>>But see, this is the issue: I don't agree with you. So, with that in mind, I stand by my solution. It may not happen, but I believe it can. If I say it can't from the start, it won't. I'm not doing that.
>>
>
>FWIW, I heard on the radio today that there are now about 6,000 INS agents, roughly triple what they're used to be. So if we set those agents only to the problem of getting the estimated 12 million illegals out of the country, that's 2,000 per agent. What's a reasonable amount of time for an agent to spend on an individual, finding them, getting the order, attending a hearing, etc., etc. Surely a minimum of 10 hours (which is think is way too short) a piece? So, let's see. That's 4 per agent per week (assuming 40 hour work week), if all goes well. 2000/4 = 500, so if every individual can be handled in 10 hours, with the current staff, that would be a mere 500 weeks to deport the illegals who are here with the current staff.
>
>And that's only if we take them off handling the borders or any other responsibilities.
>
>Of course, we could increase the number of agents, but how much are you willing to spend on this? Pure economics is why most people, including folks at the INS, don't think deporting them all is feasible.
>
>Tamar

So, do you read all the messages or only respond to those that really irk you? I mentioned to Alan that there is something in-between. I believe that we should do something and it should not be some half-assed amnesty where we let everyone who is here stay. There is something that can work. You seem to think that they are all so good hearted and have these families that they need to support. I live in a primarily hispanic neighborhood and I can tell you most assurdly they are not.