Linda Chavez: If you’re against open borders, you might be a Nazi

posted at 8:17 pm on May 30, 2007 by Allahpundit

That’s a paraphrase, of course, but only a slight one. Dig it:

Some people just don’t like Mexicans — or anyone else from south of the border. They think Latinos are freeloaders and welfare cheats who are too lazy to learn English. They think Latinos have too many babies, and that Latino kids will dumb down our schools. 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.

No amount of hard, empirical evidence to the contrary, and no amount of reasoned argument or appeals to decency and fairness, will convince this small group of Americans — fewer than 10 percent of the general population, at most — otherwise. Unfortunately, among this group is a fair number of Republican members of Congress, almost all influential conservative talk radio hosts, some cable news anchors — most prominently, Lou Dobbs — and a handful of public policy “experts” at organizations such as the Center for Immigration Studies, the Federation for American Immigration Reform, NumbersUSA, in addition to fringe groups like the Minuteman Project.

I don’t have much to add to what See-Dub said, but if you don’t know who Chavez is, please note: she’s not a leftist, no matter how classically leftist this “argument” might be. Not only is she a conservative, she was Bush’s nominee to be Secretary of Labor in 2001 — before she withdrew due to suspicions that she had hired illegal aliens. Most of you know that, of course, but I want to make sure everyone understands where this rhetoric is coming from. First it was Chertoff, then Bush, now Chavez: three Republicans, one of them president, another a cabinet member, the third a would-be cabinet member, all not merely criticizing the base’s position on amnesty but impugning their character for taking that position.

If you’re following the headlines section you’ve already seen this from Rush Limbaugh’s show today, but it bears repeating:

The thing that is most troublesome to me is that the words that he spoke yesterday were a criticism of the people who have stood by him through thick and thin. When everybody’s been trying to destroy him, be it the National Guard story, take your pick, Rumsfeld, the entire war in Iraq, the whole weapons of mass destruction thing, people have stood by him, and because they trust him and believe him on those issues…

I’ve told you what I think the president’s motivations here are on the immigration bill, and I think they’re far loftier motivations than political, frankly. I think they have to do with his desire to help the less fortunate around the world to realize dreams, his belief in this country as a way to get it done. But this criticism of his base is going to be problematic for him because the left is going to keep up their incessant harping on Iraq, and he needs people to support him on this. He needs to have a base of support that will not waver…

I just wish he hadn’t done it because he’s not going to lose me on Iraq, and he’s not going to lose me on national security, he’s not going to lose me on the war on terror, but he might lose some of you, and that might mean losing some of your votes for other Republicans because the president’s not on any ballot anymore, but other Republicans are. The people who have hung with you, you don’t just cast them aside in an even casual sense. That’s the thing about this that troubles me, that’s what’s the saddest aspect of this, to me.

Exit question: How many of us has he already lost?

bush-thumb.jpg


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

cover here race-card playing ass, and you fell into it.

Maybe you, like Bad Candy, have been fortunate enough to not see the crap I’ve seen around the chattering class, but I assure you, it’s not just a mindless race card played to win an argument.

If it doesn’t describe YOU, you shouldn’t take it as an attack on you.

bamapachyderm on May 31, 2007 at 1:07 AM

What the? Did I get filterpwn3d? Hmm….

Bad Candy on May 31, 2007 at 1:08 AM

Baphomet on May 30, 2007 at 11:52 PM

Boo freakin Hoo! When you wade a river to enter a country illegally your back gets wet ,it’s a stated fact period. Couple that with with the fact that it is avoidable because it is self induced! Cry me a river.

sonnyspats1 on May 31, 2007 at 1:08 AM

Alright, well I think my post got filterpwn3d, I’ll try again, I’m probably a bit sheltered blogwise considering I mostly go here, MM’s and Ace’s(different handle, where most of the racist rhetoric is smacked down immediately, if not by mods, then by commenters.

Bad Candy on May 31, 2007 at 1:11 AM

Aw, dammit… Smooth sonny, real f*ckin’ smooth. I hope Allah drops the hammer.

Bad Candy on May 31, 2007 at 1:12 AM

I’m not giving Chavez the benefit of the doubt because people like her and the GOP elite haven’t earned it.

Well, that’s your prerogative. I personally don’t see it so much as up for interpretation; I think her intent is pretty clear. She’s rightfully angry at the racist filth that she sees in some people. Maybe she’s over the top in her anger, but I do NOT read her at all as saying we–the pro-enforcement side–are *all* like that. Not even most of us. She’s not stupid, and neither is Bush; they know we aren’t all bigots.

Sorry, but I can’t work up even a little anger at Chavez or Bush or anyone else for pointing out the extreme rhetoric (and not just the bigoted crap–the level of exaggeration in the debate is jaw-dropping).

bamapachyderm on May 31, 2007 at 1:13 AM

There you go, sonny, you mouth-breathing asshat. But thanks for proving my point (and Chavez’ point). Well done.

bamapachyderm on May 31, 2007 at 1:15 AM

Way to go, sonny, you mouth-breathing idiot. But thanks for proving my (and Chavez’) point. Well done.

(My original comment got filterpwn3d too, Bad Candy.)

bamapachyderm on May 31, 2007 at 1:16 AM

Maybe you, like Bad Candy, have been fortunate enough to not see the crap I’ve seen around the chattering class, but I assure you, it’s not just a mindless race card played to win an argument.

If it doesn’t describe YOU, you shouldn’t take it as an attack on you.

bamapachyderm on May 31, 2007 at 1:07 AM

The issue isn’t the crap you’ve seen by some fringe minority, it’s the crap we’re seeing from Washington regarding this bill. From Linda’s own words …

Today, they speak more cautiously, so they talk about the rule of law, national security, amnesty, whatever else they think might make their arguments less racially charged.

… she cast suspicion on anyone that makes these arguments, and the overwhelming majority who do so do it in good faith. It was no accident by her either.

I won’t defend the fringe of racist iceholes for whom that’s the real reason – but you shouldn’t defend her trying to smear anyone and everyone who argues against this bill for very good reasons and in good faith. Despite her bait-and-switch 10% comment, that’s exactly what she is trying to do.

If you ever called the left-wing on using such tactics, then consistency demands calling out a conservative when they stoop the the same level, and Chavez has done just that.

thirteen28 on May 31, 2007 at 1:17 AM

I mostly go here, MM’s and Ace’s

OK, that’s why you don’t see it. Ace’s is about the only blog I can stand commenting in at all lately, other than here (where I don’t often comment anyway).
I won’t name names–yet–but it wouldn’t be too hard to find what blogs allow and encourage the racist filth. Not that I recommend giving them the traffic. ;)

bamapachyderm on May 31, 2007 at 1:21 AM

Thirteen28, I’m sorry, but I just don’t agree with you.
Yes, it’s a fringe minority, but we have allowed them to be the face of our side by not marginalizing them.

Yes, I’ve complained about race (identity)-baiters on the left, but I’ve complained MORE about racists/bigots on the left. It’s a bigger problem than race-baiting on their side. I think I’ve been consistent, but if not, I don’t really care–I won’t be quiet when I see MY political allies destroying my arguments with BS rhetoric.

bamapachyderm on May 31, 2007 at 1:26 AM

I don’t think her intentions are clear, I’m with Allah on this one. Until she makes a crystal clear differentiation between the racists and people with legitimate disagreement, I can’t trust her on this. We’ve been burned too many times by these people to assume the best anymore.

And I’m sorry, the aggressive rhetoric isn’t unwarranted, the consequences of an amnesty could be disastrous for the conservative movement.

Bad Candy on May 31, 2007 at 1:26 AM

I know you pointed out Polipundit and linked at Ace’s, but by the time I clicked over, most of it had been scrubbed IIRC.

Bad Candy on May 31, 2007 at 1:29 AM

Sorry, but I can’t work up even a little anger at Chavez or Bush or anyone else for pointing out the extreme rhetoric (and not just the bigoted crap–the level of exaggeration in the debate is jaw-dropping).

bravo, bamapachyderm.

Conservatives are not showing themselves very well in this debate. I’ve seen a lot that I had previously seen only on the left. From the comments on the townhall article:

Yes, many people do believe such things. There is a good reason, because they are true. Roughly 2/3 of all Mexican immigrants are high-school drop-outs. 31% of Mexican immigrant households use welfare compared to 15% of natives. Mexicans have some of the highest teen birth rates, and one of the highest fertility rates overall. The Hispanic illegitimacy rate is roughly at 46% compared to about 25% for whites. So much for Hispanic family values. Hispanic imprisonment rates are 3 times higher than whites.

And the very next comment starts by quoting Chavez:

“They think Latinos have too many babies, and that Latino kids will dumb down our schools. 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. ”

Where is this BS coming from?

Answer: it’s coming from your fellow commenters. The majority know that poor people of all races have similar problems, and which culture plays a large role most of us see too many hard-working immigrant families to write them all off. The touch-back visa and $5000 fee are attempts to keep the wheat and send the chaff back when they are caught under enforcement that is stricter and yet more humane because it recognizes mutual benefit of people coming here to work.

pedestrian on May 31, 2007 at 1:30 AM

Fair enough, Bad Candy. We can agree to disagree on this relatively minor point. I think we both agree that there is rhetoric that falls outside the bounds of “aggressive” (i.e. saying those who are for the bill are for “open borders”) that is unacceptable. And I recognize the rhetoric is “aggressive” on both sides–for and against the bill.

bamapachyderm on May 31, 2007 at 1:32 AM

Wait a second here. Chavez SPECIFICALLY said “some,” and even said “fewer than 10 percent of the general population, at most.”

Politicians always qualify their language. Even if she said “some” and “fewer than 10%,” clear the implication is that if you oppose the bill, prepare to be tarred with the “racist” label…even if you aren’t.

At this point, its almost like a challenge…Can I get a negative popularity rating? Can I get more people to hate me than there actually are people? If I can truly bend the laws of physics in that way, I would have even more power than the left believes I have.

Coyote D. on May 31, 2007 at 1:33 AM

Thirteen28, I’m sorry, but I just don’t agree with you.
Yes, it’s a fringe minority, but we have allowed them to be the face of our side by not marginalizing them.

How have we allowed them to be the face of our side? Some of the big names leading this fight are people like Michelle, Rush, Laura Ingraham, various voices over at National Review, and so on – they’re the face of our side, not the marginalized bigots who don’t get the time of day in any of those venues.

By agreeing to that stipulation you really have fallen right into the trap that Linda and other race-baiters have set. The fact that you are focused on that aspect of this debate, and not the bigger aspect (that this bill has serious negative consequences on a number of different levels – security, fiscal issues, law and order, fairness to legal immigrants) is ample proof of that.

When Linda can come out, clarify that she didn’t mean conservatives at large, apologize to those names and institutions she mentioned, and admit that, stripped bare, there are a lot of very good reasons to suport this bill, then I’ll cut her some slack. Until then, no sale.

thirteen28 on May 31, 2007 at 1:36 AM

Yeah, uh-huh. pedestrian, your rhetoric toward people who oppose amnesty hasn’t been much better. You engage in the same hapless race card flinging that Chavez has.

I remember you compared arguing that those arguing that rewarding illegal behavior was undermining to rule of law and equality under the law was equivalant to Dred Scott, so you can get bent too. I’m disgusted by the racism, but people like you and Chavez are nearly as reprehensible in your dishonesty.

Bad Candy on May 31, 2007 at 1:39 AM

there are a lot of very good reasons to suport OPPOSE this bill, then I’ll cut her some slack. Until then, no sale.

ugh, dammit.

thirteen28 on May 31, 2007 at 1:47 AM

you and Chavez are nearly as reprehensible in your dishonesty.

I’m honored to be put in such company, even if undeserved, thanks.

I stand by my comparison to Dred Scott, because that ruling put enforcement of immoral laws above basic human rights. I see no essential difference between how a freed slave would be treated in the North versus someone who has escaped extreme poverty that was caused by a corrupt government.

You may disagree, but how am I being dishonest?

pedestrian on May 31, 2007 at 1:49 AM

Linda Chavez should have used a much finer brush if she was trying to paint only 10% of anti-immigration bill voters as racist. And I doubt that any of the public figures she mentioned used anything like the racist language that Beth put up. thirteen28 is correct – she lumped in the entire opposition to the immigration bill as racist, reducing all the anti-amnesty arguments to hidden racism.

geoff on May 31, 2007 at 1:50 AM

I am surprised no one has started this:

Opposing this bill is like…

Building a concentration camp in your backyard.

Bill C on May 31, 2007 at 1:51 AM

Opposing this bill is like…

Defending democracy.

S on May 31, 2007 at 1:54 AM

I am a hopeless optimist so I want to look at the brightside of this fiasco. There is a real good chance that the immigration “reform” bill will not pass. This is has sparked a debate about illegal immigration and the polls show that a majority of Democrats do not support amnesty. Despite Bushco, McMaverick, and the Country Club types, the Republican party owns the border issue. A strong pro-border security candidate will do well. Just watch Hillary’s rhetoric on the issue. She knows open borders is a loser.

Bill C on May 31, 2007 at 1:56 AM

the “No Amnesty” crowd is anything other than what it is: a tiny group of angry, frightened and prejudiced loudmouths backed by political opportunists who exploit them.

This is a pretty close definition of open borders advocates, another liberal dirty trick; blame and demonize your opponents with what you yourself is guilty of.

Tiny? No, 200 million citizens not trusting the government any more isn’t tiny.

Frightened? No, we just have rights, sovereignty is one.

Prejudiced? No, a very wide range of Americans are involved including many Latinos.

Loudmouths? Yea but that is one of our rights, to be as vocal as we feel like.

Backed by? Now THAT’S insulting, pro America advocates are as grassroots as it gets, its La Raza and organizations like La Raza that have backers, our tax dollars are used against us and we’re prejudiced? where’s the tax dollars and millions of Ford Foundation money for Numbers USA?

Where’s the equivalent of huge marches in which Americans carry racist signs chant racism and flip off Latinos?
Doesn’t happen.

Exploited? You mean like ANSWER and communist organizers exploit Latinos?
You mean like the Hispanic caucus?
I don’t think so.

What part of sovereign nation state does Chavez not understand?

What part of Constitutional rights does Ms. Chavez not understand?
Constitutional rights is something the President could stand to brush up on.
And what part of insulting all of us because she, the President and some lawmakers aren’t getting their way because whether she, the President or those lawmakers like it or not its our decision to make and no matter how many names you, the President or those lawmakers call us its still our decision.

And, if this foul legislation is forced down our throats I’ll guarantee you, its going to come back up.
This isn’t going away and it isn’t going to be fixed by usurping the will of the people.

Not this time.

Speakup on May 31, 2007 at 2:05 AM

It takes courage to be for amnesty. It is completely dishonest and gutless to call something a non-amnesty, when it is one. Much as I disagree with the unenforcement of all current laws, beginning with the employers, I’d rather they call it what it is and try to sell it.

…and it isn’t selling. Pollster Frank Luntz on H & C tonight was very sober in stating that it has created an incredible schism in both parties. A fault really.

Entelechy on May 31, 2007 at 2:08 AM

WisCon

It means I’m with the Republicans in all the major economic and foreign policy issues, as well as abortion, but not with the retarded conservative agenda regarding stuff like religion, intelligent design, Terri Schiavo legislation, immigration obsession, death penalty, skepticism of climate change, etc. My point being that way too often “conservatives” are defined by these “social issues” instead of the traditional economic and foreign policy issues.

katieanne

Guess what. I’m a “Hispanic” too who might soon be immigrating legally to the US. I too resent illegal immigrants skipping the line. Yet I know, from reading conservative blogs through endless nights, that there IS a racism problem that conservatives just won’t acknowledge. As I said before, it creeps in right after the legitimate law-enforcement arguments. The same canards get repeated over and over again: immigrants depress wages and steal jobs, immigrants are more likely to commit crimes, immigrants are the 21st century barbarians at the gates, Mexicans are not assimilating, etc. You should admit all of this is true of many people, although I am absolutely certain this is not the majority of either conservatives or Americans, since I know them well enough. However, this minority is getting too vocal and, personally, it pisses me off and disillusions me.

bamapachyderm

I am exactly at the position you are in. Lots and LOTS of people, especially in the blogosphere, are disguising their economic resentment and racist instincts as “law enforcement” and “being a true conservative”, when in fact it is bullshit. Immigration is an issue just like any other. The laws that come out of it are sometimes good, sometimes flawed, as in any other issue. All this crying wolf about the end of the Republican Party, Bush suddenly going from being one of the best to being one of the worst Presidents, etc. is a form of hysteria that I’ve seen in the left during all these years, but I did not expect it from the grown men on the right. Crybabies.

pedestrian

Same as with bamapachyderm: glad I’m not alone.

As a final note, to whomever might be reading: conservatives are getting all worked up in their blogosphere echo chamber to their own peril. I think they should drop this immigration bill hysteria or, as I said before, they risk going back to the political wilderness. It was clear from the beginning that a COMPROMISE would come out of the negotiation process. It would be neither total amnesty nor total law enforcement with no amnesty. The result was, as predicted, a mixed law. I personally think it falls on the better side, because it enforces the border as much as presently possible, solves the 12 million illegals problem but only by forcing them to pay back to society their violation of the law. The key point here is that there will not, there could not have been, a better law. Period. I’ve seen tons of condemnations of the law and of this mythical monster, “amnesty”, but not a single alternative proposal – yes, exactly as the President has rightfully said. The vast majority of Americans are both opposed to illegal immigration and the codeword “amnesty” but are also vastly in favor of allowing illegal immigrants to go legal once they pay back what they owe, both in money and in burocracy. This law provides just that. If conservatives are going to jump ship from the GOP because of this non-issue, then they do so as their own peril, and at a time when the Democrats have filed a particularly awful line of Presidential candidates and congressmen. Hillary. Obama. Edwards. Pelosi. Harry Reid. John Murtha. Conservatives who fight the President on this issue and force the 2008 candidates to be even more extremist in ther positions are only hurting their own side. Since theirs is the right side, they are hurting the country.

Baphomet on May 31, 2007 at 2:08 AM

Just watch Hillary’s rhetoric on the issue. She knows open borders is a loser.

Bill C on May 31, 2007 at 1:56 AM

I just checked her website. A bunch of weasel words as expected, but she continues to plug her failed 2003 bill that granted amnesty to agricultural workers only. It was amnesty targeted to future Democrats, without regard to the economic benefit to America of allowing highly skilled workers to immigrate also.

pedestrian on May 31, 2007 at 2:15 AM

I shredded you apart last time this came up pedestrian, and I’ll gladly do so again. The fact is by imposing amnesty, you are in fact making us unequal. We don’t get to break the law in this country and then be rewarded for it, we get sent to prison for a long time for stuff that most illegals have done.

By allowing illegal immigrants to not only go unpunished for violating US law, but rewarding them for it, you essentially forfeit the notion that we are all equal in society, and in fact are making us unequal under the law, so it is just as fair to compare your argument to Dred Scott as it is for you to say mine is.

As for your comparison of African slaves to illegals, African slaves did not come here and violate US law, they were denied their human rights by being dragged here against their will and declared property under wrongful US law, they broke no laws, there is nothing analogous here. No one dragged illegals here, they came on their own, and chose to be subjected to the US law, the difference is choice, that’s the big difference, and you know it. Slaves had no choice along the way, illegals did.

As for rule of law, tell me, what moral authority does the government have to tell me I can’t start a crime syndicate or commit other crimes after it rewards people for breaking the law? Shouldn’t I be allowed to break US law too? Or can I get an Amnesty too? I need an excuse to wear badass pinstripe suits, fedoras and talk like a Thirties era gangster, see.

I’m being a smartass, like I was before, but my point stands, you can’t reward illegal behavior, because as a government, you lose the moral authority a free society grants you to enforce the laws.

You’re being dishonest because you know these are all valid points, but you tie it to Dred Scott as a means to smear and tie objection to amnesty to the slaveholders of old. Its disgusting and dishonest.

Bad Candy on May 31, 2007 at 2:21 AM

So illegally-entering Mexicans are now escaped slaves?

(And thus sending them home would be equivalent to returning them to plantation slavemasters?)

Don’t let Bush or Chavez get a hold of that stupendous leap of logic or we’ll be hearing it as part of their “dismantle America” arsenal by next week.

(VIZ- Tony Snow:Now, that guy trimming your forsythia… consider him to be Frederick Douglas… and the meatpacker in the next town who got your job, he’s Booker T. Washington… and your sister’s under-the-table nanny, why that’s Harriet Tubman…“)

profitsbeard on May 31, 2007 at 2:23 AM

Bad Candy

That’s all great and true, but the problem I mentioned before still stands. The legal system ALREADY has “amnesty”, if we define that by the possibility for someone who has committed a crime to get a clean slate by performing certain actions. The example I offered before is bail, or parole. You pay, you go. Why can’t illegal immigrants do the same? And also, what alternative do you propose? Deporting them all?

Baphomet on May 31, 2007 at 2:25 AM

The example I offered before is bail, or parole.

??? What does bail have to do with amnesty? And parole is a form of punishment, not an amnesty. If you’re arguing that illegals should be arrested and sentenced with parole as a possibility, then I’m listening.

geoff on May 31, 2007 at 2:28 AM

The basis of law enforcement is that those who cheat don’t get to keep what they’ve taken when held accountable for cheating.

Illegal aliens being allowed to remain in our nation after being identified as being here illegally is amnesty.

Sending them “back home” after being identified is not amnesty.

This legislation (SB 1348) doesn’t send them home, it says they can stay in the U.S. indefinitely/permanently and the U.S. taxpayers get to pay for all the legal assistance they want inorder to do so. THAT’S AMNESTY.

Saying it isn’t amnesty is not only illogical, it’s misleading.

S on May 31, 2007 at 2:37 AM

As for your comparison of African slaves to illegals, African slaves did not come here and violate US law, they were denied their human rights by being dragged here against their will and declared property under wrongful US law, they broke no laws, there is nothing analogous here.

The point of Dred Scott was that slaves broke the law simply by escaping. It had nothing to do with how they became slaves. The only part of my analogy that I have trouble with is I don’t mean to compare the beatings, rapes, etc. that slaves received to anything today in Mexico, but this is today and not 150 years ago.

Illegal aliens broke the law when they came here also. If they broke any other law, then send them back.

Shouldn’t I be allowed to break US law too?

This is one of the few points I’ve seen from opponents of the bill that isn’t based on bad analysis, bad economics, or bad statistics. Still it presumes that we are better than them, when in fact we probably would have done the same given the circumstances. Maybe you are different, but when most of us see a speed limit we don’t like, we just check the mirror and go. To come down without forgiveness on illegal immigrants for just responding to urgent and painful economics the way we would just seems fundamentally unfair.

Someone here said that it wasn’t the land that made this country great, it is the people. Maybe so, but I think what really makes this country great is that it is under God. That is what motivates my seeing illegal immigrants as being equal before God to the rest of us.

pedestrian on May 31, 2007 at 2:40 AM

Except Baph, bail is different, those people still face trial and punishment for crimes. Illegals aren’t. They are getting rewarded.

The answer is close the border definitively, then hit up businesses engaging in egregious hiring of illegals and hit them with crippling fines. Make it very clear that if you get busted hiring, its gonna cost you a bloody fortune, that will scare a lot of businesses straight, ban access to gov’t programs, they’ll quit coming, some will head elsewhere for greener pastures.

I realize we’ll never get rid of everyone who’s here illegally, but we should try to minimalize it. This bill won’t do it. I’ll always oppose amnesty on philosophic grounds, but I wouldn’t hold it against people who supported it after a legitimate effort was made to return illegals to wherever they came from. This bill isn’t it.

Bad Candy on May 31, 2007 at 2:48 AM

Still it presumes that we are better than them, when in fact we probably would have done the same given the circumstances. Maybe you are different, but when most of us see a speed limit we don’t like, we just check the mirror and go. To come down without forgiveness on illegal immigrants for just responding to urgent and painful economics the way we would just seems fundamentally unfair.

pedestrian, the law is just, laws banning illegal immigration are just, you are still comparing unjust law (Dred Scott) to just law (illegal enforcement), and thereis just no validity between the two.

As to what I quoted from you, we can’t accept everyone just because it feels good. This isn’t an issue of forgiveness, this is an issue of preserving the American system, and what mass amnesty could do to undermine it, both in potentially giving the Dems a permanent majority (and you know amnesty will give the Dems a massive increase in voters), and undermining rule of law itself.

Think about that. You are potentially trading ‘helping’ 12-50 million for actually potentially helping billions of people who are in much more dire circumstance by handing over the nation to Democrats, and destabilizing the country internally because of the gov’ts loss of moral authority, weakening it further, both in policy and internal strength, that helps no one. I get the compassionate conservative stuff, and you wanna help the disadvantaged, but going this approach will hurt more poor people than it will help, and if you apply logic to the problem, you’ll see that.

Bad Candy on May 31, 2007 at 3:09 AM

and thereis just no validity between the two.

Make that, and there is no comparison between the two. I fail at writing.

Bad Candy on May 31, 2007 at 3:10 AM

You are potentially trading ‘helping’ 12-50 million for actually potentially helping billions of people who are in much more dire circumstance by handing over the nation to Democrats

California used to be competitive for Republicans, at least at the presidential and gubenatorial level, right up until that ballot measure to deny medical and similar benefits (or whatever it was, I don’t live there). The number of illegals is small in comparison to the bulk of people who judge the Republicans by what they do. A huge percentage of this country sees itself as a member of an immigrant group and they are sympathetic to others trying to get in. I saw this among my wife’s friends, many of whom started small businesses and you would expect would be easy Republicans. They saw that ballot initiative on the other side of the country and felt alienated. If that happens at the national level, the Republican party is over.

I think there is plenty of racist on the left, and by disavowing it on the right we stand to pick up swing voters who see us come clean on this issue.

pedestrian on May 31, 2007 at 3:21 AM

Now that the racist card has been played, true or not, this thing will take on an entire new life of its own.

Glynn on May 31, 2007 at 7:10 AM

I think there is plenty of racist on the left, and by disavowing it on the right we stand to pick up swing voters who see us come clean on this issue.

pedestrian on May 31, 2007 at 3:21 AM

I’ll translate for pedestrian: “Amnesty!”

What pedestrian and bamapachyderm are really trying to say is if you don’t support legalization of those who broke our laws, you are racists.

And obviously badpachyderm has never seen the liberal tactic of pretending to be conservatives and writing racist comments on blogs to discredit conservative positions on issues.

I wonder if badapchyderm thinks that the 10% who supposedly are racist (where does she get her statistics and what does this have to do with the immigration bill?) and are against the amnesty bill is worse than the racists crossing our border (Mexicans who hate Americans) illegally who want amnesty?

januarius on May 31, 2007 at 7:12 AM

I think there is plenty of racist on the left, and by disavowing it on the right we stand to pick up swing voters who see us come clean on this issue.

pedestrian on May 31, 2007 at 3:21 AM

One more thing, Pedestrian: We will pick up a lot more swing voters by deporting illegals, building a fence, and blocking this amnesty bill.

For example, legal immigrants (who can vote) don’t like illegals competing with them for jobs. Americans want strong border enforcement, something President Bush arrogantly refuses to do.

So Republicans are much more likely to pick up votes by strongly enforcing the border. You can bet when we have a huge terrorist attack and the terrorists got here by crossing the southern border that “racists” wanted enforced, Republicans, thanks to President Bush’s nonenforcement, won’t be getting votes.

januarius on May 31, 2007 at 7:22 AM

This is all about scoring votes. The next thing we’ll see is a Republican commercial about how important felons are to society.

This discussion can’t be framed in a Christian or “good guy” perspective. It’s an invasion by people that do not honor the law and are out to simply get whatever they can. They do not recognize the USA as a sovereign country with borders and do not wish to give of themselves to future of the USA. The crime rate in this country will continue to climb with illegals at the top of the list. A second wave of Mexican illegals is already forming. The USA as it was since its inception is about to be overrun and vanish since the shrinking middle-class can’t support millions of Mexican criminals on top of all the world’s problems and entitled masses we already bankroll. Just the fact that Mexicans are too lazy to learn English, while the rest of the world speaks English in order to communicate on a technical and financial level says it all. We Nazi Gringos have to press “1″ for English, how pathetic is that?

Hening on May 31, 2007 at 8:10 AM

This is a woman who resigned (backed away from an appointment) for hiring an illegal housekeeper. Meanwhile the people throwing rocks hire illegal grape pickers for their w(h)ineries. And the president didn’t have the Malkin’s to back her.

Now they are calling me a racist for not backing an ill conceived poorly written amnesty bill, which historically has shown that amnesty is a failure. Simple, secure the borders first, then implement your plans…that is what most of us want…secure first.

WE DO NOT TRUST CONGRESS TO PROTECT US…GET IT

right2bright on May 31, 2007 at 8:19 AM

Chavez purposely showed emails from the fringe and not the many well thought out complaints from people with honest disagreements. This is disingenuous,Clintonesque,even.This is a bad bill.
Some illegal immigrants are good people and some are not.
This bill lets the “are nots” stay too.
Mexico has a much stricter policy than we ever dreamed of, on their southern border. Are they nazis? Are the Canadians nazis? Try to immigrate there if you dont have a skill, or money, or are sick or old.

lizzee on May 31, 2007 at 8:21 AM

Chavez may be hispanic, but she is on the elite list…and she wants her underclass slave labor here no matter what. How many of the illegals she has hired in the past has she gone on to assist with their education? I lived in southeast TX for 22 years and experienced personally what happens when one culture of people suddenly become the majority…and learning English is NOT a priority for these folks or assimilating to become Americans. Let’s face it, our greedy politicians are selling out this country and we have to stop it any way we can.

lynnv on May 31, 2007 at 8:31 AM

And that was from this morning–I haven’t checked back to see what other turds were dropped in the comments there since then.

bamapachyderm on May 31, 2007 at 12:35 AM

That article is about a week old…it’s been collecting comments for quite some time.

As for why it garnered so many of them, Chavez has made open borders advocacy her pet project on Townhall. Approximately 4 of every 5 articles she writes is about it, and the community there is simply fed up with it (and her).

James on May 31, 2007 at 8:41 AM

The only thing that gives me hope is that the Democrats are nearly as fractured by this issue as the GOP. That’s hardly surprising because the overwhelming majority of Americans see the problem with illegal immigration in the illegal part and not the immigration. I have to wonder exactly what the agenda behind this is though and why it’s the agenda of both the Democrat elites and Republican elites. I just read where the Bush administration more than doubled the cost of a person legally immigrating here at exactly the time they’re wanting to hand Z Visas to every person here illegally. What a message, stand in line and get screwed, break our laws and get amnesty.

Buzzy on May 31, 2007 at 8:41 AM

Let’s compare:
Mexico: GNP per cap $6,000 (annual)
Guinea: GDP per cap less than $500 (annual)

Why should Mexicans get favorable status over an African who hails from far worse conditions? Isn’t it racist to focus only on the selfish desires of Mexicans when Black Africans have more dire conditions AND have to wait in line at the Visa counter, buy airline tickets and scrape around to make to the US?
Not every immigrant hails from Mexico or Guatemala. The US has immigrants from all over the world, from every country, every ethnicity, every nationality, every “race.” Once one group has dominance, the others suffer. Fair? No. What is it called when Mexicans get a better deal than Africans or Asians or Europeans?

naliaka on May 31, 2007 at 8:52 AM

Sorry that’s GNP for both – a typo – using like statistics, not mixing them.
+ $6,000 Mexico

naliaka on May 31, 2007 at 8:53 AM

The Bush administration is doing for the GOP what Kerry did for the democrats. Of course, the GOP isn’t doing anything to help themselves either. I’m afraid it’s gonna take a few years of real liberalism to make the God fearing American people wake up, but by then it may just be too late, and we may already be stuck on the same road to destruction that Britain is traveling just ahead of us.

NRA4Freedom on May 31, 2007 at 9:25 AM

Some people just don’t like Mexicans — or anyone else from south of the border. They think Latinos are freeloaders and welfare cheats who are too lazy to learn English.

Allow me to say respectfully, “Blow me.”

The company I work for just hired six Mexicans; they will remain Mexican citizens and will work in Mexico, but they came to the U.S. — LEGALLY – for training. Did you catch that LEGALLY I slipped in there? And they all have college degrees, not to mention they’re all clean and articulate.

I like Mexicans. I’m not thrilled with my company — they hired Mexicans to save a buck, and now expect me and my co-workers to add teaching them English to our job descriptions. For no extra money, and with smiles on our faces. To show we’re not Nazis, you know.

Playing the old “if you oppose this bill, you must be racist” B.S. really pisses me off. I can get that abuse from the libs anytime I want.

saint kansas on May 31, 2007 at 9:30 AM

Here, I rewrote this bit:

They [Linda Chavez et al] think Latinos aren’t capable of learning English. They think Latinos just can’t manage what so many Euopeans still manage to do every day: immigrate legally. They think Latinos need to be excused from breaking the law because they can’t be held to “white America’s” lofty standards. They think Latinos are just too different from us ever to become real Americans.

saint kansas on May 31, 2007 at 9:35 AM

…and learning English is NOT a priority for these folks or assimilating to become Americans. Let’s face it, our greedy politicians are selling out this country and we have to stop it any way we can.

lynnv on May 31, 2007 at 8:31 AM

Just the fact that Mexicans are too lazy to learn English, while the rest of the world speaks English in order to communicate on a technical and financial level says it all. We Nazi Gringos have to press “1″ for English, how pathetic is that?

Hening on May 31, 2007 at 8:10 AM

It’s not because they are too lazy to learn English; it’s because they are human. If racist liberals who think Hispanics are too dumb to learn English are going to translate everything for them, why bother learning English? Even schools like this one in Fairfax County in the Washington suburbs don’t want Hispanics to learn English.

It’s human nature. If you get free handouts, why work to support yourself or learn?

Racist liberals don’t care if Hispanics assimilate or not.

Linda Chavez knows this and actively opposes bilingual education and affirmative action: http:ceousa.org (her think tank).

januarius on May 31, 2007 at 9:37 AM

I want to say one thing.

THE REPUBLICAN PARTY IS NOT DEAD OR SPLITTING

It is very apparent in the comments for this post that WE the people and voters of the Republican Party are not divided. We rarely have been more united than we are AGAINST this legislation.

The party’s leadership is currently a bunch of flaming idiots though but its a problem we CAN correct. Vote for a STRONG fiscal or national/border security candidate in the primary and support them through the general election. When we have a President that doesn’t support this idiocy the leadership that does will fade away.

bj1126 on May 31, 2007 at 9:50 AM

They [Linda Chavez et al] think Latinos aren’t capable of

learning English. They think Latinos just can’t manage what so many Euopeans still manage to do every day: immigrate legally. They think Latinos need to be excused from breaking the law because they can’t be held to “white America’s” lofty standards. They think Latinos are just too different from us ever to become real Americans.

saint kansas on May 31, 2007 at 9:35 AM

Saint Kansas- You’ve hit it exactly. When liberals set these extraordinarily low standards for Hispanics, they show how racist they are. When I studied in France in college, many Americans would complain about the haughty French answering back in English even when we asked questions in French and initiated the conversation.

Yet haughty, racist liberals do the same thing with Hispanics. Like the picture above that I linked to, these elites tell Hispanics they are too stupid to practice or learn English; they will show their arrogance by translating everything for them.

januarius on May 31, 2007 at 9:57 AM

This is all about scoring votes. The next thing we’ll see is a Republican commercial about how important felons are to society.

This discussion can’t be framed in a Christian or “good guy” perspective. It’s an invasion by people that do not honor the law and are out to simply get whatever they can. They do not recognize the USA as a sovereign country with borders and do not wish to give of themselves to future of the USA. The crime rate in this country will continue to climb with illegals at the top of the list. A second wave of Mexican illegals is already forming. The USA as it was since its inception is about to be overrun and vanish since the shrinking middle-class can’t support millions of Mexican criminals on top of all the world’s problems and entitled masses we already bankroll. Just the fact that Mexicans are too lazy to learn English, while the rest of the world speaks English in order to communicate on a technical and financial level says it all. We Nazi Gringos have to press “1″ for English, how pathetic is that?

Hening on May 31, 2007 at 8:10 AM

You see, this is not helping. Technically, if someone sneaks into this country illegally, you can call them a criminal, but that is different in than someone who has robbed someone or is dealing drugs or whatever, so I don’t think it’s right to say millions of Mexican criminals are pouring over the border. I don’t think that most of the illegals here are lazy at all – they come here to work. If they can work and get along without learning English, I don’t think they are going to learn it.

Baphomet:

Given the way the Republican party has repeatedly gone against the fundamentals of what they supposedly stand for, I would be careful about labeling yourself that. But regardless, it isn’t racism that is driving the opposition to this bill, it is the fact though our border is STILL NOT SECURE, a massive amount of illegal aliens are going to be granted legal status. I don’t care where they are from! I just want to stop the flow of illegals, and then we can deal with work permits or visas or whatever. I think trying to get every single illegal alien to return home is a non-starter and would harm our country. However, this business about letting a bunch of their relatives come over here is absolute insanity – we will not be able to handle such a huge migration of foreign people. This issue needs to be dealt with on a more gradual basis with some being granted visas combined with businesses actually being required to obey the law.

Looking at this form another perspective, don’t you realize that for every able-bodied worker that comes here from Mexico, Mexico loses one? Last time I checked, that country isn’t doing so well. The same thing is happening with Venezuela. Now I am not saying that I wouldn’t do the same thing given what life is like in those countries, and I also think that the U.S. benefits from getting such people (to an extant, obviously). On the other hand, these countries become ever weaker and less competitive economically, and their governments become more corrupt because the opposition gets up and leaves.

WisCon on May 31, 2007 at 10:13 AM

there are nazis in the border enforsement movement.

and much of the rhetoric of the rest of the movement centers around the idea that latinos are criminally prone cockroaches.

jummy on May 31, 2007 at 10:23 AM

I don’t think Linda Chavez claims hispanic heritage. She married into a family with a hispanic surname. She has a history of speaking on women’s and hispanic issues so I guess that is why she is weighing in.

As a third generation mexican-american I don’t support the comprehensive bill. I too think it should be focused on security and employer (even street corner pickups) sanctions first. Then it would make sense to encourage those who have already graduated a US high school to become citizens and those with jobs could somehow get normalized but maybe not legalized along with some financial penalty through their employers garnishing wages.

MRegine on May 31, 2007 at 10:23 AM

Bush has lost me completely and I was a great fan of his until this immigration deal. He’s giving away the country and doesn’t seem to care. Of course he and all the elitists will be locked safely in their gated communities while the average person will be rolling around with the third world invasion, so what do they care?

If anyone is tired of hearing Chavez, be warned that this is just the beginning. As they gain social, political and cultural control of America we will be hearing more and more like the poison she is spouting, at the end of a rifle no doubt. Love us or…..

It’s time to bring our American soldiers home. Why are we sacrificing the lives of Americans to protect a country that will, in a very short time be a third world slum? The US is no longer worth saving. This is the Bush legacy. I hope he can live with it. I sure can’t.

UnEasyRider on May 31, 2007 at 10:37 AM

there are nazis in the border enforsement movement.

and much of the rhetoric of the rest of the movement centers around the idea that latinos are criminally prone cockroaches.

jummy on May 31, 2007 at 10:23 AM

Er, no. There is a lot of gang graffiti, MS-13 crimes, zoning infractions, and problems in schools here in Northern Virginia because of the illegal immigration, which is simply a fact that is not racist to point out. Linda Chavez at http://www.ceousa.org blames much of that on bilingual education and affirmative action that racist liberals use to not assimilate Hispanics, thus causing Hispanics to become part of an underclass. Also, racist liberals refuse to give Hispanics school choice through vouchers to send their kids to Catholic schools.

MRegine- I believe Linda Chavez’s father was Mexican and that is where she gets her surname from.

januarius on May 31, 2007 at 10:37 AM

lou dobbs lies in his agitprop like a liberal. if he were doing things llike taking stats from a 30 year span and attributing them to a 3 year span, as he did for leprosy (then atttributing the epidemic to mexicans) but he was shilling for abortionists or gungrabbers, we’d be making sure everyone knew he was a liar.

jummy on May 31, 2007 at 10:37 AM

“Por la raza todo”

Altura Ct. on May 31, 2007 at 10:52 AM

Jummy- Try harder. You said there are “nazis” among those who want to enforce the borders. You found one. Any others?

Besides, there are many Mexican “nazis” and racists like the ones who booed Miss U.S.A. coming up north, crossing the border into our country illegally.

What is your point? And what does “racism” have anything to do with enforcing our borders? Yes, some racists will want the border enforced. Many racists like those who believe that Mexicans cannot learn English and assimilate will want open borders and will be against enforcing our laws.

Racists are much, much more likely to be liberals than conservatives. Racists have low expectations from races other than themselves, and liberals have extremely low expectations of minorities, who believe they cannot do anything for themselves without their help and guidance.

januarius on May 31, 2007 at 11:02 AM

I really hate hearing that people think because I am against this bill, I am a racist. My husband is hispanic. And my husband is also against this bill.

They do NOT want to come to this country and assimilate. They want to make it into Little Mexico. Where I live, downtown is like that. My husband doesn’t like for me to go down there alone. When someone talks to him in spanish in the line at the grocery store, he answers back in English. Our children do not know spanish because my husband doesn’t like to speak it (he knows spanish, just not well anymore) and also says we are in America where English is spoken.

We are both sick of having Mexican men oggle me whenever I walk past them. He says they give him a bad name, too. The majority of Mexican men just don’t respect women. That’s not me being racist, it’s a fact that even my hispanic husband knows. My kids complain about the Mexican students at school. My son loved it when they skipped school last year to protest. He said it was peaceful, quiet, and uncrowded.

And what happened in Mexico to Miss USA just shows they have NO respect for this country. They hate us, yet want to come here and take whatever handouts we give them. As my husband said, they can just stay in Mexico, we don’t want them here, either.

StephC on May 31, 2007 at 11:13 AM

Hmmm… key thing is that I am NOT a Racist…

I will say I am a CULTURALIST!

I do NOT believe that all cultures are the same, I do not believe that we must let all cultures have their way…

Its not Race, its culture…

I don’t like the Rap culture. I don’t care if its a white rapper being rude and talking about his Ho’s, or a black rapper… I don’t like it and think it degrades our society.

I grew up in California, and I don’t LIKE that when I go home to see my Mom, that half the Billboards are now in Spanish. That HALF the radio stations are mexican… But its not RACE ITS CULTURE!!! That crime is up, and literacy down.

I’m not racist against Moslems… but I do detest their culture! THEY are the ones who are not inclusive, who don’t beleive in Freedom of Speech, or religion, or equality, and want to prostelyze by the sword…

I like America… the old style America, Land of the Free, Home of the Brave America. Where it was never of question of can we do it, but how do we do it. The American that didn’t pick fights, but sure finished em…

I am proud to be an American Culturalist.

Romeo13 on May 31, 2007 at 11:23 AM

Hi ho the bar-ri-o
A legacy-in’ we will go.

shuzilla on May 31, 2007 at 11:23 AM

little mexico! little mexico?!!

why, our republic bareley survived our little chinas and little italys!

soon they’ll have us all eating tacos! or worse, CRUNCHWRAP SUPREMES!!!!

jummy on May 31, 2007 at 11:51 AM

“Get this passed or you get no $ from us.”

Corporate blackmail.

It works.

Connie on May 31, 2007 at 11:53 AM

I love all these dumbasses who call people who want to maintain their traditions, customs and laws racist. Here’s one racist then who is sick to death of being told that trying to protect my country from a horde of invaders is bad. Screw you Linda. I couldn’t care less, all it does it steel my resolve even more and make me think the only way out of the dire situation being created by our do-nothing president is to one day take matters into our own hands. Good job Linda, you and the chimp deserve each other.

darwin on May 31, 2007 at 12:12 PM

They are really desperate when they pull out the race card so soon. This actually gives me hope that it’ll go down in flames.

SouthernGent on May 31, 2007 at 12:37 PM

jummy on May 31, 2007 at 11:51 AM

Please, go drive down 99 Highway in California!!!

Half the Billboards are now in Spanish… from Bakerfield up to the Bay Area.

I’ve been to little Italy… and China Town… they cover pretty small areas of a city… what I’m seeing in California is HUNDREDS OF MILES!

And that before the 20-60 million we are about to legalize (Z1 holders, their kids, spouses, and parents, who can come into the country as Z2 and Z3 holders…)…

I’m not a racist, but I am a culturalist. I don’t want to see the things that made America a great country die because of an influx of TOO MANY PEOPLE from a clearly deficient culture (you know, the one where they are CURRENTLY having to use the Army to enforce Civil law?)…

Romeo13 on May 31, 2007 at 12:41 PM

El Presidente Bush quiere estar El Padre de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos en el ano 2050.

drjohn on May 31, 2007 at 1:06 PM

It’s shocking, SHOCKING, the condescention from this administration, and several republicans. I for one, have changed parties, to independent, and I suggest everyone do the same, unless you like getting called a nazi.

bmac on May 31, 2007 at 1:16 PM

Linda, the majority…the vast majority of people are honest and hard working. Do you lock your doors at night? Do you lock your car door when you go shopping and leave the car? Do you worry where your children are when they are not insight. Why?, because a few can cause havoc. Out of 20 million we only need a few to cause havoc, so let’s lock our national “door” before we go to sleep. We will all sleep better at night knowing that we have protected our families, not against the good people, but against the bad.
It is such a simple idea, secure our borders first, than address the problem inside America.

How is this for an analogy, herd all of the cattle into the barn that has all of the food, but no walls.
Instead lets build the barn with walls, put the food in the barn, and then we can regulate how many cattle we can assimilate and feed.

right2bright on May 31, 2007 at 1:20 PM

These guys are imploding, and its scary.
Chertoff needs to go.

Iblis on May 31, 2007 at 1:58 PM

you and Chavez are nearly as reprehensible in your dishonesty.

I’m honored to be put in such company, even if undeserved, thanks.

I stand by my comparison to Dred Scott, because that ruling put enforcement of immoral laws above basic human rights. I see no essential difference between how a freed slave would be treated in the North versus someone who has escaped extreme poverty that was caused by a corrupt government.

You may disagree, but how am I being dishonest?

pedestrian on May 31, 2007 at 1:49 AM

So according to your logic and arguement, enforces our borders is immoral? Just wanted to get a clarification here!

SSG Fuzzy on May 31, 2007 at 3:03 PM

So according to your logic and arguement, enforces enforcing our borders is immoral? Just wanted to get a clarification here!

Sorry, fixed it!

SSG Fuzzy on May 31, 2007 at 3:04 PM

Why can’t we have the same border policy as Mexico has with Guatemala and treat illegals exactly the same as does Mexico?

Hmmmm?

drjohn on May 31, 2007 at 3:21 PM

Sigh…times like this I have to conjure up the memory of him jiving with the Africans or waiving the baton at Jamestown.
He’s still my president.

We will not waver; we will not tire; we will not falter; and we will not fail. Peace and freedom will prevail.

Brat on May 31, 2007 at 3:25 PM

StephC on May 31, 2007 at 11:13 AM

Hmmm…my husband is hispanic also, maybe they are related?? :)

heatherrc77 on May 31, 2007 at 3:45 PM

Why can’t we have the same border policy as Mexico has with Guatemala and treat illegals exactly the same as does Mexico?

Hmmmm?

drjohn on May 31, 2007 at 3:21 PM

Because that would be tooo mean and they could be scarred for life…

heatherrc77 on May 31, 2007 at 3:47 PM

The proposed bill is bad law. Our country should not reward those that have broken the law in coming into our country and refusing to leave. They should be removed promptly.

We should be rewarding those individuals standing in line, waiting patiently that meet and exceed the established criteria to become immigrants to the US.

Chavez words are a red herring, trying to smear and slander indivduals opposed on good faith to this amnesty bill.

MarkB on May 31, 2007 at 4:02 PM

there are nazis in the border enforsement movement.

Communists, Traitors, and Islamic Terrorists support the Democratic Party.

What’s your point?

Lehosh on May 31, 2007 at 4:22 PM

BUSH never was a conservative…many of the enemy amongst us has been in the GOP for a long time now….did’nt take them long to figure out how to do it…and SURPRISE! Conservatives are called war-mongering Nazis for liberal agendas…….

DCJeff on May 31, 2007 at 4:34 PM

Some people just don’t like Mexicans — or anyone else from south of the border. They think Latinos are freeloaders and welfare cheats who are too lazy to learn English. They think Latinos have too many babies, and that Latino kids will dumb down our schools. 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.

I haven’t had time to read any of the comments, what I really want to say is…
Is she (Chavez) f…ing joking? Why do I feel like the Republican party, my party,(new I might add, I voted for Bush/Repubs for the first time in the last election) has thrown us under the bus and abandoned us??? I’m not going back to the dhimmicrats, but it’s distressing to see our leaders doing this to us. Rush summed it up pretty well.

4shoes on May 31, 2007 at 5:07 PM

Well Chertoff told us that anything short of the death penalty would be considered amnesty too.

Platitudes mouthed by a walking cadaver.

tree hugging sister on May 31, 2007 at 5:14 PM

Well Chertoff told us that anything short of the death penalty would be considered amnesty too.

I.’m. having. a. hard. time. writing. this..Chertoff. is. a. Bush bot. clone. There, got through it.

Eaaagh, Now I have a icky taste in my mouth and I just got the liberal copy cat heebi jeebis.

Speakup on May 31, 2007 at 5:27 PM

So according to your logic and argument, enforcing our borders is immoral? Just wanted to get a clarification here!

SSG Fuzzy on May 31, 2007 at 3:03 PM

As has been pointed out by others, much of Mexico is a filthy mess, and if I lived there the first I would do leave. If I had kids there it would be near unbearable to me to raise them there. So I have a lot of sympathy for everyone there who does just that. Considering how messed up US legal immigration is, it’s no wonder so many don’t bother and just cross the border.

It’s not the culture that causes the problem I don’t think, it’s the massive corruption that causes the poverty. If someone could show me that it was the culture that was bringing the poverty, perhaps I would assign more personal responsibility to those escaping. But seeing it is probably those in power who cause the poverty, I can’t in my conscience turn those people away. So I can’t say it is immoral to enforce our border, in my opinion it is wrong. I am fine with settling the matter through our elected representatives. I happen to think that the fact that they broke the law in coming here is excusable in view of the poverty. Others can disagree, and that is why we have a democracy.

What Chavez is pointing out is that some people are judging all illegal immigrants by the worst of them. That’s racism.

pedestrian on May 31, 2007 at 8:00 PM

Why should Mexicans get favorable status over an African who hails from far worse conditions? Isn’t it racist to focus only on the selfish desires of Mexicans when Black Africans have more dire conditions AND have to wait in line at the Visa counter, buy airline tickets and scrape around to make to the US?

naliaka on May 31, 2007 at 8:52 AM

We can’t fix every problem now, but that doesn’t mean we have to turn away every person who shows up at our border. I think the bill being proposed is a reasonable compromise to tighen the border, increase allowed immigration, and treat the people who are already here humanely. There are no doubt flaws in the bill, but they are being discussed here. Most of the comments here are wild exaggerations of how unconstitutional this is (it’s an adjustment to existing law), how Bush is a stupid evil genius, how the country will be destroyed by this. If I wanted that I’d be reading DU.

pedestrian on May 31, 2007 at 8:35 PM

there are nazis in the border enforsement movement.
Communists, Traitors, and Islamic Terrorists support the Democratic Party.

What’s your point?

Lehosh on May 31, 2007 at 4:22 PM

well, and nazis when it comes to the anti-war anti-”zionist” stuff. the thing is that i don’t think that’s a winning quality of the mainstream left; that they have a half-hidden symbiotic relationship with radical murdercrats.

i wasn’t even suggesting that the fact that neo-nazis and the like insinuate themselves into the border issue reflects meaningfully on the rest of the people concerned about it in and of itself. i do think it shouldn’t be glibly passed over. the mainstream of the border enforcement movement should be proactive in alienating them and crafting it’s rhetoric to alienate them from the discussion, that’s all.

when instead the reaction is “no, you’re racist” or “what racists?” or worst of all, “so you’re calling me a racist?”, the effect is to circle the wagons in such a way as to include the radicals.

that’s the way i see it and the way i see the left. for the duration of the cold war liberals would refuse to condemn communists and work with them openly. when called on it, their mantra was “there’s no such thing as ‘communists’. why are you calling me names?” this is the sort of bs i will always regard as an affirmation of affiliation and affinity, regardless of who’s doing it.

jummy on May 31, 2007 at 9:21 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3