About the pretty straightforward bunch – any rational plan should recognize that the people working here should be separated into two groups – those who want citizenship and those who just want work permits. In the case of Mexico and Canada, it’s probably not anywhere near a 50-50 split – with work permits seekers the bigger group of the two.

naliaka, I could agree with that in concept, but in practice, consider this. The moment our government determines a set of rules to accomplish such a separation into groups, the illegals’ frontmen will immediately go to work teaching them how to take advantage of the situation and be identified with the more favored group, even if it isn’t true. Remember, they are lawbreakers, for whatever reason, so there is no expectation that they will stop lying, cheating, and defrauding this nation to get what they want.

NO COMPROMISE FOR LAWBREAKERS.

No compromise, thankyouverymuch.

Border fence + improved entry prodecures + enhanced patrol techniques + ruin of fraudulent businesses + NO AMNESTY = the ONLY acceptable government response, in accordance with the Constitution.

Period.

Why would you want to deport people that haven’t committed any other crime than their illegal presence here? If someone is here illegally but hasn’t committed any crimes since, I don’t see the point in deporting them.

That’s easy Enrique. I can field this one.

Now Enrique, we’ve got two groups of people who would like to be immigrants, you can take one.

Group 1 violates the rules, cheats to get in, engages in fraud and will repeat their actions when caught.

Group 2 has been working at paperwork and jumping through hoops to follow the rules as they’re laid out for the past two years. Legally.

Not knowing the makeup of criminal percentages, or who is in which group, etc. … Which group do you want?

Do you support those who have no regard for the law and the process of beciming a citizen legally pushing their way in at the front of the legal immigration line?

Or do you think that people who don’t follow the rules, and aren’t willing to obey the laws involved in working here are perhaps slightly less desirable than those who have spent months or years working to follow the proper procedures to become citizens?

That’s the consideration and comparison that you’re not getting. If you see a kid cut into line at the candy store, do you buy him something; or tell him that cutting in line isn’t acceptable behavior? And since you likely don’t buy the kid stuff, why do you support adults who have cut into line just as clearly as that kid?

If they haven’t committed any crimes while they’ve been here, they aren’t a threat.

I’m sure to have any paperwork, they’ve engaged in fraud (Driver’s License, and Social Security) and likely forgery at a bare minimum in most cases. Or do you really believe that most of them haven’t used a fake social security card, DL, or other information while here?

Do you think they’ve paid State & Federal income taxes; or do you think that they aren’t liable for those taxes?

Or do those crimes “not count”? I’ve noticed that a lot of crimes that would get a citizen 3-5 years or more in prison just don’t count when an illegal has commited those crimes.

Keli on July 11, 2007 at 9:03 AM

This has become like an unstoppable friggin virus. How can there not be a national uproar about this? These are public schools funded by US taxpayers, why do we pander to the invader?

You know, folks, I was JOKING about the hating Mexicans thing. Hence the smiley.
Enrique on July 11, 2007 at 10:32 AM

Just thought you should have a head’s up. Some grumbling about on other threads – a few people have left and didn’t get it, so don’t be surprised if you get jumped on later.

About the pretty straightforward bunch – any rational plan should recognize that the people working here should be separated into two groups – those who want citizenship and those who just want work permits. In the case of Mexico and Canada, it’s probably not anywhere near a 50-50 split – with work permits seekers the bigger group of the two.

One thing that puzzles me. All these years of Leftists providing sanctuary dodges and so forth, legal assistance for illegals – why didn’t they spend that time walking these people through the legal processes – filling out the forms, etc.? You know, so all these families wouldn’t be split – legals kids, illegal parents? For a group that is heavily populated by activist lawyers, why didn’t they follow the law? Maybe they wanted this chaos to happen to force a particular direction and crisis? After all, it’s not their households torn asunder.

tadams1138 on July 11, 2007 at 1:28 AM

My girlfriend is from the Philippines….

But, it does beg the question – Why would you want to deport people that haven’t committed any other crime than their illegal presence here? If someone is here illegally but hasn’t committed any crimes since, I don’t see the point in deporting them. If they haven’t committed any crimes while they’ve been here, they aren’t a threat. Which is why we should give them amnesty, right after we’ve built that bigass fence.

Now if the cap on legals needs to be raised to accommodate the demand then so be it but let them earn citizenship so they value it.

Alden Pyle on July 11, 2007 at 7:39 AM

I saw a story about that on Fox yesterday. Its happening here in Texas too, mandatory Spanish classes for ALL students. Instead of them assimilating to the USA we have to assimilate to Mexico. Unbelievable

I guess on one hand they are learning two languages which is always a good skill to have. And learning it as a child is certainly the easiest time to do so. But…I still just can’t get over how speaking English only warrants a punishment. Can you imagine the hooplah if they said, “well, if you only speak Spanish, you’ll have to provide your own transportation, too bad.” Immigrants can’t be MADE to learn English generally, but now American kids DO have to learn Spanish or pay for their own transportation to school???

hollygolightly on July 10, 2007 at 11:23 PM

Class action suit anyone?
That’s your tax dollars and you have no say in the matter?
Our kids spent their formative years in the French system – not a US immersive, but the National French system. When you go to France, you get French curriculum. Non French speakers get the equivalent of ESL : FLE. Finished. German, Spanish, Arabic, Latin are all offered as electives.
To convert a US school to Spanish only is agenda-driven crap. Bilingual is harder than people think. The vocabulary one learns in school is not the same as one uses at home. That school is not doing any Hispanic kids any favors by promoting the maternal tongue when it isn’t being used outside. They will not be able to function in English – kids who speak a language still have to learn how to read and WRITE in it. It doesn’t come naturally, it has to be learned and practiced constantly for proficiency.
The only reason to argue Spanish only is to colonize, set up enclaves, not to assimulate.
Anyone want to set up, say a Youruba language school? After all there are 100 million Nigerians out there.

Hollygolightly and StephC;

http://www.wenworld.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070411/EDU/704110338/1001

At first I thought this was an article from The Onion,

Every day, the five English-only kindergartners are pulled out of class during Spanish-language instruction and taught in English by a part-time teacher hired especially for those students.

then I reread it and saw how this occurred.

Principal Alfonso Lopez asked the district to make dual-language mandatory for incoming students and phase out the English-only option, starting with the kindergarten class next year.

The school board also decided not to offer transportation for Lewis and Clark students who choose to attend an English-only school. According to district policy, students have to find their own ride if they choose not to attend their neighborhood school, said Superintendent Brian Flones.

…and the fox eventually cam to rule the hen house.

And maybe Jorge Boosh can try being sarcastically negative toward TEDDY KENNEDY next time, instead of a shy 14 year old girl.

He just proves more and more how tone deaf he really is.

Remember, thats why we were against the bill. First liar does not have a chance.

This online poll illustrates why real border security will never happen. If even an unrealistically optimistic trade-off between amnesty for those already here (and let’s face it, they’re not going anywhere) and perfect border security going forward can’t garner a majority, how the hell could any more realistic (read: messy) compromise pass?

Xrlq on July 11, 2007 at 12:11 AM

Yep, true enough.

Allahpundit on July 11, 2007 at 12:12 AM

I’m actually starting to wonder whose side you’re on, Allah. Does Michelle actually pay you to stir dissension in the ranks, or are you just funning us?

Fact is, that there’s not a dime’s worth of difference between “perfect” border security or poor border security if neither is enforced, now is there? And we’ve been down this road before. Our current border laws may not be perfect, but if they had been enforced all along instead of being ignored or circumvented there wouldn’t be 12 million plus illegal aliens in the country.

As for his response, review any video or audio since he assumed the office. Many of his initial responses to the press, to a variety of questions, was EXACTLY the same.

“yeah thanks”

“No, I appreciate that”

I recall his responses only because they seemed strange then, as they do now…which I have come to assume is just his way.

If you hold the physical security of the country higher than the non-physical principal of ignoring illegal activity then you should have voted yes.

And one of the 2 things that we learned from the ’84 amnesty is that the country will not fall apart because of amnesty alone.

I voted yes.