOSAL 2 YEARS AGO!! I SUBMITTED 100% EFFECTIVE DEATH RAY SYSTEM THAT INCLUDED MOAT WITH PIRHANNA (SHARKS TOO EXPENSIVE AND NOT SUITED TO RIO GRANDE WATER) AND 2-MILE MINEFIELD. 50% OF SOMETHING MUCH BETTER THAN CURRENT IMMIGRANTOCRAT SOLUTION WHERE WE GIVE THEM HALLMARK CARDS AND OFFER TO RUB THEIR FEET BEFORE WE GIVE THEM SOME AMERICANS JOB AT 1/3 THE WAGES. WAKE UP AMERICA! ACT NOW BEFORE MS13 GOES VIVA LA RAZA ON YOUR ASS AND BOMBS LOU DOBBS

|11.15.07 @ 12:58PM|#

While I don't like the "illegal" part of illegal immigration, rather than dissolve our borders, I've always wanted a return to a liberal guest worker program. You get a four month visa if you have a job lined up, and employers may recruit at the border.

|11.15.07 @ 1:22PM|#

Well since the death ray card has been played. Let's borrow from our friends the old DDR (East Germany). Just lay minefields, fencing, a paved road, a plowed strip, some towers and a few dog runs. Piece of cake.

LarryA|11.15.07 @ 1:50PM|#

Never mind the Mexicans. The big problem is the immigrants from New York and California who move down here and whine, "We don't do things this way where we come from."

|11.15.07 @ 2:09PM|#

*frightening snicker*

Jesus Christ, you spineless fairies want fraggin' death rays on the border? How the $#^% does that deal with the beaners and sand-niggers that are already in here?

Real men want gas chambers! And they won't rest 'til they get them!

|11.15.07 @ 2:10PM|#

They won't, either.

TLB|11.15.07 @ 2:31PM|#

YASPFW (Yet Another Stupid Post From Weigel)

I very strongly suspect that his remarks were taken out of context, and they're definitely being misinterpreted. He's clearly saying we need to tighten VisaProcedures to avoid those who will try to OverstayTheirVisas and to avoid those with TerroristLinks. And, he's clearly saying that the bill only solves half the problem because OK has no control and cannot do anything about the fed's GrantingOfVisas.

Bonus: guess who Jane Hamsher's in bed with.

dhex|11.15.07 @ 2:36PM|#

none of this addresses the RealProblem of being FuckedToDeath by ABurrito.

|11.15.07 @ 2:40PM|#

"If you put death rays on the border with Mexico that were 100 percent effective, you would only have solved less than half of the illegal immigration problem," he said.

Ceteris paribus fallacy...

If everyone who tried crossing the border illegally were killed, the attempted entry rate there would actually be pretty close to zero. Those who would have crossed the border will change their efforts to obtaining and overstaying a visa.

You would therefore have "solved" much less than half the "problem".

R C Dean|11.15.07 @ 2:45PM|#

Let's borrow from our friends the old DDR (East Germany).

There is a difference between "minefields, fencing, a paved road, a plowed strip, some towers and a few dog runs" for the purpose of keeping your own citizens captive, and border security for the purpose of preserving your sovereignty.

|11.15.07 @ 2:57PM|#

Is there some minimum definition of "your own citizens" that has to hold for the distinction you draw to be true? Or, rather, is it the case that anything a state does in the name of its sovereignty is just fine?

Kolohe|11.15.07 @ 3:23PM|#

guess who Jane Hamsher's in bed with.

Mr. Hamsher?