May 2, 2010 5:00 PM
The most dangerous body of water in the U.S. is a deep canal on the Mexican border with California where over 550 people, mostly illegal immigrants, have drowned. Scott Pelley reports.
The Deadly Passage of the All-American Canal
A Long and Dangerous Journey, Lion Kings, Taylor Swift 42:46 May 19, 2013
Taylor Swift: A young singer's meteoric rise 12:09 May 19, 2013
Afghan children on a long and perilous journey 12:10 May 19, 2013
A Face in the Crowd, Three Generations of Punishment, Michael Jackson 43:59 May 19, 2013
60 Minutes Overtime is a weekly web show that begins where the weekly television broadcast ends
MJ's "manifesto," penned in 1979
May 19, 2013
Backstage at Cirque du Soleil show "Immortal"
May 19, 2013
Becoming human: Shin's new life
May 19, 2013
Big changes for the 2012-2013 season! Watch the current week's episode for FREE up to a week after it airs or subscribe for access to all shows, classic episodes and more!
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
... - 28
- Next »
See all 614 CommentsYou wrote:
"Yes, it's a shame that these people are dying, but that idiot "reporter" treats this as if innocent people are needlessly dying and the bad guy doesn't want to spend the money to save them. He could have at least acknowledged:
1) Nobody is putting a gun to their head and making them cross the canal
2) What they are doing is illegal
3) Maybe they don't know it is that dangerous and once the word spreads, they will cease trying to cross"
Your first point is false. We're talking about desparate people who risk their lives and the lives of their children either crossing vast desert terrain or, like in this segment, a deadly river. Why? Because the "gun to the head" is extreme poverty. Whoever the culprit for this poverty is irrelevant to the point that these people are a symptom of such a problem, not the cause.
Your second point is also irrelevant. That persons violate immigration laws is not in any sense justification to let people die. Talk about a lack of sense of proportions. You might as well argue that non-violent drug offenders be left to die or be brutally raped because, after all, they're criminals so why should we care. Again, if you lack a sense of proportion then there's very little that can be said to knock some sanity into you.
The fact that you even write point three proves your insane. You give so much importance to law abidance, even when trivial, that you approve of negligent deadly hazard over immigration deterrence. And yes, it IS trivial. The problems of drug cartels are just that: an organized crime problem due to the war on drugs, not an "Oh my god the landscapers and burrito folders are busting into my house to haul away my kids for white slavery" sort of problem. We solve this not by a war on drugs which only exacerbated the problem when Mexico initiated it in 2006, but by decriminalizing them like Zurich, Switzerland did with heroin where they enjoyed an astounding drop in crime as a result. Such drug cartels are not crossing the rio grande; such a strategy would be futile for them. They have underground tunnels constructed by architects (which just tells you the amount of wealth and power they hold to do business). Building a wall or not providing safety signs and flotation devices to save even children only affects the benign crosser whsoe prospects were menial occupation. Advocate if you wish stricter enforcement in border protection or some other means, but advocating this ******** is not only asinine but insanely immoral. Shame on you.
1) Nobody is putting a gun to their head and making them cross the canal
2) What they are doing is illegal
3) Maybe they don't know it is that dangerous and once the word spreads, they will cease trying to cross
He also could have analyzed a little:
Since the threat of arrest seem to be nothing more than an inconvenience to those trying to get here illegally and jail time would cost too much, maybe lethal danger is what is needed to SAVE lives and curb illegal immigration. The North Koreans have it far far worse than anyone in Mexico, yet you don't see any of them dying trying to cross into South Korea. Why? Because they will be shot and die. Two thumbs down on this piece 60 minutes, and fire that hack.
I believe this story presents an incomplete perspective but in all fairness may be only an incomplete report. While the story focuses on the lost lives of illegal immagrants, the story also presented the incident of a US federal worker who lost his life trying to save his dog. This presents a complete seperate but actual issue. That is of possible an unsafe device, property, owned and opperated within the boundries of us borders that is resulting in loss of life. as a US citizen I am at legal risk if someone becomes injured on my property. If someone is injured at a public location, there is a general expectation of responsibility on the owner or operator of the site or equipment. In this view, the spokeswoman's response regarding resistance to the idea of requiring safety controls is apppaling. I think it is ironic that a canal that exists possibly without appearant general prudent and acceptable standard engineering controls for safety is called the "all-American" Canal. The story has no content on any regulatory agencies response to the general safety of the canals opperation even though one of the incidents of lives lost was a federal employee who would have been covered by OSHA and other agencies if his death occured in the course of work. While I acknowledge my focus on one peice of the story, I believe it is important as it almost seems incongruent with the general point of the story. This might even bring much question of the stories value and intent but it is also recognized that a story segment within a news magazine cannot often attempt to fully address any given topic.
The issue and frequent sequence of events involved in circumstances of illegal immigration is one issue and one that provokes passion and patriotism on multiple levels no matter where one stands, but the all-Amercan Canal is not a border control device. It is within boundries of the the USA and as such falls under the basic safety requirements generally expected within this country. The same protections US citizens general believe a part of what constitutes a percieved or expected greatness within the borders of this country.
For the mathematically challenged liberals, that means all 9 of the Supreme Court Justices ruled in favor of allowing police to question someone on their legal status, without any pre-qualifications. That means, even the moderate to ultra liberal Justices on the Supreme Court at the time, ruled in favor of this (2005).
By the way, seems to me a 'Constitutional Law Professor' such as Obamanation claims to be would know all this. It would also seem the highest ranking Law Enforcement Officer in the Country, the US Attorney General, would also know this.
They both should know the US Supreme Court has ruled on stopping and asking people questions, like their legal immigration status and it is perfectly legal and Constitutional.
Dear Mr. Serkin:
I am appalled by Arizona's new law, which requires police to demand "papers" from people they stop who they suspect are not authorized to be in the United States. This new mandate is a flagrant violation of First Amendment rights. Not only does this law infringe on the free speech rights of day laborers and others in Arizona, but it also invites racial profiling against people of color by law enforcement in violation of the equal protection guarantee. The law violates the prohibition on unreasonable seizures under the 14th and Fourth Amendments. In addition, the law will have the effect of making immigrant populations distrustful of authorities, making them less likely to come forward as victims or as witnesses to crime.
I am pleased that some of the largest civil rights groups have united to challenge this ill-conceived law, and I will openly speak against any similar legislation proposed in the House of Representatives.
Sincerely,
Pete Stark
Member of Congress
Now here is some cold, hard facts. The only people who are against this law are
1. People who are in the country illegally
2. People who are in the country legally but have relatives and/or friends who are here illegally.
3. The Catholic Church which has been loosing members left and right over the sex scandals and subsequent coverups.
4. The Democrats who figure that, since most of the illegals would vote Democratic, they'll sneak some sort of amnesty bill through. They could care less about Latinos other than their votes.
5. Various and sundry bleeding heart liberals. You know the type. They would say that terrorists attacks on the US and our troops are all our own fault rather than the ignorant terrorists and those who support them.
1. Seal the border so no more illegals can enter
2. Come up with some foolproof way to determine if someone is in the country legally and has the right to work here (E-verify, citizenship card, what ever).
3. Require that all employers use this card to determine right to work
4. Heavily fine any employer who is found to be hiring "illegals"
5. Revoke the "birth right" clause in the 14th amendment of the Constitution
Tell them that, if these demands are not met, you won't vote for them even if they are running for dog catcher. Since the one over riding motivation for any politician is to be elected or re-elected and he or she will do or be anything the majority or the public wants them to do or be in order to be re-elected and enough people make these demands, something will be done. When the jobs are unavailable, all or the vast majority of the people in the country illegally will self deport.
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
... - 28
- Next »
See all 614 Comments