Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Wednesday, June 06, 2007
Bruce Bartlett :: Townhall.com Columnist
Immigration Frustration
by Bruce Bartlett
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Do you feel the leaked information from a global warming alarmist organization is meaningful?



One of the things that bothers me about the immigration bill is the view held in the White House and Congress that “something” must be done; the option of doing nothing is not an option. It is my experience that when this idea takes hold, it is almost inevitable that something bad will result.

In principle, I favor the free mobility of labor—just as I favor free trade and the free movement of capital. If we still had the kind of economy we had in the 19th century, in which the government was minuscule and there were no welfare programs, I would be inclined to say, let anyone in who wants to come here. The only way they are going to survive is by working their butts off, and if they are willing to do that then we want them.

This was, of course, the generally held view at that time. The United States welcomed immigrants from anywhere and everywhere. But beginning in the 1930s, this country began to become more and more of a welfare state. Many government programs now confer significant benefits upon those who produce nothing.

I’m not saying that illegal immigrants come to this country just for the governmental benefits, but the availability of such benefits reduces the burden of being illegal. The alternative of turning away people who may be seriously injured from hospital emergency rooms or children from schools simply is not viable. As long as they are here, such people will be accommodated.

To this, most immigration hardliners have a simple answer: send them back where they came from. Defend the border and deport illegals to the greatest extent possible. However, removing the 10 million or so illegal aliens now in the U.S. would be extraordinarily costly in terms of both money and liberty. I seriously doubt that most Americans would be willing to pay the taxes to make this happen or tolerate the intrusion on their own freedom—such as requiring a national identification card—that it would require.

So we are left with the current situation in which free immigration of the 19th century variety is untenable and complete elimination of illegal immigrants is impossible. It is this fact that supporters of the immigration bill are exploiting to claim that since something must be done, their approach is necessarily the best we can achieve.

But what about the option of doing nothing? Why this is this not considered a viable option is a mystery to me. It may be the least bad alternative.

Think about the current situation a little more carefully. Illegal aliens who come here do so primarily to work. I don’t deny that. They do a lot of crappy jobs that, frankly, few of the native born would do. And they do so for far less than it would cost to induce the native born to do such jobs. Moreover, aliens probably do a better job in many cases.

Furthermore, illegal aliens are much more willing to do jobs that need to be done for less than the minimum wage and for cash wages that saves their employers from paying a lot of taxes, such as the employer’s share of the payroll tax. Since these people will never qualify for Social Security benefits, why should they pay taxes for such benefits? Looks okay to me. I wish I had that option.

Finally, illegal aliens are not very likely to complain to the Labor Department or a union if they have some grievance. They are more worried about being deported than exploited, so they have no leverage. The result is that illegal aliens are willing to work cheap, which allows the native born to have inexpensive vegetables—which doctors keep telling us to eat more of—and other goods ands services that improve our real standard of living.

Meanwhile, as miserable as their lives are, for most illegal aliens this is a good deal, too. They wouldn’t come here—braving a lot of hardship in the process—if they didn’t think they were coming out ahead on the deal. In short, the status quo is really a win-win for everyone.

We don’t want to open the borders entirely, because that would let in a lot of riffraff. But we don’t want to close the borders entirely, either, because we need the cheap labor. So, in my opinion, the optimum is to allow some illegal immigration, but with enough enforcement to keep it under control.

It is precisely because of their illegal status that they are valuable and are willing to work cheaply. If they become legal, as the pending legislation would establish, the next thing you know they will be demanding the minimum wage, health benefits, and unions, at which point they may no longer be a net benefit to our economy, but a liability.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

Bruce Bartlett is a former senior fellow with the National Center for Policy Analysis of Dallas, Texas. Bartlett is a prolific author, having published over 900 articles in national publications, and prominent magazines and published four books, including Reaganomics: Supply-Side Economics in Action.

Be the first to read Bruce Bartlett's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

©Creators Syndicate
Where is Robert?
Robert:

I thought this bill was getting stronger and stronger and the forces that opposed it were growing dark. Oh and you also said I wasn't very good at counting votes when I said it would fail in the House and maybe not even get out of the Senate.

Well, Robert, I do know that 45 is less than 60 and that 45 is less than 50. So it seems perhaps that I can count better than you can at least.

You also said that I would share the same fate as my namesake did on June 5, 1942. Well, Robert it seems today is more akin to December 8, 1941 for you than it is June 6, 1942 for me. How does that seawater and bunker fuel taste?

Onceamarine:

Sha Ji Jing Hou is Mandarin Chinese; sha=kill ji=chicken jing=warn and hou=monkey..."to kill the chicken in order to warn the monkey." Akagi is Japanese basically translated as Red Castle. A common Japanese sirname, a place name in Honshu, the name of various Japanese warships (the most famous being the aircraft carrier sunk at Midway), a starship in Star Trek: TNG among other things.

Since I have never applied for WIC, I can't say if Hispanic is one of the options. Is this a form standard in all states or is the form produced by the states thus some states may have the checkbox and others not? Many (most?)government forms do in fact have the checkbox for Hispanic. If some WIC form doesn't, is a pretty trival point and I doubt it is based on some conspiracy to coverup the numbers of Hispanics using government programs--this is getting close to black helicopters territory.

Guess I did not express myself well
..and then lost my cool for a moment after the interjections about tea bags and bullets.

I thought you guys who understand LD, I didn't until a few days ago, would catch what I was doing. It was double talk for bullets. But with attached smoke screen.

Any way, my apologies for getting uppity for a moment. Been a bad day at black rock..

Never understood LD until very recently, because I always gave up after three or four lines. I just won't waste my patience on liberal losers. Then someone finally clued me as to what he is doing.. Now I understand, so maybe you can try to understand.

Will try to catch up with the rest of you. My intentions are good. You get tired and you make mistakes.

That's smarts, people?
.

X - X - X
How you can see what LD writes, but can't see the smoke screen I was playing up above with the tea thing is beyond me.

Good God, where are the smarts people.??.

More B.S
Another pundit in favor of a permanent underclass. Glad you are not a senator, Bruce.

By the way, would someone please show me what jobs those are that Americans will not do? I have not seen them yet. I am not a Democrat, but it appears to me that illegals are here because they will work for $3.00 per hour when Americans cannot. That is not a case of an American unwilling to work, but unable to work due to unfair competition sponsored by a government unwilling to protect its own citizens.

Aqui estamos y nos quedamos
Aqui estamos y aqui nos quedamos!

Yes, that means, “We are here and will stay here.” This is the official slogans of illegal aliens in America.
I wonder what would happen if these millions of illegal aliens invade the neighborhoods of McCain, Graham, Kennedy and all those politicians who want to give away US citizenship to uneducated, illiterate, low skills, Mexicans and others, among them are members of the “hard working” MS13 and 18th St?

I really would like to see what would happen if Mcain, Graham and Kennedy wake up one day in their beds with mariachis music playing in the next house, with junk cars parked in the front yard, empty can beers along the streets, graffiti on the walls reading “Viva Mexico” and the drawing of CheGuevara with a slogan saying: “Down with the Yankee Imperialism” “White Americans are racist” and pit bulls in every house?

Of course, this is just a hypothetically scenario, however, my point is clear. Politicians would not stay a minute in a “Latino barrio.” Why? Because illegal aliens not only came looking for job, but also brought their own “village” here: dirty streets, ripped houses, disorganized transit, loose dogs, unattended children playing in the streets with no adult supervision, loud Mexican music 24/7, drinking beer outside in the open air, doing mechanics in the front yards, and Mexican flags waving on top of their houses.

What did these politicians say? “Poor immigrants, they are living in the shadow, hard working people, they are humaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaans!” Yeah right. What they do not know is that these illegal immigrants are happy with eating tortillas with chili and cheese and his can of beer on the side, while at the same time laughing at Bush and the Democrat-Republican circus.

Even though, they do not speak English, and do not plan learn it, illegal immigrants are smarter than Kennedy and McCain together. They say: whether you give us legal status or not: “Aqui estamos y aqui nos quedamos, Yee Hah! Gracias Bushito, tu haces por nosotros lo que nuestro presidente nunca haria con nosotros.” (We are here and will stay here. Yee Hah, Thank you little Bush, you are doing something that not even our own president would do.) VIVA MEXICO!!


Bullets not tea bags
Was why it was called the "Shot< heard around the world"


Why would anyone think about a tea bag and compare it to a bullet?

Tea Party was the seed that sowed the coming War of Independence.

Oh yeah, started by the common man, not a general.


When the Government is charged
With their primary duty of insuring domestic tranquillity, but instead create anarchy as we have today, anything can happen.


Take one city in the USA that crime keeps growing to the point the American Citizen feels personally threatened, as many many are every day by the crime wave from Mexico.

If some violence breaks out that the government ignores and still preaches we are the problem, we could see another Concord and Lexington.

It cannot go on this present course without the violence growing from the government induced anarchy, allowing an INVASION.

Each one then goes on to commit more and more crimes, if nothing else Fraud and undermining the entire Social Security System, let alone the health system and prison systems.

Fictitious Surmisings
Of course, if anybody in their right mind was to ever pretend he could have a new Lexington and Concord, he wouldn't want to spill the tea before an audience. So there. I suppose it should stay in the history books.

Damm, you're good. Got me going.

I am with you.
Now in the early 21st century things would probably be done, successfully, a little different than in the 1770's.

The people are almost the same because our nature doesn't change very much. But what you do and how you do it have to match the circumstances. Agreed.??.

Good Work
Now what kind of action today would bring King Jorge to do something that a lot, if not most Americans, would consider "beyond all reason", and light the fuse.

And there has to be some leaders in the wings. Farmers don't fight red coats very well without true leaders. Further more the desired reaction at the kings palace, if he lived in modern times, would be, hey, I stirred up a hornets nest.

Who do I have to talk to before this turns into a nasty mess.

Lexington and Concord



Ethan Allen and his Green Mountain Boys, and was charged as a criminal by the governor of New York.

"Allen organized a volunteer militia, called the Green Mountain Boys, to resist and evict proponents of the New York cause. He was thereupon declared an outlaw by the royal governor of New York."
April 1775

June 14, debate begins in Congress on the appointment of a commander in chief of Continental forces. John Hancock expects to be nominated but is disappointed when his fellow Massachusetts delegate, John Adams, suggests George Washington instead as a commander around whom all the colonies might unite.


June 15, Washington is appointed commander in chief of the Continental Army. The forces from several colonies gathered in Cambridge and Boston become the founding core of that army.


The common man is who rose up against the English Crown first

forgot to add...
re:
I seriously doubt that most Americans would be willing to pay the taxes to make this happen or tolerate the intrusion on their own freedom—such as requiring a national identification card—that it would require."

What a crock! Americans use I.D. EVERY day at no great expense... nobody goes to an ATM machine and withdraws my funds. Citizens must show I.D. to do all sorts of things, yet somehow it would not be feasible to require tamper-proof I.D's for those who overstay visas or crash our borders? Come on! everything is relative when you speak of freedom... right now, the miscreant/lawbreaking are the ones with the freedom to get away with it! Make them have to prove who in heil THEY are!
We ought to be able to readily track non-citizens with a tamper-proof I.D. for crimes, time here, social services sought, taxes paid, etc. This is not a great challenge in the rest of the world-- it is simply a facile (and lame) excuse used by apologists for ILLEGALS and lawbreaking employers and the open borders, reconquista, NAU/MexAmeriCanada ilk.

Good study
I love to study this part of history
I still say it was the common man who started the War of Independence against Great Briton.
Of course I recognize the men such as Jefferson, Adams and all the others.

But it began with the local people, not the lawyers nor generals.

No Generals existed that was American Army anyway.

Washington was appointed General after hostilities began, by the farmers
at Lexington and Concord

And before that, again it was the common man who rose up in 1773, the Boston Tea Party.



In Boston, the arrival of three tea ships ignited a furious reaction. The crisis came to a head on December 16, 1773 when as many as 7,000 agitated locals milled about the wharf where the ships were docked.

A mass meeting at the Old South Meeting House that morning resolved that the tea ships should leave the harbor without payment of any duty. A committee was selected to take this message to the Customs House to force release of the ships out of the harbor.

The Collector of Customs refused to allow the ships to leave without payment of the duty. Stalemate. The committee reported back to the mass meeting and a howl erupted from the meeting hall.

It was now early evening and a group of about 200 men disguised as Indians assembled on a near-by hill.

Whopping war chants, the crowd marched two-by-two to the wharf, descended upon the three ships and dumped their offending cargos of tea into the harbor waters.

Most colonists applauded the action while the reaction in London was swift and vehement.

In March 1774 Parliament passed the Intolerable Acts which among other measures closed the Port of Boston.

The fuse that led directly to the explosion of American independence was lit.

an intentionally false premise
Bartlett's false ploy:

"However, removing the 10 million or so illegal aliens now in the U.S. would be extraordinarily costly in terms of both money and liberty. I seriously doubt that most Americans would be willing to pay the taxes to make this happen or tolerate the intrusion on their own freedom—such as requiring a national identification card—that it would require."

One of the most irritating artful sophistical tricks of the pro-ILLEGAL, open borders, NAU, free trade crowd is to try to say that enforcement would be too costly-- HOGWASH. Cong. Ed Royce noted today that it will cost (as calculated by Heritage) 1,000 TIMES as much just to cover the $2.4 TRILLION in deficit taxes vs. services used for the 11 million ILLEGALS versus the cost of the ALREADY APPROVED 800 miles of fencing on our southern border to stop them from coming.

This does NOT also include the myriad ancillary costs associated with importing uneducated poor immigrants when an advanced service economy like ours is today can ONLY BENEFIT from immigration of the educated and skilled. The U. S Border Patrol has assessed the pending Scamnesty legislation, "insultingly bad legislation." If we leave the border open, the wage gap can only widen and the burdens to taxpayers will grow exponentially.

Talent Scout - - 5:13 pm
Gabby is not wrong with the leadership expression she uses until she says "legitimately pick up arms".
There were a number of our best leaders both for and against the "uprising".

Yes the leadership displayed by some was very emboldening to the common man. It always is that way. But who says we need Washington FAT CATS to lead us. NO, there are many other state and local level people who are our natural and close at hand leaders. Just as King Georges men didn't lead us anywhere except by the noses.

The leadership needed to make a serious uprising comes from existing leaders and new leaders at the local levels.

Akagi - - - 3:52 pm
You still make a lot of sense to me as you did the first time I read a post of yours.

Just because you make an occasional mistake on some pretty minor factoid doesn't turn me off.

sha ji jing hou.

No, I am not schooled in the things of the far east.

But I am a curious George if it is not invading your space.When I see your name it tends to make me think you might be of Japanese origin.

But the words look to me like Chinese.

Again I don't want to lean on you unless you wish to answer my uneducated guesses.

Please, Akagi
I am telling you that THE FORM DOES NOT INCLUDE "HISPANIC."

That's my whole point. YOU -- and many other people -- might think that the form would include Hispanic. It does NOT.

Maybe this is a minor point. But to me it is most telling.

People debating this immigration issue depend on statistics to bolster and justify their position. We are, after all, an empirically-minded populace, and that, not to our shame.

So when I say it is a fact that "hispanic" is NOT an option on a given government form, it is significant, empirically.

Hypothetically, if Arizona reports that it has 100,000 white women and children receiving state benefits, do you, Akagi, assume there are no hispanics among these recipients??? Yet there are!!!

It's OK for them (the state) to identify how many, Asians, African-Americans, Polynesians, or Native Americans are receiving aid. But not hispanics? Why do they then lump hispanics in with whites??

Why not abandon alltogether the recording of ethnicity? if in reality the statistics are misleading.

You see, I suspect our state's not tallying the numbers on hispanics in this instance is yet another means of glossing over the costs of illegal immigration to a public too busy to be bothered, too easily duped -- or just too uninterested.








The Shot Heard Around the World
Gabby writes: Thursday, June, 07, 2007 1:39 PM
How did the War Of Independence Start?
Did the common man just pick up arms and go up against the British?

No!

It was the upper magistrates and government officals--generals, judges, and politicians who led the resistance.

The people can only legitimately pick up arms against the government when the people are led by the AUTHORIZED leaders of the nation who have power (given to them legitimately) to make the rebellious government officials stand down and cease their usurpation. This is the pattern our Founding Fathers followed.
-------------------------------------------------

Sorry to disagree Gabby, but the ones who rose up first were called the Minutemen.
Common men, not the judges, the lawyers,or generals, ordinary farmers.

"By the rude bridge that ached the flood
Their Flag to April's breeze unfurled
Here once the embattled farmers stood
And fired the shot heard around the world."
RW Emerson


April 19 1775

The actual British order to seize and destroy the American's guns and supplies, for that day, reads as follows:

"Having received Intelligence, that a Quantity of Ammunition, Provision, Artillery, Tents and small Arms, have been collected at Concord, for the Avowed Purpose of raising and supporting a Rebellion against His Majesty, you will March with the Corps of Grenadiers and Light Infantry, put under your Command, with utmost expedition and Secrecy to Concord, where you will seize and destroy all Artillery, Ammunition, Provisions, Tents, Small Arms, and all Military Stores whatever ..." (Per Order of General Gage to Lt. Colonel F. Smith, of the Kings Troops. The Minute Men The First Fight: Myths and Realities of the American Revolution, by John R. Galvin, at page 100).

At Concord, house to house searches were conducted by the British to carry out the above order. Remember, the possession of powder, cannon, and other supplies of war might have meant arrest for revolutionary activities. The supplies of arms were substantial:

"Within the town, scattered through the cellars and attics and outbuildings of at least twenty-five houses, the provincials had concealed ten tons of musket balls and cartridges, thirty-five half barrels of powder, 350 tents, fourteen medicine chests, eighty barrels of beef, eight and a half tons of salt fish, seventeen and a half tons of rye, 318 barrels of flour, 100 barrels of salt, ... hundreds of axes, canteens, reams of cartridge paper ... and ... a substantial number of cannon and gun carriages of varying sizes... ." (emphasis added). The Minute Men the First Fight: Myths and Realities of the American Revolution, by John R. Galvin, at page 140).

On April 19, 1775, the Americans were prepared to, and did, fight for their liberty and freedom. What would you have done?




Hispanic
Darcy:

Yes, Hispanic is not a race, but a cultural grouping and only fools like GC and Robert think it is a race. But on most government forms, you will see a check-box for Hispanic. I never have filed out a WIC form, but if it asks for "race" I am sure "Hispanic" will be one of the choices.

the scam in the Senate
[please see my long posts at the start of the comment thread here to see how to contact Congress, etc., to save America-- while we still have time!]

Many in the Senate have clearly wandered off the reservation of reason!

This is the kind of crap (below) that convinces Middle America that the Senate has made a Faustian deal to accommodate ILLEGAL aliens, the business lobby, and the rest of the Conspiracy of Evil, and their monied shills regardless of how it xxxxx over Middle America. Even Chertoff, the eunuch appointee to head (shill) a dept. that Presidente Jorge opposed establishing (lest we have to incarcerate the ILLEGAL Mexicans he promised down in Mexico to fight for Scamnesty, S.S. and other welfare benefits for), says that 2 million among the ILLEGALS are criminals--> as in felon types. Ergo, if the govt. admits to 11 million ILLEGALS being here, he is saying that 18% of them should be in prison! If he admits to 2 million, he KNOWS that the real figure is actually HIGHER!

Consider this vote by itself:

"The Senate voted 51-46 to reject a proposal by Sen. John Cornyn (news, bio, voting record), R-Texas, to bar criminals — including those ordered by judges to be deported — from gaining legal status. Democrats siphoned support from
Cornyn's proposal by winning adoption, 66-32, of a rival version that would bar a more limited set of criminals, including certain gang members and sex offenders, from gaining legalization."

So we are going to grant a path to citizenship for most known felons among them?! What is NOT said here is that all the gang member has to do to get legit is to say he is sorry he was in the damm gang! That's like asking Bormann after his capture if he is sorry about 6 million Jews being executed, then telling him that having seen the error of his ways, he can go! Also, when they apply for Scamnesty, the govt. has 24 hours to check out their crimes... if they turn up nothing in that time, they MUST give them an "ally ally in come free" Z-visa! That means they can stay PERMANENTLY!

Holy Mary, Mother of Gawd! WHY should ANY ILLEGAL alien seen as having committed a felony get a "get out of jail free" card AND be put on a path to citizenship?!?! This is INSANITY PRIMA FACIE!!!!

Sen. Kyl ran with dogs and got fleas on this... it is a good thing that he does not intend to run again-- many would lynch him in Az. Interesting how where the problems of border-crashing ILLEGALS is the worst they voted about 3:1 for several TOUGH referenda issues to clamp down on the "undocumented criminals."

You gotta wonder what motivates Teddy "pass me the Scotch" Homicide. He has championed the sellout of America to ILLEGAL aliens since 1965. I would wonder how he gets to sleep at night, but I know-- Scotch.

oh, and get this
You have a foster child, a cute little hispanic boy.

You apply to WIC for infant formula and over the phone are asked what the baby's race is: white, African-American, Native American, Polynesian, Asian, and so on, but NO place for hispanic, and you're told hispanic is a culture, not a race!

Two things:

Linda Chavez can't tell us we're racist if hispanic isn't a race.

And all the state statistics do not reflect the numbers of HISPANICS receiving aid!!!!!

My problem
My problem is the Senate rewarding illegals while the business-class sell us all down the river. My problem is so-called conservatives telling is that allowing criminals (including drunk drivers, child molestors, ID thieves and the like) is not an amnesty.

That is my problem...losing patience with this place (that being the US) on an hourly basis.

YOU GOT A PROBLEM?
What is your problem? Are you an illegal?

Thanks, FDR! Thanks alot!
The problem with not filing taxes which I'd support--starve the government and let it fall or drive it and the nation into bankruptcy at least--is that first, you have the problem of "sha ji jing hou" (kill the chicken in order to warn the monkey) issue. That is punish someone very harshly in order to teach the rest of us primates who is the boss. Are you willing to be the first in the gun sights of the imperial Federal government? Are you willing to risk your house, your bank account, etc? True be hard to punish everyone if millions did it, but millions will not--too many people blinded by patriotism and all that rot. A few malcontents will and these will be the one that are going to get hurt.

Second, thanks to withholding, many people pay more to the government than they really owe and not filing taxes would actually give more to this government, not less for many people. The government makes sure it makes the takings via taxes as involuntary as possible.

I guess you could quit your job and work as a day laborer or something, then you wouldn't have to pay taxes since there would be no withholdings--just like your average illegal.

While the idea is pleasing, I am not willing to risk anything for this government--and certainly not my life, liberty or property for it. If I get that fed up with it, I'll simply find more pleasing climes.

oops
meant McCain/Graham

NO FENCE EVER!!! PROOF:
The vote was 42-54 on an amendment by conservative Sens. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., and Jim DeMint, R-S.C., that would have required a congressional vote to certify that border security and workplace enforcement "triggers" were in place before the legalization or the new guest worker program could take effect.


___

May I now wipe McCn/ peeeee from my face, or is it too early (more is coming)?

Here's what we should do...
If this passes, we should all not file taxes next year... See taxation without representation. Millions of us doing that will get their attention. We may not take to the streets like the illegals but we do hold pocketbooks that all of the politicians love to dip into. Money talks louder than marching and ranting in the road! AND, you may have fear about this idea BUT "if they can't catch all of us, they shouldn't try to catch any of us".... That's what I keep hearing. So I say we get a pass to do illegal things for a bit, unpunished! Maybe they'll even reward us with some sort of new entitlement program? Let's do whatever we want for awhile. Acting "Illegal" might actually be fun? No more pesky bills to pay, no more insurance payments, free cars, free everything! Get to shoot people and get drunk and crash my car into folks... Kind of getting excited!!! Just have to be home on the first of the month for my check to come...

Let's Wake Up
Bruce, you need to enter in a serious dialogue with supporters of Rudy Giuliani, the one candidate who can defeat Hillary.

Linda Chavez, long a valued voice of reason on the right, recently all but declared that fellow conservatives who disagree with her on immigration pretty much have to be racists. "Some people just don't like Mexicans - or anyone else from south of the border. They think Latinos are dirty, diseased, indolent and more prone to criminal behavior. They think Latinos are just too different from us ever to become real Americans."

She went on: "Where once the xenophobes could advocate forced sterilization and eugenics coupled with virtually shutting off legal immigration from Œundesirable' countries, now they must be content with building walls, putting troops on the border, rounding up illegal aliens on the job and deporting them, passing local ordinances to signal their distaste for immigrants' multifamily living arrangements, and doing whatever else they can to drive these people back where they came from."


Where is the fence?

lonestar
1)There is little difference between Marxism and Fascism. Hayek proved that quite well in "The Road to Serfdom". Even Hitler spoke about the commonality between the two.

2)Prior to the last century, the Federal govt was funded primarily through tariffs. It was rightfully viewed that a direct tax on income results in less liberty, not more. With tariffs, one still has choices about what to purchase and whom to purchase it from. Without tariffs, I no longer have those choices (try buying a pair of tennis shoes made entirely in the USA).

3)The US is no longer a "wealth-creating" nation. That is, we no longer have a manufacturing-based economy. Our standard of living got too high so business interests farmed our wealth-creating industries to the Third World. Now that we are service economy (an economy that mearly "shifts" already existing wealth), the lot of blue collar schlubs like me is even more strained.
But even that isn't good enough for people like you is it? You believe that we "Joe six-packs" still have it too good so therefore let's import millions of foreign scabs to further undercut my standard of living. While we are at it, let's jack the Great Unwashed with higher taxes to pay for the destruction caused by your precious foreign scabs (I know you claim to be opposed to higher taxes, but your defense of scabs is tacit concent for big government. More people=bigger government).

4)Why shouldn't it be up to individual governments to protect the liberties of their own citizens? Why should our government take on that role?
Should the citizens of the US be forced to take Mexico on as a giant welfare state like we currently are?
Do you believe in national boundries?
Do you believe in citizenship?
Should the jurisdiction of law be limited to the boundries of a country, or should they be, ahem, "universal"?

5)Since you like quoting the Founders, here's a doozie:
"Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains". -Jefferson (1814)

Are you a merchant?

6)I cannot think of a single president prior to Nixon who'd not put a stop to the mass migration of the Third World into a mature, well-established republic. Not one. Heck, even Reagan admitted that the '86 amnesty was the worst mistake of his presidency.

I could go on forever like this but the point is that your Kumbaya anarchy will destroy this country just as it has destroyed limited government.






You don't have to deport anyone
You don't have to deport anyone. Most would leave themselves if the government was actually serious about internal enforcement and it starting fining, seizing assets and putting people behind bars that hired illegals.

Two other things come to mind. Since it is so obvious that Mexico wants to be part of the US, the US simply should occupy Mexico, disband the Mexican government, organize Mexico into territories and at such time they learn English, adopt a republican form of government and submit a state constitution to the Congress, these territories will be admitted as individual states.

If Guatemala seems to want to apply to join the US by sending its population north, the US will occupy this new American territory as well. At some point some country will decide that keeping their population inside their borders is more to their liking than becoming an American state.

The other point, if non-US citizens want to get entry into the US, we should let them. I think open borders at least a qualified open border is a good idea.

Any male between 18-45 from anyplace in the world can join a newly formed American Foreign Legion, they will be taught basic military English and a ramped up basic infantry course.

If you need people to clear a minefield or such other dangerous missions, you send in the AFL, because if they die, you'll always have new applicants to take their place. If they desert and are caught, they will be shot. If they manage to stay alive for their ten years of duty, they get US citizenship. It is a win-win. The US gets cannon fodder for its imperial conquests abroad and they get to become US citizens.


Yes, but you're an idiot, Bob
"actually Nagumo's actions at Pearl on 7 Dec 41 were in my view correct."

Nagumo was overly cautious, didn't believe in carrier-based warfare, but as many still believed at the time that sea battles would be decided as they had before--by battleships. He was no fan of Yamamoto and of all the senior IJN officers the very worse choice to lead the attack.

The day, all in all, still turned out to be a pretty good day for the IJN despite having the misfortune of not finding the CVs (at least some of them) in port as well and as I said before not launching the third wave to take out the sub pens, tank farms and drydocks. There is no rationale for letting these assets remain untouched. But this goes to Nagumo's basic flaw of an overabundance of caution. Nagumo also really didn't support the attack plan he was to lead. All in all a rotten choice as commander.

But Nagumo wasn't worried about the CVs--at least not primarily--but rather the American subs.

And from my sources, I hear the bill even in the Senate is starting to fall apart, but it still remains alive. So I guess for the open border fools like you, there is still hope. It dies in the House, Bob, it dies in the House...if it even gets that far.


I'll take that bet
"However, removing the 10 million or so illegal aliens now in the U.S. would be extraordinarily costly in terms of both money and liberty. I seriously doubt that most Americans would be willing to pay the taxes to make this happen or tolerate the intrusion on their own freedom—such as requiring a national identification card—that it would require."

I'll take that bet, Mr. Bartlet.

I'm already paying taxes to support a lot of very expensive things which I do not agree with, why would I balk at using that money to do something I actually do agree with? Plus I'm already paying taxes to support all of these illegals when they need medical care of their kids need schooling. Why would I object to using that same mney to send them back to the countries they are already citizens of?

As for a national ID card: Bring it on. Such a card is the only chance we will ever have of cleaning up our elections, so I'm willing to have one just for that purpose. I certainly don't have a problem with having one in general.

Long Train of Abuses
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

That to secure these rights,

governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.
--------------------------------------------------

Today I speak as a very unhappy citizen and am alive with the Spirit of the Founders of this Great Nation.

This present government has been hi-jacked by a destructive group of both non-elected and elected arrogant people.

They view themselves as rulers and not servants or representatives of the American Citizen.

May GOD Restore the fiercely Independent and Liberty Loving American.

Both Political Parties are CORRUPT!

They both need to be BOOTED out one way or another, otherwise America the Land of the Free and Home of the Brave is history.

Ex-tex
Unbelievable. This thing appears to be rolling on iron rails to approval. I don't think I've ever seen a bill with this many flaws be ramrodded so hard. Unbelievable.

Gabby
"You are already FREE to cross state and national lines to take jobs, and nothing else is needed for this freedom to continue. But this is not what I am talking about."

Great, then we agree. "The free movement of labor", which you initially argued against, is not the issue here.

"I'm talking about replacing American workers with foreigners. To let the GOVERNMENT replace American workers so that private businesses no longer need to compete for workers gives government a role in the means of production which is contrary to capitalism."

Just where is the government doing that. The problem with illegal immigration, imo, has to do with non-enforcement of existing laws. Largely, I believe, because the American people have, until recently, been complacent about it, enjoying the economic benefits of cheap labor, unconcerned about attendant security problems.

"Added to that, when these same government officials who remove the need for competition for workers also own stock in those same companies that profit from replacing American workers, our system becomes more Marxist than capitalist as it is the government officials who control the prosperity of the corporations these very same officials then prosper from. When our government plays this large a role in the means of production it becomes more Marxist than capitalist."

Marxist? Never heard it so defined. It's Statism more akin to Fascism if we want to speak in extremes. Better known as corporatism, or corporate welfare, not unlike farm subsidies. Call it what you will, I'll join with you in advocating that should be dismantled. Not sure that addresses illegal immigration though.


Again, we agree NAFTA etc are managed markets, not free markets. But it's not Marxism....


"Market systems are a natural development of free agents in free societies, they are not a political construct because such things are heretofore impossible to constuct without tyranny because know one can anticipate the zillion unforseen events up ahead."

Agree. But while you denounce one form of political control, you seem to advocate another. In the name of security, I understand the need for stricted immigration law and enforcement, just not in the name of controlling free markets.


"'free market' ideology must always be subserviant to the constitution and the good of the people."

If you agree that the Declaration pronounces basic freedoms that the Constitution is framed to protect if not promote, then "the pursuit of Happiness" more than covers free markets as a basic right, my right to own private property and to exchange what I own freely with others.

The good of the people, exactly who is to decide this social abstraction? A few government elites exercising coercive control, or people exchanging goods and services in free markets?


"I don't believe you or anyone else has the right to profit in any way if that means the sovereignty of my nation and my constitution is put in jeopardy."

Think this puts the cart before the horse. Again, or at least so I believe, the Constitution is framed to protect Declared basic, universal, inalienable rights, among them the pursuit of Happiness: "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it...."

Secure the borders now
Doing nothing would be better than the Senate Immigration reform bill. That bill will be bad for America and have a terrible fiscal impact in the long run and also an electoral impact that will grow. This bill should be soundly rejected and those who support it have shown very poor judgment.
Secure the borders - NOW - and enforce the existing laws. Better yet, return to the immigration policies of the early 1960s. That policy was better and was working until Ted Kennedy pushed through a radical change, which has brought us to the current open borders mess. Neither party has been responsible or reliable on border control.
Vote NO on this bill. Vote NO on those who support this bill.

Enough already!!!
I don't know about anyone else, but all of this commentary on the pending immigration bill is making me sick to my stomach. The different stats cited on this page are 'eye-openers' to say the least and, if factual, contribute to a further deepening depression for me about the state of our great nation as it stands on this date, and what it might look like 50 years from now. I fear for the welfare and lives' of my grandchildren who will most certainly be in the minority by that time, and who will have to pay the bills for generations to come to support this US government -sponsored give-away free-for-all. English MIGHT be a secondary language by that time, but I doubt it. More like 4th or 5th, behind Arabic and Farsi.

I have contacted my Senators/Reps and even the President of the US but have yet to recieve a reply from any of them. Not even an e-bot reply. That said, it appears that this pending legislation will pass both Houses of Congress (warts and all) and will be signed into law by the President at the earliest possible date. I am convinced that they (Congress) doesn't care what we think.

I do salute the members from both parties who have stood up to fight this abhorrent legislation that is seemingly being forced down our throats with time being of the essence? I will support in the future ANY candidate from any party that has the guts to vote "nay" on this legislation. I suspect there are millions of people just like me out there who will provide a little 'payback' to elected officials who vote "aye" for this bill.

What's the rush? Why not just enforce the immigration laws already on the books?

After the defeat of the amendment to the bill tonight that now welcomes all child molesters, terrorists and criminals into our country with open arms, I wonder if there is a website out there that records and displays singular votes by our elected officials on a real-time basis? If so, please advise web address.






talent scout beat me to it.
But of course he and I are just racists because we object to forgiving sex offenders.

I'm wondering about the legal precedents being set. Will we soon be hearing, "Your Honor, Juan Hernandez -- illegal alien -- was given legal residence despite having exposed himself to a schoolyard of minors. How can you possibly send my client -- Ralph A. Smithers, Investment Banker -- to jail for the same offense?"


Thanks Talent Scout
Lock and load

I saved it this morning
onceamarine writes:

1:03 AM
Talent Scout
Please take the time to read or even to save and read later the LINK I have been giving all evening.

This is no small event. The link is pure dynamite.
------------------------------------------------

Yes, and thanks for the link.
Very powerful and compelling words from a 1st person report, an insider.

(I would tell you this much though, what he put in words is what I have already come to understand from many different sources.)


Senator Sessions
Here are a few of the more egregious loopholes, but they are all terrible. Read the whole thing, if you can stand it.

Loophole 5 - Completion of Background Checks Not Required For Probationary Legal Status:
Legal status must be granted to illegal aliens 24 hours after they file an application, even if the aliens have not yet “passed all appropriate background checks.” (Last year’s bill gave DHS 90 days to check an alien’s background before any status was granted). No legal status should be given to any illegal alien until all appropriate background checks are complete. [See pp. 290].

Loophole 6 - Some Child Molesters Are Still Eligible:
Some aggravated felons — those who have sexually abused a minor — are eligible for amnesty. A child molester who committed the crime before the bill is enacted is not barred from getting amnesty if their conviction document omitted the age of the victim. The bill corrects this loophole for future child molesters, but does not close the loophole for current or past convictions. [See p. 47: 30-33, & p. 48: 1-2]

Loophole 7 - Terrorism Connections Allowed, Good Moral Character Not Required:
Illegal aliens with terrorism connections are not barred from getting amnesty. An illegal alien seeking most immigration benefits must show “good moral character.” Last year’s bill specifically barred aliens with terrorism connections from having “good moral character” and being eligible for amnesty. This year’s bill does neither. Additionally, bill drafters ignored the Administration’s request that changes be made to the asylum, cancellation of removal, and withholding of removal statutes in order to prevent aliens with terrorist connections from receiving relief. [Compare § 204 in S. 2611 from the 109th Congress with missing § 204 on p. 48 of S.A. 1150, & see missing subsection (5) on p. 287 of S.A. 1150].

Loophole 8 - Gang Members Are Eligible:
Instead of ensuring that members of violent gangs such as MS 13 are deported after coming out of the shadows to apply for amnesty, the bill will allow violent gang members to get amnesty as long as they “renounce” their gang membership on their application. [See p. 289: 34-36].
[Sen. Sessions Releases List of 20 Loopholes in the Senate Immigration Bill, Sen. Jeff Sessions Press Release 6/4/07]

This list should not be construed to mean that there are ONLY 20 loopholes in the Senate amnesty bill.

http://blog.vdare.com/archives/2007/06/04/senator-sessions-names-20-worst-loopholes/

Only a criminal minded person could possible allow such language be passed as "law".

Appears American Senate and Presidency has become the home of the Mafia.

Talent Scout
Please take the time to read or even to save and read later the LINK I have been giving all evening.

This is no small event. The link is pure dynamite.

You'll be glad you did once you have seen for yourself. This is new to us. It is pure unadulterated miscreant larceny by the congress and government. Or worse.

------------------------------------------------

Tasha Tchin writes: Wednesday, June, 06, 2007 3:33 PM
The "Base"???
The Republican "base" as defined by the Republican Party's president is composed of "the haves and the have-mores" -- the "elites" -- in Bush's own words. The Dems are no better. Both parties have a "plan" and they are running with it.

What is their "plan" for We the People, the owners of this Republic? Simple. Replace us uppity American citizens with pliant peons from south of the border. That way "our" politicians and Bush's "base" can live like corrupt Mexican politicians and like Mexico's elite oligarchs.

This "plan" is not a deep, dark secret. It has been outlined to us last year by a Mexican who spilled the beans, er, frijoles, in a Center for Immigration Studies backgrounder. You can read his observations here:

http://www.cis.org/articles/2006/back706.html

Then, get out the tar and feathers, the torches and pitch forks, the hammer and tongs and take those turncoats to task! If you were stupid enough to have made a contribution to the RNC in the last 12 months, call'em up and demand a refund! It is your right! You can reach the 'tards at:

1-202-863-8747

And, keep that phone line busy so Bush's "base" can't make any more donations to our Republic's demise!

Impeach Bush
Instead of insuring domestic tranquility as the Constitution REQUIRES him to do, he is the very cause of anarchy in the streets of America.


Peter Gadiel makes the points:

Rather than repelling foreign invasion as he is required to do, he has invited it and he has provided aid and comfort to the invaders and to those who give them employment.

Rather than acting to insure domestic tranquility he has done his best to destroy it. His presidency has been devoted to tolerating and encouraging infiltration of our country by violent criminal aliens who, once inside our country, commit crimes as individuals, as part of organized international gangs or as agents of violent religious movements emanating from such enemy nations as Saudi Arabia.

He has encouraged the erosion of American sovereignty, and aided those who would destroy our independence. It has become the publicly-expressed policy of the Mexican government to influence the internal affairs of the United States. This policy has been put into effect using the 48 Mexican consuls in the US. Lobbying by these foreign enemies, which is in violation of treaties, is now common, widespread, and done openly. Mexican officials and illegal aliens acting in concert with them lobby elected and appointed officials throughout the United States; in small towns and large cities, in county commissions, state legislatures and the Congress. The President of the United States refuses to end these practices, even though he could do so with a simple instruction to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice that she order the expulsion of the offending diplomats and closure of the consulates.

Bush’s open refusal to enforce immigration laws already on the books amounts to an assumption of the power to repeal legislation without the involvement of any other Branch of government.

Armed Mexican troops have invaded US territory. This in itself is not an unprecedented event, but Bush’s failure to respond with force or even a public condemnation is unique in our history

http://www.vdare.com/gadiel/070602_impeach.htm

immigration
again, BS. Bruce, love ya, but you need to come down to the real world where people like me work/live. I am an adult probation officer in Dallas. I will tell you on my caseload alone, I have numerous individuals who want to work but can't get past their criminal history to be hired for even the most menial jobs...those jobs that "American's just won't do". I find that extremely ironic. Illegals get hired but legal individual's criminal history (available on several websites for a price) prohibit them from getting crap jobs. Illegal aliens working...legal residents not working...what, exactly, is wrong with this picture??

SAM
The ant acid is to kill the fire ants you're going to feel inside when it all sinks in.

Grey Ghost has already been there and realized what we are up against.

Stay calm. We are not going to let this stand.

Sam
I have been saying some of that for several weeks now.

Go to the link in the post directly above you to Virginia Patriot. 11:28 pm

Follow the link given inside the post. read it completely. It just gets better and, I mean worse than you could believe. READ it deep down inside.

If it is hard to read, copy to write or use the additional PDF form link it offers. READ and WEEP.

Get plenty of ant acid immediately afterwards.

Virginia Patriot
I am going to repeat Tasha's post so you know where it came from: READ THE LINK.!!.

Tasha Tchin writes: Wednesday, June, 06, 2007 3:33 PM
The "Base"???
The Republican "base" as defined by the Republican Party's president is composed of "the haves and the have-mores" -- the "elites" -- in Bush's own words. The Dems are no better. Both parties have a "plan" and they are running with it.

What is their "plan" for We the People, the owners of this Republic? Simple. Replace us uppity American citizens with pliant peons from south of the border. That way "our" politicians and Bush's "base" can live like corrupt Mexican politicians and like Mexico's elite oligarchs.

This "plan" is not a deep, dark secret. It has been outlined to us last year by a Mexican who spilled the beans, er, frijoles, in a Center for Immigration Studies backgrounder. You can read his observations here:

http://www.cis.org/articles/2006/back706.html

Then, get out the tar and feathers, the torches and pitch forks, the hammer and tongs and take those turncoats to task! If you were stupid enough to have made a contribution to the RNC in the last 12 months, call'em up and demand a refund! It is your right! You can reach the 'tards at:

1-202-863-8747

And, keep that phone line busy so Bush's "base" can't make any more donations to our Republic's demise!

March for America Events June 14, 15, 16

March for America June 14, 15, 16 Washington D.C. and state capitols across the country. Be there or be without a country.

http://www.lframerica.com/march2.html

onceamarine
Great link. I forwarded it to ten people. The problem is it proves my Dad right. He's been telling me this for years and I thought it was some grand conspiracy theory. Dangit! Now hat in hand I have to humble myself and apologize.

Grey Ghost
Yes, you will have to clue me in.

Perhaps a mutually agreeable intermediate.

Blue Bustard
I'm with ya on SS. Remember it was the left that killed that reform.

onceamarine
Keep me advised. I am passing the link to everyone I know, but especially my relatives and 2 or 3 very close friends.

I love to read history. Have you heard of the "Committees of Correspondence"?

Each area will have to put together its own group (mutually trustworthy).

OMT
Bruce, do you know anybody displaced by an illegal?

I know many. They barely eked out a living before the mass migration of the Third World. They are now disenfranchised, alienated, and very, very pissed off.

Rockefeller Republicans like you would be wise to keep your more stupid comments to yourself.

Boy!
There is so much wrong with this article that I'll allow it to rest with others' comments exposing its sophistry.

Signed,
A racist, nativist, xenophobic, American Indian plumber (doing a crappy job crappily that no decent American would ever do).

PS: I've started calling illegal aliens what they are: SCABS.


Lynne
It gets better or should I say worse as you get deeper into it.
Take your time.

We all need to digest this thing. It is the most revealing thing of things I never wanted to read. "Not ever".

Water Gate.??.

The Second World war pales in comparison.

This is high treason................

Ex tex
I know you are sick at this point who wouldn't be. Now go read the link that I have been posting. Grey Fox did, and then you will accomplish two things:

1. Understand what is happening, and

2, Get sick all over again, seriously sick or seriously mad.

Now really read it, top to bottom, at the link.

You have not seen or heard anything like it.

Don't get violent. Save it for Concord and Lexington.

It is Mexico's Problem...THEY pay!
Sir, you are incorrect:

"However, removing the 10 million or so illegal aliens now in the U.S. would be extraordinarily costly in terms of both money and liberty. I seriously doubt that most Americans would be willing to pay the taxes to make this happen or tolerate the intrusion on their own freedom—such as requiring a national identification card—that it would require."

I would hand over the entire deportation bill to Mexico and let them know, if they retaliate with higher oil prices, we will cut off all foreign and humanitarian aid. It is time to play hardball with them. We are already paying the taxes to have them live here...so cut the crap about the costs. Hand the bill over to Mexico. Plain and simple.

CIS article
Mark Krikorian of CIS forwarded this article to me yesterday. I've found great research and writing at CIS, and the point in this article that our politicians are egregiously at odds with the people is well documented and well taken (and not at all surprising).

A concern I have, though, is that CIS seems to be against immigration per se, conflating the problems created by ILLEGAL immigration with the consequences of legal immigration in general.

A hundred years ago there was as much disdain for the political customs of Italians, Greeks, Armenians, and Eastern European Jews as there is today for those of Mexicans. Two hundred years ago the Irish, the Germans, and most or all Catholics were suspected by various English, Scottish, and Dutch Protestant Americans of not having what it took to assimilate.

While there are good issues to raise about the differences between "transoceanic" versus "barely cross-border" immigration, the evidence of millions of assimilated Mexican-Americans tells me that they are not unassimilable. The prominence of Hispanic activist groups in our political landscape is attributable as much to the universal culture of complaint that WE -- native-born Americans -- have cultivated, as to the tendencies of people who come from Mexico.

I'm willing to throw in with anyone who wants to focus on holding our politicians accountable and enforcing our laws. But one reason for that is that enforcing our laws promotes assimilation of immigrants into a political culture of principle and law. I don't think immigration -- legal immigration -- is "the" problem, or that it has to be "a" problem. It's promoting a culture of illegality, favoritism, and patronage that I have a problem with.

To All Leaders
I am going to repeat Tasha's post so you know where it came from: READ THE LINK.!!.

Tasha Tchin writes: Wednesday, June, 06, 2007 3:33 PM
The "Base"???
The Republican "base" as defined by the Republican Party's president is composed of "the haves and the have-mores" -- the "elites" -- in Bush's own words. The Dems are no better. Both parties have a "plan" and they are running with it.

What is their "plan" for We the People, the owners of this Republic? Simple. Replace us uppity American citizens with pliant peons from south of the border. That way "our" politicians and Bush's "base" can live like corrupt Mexican politicians and like Mexico's elite oligarchs.

This "plan" is not a deep, dark secret. It has been outlined to us last year by a Mexican who spilled the beans, er, frijoles, in a Center for Immigration Studies backgrounder. You can read his observations here:

http://www.cis.org/articles/2006/back706.html

Then, get out the tar and feathers, the torches and pitch forks, the hammer and tongs and take those turncoats to task! If you were stupid enough to have made a contribution to the RNC in the last 12 months, call'em up and demand a refund! It is your right! You can reach the 'tards at:

1-202-863-8747

And, keep that phone line busy so Bush's "base" can't make any more donations to our Republic's demise!

I'm gonna be sick...
WASHINGTON, June 6 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- In one of the crucial tests of the Senate immigration bill, 51 senators voted to grant amnesty to illegal alien terrorists and criminals. By a 46-51 vote, the Senate rejected an amendment offered by Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.) that would have barred illegal aliens who have been determined to have committed terrorist acts, or who have been convicted of a variety of criminal offenses, including gang activity, from eligibility for the proposed Z visa amnesty that would allow them to remain in this country indefinitely.


Gray Ghost
You and I and anyone who takes the time to read the full article are going to have to find a solution.

Lexington and Concord is a great battle cry.

Are we going to have to wake up this nation and inhabitants.??.

Yes, Then what.??.

I would like to get some of the other important contributors to this post together, and hammer it out.

We, also, have to get this to a few trusted authority figures and see what they can come up with.

I have spent a lot of time in Mexico, and I think I thoroughly believe what you and I and the lady, Tasha, who got me on this, have read. I don't see any malarkey here. It fits too well.

gc
Of course there is bad law. That doesn't negate the importance of the rule of law, any more than bad marriages negate the importance of the institution of marriage.

You don't ignore or circumvent the laws you don't like (or that are objectively stupid or evil); you change them. Once you give political or moral standing to flagrant disobedience of the law, all guarantees by the state are compromised, from the punishment of murder to the sanctity of property ownership. The condition of individual rights in America is historically unnatural; it takes effort and vigilance to preserve it against invidious sentiment.

I do like your reference to Hayek though. I imagine we'd have a lot to agree on. One of those things is indeed feelings of ethnocentric superiority. My experience is that everyone, everywhere, tends to magnify the different weaknesses the races and ethnic groups bring to the human feast, and ignore or downplay the strengths. I have yet to encounter any one ethnic group that appreciates and respects the others, as a going-in proposition. It seems instead to be small minorities in each ethnic group that have cultivated such an attitude for transcendant reasons.

Onceamarine - Great link
Onceamarine

The CIS backgrounder paper, by Fredo Arias-King, is first-class. It explains a lot about the unholy alliances that have been taking shape among the self-appointed elite intelligentsia in the U.S. and around the world – especially the one-world government crowd at Davos.

I am not a black-helicopter kind of guy, but I am convinced that the Man-made Global Climate Change Scam, and its goal of enacting the first world-wide tax (on carbon), is an integral part of the loosely organized “movement” for world government by the jet-setting, globe-trotting, Davos-attending, Ivy League, Oxford, Rockefeller buddies, uber-wealthy governing classmates of Europe and the U.S.

Fredo’s paper, while it did not specifically get into that issue, certainly supports the scenario.

Just so you know
This was written by a Harvard business man trained who was very close to Mexican president Vicente Fox Quesada, and who interviewed in Mexico and the U.S. at least 80 of our own congressman to be able to write this.

If you didn't read it, well, God save America because its citizens won't.

onceamarine
What is the solution other than what I wrote? I did some additional checking on the internet. What is in the link is true, with perhaps a little of the even worse stuff left out. I knew it was bad, but not this bad.

OK, we have non readers here
This is just part of what I am trying to get a few of you opinion leaders to go read.....::

Of a handful of motivations, one of the main ones (even if unconscious) of many of these legislators can be found in what the U.S. Founding Fathers called "usurpation." Madison, Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay and others devised a system and embedded the Constitution with mechanisms to thwart the "natural" tendency of the political class to usurp power—to become a permanent elite lording over pauperized subjects, as was the norm in Europe at the time. However, the Founding Fathers seem to have based the logic of their entire model on the independent character of the American folk. After reviewing the different mechanisms and how they would work in theory, they wrote in the Federalist Papers that in the end, "If it be asked, what is to restrain the House of Representatives from making legal discriminations in favor of themselves and a particular class of the society? I answer: the genius of the whole system; the nature of just and constitutional laws; and above all, the vigilant and manly spirit which actuates the people of America …"4 With all his emphasis on reason and civic virtue as the basis of a functioning and decentralized democratic polity, Jefferson speculated whether Latin American societies could be governed thus.5

While Democratic legislators we spoke with welcomed the Latino vote, they seemed more interested in those immigrants and their offspring as a tool to increase the role of the government in society and the economy. Several of them tended to see Latin American immigrants and even Latino constituents as both more dependent on and accepting of active government programs and the political class guaranteeing those programs, a point they emphasized more than the voting per se. Moreover, they saw Latinos as more loyal and "dependable" in supporting a patron-client system and in building reliable patronage networks to circumvent the exigencies of political life as devised by the Founding Fathers and expected daily by the average American.

Republican lawmakers we spoke with knew that naturalized Latin American immigrants and their offspring vote mostly for the Democratic Party, but still most of them (all except five) were unambiguously in favor of amnesty and of continued mass immigration (at least from Mexico). This seemed paradoxical, and explaining their motivations was more challenging. However, while acknowledging that they may not now receive their votes, they believed that these immigrants are more malleable than the existing American: That with enough care, convincing, and "teaching," they could be converted, be grateful, and become dependent on them. Republicans seemed to idealize the patron-client relation with Hispanics as much as their Democratic competitors did. Curiously, three out of the five lawmakers that declared their opposition to amnesty and increased immigration (all Republicans), were from border states.

Also curiously, the Republican enthusiasm for increased immigration also was not so much about voting in the end, even with "converted" Latinos. Instead, these legislators seemingly believed that they could weaken the restraining and frustrating straightjacket devised by the Founding Fathers and abetted by American norms. In that idealized "new" United States, political uncertainty, demanding constituents, difficult elections, and accountability in general would "go away" after tinkering with the People, who have given lawmakers their privileges but who, like a Sword of Damocles, can also "unfairly" take them away. Hispanics would acquiesce and assist in the "natural progress" of these legislators to remain in power and increase the scope of that power. In this sense, Republicans and Democrats were similar.

While I can recall many accolades for the Mexican immigrants and for Mexican-Americans (one white congressman even gave me a "high five" when recalling that Californian Hispanics were headed for majority status), I remember few instances when a legislator spoke well of his or her white constituents. One even called them "rednecks," and apologized to us on their behalf for their incorrect attitude on immigration. Most of them seemed to advocate changing the ethnic composition of the United States as an end in itself. Jefferson and Madison would have perhaps understood why this is so—enthusiasm for mass immigration seems to be correlated with examples of undermining the "just and constitutional laws" they devised.

One leading Republican senator over a period of months was advising us, through a mutual acquaintance, about which mechanisms to follow and which other legislators to lobby in order to ensure passage of the amnesty proposal. In the meantime, he would speak on television about the need to "militarize" the border. This senator was recently singled out by a taxpayer’s advocacy group as a leader in "pork"-related politics.

Bill Richardson, who had served in Clinton’s cabinet and later became governor of New Mexico, kindly stopped to speak to our delegation at the Democratic National Convention in Los Angeles. He commented favorably to us: "What do Hispanics want? Fully funded government programs!" The Economist mentioned about his state:

New Mexico is a poor place, with one of the highest proportion of people living on food stamps … Its political tradition also long had a Latin American feel, based around a padrón system of clients and bosses. The bosses ran grocery stores, gave you credit, helped you if you needed a job. And all you had to do was vote for the Democrats … New Mexican politics is still about jobs, contracts and personal loyalty, not ideology. And Mr. Richardson personifies this.6

Trailer-park poverty combined with a cult of personality, where government initiatives regularly bear the governor’s name, as they would with some Latin American potentate (the governor is half Mexican himself), prevails in a state that is 40 percent Hispanic, including Hispanics already many generations in the United States.

Those that have come out supporting amnesty are also associated with other attempts to undermine the Jeffersonian and Madisonian model of democracy. Sen. Arlen Specter, for instance, a leading supporter of amnesty, years ago proposed another bill that would have changed the outcome of elections based on quotas, whereby electoral outcomes could be changed by a federal judge.7

Some legislators had also mentioned to us (oftentimes laughing) how they had "defanged" or "gutted" anti-immigration bills and measures, by neglecting to fund this program or tabling that provision, or deleting the other measure, etc. "Yes, we passed that law, but it can’t work because we also…" was a usual comment to assuage the Mexican
delegations.

In light of what we learned from speaking to them privately, it is surprising that many legislators have gone public recently with their pro-immigration views, as opposed to simply adding their votes discreetly and imposing a fait accompli. This is another conundrum, but may be explained because legislators also suffer a collective-action problem. My feeling is that if the vote on granting amnesty to the illegal migrants was up for a secret vote, then perhaps we would see a 90 percent vote in favor, coinciding with my random sample from six years ago.

One such example of "natural progress" that legislators attempted to impose with no debate was when Pennsylvania state legislators—in the middle of the night before a recess— in July 2005 passed a bill giving themselves a modest pay raise. The civic reaction and spontaneous popular mobilization was such (with effigies of pigs carried by demonstrators calling their legislators "Harrisburg Hogs"), the legislators recanted and, with only one dissenting vote, repealed their pay raise weeks later.

To Govern Is to Populate
A group of Argentine statesmen in the 19th century sought to populate their country with immigrants from certain parts of Europe, believing that they were more politically mature and more propitious for a stable state than the criollo and mestizo populations in their country at the time. One of those statesmen, President Domingo Faustino Sarmiento, had a slogan: "To govern is to populate," perhaps because Argentina traditionally has been both under-populated and ungovernable.

What could be motivating U.S. legislators to do the opposite, that is, to see their constituents—already politically mature and proven as responsible and civic-minded—as an obstacle needing replacement? In other words, why would they want to replace a nation that works remarkably well (that Sarmiento was hoping to emulate), with another that has trouble forming stable, normal countries?

Mexicans are kind and hardworking, with a legendary hospitality, and unlike some European nations, harbor little popular ambitions to impose models or ideologies on others. However, Mexicans are seemingly unable to produce anything but corrupt and tyrannical rulers, oftentimes even accepting them as the norm, unaffected by allegations of graft or abuse.8 Mexico, and Latin American societies in general, seem to suffer from what an observer called "moral relativism," accepting the "natural progress" of the political class rather than challenging it, and also appearing more susceptible to "miracle solutions" and demagogic political appeals. Mexican intellectuals speak of the corrosive effects of Mexican culture on the institutions needed to make democracy work, and surveys reveal that most of the population accepts and expects corruption from the political class.9 A sociological study conducted throughout the region found that Latin Americans are indeed highly susceptible to clientelismo, or partaking in patron-client relations, and that Mexico was high even by regional standards.10

In a Latin environment, there are fewer costs to behaving "like a knave," which explains the relative failure of most Spanish-speaking countries in the Hemisphere: Pauperized populations with rich and entrenched knaves. Montesquieu’s separation-of-powers model breaks down in Latin America (though essentially all constitutions are based on it) since elites do not take their responsibilities seriously and easily reach extra-legal "understandings" with their colleagues across the branches of government, oftentimes willingly making the judicial and legislative powers subservient to a generous executive, and giving the population little recourse and little choice but to challenge the system in its entirety.

These pathologies are already evident across the border. For example, at the height of the Monica Lewinsky scandal, when even President Clinton’s strongest backers such as Rep. Richard Gephardt were distancing themselves from him and calling on the president to "tell the truth," the Hispanic Caucus in the U.S. Congress lent its support to the president. Rep. Esteban Torres stated "We’re going to stand by him to the end … no matter what!"11 The case of the "unconditional support" by the Hispanics in Congress to their patron demonstrated why the Montesquieu-Madisonian model had difficulty functioning in the Latin American context. This type of unconditional support seems to be what professional politicians of both parties expect from their Hispanic constituents and allies.

When thinking of populating as a way of obtaining power, perhaps these U.S. legislators, rather than from the statesman Sarmiento, took an unconscious cue from another Latin American leader who used migration and ethnic policy for less laudable goals. Mexican President Luis Echeverría (1970-76), who began the cycle of political violence and economic crisis from which the country has yet to recover, pursued a policy of moving hundreds of thousands of impoverished people from the country’s south to the more prosperous and dynamic northern states, where they remain to this day, mostly in shantytowns. His goal was to neutralize those states’ more active civic culture that threatened his power—as these states were at the time the main source of opposition to his dictatorial ambitions. These pauperized and dependent migrants and their offspring would provide a ready source of votes for the ruling party along with a mobilizeable mass to counter (politically as well as physically) the more civic-oriented middle classes of those northern states and "crack" their will to challenge his corporatist regime. Along with other extra-constitutional tools (he almost succeeded in canceling the constitution to remain indefinitely as president), migration from undeveloped areas was used by Echeverría as "politics by other means." Echeverría, in other words, was the ultimate knave.

Do the U.S. legislators have an overt and well thought-out "plan," as Echeverría did? That is unlikely.

Unlike Echeverría, these 45 U.S. legislators (especially the Republican ones) may simply be following a string of what can be called "rational short-termisms," that seem beneficial now even though they may unwittingly lead to adverse outcomes for them in the end. Like a diet rich in fats and sugar brings a jolt of energy and pleasure in the short run but causes health problems in the longer term, these congressmen still have incentives to allow and encourage mass immigration because of its low political cost for them and the perceived short-term benefits it brings (for them and the special interests that fund them).

If these "rational short-termisms" exist within a given individual (where he assumes both the benefits and the costs, such as with an irresponsible diet), they are more prevalent in a country, as those accruing the benefits are not those who pay the costs, and have an incentive to organize themselves to pursue the behavior leading to those outcomes. Because of collective-action problems, those benefiting from mass immigration are better organized, even if they are in the minority and even if they are vaguely aware that "someone else" pays for their largesse. These groups only see the assets, not the liabilities. By nature, legislators should prefer these short-termisms, since the payoffs are immediate and directly attributed to a political figure, whereas the costs can be pushed into the future. The payoffs and benefits of more long-term policies are unlikely to be associated with a particular political figure and become, essentially, public goods. Just as there is a large body of literature on "economic failure," we should begin to explore a related concept—"political failure," which could be the Achilles heel of the American and other models of representative democracy. In the end, the result of mass Latin American immigration will not likely present the stark choice of democracy versus non-democracy for the United States, but the quality of democracy may indeed be affected.

Acción Directa as a Double-Edged Sword
What awaits the United States when a critical mass of the American people realizes the immigration issue is little different than what happened in Pennsylvania with the pay-raise issue? What if they decide to organize?

These legislators are probably correct that, by acquiescing to mass immigration, they will eventually "crack" the immigration-control advocates. They do not need to win or even engage in a debate if they can change the terms of the game so decisively. However, they have only taken into account the legal or civilized resistance—from those who write in the papers or volunteer peacefully at the border. In Latin America, people engage in un-civil direct action because they have come to realize that attempting to convince their elites that their antisocial behavior has adverse consequences for the country—and expecting that this will dissuade them from engaging in it—is largely a futile exercise. But in the United States as well, once immigration-control advocates realize they cannot reach their goals through legal means, this could breed a form of resistance that has not occurred yet, but cannot be discounted offhand.

The degree of usurpation and neglect of their fiduciary duty by legislators could provoke immigration-reform advocates to engage increasingly in civil resistance, so that instead of influencing political institutions through civic engagement (as Americans traditionally have), they may attempt to politicize individual institutions. Their direct actions are already being reported: local officers taking it upon themselves to detain illegal migrants, sit-ins at immigration offices, vandalizing of Mexican restaurants, threatening calls to the Hispanic mayor of Los Angeles, etc. Once these types of mobilizations begin, they will be difficult to stop.

Some Americans may take a cue from Spanish/Latin American culture itself and engage in what Spaniards call acción directa, or "direct action." A Spaniard once lamented that "In this country, nobody votes, but everyone protests." Immigration advocates should not be surprised if Latin American immigrants and their offspring continue their tradition of direct action and ignoring laws and institutions—as the recent mass protests in cities across the country demonstrate. But they should also not be surprised if Americans also learn to pursue acción directa. An interesting test for the U.S. political class will be how they respond to Americans utilizing direct action, since they seem to tolerate and even encourage it for Latin American immigrants and their offspring. So far, their reaction has been predictable—accusing peaceful volunteers of being "vigilantes" and labeling critics as "racist," while backing down in the face of mass protests by the illegal immigrants. There were even reports that the U.S. government had handed over to the Mexican government the names of the "Minutemen" critics and border-control volunteers.

Moreover, those who challenge through extra-legal means the extra-constitutional and fait accompli pro-immigration methods of the elites would, paradoxically, be abiding more by the spirit and even letter of the U.S. Constitution than the political class being targeted by them. The Federalist Papers are replete with this philosophy. If they do so effectively, the reaction of the U.S. Congress may be the same as it was for the Pennsylvania legislature in the aftermath of the pay-raise scandal. Both policies are difficult to defend openly and publicly with an engaged citizenry.

If Americans do indeed take up civil disobedience and acción directa, hopefully they would realize that targeting Mexicans will not solve their problem, because even if for some reason they could "neutralize" Mexico as a source of mass immigration, soon they would be targeting Indonesians or Africans or South Americans. But that would be attacking the symptoms and not the root cause of their malaise.

Realizing this, what other events could turn the tables in favor of moderate and civic-minded immigration-reform advocates?

One, if these politicians begin to realize that the consequences of mass immigration for them are not what they expected—when the string of "rational short-termisms" crashes in the rocks of failed electoral campaigns or mass mobilization by critics of immigration against their political careers. Perhaps that is why three of the five lawmakers critical of mass immigration we met with are from border states. They perhaps have already come to realize that their "fantasy constituents" were different than expected. But this realization is unlikely to come any time soon to the remaining lawmakers.

Two, if a critical mass of Americans of Mexican and other Latin American descent take the lead in opposing the openly partisan and irredentist leaders mobilizing the illegal immigrants and the Latino citizens, since it is those types of leaders and provocateurs, not average populations at large, who start ethnic conflicts, as in Yugoslavia and Northern Ireland.12 But this is also unlikely because of the collective-action problem. American Latinos who criticize mass immigration tend not to organize, as they are especially targeted by the pro-immigration Latino "leaders."

A third peaceful way to close the gap between elite and popular opinion on the immigration issue is to pass certain political reforms that would help to assuage lawmakers’ concerns for their political and financial stability. Increasing their (already-high) salaries may be a small price to pay to reduce their proclivity to find solutions for their "natural progress" elsewhere, such as with immigration. However, in this case the medicine may be worse than the illness.

A fourth way would be for a political entrepreneur to successfully use popular discontent with mass immigration to reach power. This is essentially what happened in Denmark. There, the antisocial behavior of Middle Eastern and other immigrants was largely ignored by both main parties and the press, both also displaying an elite consensus against the population’s antipathy for immigrants and for further immigration. The parties had even agreed between them not to make immigration an issue in campaigns or on television debates. Eventually, a political entrepreneur named Anders Fogh Rasmussen used the immigration issue to capture power inside his party, and then go on to win the general elections in 2001. As prime minister he enjoys popular support for his tough immigration and law-and-order policies, which also coincided with other reforms against big government and the welfare state. He was reelected in 2005, and even the opposition Social Democrats have dropped their prior position and now largely agree with Rasmussen’s views on immigration.

Bilateral Codependence
Some American and Mexican pundits argue that the outcome of the amnesty debate will affect the way Mexicans view the United States and their own democracy. The argument goes that if the U.S. Congress does not pass a law favorable to the undocumented workers, there will be a Mexican backlash against the United States that could ensure the victory of the illiberal, anti-American Left. However, this argument assumes that Mexico (through its population and political elites) acts in a rational way, and that these American overtures will be understood and appreciated (much the same way that France also understood and appreciated the American role in its liberation from Nazi Germany). However, the same argument was made by Russian elites and their American sympathizers during the debate on expanding NATO, with the argument that if America pursued its interests (expanding NATO), this would cause an irreversible collapse of Russian democracy and a backlash from the Kremlin. This argument held sway for years at the Clinton White House. In the end, NATO expanded and Moscow’s relations with its former imperial colonies and with NATO itself actually improved.

akagi
depends on how the question is phrased actually. i have not mentioned open borders once by the way.

dyerje
you are correct, not 100% of anti immigrant people are anti mexican, however for most it is a good protion of it. ethnocentric superiority beliefs are not the beliefs of a good great people. possibly you agree.

respectfully, review hayeks discussion of the rule of law. chapters, 3,4, and 6 if i recall. note most of whaty hitler and mussolini did was legal. not all law is equal.

RR and other things
Reagan signed the 1986 amnesty bill, but it included a crackdown on businesses that hired illegals. It didn't work out.

RR wasn't god--he made many mistakes. O'Connor, the 1982 Washington Accord with China (that Bush 41 and Baker suckered him into) and the 1986 Amnesty.

Blue Bustard. I know fools like Zell Miller etc want to do away with direct election of the Senate, but do you know why this was done in the first place?

Because of the absolute corruption this practice brought where Senators basically bribed members of the various statehouses to be "elected" to the body. As bad as corruption is now--it pales to what it was in the late 19th century. Idiots with no sense of history seem to forget this little fact.

I wonder how many Americans support an open border like you do GC?

Here's A Solution That Would WORK
Why isn't anyone campaigning for IT to be enacted?

http://www.theterryandersonshow.com/MISC/TERRY/90DaySolution070520.html

Lynne as a follow up
If you haven't looked at THIS link, well, I think your strong enough not to loose your supper.

The Grey Ghost did, and his answer was:

Lexington and Concord.

Thats a pretty big clue as to what's there.


http://www.cis.org/articles/2006/back706.html

gc
You're 100% right that the social welfare cost of illegals is created by the existence of entitlements. Illegal aliens are just benefiting from faux "free lunches" that are a hallucination for everyone, legal citizen or otherwise.

You are 100% wrong, however, that everyone who opposes illegal entry into the US is really just a Latino hater. SO not true. I've found a lot more common ground with Latino Americans over the years than with many from other ethnic backgrounds (and I'm about as dead white European as they come: Irish, Scots, and German).

Any person who has served in the military has encountered very fine citizens -- and would-be citizens -- from all ethnic backgrounds. Middle-class people who have lived in California, Texas, and Florida, as I have, have had and cherished Latino neighbors. Even the ones who voted for Democrats.

I wouldn't have a California with any less of a Mexican heritage than it has, or any less of a Native American heritage, for that matter.

But the rule of law -- as opposed to the rules of favoritism, nepotism, brute force, or transient political hysterias -- is the reason everyone flocks TO America, and almost no one heads away from it.

You know, I will pi$$ off some people here by saying this, but I have no problem with migration of the low-skilled, and I think we should have a lot more of it. I think we'd be better off with no minimum wage. The minimum wage is one of the factors responsible for creating a market for illegal labor, along with all the other laws we have that make it costly to compensate legal labor.

America's unique economic strength has never been in the skill of her labor, but in the still-remarkable freedom we all have to own property and start businesses. Dentists and engineers arrive from Egypt and India determined to work in their skill fields -- but low-skilled people arrive and start businesses. And that most definitely includes immigrants from south of the border. Every Mexican-American on my street is a small business owner, and none of the white or black Americans are. We're all current or former employees.

The problem is not "Mexicans," it's two countries -- the US and Mexico -- trying to legislate free lunches and economic stasis for their various constituencies, and in the process creating incentives for illegal behavior. The remedy is not to ignore our laws, it's to change them.

The rule of law underlies everything we count on and hold dear. Almost every society from the beginning of time EXCEPT the former and present British Commonwealth is a superb example of this truth: that you can't undermine the rule of law and also have security, prosperity, and progress for everyone. Socialist paternalism, corruption, and erratic application of the law quite obviously have not produced a healthy polity OR economy in Mexico, or anywhere else.

What Mexicans in America have demonstrated is that they are as capable as everyone else of using the benefits of political and economic freedom, and the rule of law, to good effect. God bless them for that. But we cannot go out of our way to ignore our own laws and still remain America, and retain the rights and benefits of being Americans. THAT is the issue.

An Americanist Is NOT

Necessarily pro-American.

An Americanist believes in Individual Liberty, a weak (domestically) central government, a strong militia, free markets, speak softly carry big stick, and a Representative Republic.

NOT popular election of Senators. What a joke the senate has become!

Lincoln was NOT an Americanist - quite the opposite - but he was pro-American.

An Americanist would find it very hard to be honest AND get elected to public office.

Like Walter E. Williams said, "If the American people would vote for a guy like me, they wouldn't NEED a guy like me."

Lynne
The people who are really exploited are you, me and the poor with no jobs. That includes young people who are just starting out and didn't get a college preparation..

You and I, because we have to pay the taxes that don't get paid, and then pay some under employed person because he has no job.

That stuff (sh--) rolls down hill. The only people left clean have lots of MONEY, and never see or worry about all this.

once
i looked, read some, got the flavor, read a lot of supposition like it before, not impressed, but thank you. i am not oppossed to listening to the other side. i am not looking to change you, you won't change me. i write only because the people here re-enforce each other in this small amen corner and then tend to think they are more reasonable than they are, and that more people share their views than actually do.

lynne
you are so sad. my punctuation is not your concern. and no, i do not have a livable wage with health care idea of labor, but marx did. i suggest you take your labor protectionist unionist views home to the left where they belong. it is neither your or the state;s job to dictate the economy. people take jobs, because their lives are better than without the job. it is how the market functions, good god, i cannot believe the anti free trade, anti other culture bias that has overcome supposed conservatives. RR would retch at the bunch of you.

Akagi
You are too adult and worldly to waste your conversation on gc..

gc
gc look at this link and then talk.


http://www.cis.org/articles/2006/back706.html

And leave my Central Americans alone..
Machaca, chimichanga..burp..

Immigration Frustration
It is quite pleasing that so many readers of Townhall.com have concluded that Mr. Bartlett has suggested that a free and vibrant American economy requires an exploited class of non-citizens: Criminals (Illegal Immigrants), Indentured Servants, Serfs, or Slaves.

No plans
I know Mandarin as well as English and slowly learning Taiwanese. Have no desire to learn Spanish.

Again you can decide that ICE is wrong, but according to their data, Most illegals are Mexicans. In fact if you add up all the illegals in the US, Mexicans make up the majority of all of them with Salvadorians being far far far behind in second place. Canada is not even in the same solar system with these two countries.


Why is this man ...

.....taking up valuable space on TH?

.....COLOSSUS

akagi
thank you for the compliments. you and i both know that census data does not reflect reality, there are no stats that reflect the reality on the ground.

also true for your salvadoran mexican stat. mexican you can assume, but it is an assumption not something measurable as we know but there are plenty of folks here from canada, dominican republic, guatamala etc. displacement is a natural cutural fact. it has always happened and always will. always the same sort of people oppose it, and they always fail. again, learn spanish, its a good thing to be bi, or tri or ?? lingual, not a bad thing. in truth, the worst part of central america is no mexicans. some days i would kill for a good machaca.

i am glad you are pleased with yourself, but it gives you no authority or respect anywhere.


SS
Social Security is a ponzi scheme and should be eliminated. How do you know we don't foam over this. I never taped any flag to my truck. I have a few flags on my desk--none happen to be the US flag, however.

As for these pro-American illegals. When I was in Asia last year during the big protest, seem from the papers I saw there, I saw many more Mexican flags than US flags.

Bogus?
The data is from the US Census. They count both legal and illegal. If you have a problem GC, call the US Census Bureua that collected the data.

If they are bogus, please then provide us with accurate numbers. I am betting we shall see no data