Would this be covered under NAFTA? http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100126/ts_alt_afp/uspoliticscaliforniaprisons_20100126014519 Actually makes sense to me. I think the Gov's got something here.....
I've always been an advocate of billing foreign countries for the costs of imprisoning their illegal alien citizens. By "billing" I mean tallying up the total every year and deducting it from their foreign aid checks (the feds can then reimburse state and local governments for the costs they incur).
If the inmate is an illegal immigrant and a Mexican citizen, they can't ship them back soon enough for me. Go for it, Governator.
But he's also advocating giving Mexico the money to build and run the prisons. The probability for corruption and misplaced funds is high IMHO. Would this would have to be an agreement at the Federal level between the two countries? Or can Cal pull it off by themselves?
This isn't "billing". It is more like off-sourcing. You have to see it in context. Here in California we have budget deficits, overcrowded prisons, court orders to release prisoners, and -I think- a significant number of prisoners who are Mexican nationals living in the US without legal documents. The idea is that since they are legally Mexican nationals, why not build a jail in Mexico, as it would cost significantly less money to build a prison in Mexico than in California. I suppose there would have to be a financial incentive for the Mexicans, to get them to do it, and even then California could still come up ahead, as it's so much more expensive to build and run a prison in California compared to Mexico. Of course the prison guard union, which has a lot of power in California, is not down with this. Neither are pro-immigrant groups. But now Arnold said he was "speaking off the cuff" when he brought up the idea, and that he has no plans to propose such a thing.
exporting debtors & prisoners worked out quite well for England, didn't it? What country did Rupert Murdoch come from?
not sure why, it should not result in their US members losing their jobs (it is to cut out overcrowding/need to release, not to close our prisons down as I understand it), and there is nothing stopping them from making sure they are there to unionize the Mexican guards. Seems like they should be all for it (or at least not strongly against it) unless there is something legitimate behind their opposition that does not pertain to their direct members.
We don't agree on much, but seriously... At least we're getting there on the drug war. 10 more years or so.
I agree when it comes to immigration and to most drugs, we are certainly wasting resources on stupidity. But I think there are certain drugs that need to be restricted, because they are too dangerous and too addictive.
Meth. I have no problems with meth being illegal. I just have a problem not being able to buy sudafed in Oregon without a prescription.
Truth. If Ambien and Lunestra were "illegal drugs" or unregulated natural supplements or something there would be an uproar and groups of angry middle-aged women would form to demand drug laws be tightened and police cracked down on them. I'm sure that is true for other "legal" drugs as well
Alcohol? Are you out of your mind? What would be the point of being alive, if they take away alcohol?