DNC chair: Republicans think illegal immigration should be illegal, or something

posted at 4:00 pm on May 29, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

This is what happens when political correctness distorts clear and descriptive language. Immigration reform activists have insisted on removing the phrase illegal immigration from the political lexicon, despite the fact that the term is both accurate and objective. Once that happens, it’s easy for the weak-minded to forget that we have a fairly generous legal immigration system that illegal immigrants bypassed and violated on their entry into this country. And by “the weak-minded,” I mean Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, as Doug Powers notes at the Boss Emeritus’ site:

I think the president was clearly articulating that his position — the Democrats position — is that we need comprehensive immigration reform. We have 12 million undocumented immigrants in this country that are part of the backbone of our economy. And that is not only a reality but a necessity. And that it would be harmful if — the Republican solution that I’ve seen in the last three years is that we should just pack them all up and ship them back to their own countries, and that in fact it should be a crime and we should arrest them all. I mean that was the legislation that Jim Sensenbrenner advanced a couple of years ago.

Oh noes! Republicans want to make a crime … a crime crime! Maybe Rep. Wasserman-Schultz should familiarize herself with the law before attempting to change it, and certainly before she attempts to demagogue Republicans on the issue of crime and punishment as well as immigration.

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 4

They want to close off the dream of America to those who sneak in the back door like a burgler, because they’ve already shown their disregard for American law.

unclesmrgol on May 30, 2011 at 3:27 PM

FTFY. Not that your little liberal mind will be able to understand the difference, though.

Uncle Sams Nephew on May 30, 2011 at 3:30 PM

It is fcks like you that caused the deaths of thousands of legal citizens at the hands of the poor “undocumented worker”. Blood on your hands…no debate.

No. I take individual responsibility for what I do or do not do — not for what others do or do not do. Isn’t that part and parcel of a conservative outlook on life — that each of us is responsible for our own actions, for good or for naught? As for the deaths of thousands of legal citizens — well, don’t legal citizens die at the hands of legal citizens as well? I am of Italian extraction — Sicilian to be exact — and am I responsible for the behavior of the Mafia even though my family had naught to do with them? No, I reject such thoughts utterly.

You are correct in the battle is over, but unlike many others here, I have fully accepted the end of the United States and know that my part will survive. Enjoy your 3rd world paradise! The disbanding of this union is long overdue.

ClassicCon on May 30, 2011 at 2:49 PM

I think you vastly underestimate the resiliency and strength of America. These people are not coming here to make little copies of their former land, any more than the Italian and Polish neighborhoods in my beloved Buffalo were designed to be bastions of Italy or Poland. The native-born children of these immigrants are attending our universities and are productive citizens of our land — just as we are productive citizens brought forth from our immigrant forebears. They are speaking English and are fitting in.

unclesmrgol on May 30, 2011 at 3:43 PM

FTFY. Not that your little liberal mind will be able to understand the difference, though.

Uncle Sams Nephew on May 30, 2011 at 3:30 PM

I see what you’ve written, Mr. Bushwacker.

unclesmrgol on May 30, 2011 at 3:44 PM

Honest Abe would have rightly branded you a triaitor [sic] and a fool, and sent the criminals back south of the border at gunpoint.

Uncle Sams Nephew on May 30, 2011 at 3:28 PM

Didn’t you read Abraham Lincoln’s 1855 letter to Joshua Speed? He’s obviously firmly on the side of unrestricted immigration as he rails against the Know Nothings, who wanted to restrict immigration to just those cultures whom they felt were acceptable.

Now, since you think I misinterpret Mr. Lincoln’s words, rather than calling me names like “Democrat” (which I most certainly am not), why don’t you prove to me the error of my ways by providing an interpretation of the Joshua Speed letter which shows to me the errors of which you accuse me?

unclesmrgol on May 30, 2011 at 4:10 PM

These people are not coming here to make little copies of their former land, any more than the Italian and Polish neighborhoods in my beloved Buffalo were designed to be bastions of Italy or Poland. The native-born children of these immigrants are attending our universities and are productive citizens of our land — just as we are productive citizens brought forth from our immigrant forebears. They are speaking English and are fitting in.

unclesmrgol on May 30, 2011 at 3:43 PM

Really? Been to East or South LA lately? How about around El Paso? Little copies of back water Mexico is exactly what is happening. Press 2 for Spanish……almost half of the “illegal” population won’t speak English. that should tell us a whole lot.

Johnnyreb on May 30, 2011 at 4:31 PM

HBowmanMD on May 30, 2011 at 2:08 PM

Dr. Bowman: I would suggest that EMTALA is part of the problem, as you point out and experience every day. People who can ought to pay; if they can’t, they ought to rely on charity. Mandates like EMTALA are immoral and destructive because they presume that some people have a right to your services without your consent.

AshleyTKing on May 30, 2011 at 4:37 PM

Debbie Wasserman-Schultz’s new nickname…

… Stinky.

Seven Percent Solution on May 30, 2011 at 4:43 PM

Seven Percent Solution on May 30, 2011 at 4:43 PM

Her ideas, her body, or both?

Uncle Sams Nephew on May 30, 2011 at 4:50 PM

These people are not coming here to make little copies of their former land…

unclesmrgol on May 30, 2011 at 3:43 PM

If that were true, I wouldn’t have to press 1 for English, libtard troll.

Uncle Sams Nephew on May 30, 2011 at 4:51 PM

Really? Been to East or South LA lately? How about around El Paso? Little copies of back water Mexico is exactly what is happening. Press 2 for Spanish……almost half of the “illegal” population won’t speak English. that should tell us a whole lot.

Johnnyreb on May 30, 2011 at 4:31 PM

Part of the reason you press two is because we have erected a wall to keep these people out, rather than building a melting pot to let them in. Hence they melt rather slowly. The other part is because a first generation never prefers English. That’s why there were Italian and Polish sections in my home town — and all the stores in those sections had non-English signs.

That you must make a choice is a sign of what’s in store 15 years from now as more and more Hispanic voters come online. If these people are not welcomed by the Republicans, then they will vote Democratic. It’s a fact of cultured life — you dance with the guy who brung you.

unclesmrgol on May 30, 2011 at 4:58 PM

I’m really not concerned about your son’s best friend — I’d rather be on the right side of Honest Abe. Thank you for the rating.

unclesmrgol on May 30, 2011 at 3:06 PM

You’re the man of a thousand fallacies.

CW on May 30, 2011 at 4:59 PM

A million a year isn’t enough ?

CW on May 30, 2011 at 5:04 PM

Part of the reason you press two is because we have erected a wall to keep these people out,

There is no ‘wall’. There is a handful of miles of fence and a badly outmanned patrol, who are in constant danger of running up against Mexican drug lords.

Uncle Sams Nephew on May 30, 2011 at 5:15 PM

It’s a fact of cultured life — you dance with the guy who brung you welfare checks funded by whitey’s tax money.

unclesmrgol on May 30, 2011 at 4:58 PM

FTFY.

Uncle Sams Nephew on May 30, 2011 at 5:16 PM

As a fellow Catholic, I would have expected that you might understand where the mean-ness of the anti-immigration crowd comes from — for several times in the past two hundred years it has been directed at us for our religion. I have mentioned and described the Know Nothings, and I have quoted the detestation of Abraham Lincoln for same.

You really are the king of the use of fallacies in arguments.
1)Most of us are pro-immigration of the legal type.
2)Nice job using Lincoln as you do .

I think one day you will master ALL dishonest debate tactics if you keep it up.

CW on May 30, 2011 at 5:22 PM

FTFY.

Uncle Sams Nephew on May 30, 2011 at 5:16 PM

Thank you for proving my assertion about the root motive for opposing free immigration.

There is no ‘wall’. There is a handful of miles of fence and a badly outmanned patrol, who are in constant danger of running up against Mexican drug lords.

Uncle Sams Nephew on May 30, 2011 at 5:15 PM

Wrong wall. It’s the wall put up by the law which relegates these people to an underground economy.

unclesmrgol on May 30, 2011 at 5:25 PM

Actually, Ashley, the problem is the illegal aliens in the United States (specifically in California, in my case).

If they were not in the United States, the problem wouldn’t exist. Repealing EMTALA would only address the funding issue: It wouldn’t address the overloading of the system.

And btw: The patients include quite ill people, people who are unable to afford (or receive) treatment in their own countries…who come here and use resources that US Taxpayers pay for, that US citizens expect to use.

While the majority of illegal aliens in So Cal are from Mexico, other countries are well represented. I understand why most of them come to the United States – for the opportunities that they lack in their own countries. Fair enough, the ones that come to the US and work are indeed the best and brightest…the ones that come to the US and don’t are the worst of the lot.

But why do the best and brightest come to the US? Mexico is a nation of considerable wealth, and wealth potential. Oil, minerals, agriculture, manufacturing in a country with a strong work ethic, they could become an economic powerhouse. Why don’t they?

Could it be that corruption and class warfare are the root cause of the Mexican invasion of the US (and, btw, Canada)? Why should the citizens of the US have to pay for the extreme dysfunctionality of Mexico? The US government and individual citizens (through investments and purchases) have sent trillions of dollars to Mexico: To what good end?

The government of Mexico is absolutely not interested in changing the status quo ante. The best and brightest that come to the US would be troublemakers for the power base in Mexico. Further the $20-billion or so in remittances that travel from the US to Mexico are a bigger part of the economy than tourism. Like the drug war, the government wants to keep the money coming.

No doubt you are young, naive, and poorly educated (particularly in economics), but that is no reason to remain ignorant and stupid. Learn to help the illegal aliens by forcing their own countries to become something other than the third world cesspools they are. I know whereof I speak: Twice a year I go on medical assistance trips to South America, treat the people who need it and help teach local physicians and medical personnel.

HBowmanMD on May 30, 2011 at 5:26 PM

The DNC head says immigration scofflaws are are the ‘backbone of the economy’. Given 14 million unemployed Americans and given our massive social service budget issues, 6-8 million illegal foreign workers are NOT the backbone of our economy.

Democrats seem to care more about keeping illegal Mexican aliens in America than keeping American citizens in jobs.

kd6rxl on May 30, 2011 at 5:48 PM

Here’s how to explain it to the more dim-witted Democrats. Immigration is like camping in Yosemite. There is a legal way to do it and an illegal way to do it.
Since the government limits the number of legal campers based on what’s good for the park , not on how many want to camp, which is a far greater number, it can be as difficult to score a legal spot as an immigration visa. Tough. There is no anguished debate over evicting illegal campers because, say, they’re too poor to afford a Disneyland vacation and could only go camping. We don’t want Yosemite getting overrun, trampled, and trashed like Woodstock. Immigration should be managed the same way.

kd6rxl on May 30, 2011 at 5:58 PM

Since the government limits the number of legal campers based on what’s good for the park , not on how many want to camp

kd6rxl on May 30, 2011 at 5:58 PM

Dim-witted collectivist.

AshleyTKing on May 30, 2011 at 6:24 PM

No doubt you are young, naive, and poorly educated (particularly in economics), but that is no reason to remain ignorant and stupid. Learn to help the illegal aliens by forcing their own countries to become something other than the third world cesspools they are. I know whereof I speak: Twice a year I go on medical assistance trips to South America, treat the people who need it and help teach local physicians and medical personnel.

HBowmanMD on May 30, 2011 at 5:26 PM

I am aware of the Mexican situation: for the most part, a one-party state with massive public ownership of oil resources. They need capitalism, that is clear. As long as there is a huge wage discrepancy, people will try to cross that border.

AshleyTKing on May 30, 2011 at 6:31 PM

Morons arguing with Idiots. What could be more entertaining.

Observation on May 30, 2011 at 6:51 PM

You really are the king of the use of fallacies in arguments.
1)Most of us are pro-immigration of the legal type.

Have you ever wondered why some immigration is illegal? I am also pro-immigration of the legal type. I also am for changing the laws to permit even more immigration of the legal type.

2)Nice job using Lincoln as you do .

He wrote the words himself. They are there for anyone who cares to read them.

I think one day you will master ALL dishonest debate tactics if you keep it up.

CW on May 30, 2011 at 5:22 PM

What is dishonest about Abe?

unclesmrgol on May 30, 2011 at 7:07 PM

No, Ashley: What Mexico (and most third world cesspools) need is the rule of law. Only with laws fairly applied to all can concepts like democracy, capitalism and freedom take root and prosper.

HBowmanMD on May 30, 2011 at 10:25 PM

Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned.

The recognition of individual rights entails the banishment of physical force from human relationships: basically, rights can be violated only by means of force. In a capitalist society, no man or group may initiate the use of physical force against others. The only function of the government, in such a society, is the task of protecting man’s rights, i.e., the task of protecting him from physical force; the government acts as the agent of man’s right of self-defense, and may use force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use; thus the government is the means of placing the retaliatory use of force under objective control.

If you’ve got capitalism, you’ve got the rule of law. That is what is often missing in Latin America.

AshleyTKing on May 30, 2011 at 10:54 PM

“Unrestricted Immigration”

LOL! No problem…
A few million Chinese…A few million Indians…

Yeah! At least I prefer Indian food. Mexican food sucks!

shorebird on May 31, 2011 at 12:40 AM

The rank and file Dhimmis want to grant citizenship to foreign invaders in the hope that they will be rewarded on election day. They want another captive sub-group who can be relied upon to pull the D lever every election day regardless of how noxious the candidates and their policies are.

The die-hard Marxists that are currently pretending to be Democrats want to keep illegals here so they can designate them as yet another “victim” group. They want another group they can claim to be the champions for and in whose name they will continue their multi-generational effort to destroy our nation from within.

leereyno on May 31, 2011 at 3:34 AM

Hmmmm,

I’m only going to guess that a bank robbery could be referred to as an ‘undocumented withdrawal’.

joelj31 on May 31, 2011 at 3:51 AM

I think we should pass a law making illegal stuff illegal.

hawksruleva on May 31, 2011 at 10:20 AM

leereyno on May 31, 2011 at 3:34 AM

Then by all means evict them if that is your wish. Good luck trying — the structure of our free society as well as the numbers of illegals present work against you.

You might have a chance if we had a national identity card. Care to go there?

unclesmrgol on May 31, 2011 at 10:50 AM

She has ever been a dolt. Is speaks much more about the party that they placed her in a position of any note whatsoever. Or maybe they thought it was a position of no significance. After all, they let Howard Dean have the spot.

Freelancer on May 31, 2011 at 11:46 AM

Then by all means evict them if that is your wish. Good luck trying — the structure of our welfare state as well as the numbers of illegals present, and the tools like me who defend them work against you.

unclesmrgol on May 31, 2011 at 10:50 AM

FTFY.

Uncle Sams Nephew on May 31, 2011 at 1:10 PM

Is it possible that this woman is really that stupid?

Big John on May 31, 2011 at 1:16 PM

Ashley, are you really that stupid? (and no, thats not rhetorical….)

In order to have capitalism, you must FIRST have the rule of law…..otherwise, why would anyone with money invest it in a Mexico, Venezuela, China….where government edict could strip it away in a heartbeat?

HBowmanMD on May 31, 2011 at 3:15 PM

Ashely, is your real name Debbie Wasserman-Schultz?

I suggest you find someone to read you “Economics in One Lesson” by Henry Hazlitt…..soon.

HBowmanMD on May 31, 2011 at 3:18 PM

Doctor, I hope your bedside manner is better than your blogside. I suggest you not be so presumptuous. Henry Hazlitt was one of my first favorite economics authors three decades ago.

As far as Latin America, since economic and political systems are inseparably linked (hence the original term for economics as political economy) it is pretty clear that they the region is generally weak in both the rule of law and capitalism.

AshleyTKing on May 31, 2011 at 4:21 PM

FTFY. Not that your little liberal mind will be able to understand the difference, though.

Uncle Sams Nephew on May 30, 2011 at 3:30 PM

Now, I disagree with unclesmrgol on the issue of illegal immigration, but if you regularly read his comments on this site, he can hardly be accused of being a liberal.

Monkeytoe on May 31, 2011 at 4:30 PM

My questions is then when does no mean no ? the change from Illegal alien to undocumented worker is just as DUMB as renaming a rapist as an un-requested lover, a drug dealer as an un-licensed pharmacist, bank robber an unregisterd account holder withdrawal.
If this is what the dems are going to run with , I say let them. And we will draw more attention to this nonsense.

ColdWarrior57 on May 31, 2011 at 4:43 PM

Wrong wall. It’s the wall put up by the law which relegates these people to an underground economy.

unclesmrgol on May 30, 2011 at 5:25 PM

Should america be allowed to have any immigration laws? Should it be able to enforce them?

If the U.S. is allowed to have immigration laws, then your position makes no sense b/c all legalizing millions of illegals would do is encourage more and greater illegal immigration.

I have no problem with increasing legal immigration if america truly needs the labor. With 9% unemployment, it seems unlikely that america currently truly needs the unskilled labor.

If the U.S. is not allowed to have immigration laws, I simply don’t understand that thinking. The U.S. has no moral or legal duty to provide opportunity to citizens of other countries. It is not the U.S.’s fault that south american countries chose socialism and are as corrupt and backward as they are. For instance, Mexico is about the same age as America and actually has more natural resources. By all rights, Mexico should be as prosperous or more so than the U.S.

On a human level I feel bad for those illegal immigrants who are decent, hardworking people simply seeking a better life. However, we as a nation have no obligation to provide that better life to those people – regardless of whether they have lived here illegally for 2 weeks or 20 years.

Historically America could absorb immigrants like crazy b/c a) we did not have the entitlements we have now (education, hospitals, welfare, etc) so such immigrants did not really impose much cost on gov’ts; b) the idea of “multiculturalism” had not been invented and new immigrants worked hard to assimilate; and c) we were growing as a nation and there was space and work for immigrants.

But claiming that b/c we allowed such unfettered immigration in the past we must do so now is silly. Times, needs, and the nation’s ability to absorb immigrants changes.

Finally, any argument that the GOP should back amnesty b/c it will get us hispanic votes is just not credible. These 20 million unskilled laborers come from socialist nations. They are going to vote dem and hard left liberal. Maybe 3rd or 4th generation down the road we will see some turning to the GOP, but even that is doubtful – and by then teh damage will be done. Look, Reagan passed an amnesty – how have hispanics voted since then? Those inclined to vote republican are going to vote republican regardless of amnesty. We are not going to win any hispanic votes simply b/c we back amnesty. that is simply not credible in the least.

Perhaps if this whole debate had not happened 30 years ago, with an amnesty and promises of actual enforcement, we could have some kind of compromise regarding those illegals already here. But, nobody is going to fall for that again. We are not going to agree to an amnesty and later enforcement b/c we know it will never happen. Give us serious enforcement for 5-10 years and then we will address amnesty for those who remain “in the shadows”.

Monkeytoe on May 31, 2011 at 4:45 PM

Just change Debbie’s official title to DNC Hair.

It’s that bad.

Roy Rogers on May 31, 2011 at 4:49 PM

I have no problem with increasing legal immigration if america truly needs the labor. With 9% unemployment, it seems unlikely that america currently truly needs the unskilled labor.

This is the key to a solution.

If the U.S. is not allowed to have immigration laws, I simply don’t understand that thinking. The U.S. has no moral or legal duty to provide opportunity to citizens of other countries. It is not the U.S.’s fault that south american countries chose socialism and are as corrupt and backward as they are. For instance, Mexico is about the same age as America and actually has more natural resources. By all rights, Mexico should be as prosperous or more so than the U.S.

We can have laws. There is no duty to provide jobs. There is just a lot of work to be done and immigrants are willing to offer their services. As long as we are semi-capitalist and their countries are not then the force of human nature will be unstoppable.

On a human level I feel bad for those illegal immigrants who are decent, hardworking people simply seeking a better life. However, we as a nation have no obligation to provide that better life to those people – regardless of whether they have lived here illegally for 2 weeks or 20 years.

Historically America could absorb immigrants like crazy b/c a) we did not have the entitlements we have now (education, hospitals, welfare, etc) so such immigrants did not really impose much cost on gov’ts; b) the idea of “multiculturalism” had not been invented and new immigrants worked hard to assimilate; and c) we were growing as a nation and there was space and work for immigrants.

But claiming that b/c we allowed such unfettered immigration in the past we must do so now is silly. Times, needs, and the nation’s ability to absorb immigrants changes.

Finally, any argument that the GOP should back amnesty b/c it will get us hispanic votes is just not credible. These 20 million unskilled laborers come from socialist nations. They are going to vote dem and hard left liberal. Maybe 3rd or 4th generation down the road we will see some turning to the GOP, but even that is doubtful – and by then teh damage will be done. Look, Reagan passed an amnesty – how have hispanics voted since then? Those inclined to vote republican are going to vote republican regardless of amnesty. We are not going to win any hispanic votes simply b/c we back amnesty. that is simply not credible in the least.

Perhaps if this whole debate had not happened 30 years ago, with an amnesty and promises of actual enforcement, we could have some kind of compromise regarding those illegals already here. But, nobody is going to fall for that again. We are not going to agree to an amnesty and later enforcement b/c we know it will never happen. Give us serious enforcement for 5-10 years and then we will address amnesty for those who remain “in the shadows”.

Monkeytoe on May 31, 2011 at 4:45 PM

AshleyTKing on May 31, 2011 at 6:00 PM

On a human level I feel bad for those illegal immigrants who are decent, hardworking people simply seeking a better life. However, we as a nation have no obligation to provide that better life to those people – regardless of whether they have lived here illegally for 2 weeks or 20 years.

Again, there is no obligation except to have a policy more consistent with having the Statue of Liberty in New York. 10,000 unskilled work visas ain’t working.

Historically America could absorb immigrants like crazy b/c a) we did not have the entitlements we have now (education, hospitals, welfare, etc) so such immigrants did not really impose much cost on gov’ts; b) the idea of “multiculturalism” had not been invented and new immigrants worked hard to assimilate; and c) we were growing as a nation and there was space and work for immigrants.

Welfare is a problem: end it. Multiculturalism is a problem, especially in public schools. There is still space and there is always work to be done: see my yard.

But claiming that b/c we allowed such unfettered immigration in the past we must do so now is silly. Times, needs, and the nation’s ability to absorb immigrants changes.

Because of the islamists, the drug cartels and lawlessness at the border, and because the welfare state (EMTALA above – signed into law by Ronald Reagan, no less) I would be hesitant too. I see unfettered as a longer term goal.

Finally, any argument that the GOP should back amnesty b/c it will get us hispanic votes is just not credible. These 20 million unskilled laborers come from socialist nations. They are going to vote dem and hard left liberal. Maybe 3rd or 4th generation down the road we will see some turning to the GOP, but even that is doubtful – and by then teh damage will be done. Look, Reagan passed an amnesty – how have hispanics voted since then? Those inclined to vote republican are going to vote republican regardless of amnesty. We are not going to win any hispanic votes simply b/c we back amnesty. that is simply not credible in the least.

The whole political calculation. Amnesty is not the answer but redcardsolution.com might be.

Perhaps if this whole debate had not happened 30 years ago, with an amnesty and promises of actual enforcement, we could have some kind of compromise regarding those illegals already here. But, nobody is going to fall for that again. We are not going to agree to an amnesty and later enforcement b/c we know it will never happen. Give us serious enforcement for 5-10 years and then we will address amnesty for those who remain “in the shadows”.

Monkeytoe on May 31, 2011 at 4:45 PM

I think the power of the “liberal” side is in their concern (at least for some) of the problem of having so many people in the shadows as you say. I think you have that concern, as you expressed above.

AshleyTKing on May 31, 2011 at 6:11 PM

Again, there is no obligation except to have a policy more consistent with having the Statue of Liberty in New York. 10,000 unskilled work visas ain’t working.

A) the statute of liberty does not require us to do anything. That’s just silly.

b) I’m not sure 10,000 is correct. Regardless, agitate for congress to increase the #. that is your solution to that issue – not amnesty. Unfettered immigration is so unserious a position as to not be worth time discussing.

Your comment that there is always work to be done is also just as silly. Is that “jobs americans wont’ do”? Please.

However, I’ll agree with you on one thing – if we completely end welfare and entitlements and don’t require hospitals gto treat people who can’t pay, then fine let everyone come to america and work for $10 a week. Until that happens, forget it.

there is not always space and always work. We are not the same nation we were in 1800. To pretend otherwise is foolish and you lack any credibility for your argument.

Your claim that liberals have power in their argument b/c “people live in shadows” is belied by teh fact that large majorities are against amnesty and for strong border enforcement. so, i guess the real power is in the conservatives’ argument that america owes illegal immigrants nothing, we should not pass amnesty and we should enforce the border. The people who “live in the shadows” chose that life. They knew what they were in for when they came to america illegally.

Why people think tehre should be no borders or standards in immigration in america is diffiuclt to understand.

Regardless, once you get away from some moral claim that we somehow owe illegals something, there is no rational argument left. There is no economic argument (yes, some wages would have to go up to get people to work teh jobs and/or agriculture would have to become more mechanized – both entirely possible outcomes). America does not need the labor force – 9% unemployment belies that claim. So what possible reason does america have to want this immigration?

yes, there will always be illegal immigration, but we can certainly reduce it significantly. the millions of illegals here cost us more than then benefit us, adn legalizing them would just increase costs as they would become even more eligible for entitlement programs and benefits. What possible reason is there for America to incur even more costs for those here illegally?

Perhaps if these millions of people agitated for change in their own country (Mostly Mexico), they wouldn’t need to come here.

Monkeytoe on May 31, 2011 at 6:58 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4