Allowing everybody to immigrate may have worked well before the 20th century because we had a frontier. Suggesting that it would still be a viable alternative now, in the 21st century, when we no longer have endless empty land to fill and even the poorest peasant from the farthest country can hop on a plane and get to the U.S., tells me that Jacoby didn't really put any serious thought into this column. If we opened the borders completely we would be buried in people.

A whole website listing non-victims of all sorts: http://www.bogushatecrimes.com/Home.php One of the lowest forms of human being is the person who falsely accuses others of persecuting him via hate crime.

I think the difference of opinion about the concept of charity explains much of the divide between conservatives and liberals: http://www.jpattitude.com/100225.php Gov't welfare is not charity, and happens without any of the moral benefits that come with real charity.

Byron York has joined the head-in-the-sand apologists for Barry. Simple logic, Mr. York: if "natural born citizen" and "citizen" are the same thing, then why did the framers use the former in the Constitution? Because they loved to use extra words? The fact that they did implies there is a difference, and if there's a difference we need to look at definitions of "natural born citizen" used at the time the Constitution was written. That's where we discover that it means BOTH parents are citizens, as well as a few other things that differentiate between citizens and natural born citizens. Rubio is ineligible and so is Barry... and the really funny thing is that Barry's sojourn in the White House shows us precisely why it's that way.