I still don't understand why the powerful should be excused from the consequences of their own actions. Especially when they, of all people, seem to think the others should be properly punished. Are we to assume that US citizens are such children that they will be unable to withstand the sight of the powerful being led off to prison? And if there is any legitimacy to the idea of 'deterrance' would this not be an appropriate use? Perhaps then various administrations would hesitate before routinely lieing to citizens.

I think in order to understand my post one either needs to have lived during that time or have read a great deal about the country and poltical climate at the time the pardon was granted. Keep in mind that the whole world was also watching and many foreign governments were wondering if we could get our national government moving in a forward direction again. There were international issues that needed a fully engaged President and Congress without the drip by never-ending drip of Watergate for many more years.

There is no place a jury could have been assembled for a fair trial of Richard Nixon. His health was of grave concern at that time and of course we know he nearly died in the fall of 1974.

There are times when the national good trumps our own small needs for revenge. Ford made the right call by granting the pardon to Richard Nixon. History has shown that to be the case.

I lived thru that time. Did you? I even voted for Nixon. But when he used his high office for unconstitutional and criminal activities he exhausted our forebearance.

I'm glad I wasn't quite old enough to have to make the choice between Nixon and the awful alternatives offered by the Democrats.

BTW, that list of presidential blunders mentioned in the article is interesting. You can see it on the Houston Chronicle site.

Guess who didn't make the top 10 blunders.

Dave

Yes I did live through that time. And I am a liberal Democrat too! But first and foremost I am an American who understands that my country comes before politics.

As for Dave's comment, as with any such review the current President is always excluded. One can only measure the full impact of a President after the term(s) are completed. Historians will not treat Bush kindly as there is no way to spin a failure.

But should we wager on the future lists of this kind in regards to Bush/Iraq or questions of civil liberties. Seems that Clinton was #10 for a bj (which killed no one and was a private affair except for those GOPer's who love to lurk in the dark) so if we add Bush and Iraq and still have only the top ten Clinton might not even make the next list!

A keen observation. I lived thru those times. Very true, Ford seemed to understand the need to not hack the country apart anymore by elongating the Nixon crisis.

Shoot, then we have Betty Ford. Those Fords had something going on as far as attitude goes. Give Gerry a thumbs up. I always thought he served the country well

I like the Fords. I remember the Watergate days very clearly and have studied them at length in the years since. But I disagree with the pardon to this day, and not because of politics (and I certainly don't believe in vengeance). Very simply, he deserved to be punished for his egregiously high crimes. He suffered a tarnished reputation (in large part washed away by revisionists when he died). He lost his job. But he didn't do time like Liddy and Colson and the others, and that is exceedingly unfair. Think about the message that sent: In many respects, the president IS above the law. Not cool. He should have received an extended view of the inside of a jail. Frankly, I suspect your country would be a somewhat better place if he had. Think about the massive distrust of the government (and for many it started during the '70s). Think about all those pols - and particularly the White House squatter and his sneering friend - who believe they are above the law.

Ford meant well; I'll give him that. But he was very, very wrong.

Distrust of the government is a GOOD thing, ND.

Dave

"the national toll that would have resulted would have been too severe a price to pay"

which would have been what? we've been through worse and the country is fractured right now, so I don't know why you think the country couldn't have handled it.

Yes, Mr. Nalle, I know. But how is giving the perception that Nixon ultimately was above the law good?

Natalie,
Well, I look at it this way. Nixon shrivelled up and died. He looked like hell in is final years.
Karma is the law. In time, the truth stands, all else falls to the wayside.

much love,
DM

Roger,
In reference to the country not being able to handle it, I am thinking on terms of a big waste of money, time and energy.

Ford's pardon was more of a "you're pardoned, go die now" type thing...

the country is fractured, but why blow it to pieces? Fractures can be repaired, big fractures become a total....All the Nixon conspirators went to golf prison anyway....They didn't go to San Quinton for terminal anal sex. What good is that? Nixon wallowing in his waste is good enuf and saves alot of money and time. A case of 'moving forward' as the catch phrase goes...

The greatest Blunder by an American President in History is without a doubt Ronald Reagans 1986 Amnesty of 3 Million Illegals and their ability to sponsor every friggin' relative they have to come here also.Being mostly from Mexico, this opened the Doors to this foreign Invasion that continues to this day, and that the United States will Never recover from.What a Legacy Ronnie, Allowing the Country that you were suppose to defend, turn into a Third World Cesspool and destroy future quality of Life for generations upon generations of Real Americans.
And now we have Bush and his corporate cronies encouraging this onslaught even further.Where's Dwight Eisenhower when you need him?

Mike, you are a racist. The national economy will roll over and die without those you refer to as a cesspool doing the grunt work that you and your kind are too lazy or too good to do. You are one twisted puppy.

Allen, I reject the contention the US economy would roll over and die without the illegal immigrant workforce.

US companies are getting hammered for outsourcing. That suggests to me that if companies want certain jobs done cheaper they find ways. If we eradicated illegal immigrants from the workforce overnight it might cause a brief scramble but companies would find a way to adjust.

Securing the borders is not a racist agenda. There might be some racists who have embraced the idea but an idea is not responsible for the nutjobs it attracts.

I thought the article was good, and in the fullness of time, I hate to agree that it was better that Nixon was pardoned, as much as I would have liked to see him in jail at the time. Unfortunately, the respect for government that Ford bought by sacrificing his political future was blown away Ronald Reagan in Iran-contra, and now by George W. Bush purpiosely invading the wrong country and cavalierly sacrificng the lives of thousands of soldiers.

I also have to agree that at least during the Clinton years, all those folks wandering up north from Central America were willing to do the crap work that the natives felt beneath them. I can't speak for the last five years or so...

And if the Iranians ever do get thir euro-bourse off the ground, then your economy will start its slide downhill.

DJ,

The agri-economy would roll up and die and the crops would rot on the vines if not for those who come to our country in search of a better life. The work ethic of those from other countries put most of us to shame! There are not enough anglo-saxons that would even consider the back breaking work require dto harvest the foods that we consume. I totally reject the idea that racism is not at the core of the zealousness over the issue of these workers in our country today. If those who came here were white and blonds with big tits all those angry white men that are now ranting would instead be dancing for joy.

Angry white men will just have to suck it up and get over it. Even the leaders in the GOP understand the issue The Americn economy cannot be dictated to be those who really are just racist.

The Anglo-Saxon bashing is incorrect and ignorant. Despite current trends in revisionist history, one or two Anglo-Saxon Caucasian people rolled up their sleeves and contributed something positive to society. I know, not a popular world view but alarming and true.

I don't suggest we should stop allowing people to look for a better life. It is easy to point to agribusiness and say it would die on the vine were it not for illegal immigrants. Maybe you're right. I think not, but maybe you are. Illegal immigrants have made contributions. I can accept and admit that. They have also caused problems and strains on the system. Do the two balance themselves out? I don't think so. And I don't think that allowing MORE illegal immigration is the answer, either.

Plenty of non-Anglo dominated nations patrol their border and insist on a controlled system of immigration. Why is it racist when Americans want the same?

DJ

There is nothing wrong with wanting firmly controlled immigration and a patrolled border. But America has this huge calling card in New York Harbor called the Statue of Liberty.

Knock down Lady Liberty and you will have sent a message around the world that the doors are pretty much closed and you mean it.

DJ,

Perhaps I can frame the disgruntled view concerning immigrants in another way. Look at the data collected from a variety of independent sources, (be they polls conducted by universities or news organizations) and find where the anger comes from. White men between the ages of 25-50 in certain socio-economic groupings are the ones itching for a fight on this one.

Now I grant you that this is a political fight that is going to be front and center in the 2008 Presidential election. And it will be nasty since hate will be the main force propelling this issue in the Republican campaign. But I think with a get-out-the-vote effort among those with brown skin and calloused hands the opposition to racism can prevail.

The bottom line is that there would be no "market" for the immigrants if the jobs were not already there. When I was a kid over 30 years ago, the immigrants came every summer to live for several months while the work was done on Christmas tree farms in our communities. They then went to the southern regions for other work and would return the following summer. That work has always been a part of the agriculture community and the fact that it has never been able to be completed by American citizens is just a fact of life. Consider who built the railroads as just one example.

I still do not know what the problem is with immigrants other than in the minds of some that they have a different color to their skin and speak a different language.

My partner is a university professor in both French and Spanish, having a doctorate in language. There are plenty of studies to show that a great divide seems to develop among some Americans when they can't understand a separate language and so strike out with all sorts of fear and racist reactions. These same people advocating a wall to keep out immigrants are the same people who mindlessly seem to think a one-language policy is an appropriate way to keep their power in society.

People with any common sense, let alone an education, understand the economic fears that drive many Anglo-Saxons to the point where they feel lashing out is the only response they have left to them. It is truly a sad thing to witness.

Allemdrury,

It would be helpful if kids had to learn a foreign language at age 6 or 7 in states like Minnesota and Wisconsin. And a good foregn language would be Spanish. Another could be Chinese.

I'm not talking about 'multi-culturalism," I'm talking about teafching a foreign language so that the kids in the mid-west would not get the idea that English is the be-all and end-all of speech, and that those who did not speak it were mere animals.

Ruvy,

AMEN!! We think we are such a great country and yet we harldy can speak English here. A couple weeks ago we had a friend from Denmark here for the weekend and again understood how limited we are in America from truly being a part of the world community. While European countries, along with many others, are able to converse in several languages some in the USA think they can have an Englsih only policy. It is bizzare! It also strikes me as being very anti-intellectual.

I don't know if you are purposely ignoring the word ILLEGAL but it is worth repeating. There is a world of difference between opposing immigration and illegal immigration.

White people (men, specifically to your point) who think Swiss-cheese borders are a bad idea are not inherently racist or hate filled nor are they automatically Republican. For example, on a related although not identical issue, Democratic Sen. Hillary Clinton is leading a fight to stop a UAE company from running American ports. I grant this is not an identical situation. I think though it might give just the slightest hint that even some members of the Democratic Party think illegal immigration or unconditional immigration is not in the best interest of the United States.

And the idea that the only reason immigrants come to this country is to do the dirty work of the white folks ignores the reality that plenty of people here illegally are participating in other illegal activities.

If a person is interested in the opportunity for a better life in America is it so unreasonable to ask them to follow the rules beginning with entering the country legally? It is not racist to ask people of all nationalities and color and creed to follow the rules and obey the law.

As to Ruvy's comments, some good points there. I don't have a problem with English only policies but I wholeheartedly agree it is shortsided not be emphasizing foreign language education more than we do.

DJ,

The studies I mentioned in a previous post are echoed by your comment about not being opposed to English only policies. Over and over again one can see where nativists are trying to fan animosity toward immigrants and build support for tighter quotas. Our campus here at UW-Madison has about 40,000 students, many of them from other regions of the world. I can assure you our community is richer/safer in all ways with this influx of minds, views, cultures, tongues,and foods. Our entire city is very diverse too and is home to many Hmong and other groups that add texture and spirit to our lives. Hispanics and Latinos are here in large numbers and are also a part of the rich tapestry of our city. I know that there are ways that the UW insures those who want to study can do so without feeling like they are bing spied on.

Many of these people, (other than the student community) are not "legal" but are nonetheless contributing to our/their America. What is tour beef with that? You and I both know that you have no desire to have the number of Hispanics here in our country that currently reside here. You have no desire to see your "culture" change but we both know the demographics are not on your side. And so instead of living as friends and neighbors many lash out and get all tight-assed and start crying "build that wall"

Only nuts like Pat Buchanan and a few wing-nuts from the outer fringres of the GOP think that will ever happen.

OK, pal, now you have made this personal by making assumptions and accusations and I don't fuckin' appreciate it.

You can assure me your community is safer because you have all manner of people from all over the world? That's like saying you can assure me it will be 78 degrees outside because you ate Strawberry toaster strudel last week. Legal immigration does not lead to or equal security. The link between border security and national security seems pretty obvious.

I have no desire to have illegal immigrants in this country because (wait for it) it is illegal for them to be here. I don't care if they allegedly do jobs no one else supposedly wants to do. That end does not justify those means. If they want to work here and live here they can and should enter according to the rules here. People will climb all over US corporations for outsourcing jobs but don't object to illegal immigrants coming here to work the jobs. The tax burden for paying for government services for illegal immigrants is crippling many states. Why in the world should legal residents and US citizens' taxes continually be raised to pay to provide services to people who entered the country illegally? What is so wrong with asking people to enter the country legally if they want to move here? Why is it so hard to believe that a country might be more secure if it has a few rules on how people enter or leave it and if they follow those rules up with a little enforcement? That's not exactly an American or Anglo-Saxon idea. Other countries do it, too.

Texture and spirit to our lives? Because they are not from America and not Anglo-Saxon they somehow contribute more or matter more or enrich our lives more? I reject that notion. All people have value and the potential to teach us or inspire us and it has nothing to do with the condition of their birth or their culture. You don't have to be brown or Hmong to add texture or spirit. I won't let someone devalue me or diminish my ability to contribute to my community because I happen to be some run-of-the-mill WASP. I also won't let someone insinuate I am racist or intolerant because I think that people who want to emigrate to this country should do it according to the law because we can get this wonderful texture and spirit added to our lives by having them enter the country legally and attending our universities and colleges and working beside us. It's not like we have to have illegal immigration to achieve diversity.

DJ,

Well the facts are that Madison is rated very high as a place to live (even Number 1 in the recent past) using all sorts of criteria and safety is just one of them.

You seme to neglect to add that those people who come here also CONTRIBUTE MUCH to the economy and are not here for only taking from the poor little taxpayer. You seem to want readers here to feel that Hispanics and others are just users of the system and somehow are involved with crime in a higher percentage than others. That is so wrong, and so misguided it almost is laughable..except that you seme to think it true.

Again I think this all has to do with fear of an ever changing economy, media showing diversity, and anglo-saxons not being able to adapt so they sputter and lash out.

"Only nuts like Pat Buchanan and a few wing-nuts from the outer fringres of the GOP think that will ever happen."

And more moderates than you would think. Oh wait, you're at UW-Madison? That explains it. I suggest you get out of town every now and then to air out your brain, if it's not too late

I never assigned any percentages. That's the crux of this, Allen. I don't think people are more fantastic or more shit because of their background or culture. You're either good people or you're a dick based on the content of your own individual character.

You're right. There are illegal immigrants working and contributing. It's true. And the counter is true, there are illegal immigrants involved in criminal enterprise. What's the percentage? I don't know. It doesn't matter. Neither of them should be here because they entered illegally. Same thing with government services. Sure, some wage earners and therefore tax-revenue contributors are illegal immigrants. They are paying into the system. Some aren't. I don't care what the ratio is. Tax dollars should not be paying for government services for people who entered illegally. It is not just a dollars and cents issue but one of fundamental fairness.

Again, there you go making assumptions about me and reading things into my view. You are treating me like "one of those Anglos" you hold in such contempt rather than dealing with me as an individual. I never assigned a percentage or a most to this discussion. You, on the other hand, have disparaged Anglos as a group and made sweeping declarations of the virtues of other cultures and their work ethic at the expense of Anglos. Nice tolerance and appreciation for diversity there. Apparently if you are Anglo you aren't capable of adding texture or spirit. You are only capable of racism or oppression. What a load of bollocks.

Madison may in fact be safe. I don't dispute you. The idea that diversity is the reason for it is unprovable. You can assert it all you want but just because you say it's so doesn't make it so. The reason Madison might be a safe place to live is probably the result of a vast number of factors.

The economy is changing whether or not illegal immigration is allowed. The act of a country securing its own borders and regulating immigration is not racist and every person who supports the idea is not some sheet-wearing, Bubba whitey who is afraid of losing his job to someone from another country willing to work for less. Does it matter that stereotype isn't true? It should.

I think that we have all had a fair share of give and take on this issue today. That is good and healthy.

I think DJ presented his ideas in a well-reasoned manner. All debates should be this fun! We haven't changed any minds, but voiced our views.

Have a nice evening DJ.

Hey Allen Drury,
The first word out of any intellectual midget like yourself concerning this uncontrolled immigration is "Racist" Americans are not allowed I guess, to not want their Country overran by 100 million Mexicans and most of the rest of Central America who have no intention of assimilating like all previous waves of legal Immigration, all in the name of cheap Labor.And as far as doing jobs Americans won't do,in the previous 10 years they have taken over almost all of the construction and service sectors, that were staffed before then almost exclusively with White and Black AMERICANS.Do you see any other Country importing Millions of Illegals annually? The Prisons are already 30% Illegal Aliens, and over a Half a Million Gang Members are infiltrating our Cities.This year alone,Illegals will cost Hard-Working AMERICAN taxpayers over 70 billion dollars. And not wanting more of that is Racist? Your a Joke Dude...

No Mike.

Even the GOP understands (for the post part) this issue, and so you and other racists will just have to understand that we can't view the issue from your perspective due to the fact we can't get our head that far up our backside.


I can tell you a great deal about the service industry and the lack of workers that these industries faced. Where have you been? What do you read?

Wisconsin Dells and other tourist sites around the country IMPORT workers from Poland and Israel and other nations due to the fact they cannot get enough wokers to do the jobs from the United States.

I have worked in state government for a number of years and can spot a blight on our society when I see it. And the blight is not the workers from other countries who come to live and work here, it is the racists like you, pal, who truly undermine our great nation.

It's kind of funny, but Mexico has much stricter laws than we have. If you get caught there illegally, you don't just get a free ride back to the border. You get a nice long stay in a very unpleasant jail with no idea when or if you will ever get out.

Why, SonnyD, they're a bunch of racists, I tell ya--Racists! No other explanation...

allendrury: You really need to get out in the real world and see what is going on. And please stop calling people racists because they see a real problem that needs to be solved.

You may think the billions of dollars being spent on health care and educating children of illegal workers is money well spent for people in need. What it is doing is subsidizing the profits of the Mega Corp employers who are illegally using these people in order to line their own pockets.

Have you ever gone out in the field and looked at the housing migrant workers are expected to live in? I don't think you have. Some of them are living in shacks you wouldn't make your dog sleep in. Unusable plumbing, maybe a Porta-Potty if they are lucky. How would you like to work all day in the hot sun and dirt, in a field that was just sprayed with insecticide and then have no place to take a shower? Then you get to sleep in a bug infested room with cracks in the walls that you can see outdoors through. Then to top it off, when the crop is almost done and the boss wants to cut down the number of workers, he just tells them, " Sorry, I can't make your last paycheck. Get on down the road." What are they going to do, sue somebody?

Not all of them are treated this badly, of course. Some employers, mostly small landowners, are real good. I've heard of some who hire tutors to teach the workers enough English to get by safely. Reading traffic signs, learning traffic laws, telling a doctor where they hurt, etc.

There should be a system whereby honest workers are allowed to work and the not so honest-the thieves and drug dealers-can be kept out. And employers should be made responsible for providing decent housing and fair wages. Workers should have access to legal recourse if they are not treated fairly. Employers could also be expected to all chip in to support a health clinic to care for minor ailments and injuries and give children the shots they should all have.

And that's just the seasonal workers. Year round illegal workers are another whole problem that needs to be addressed.

Gordon: Right, that must be it!

Fair enough, Allen. Fair enough.

The solution to the illegal Mexican immigration problem is quite simple: make Mexico prosperous. Most illegal immigrants only come to make money (which they send back to their families and villages - these transfers are the biggest component of the Mexican economy). We have to break down the ultra-monopoly that traditional families have on ALL aspects of Mexican economy. We have to promote business, banking and ownership rules in Mexico that will allow US businessmen to go to Mexico, build a business and retain it. Many US businessmen are eager to build in Mexico and share the wealth, but you simply can't plan the future. You can't invest capital because you will lose it all thru government fiat and lack of legal recourse. Ask anyone who has tried, as I have and many of my friends have.

But to improve Mexico would take real courage and a lot of hard work on the part of US officials, starting with the president and congress. Alas.

But to improve Mexico would take real courage and a lot of hard work on the part of US officials, starting with the president and congress. Alas.

It's up to the US to make Mexico prosperous? It's up to government to make a country prosperous?

"It's up to the US to make Mexico prosperous? It's up to government to make a country prosperous?"

No. But it's in our best interest. And all it takes is relentless diplomatic pressure. No invasion required. But it might strain the lovely personal relationship with Vincente Fox. It might be hard work. No money required: that will come from US investors.

Anyway, it's a more reasonable project for nation-building than Iraq.

Sonny,

Yes I do know something about immigrant labor and yes I do know about their living situations and working situations. In fact I was involved directly through my job to insure that certain standards had to be undertaken in Wisconsin farm fields for health and safety. I grew up in an area with these types of laborers and knew how hey were treated by employers and how those families were treated in the school system and the community at large. I have been close up to this issue in one way or another for over 30 years.

Guys, we already ARE making Mexico prosperous as much as anyone can anyway. The single largest element in Mexico's GDP is money sent home by illegals working in the US. Exactly what more could we do to help them out?

Dave

Bliffle,

I agree with you that reforming Mexico from within deserves more attention. I think for those who might differ one needs to think about current foreign policy. It is not really different than our current efforts in Iraq (if one is to believe the current administration) that by putting billions of dollars into regime change and 'democracy' through financial resources and thousands of dead and mangled solders we can have a more stable country in that region of the world. If one supports that war, then one cannot rule out your idea regarding Mexico's need for structural reform.

There has also been a long discussion in academic and some government circles about changing the agriculture practices and crops in places such as Columbia to reduce the drug growing industry in these places.

All these ideas take money and much thought that needs to be considered with not only our interests in mind, but just as importantly the needs and desires of the people our polices would impact directly.

Currency bailouts, free-trade agreements that (if unions can be believed) have been far better for Mexico than the US...

I won't deny the dynamics of the 'problem' of illegal immigration could be changed if Mexico was a more prosperous nation in its own rite. US investors won't put their money in Mexico unless they believe it will be profitable and in their own self-interest. It would probably also require more than a little regulatory reform by Mexico its ownself.

As I drove around today doing some errands I thought about how some countries have imported others to do their labor over the thousands of years of history. The Egyptians did not build the pyramids but used the Jews/slaves to complete much of the construction. French businesses lured Arabs to their country for jobs that the natives were not interested in doing. Saudi Arabia does the same. The Great Wall of China was constructed by those who lost a war of conquest.

I just think it comical that there is a mentality that always seems to place America at some higher level of business acumen or morality. We are just like the rest of the world.

Actually guys, Dave Nalle provided a very good explanation of the causes of the present state of Mexican-American relations - though it was at all his intent to do so.

In this article he pays tribute to Young Hickory for doing what he said he would do and leaving office. One of the things that President Polk said he would do was extend the borders of the USA to the Pacific.

In essence what the United States did was to castrate Mexico. They left it half a country with barely potential to develop.

In 1850 this didn't matter. But now, with the ability to migrate north a real possibilty for many Mexicans, it does.

With the exception of the loonies of the Aztlan website, nobody is saying that the American castration of Mexico was wrong. But now the Americans are paying the price. It might have been wiser, in the long run, had James K. Polk just ordered the annexation of the whole country.

That's right. Mexico's problem is that the US took Texas and big chunks of the desert southwest. The corruption and mismanagement of the country by military dictators and politicians has nothing to do with it.

Mexico has no responsibility for its own state. It's up to America to make it prosper and it's America's fault that it doesn't.

Solving the Mexico Problem requires hard work and good will from the administration and congress. But what we see in both bodies is laziness and narrow self-interest. Have we ever had a lazier president?

I guess DJ, you just don't get the point of my comments. When you castrate a country, you leave it even more open to exploitation by foreign powers (Emperor Maximilian), to takeover by dictators (I don't have time to list them all) and exploitation by foreign powers and civil war ('member Pancho Villa and Zapata?).

Had the Americans just pushed the border south from the River Nueces to the Rio Grande, annexed Texas and left the rest in Mexican hands there is a (small) chance that Mexico would not have been invaded by the French. There is as small chance that the Mexicans would have exploited siver mines, etc.

It is just as likely (IMHO) that dictators would have taken over and that civil wars would have broken out.

Had the Americans just annexed the whole country, the complexion of the the States would be entirely different and there would be no issue of illegals pouring in. On the other hand, the great Europeqn immigrations of the late 19th (Christian) century might not have taken place either...

Solving the Mexico problem requires securing our border because Mexico won't secure theirs. Solving the Mexico problem requires Mexico to take an interest in fixing its own problems on its side of the borders. Is it up to the Canadian Parliament and Canadian Prime Minister to reform America's educational system?

The world is complex. There aren't simple solutions to complex problems most of the time. So you fix what you can while you can the best you can. You try and minimize the problem even if you can't make it go away in its entirety.

Ruvy, is it possible that the way borders were drawn 150 years ago has had a lasting, lingering impact? Sure. That could be a cause or a contributing factor. Personally, I don't buy that argument but I am not enough of an expert or authority to say it couldn't be factors. If one vote had changed, Americans would be speaking German instead of English. If Bill Buckner hadn't dropped the ball in '86, the Red Sox would have won a World Series a lot sooner. If Christopher Columbus had stayed home there might not be any Americans in America or Mexicans in Mexico. How far do you want to go back to find someone to blame for the situation? The borders are not getting redrawn (I hope) so it is time to deal with the situation that is rather than lamenting what may or may not have been bad decisions of the 19th Century.

Should America annex Iraq to solve the oil supply problem. Or maybe we should let the UAE buy the whole country so radical Islamics will stop flying airplanes into our tall buildings. Let's just open the floodgates and tell Mexico, "Our bad. We should have taken you over 150 years ago so make yourselves at home." I can't get with that kind of thinking. Maybe I'm the dumbass. I don't know. That has been suggested to me once or twice in the past. I don't hate Mexico or Mexicans. I don't deny they have some real problems in their country. Blaming America for their problems and suggesting that securing the borders of a nation is racist is wrong. Suggesting that it is the responsibility of America and its government to fix Mexico is wrong.

DJ,

Let's get something clear here. I'm not lamenting anything. Illegal immigrants to the United States are not my problem. Your are welcome to all of the headaches. I have enough of my own here.

All I did was to point out that the possibility of another solution (that perforce would have had to take place in the past) to give you another angle at looking at the present headache YOU face.

If you just want to bang the keys in anger and stay in your same old box, that's no skin off my nose. Knock yourself out.

I think DJ is right, in that it's the principle involved. What part of "illegal" do people not understand here? As far as diversity goes, we're already pretty diverse in this country, last time I looked. Even places that 20 years ago would have been "pure" anglo are today well mixed with hispanics, asians, & everyone else. You have to go pretty far to find someplace that is not diverse, any more. But getting back to basics, if someone wants to live here, I don't care what their motives or reasons are, they should only be doing it legally. Basta.

Ruvy, in academic terms the question you raise is interesting to ponder. In that light, fair enough.

As for staying in my same box in anger... I will admit to some anger on the subject but I don't feel like I am obstinantely staying in my own box. The idea that borders require securing to me is not some quaint, redneck attitude but rather common sense. Not all of the ire in my response was directed at you, either. I just get tired of the "Blame America First" routine. I also get crazy about the idea that we have to surrender more of our personal liberty because we can't get the government to secure the borders. We have some immigration reform needed. No question. Secure the border first and then let's talk about where we go from there.