Whats your point? The Democrat party used to be the warmongering party. No one can tell the two parties apart anymore. This may be another exmaple. I, for one, as a Ron Paul supporter do not support McCain for numerous reasons and his pro-illegal immigrant stance is a big one. Why? Because it flagrantly undermines the rule of law. Giving people that broke the law from the moment they stepped into this country a "free ride" at my tax dollar expense is not what I want a president to do. What about all the people who follow the law and become legal residents or even citizens? This undermines the very basis of "Bring us your poor, huddled masses" because it implies following the immigration laws. Want to live here? Great! We will welcome you IF you follow immigration law, don't commit crimes (which is a growing problem within the illegal communities), pay taxes and assimilate into the American culture. The illegals do NONE of this. And McCain wants to reward them? Pssh. He can go kick rocks if he thinks Ill vote for him.

The Republicans would have more success if they tried to fix immigration in two part. First they should tripple immigration quotas from each country. This is a policy no one can argue against without showing their nativist motives. Increasing legal immigration would reduce demand for illegal routes. Then the Republicans could figure out a fair way to address illegal immigration.

Quite simply, we are aware of the severe economic drain all this ILLEGAL immigration is causing. WE CARE ABOUT THE FUTURE OF THIS COUNTRY AND THE ECONOMY IS ONE AREA THAT IS ABOUT TO DESTROY US. The millions of illegals in this country are guaranteed money, food, housing, education, and health care, all at the taxpayer expense. What about my own damn family? I'm tired of paying for criminals to have benefits that my own family is not entitled to. Contrary to popular belief, the U.S.A. is not a bottomless pit of money, able to take care of everyone in the world who wants to sponge off the hardworking taxpayers. Even America has it's limits.
It's called "ILLEGAL" for a reason, btw. Additionally, there is absolutely NO REASON why Americans should pardon the illegals for their crime of jumping the line ahead of people who have been waiting years to come to this country legally. Why should criminals be rewarded for their criminal acts? It's not fair to the people who have been going through the proper channels.

Both Obama and McCain should understand the dire financial consequences, of leaving the AMNESTY door wide open. Instead of appeasing the pro-illegal immigration entities, along with the big business cartels, the church, and the special interest lobby, may be they should take it under advisement who pays for the low wage illegal foreign nationals, when they need medical care.

Who has been forced by misinterpretation of our laws by liberal judges, that we must educate the children of illegal aliens, and the automatic citizenship of whatever child is born here? Who pays for the welfare, the prisons and hundreds of hidden underground programs that citizens and legal residence are unaware of ...TAXPAYERS!
Some eye-opening, disturbing evidence that the national media won't tell you.

Read about costs the US government keeps under wraps.
This doesn't include education, free health care or prison services and much more not listed. Find that disturbing report here.
Read about one committees free health care research.
Then go here to fight back: We must demand the Federal SAVE ACT (H.R.4088) that Democrats refuse to give us. NUMBERSUSA for unsuppressed facts!

Kris,

Kinda curious, are you as pissed off when your money goes to corporate buyouts, wars, and CEOs that have benefits you and your family will never see?

What immigrant is guaranteed anything, anyway?

I'm not suggesting that illegal immigration isn't a problem for you guys south of the border, but it's probably the lesser of several evils in terms of what's actually plaguing the economy. Fact is, it's the evil most Americans are likely to despise. Nobody likes uninvited guests...

As is evident from the comments, the argument against immigration (among some) is that it will make another policy (welfare) outcome worse. To my mind, that's a benefit, not a deficiency ... the welfare state needs to drown.

But, the anti-welfare position is nonsensical, because illegal immigrants *must* pay all payroll and income taxes, usually under a *fake* SSN. Each year, the IRS gets over $3 billion in taxes from invalid SSN payments.

Your argument (and my observations) are mainly pragmatic. In *principle*, every person has the right to freedom of travel, provided they don't violate private property by trespass or theft.

The "rule of law" argument is also bunk. It just says: I like this terrible law; don't change it, just enforce it. That's about as unprincipled as one can get.

Good to see you on here, Bill. I think that the first few comments fall exactly into the chimerical model I was talking about in the article, where they profess a belief in liberty, but draw the lines at our border. Just doesn't make sense to me as a libertarian or a liberty minded Republican.

The law issue is also one I always bump heads with conservatives over. There's no way to enforce a bad law with good results. That's what we see happening in the disastrous Drug War. So long as the policy is based on a flawed premise you're never going to get good results, and the more vigorously you enforce a bad law the worse you make things.

Until, as you point out with welfare, the system crashes under the strain. But it sure would be nice to have some responsible leadership to step in and stop the madness before we face actual disaster.

Dave

The legal aspect of handing out mass amnesty to illegals is the kicker for me. You don't choose to ignore the bad laws and respect the good ones. A law is a law. I'd be more than willing to revist/revise the numerous immigration law issues. But where I come from you don't reward criminals and you don't make fools out of other folks honestly abiding by the rules.

Lots of huffing and puffing from the Paulbots about the holy Rule Of Law and hurrying to point out that Illegal Immigration Is Illegal.

One thing no-one (except Mooja above, who touches on it) seems to stop to wonder is: why is it illegal?

What about the current immigration laws is different from those on the statute books during the last great influx of immigrants in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century? And why were the laws changed and tightened (if they were)?

Inquiring Minds Want To Know.

No problem at all with LEGAL immigration.

It is ILLEGAL immigration and its accompanying unchecked crime and disease that are not welcome.

Doc,

I believe there were few to no immigration laws during the big influx of the last half of the 19th, first quarter of the 20th centuries.

Basically, if you were breathing and disease free, you were admitted.

No quotas.

Also, no welfare; schooling wasn't an issue, few people went beyond grade school. Practically no medical care, except in the big cities. Most of the issues that piss nativists off today didn't even exist back then.

We had a huge amount of territory to colonize and exploit; bodies to do the work were welcome.

We ought to give the statue of liberty back to the French; we don't need it anymore.

What's really weird about the position Dave writes of here is that the entire modern United States was built on immigration.

Ah, but all those immigrants weren't swarthy-skinned hispanics, were they?

And therein lies the true root of this anti-immigration anxiety. Old attitudes die hard, remember.

We don't need any more brown people coming across the border to steal our jobs (as fruit pickers). They don't even look like Americans! We know what Americans look like. Don't you remember The Donna Reed Show, Father Knows Best, Leave it to Beaver? THAT is what Americans look like. Did you ever hear Mexican music playing in the background on Lassie? I have nothing against brown people personally (as long as they talk and act like Bill Cosby). And I don't mind if aliens, I mean immigrants, come here legally--as long as they are willing to assimilate and speak English (so at least I can tell if they're planning to jump me when I walk by).

Maybe you are right. Maybe the Republican Party is the party of open borders. That's why people like I and millions of other who have always voted Republican will not this November and the Republican Party will lose. Good riddance. With 'conservatives' like Bush and McCain who needs leftists?

I think my issue is the cost. Who's paying all the medical bills for illegal immigrants? Who's paying their share of the taxes that go to the schools and the roads and all the other infrastructure?

Many illegals don't pay taxes, at least not payroll or property taxes. Many illegals use forged documentation to get some of those benefits I listed earlier. What's fair about that? Are they paying into SS and will they expect SS entitlements when the time comes?

Cheap labor is a great thing, but cheap labor comes with it's own set of problems and those that hire the cheap labor aren't willing to take care of those problems, they expect everyone else to do it.

The problem is that we've become a nation of entitlements and I for one am tired of paying for everyone else's entitlements no matter where the person getting them is from or came from, but that's just me.

OH Please. How do you have a country if you have no borders?

What makes us any different than the one below or above us if we don't have a defined country with our own form of government?

You must be one of those one worlder utopians. Well libertopians are no better than one worlders...

Andy,

There are plenty of US citizens who don't pay taxes either.

And take it from me, plenty of illegal aliens do pay taxes. That's the whole point of the forged documents.

Just real quick: I don't think you understand the conservative position completely. A proper conservative is against any form of amnesty because it is a reward to those who came to America illegally and harms those trying to do it the honest way.

A proper conservative position should be pro-immigration but anti-illegal immigration.

A proper conservative position should open up workers visas and be very open to all walks of life wishing to come to America. However we have every right to know who enters this country. To know why people are entering the country, and to know how many are entering the country. An open border policy on the south does not work for that any more.

Please think about those things and maybe write another article.

You might also want to examine Ron Paul's position on the issue better.

However you are right about the historical Left .. my how times have changed. However protectionism is not new to the Republican party either. One word .. Lincoln.

This is preposterous discussion. It is the theatre of the obsurd. Im no tight assed stiff Republican by any stretch. But you cannot have one law for them and another one for us. If we dont control immigration, then you cant control whether I take a gun into a bank and make a withdrawl. End of story. It is essentially the same thing but instead they come walking up and say como estas? donde easta la trabajo? Ah muy bien, la papels no problema aqui? More than anything I hate centralized government, after all, THATS WHAT REPUBLICAN stands for. Ron Paul is and was the only REPUBLICAN in the race. That Neo Con McVain would say and do anything to get into office. And his stance on this is the height of hypocracy.

why o why hasnt the ususal cast of characters on this blog thrown down the usual final solution...

National Identity Cards for ALL people trapped here....

itl solve things and make government schooling and housing and health care and DHS federal law enforcement at the local levels more "efficient".

and the old flag waving "Ive got nothing to hide and I dont fear government or MY government!"....

still waiting...

and the shrill epithet "nativist"...as opposed to a Obama and W like "global citizen"???

you anti"nativists"?? want to be patriotic and have a strong Central Govt....make those "conservative" FedGov unConstitutional monstrosities efficient and costeffective...and who cares about topdown imposed cultural and socialist LEGAL integration...

we little L libertarians are NOT anarchists...

so stop the amatuer inference hurling.....

still waiting....

Well, well. Lots of empty rhetoric being thrown around here.

Where, in this article, did I endorse open borders or amnesty of any kind?

I merely pointed out that libertarians have favored the one and that Reagan signed off on the other.

What I favor and what rational Republicans ought to favor, is a strong program of LEGAL immigration so that it would not be necessary for people to immigrate illegally. Offer lots and lots of guest worker visas - most illegals don't want to stay here permanently anyway. That's the solution, and that's what the so-called 'amnesty' bill did (though not enough visas IMO).

Dave

Simple solution...replace ALL income taxes with consumption taxes. Come on in, work all you want, respect your new country and its people, and be responsible for your actions. If you eat, sleep, drink, drive (not at the same time), or blow your money on lottery tickets, your admission is paid. Multiply and prosper!! It would also be prudent to learn the new language...it tends to enhance your prosperity, where ever you roam. That's Libertarian enough, right? I haven't read too much here about the responsibility and accountability that go along with Libertarian freedom. "Carry your own weight"....I'm not yo' daddy.

Once again, the people with the least knowledge of an issue want to act like the authority of it. Let me explain from first hand experience and then you can make an informed conclusion.

First, my wife is a recent Legal immigrant to the U.S. and we had to pay the thousands of dollars in legal advice and services and immigration fees. No she's not from south of the border otherwise I would have brought her through Juarez Mexico.
She had to go through the medical screenings, document (collections, translations, notaries, and certifications), Official interviews, and police, FBI, and customs back ground checks, (homeland security is not timely or efficient). I had to give my tax records, police clearance, proof of income, divorce papers, proof of citizenship, etc. and that's not all of it. Then we had to wait several months for approval.

That was for a ninety day fiancee visa. If we did not get married within the ninety days she would have to go back home and we would have to start the process all over again and pay the same fees again if we decided to get married at a later date.

So the question is, Why do I, as a U.S. Citizen, have to pay all this money and spend all this time and effort to bring a foreign born fiancee to the U.S. when millions are walking in for free?

Secondly, being a doctor I have had first hand experience with illegals driving cars without licenses, insurance, or registrations, and injuring my patients in accidents then jumping out of the cars and running on foot. My patient's end up paying an increase in insurance premiums, repairs to their vehicles, and all of their own medical expenses, not to mention loss time at work.
And if the illegals are injured they will go to the emergency room and get treatment, give false information and never pay their bills. So the hospital is not getting paid so they raise their rates to combat the incurred losses. This raises health care costs and lowers our insurance coverage.

So the question simply is, how is this cheap labor benefiting anyone but the employer who is hiring these people? The rest of us are making up for the low wages when we have to pay more for everything especially taxes.

I'm a conservative libertarian constitutionalists that believes what is required of one is required of all.

So my solution is a simple one that will work immediately. Just like a DUI fine and imprisonment! Give the employers, managers, or anyone else that hires illegals a million dollar fine and a year in jail for each illegal employee that gets caught, given a police record, and deported. That should stop the illegal hiring practices at once. No jobs, No illegals.

Dave gets it right in this one - as he points out: prosperity under capitalism depends on the existence of a 'lumpen proletariat' characterized by economic desperation

#19 I agree with what you say and would add this:
The reasons those in government have created this problem of millions of illegal aliens is that they want (1) cheap labor (at workers expense) and more customers at Wal-Mart(2) a greater number of people depending on government handouts---politicians LOVE having people depending on them. But there is NO problem that the US has or the world has that will be helped by more people. All six billion (and counting) wanting to drive SUVs and Hummers---other species on earth be damned!

"Liberty? Why it doesn't exist. There is no liberty in this world, just gilded cages." Antic Hay, 1923 - Aldous Huxley.

Gosh 2 Huxley quotes in one day.

"and more customers at Wal-Mart"

Remember when Sam Wal (sp) was alive and running the company. What did they sell exclusively? American made goods. When did we (as a nation) decide to go Global? Was it Clinton? What was NAFTA all about? Was it being renounced during the primary?

I could go in a bunch of different directions here. I don't get the fence idea. A fence, covering the ENTIRE southern U.S. border? Who's the rocket scientist that thought that one up? It cost less to go to the moon during the space race, in present day dollars. Secure the borders? How? We need secure borders, but that southern border is big, so is the northern border for that matter and both are being used but the southern border is a convenient passage point for those leaving corrupt and poor countries.

How are those economies going to fix themselves? That's the problem.

Granted we need to ENFORCE the law, and there are many on the books right this minute, which are not being enforced. Illegal immigration not only brings in the poor, but also the criminal and disease. To me, stopping the criminal and the diseased is a real issue. I would like to see healthy legal immigrants, not some festering heap coughing on me while I ride public transporaton to work.

Controlling contraband is another big issue.

Helping the struggling masses back to their country or origin would be excessively costly. But upholding the rule of immigration law also sends a message.

Have you noticed growing neighborhoods of undocumented workers? Have you seen police departments straining to fight the burgeoning crime rates and increase gang activity propagating from these areas? Have you seen communities passing laws restricting the number of occupants in a single family home. Have seen the state police doing roadside inspections of trucks coming from Mexico and impounding them for gross safety violations? These are stopgap measures born out of necessity and frustration which target groups that the Fed has absolutely no grasp of containing, nor can the Fed agree on how. There is so much infighting between pols, churches, state, and local juristictions on this... it's insane.

Uphold the rule of law, because as the lead in quote states.... there really isn't any liberty anywhere. Not even here in the U.S. of A., upholding immigration law reinforces that position. Hold illegals and their governments accountable. Mexico doesn't give a hoot and a holler who crosses the border. Once across, those transiants are no longer their problem. And, the illegals here are fueling the economy there, in real dollars. What is it 80% of Mexico's GNP is money sent into Mexico by illegals working here? What kind of incentive does that provide Mexico to do anything. None.

A friend (jokingly) told me once that we need to make the border smaller. "How?" I asked. His reply... by taking over all the territory down to the thinist spot in Central America, then build a fence. Okay... that makes about as much sense and "The Fence" that is getting all the hype. All "The Fence" illustrates is a type of monument or figurative symbol of fight illegal immagration. It means nothing.

How about the Border Patrol? Ever seen there pay scale. Probably the busiest group of Law Enforcement officers out there, who need liguistic skills along with LE skills. Go up to a goverenment job site and check out ICE (Border Patrol) pay scale... it sucks. For the amount over work they face, the language skills needed and the overwhelming job they cannot perform adequately they start at 30K or so. That along with "The Fence" should really make us all say "Hey Moe" that's why I believe that the pols really don't care. It's our (the constituents) problem to come up with the extra taxes to fuel the needs of uncontrolled movement across our borders that, according to constitutional law, the government is supposed to protect and defend.

It's our problem and the Feds inability or lack of true desire to do anything says that it is the taxpayers problem the loudest. We just have to come up with more tax money to feed the beast.

Fire the government? I am convinced that politicians would rather not work than try to tackle that hot potato. We can't even talk about it without "offending" somebody. Heck PC might even be a ploy to take subjects like this off the table in that it would not be sanctioned to even discuss illegal immigration. Discussing or stating viewpoints on illegal immigration could even become a hate crime.... I gotta go to bed...

Fix illegal immigration? Don't hold your breath, the parasites and leeches are here, will keep coming here, and aren't leaving until this country falls flat on its collective ass and the gravy train dries up. In my mind... that is the fact of the matter.

Bush-McCain Republicanism sure confuses the hell out of me:

Borrow and spend like FDR and LBJ put together;

America-first nationalists, playing internationalist nation-building Risk in the ME and around the world;

Homeland Security(with a border fence)is #1, but don't enforce immigration laws.

What would Barry Goldwater say?

"Bush-McCain Republicanism"

Given that McCain has been at great pains to distance himself from the much-despised Mr. Bush, that amounts to a cheap (and obvious) shot in my book.

But then, Lee, your partisanship is nothing if not cheap and obvious.

As for the border fence issue, you have to admit that it's an issue primarily promoted by Congressmen not by the administration, which is much more liberal on immigration. Congressmen who want to pander to nativist sentiments promote the stupid border fence idea. Meanwhile Bush has quietly moved our homeland security forces into the ports of Mexico and Canada to block the immigration of truly dangerous people and potential terrorists, while leaving the border relatively untouched to the benefit of American businesses and consumers.

dave

#28:

Clavos, what exactly is MY partisanship? Feel free to continue to use your imagination, since you have no facts or knowledge.

And, if you do manage to creatively identify and describe it, please explain why mine is cheap and obvious, while all other partisanship--yours, for example--is worthy and sincere.

McCain visits Bush, has photos with Bush, wants Bush's fund-raising, embraces Bush's tax, energy and military policies, praises Bush, criticizes critics of Bush, HUGS Bush. If in your mind that's distancing himself, then that explains your confusion between name-calling and informed debate in your comments.

Apologies, Lee, I confused you with another commenter; your partisanship (whatever it may be) is most decidedly neither "cheap" nor "obvious."

I withdraw the comment and apologize for offending you.

As long as the disparity of wealth and opportunity between Latin America and this country exists, the campesinos will keep coming.

The quickest and best way to keep the Latinos home is for the US to sign as many international trade agreements with them as we can.

By importing their raw materials and exporting our manufactured goods to them, everybody benefits.

I'll never get people who don't see the obvious benefit in raising up the economy and general civilization level of Mexico while making some profits at the same time.

Dave

Lee Richard said to Clavy:


"If in your mind that's distancing himself, then that explains your confusion between name-calling and informed debate in your comments."



"And, if you do manage to creatively identify and describe it, please explain why mine is cheap and obvious, while all other partisanship--yours, for example--is worthy and sincere."



Well of course Clavy's opinion is worthy and sincere, isn't that right Clavos? Clavos would never resort to name calling to debate a political issue, isn't that right Clavos?

Oh and one other thing Clavy, your post #32:

Did you think that up all by your lonesome?? Wow I am impressed, thats showing some real political savvy there bucko. :)

#31:

Thanks Clavos. Long may you wave!

To expound on what a previous poster said about you needing to research Ron Paul's position..

Ron Paul is NOT against immigration, being well educated in economics, he understands the need for immigrant workers in this country (or any country for that matter).

Ron Paul, however, recognizes our immigration policies as being broken and in dire need of fixing. In addition, he believes the incentive to "jump the border" is our welfare/entitlements. Rather than creating new legislation, i.e. defacto "amnesty", we need to eliminate the incentive that "sweetens the deal". That being, work AND free benefits (free to them but not the taxpayers).

Jaylie, most of us are intimately familiar with Paul's position on this issue. It's an uninformed position, but not an entirely incorrect one.

Obviously, the welfare state is a problem whether there are illegal immigrants or not. The truth is that illegals do not take undue advantags of welfare. That belief is primarily a fiction of the extreme right.

The problem with Paul is that he buys into the nativist bullshit and perpetuates it. He has not proposed any rational solutions to the immigration problem. When he endorses a solid plan for a substantial guest worker program then I'll take him seriously.

Dave

Mooja [comment 8] sez: You don't choose to ignore the bad laws and respect the good ones.

On the contrary, yes, yes I do - and so should any good American. The whole basis of the American idea is that we have "certain inalienable rights," and that we didn't get them from or get them at the pleasure of the government.

If the law decides that I don't have a right to write criticisms of the president, or to smoke a joint, to own a gun or roam the countryside freely - then the law is an ass and has no proper authority. It is ultimately un-American to say otherwise.

Obeying the natural law (ie the obvious necessary natural reciprocity of not killing and looting other people) is the imperative, and the point of legitimate American governance. But it is not rational or in keeping with true American values to say that it is somehow morally imperative to obey any kind of law that 51% of jackasses in some legislature come up with.

"Mooja [comment 8] sez: You don't choose to ignore the bad laws and respect the good ones.

On the contrary, yes, yes I do - and so should any good American."

Emphasis added - and quoted for Truth.

Don't they teach Thoreau in the schools anymore?

Just so Jaylie (and anyone else who might be similarly deluded) is clear:

You cannot get US welfare or housing benefits if you are an undocumented or illegal alien.

The only way you can get them is indirectly, through your kids - and then only if the kids were born here.

Is that crystal?