I delayed my response to you because I wanted to respond on a higher level than my immediate reaction to your comments. It is with that in mind that I wish to respond to your points as they appear in your response:
Your maintain: “The Obama Administration has strengthened the border with material, personnel, and logistics and deported more illegals than Clinton or Bush. Unlike his predecessors, the Justice Dept. under Obama has cracked down on businesses that hire illegals. A good number of Hispanics feel betrayed by Obama and assuming they will all happily vote for him is jumping to a conclusion. (Of course, the GOP hasn't exactly endeared Hispanics, but that's a different topic.)” It is true that more border agents were hired under Obama. However, credit for initiating the hiring predates the current administration. Perhaps you should look at both Presidents Clinton and Bush, pay particular attention to details in the past budgets. Initial funding was proposed and passed during the Clinton administration and more funds were added during the Bush terms. Remember that Obama did not have a budget for almost 3 years of his first term, we operated under continuing resolutions. Wherein you are proud of the “new” provisions to crack down on companies that hire illegals, it is worthwhile to not that doing an audit is not as heavy handed as removing illegals, and is not a real deterrent for business not to hire under the table. The crackdown is a requirement to fill out a form. A real measure would be akin to Joe Arpaio’s Posse of Arizona. They actively go to business and ask the workers for proof of citizenship. This is what American needs to secure the boarders; active and concerned professionals that go into the field and round up illegals. I really do not care that the illegals are not in favor of either Obama or his opposition. They are not citizens, and therefore their opinion or vote should not count.
Your next point; “Despite the exaggerated and embelished stories that are repeated as fact, the bulk of illegals that come from south of the border are Mexican in a desperate situation. And they do have a measure of my sympathy. Were I in their place, I'd try to get to the US anyway I could. Telling them to get in line and wait their turn to immigrate is telling them they are unlikely to get in.”
If you were an illegal, I would still hold the same opinion. That being your actions make you a criminal.
It would seem that you do not live near the border between the US and Mexico. Assuming this as true, allow me to provide you with some information: The media no longer reports on the violence along the Mexican border. “Violence along the southern border has gotten so out of control that both Mexican and American journalists have stopped reporting it out of fear that drug cartels will retaliate against them and their families.” http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2013/03/mexican-u-s-media-too-scared-to-cover-border-crime/
“While the Obama administration insists the Mexican border is secure, a sophisticated airborne radar system created to track Islamic terrorists shows that less than half of the migrants and smugglers crossing into the United States get caught.
This alarming security gap obviously means that the southern border is far from secure, but rather porous and incredibly vulnerable. It also leaves Obama’s Homeland Security Secretary, Janet Napolitano, with egg on her face. After all, the former Arizona governor has repeatedly toured the southern border region guaranteeing that it is “as secure as it has ever been.”
http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2013/04/military-radar-shows-mexican-border-is-not-secure/
Among the crimes reported include murder, manslaughter, assault with deadly weapons, robbery with use of deadly force, rape, home invasions….. http://www.fairus.org/issue/examples-of-serious-crimes-of-illegal-aliens This link list by date and name of only a few cases.
Understanding that the illegals have issues, they are indeed their issues with their homelands. Instead of a mass invasion of the US, they could better their situations by taking control of their own country. If you look at Mexico, it has many advantages over the USA. For example, they have richer lands to grow crops, their growing season is longer, and they have oil deposits, minerals, as well as exportable products. It has all the potential of becoming much more than a country existing under control of drug cartels, socialist government, and military police. Running from your problems, and in their case running from their government, is not a solution but a coward’s way out.
Another of your points: “As the corporate and government corruption in Mexico gets worse, as the drug cartels dictate rule of law by gun barrel and murder, I expect the border unrest to get worse. More and more, those people trying to get into the US are increasingly not looking for a job, for them it is literally a matter of life and death.” Perhaps you have a point, but consider this if our government become more corrupt than it is now, will anyone be better off? With the decline in American wealth, I suspect that those who are “escaping” their current homeland will diminish. What would they gain leaving a socialistic society to just enter into another socialist society with redistribution of wealth in the US?
One more thing that I feel compelled to introduce. You claim that more have been deported under Obama than under preceding presidents. Where are the numbers? According to law enforcement, there is no way to calculate how many enter. We can only count those that are caught. Many of these who are caught are repeaters. So, if the same individual is deported 30 times that will greatly affect the statistics. Under previous presidents, a person deported more than once was still counted as only one deportation. Under the current administration, who know how they generate their figures. The government refuses to provide their system of accountability.

I delayed my response to you because I wanted to respond on a higher level than my immediate reaction to your comments. It is with that in mind that I wish to respond to your points as they appear in your response:
Your maintain: “The Obama Administration has strengthened the border with material, personnel, and logistics and deported more illegals than Clinton or Bush. Unlike his predecessors, the Justice Dept. under Obama has cracked down on businesses that hire illegals. A good number of Hispanics feel betrayed by Obama and assuming they will all happily vote for him is jumping to a conclusion. (Of course, the GOP hasn't exactly endeared Hispanics, but that's a different topic.)” It is true that more border agents were hired under Obama. However, credit for initiating the hiring predates the current administration. Perhaps you should look at both Presidents Clinton and Bush, pay particular attention to details in the past budgets. Initial funding was proposed and passed during the Clinton administration and more funds were added during the Bush terms. Remember that Obama did not have a budget for almost 3 years of his first term, we operated under continuing resolutions. Wherein you are proud of the “new” provisions to crack down on companies that hire illegals, it is worthwhile to not that doing an audit is not as heavy handed as removing illegals, and is not a real deterrent for business not to hire under the table. The crackdown is a requirement to fill out a form. A real measure would be akin to Joe Arpaio’s Posse of Arizona. They actively go to business and ask the workers for proof of citizenship. This is what American needs to secure the boarders; active and concerned professionals that go into the field and round up illegals. I really do not care that the illegals are not in favor of either Obama or his opposition. They are not citizens, and therefore their opinion or vote should not count.
Your next point; “Despite the exaggerated and embelished stories that are repeated as fact, the bulk of illegals that come from south of the border are Mexican in a desperate situation. And they do have a measure of my sympathy. Were I in their place, I'd try to get to the US anyway I could. Telling them to get in line and wait their turn to immigrate is telling them they are unlikely to get in.”
If you were an illegal, I would still hold the same opinion. That being your actions make you a criminal.
It would seem that you do not live near the border between the US and Mexico. Assuming this as true, allow me to provide you with some information: The media no longer reports on the violence along the Mexican border. “Violence along the southern border has gotten so out of control that both Mexican and American journalists have stopped reporting it out of fear that drug cartels will retaliate against them and their families.” http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2013/03/mexican-u-s-media-too-scared-to-cover-border-crime/
“While the Obama administration insists the Mexican border is secure, a sophisticated airborne radar system created to track Islamic terrorists shows that less than half of the migrants and smugglers crossing into the United States get caught.
This alarming security gap obviously means that the southern border is far from secure, but rather porous and incredibly vulnerable. It also leaves Obama’s Homeland Security Secretary, Janet Napolitano, with egg on her face. After all, the former Arizona governor has repeatedly toured the southern border region guaranteeing that it is “as secure as it has ever been.”
http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2013/04/military-radar-shows-mexican-border-is-not-secure/
Among the crimes reported include murder, manslaughter, assault with deadly weapons, robbery with use of deadly force, rape, home invasions….. http://www.fairus.org/issue/examples-of-serious-crimes-of-illegal-aliens This link list by date and name of only a few cases.
Understanding that the illegals have issues, they are indeed their issues with their homelands. Instead of a mass invasion of the US, they could better their situations by taking control of their own country. If you look at Mexico, it has many advantages over the USA. For example, they have richer lands to grow crops, their growing season is longer, and they have oil deposits, minerals, as well as exportable products. It has all the potential of becoming much more than a country existing under control of drug cartels, socialist government, and military police. Running from your problems, and in their case running from their government, is not a solution but a coward’s way out.
Another of your points: “As the corporate and government corruption in Mexico gets worse, as the drug cartels dictate rule of law by gun barrel and murder, I expect the border unrest to get worse. More and more, those people trying to get into the US are increasingly not looking for a job, for them it is literally a matter of life and death.” Perhaps you have a point, but consider this if our government become more corrupt than it is now, will anyone be better off? With the decline in American wealth, I suspect that those who are “escaping” their current homeland will diminish. What would they gain leaving a socialistic society to just enter into another socialist society with redistribution of wealth in the US?
One more thing that I feel compelled to introduce. You claim that more have been deported under Obama than under preceding presidents. Where are the numbers? According to law enforcement, there is no way to calculate how many enter. We can only count those that are caught. Many of these who are caught are repeaters. So, if the same individual is deported 30 times that will greatly affect the statistics. Under previous presidents, a person deported more than once was still counted as only one deportation. Under the current administration, who know how they generate their figures. The government refuses to provide their system of accountability.

Your arguments present little that I have not heard before. The logic overlooks the facts that (1.) The letter of law should supercede basic motives of survival and equate it to criminal behavior. (2.) Anyone in this country, no matter how they got here, is subject to our laws. That includes the Bill of Rights and the 14th amendment. I don't recall the 14th amendment segregating a segment of population and making them an exception. (3.) Deporting 11 million residents in not a practical solution, and probably impossible. (4.) Past apathy of lax border security has been a consent to illegal immigration. How soon you forget that George Bush dropped the pretense and extended an open border policy to Vicinte Fox during a White House visit.

Your arguments present little that I have not heard before. The logic overlooks the facts that (1.) The letter of law should supercede basic motives of survival and equate it to criminal behavior. (2.) Anyone in this country, no matter how they got here, is subject to our laws. That includes the Bill of Rights and the 14th amendment. I don't recall the 14th amendment segregating a segment of population and making them an exception. (3.) Deporting 11 million residents in not a practical solution, and probably impossible. (4.) Past apathy of lax border security has been a consent to illegal immigration. How soon you forget that George Bush dropped the pretense and extended an open border policy to Vicinte Fox during a White House visit.

Catpaw,
Not sure, but I think you said that if someone crosses the border without the permission of the United States and tells us they are afraid of people in their country the U.S. cannot use the current US immigration laws, assess the truth in their statement and subsequently send them back because of the US constitution????? Because of "basic motives of survival"? (You lost me on that, mostly because it is so screwed up).

The other statement about lax enforcement negates the law and therefore people who jump the border are allowed to stay if they wish?? You can't be serious about that one. Does that include all future illegal immigrants from ALL foreign countries,including any from Iran or Pakistan, or just the ones you select ????

I can extrapolate from your statement that if all bank robbers aren't caught then their defense can be, you didn't catch the last ones, therefore robbing banks is no longer illegal, I can't be held and prosecuted. You are way beyond just faulty reasoning. How do you survive without help ?
Maybe you should READ Ginnyt's comments this time. They were very good comments.
1oldgeezer

I do believe that they are overwhelmed. I am for arming them, and for them to carry out their oath to protect the border and if necessary send the military because I know that oath. To protect and defend our nation from enemies both foreign and domestic. There has been too many of our border patrol who have lost their lives.

The border patrol has received only minimal support from this Administration, Obama. Obama is all for opening the borders and not just for Latinos, but to anyone and anything.

So, I am not sure whey you are asking me this question. Perhaps you could address it to Catpaw who seems to think that Obama has put sufficient energy into protecting our border.

The border has been reinforced with material, logistics, and personnel more by Obama than his predecessors. More illegals have been deported under Obama than his predecessors. The Justice Dept. under Obama has made accountable more businesses that hire illegals than his predecessors. If that is minimal in your mind, then I guess Clinton and Bush did less than minimal.
Meanwhile, the Hispanics that are here love to make babies. They are the second fastest growing minority in the US and some parts of the country have become or will become the majority. (First place is Oriental Asians. Still behind in numbers but catching up.)
Bottom line, they're here. They are not going away. They may be illegal but many of their spouses and the children born here are not. Nobody is going to seperate families.

You stated that Obama intends to allow illegal immigrants into the country through apathy and inaction. The facts do not support that premise. You equated illegal immigrants as criminal elements and foreign enemies invading the country. The facts do not support that premise. You would use the Constitution to vindicate arresting a particular ethnicity and deporting them. The Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment do not support that premise.
I hope I am repeating a school lesson, because the realities of the issue and the application of the Constitution is what should be taught. How are you going to react when a Hispanic is elected to the white house? Far fetched? There are viable candidates in both parties now who could qualify for the candidacy.

You base your points on the 14th Amendment and I have already addressed that. I did not say that Obama is allowing illegals in through either apathy or inaction. He is deliberate in opening the boarders. People that break the law and enter into my country are criminals, deserving nether my respect or sympathy. They enter under the law, then I welcome them. There is a difference. I do not vote because an individual has a color tone or a Hispanic name, I vote for the person who has a proven record. How did they vote on bills that are important to me. I vote for a person that has the education, background, and ability to lead a nation and above all has integrity. Color is not an issue. A Hispanic, Japanize, Korean, Native American, Black, or any other color of the rainbow....what does it matter if they are qualified and can lead and be an inspiration? Perhaps it makes a difference to the Liberals, but not to me.