6/12/2013

346 Responses to “We Must Stop Amnesty”

1. We need a simple plan and right now we haven’t one.

   What is our bottom line?

   Do we favor shipping all illegals home in short order?

   Do we favor continuing the current situation?

   Do we favor changing the rules wrt Mexico? An immigration treaty that works both ways?

   Do we favor normalization with some form of residency status?

   Currently Republicans in the Senate are all over the place.

   Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 6/12/2013 @ 7:47 am

   
   

2. My simple plan: whatever, so long as no one who came here illegally can ever become a citizen. Kids brought by parents excepted.

   Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 6/12/2013 @ 7:49 am

   
   

3. Well, the last time there was a blanket amnesty was back in 1986. After which the world kept spinning, the sun kept rising and the tides kept shifting. In fact in the two-and-a-half decades since the Reagan-Kennedy amnesty we’ve had three separate wealth manias and a technology and productivity explosion the likes of which haven’t been seen since the industrial revolution. Go figure.

   Speaking of which, the Internet’s chattering classes know about as much about immigration law and policy and related issues of macro and micro economics, private sector business operations, labor economics, etc., as blind people know about laser light shows. C’est la vie. It sure as hell won’t stop them from opining about it, though.

   That’s not to say we should revisit the mistakes of the Reagan-Kennedy amnesty law. Certainly not. It was flawed from the get-go, and flawed even more so in its implementation, and has had serious negative ripple effects. Amnesty without real border control doesn’t work. Amnesty without real sanctions against companies that post-amnesty continue using black market labor doesn’t work. Blanket amnesty is a bad idea. Citizenship for those who receive amnesty is a horrible idea. But selected amnesty combined with real border control and anti-black market labor pool sanctions along with a clear dichotomy between residency and citizenship in many respects are no brainers, despite what you might see and hear within the Internet cocoon.

   William Scalia (89a442) — 6/12/2013 @ 8:02 am

   
   

4. We can insist on a fence first policy, a physical barrier high enough and strong enough to stop illegal crossing along the entire southern border complete with the establishment of an armed frontier guard within the US Border Patrol.

   Once the fence is 100% complete we can begin discussions on immigration policy.

   ropelight (e45149) — 6/12/2013 @ 8:11 am

   
   

5. Here is a letter I submitted to the Editor of CALIFORNIA LAWYER magazine to rebut its article:
   “LET THEM IN – Three New Books Argue That Open Borders Serve The National Interest” by Thomas Brom, from his monthly column “Full Disclosure”, August 2008 issue California Lawyer Magazine. http://www.callawyer.com/index.cfm?NewIssueDate=08-01-08

   California Lawyer called me after I submitted my letter to confirm that I was the author and advised they were considering publishing it; they eventually elected not to publish the letter.
   ______________________________________________

   Letter to the Editor:

   Thomas Brom’s “Let Them In, Over Taken By Events – O-B-E” [August 2008] is spin. Spin out of control. First, America already generously Let’s Them In, granting legal resident status and naturalized citizenship every year, to about 2.5 million immigrants. Significantly more than any other nation.

   Second, Mr. Brom’s “Let Them In” theme reminded me of the callous quip about a woman getting raped: “Hey, why fight it, just sit back, relax and enjoy it.” That theory’s a non-starter, readily proven again by the 1993 rape, then murder, of Jennifer Ertman (14) and Elizabeth Pena (16), by illegal alien gang member Jose Ernesto Medellin (now 33). Texas just executed him. More recent, there’s SF’s triple murder of the Bologna family in June 2008, LA’s murder of Jamiel Shaw, Jr., in March 2008, and Newark’s execution-style murders of three college students in August 2007. (Illustrative, not exhaustive.) All the product of insane sanctuary city policies coddling and harboring convicted criminal illegal aliens. City, county, state and fed officials all have blood on their hands.

   Third, Mr. Brom’s piece referred to three books advocating open borders, published in 2007-8. I call Mr. Brom and raise him: Michelle Malkin’s Invasion (2002), Victor Davis Hanson’s Mexifornia: A State of Becoming (2003) and Pat Buchanan’s State of Emergency (2006). Fourth, what happened to – the Rule of Law? That America is a nation of laws, not men. That no man is above the law, and that’s what separates America from the rest of the world. Let them in? Open borders? Strange arguments coming from a lawyers’ magazine, but guess we’re just living in the world of Superman Bizarro.

   Fifth, we have not been O-B-E, but in fact have had decades of deceit, denial, dysfunction and dereliction of duty (maybe by design NAFTA, NAU, SPP), from all three branches of our federal government. Example: Plyler v. Doe, 457 US 202 (1982), a 5/4 Brennan opinion that admitted the fed’s total failure on illegal immigration, flew in the face of Fong Yu Ting (cited in Brom’s piece, but curiously absent from Plyler), opened the floodgates (see fnt. 2 in Plyler dissent, estimating 3-12 million illegal aliens as of 1981), and denied Texas the natural law remedy of self help. Then California’s Prop 187, torpedoed by a single federal judge. Example: the 1986 bi-partisan Simpson-Mizzoli bill that graciously gave amnesty to 3 million+ illegal aliens, and promised American citizens that it would be – a one-time fix. Can you say Shamnesty? Because that was a fraud, fixed nothing and spawned another 12-20 million+ illegals. Example: the recent 5/4 USSC opinions of Boumediene v. Bush and Dada v. Mukasey, foolishly giving more rights and opening further our courts, to terrorist combatants and illegals, thus making even longer ques for Americans to use their own courts. (See “[Fed] Circuit Judges Decry Immigration Case ‘Tsunami’” by Tony Mauro, 8/12/08 Legal Times and “New Nightmare Census Projections Reveal CHAIN MIGRATION Still Choking Our Future” by Roy Beck, 8/14/08 NumbersUSA.) Example: The dereliction of Presidents Carter to G.W. Bush on this issue, most notably their failure to prosecute cheating employers who hire illegals and refuse to use E-Verify.

   Separation of powers, the so-called checks & balances? Phooey! The Rule of Law? Phooey! We are trillions in debt, yet the politicos and judges never ask, who or how we will pay for their frolics. We get the shaft from all three branches, plus we get to pay the “check” for the actually not so cheaper labor. The same is true for too many state, county and city governments/officials (sanctuary cities); the media (Mr. Brom’s own “It’s why an editor… may choose to bury a story rather than put it on the front page.”); and, the big corp bandits & pirates (that out-source American jobs, hire the illegals and push for more H-1B visas to in-source more foreign workers). The Dems want more voters; the Repubs (and US Chamber of Commerce) want cheap labor. It can be argued, we are well down the road to anarchy. (See HBO’s “The Second Civil War” (1997).) But the Will of the People has always been clear: STOP IT! Most recently rising up to stop the bogus bi-partisan “comprehensive” shamnesty bill. Yet all ever required was leadership and integrity. To simply apply reason, enforce our existing laws, and follow the advice of Deputy Barney Fife (of Andy of Mayberry): “Nip it. Nip it. Nip it in the bud.” The situation then would have been – the problem that never was.

   But that takes courage. Instead, our politicos have chosen to pick the low hanging fruit, and to come up with one scam, scheme and bogus compromise, after another. We must look in the mirror. We must ask: Are we still capable of governing ourselves? Because at present, America has no real Rule of Law – with 12-20 million illegal aliens, it would be foolish to argue otherwise. Fact is, everything has been reduced to politics. Because if baseball used to be America’s pastime, it can be readily argued that today, our pastime now is – lying, cheating, stealing & spin. And it’s everywhere. And it’s destroying our American constitution, country, communities, culture and courts. And it’s killing us.

   Open borders – NO! Enforce our laws – YES! Si se puede!
   ___________________________________

   – end –

   Gary L. Zerman (3eb704) — 6/12/2013 @ 8:30 am

   
   

6. Policy: Make good on the promises of the past before maing new ones.

   We promised all kinds of enforcement that never took place. Until it takes place, no deal.

   luagha (5bc71c) — 6/12/2013 @ 8:43 am

   
   

7. ==Currently Republicans in the Senate are all over the place.==

   Yes. And I’d say that reflects at least partially the fact that the American people are “all over the place” on the issue as well. The “it’s been a problem for decades and so we’ve got to do something about it — anything–right now” crowd in either party reminds me of the healthcare reform movers and shakers who said exactly the same thing about their convoluted, unsustainable, incomprehensible, corruption filled “comprehensive” Obamacare. And look where we are now with that hot mess. Sometimes the dreaded status quo is a better option than rushing through wrong action to try to “solve” a problem.

   elissa (e42687) — 6/12/2013 @ 8:46 am

   
   

8. Do we favor shipping all illegals home in short order?

   No. They paid to get here, they can pay to go home.

   Rob Crawford (e6f27f) — 6/12/2013 @ 8:53 am

   
   

9. The only people who think something MUST BE DONE NOW!!!! are the ones who will throw away the rule of law and American sovereignty in order to make us a Third World cesspit like Mexico.

   Rob Crawford (e6f27f) — 6/12/2013 @ 8:55 am

   
   

10. All carrot, no sticks. There is real teeth to any of the enforcement mechanisms, all lodged with Bruno Napolitano. big Business GOP(cheap salad uber alles!) and the Dems in search of an Electoral College stranglehold have united to screw the middle and working class.

    Bugg (b32862) — 6/12/2013 @ 8:56 am

    
    

11. William Scalia, the 1986 changed CA into a permanent Democrat socialist state. Has that been a good thing?

    I worked next to a federal building in 1986. One day we saw a line wrapped around that building and wondered what was going on. Turns out it was the last day to apply for amnesty. The ward heelers had rounded everybody up and brought them in to sign up. I’m sure it wasn’t GOP aides.

    Patricia (be0117) — 6/12/2013 @ 9:13 am

    
    

12. I agree with elissa at #7. Great comment.

    Leviticus (1aca67) — 6/12/2013 @ 9:26 am

    
    

13. One of the most painful things about the current amnesty push (you can’t call it a debate) is Rubio is on the other side. I actually liked him. Once.

    The last time around I expected McCain to side with Ted Kennedy and call me a racist. Cuz he’s McCain.

    But Rubio? I really didn’t see him siding with Schumer and insulting me in the various ways he’s insulting me now.

    I’m tired of him telling me how his new and improved fraud of a border control system which will give de jure amnesty is an improvement over our current “broken” system which is de facto amnesty. Yeah, it’s broken. I’m watching them break it. And suing states that try to fix it.

    Here’s a thought. Maybe if they quit watching every resident’s every move they might shake loose a few agents to watch the border. Let’s try that first.

    Steve57 (7895a0) — 6/12/2013 @ 9:38 am

    
    

14. I agree with elissa at #7. Great comment.

    I think it’s BS. The only people in favor of amnesty are criminals and those who want to use the criminals for their own gain. The non-criminal citizens and legal immigrants I know are disgusted at the idea.

    Rob Crawford (e6f27f) — 6/12/2013 @ 9:46 am

    
    

15. I don’t see an “amnesty” anywhere in elissa’s argument for “maintain status quo.” The opposite, in fact.

    Leviticus (1aca67) — 6/12/2013 @ 9:50 am

    
    

16. (you can’t call it a debate)

    and that is the most offensivest thing of all

    happyfeet (c60db2) — 6/12/2013 @ 9:57 am

    
    

17. Thank you Leviticus. I am going to assume that in haste Rob Crawford simply misread my comment. (Since I pretty much said exactly the opposite of what he accused me of saying.)

    elissa (e42687) — 6/12/2013 @ 9:59 am

    
    

18. Am I the only one who feels that the 2012 election has been delegitimized by all the scandals that were buried until after the election?

    Not only that, but further delegitimized by the government’s warpath against Tea Party groups which suppressed their efforts?

    I don’t think it is the right time for any sweeping legislation, because I want to wait for a legitimate democratic government. Let the people have their say about the scandals of 2008 – 2012 and decide if they want to continue down this path first.

    I also think we need a full accounting for each scandal before we can really talk about how to build the enforcement provisions of an amnesty bill. Right now, they come across as a con to most informed people.

    We probably should prosecute those who break our laws and reform future immigration in a way that is fair to all immigrants, but what do I know?

    Dustin (303dca) — 6/12/2013 @ 10:07 am

    
    

19. Marco Rubio’s current position on amnesty isn’t the same one he campaigned on when he ran against Charlie Crist for Florida’s GOP Senate nomination. And it’s far from what it was during the general election in 2010. Rubio’s position is evolving.

    Senator Marco Rubio’s in a tough spot, his family immigrated from Cuba, he’s a rising Latino star in the Republican Party, and he’s being seduced and co-opted by a GOP establishment desperate to hold onto power and willing to sell-out Conservatives again and cynically align itself with Obama’s immigration policies if that will keep the TEA Party locked out in the cold for another election cycle.

    Immigration/Amnesty is designed to split the GOP vote in the 2014 election and deliver the House of Representatives to the Democrats so Obama can complete fundamentally transforming America.

    ropelight (e45149) — 6/12/2013 @ 10:09 am

    
    

20. I’m glad we know, so early, that Rubio wilts under pressure at best, and is a liar at worst.

    Dustin (303dca) — 6/12/2013 @ 10:14 am

    
    

21. Dustin,

    It seems to me that Republicans and Democrats would agree at this point that two out of the last four presidential elections were completely and totally illegitimate.

    Leviticus (1aca67) — 6/12/2013 @ 10:14 am

    
    

22. Let’s be honest with ourselves: It doesn’t matter what anyone says, we are not going to round up and deport all of the illegal immigrants here.

    Once you accept that fact, and, like it or not, it is a fact, then you have to deal with the next fact: we have something like 20 million illegal immigrants who are here, and who will almost all stay here. Is it a realistic policy to have them all remain in illegal status, for decades, or does that situation need to be addressed?

    And that question brings up the third fact: the vast majority of the illegal immigrants are not going to comply with any immigration policies which impose any sort of punitive measures on them. Since we’re not going to round them up and deport them, why should they comply?

    Nobody here likes the idea of amnesty, no one likes rewarding the illegal, line-jumping behavior, but that is what is going to happen, because there really is no realistic and practical alternative.

    The coldly realistic Dana (3e4784) — 6/12/2013 @ 10:16 am

    
    

23. i dont think they were delegitimized, Dustin or Leviticus. I just think they have since revealed their naked partisanship in pushing this out beyond the election, intentionally not giving the voters all the information available to make an informed decision. Much like pushing ObamaCare to 2014, so as to not take the hit at the ballot box when it screws up the system.

    JD (b63a52) — 6/12/2013 @ 10:18 am

    
    

24. Mr Crawford wrote:

    Do we favor shipping all illegals home in short order?

    No. They paid to get here, they can pay to go home.

    Can we have a show of hands from people who think that this will happen?

    The coldly realistic Dana (3e4784) — 6/12/2013 @ 10:21 am

    
    

25. Dustin,

    It seems to me that Republicans and Democrats would agree at this point that two out of the last four presidential elections were completely and totally illegitimate.

    Comment by Leviticus (1aca67) — 6/12/2013 @ 10:14 am

    🙂 LOL

    Dustin (303dca) — 6/12/2013 @ 10:23 am

    
    

26. “I just think they have since revealed their naked partisanship in pushing this out beyond the election, intentionally not giving the voters all the information available to make an informed decision. Much like pushing ObamaCare to 2014, so as to not take the hit at the ballot box when it screws up the system.”

    – JD

    Yup. Totally agree.

    Leviticus (b98400) — 6/12/2013 @ 10:30 am

    
    

27. Can we have a show of hands from people who think that this will happen?

    Because people will continue to not follow the law, we shouldnt push for a tough law? People continue to break every law on the books, yet we persist. But when it comes to our sovereign borders, it is a bridge too far?

    JD (b63a52) — 6/12/2013 @ 10:32 am

    
    

28. I wrote Senators Cornyn and Cruz.

    Sir,

    I urge you to vote against the Gang of Eight bill on immigration. I realize that it’s true that our immigration system is broken, as the proponents of the Gang of Eight bill claim. I know it’s true because I’m watching them break it. And suing states like Arizona which are trying to fix it. If what we have now is de facto amnesty it’s only because the laws now on the books aren’t being enforced. It seems to me that a government that can monitor every digital communication of citizens and legal residents could monitor the border if that was a priority but it’s not. So trading up to de jure amnesty in exchange for more empty promises about border security isn’t a deal I’d make. I urge you not to make it, too.

    The messages I sent to each Senator was about exactly the same. I included separate paragraphs about how if they’re going to make really bad, expensive deals that will never deliver as promised could they at least make some with me so I can make bank and get the hell out of the way? If I’m going to watch the country destroy itself I’d rather do it from Belize or Costa Rica.

    Steve57 (7895a0) — 6/12/2013 @ 10:33 am

    
    

29. All it takes to rid this nation of illegal aliens is the will to do so. Conversely, if we’re unwilling to acknowledge the possibility of it ever happening we’ll never even try.

    ropelight (e45149) — 6/12/2013 @ 10:36 am

    
    

30. JD wrote:

    Because people will continue to not follow the law, we shouldnt push for a tough law? People continue to break every law on the books, yet we persist. But when it comes to our sovereign borders, it is a bridge too far?

    Apparently it is, because we have shown no inclination to defend them.

    But passing a tough law that we all know we will not enforce ruins respect for the law. We have laws against murder, and there are still murderers, but we do our best to enforce that law. We have laws against drug use, but they are mostly unenforced, at least amongst users, and the laws simply are not respected.

    Passing, or retaining, laws that we will not respect and will not enforce is just a form of lying to ourselves.

    You want to know why the politicians are abandoning the no amnesty position? Continuing to support a tough law that will not be enforced means that they are sticking their necks out for something that won’t happen anyway. The illegals will keep coming, they will keep having children, they will keep becoming citizens (at least in the second generation) and they will keep voting Democratic, because the Republicans are wasting their time and effort on laws designed to be hostile to Hispanics. The politicians have to do something really radical like actually win elections, and they aren’t going to take futile actions to urinate off future voters.

    The sadly realistic Dana (3e4784) — 6/12/2013 @ 10:45 am

    
    

31. Amnesty will destroy our economy. Substantial deportations or meaningful border security will destroy our economy. We need the illegals and we need them to keep on living in the shadows, living hand to mouth, because we need cheap labor. Hell, willing labor. We deport just the ones who make waves by having too many babies on welfare or committing more than a reasonable amount of crime, and the occasional unemployable by reason of disability, disease, age, addiction etc.

    The truly realistic nk (875f57) — 6/12/2013 @ 10:46 am

    
    

32. they will keep becoming citizens (at least in the second generation)

    Their parents will have bought them that with their sweat. “Do not muzzle the ox that treads the grain”, or something like that.

    The truly realistic nk (875f57) — 6/12/2013 @ 10:50 am

    
    

33. ropelight wrote:

    All it takes to rid this nation of illegal aliens is the will to do so. Conversely, if we’re unwilling to acknowledge the possibility of it ever happening we’ll never even try.

    We don’t have the will to do so. We pushed that theme — sort of — last November, and a majority of the voters cast their ballots for Barack Hussein Obama. When one out of every two Americans is unwilling to round up the illegals and ship them out, you might as well face it: such will never happen. And we are lying to ourselves if we think that that is going to be changed.

    The truthful Dana (3e4784) — 6/12/2013 @ 10:51 am

    
    

34. Tackling the illegal immigration problem in smaller discrete chunks of legislation over a period of time rather than in a huge unwieldy comprehensive bill should have been the lesson learned from Obamacare’s failure and surprises during implementation. That would be the obvious lesson learned if legislators were actually interested in solving the illegal immigration problem in a way that benefits the whole of the nation. The gang of 8 monstrosity of a bill shows that this is not what its supporters are interested in.

    God, the word “gang” used in this context is so off-putting.

    elissa (e42687) — 6/12/2013 @ 10:55 am

    
    

35. Dana @22, the practical and realistic alternative is to not do a d***ed thing. I really don’t see how a situation some third party had created entirely of its own volition is now somehow my problem.

    Guess what? The status of tens of millions of illegals who don’t need to be here is not a problem for me. So I am not about to lift a finger to accommodate them. Comprende, amigo?

    I had it up to my eyeballs with the “We ****ed up, now you have a problem” line of argument when I was in the Nav. The thing is when it was coming from someone in disbursing or medical when they ****ed up I really did have a problem. Not this time.

    I’m just not feeling the urge to take a big, expensive problem and following the Gang of Eight’s lead and making it bigger and more expensive.

    Which I’m constantly being told is the only “realistic” option as they’ll never actually enforce any laws that don’t remotely have to do with monitoring me. Those, they’ll enforce. Those, they’ll exceed.

    Steve57 (7895a0) — 6/12/2013 @ 11:05 am

    
    

36. , because the Republicans are wasting their time and effort on laws designed to be hostile to Hispanics.

    Hogwash. We’re it to even be on the table, it would be designed to be hostile to those that have shown contempt for our laws.

    JD (129489) — 6/12/2013 @ 11:07 am

    
    

37. JD wrote:

    because the Republicans are wasting their time and effort on laws designed to be hostile to Hispanics.

    Hogwash. We’re it to even be on the table, it would be designed to be hostile to those that have shown contempt for our laws.

    Our esteemed host and Jeff Goldstein had this argument a couple of years ago, concerning whether what a speaker meant or how it was heard by others was controlling. It doesn’t matter what we might think we mean: Hispanics are going to take it as being aimed at them, and their perception is reality, for them. Count on it: they will vote their interests, and as long as the GOP takes the harder line on illegal immigration, the Hispanics are going to see the GOP as hostile to them, and vote Democratic. That’s not a difficult prediction, because it’s already happening!

    If you have the absolutely correct, perfectly logical and righteous position, and it wins 45% of the vote, you have lost, period.

    The Republican Dana (3e4784) — 6/12/2013 @ 11:18 am

    
    

38. Apparently it is, because we have shown no inclination to defend them.

    But passing a tough law that we all know we will not enforce ruins respect for the law.

    Dana, who is this “we” you keep speaking of? Some of us who comprise “we” would go down to the border and volunteer to guard it. DC would sue us, just like it sued AZ. Just quit talking as if “we” wouldn’t control the border or “we” don’t have the will to enforce immigration law. “We” do, which is why our domestic enemies at DoJ are so busy suing “we.”

    I’ve mentioned before how when DoJ talks about its immigration law enforcement efforts, it’s more likely to be talking about going after “overzealous” employers demanding too much documentation than actually going after illegal immigrants. Because, yeah, the restrictions on what employers can ask for is part of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986. So that is technically immigration law enforcement.

    It sure seems to me that “we,” whoever comprises “we” at any given moment, has the will to enforce immigration law as it suits “we.”

    Tom Perez, the acknowledged serial violator of federal disclosure laws and DoJ security policy, had time in his day as a DoJ civil rights attorney to head to Georgia and threaten to tie it down in federal lawsuits if it dared to enforce its laws against illegal aliens. It seems to me that if a guy like him spent half the energy going after illegal immigrants as he did going after states that were going after illegal immigrants, when he wasn’t making up aliases for his hotmail accounts to evade FOIA requests, we’d be well on the way to solving the problem.

    But what really can we expect from the racist who if not heading it was instrumental to Casa de Maryland’s efforts to break our immigration system.

    Steve57 (7895a0) — 6/12/2013 @ 11:24 am

    
    

39. Hispanics are going to take it as being aimed at them, and their perception is reality, for them.

    Dana, unfortunately you’re quite right, and this is why the media’s bias is among the worst problems in our society. They are incredibly good at focusing and spinning away the point of so many issues. Sadly, dividing us into races and sexes and orientations and everything else, and then explaining how Republicans are hostile to each group (because of perceived entitlements and insecurities) is extremely effective politics.

    Perception is reality for anyone who is actually out there in the real world. It’s not always fair, but that’s how communication works. Invariably those who refuse to accept this are not working out there in the real world (not always their fault these days).

    Dustin (303dca) — 6/12/2013 @ 11:24 am

    
    

40. Dana, who is this “we” you keep speaking of?

    ‘

    The media has defined “we”, not Dana. You’re right that the definition isn’t truth, which is part of the problem.

    Dustin (303dca) — 6/12/2013 @ 11:25 am

    
    

41. Dustin, you are of course correct. Dana didn’t invent the term. Still he’s using it so I think it’s appropriate to ask him what it means.

    Dana, I mean no disrespect. Sometimes my disagreement can come across as disrespect. Often when it comes across as disrespect I intend it to mean exactly that (Mahalia Cab? Perry v1.0 and 2.0?). But not this time.

    Steve57 (7895a0) — 6/12/2013 @ 11:44 am

    
    

42. Mr 57 wrote:

    Apparently it is, because we have shown no inclination to defend them.

    But passing a tough law that we all know we will not enforce ruins respect for the law.

    Dana, who is this “we” you keep speaking of? Some of us who comprise “we” would go down to the border and volunteer to guard it. DC would sue us, just like it sued AZ. Just quit talking as if “we” wouldn’t control the border or “we” don’t have the will to enforce immigration law. “We” do, which is why our domestic enemies at DoJ are so busy suing “we.”

    “We” are the citizens of the United States, We elect the leaders who promulgate and act on our national policies, and we have not elected any leadership which would enforce what you believe they should enforce. Some of us wanted to elect different leadership last November, but the majority did not.

    Like it or not — and I certainly don’t — Barack Hussein Obama is our President, just as much as George Bush was the President even of those who didn’t like him or his policies. There is a collective “we” which executes policy, and while not everybody amongst that “we” likes particular policies, those policies are put into place in our names. That’s part of being a democratic representative republic.

    The republican Dana (3e4784) — 6/12/2013 @ 11:55 am

    
    

43. Hispanics are going to take it as being aimed at them, and their perception is reality, for them.

    Correct. The Dems keep talking about the border and so do the Repubs. In actuality, most people are against illegals who come from anywhere, and they come from everywhere through student and tourist visa overstays too.

    But that’s politics…and demagaugery.

    Patricia (be0117) — 6/12/2013 @ 12:01 pm

    
    

44. “Am I the only one who feels that the 2012 election has been delegitimized by all the scandals that were buried until after the election?”

    Dustin – You are absolutely not the only one. Just look at all the information that was conveniently suppressed or delayed until after the election.

    The IRS completed its own internal investigation of the targeting of conservative of conservative groups in May of 2012 and informed TIGTA and senior Treasury officials that such targeting was going on. IRS officials continued to lie to Congress about until May of this year.

    On Benghazi, the obfuscation, stonewalling, failure to produce witnesses, etc. continued well past the election until the half-baked ARB report was issued and continues today.

    The GAO (or other entity) failed to produce its legally required report on pending regulations with an anticipated cost exceeding $100 million.

    The State Department IG report we finally learned about this week complaining about undue political influence on investigations was originally dated October 2012.

    Those are just a few examples of deliberate information management both to suppress opposing voices and negative information which could have influenced votes.

    Pure thug government.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/12/2013 @ 12:08 pm

    
    

45. Patricia wrote:

    In actuality, most people are against illegals who come from anywhere, and they come from everywhere through student and tourist visa overstays too.

    Are they? Where is the evidence, in the form of election results, which indicates that that is true?

    I don’t care about opinion polls and I don’t care about surveys and I don’t care about projections. There’s only one poll that counts for anything, and that’s the one held on election day.

    The Dana who can count the votes (3e4784) — 6/12/2013 @ 12:09 pm

    
    

46. Open borders should be pushed then. If you are unwilling to even try to enforce our laws, get rid of them altogether.

    JD (129489) — 6/12/2013 @ 12:11 pm

    
    

47. Advocates for allowing illegals to benefit from their unlawful presence here keep harping on the diversionary nostrum of rounding up and deporting “them.”

    They point out the inherent difficulties and the inhumanity to children and other innocent by-standers who would be uprooted from the only life they’ve known not as a result of their own misbehavior but resulting from their parents illegal immigration.

    Advocates claim we need illegals to work for low wages never mentioning the unemployment rate for American citizens. Each and every illegal alien is taking a job a citizen could have. Advocates don’t talk much about that.

    There are ways to rid our nation of illegals, just like the ways President Lincoln used to put an end to rampant profiteering during the War of Northern Aggression. It worked in the 1860s and it’ll work in the 21st century, all it takes is the will to do it.

    ropelight (e45149) — 6/12/2013 @ 12:16 pm

    
    

48. “I wrote Senators Cornyn and Cruz.”

    Steve57 – I wrote to Senators Durbin and Kirk last week. I kept it polite but reminded them how immigration reform fell apart in 2007, with politicians ignoring the wishes of voters who sent them to Washington. The overwhelming preference of the American people then and now is border security first, legalization second. The current bill as well as Cornyn’s amendment makes a mockery of that concept.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/12/2013 @ 12:19 pm

    
    

49. Obama’s bullshit doesn’t fly with me.
    He was pontificating about how families were being separated. HOW SO.
    When I was an infant, my Father died. My mother was 24 and had 3 children 4 and younger. She was a foreigner and not a citizen of the U.S.. She had no support system or family in the U.S.. She went back to her home country. SHE DIDN’T LEAVE US BEHIND.

    Gus (694db4) — 6/12/2013 @ 12:29 pm

    
    

50. So what is Rand Paul’s excuse? Can any luap nor fan enlighten me? Rand says amnesty means 11 million new taxpayers? I had a Mexican tell me that illegal immigrants pay far more in taxes than I ever did. Plus they are very hard working compared to the blacks? And Ted Cruz is being demonized endlessly. Feck the Republican party and Rubio/Rand. Ditto John Bolton on the NSA scandal.

    calypso louie Farrakhan (53ccf5) — 6/12/2013 @ 12:31 pm

    
    

51. “The overwhelming preference of the American people then and now is border security first, legalization second.”

    – daleyrocks

    Prove it. And if you want to know how, ask The republican Dana.

    Leviticus (b98400) — 6/12/2013 @ 12:37 pm

    
    

52. “So what is Rand Paul’s excuse?”

    calypso louie Farrakhan – Maybe he’s like his dad who believes border fences are to keep Americans in rather than illegal immigrant out.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/12/2013 @ 12:37 pm

    
    

53. republican Dana–You’re trying to bring a dose of harsh reality medicine to this debate. That’s always good and worthwhile and why we have such excellent and spirited discussions here. But I’d just like us all to see that there’s a vast difference between the altogether proper use of the phrase “our president” or “our congress” because they are currently our country’s elected president and lawmakers– versus phrases that incorporate the royal “we”, such as “we haven’t enforced the borders”.

    I’m especially sensitive to this and often incensed by it because of the situation of the state in which I reside. Of course I call him “Governor Quinn” because he was elected as such. And I appreciate that he genuinely honors veterans. But when people complain about him and the democrat led state House and Senate and the pension crisis and the bond rating downward spiral and the state employee union thugocracy, and the sanctuary cities, then shrug and say “well we voted ’em in, and we get the government we deserve”–that’s when I say “whoa there pahdner”. I didn’t vote for a damn one of them. I am not complicit in this. I do not “deserve” this.

    elissa (e42687) — 6/12/2013 @ 12:38 pm

    
    

54. 50. …Prove it. And if you want to know how, ask The republican Dana.

    Comment by Leviticus (b98400) — 6/12/2013 @ 12:37 pm

    It’s pretty easy to prove. In fact, nothing makes the case better than the gymnastics the amnesty enthusiasts in Congress are performing in order to perpetrate that fraud on us in the guise of “tough” border security.

    The amnesty enthusiasts themselves know that unless they can con the public into believing there are all sorts of triggers without which legalization doesn’t happen they can’t pass their current wish list.

    Just look at the Gang of Eight’s bill, Leviticus. There’s your proof.

    Steve57 (7895a0) — 6/12/2013 @ 12:52 pm

    
    

55. We still have our fearless leader in Congress, Johnny Boner Mellencamp. He’ll hold out against this joke of a bill for at least 14 minutes.

    Gus (694db4) — 6/12/2013 @ 1:03 pm

    
    

56. “It’s pretty easy to prove.”

    – Steve57

    It’s extremely easy to prove. All it requires is the passage of a bill emphasizing border security over legalization.

    Leviticus (b98400) — 6/12/2013 @ 1:03 pm

    
    

57. “Prove it. And if you want to know how, ask The republican Dana.”

    Leviticus – Did you miss the 2007 debate? Disprove smartass.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/12/2013 @ 1:04 pm

    
    

58. “It’s extremely easy to prove. All it requires is the passage of a bill emphasizing border security over legalization.”

    Leviticus – Sure. Which is why when Congress ignore what the public wanted they overwhelmed Washington with phone calls and got comprehensive immigration reform defeated.

    This happened.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/12/2013 @ 1:07 pm

    
    

59. ropelight wrote:

    Advocates claim we need illegals to work for low wages never mentioning the unemployment rate for American citizens. Each and every illegal alien is taking a job a citizen could have. Advocates don’t talk much about that.

    That’s the problem: the illegals are taking jobs that American citizens could have, but in so man cases, just won’t do.

    I’ve seen way too much of it: advocates for the poor claiming that there are just no jobs for their men, but I’ve seen so man of them, and they don’t have jobs because they won’t fornicating work! The immigrants come in, and take jobs in construction that pay significantly more than minimum wage, and they come to work, every day, and turn in an honest day’s work.

    So, no, I don’t believe that the immigrants are taking jobs that Americans would have, because I’ve seen way, way, way too many lazy scumbags who won’t work.

    The concrete producer Dana (af9ec3) — 6/12/2013 @ 1:09 pm

    
    

60. So? All that means is that the people are satisfied with the status quo, and don’t want it changed in a pro-amnesty direction. It says nothing about anyone wanting the status quo changed in a pro-security direction. This is elissa’s point, I think, and I agree with it.

    If “the American people” wanted increased border security, they would get it. They haven’t gotten it because they don’t really care about it outside of the rhetorical realm.

    Leviticus (b98400) — 6/12/2013 @ 1:10 pm

    
    

61. #59 is for daleyrocks.

    Leviticus (b98400) — 6/12/2013 @ 1:10 pm

    
    

62. . The current bill as well as Cornyn’s amendment makes a mockery of that concept.

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/12/2013 @ 12:19 pm

    Absolutely right. To some extent, Texas has let this country down by sending Senator Cornyn to represent us, and ostensibly the conservative viewpoint. I know it could be a lot worse, but Cruz has proven we can do better.

    Those are just a few examples of deliberate information management both to suppress opposing voices and negative information which could have influenced votes.

    Yeah, and as potent as they are, there are likely many more. While we can’t prove this would have turned the election around, it’s a fact that the administration kept these quiet in order to win in November. Sadly, a lot of folks feel this abuse of office is legitimate politics. Part of the game.

    I wonder how much they bet on demoralizing those who are paying attention. Make it seem hopeless to resist initiatives like amnesty, and make clear that there are real world penalties for expressing conservative views, and things get a lot easier for democrats.

    Dustin (303dca) — 6/12/2013 @ 1:14 pm

    
    

63. “when Congress ignore what the public wanted they overwhelmed Washington with phone calls and got comprehensive immigration reform defeated. This happened.”

    – daleyrocks

    Gee whiz! They were so close to getting that pro-security reform that they so desperately and vocally craved, and they had their congresscritters’ ears and everything?! What happened? Why didn’t they turn that democratic tsunami of theirs in a more proactive direction?

    Leviticus (b98400) — 6/12/2013 @ 1:15 pm

    
    

64. Here is the roll call of vote for cloture that killed comprehensive immigration reform in the Senate in 2007:

    http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00235#position

    daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/12/2013 @ 1:24 pm

    
    

65. JD wrote:

    Open borders should be pushed then. If you are unwilling to even try to enforce our laws, get rid of them altogether.

    Just as there’s no consensus for harsh immigration control measures, there’s no majority move for open borders or an easier path to citizenship. The politicians would much rather do absolutely nothing, in an attempt to offend as few voters as possible.

    The politicians, brave souls that they are, would like to wish this away, without having to take a stand on anything. There is no real will amongst them, save the will to get re-elected. Doing nothing will simply mean that the illegal immigration will continue, and there will be more and more Hispanic voters, and that means more Democratic victories. Time and inertia favor the liberals on this one, and they know it.

    That’s why the Republicans need to embrace away to accept the immigrants: what they are doing now isn’t halting or reversing illegal immigration, but it is insuring that the majority of Hispanics will vote Democrat.

    And we’ve already tried this method once! It was the Democrats, under President Lyndon Johnson, who made the big civil rights push in the 1960s, and while there was resistance by Southern Democratic congressmen, which required northeastern Republican votes to get it passed, the Democrats got the credit.

    The result? Black Americans vote 90+% for Democrats. We managed to urinate off a significant voting demographic, to the point we have just been excluded from competition with black voters. Tell me why it makes good sense to do the same damned thing with Hispanic voters.

    The Dana who tells the truth to himself (af9ec3) — 6/12/2013 @ 1:25 pm

    
    

66. And simultaneously instituted comprehensive pro-border-security immigration reform, right?

    Leviticus (b98400) — 6/12/2013 @ 1:25 pm

    
    

67. “Gee whiz! They were so close to getting that pro-security reform that they so desperately and vocally craved, and they had their congresscritters’ ears and everything?! What happened? Why didn’t they turn that democratic tsunami of theirs in a more proactive direction?”

    Leviticus – Google can be your friend. Do a little research if you weren’t paying attention or don’t remember.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/12/2013 @ 1:26 pm

    
    

68. #58, Dana, blaming unemployed Americans for being out of work because illegals have taken their jobs isn’t really much of a solution to to our nation’s problems.

    ropelight (e45149) — 6/12/2013 @ 1:26 pm

    
    

69. Oh, wait. It was just a cloture motion, wasn’t it? Nothing particularly proactive about that…

    Leviticus (b98400) — 6/12/2013 @ 1:28 pm

    
    

70. It’s extremely easy to prove. All it requires is the passage of a bill emphasizing border security over legalization.

    That is just silly. The party that favors lax control o the border and amnesty is in control of the Senate, and the Gang could not care less about securing he border.

    JD (129489) — 6/12/2013 @ 1:28 pm

    
    

71. “And simultaneously instituted comprehensive pro-border-security immigration reform, right?”

    Leviticus – Not with a Democrat majority pandering for Hispanic votes, but the DREAM Act never made it through. Why is that?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/12/2013 @ 1:28 pm

    
    

72. “the DREAM Act never made it through. Why is that?”

    – daleyrocks

    Obviously because THE AMERICAN PEOPLE!! wanted increased border security.

    Oh wait. That’s not the inference at all.

    Leviticus (b98400) — 6/12/2013 @ 1:30 pm

    
    

73. there’s no consensus for harsh immigration control measures,

    I like and respect you, Dana, but how many strawmen do you plan on torching, and how many terms do you plan on conflating? I have seen ZERO calls for harsh controls on legal immigration. ZERO.

    JD (129489) — 6/12/2013 @ 1:31 pm

    
    

74. That’s why the Republicans need to embrace away to accept the immigrants:

    Raise your hand if you are against immigrants.

    JD (129489) — 6/12/2013 @ 1:32 pm

    
    

75. Insofar as turnabout is fair play, I don’t see anything in Dana’s comment specifying whether said “harsh immigration control measures” were aimed at legal or illegal immigration.

    Leviticus (b98400) — 6/12/2013 @ 1:33 pm

    
    

76. They should all be like Ted Cruz, Dustin.

    DRJ (a83b8b) — 6/12/2013 @ 1:34 pm

    
    

77. Leviticus – couple that with the excerpt from the next paragraph, and it seems quite clear.

    JD (129489) — 6/12/2013 @ 1:35 pm

    
    

78. Another down day for stocks and bonds. By the time Amnesty is the law of the land, EBT cards will be worthless with all those empty shelves.

    Here in Central MN the corn crop is on the cusp of failure. Total cloud cover and rainy since April, last week not making it to 60 degrees a couple days.

    On the other margin of the corn belt, drought continues. Meanwhile EPA is pushing 15% ethanol in your tank.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 6/12/2013 @ 1:36 pm

    
    

79. Also, Leviticus, I don’t think immigration needs the descriptor, legal. It is legal by definition. Illegal, not so much.

    JD (129489) — 6/12/2013 @ 1:37 pm

    
    

80. amnesty for edward NOT illegal immigrants

    happyfeet (c60db2) — 6/12/2013 @ 1:40 pm

    
    

81. Cruz seems to think this is all a Democratic plot to either pass amnesty or get Republicans in the House to reject immigration reform, which would mean Obama and the Democrats can demonize the GOP for the next decade. Instead, Cruz urges everyone to agree to meaningful reforms that would limit illegal immigration, fix border security, and make legal immigration easier.

    Democrats demonize Cruz but I think he’s one of the few who is actually bipartisan in his goals and rhetoric.

    DRJ (a83b8b) — 6/12/2013 @ 1:40 pm

    
    

82. 55. “It’s pretty easy to prove.”

    – Steve57

    It’s extremely easy to prove. All it requires is the passage of a bill emphasizing border security over legalization.

    Comment by Leviticus (b98400) — 6/12/2013 @ 1:03 pm

    That’s no kind of standard. You could pass all the bills you like emphasizing border security over legalization and the executive branch simply won’t carry it’s end of the log.

    This describes the current situation to a tee. Congress has passed laws requiring fences to be built, biometric systems to track visa holders, etc. And the feds simply don’t do it. They just don’t enforce the law, as Obama’s DREAM act by executive fiat so amply demonstrates.

    You can pass all the bills in the branch of government that still has to pretend it’s somewhat responsive to the will of the people. So what? The rest of the government operating in open contempt of the people will just squash it.

    But that doesn’t mean it’s not the will of the people. I still say all those fake triggers and pretend penalties is a nod from the amnesty enthusiasts that they know full well where public opinion is on this issue. Otherwise they wouldn’t be going through the effort of deceiving us.

    Steve57 (7895a0) — 6/12/2013 @ 1:41 pm

    
    

83. Since when has the will of the people been a viable metric? ObamaCare? Stimulus?

    JD (129489) — 6/12/2013 @ 1:45 pm

    
    

84. “If “the American people” wanted increased border security, they would get it. They haven’t gotten it because they don’t really care about it outside of the rhetorical realm.”

    Leviticus – So? All you are saying is that you doubt the American people want border security because border security bills have not passed. What you are ignoring is the actual border security bills that were passed and the fences that were not built or security measures not implemented, basically all the broken promises of Washington. Take some time and look at that.

    Taking your form of argument, if the American people really wanted Amnesty, they would have had it by now. They don’t. It was defeated in 2006, 2007 and it looks likes it is going down to defeat again this year.

    I win.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/12/2013 @ 1:46 pm

    
    

85. Just wondering, is willful destruction of the economy Treason?

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 6/12/2013 @ 1:47 pm

    
    

86. “Taking your form of argument, if the American people really wanted Amnesty, they would have had it by now. They don’t. It was defeated in 2006, 2007 and it looks likes it is going down to defeat again this year.

    I win.”

    – daleyrocks

    You win at proving my point. THE AMERICAN PEOPLE!! don’t want Amnesty, anymore than they want a border fence.

    Leviticus (b98400) — 6/12/2013 @ 1:49 pm

    
    

87. “Since when has the will of the people been a viable metric?”

    JD – It’s usually not, but in 2007 when they shut down Congressional switchboards due to the volume of calls I think it caused a few congresscritters to wake up.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/12/2013 @ 1:50 pm

    
    

88. “Since when has the will of the people been a viable metric?”

    – JD

    What other metric do you propose? I mean that as a serious question?

    Leviticus (b98400) — 6/12/2013 @ 1:51 pm

    
    

89. I mean, I mean that as a serious question.

    Leviticus (b98400) — 6/12/2013 @ 1:51 pm

    
    

90. “THE AMERICAN PEOPLE!! don’t want Amnesty, anymore than they want a border fence.”

    Leviticus – Prove it!

    daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/12/2013 @ 1:52 pm

    
    

91. “You win at proving my point.”

    Leviticus – No, I won at proving my point based on the form of argument you made. I have no idea what point you are trying to make. You have not provided any evidence of what you believe the American people want or what actually happened in 2007 so I think you’re just commenting for sh_ts and giggles.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/12/2013 @ 1:56 pm

    
    

92. Senator Cruz asks everyone to speak to their representatives and senators to support reform that actually fixes the problem by finding a middle ground: (1) increase border security, (2) increase legal immigration, and (3) agree to give current illegal immigrants a legal status that will never include a path to citizenship. Cruz said we need to welcome immigrants and honor the rule of law, and this is the only way to do that.

    What do you think about this?

    DRJ (a83b8b) — 6/12/2013 @ 2:00 pm

    
    

93. 85. “Taking your form of argument, if the American people really wanted Amnesty, they would have had it by now. They don’t. It was defeated in 2006, 2007 and it looks likes it is going down to defeat again this year.

    I win.”

    – daleyrocks

    You win at proving my point. THE AMERICAN PEOPLE!! don’t want Amnesty, anymore than they want a border fence.

    Comment by Leviticus (b98400) — 6/12/2013 @ 1:49 pm

    But the American people do want a border fence. That’s one of the reasons the Gang of Eight bill is a fraud. We already have laws on the books mandating a border fence that DHS simply refuses to comply with. I don’t have the actual stats at hand, but the gist is we have laws mandating the feds build hundreds of miles of fence. And they’ve built something like 36 miles of fence.

    So, again, I don’t see the number of bills passed as in any way the standard by which we measure how well the government executing the will of the people. Which is why I’m for rejecting the next fraud they’ve come up with. I am totally for doing nothing if the alternative is doing what the fraudsters want.

    Steve57 (7895a0) — 6/12/2013 @ 2:08 pm

    
    

94. I like the idea in #91, though I would consider giving citizenship to those who came here illegally if:
    1) they have no criminal record
    2) they need to wait (for citizenship) until after the last person from outside the country has had been approved or denied + say 3 years

    When one breaks a law there needs to be a consequence, but the consequence needs to be in proportion to the severity of the crime. Breaking the speed limit does not mean you lose your car.
    Someone who just wanted a better life for his family by escaping Mexico should not be given a free pass, but I think a consequence for someone otherwise obeying the law and contributing to society could be designed that does not mean being deported.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 6/12/2013 @ 2:21 pm

    
    

95. DRJ, it’s #3 I have a problem with.

    agree to give current illegal immigrants a legal status that will never include a path to citizenship.

    My problem is on two levels. First, I consider it an insult when Marco Rubio tells me that the path to legalization in the Gang of Eight bill is harder than the regular path. If so, why would anyone choose it. My sarcastic reply is, “Why persecute the poor dears and create a separate, harder path to legalization. Let’s just use the old one that already exists which requires them to leave and start over. Which you, Marco Rubio, says is easier than the new carve out your bill creates.”

    So on that level I can’t accept any path to legalization other than the ones that already exist. And again, I didn’t create this problem. If the illegals (and their enablers in and out of government) are cool with being illegal than so am I. If they’re not cool with being here illegally, they know where the door is.

    On the other level I don’t believe it when the gub’mint tells me step one will never lead to step two. As in they’ll gain legal status but never get citizenship. I like Ted Cruz a lot, but I’m sure there’s some penumbra emitting all sorts of emanations that say that won’t last.

    Knowing where this road leads, I see no point in kicking the can further down it.

    Steve57 (7895a0) — 6/12/2013 @ 2:25 pm

    
    

96. I think this could be solved very easily if there was a bit of honest good will to find a solution, but there is not enough of that around

    we could/should have already with existing laws increased border security (right?) and worked harder to get illegal felons deported (yes?)

    we do those things then we can talk about seriously addressing the illegals that are here.

    And if somebody wants to make noise about all of the illegals overstaying their visas, then, guess what, nobody is stopping the govt looking for those folks too while the fence is being built.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 6/12/2013 @ 2:26 pm

    
    

97. Leviticus – Here’s a recent Rasmussen poll from June 7, 2013:

    Americans overwhelmingly feel that legal immigration is good for the country and think highly of immigrants. Seventy-six percent have a favorable view of immigrants who work hard, support their families and pursue the American Dream. Most (55 percent) still support the concept of comprehensive reform that will secure the border and legalize the status of many of those currently in the country illegally.

    But they also want the system to work so that the border will be secure enough to prevent future illegal immigration.

    That point has become a major political problem for those who favor reform. The so-called Gang of Eight proposal in the Senate legalizes the status of immigrants first and promises to secure the border later. By a 4-1 margin, voters want that order reversed.

    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/political_commentary/commentary_by_scott_rasmussen/odds_grow_longer_for_immigration_reform

    daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/12/2013 @ 2:27 pm

    
    

98. Leviticus – how many border security measures have been passed, and are being ignored? If you want to use passed legislation as a measure of the will of the people, then border security beats out amnesty easily. Plus, all you have to do is look at how far out of their way they will go to not call it amnesty.

    The will of the people is a ridiculous metric, but if that is the metric you choose, I wish to champion their voices and immediately repeal ObamaCare.

    JD (129489) — 6/12/2013 @ 2:32 pm

    
    

99. Rubio is such a Christie.

    mg (31009b) — 6/12/2013 @ 2:33 pm

    
    

100. daley, I don’t think it’s necessary to work that hard at it. Because of voter opinion we don’t pass amnesty laws. But on the other hand we really do pass laws demanding border security. Which apparently then get shipped out to the same warehouse where they store the Arch of the Covenant recovered by Indiana Jones, never to be seen again.

     Steve57 (7895a0) — 6/12/2013 @ 2:39 pm

     
     

101. “But on the other hand we really do pass laws demanding border security. Which apparently then get shipped out to the same warehouse where they store the Arch of the Covenant recovered by Indiana Jones, never to be seen again.”

     Steve57 – Or you get some border state governor who says fences don’t work because people will just use taller ladders.

     Seems strange to me that open borders/amnesty supporters believe the United States should be one of the only sovereign nations on earth not allowed to secure its borders. Public education has really gone down the crapper.

     daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/12/2013 @ 2:52 pm

     
     

102. The problem with arguing “if the American people really wanted a secure border there would already be one” is that they have to rely on elected officials to do their bidding and to tell the truth. That would be the elected officials who often lie or evade on the stump to get elected, and then once in office do something completely different.

     So to say, well, x happened or didn’t happen, and “we” elected the guy so therefore it must be what the people wanted, isn’t really the right measurement, I think. The measurement should be did the elected officials actually do, or attempt to do, what they personally promised the voters they would. By way of illustration let me give an example having little or nothing to do with immigration. The current occupant of the White House ran in 2008 on closing Gitmo, on bringing the boys home, and having an open, sunlight drenched administration. Of course there were many voters who just went for the rock star persona and others who are die-hard partisans to the core. But there were also many voters who listened to his message and truly wanted Gitmo to be shut, wanted the wars to end, and pined for a non-secretive, responsive, post partisan government. They have not gotten any of it. Will the history books record what he promised to voters he’d do? Or will history say well, Gitmo open, drone killings of Americans and others, incursion into Libya, Obamacare, IRS pressure on certain political groups and secret spying on Americans must be what the public wanted because, after all, they elected him.

     elissa (e42687) — 6/12/2013 @ 3:03 pm

     
     

103. Dana, I mean that of those who are against illegal immigration, most of them are against it in all forms and pertaining to all races. It’s not an anti-Hispanic-Mexican thing.

     Patricia (be0117) — 6/12/2013 @ 3:10 pm

     
     

104. (3) agree to give current illegal immigrants a legal status that will never include a path to citizenship

     Cruz likely intends this as a poison pill, but it won’t work because there will not be enough votes for it to even have it considered as an amendment to the bill. I doubt he means it seriously. It’s petty, vindictive and un-American, I would even say posturing for the mouth breathers.

     nk (875f57) — 6/12/2013 @ 3:14 pm

     
     

105. i don’t really care what they do but they need to have an open honest debate about it not sneak around furtively like whores

     happyfeet (4bf7c2) — 6/12/2013 @ 3:29 pm

     
     

106. Since i’m a white farmer, in the future I expect to be forced to have illegals pick my berries, asparagus and ghost peppers.

     mg (31009b) — 6/12/2013 @ 3:36 pm

     
     

107. Comment by nk (875f57) — 6/12/2013 @ 3:14 pm

     Who knows, maybe it is an intentional overreach that can be modified as part of a compromise, if one is looking at making a law like bartering at the market.

     IDK

     MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 6/12/2013 @ 3:36 pm

     
     

108. This is going to be like the Pamplona Running of the Bulls.

     mg (31009b) — 6/12/2013 @ 3:38 pm

     
     

109. Elissa wrote:

     republican Dana–You’re trying to bring a dose of harsh reality medicine to this debate. That’s always good and worthwhile and why we have such excellent and spirited discussions here. But I’d just like us all to see that there’s a vast difference between the altogether proper use of the phrase “our president” or “our congress” because they are currently our country’s elected president and lawmakers– versus phrases that incorporate the royal “we”, such as “we haven’t enforced the borders”.

     Dana is exactly right. Elections do have consequences. So what has been the reaction by the American Right ever since? Well we’ve seen it well illustrated in this thread.

     I contend that today’s American Right have given up on the concept of Democracy – rule by the majority. Thus we get congressional obfuscation, filibusters, unwillingness to work out agreements and solutions, the majority of the majority, all topped off with voter suppression.

     I’m wondering how you expect to win elections under these self-imposed impediments, discounting the impact of gerrymandered districts and the impact thereof on the House.

     Are we going to survive longer term with this no-nothing negativism which has seeped into our politics, not to mention the politicized SCOTUS we now have?

     Instead of obstructing legislative initiatives, you folks need to participate and present your case. Then you will be heard, and possibly returned to power when you make good sense.

     Dana understands this, but judging from your contrary comments, not many of the rest of you do!

     Gramps2 (f598c1) — 6/12/2013 @ 3:39 pm

     
     

110. Well, if I weren’t already convinced, now I know Gramps2 is Perry.

     Hey, Perry, I agree — elections have consequences, although I’m not convinced that if you don’t like what happens, it means you’ve given up on democracy. But if we assume that is true, then I guess that means the liberal left gave up on democracy after we invaded Iraq.

     DRJ (a83b8b) — 6/12/2013 @ 3:45 pm

     
     

111. So, you gave up first.

     DRJ (a83b8b) — 6/12/2013 @ 3:46 pm

     
     

112. Elissa wrote:

     But there were also many voters who listened to his message and truly wanted Gitmo to be shut, wanted the wars to end, and pined for a non-secretive, responsive, post partisan government. They have not gotten any of it. Will the history books record what he promised to voters he’d do? Or will history say well, Gitmo open, drone killings of Americans and others, incursion into Libya, Obamacare, IRS pressure on certain political groups and secret spying on Americans must be what the public wanted because, after all, they elected him.

     All true. But American Presidents are not in total control. An active legislative branch has lots of power to initiate, check, and balance, not to mention the judiciary as well. The problem is that we are in a state of dysfunction. How is that working for us?

     Gramps2 (f598c1) — 6/12/2013 @ 3:50 pm

     
     

113. dysfunction is no good

     happyfeet (c60db2) — 6/12/2013 @ 3:51 pm

     
     

114. Cruz likely intends this as a poison pill, but it won’t work because there will not be enough votes for it to even have it considered as an amendment to the bill. I doubt he means it seriously. It’s petty, vindictive and un-American, I would even say posturing for the mouth breathers.

     please nk, quit TEASING ME

     okay, JD I am seeking help…

     E.PWJ (c3dbb4) — 6/12/2013 @ 3:54 pm

     
     

115. nk,

     I disagree. I think Cruz means it because he’s been saying it for some time. Plus, Texans want to find a way to let immigrants stay here — not only because they will come back anyway but also because we need them as workers. Texas has a fairly good economy (it could be better, but it also could be worse) and relatively low unemployment.

     In addition, for now, most immigrants to Texas come for work. I think Cruz’s solution will appeal to immigrants who come here looking for work more than citizenship. But if we give immigrants a path to citizenship, we’ll see more immigrants coming for the handouts that come with citizenship.

     DRJ (a83b8b) — 6/12/2013 @ 3:54 pm

     
     

116. Sorry I started this conversation. I should have learned my lesson last week, but I’m a slow learner.

     DRJ (a83b8b) — 6/12/2013 @ 3:55 pm

     
     

117. “all topped off with voter suppression”

     Perry – Voter fraud is voter suppression. Don’t let partisanship cloud your thinking.

     daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/12/2013 @ 3:56 pm

     
     

118. You kind of purposely miss the point a lot don’t you Perry?

     elissa (e42687) — 6/12/2013 @ 3:57 pm

     
     

119. All the “voter suppression” has been done by Democrats. Its historically been utterly owned by Democrats.

     And in the 2012 cycle, we saw that Democrats’ suppression of their political opponents reached new highs as they used the IRS to harrass, obstruct and intimidate their political opponents.

     Obama’s admiration of Hugo Chavez has had tangible effects upon American liberty.

     SPQR (768505) — 6/12/2013 @ 4:03 pm

     
     

120. More significantly Mark Lloyd, who rightly saw private media, as one of the major impediments to Chavez’s ‘wonderful democratic revolution’

     narciso (3fec35) — 6/12/2013 @ 4:09 pm

     
     

121. All true. But American Presidents are not in total control.

     But American Presidents are in total control of ending a war, or removing prisoners from a military detention facility. It’s part of the definition of “Commander in Chief”

     Chuck Bartowski (11fb31) — 6/12/2013 @ 4:09 pm

     
     

122. I liked Bush 43’s plan better, DRJ. Migrant workers with a path to immigrant status and citizenship. That did not go through. Maybe that’s what Cruz remembers.

     Forgive the “mouth breathers” crack, but there’s a lot of truth in this statement:

     “The history of U.S. immigration reflects the social, economic, and political climate of the time. It also illustrates the nation’s ongoing
     ambivalence about immigration, as well as offers insights on the role of race, prejudice, fear, and nativism in shaping U.S. immigration policy.”

     nk (875f57) — 6/12/2013 @ 4:15 pm

     
     

123. Perry, you forgot to take your daily serving of Ensure.

     The checks and balances and separation of powers is not “dysfunction,” rather, it is intentionally designed gridlock so that fleeting passions and mob rule would never rule the day.
     Don’t you know anything about the Founding Fathers and their intentions ?

     You should know—you’re old enough to have gone to school with some of the Founders’ children.

     Elephant Stone (6a6f37) — 6/12/2013 @ 4:21 pm

     
     

124. Until people get over the idea this will be the last amnesty, nothing will happen.

     Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 6/12/2013 @ 4:44 pm

     
     

125. the last amnesty, was occasioned by the aftermath of the ’82 economic collapse in Mexico, the next wave of immigration, came after the ’94 peso devaluation,

     narciso (3fec35) — 6/12/2013 @ 4:56 pm

     
     

126. “…the role of race, prejudice, fear, and nativism in shaping U.S. immigration policy.”

     nk, with all due respect that’s the kind of crap I expect to get from liberals who are aghast when I say that a 16th century Venetian clock demonstrates a higher level of technological achievement than a Papuan wood mask from the same era.

     How dare I say that! (I actually got that reaction in a museum once.) It must be the role of race, prejudice, fear, and nativism that causes me to look at an intricately engineered clock with myriad moving parts and something hacked out of a tree trunk with a stone ax and notice a difference.

     Likewise, not all sources of immigration are the same. I believe there are ways of measuring that.

     Steve57 (7895a0) — 6/12/2013 @ 4:57 pm

     
     

127. …something hacked out of a tree trunk with a stone ax…

     It was attractively hacked out of tree trunk, it must be said. No doubt the stone ax was a miracle in and of itself.

     Can I have desert now?

     Steve57 (7895a0) — 6/12/2013 @ 4:59 pm

     
     

128. We could start with the Chinese Exclusion Act, Steve.

     And I’m sure it was a very nice clock even if it was built by people who burned heretics alive. 😉

     nk (875f57) — 6/12/2013 @ 5:09 pm

     
     

129. nk,

     I don’t care what you call Cruz or people who like him. I shouldn’t discuss things online if I’m that sensitive, but I confess I’m concerned about immigration and I want to think seriously about our options. Of course, most commenters here are serious but not everyone, so clearly I need to lighten up.

     DRJ (a83b8b) — 6/12/2013 @ 5:12 pm

     
     

130. This is why we can’t have nice things:

     On Wednesday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) blocked a vote on the border security amendment to the “Gang of Eight” immigration bill offered by Senate Judiciary Committee ranking member Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA).
     Grassley was pushing for an up-or-down vote by the Senate on his amendment, which would have required the border to be secured for six full months before any legalization of illegal immigrants in America began. Reid objected to Grassley’s motion, effectively implementing a 60-vote threshold that completely blocked any attempt at a fair vote on the amendment.
     Grassley protested Reid’s plan, which the Senate Majority Leader laughed off. “I’m somewhat surprised at this request,” Reid said in response. “How many times have we heard the Republican Leader say on this floor and publicly that the new reality in the United States Senate is 60?”
     So I just thought I was following the direction of the Republican Leader. I mean, this is what he said. That’s why we’re having 60 votes on virtually everything. And with this bill, with this bill, no one can in any way suggest this bill is not important and these amendments aren’t important. So, I care a great deal about my friend, the ranking member on this committee, but I object.
     Grassley responded with fury to Reid’s obstruction. “Well, it’s amazing to me that the majority has touted this immigration bill process as one that is open and regular order, but right out of the box, just on the third day, they want to subject our amendments to a filibuster like a 60-vote threshold.”

     http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/06/12/Floor-Fight-Reid-blocks-Senate-vote-on-border-security-before-amnesty-amendment

     elissa (e42687) — 6/12/2013 @ 5:14 pm

     
     

131. All other countries are entitled to secure their borders, regulate foreign travelers and guests, and dictate who may emigrate to their country.

     Except for the USA, because…racism !!!1!!1!and fear of people with funny accents !!!!1!
     Or something.

     Elephant Stone (6a6f37) — 6/12/2013 @ 5:15 pm

     
     

132. I apologize again, DRJ. You are the only person here I care enough about never to want to offend. Please blame it on botched brain surgery.

     nk (875f57) — 6/12/2013 @ 5:24 pm

     
     

133. I contend that today’s American Right have given up on the concept of Democracy – rule by the majority.

     Perry – and lets be clear, Gramps2 is Perry – how did you keep your head from assploding when you typed that?

     JD (129489) — 6/12/2013 @ 5:25 pm

     
     

134. Plenty of duck tape,

     narciso (3fec35) — 6/12/2013 @ 5:26 pm

     
     

135. Ok, ok, Elephant Stone, but do you really want the Irish? Be honest.

     nk (875f57) — 6/12/2013 @ 5:27 pm

     
     

136. Sorry. Racist/language.

     nk (875f57) — 6/12/2013 @ 5:28 pm

     
     

137. nk, what have the Greeks done in recent years other than to inspire people to run up their credit cards and forego using underarm deodorant ?

     Elephant Stone (6a6f37) — 6/12/2013 @ 5:31 pm

     
     

138. Go watch the hockey game nk. It’s less brutal and more calming than participating on political blogs.

     elissa (e42687) — 6/12/2013 @ 5:32 pm

     
     

139. Greek yogurt.

     nk (875f57) — 6/12/2013 @ 5:35 pm

     
     

140. 127. We could start with the Chinese Exclusion Act, Steve.

     And I’m sure it was a very nice clock even if it was built by people who burned heretics alive. 😉

     Comment by nk (875f57) — 6/12/2013 @ 5:09 pm

     I really don’t see what any of this has to do with assessing technological development.

     But I’ll play. Do you really want to have the contest of “where are you more likely to be burned alive: 16th Century Venice or 16th Century Papua New Guinea?”

     I’m game.

     Steve57 (7895a0) — 6/12/2013 @ 5:46 pm

     
     

141. Maybe if we had discrete checkpoints, like Ellis Island, in the second great immigration wave

     narciso (3fec35) — 6/12/2013 @ 5:49 pm

     
     

142. I think in Papua New Guinea they would kill you, dress you out, and cook you properly.

     nk who knows what kuru is (875f57) — 6/12/2013 @ 5:49 pm

     
     

143. Steve, I think based on the recent news reports, 21st century Chicago wins that game.

     Elephant Stone (6a6f37) — 6/12/2013 @ 5:57 pm

     
     

144. nk, if you know what kuru is then the “cook you properly” part of your comment becomes questionable.

     Steve57 (7895a0) — 6/12/2013 @ 5:58 pm

     
     

145. 142. Steve, I think based on the recent news reports, 21st century Chicago wins that game.

     Comment by Elephant Stone (6a6f37) — 6/12/2013 @ 5:57 pm

     If 21st century Chicago has managed to become noticed for world class time pieces it has managed to escape detection from my eagle-like gaze.

     Steve57 (7895a0) — 6/12/2013 @ 6:01 pm

     
     

146. No, I was referring to violence.
     Every day on Drudge, it is “nine murdered overnight in Chicago,” “Chicago teens go on rampage on Miracle Mile,” et al.

     Elephant Stone (6a6f37) — 6/12/2013 @ 6:03 pm

     
     

147. Been away from the computer for a few hours.

     Patricia wrote:

     Dana, I mean that of those who are against illegal immigration, most of them are against it in all forms and pertaining to all races. It’s not an anti-Hispanic-Mexican thing.

     That gets back to the perception problem. It doesn’t matter how much you say that you are being completely even-handed, the actual effects fall primarily on Hispanics, because the bulk of the illegal immigrants are Hispanic. You may be as pure of heart as the wind-driven snow, but if your opponents believe that your intentions are racist, they will react to you as though you are a racist.

     Hispanics should, by all rights, be Republicans. They come here primarily to work, they are socially conservative, they are primarily Catholic, and they ought to be a prime recruitment group for the Republican Party. But no, we treat them as pariahs, while at the same time looking in the other direction while other conservatives are hiring them. We push them to the Democrats!

     The Dana who tells the truth to himself (af9ec3) — 6/12/2013 @ 6:03 pm

     
     

148. Cooking does not destroy prions. That’s why mad cow disease is such a big deal.

     nk who knows what a prion is (875f57) — 6/12/2013 @ 6:04 pm

     
     

149. Well I’m still sending back to the chef, nk, and demanding a refund. I don’t care at which stage the whole dish became a bad idea.

     Steve57 (7895a0) — 6/12/2013 @ 6:08 pm

     
     

150. Comment by nk who knows what kuru is (875f57) — 6/12/2013 @ 5:49 pm
     I agree.

     138.Greek yogurt
     Which I’m going to contaminate with strawberry-rhubarb crumble so I can tell myself it is a healthy snack.

     Did you know Nutella is part of a nutritious snack if you mix it into plain Greek Yogurt?
     Had they used that defense they would have won that 3 million dollar lawsuit in CA.

     MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 6/12/2013 @ 6:09 pm

     
     

151. elissa wrote:

     The measurement should be did the elected officials actually do, or attempt to do, what they personally promised the voters they would. By way of illustration let me give an example having little or nothing to do with immigration. The current occupant of the White House ran in 2008 on closing Gitmo, on bringing the boys home, and having an open, sunlight drenched administration. Of course there were many voters who just went for the rock star persona and others who are die-hard partisans to the core. But there were also many voters who listened to his message and truly wanted Gitmo to be shut, wanted the wars to end, and pined for a non-secretive, responsive, post partisan government. They have not gotten any of it. Will the history books record what he promised to voters he’d do? Or will history say well, Gitmo open, drone killings of Americans and others, incursion into Libya, Obamacare, IRS pressure on certain political groups and secret spying on Americans must be what the public wanted because, after all, they elected him.

     You know, we had all sorts of polling data which showed that the public were opposed to ObaminableCare, we had a TEA Party formed at the grassroots level over ridiculous government spending, we had a Democrat in the White House who spent trillions telling us he was going to stimulate the economy, and it didn’t work in the slightest, we had the Democrats advocating for an easy path to citizenship and voting rights for the illegal immigrants, while the GOP wanted to stop all of that nonsense and promised increased border security, we had every metric we see as logical and reasonable in our favor, and the voters re-elected President Obama, the voters increased the Democrats’ margin in the Senate, and the voters reduced the Republicans’ advantage in the House.

     I said it above: I do not care what the opinion polls say, and I do not care what public surveys indicate. There’s only one poll which counts, and it was held on election day; our positions did not win!

     The Dana who can count (af9ec3) — 6/12/2013 @ 6:23 pm

     
     

152. The concept of prions is bizarre. A non-living infectious agent. A kind of hybrid of a poison and a germ.

     MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 6/12/2013 @ 6:23 pm

     
     

153. 147. Cooking does not destroy prions. That’s why mad cow disease is such a big deal.

     Comment by nk who knows what a prion is (875f57) — 6/12/2013 @ 6:04 pm

     By cooking you clearly mean applying heat. That wasn’t my intention. Unlike DNI Clapper, I will not keep secret my own personal definition of “cooking.” I think “cooking” starts with the selection of ingredients and continues until the dish is served.

     I consider myself “cooking” even if the only thing that results is a bowl of ceviche that never sees an actual source of heat.

     If you disagree with me I heartily encourage you to contact your Senator to disapprove my nomination to Congressional ceviche chairman.

     Steve57 (7895a0) — 6/12/2013 @ 6:28 pm

     
     

154. narciso wrote:

     Maybe if we had discrete checkpoints, like Ellis Island, in the second great immigration wave

     When we had Ellis Island, the vast majority of immigrants arrived by sea, and that meant that they all had to funnel through seaports. Today, we have a wave of immigration across a 2,000 mile long land border; it just ain’t the same problem.

     Of course, when we had our great immigration waves in the 19th century, we had no immigration laws or restrictions or quotas; we took in everybody who could get here. There was a brief period in which we restricted Chinese immigration, then that lapsed, and we din’t reimpose immigration laws until the early 20th century. Ellis Island was a funnel, not a gate.

     The geographer Dana (af9ec3) — 6/12/2013 @ 6:29 pm

     
     

155. You can make your own Greek yogurt, MD. Find a pint of plain yogurt with live cultures to use as leavening. I don’t know if Dannon still makes one. Heat whole milk (add real half and half if you want it sweeter and heavier) to where you cannot hold your forefinger in it no more than the count of ten. It’s pasteurization, I know. Let it cool to tepid and stir in the yogurt with live cultures. When it thickens, you have yogurt floating on top of whey.

     Here’s the “Greek” yogurt part, separating the yogurt from (most of) the whey. Use a fine cheese cloth draped inside a colander. Ladle or pour the yogurt in. Gather the cheesecloth with the yogurt and tie it into a sack. Hang it and let as much whey as you don’t want drain out. Done.

     nk who knows what a prion is (875f57) — 6/12/2013 @ 6:30 pm

     
     

156. Ain’t nobody got time for no prions! Resist we much.

     Colonel Haiku (b78bbf) — 6/12/2013 @ 6:31 pm

     
     

157. The concept of prions is bizarre. A non-living infectious agent. A kind of hybrid of a poison and a germ.

     Comment by MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 6/12/2013 @ 6:23 pm

     Wasn’t there a Nobel Prize for its discovery?

     nk who knows more neurology than he wants to (875f57) — 6/12/2013 @ 6:33 pm

     
     

158. nk, what have the Greeks done in recent years other than to inspire people to run up their credit cards and forgo using underarm deodorant ?
     
     Comment by Elephant Stone

     Wristwatch sales

     Colonel Haiku (b78bbf) — 6/12/2013 @ 6:33 pm

     
     

159. Never fall for that one.

     Colonel Haiku (b78bbf) — 6/12/2013 @ 6:34 pm

     
     

160. They are almost metaphysical. You know more about it than me, are they protolife?

     nk (875f57) — 6/12/2013 @ 6:35 pm

     
     

161. Ha, ha, Colonel, you’ve seen all the vendors on the boardwalk at Venice Beach.
     For an extra five bucks, you can also get these “fashion designer” sunglasses !

     Elephant Stone (6a6f37) — 6/12/2013 @ 6:37 pm

     
     

162. I’d proffer that amnesty would change the America we’ve come to know and love, but that’s already happened over the last 4.5 years.

     Colonel Haiku (b78bbf) — 6/12/2013 @ 6:37 pm

     
     

163. ==There’s only one poll which counts, and it was held on election day; our positions did not win!==

     Well, Dana, I went to great lengths to use an example that did not focus on “our positions” but instead to focus on “their positions” in order to demonstrate that almost nobody’s positions (except possibly Valerie’s) prevailed after the first Obama election because politicians do not do what they say they will do. I think that makes it much harder to say what and whose “positions” won on election day- only which candidate got more votes. And those are not the same things by a long shot. I thought it was a worthwhile point to make and still do.

     elissa (e42687) — 6/12/2013 @ 6:40 pm

     
     

164. I found my late father’s fake Rolex, Stones, and it’s hilarious while being associated with poignant memories. I’d like to blame it on the Greeks, but it was teh Mexicans!

     Mendooooooozzzaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

     Colonel Haiku (b78bbf) — 6/12/2013 @ 6:40 pm

     
     

165. But no, we treat them as pariahs,

     You don’t get to claim to state the truth while spewing nonsense like this.

     JD (b63a52) — 6/12/2013 @ 6:44 pm

     
     

166. our positions did not win!

     Therefore we should adopt theirs, be Dem-lite?

     JD (b63a52) — 6/12/2013 @ 6:46 pm

     
     

167. Colonel,

     To borrow a favorite catchphrase of the lefties, was the Rolex “fake, but accurate” ?

     Elephant Stone (6a6f37) — 6/12/2013 @ 6:47 pm

     
     

168. DRJ wrote:

     I disagree. I think Cruz means it because he’s been saying it for some time. Plus, Texans want to find a way to let immigrants stay here — not only because they will come back anyway but also because we need them as workers. Texas has a fairly good economy (it could be better, but it also could be worse) and relatively low unemployment.

     George Bush won the Texas gubernatorial race in 1994, and again in 1998, with a significant share of the Hispanic vote because he was not anti-immigrant. He didn’t win the Hispanic vote in 2000 and 2004, but he didn’t get destroyed there, either, winning 35% and 44% respectively.

     In 2008, John McCain won only 31% of the Hispanic vote, and in 2012 Mitt Romney carried a whopping 27% of the Hispanic vote. Among Asians, the vast majority of whom arrived here legally, and a demographic which tends to be educated, hard-working, and definitely not welfare malingerers, Mitt Romney did even worse, winning only 25% of the vote; in 1992 and 1996, the Republicans won the Asian vote, and in 2000, 2004 and 2008 won 41, 44 and 35% respectively.

     The non-Texan Dana (af9ec3) — 6/12/2013 @ 6:51 pm

     
     

169. George Bush won the Texas gubernatorial race in 1994, and again in 1998, with a significant share of the Hispanic vote because he was not anti-immigrant.

     You keep using anti-immigrant, which simply is wrong, I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. But that is employing the abuse of the language that the Left prefers to traffic in.

     Oh, Bush was at least that many percentage points better than McCain. Always was.

     JD (b63a52) — 6/12/2013 @ 6:57 pm

     
     

170. The immigration bill is D.O.A. WE WIN. The LIBTARDOCRATS can try to run vs the EVIL RACIST GOP, but 2014, is going to be about OBAMA’S scandals and the bad economy. Rubio will be a footnote in history and he’ll be a FOX CONTRIBUTOR. He won’t be around long. He has lost a great deal of the Conservative GOP.

     Gus (694db4) — 6/12/2013 @ 7:02 pm

     
     

171. JD wrote:

     our positions did not win!

     Therefore we should adopt theirs, be Dem-lite?

     One of the lessons I remember back from Dr Malcolm Jewell, then chairman of the Political Science Department at the University of Kentucky, was that politics is the art and science of wining elections so that you could put your policy ideas into force as government policy and action. That’s very simple and very basic: if you win, you get to do what you think is best, and if you lose, someone else makes policy.

     What we must do is to adopt an immigrant friendly policy, and give Hispanics a reason to vote Republican. They should be Republican anyway, due to most of the other issues, but we have been so busy pushing them into the Democratic camp that we have totally blown that.

     Henry Clay once said, “I’d rather be right than be President,” and whether he was right or not, he never was President, losing campaigns in 1824, 1832 and 1844. We can be absotively, posilutely right on every issue, we can have the smartest candidates, and if that earns us 45% of the vote, all of our brilliance, all of our savvy, and all of our wisdom won’t be worth squat.

     The coldly realistic Dana (af9ec3) — 6/12/2013 @ 7:03 pm

     
     

172. JD wrote:

     You keep using anti-immigrant, which simply is wrong, I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. But that is employing the abuse of the language that the Left prefers to traffic in.

     If the immigrant populations see your policies as anti-immigrant, does it really matter if you say you aren’t?

     The Dana who understands that perception is reality (af9ec3) — 6/12/2013 @ 7:07 pm

     
     

173. But they can can accuse a candidate, of contributing to the death of one of their employees,
     why do they pay no penalty for that?

     narciso (3fec35) — 6/12/2013 @ 7:08 pm

     
     

174. “If the immigrant populations see your policies as anti-immigrant, does it really matter if you say you aren’t?”

     NO!

     Hoagie (3259ab) — 6/12/2013 @ 7:11 pm

     
     

175. JD wrote:

     But no, we treat them as pariahs,

     You don’t get to claim to state the truth while spewing nonsense like this.

     Nonsense? Regardless of how wise or noble or good you see your policies as being, the immigrant populations — including Asians as well as Hispanics — certainly don’t see them as anything other than nativist white. American Jews, who ought to be natural Republicans, being hard-working, non-welfare malingering, highly educated and entrepreneurial, give three-quarters of their votes to Democrats. Those are facts, those things are the truth.

     The Dana who is telling you the truth (af9ec3) — 6/12/2013 @ 7:14 pm

     
     

176. This administration arms the Sinaloa cartel and the Zetas, killing hundreds, yet they vote for him as if he was the second coming of Cesar Chavez.

     narciso (3fec35) — 6/12/2013 @ 7:15 pm

     
     

177. Nobody here likes the idea of amnesty, no one likes rewarding the illegal, line-jumping behavior, but that is what is going to happen, because there really is no realistic and practical alternative.
     Comment by The coldly realistic Dana

     I’ll have to say “huh?” So years and years of rampant amounts of illegal immigration therefore necessitate amnesty? And there’s no other choice to that?

     I think if one is truly coldly realistic, he or she will state that — at most and at worse — it’s best to stick with the status quo. IOW, don’t inflame a bad situation by being a pushover and enabler to all the line jumpers, all the scofflaws.

     Instead of worrying about the need for amnesty, worry about ensuring that the border is as non-porous as possible. Don’t worry about anything else until that issue is dealt with and fixed.

     I don’t mind people who are easygoing about illegal immigration, but with one, big caveat: They better not dare also be the types who would — if they have school-age children — move mountains and oceans to keep little Johnny or little Susie from attending a campus whose student body is predominantly of the “undocumented” demographic, with the perennial, multi-generational academic mediocrity that goes along with that.

     Mark (cd1aee) — 6/12/2013 @ 7:15 pm

     
     

178. Yet they support the most explicitly anti Israeli and pro Arab administration in history, explain that detail.

     narciso (3fec35) — 6/12/2013 @ 7:16 pm

     
     

179. Whether it’s the “war on women”, “RACISTS!!!” “war on the middle class” or “1%”, is the reality of whatever the manufactured perception du jour narrative is, going to be fixed by passage this 1000 page bill? Maybe, but I just don’t see how.

     elissa (e42687) — 6/12/2013 @ 7:17 pm

     
     

180. Dana, #22:

     Nobody here likes the idea of amnesty, no one likes rewarding the illegal, line-jumping behavior, but that is what is going to happen, because there really is no realistic and practical alternative

     Well, you don’t have to give them citizenship, do you? Legalize and accept them as permanent guests, civil rights, etc, but only their children will ever become citizens (and some already are).

     Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 6/12/2013 @ 7:25 pm

     
     

181. What we must do is to adopt an immigrant friendly policy, and give Hispanics a reason to vote Republican.

     I understand a big reason that people in Mexico have a long tradition of voting for the PRI, which is Mexico’s version of the Democrat Party, and generally resisting the PAN Party — or Mexico’s version of the Republican Party — is because of the great controversy about illegal immigration south of the border. Some Mexican politicians apparently have been decrying all the masses of illegal immigrants into Mexico, and political debate on immigration has been hot and heavy, and that’s made many voters in Mexico lean left.

     Oh, they haven’t, it hasn’t, and they’d react the exact same way regardless?!

     BTW, I understand a video posted to Youtube incubated so much anti-American sentiment, that demonstrators stormed the US consulate in Benghazi and even killed a few people.

     Mark (cd1aee) — 6/12/2013 @ 7:30 pm

     
     

182. BTW, the fence thing is fine and all, but if you make it the ONE THING YOU MUST HAVE, they’ll build a crappy fence and laugh at you.

     Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 6/12/2013 @ 7:35 pm

     
     

183. Well if you are a Guatemalan, a Honduran, or even a Cuban, and you show up undocumented, they ship you back, right as rain,

     narciso (3fec35) — 6/12/2013 @ 7:38 pm

     
     

184. “What we must do is to adopt an immigrant friendly policy, and give Hispanics a reason to vote Republican.”

     The coldly realistic Dana – Do the math. Republicans would have had to win 85% of the Hispanic vote to have had an impact on the 2012 election.

     Just Not Happening

     I think you should rename yourself “the foolish Dana who wants to engage in identity politics like a Democrat rather than stick to principles”

     daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/12/2013 @ 7:44 pm

     
     

185. If the immigrant populations see your policies as anti-immigrant, does it really matter if you say you aren’t?

     BS. You seem willing to simply allow the Dems and the media to define you, on their turn, however they wish. And on e you allow them to do so, they are not going to all of a sudden like you. Or agree with you. They will continue to call you a racist sexist xenophobic misogynist. And they will know how to gt you to abandon your ideals. And the rule of law.

     JD (b63a52) — 6/12/2013 @ 7:46 pm

     
     

186. Do we really need any more Greek diners or sponge divers? Is it racist, natavistic or prejudicial to say no? Can’t we just say you’ve done a fine job screwing up your own country, why don’t you just stay over there and help fix it rather than coming over here and helping to screw up ours any more than it already is?

     daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/12/2013 @ 7:48 pm

     
     

187. Those are facts, those things are the truth.

     You claim we treat them as pariahs. And then fall back onto your perception is reality claptrap. There is no evidence conservatives treat immigrants as pariahs. None. It is hyperbole, at best, to claim that. But apparently, on this topic, that is what we can e left from you.

     JD (b63a52) — 6/12/2013 @ 7:49 pm

     
     

188. Got a lot of Greek illegal aliens around, do you daleyrocks?

     nk (875f57) — 6/12/2013 @ 7:53 pm

     
     

189. Senator Cruz asks everyone to speak to their representatives and senators to support reform that actually fixes the problem by finding a middle ground: (1) increase border security, (2) increase legal immigration, and (3) agree to give current illegal immigrants a legal status that will never include a path to citizenship. Cruz said we need to welcome immigrants and honor the rule of law, and this is the only way to do that.

     And he is exactly right on all three points. That is the bill the House should return. Just saying NO won’t work when the fix is in to pass _something_. Instead come up with a workable alternative that gives the illegals more than they hoped for when they came here, with limits.

     Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 6/12/2013 @ 8:01 pm

     
     

190. It’s petty, vindictive and un-American, I would even say posturing for the mouth breathers.

     Well the comment certainly is.

     Why should we grant citizenship to people whose first act in America was to break the law?

     Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 6/12/2013 @ 8:04 pm

     
     

191. Because you like to treat them like pariahs, Kevin.

     JD (b63a52) — 6/12/2013 @ 8:07 pm

     
     

192. Oh. Forgot.

     But isn’t letting them come out of the shadows and have full civil rights, other than voting, going to make their pariah status untenable?

     One might wonder why the voting thing seems to be a deal-breaker for Dems. It’s almost like they want to stuff the ballot boxes.

     Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 6/12/2013 @ 8:13 pm

     
     

193. Goodnight, all. I am being unnecessarily snarky to people I otherwise respect.

     JD (b63a52) — 6/12/2013 @ 8:14 pm

     
     

194. Yes, Stanley Prusiner at UCSF did not discover or originate the concept, but did a significant amount of research to take it from an inference to something that was discovered. I heard him speak once, IIRC he was promoting the idea once upon a time that HIV alone did not cause AIDS but needed the presence of another coinfecting agent- that was before we had many of the tools that allowed further understanding of the biology of HIV.

     In one way the leading prion theory doesn’t require anything “living” at all, some chemical-physical process contorts a protein into an unusual position that is actually more stable then the original, and when it bumps into a protein of the same kind it is like a domino effect.
     But enough of that.

     OT, over at PowerLine there is a link to a lecture about why man-made global warming is not true:
     http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2013/06/another-nail-in-the-climate-change-coffin.php

     I’d be interested in some of you with more math, physics, and engineering background than I to look at it if you have time and interest.
     I need to get to bed, more later if someone wants to look at it.

     MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 6/12/2013 @ 8:15 pm

     
     

195. I’m sorry that I offended DRJ, but I otherwise stand by that. It is petty, vindictive and un-American and appeals to the worst anti-illegal alien immigrant sentiments. Pound of flesh kind of thinking.

     nk (875f57) — 6/12/2013 @ 8:18 pm

     
     

196. Yes, Dana, it’s perception, and the GOP has failed to even address the problem of language about illegal immigration.

     And I think the proper order of your suggestion is first we should given them a reason to vote GOP, then legalize them.

     Patricia (be0117) — 6/12/2013 @ 8:31 pm

     
     

197. I don’t know what influences other people’s reactions to the controversy of illegal immigration, but in my case when I come across things like the following — in regards to one of the bluest of blue American states, the most liberal and do-gooder regions in this nation, bar none, where the government is as nanny-state coddling as any other out there — I’m forced to note that if this is a glimpse into what the future of the USA is all about, then pardon me for wincing and shuddering…

     scholarworks.umb.edu, April 2012:

     The Mauricio Gastón Institute, University of Massachusetts Boston

     The academic achievement of Latino students has been a national concern for decades and the gap between White and Latino student achievement has not narrowed.

     Latino students now represent the largest and fastest-growing minority group in our nation’s schools. More than one in five students in K-12 are Latino. Nationally, scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) math and reading tests have increased over the past two decades for both White and Latino students but the gap has stayed the same, even when scores are disaggregated by gender and, for the most part, by income.

     Research indicates that this achievement gap begins as early as pre-school, where Latinos are the least likely to be enrolled in pre-school and to exhibit school readiness skills. This gap continues throughout the educational pipeline. In high school, Latino students are 2.5 times as likely as White students to drop out of school and twice as likely as Black students.

     An educational attainment gap is also apparent in the adult population, where Latinos have the highest proportion of adults who have earned less than a high school diploma and the lowest proportion who have attained a bachelor’s degree or higher.

     Over the past decade, while total student enrollment in both Boston Public Schools (BPS) — Massachusetts’ largest public school district — and the state as a whole has declined, the number of Latino students and proportion of Latino student enrollment have increased. In BPS, Latino students now constitute 43.0% student enrollment, representing the largest racial/ethnic group in the district.

     Mark (cd1aee) — 6/12/2013 @ 8:51 pm

     
     

198. “I think you should rename yourself “the foolish Dana who wants to engage in identity politics like a Democrat rather than stick to principles””

     – daleyrocks

     Or maybe “the Dana who would like Republicans to win an election in the next 20 years instead of electing a milquetoast sh*thead like Mitt Romney on the backs of a bunch of protoconservative saps who should know better.”

     That one’s catchy, too.

     Leviticus (2c236c) — 6/12/2013 @ 9:34 pm

     
     

199. Dana is arguing for amnesty. Dana is arguing for a rhetorical shift from “criminally stupid” to “marginally savvy.” It’s hilarious that there’s so much pushback.

     Leviticus (2c236c) — 6/12/2013 @ 9:36 pm

     
     

200. Dana *isn’t* arguing for amnesty.

     Leviticus (2c236c) — 6/12/2013 @ 9:36 pm

     
     

201. You could have fooled me.

     JD (b63a52) — 6/12/2013 @ 10:06 pm

     
     

202. “Got a lot of Greek illegal aliens around, do you daleyrocks?”

     nk – Who said anything about illegals?

     daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/12/2013 @ 10:53 pm

     
     

203. The Third Book of Moses wrote:

     Dana *isn’t* arguing for amnesty.

     To which JD responded:

     You could have fooled me.

     Dana is arguing for realism: the illegals are here, they aren’t gong back on their own, and we aren’t going to round them up and deport them. That leaves us with two choices: don’t do anything (which politicians like) or come up with a way to address the fact that there are so many people here illegally.

     Anything we do which allows the illegals to stay here in some legal fashion will be called “amnesty” by the opponents. So, we can come up with some form of amnesty, however it is structured, or we can do nothing, leave them in illegal status, and guarantee that their children, who will be citizens, will be Democrats.

     The Dana already at work on a cold, rainy day (3e4784) — 6/13/2013 @ 3:48 am

     
     

204. I think it is naive to think that capitulating to leftist name-calling will make future generations vote for Team R. Adopting the bastardization of language where being against people breaking our laws makes one anti-immigrant is profoundly disingenuous. Perception is not reality. I guess we will just have to agree to disagree.

     JD (04b3a3) — 6/13/2013 @ 4:24 am

     
     

205. nk – Who said anything about illegals?

     Way to go, piss off both the busboys and the restaurant owners.

     nk (875f57) — 6/13/2013 @ 5:00 am

     
     

206. 183. I saw 73% but point established. Immigration sans assimilation and we are Europe, once removed.

     gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 6/13/2013 @ 5:30 am

     
     

207. Who’s up for the largest mass movement of people since Stalin’s collectivisation of ’32

     Yeah, thate going to be a stain we will ne er erase.

     Much as I hate it – we need to end the entitlments so they would want to go home – no wait, we dont and wont ever have the votes….

     Of course Dana can count the votes and he said what needed to be said

     Now he’s been kicked to the curb where we have cookies….

     E.PWJ (c3dbb4) — 6/13/2013 @ 5:36 am

     
     

208. 204. Went to State Girls’ Track last weekend. Ate twice at local franchise in Roseville of Kelley’s Deli owned by Hispanic w/ daughter our waitress. Best diner food in my life.

     Didn’t think to ask if they were legal.

     gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 6/13/2013 @ 5:38 am

     
     

209. 202. I read they go back and forth al the time. Smorgasboard.

     gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 6/13/2013 @ 5:41 am

     
     

210. I say inter the illegals in CA and wait for the Big One.

     Oh, duh..

     gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 6/13/2013 @ 5:47 am

     
     

211. Dawn breaks on third day running of stocks and bonds tanking.

     gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 6/13/2013 @ 6:06 am

     
     

212. daleyrocks wrote:

     I think you should rename yourself “the foolish Dana who wants to engage in identity politics like a Democrat rather than stick to principles”

     And do you think that decrying illegal immigration and saying taht we must build a fence and try to get rid of the illegal immigrants who are here now isn’t identity politics?

     Our illegal immigration problem doesn’t stem from too many Englishmen sailing to the United States to escape the oppression of Queen Elizabeth, nor too many undocumented Germans coming here, nor Canadians sneaking south along the border. Whether you say it or not, whether you even believe it or not, when you refer to illegal immigration, you are referring to Hispanics coming north from, or through, Mexico. You can say that isn’t what you mean, but it is what most people hear, and you are lying to yourself if you don’t recognize that is what most people hear.

     The Dana who points out uncomfortable truths (3e4784) — 6/13/2013 @ 6:25 am

     
     

213. Dana, we have a big lawn to mow and a big house to clean. We cannot afford to pay legals’ wages. Please show some compassion for the suburban middle class too.

     Just kidding. Once we legalize the bunch that’s here, I’ll still have their cousins pouring in over the border to the jobs the now-legals used to do, at the same old wages. I’m not worried.

     nk (875f57) — 6/13/2013 @ 6:41 am

     
     

214. So, we can come up with some form of amnesty, however it is structured, or we can do nothing, leave them in illegal status, and guarantee that their children, who will be citizens, will be Democrats.

     You’re naive, Dana With Your Long Posting Names, because the politics pervasive in the Latino community in the US are not too different from the politics found in countries like Mexico or Venezuela, or Argentina.

     As for whether the political dynamics of the illegal immigration controversy are “identity” or not, when I see statistics that indicate a high percentage of the Latino populace remains under-performers or laggards academically — on an apparently indefinite, multi-generational basis — and I see the interminable socio-economic mess that is Mexico, that does represents an identity to me. An identity I don’t consider reassuring or uplifting in the least.

     Mark (cd1aee) — 6/13/2013 @ 6:42 am

     
     

215. #211 Truth 1 – Lie 0

     Rodney King's Spirit (ae12ec) — 6/13/2013 @ 6:42 am

     
     

216. This would all be solved if we simply had a Guest Worker Program and moved all illegals into it.

     No Social Welfare allowed, state, federal, local. Only school for kids parri passu to US Citizen kids.

     No longer “in the shadows” and more tax revenue.

     Rodney King's Spirit (ae12ec) — 6/13/2013 @ 6:45 am

     
     

217. The Shrub proposed it, we opposed it. It looks good now, don’t it?

     nk (875f57) — 6/13/2013 @ 6:47 am

     
     

218. Did anyone ask the illegals under a lawless government whether the’d capitulate and accept ‘legality’, whatever that entails.

     Cue the wordsmiths, ‘undocumented citizens’, multiple allegiances?

     gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 6/13/2013 @ 7:18 am

     
     

219. Did anyone ask the illegals under a lawless government whether they’d capitulate and accept ‘legality’, whatever that entails.

     Cue the wordsmiths, ‘undocumented citizens’, multiple allegiances?

     gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 6/13/2013 @ 7:18 am

     
     

220. More law, who benefits?

     http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/06/obama-administration-thugs-threaten-state-department-whistleblower-and-her-kids/

     One guess, chillins.

     gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 6/13/2013 @ 7:21 am

     
     

221. 220. Did you say ‘lawyers’? You are smarter than a fif’ grader!

     gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 6/13/2013 @ 7:23 am

     
     

222. Whether you say it or not, whether you even believe it or not, when you refer to illegal immigration, you are referring to Hispanics coming north from, or through, Mexico.

     I expect better from you. This is tedious, and aggressively dishonest.

     JD (04b3a3) — 6/13/2013 @ 7:25 am

     
     

223. It’s not dishonest. The two of you are just talking past each other. Dana is arguing about rhetorical impacts, and you’re talking about modalities.

     Dana isn’t saying that when you say “illegal immigrants” you are actually referring to Hispanics coming north.. Dana is saying that when you say “illegal immigrants,” all people will ever hear is “Hispanics coming north.”

     Leviticus (2c236c) — 6/13/2013 @ 7:33 am

     
     

224. That whole whether you say it or not, and even whether you believe it or not clause suggests otherwise, Leviticus.

     JD (04b3a3) — 6/13/2013 @ 7:40 am

     
     

225. If Ted Cruz and Rubio, thrown Rand in as well, used this issue – the amnesty to make a huge trade

     I would grant unconditional – non background check – non penalty paying amnesty for the following

     1. A Flat tax of 12% no deductions

     2. Repeal of Obama care and replace with a nationwide basic care and a nationawide flood insurance type medical disaster care to be written by the insurance companies

     3. Enact Texas type tort and malpractice reform

     4. Raise the minimum wage to 10 per hour

     5. lower corporate income taxes to 15%

     6. Reform social security – remove the medicare tax and enact the Bush reform

     7. End most of all subsidies

     8. Line item veto

     9. Remove 1 senator from states below 2.5 million in population add 1 senator from states with over 20 million in population

     10. Reduce Senate Terms to 4 years

     11. pass balanced budget amendment

     E.PWJ (c3dbb4) — 6/13/2013 @ 7:42 am

     
     

226. Going forward, it should be pretty clear that we need an immigration treaty with Mexico. One with some balance — currently Americans living legally in Mexico may have fewer rights than Mexicans illegally in the US.

     Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 6/13/2013 @ 7:51 am

     
     

227. This is what one of my senators has to say on the subject. He is willing to state publicly that the southern border is that which is primarily at issue here.

     I support a two-step immigration reform that first secures our southern border and then creates a tough but fair path to citizenship for immigrants living illegally in the United States. I have always believed that is the recipe for bipartisan consensus on this issue. Once we restore the public’s trust in our government’s ability to control the border, we can move forward with other reforms.

     That is why I was disappointed to hear the Majority Leader dismiss a constructive border security amendment set to be introduced by Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.) as a “poison pill” before the text of the amendment had even been released. If requiring real border security with verifiable metrics and independent certifications is a “poison pill” for the Democratic leadership, then I fear we are setting a course for division and partisanship. My votes yesterday were a demonstration of this great disappointment.

     Sen. Cornyn’s proposal would do exactly what proponents of the current legislation say they support – require border security first and then proceed with other reforms. The metrics are not unreasonable, the goals are not unobtainable and the amendment is not a “poison pill.” As we move forward with consideration of this bill, I urge Democratic leaders to rethink a strategy that castigates those who seek true immigration reform and also consider border security a top national security priority.

     If the Cornyn amendment or something very close to it is adopted by the Senate, I will be proud to cast a yes vote on S. 744.

     elissa (cbe588) — 6/13/2013 @ 7:57 am

     
     

228. Anyone who thinks that awarding Latino illegal aliens amnesty and a path to citizenship is going to result in more votes for the GOP is making a very foolish assumption indeed.

     The evidence is to the contrary. Latinos voted 37% for the GOP before Ronald Reagan signed the last amnesty legislation in 1986, the next election Latinos voted only 30% for GOP candidates.

     Latino voters are natural Democrat voters, always were, always will be, they’ll never give the majority of their votes to the GOP, never, NEVER.

     ropelight (80be4e) — 6/13/2013 @ 8:02 am

     
     

229. Dana is saying that when you say “illegal immigrants,” all people will ever hear is “Hispanics coming north.”

     Not sure what Dana’s point is in stressing that notion — even for political reasons — and I want to say “no s–t, Sherlock.” The lion’s share of illegal immigrants is coming from countries like Mexico, not Canada, Japan or Britain.

     Mark (cd1aee) — 6/13/2013 @ 8:04 am

     
     

230. Latinos voted 37% for the GOP before Ronald Reagan signed the last amnesty legislation in 1986, the next election Latinos voted only 30% for GOP candidates.

     Meanwhile, Mexico has a lengthy voting tradition that mirrors that of urban America (ie, mindlessly, foolishly wedded to the left) because the controversy of illegal immigration has been roiling the scene throughout Mexico for decades!! Uh-huh, yep.

     Mark (cd1aee) — 6/13/2013 @ 8:07 am

     
     

231. “That whole whether you say it or not, and even whether you believe it or not clause suggests otherwise, Leviticus.”

     – JD

     I disagree. The “whether you say it or not or believe it or not” clause is meant to convey that your own meaning is out of your hands – that media priming has created a state of affairs where interpretation operates on a Power Model of the sort that Jeff Goldstein rages against.

     Media has co-opted your ability to say “illegal immigrants” without listeners hearing “Hispanics coming north.”

     Leviticus (b98400) — 6/13/2013 @ 8:37 am

     
     

232. Yeah, it’s just so great an idea to alienate Hispanics!

     Census: White majority in U.S. gone by 2043

     By Hope Yen, Associated Press

     For the first time, America’s racial and ethnic minorities now make up about half of the under-5 age group, the government said Thursday. It’s a historic shift that shows how young people are at the forefront of sweeping changes by race and class.

     The new census estimates, a snapshot of the U.S. population as of July 2012, comes a year after the Census Bureau reported that whites had fallen to a minority among babies. Fueled by immigration and high rates of birth, particularly among Hispanics, racial and ethnic minorities are now growing more rapidly in numbers than whites.

     It’s the latest in a series of reports that have signaled a major, long-term shift in the demographics of the United States, as non-Hispanic white Americans are expected to become a minority group over the next three decades. For years, Americans of Asian, black and Hispanic descent have stood poised to topple the demographic hegemony historically held by whites.

     Based on current rates of growth, whites in the under-5 group are expected to tip to a minority this year or next, Thomas Mesenbourg, the Census Bureau’s acting director, said.

     The government also projects that in five years, minorities will make up more than half of children under 18. Not long after, the total U.S. white population will begin an inexorable decline in absolute numbers, due to aging baby boomers.

     The Dana who can actually count (3e4784) — 6/13/2013 @ 8:47 am

     
     

233. Leviticus – I refuse to allow others to determine their meaning of what I say. If Dana prefers to capitulate, that is on him. It doesn’t make it right. Especially here, where people have referants, history, and the ability to ask for clarification. Dana made sweeping general statements that I will continue to object to.

     JD (04b3a3) — 6/13/2013 @ 8:54 am

     
     

234. i think it’s admirable our friend Dana is precisely 1425% more willing to entertain an actual debate than roobs and meghan’s coward daddy put together

     happyfeet (8ce051) — 6/13/2013 @ 9:01 am

     
     

235. “And do you think that decrying illegal immigration and saying taht we must build a fence and try to get rid of the illegal immigrants who are here now isn’t identity politics?”

     Dana the foolish – I did not say anything about getting rid of the illegal immigrants who are here now. My interest is in controlling the situation going forward and doing what is right for the country, not doing what is right to win elections.

     daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/13/2013 @ 9:02 am

     
     

236. F***ing wetbacks, got us fighting among ourselves.

     nk (875f57) — 6/13/2013 @ 9:03 am

     
     

237. I hear dog whistles in the morning.

     daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/13/2013 @ 9:09 am

     
     

238. For good or for ill, remember the DNC’s goal: get Independents and Republicans to quit voting.

     This got them a second administration for BHO. And it will give us many, many “Team D” administrations in our future.

     It doesn’t matter that the RNC establishment, goofily, helps out. The results are the same. As I said before: if it makes Axelrod smile, I need to rethink my opinion.

     So…don’t sit out any elections. Much as I worry about Third Party approaches (it allows people with <50% of the vote to win), vote away. Work at the local level to get candidates you DO like in.

     The worst—very worst—thing a person who disagrees with the Administration to do is to start sitting out politics.

     Because "Team D" is delighted. And will vote in a bloc, no matter what their standard bearer says or does.

     Simon Jester (c8876d) — 6/13/2013 @ 9:11 am

     
     

239. Taking time with the issue is the proper plan. The time for talking has just begun.

     If you come here illegally, you have to leave. And that includes your towed along children, and children born here to parents illegally present.

     You go back, and then come here the right way.
     A guest worker program is fine.

     SarahW (b0e533) — 6/13/2013 @ 9:15 am

     
     

240. If some of those children are near-adult english speakers, educated in the US, then give them guest worker priority and a path to citizenship. But first they have to leave.

     SarahW (b0e533) — 6/13/2013 @ 9:16 am

     
     

241. Dana runs a cement plant, he employs illegal aliens and gets more work from them than American workers who aren’t as productive or as reliable. His perspective is informed by experience, and limited by it as well.

     ropelight (80be4e) — 6/13/2013 @ 9:21 am

     
     

242. Actually, the central idea is this: it’s not fair to the people who follow the rules. I teach college. Students really object to authority, and think of themselves as free thinkers and progressives.

     But you should seem them on Honor Court, looking into allegations of cheating. They want those students OUT. Because it damages the value of their own education.

     So most Americans, despite intimations of world weary cynicism, dislike hypocrisy and unfairness. That is what helped drive (for good or for ill) same sex marriage: an issue of fairness.

     How does legalizing illegals (and they are, definitionally, illegal) ahead of people who have been patiently waiting in line, fair?

     It damages the social contract.

     But I get very little traction with this with my progressive colleagues. Their focus in on Mexico.

     I kind of wonder how they would feel about illegal immigrants who were white and Mormon.

     Just my 2 cents.

     Simon Jester (c8876d) — 6/13/2013 @ 9:22 am

     
     

243. It occurs to me that I may have wrongly characterized Dana’s immigrant workers as illegals. That’s an assumption I have no right to make and I apologize.

     ropelight (80be4e) — 6/13/2013 @ 9:24 am

     
     

244. That under-the-table wage and/or superior work ethic is not nothing. It’s valuable. The thing is the burdens of hiring citizens are very high.

     It’s going to crack up Obamy’s schemes to have any kind of underground labor market. xNobody ever talks about that part – that everyone’s going to be looking for a way to get out of those burdens, and he can’t be looking the other way for immigrants and crack down on citizens without a basic unfairness becoming very obvious.

     A boost to welfare rolls will boost votes for social programs of course and dilute opposition, but also kill the underground labor market at the same time.

     I don’t really think everybody here illegally needs to leave, btw. I think it should end chances for citizenship.

     So long as they pay the downside of reduced status, stay off voter and welfare rolls, can’t send money out of the country, and US citizens are not punished more severely for going off grid, its workable.

     The real problem is the beast marks we citizens have to bear, like a herd of tagged cattle, subjects of our benevolent sheparding state, etitled to know our dearest concerns, and movements and associations. That’s what I’d really like to shake off.

     SarahW (b0e533) — 6/13/2013 @ 9:41 am

     
     

245. This got them a second administration for BHO.

     The GOP has moved far to the left and chose Mitt Romney as its nominee. Conservatives didn’t leave the GOP; it left us. We had a choice between the guy who thought up Obamacare, wrote an op ed urging a national mandate to buy health insurance, vs Obama, the guy who made it happen.

     There is no way to solve this puzzle of who to vote for that results in conservative reforms. This country has moved to the left and both parties have moved to the left because both parties are run by short term cynics who crave power for its own sake. Helping Republican progressives get their slice of the pie is not interesting to me.

     I hear Republicans whine “but then the democrats will win”. Yup. I hear them whine “but the conservatives will be stuck in the wilderness”. We are anyway. Where are we if Christie, Rubio, Romney, and Bloomberg run things? In the wilderness.

     What smart conservatives see is that if the GOP is so cynical, then it will realize that the only way it will regain power is if it moves to the right. It’s taken conservatives for granted with decades of ‘you’re voting against the democrat, not for the republican’. That got us here, with an enormous deficit. If the GOP’s brainiacs want more power, they will have to earn the support of conservatives.

     It means absolutely nothing to me if a corrupt republican wins instead of a corrupt democrat. It’s not the party I support.

     It’s possible the GOP will finally learn after so many examples, that nominating a Christie, Rubio, Romney, Mccain, or Dole will result in failure. It’s possible they will nominate a conservative leader. But I really doubt it. Not because of the beltway, but because of the voters. They want their goodies, and they have some vague sense that they are getting away with stealing from our future generations. They are going to choose another ‘moderate’ or progressive republican so they can grumble about democrats without any risk of paying/taking their fair share.

     I think it’s going to take a long time before we hit reality hard enough where sensible spending comes back into style, but the math makes it inevitable. Until then, I would rather encourage the GOP become something worth supporting instead of blindly and loyally voting for whatever they shovel at me. I love my country more than I hate democrats, after all.

     Dustin (303dca) — 6/13/2013 @ 10:06 am

     
     

246. ropelight – I have no problem with Dana the foolish advocating for his point of view. I think it is short-sight to advocate for policies merely to offer dubious chances of winning elections as opposed to benefiting the country.

     daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/13/2013 @ 10:08 am

     
     

247. short-sighted

     daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/13/2013 @ 10:08 am

     
     

248. Rope has assumed that I have immigrants, legal or otherwise, working for me; that assumption is incorrect. Due to requirements for commercial driver’s licenses, that’s a bit rare.

     What I do see are the Hispanics — and a lot of Portuguese — at the other end of the truck, the guys pouring walls and footings and slabs. They just plain work, and if there is one thing for which I have enormous respect, it’s a man who will work for a living.

     The concrete plant Dana (3e4784) — 6/13/2013 @ 10:41 am

     
     

249. Mr Rocks wrote:

     I think it is short-sight(ed) to advocate for policies merely to offer dubious chances of winning elections as opposed to benefiting the country.

     And if the policies you believe will benefit the country win 45% at the polls, how have they benefited the country?

     If you don’t win, then you aren’t in, and if you aren’t in, it doesn’t matter how wise and beneficial the policies you advocate might be; the guys who did win will put their ideas into government policy, and you will still be on the outside, looking in, telling them, vainly, that your ideas will work better.

     The Dana interested in winning elections (3e4784) — 6/13/2013 @ 10:45 am

     
     

250. Dustin,

     Friend, you probably shouldn’t be listing Mike Bloomberg as among your list of Republican apostates.

     Bloomberg is actually a lifelong Democrat who merely entered the GOP primary for Mayor in 2001 as a strategic calculation because he thought it would be an easier primary for him to win, as opposed to winning a more bare-knuckles fight against seasoned politicians in the Democrat primary, which ended up being won by Mark Green in an extended run-off election.

     Elephant Stone (6a6f37) — 6/13/2013 @ 10:49 am

     
     

251. “If you don’t win, then you aren’t in, and if you aren’t in”

     Dana the foolish – Correct and if you want to focus strictly on elections, if the amnesty you are advocating is passed, it does nothing to improve the probability of Republicans winning elections. Looking apart from elections, amnesty without secure borders creates a giant sucking sound again for the economy, this time north of the border.

     Secure our borders first. Fix our legal and illegal systems second.

     daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/13/2013 @ 11:03 am

     
     

252. Dana,

     Sometimes you advocate policies even if they lose. For instance, pro-life advocates have lost most of the battles since Roe v Wade became law but, if you are pro-life, it would be ludicrous to act like abortion is a good thing simply because it is the prevailing law or view.

     DRJ (a83b8b) — 6/13/2013 @ 11:06 am

     
     

253. Dana the foolish – If you remain unconvinced, just look at the remarkable success of the Republican outreach efforts to black voters who are also a natural conservative voting block and weep.

     daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/13/2013 @ 11:08 am

     
     

254. “if you are pro-life, it would be ludicrous to act like abortion is a good thing simply because it is the prevailing law or view.”

     DRJ – With all due respect, Mr. Feets likes to advocate what is popular and the prevailing view because he is staunchier than the rest of us.

     daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/13/2013 @ 11:11 am

     
     

255. Plus he is very body image conscious.

     daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/13/2013 @ 11:11 am

     
     

256. Dustin, I am not saying you are wrong. I am saying that sitting things out is bad.

     You and I will not agree on Romney, whom I believe would have been MUCH better than Still More Obama. But I despair of convincing people. The Democrats know that whomever they nominate will be 200% supported by their followers (I used the “200%” intentionally, given the fraud I believe that is in play).

     Go fight for what you believe. Convince others. Create that Third Party and show that it works.

     My fear is that about 25% will just sit things out. And then you get more and more Chicago politics. And many cynical world weary types will sit back and preen to justify it.

     Simon Jester (c8876d) — 6/13/2013 @ 11:22 am

     
     

257. Comment by Simon Jester (c8876d) — 6/13/2013 @ 9:22 am

     How does legalizing illegals (and they are, definitionally, illegal) ahead of people who have been patiently waiting in line, fair?

     There ain’t anything fair about immigration law in the first place. That’s number one.

     Number two, we could easily pass a law that didn’t give people present in the country already a legal advantage over people who never came if we were willing to increae the number of people who could immigrate legally.

     But there is a lobby opposing it, and people on the other side aren’t really all that disposed to fight for something like open borders.

     Note I say legal advantage, because if having a job arranged, education or speaking English adequately gave someone an advantage in petitioning to immigrate to the U.S. then having been here illegally would still be an advantage regardless, and you can’t avoid it..

     And even if someone was deported there would be still be some advantage from having been here a number of years. Maybe someone needs to figure out a way to take education or a knowledge of English away from them.

     And then there’s the advantage that as a result of having been here illegally, they met someone and got married, while if they had never been ion the United States the chances that they would have married a U.S. citizen are much smaller. Even limited to genuine marriages. And do we really want arranaged marriages like happens a lot with people from India? And some other places.

     Some people are so bothered by the idea of people getting a permanent benefit by breaking the law, they almost want to take away that.

     Actually they ignore that question, but there are people who don’t even want people born in the United States to be citizens if they never would have been born in the United States if everything had been legal.

     This idea just loses. There will always be advantages from immigrating legally.

     But there will be some risks too. There is the risk of death of having life disrupted. That’s why this mostly is done by people with little to lose.

     Number 3, there are very good grounds for giving someone already in the United States illegally an advantage over someone who never came:

     1) If you deport someone you can ruin someone’s life, as well in some caeses, lives of some U.S. citizens, but if you prevent someone from ever coming you merely crush a dream.

     Which is worse, ruining someone’s life or crushinga dream? I say ruining someone’s life.

     Thsi concept is known in law as “equity”

     2) Someone present in the United States has already passed a test perhaps. we know certain thinbgs they aren’t. These legalization schemes require someone to pass some tests – unfortunately too many. Saying they should pay back taxes is ridiculous.

     3) Integration is easier.

     Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 6/13/2013 @ 11:23 am

     
     

258. Comment by Elephant Stone (6a6f37) — 6/13/2013 @ 10:49 am

     ? Bloomberg is actually a lifelong Democrat who merely entered the GOP primary for Mayor in 2001 as a strategic calculation because he thought it would be an easier primary for him to win,

     That’s very true, and yet Bloomberg is very different than almost any Democrat.

     On crime and law enforcement, on schools, and on negotiating with public employee unions.

     Maybe that’s only because he wasn’t beholden to anyone,but he wasn’t.

     Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 6/13/2013 @ 11:27 am

     
     

259. I completely agree with Dustin 244. Instead of condemnation for “abandoning” the ship, I think conservatives deserve a medal for sticking it out through McCain-Romney.

     DRJ (a83b8b) — 6/13/2013 @ 11:28 am

     
     

260. I know, I know, he’s cwazy:

     http://www.conservativedailynews.com/2013/06/glenn-beck-within-24-hours-news-will-break-that-will-take-down-the-entire-power-structure/

     gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 6/13/2013 @ 11:30 am

     
     

261. In the meantime Attorney General Eric Holder is trying to raise the crime rate, and, incidentally, help the firearms industry.

     There’s no other way to put it.

     http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/holder-mugs-nypd-article-1.1371049

     Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 6/13/2013 @ 11:31 am

     
     

262. 259. [Glenn Beck is] Crazy for ratings, maybe.

     Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 6/13/2013 @ 11:32 am

     
     

263. From Ann Coulter’s column:

     “Democrats terrify Hispanics into thinking they’ll be lynched if they vote for Republicans, and then turn around and taunt Republicans for not winning a majority of the Hispanic vote.

     This line of attack has real resonance with our stupidest Republicans. (Proposed Republican primary targets: Sens. Kelly Ayotte, Jeff Flake, Lindsey Graham and Marco Rubio.) Which explains why Republicans are devoting all their energy to slightly increasing their share of the Hispanic vote while alienating everyone else in America.

     It must be fun for liberals to manipulate Republicans into focusing on hopeless causes. Why don’t Democrats waste their time trying to win the votes of gun owners?”

     We see Democrats use the same demonization strategy with black voters and Republicans recoil in fear from it every year.

     daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/13/2013 @ 11:32 am

     
     

264. At this point, I almost hope it’s true, gary.

     DRJ (a83b8b) — 6/13/2013 @ 11:32 am

     
     

265. Mr Rocks wrote:

     Dana the foolish – If you remain unconvinced, just look at the remarkable success of the Republican outreach efforts to black voters who are also a natural conservative voting block and weep.

     That is exactly what I am looking at! We have been, if not winning, at least competitive amongst Hispanic voters in the past, but if we don’t want to see them voting 92% for Democrats, the way blacks do, we need to start now, right now, in trying to sell conservatism to them.

     It is entirely possible that such an effort will fail, and Hispanics will become a 90% Democratic voting bloc. But if we do not try, they are virtually guaranteed to become a hugely Democratic voting bloc.

     In our history, we’ve been down this road before, with the Irish, and then the eastern Europeans; what immigrant group did we ever stop from coming here?

     The Dana interested in winning elections (3e4784) — 6/13/2013 @ 11:33 am

     
     

266. IF THE GOP IS THIS STUPID, IT DESERVES TO DIE

     http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2013-06-12.html

     Worth a read.

     daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/13/2013 @ 11:39 am

     
     

267. “we need to start now, right now, in trying to sell conservatism to them.”

     Dana – Conservatism is not pandering to identity groups to secure votes by doing things that consciously harm other citizens and massively increase deficits.

     daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/13/2013 @ 11:43 am

     
     

268. “In our history, we’ve been down this road before, with the Irish, and then the eastern Europeans; what immigrant group did we ever stop from coming here?”

     Dana – I have no problem with legal immigration. What part of that is hard to understand?

     daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/13/2013 @ 11:46 am

     
     

269. daleyrocks in right. Click on his link at #265, it’s a short article – 1 or 2 minutes tops. Coulter puts the lie to the assumption Latinos are waiting to embrace the Republican Party’s agenda. That unexamined notion is why the GOP is called The Stupid Party.

     ropelight (80be4e) — 6/13/2013 @ 11:52 am

     
     

270. The reason establishment Republicans want amnesty isn’t because they care about the Hispanic vote. It’s because they want businesses to donate money to their campaigns. Why should I support people like that?

     DRJ (a83b8b) — 6/13/2013 @ 12:00 pm

     
     

271. DRJ, you shouldn’t, and you can effectively signal your displeasure by calling the offices of your wrongheaded Congressional representatives and letting their flack catchers know you’re going to send their next opponent a campaign contribution.

     ropelight (80be4e) — 6/13/2013 @ 12:05 pm

     
     

272. My representative is holding the line, as is one of my Senators. My other Senator (Cornyn) knows he’s going to be primaried, and I will donate to his conservative or Libertarian opponents.

     DRJ (a83b8b) — 6/13/2013 @ 12:08 pm

     
     

273. need to start now, right now, in trying to sell conservatism to them.

     How does amnesty fit into conservatism? Plus, if this is what you had been advocating in this thread, there would have been way less pushback. However, you chose to call us xenophobes that viewed Mexicans as pariahs.

     JD (b63a52) — 6/13/2013 @ 12:25 pm

     
     

274. Jesus Effin Christ

     what immigrant group did we ever stop from coming here?

     We are not trying to stop any immigrant group from comin here legally.

     JD (b63a52) — 6/13/2013 @ 12:26 pm

     
     

275. I suddenly go a strawman screen saver. How did that happen?

     daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/13/2013 @ 12:35 pm

     
     

276. The thread has been uber strange– not because there were positions taken and arguments raised and pushbacks written– that happens here all the time. But our Dana of many adjectives has seemed so out of typical character in his presentations on this thread– almost like he is using an entirely different persuasion style, mental process and voice. It makes me wonder if he knows or suspects someone or some group is reading his posts and he believes he needs to put on a show of some sort for them.

     I hope “this too shall pass”. I want the old Dana back.

     elissa (d6d80a) — 6/13/2013 @ 12:44 pm

     
     

277. “Thsi concept is known in law as “equity””

     Sammy – Others might say the concept is known in the law as enforcing the law and comparing what you do to a person who has violated the law to enter this country and potentially violated other laws to stay in this country to somebody who residing in another country who has violated none of our laws is a risible concept.

     daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/13/2013 @ 12:44 pm

     
     

278. “It makes me wonder if he knows or suspects someone or some group is reading his posts and he believes he needs to put on a show of some sort for them.”

     – elissa

     How do you mean? That seems like a strange comment.

     Leviticus (b98400) — 6/13/2013 @ 12:47 pm

     
     

279. “I hope “this too shall pass”. I want the old Dana back.”

     elissa – I’m glad we have disagreements here and I do not want to speculate about your comment except to note that we know that Perry is a vindictive, deceitful, fascist, spy and typical of his ilk.

     daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/13/2013 @ 12:48 pm

     
     

280. Just what is their relationship?

     DRJ (a83b8b) — 6/13/2013 @ 12:53 pm

     
     

281. I don’t mean that in a personal way, only whether they have some business interests.

     DRJ (a83b8b) — 6/13/2013 @ 1:00 pm

     
     

282. Perhaps it is a strange comment. Perhaps it was inappropriate. Or too personal, and if so I sincerely apologize to Dana alone for that. But in my experience when people lash out, act extremely out of character for them, and it all comes seemingly out of nowhere, there is usually an underlying reason.

     elissa (d6d80a) — 6/13/2013 @ 1:05 pm

     
     

283. So, if Beck’s scoop is that Chief Justice Roberts was blackmailed to let Obamacare through, what’s the possible recourse?

     luagha (5cbe06) — 6/13/2013 @ 1:10 pm

     
     

284. Perhaps you know Dana better than I do, but I don’t see Dana “act[ing] extremely out of character,” and certainly not “lash[ing] out.”

     What I see is a disagreement between one conservative and others – nothing more – and it perturbs me that the disagreement seems to be such a big deal.

     Leviticus (b98400) — 6/13/2013 @ 1:12 pm

     
     

285. No need to look for a boogeyman, Dana’s got a blind spot when it comes to reliable hard-working blue collar employees, he’s loyal and protective. Sometimes overly so, but none of us are without fault, so chalk it up to an idiosyncratic peculiarity and let it go at that.

     ropelight (80be4e) — 6/13/2013 @ 1:25 pm

     
     

286. I thought this was about Dana and Perry so obviously my comment was way off base. I’m sorry.

     DRJ (a83b8b) — 6/13/2013 @ 1:44 pm

     
     

287. Nobody has an issue with the disagreement itself, Leviticus. It is the employment of leftist demagoguery that people are reacting to.

     JD (b63a52) — 6/13/2013 @ 1:45 pm

     
     

288. “No need to look for a boogeyman, Dana’s got a blind spot when it comes to reliable hard-working blue collar employees, he’s loyal and protective.”

     ropelight – Reliable, hardworking employees can be tough to find, retain and motivate. Democrats have not made it any easier by overregulating businesses. Being loyal and protective are admirable qualities in an employer.

     daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/13/2013 @ 1:46 pm

     
     

289. elissa wrote:

     The thread has been uber strange– not because there were positions taken and arguments raised and pushbacks written– that happens here all the time. But our Dana of many adjectives has seemed so out of typical character in his presentations on this thread– almost like he is using an entirely different persuasion style, mental process and voice. It makes me wonder if he knows or suspects someone or some group is reading his posts and he believes he needs to put on a show of some sort for them.

     I hope “this too shall pass”. I want the old Dana back.

     It’s the real me. But the fact that I am conservative, very conservative, does not mean that I must agree with what people categorize as the “conservative positions” on every issue. You would find me on the other side of what people would consider the conservative position when it comes to capital punishment as well. My position is simple: pro-life, from conception to natural death.

     And there are conservatives here who disagree on abortion; some conservatives here — not me — think that the state has no business in that issue.

     Conservatives may have a lot of similar opinions, but we don’t all march in lock-step.

     The Dana of many adjectives (af9ec3) — 6/13/2013 @ 2:57 pm

     
     

290. As for DRJ’s question, I know Perry, having met him twice. I also know Hoagie, who has also met Perry.

     Neither Hoagie nor I have any business interests with Perry, and I live more than 100 miles from where Perry resides.

     Perry was a very frequent commenter on my site until the episodes which led to a parting of the ways.

     The informative Dana (af9ec3) — 6/13/2013 @ 3:05 pm

     
     

291. Hey, Dana. I know it’s the old you. You were saying the same things a long time ago, like five years or more, before there was even Twitter I think. And people here were fracturing your gonads just the same as now.

     nk (875f57) — 6/13/2013 @ 3:07 pm

     
     

292. rope wrote:

     No need to look for a boogeyman, Dana’s got a blind spot when it comes to reliable hard-working blue collar employees, he’s loyal and protective. Sometimes overly so, but none of us are without fault, so chalk it up to an idiosyncratic peculiarity and let it go at that.

     You can scratch the “blue collar” part; I have enormous respect for anyone, blue or white collar, laborer or technician or manager, who is willing to work for a living. To me, the man who cleans out porta-johns on construction sites is a far more valuable member of society than the university-educated fellow who won’t work because he thinks that the only jobs he can get are somehow beneath him.

     The people who won’t work, the people who think that society somehow owes them a living? As far as I am concerned, they are every bit as valuable as dog poop.

     The laboring Dana (af9ec3) — 6/13/2013 @ 3:14 pm

     
     

293. Work is dignity, Dana.

     A huge and too rarely spoken to factor in our immigration issue is how much our government subsidizes sloth with expanded welfare programs. Dependency leads to loyal voters, desperate to keep what they are ‘entitled to’. And they are only entitled to it because ‘rich people can afford it’, which they can’t. They/we are stealing from their own kids.

     Dustin (303dca) — 6/13/2013 @ 3:17 pm

     
     

294. Never mind all this. Surprise!! The Obama administration has decided to intervene in Syria. “The red line has been crossed .It is a crisis and there has been a turning point.”

     elissa (d6d80a) — 6/13/2013 @ 3:33 pm

     
     

295. The nk with the long memory wrote:

     Hey, Dana. I know it’s the old you. You were saying the same things a long time ago, like five years or more, before there was even Twitter I think. And people here were fracturing your gonads just the same as now.

     That comment brings to mind an old article of mine, on my former site. In it, I quoted then Patterico commenter Dwilkers, who wrote:

     What bothers me about the immigration debate is people are reacting to it the same way they did to the Dubai ports deal – out of emotion. It doesn’t appear to me that many people are actually considering the implications of deporting 10 million people or erecting a Berlin Wall style barrier between the US and Mexico (and Canada also I presume).

     I just finished having a new house built a year ago. While it was being built I was at the site every day. Throughout the process, the excavation, laying drains, building the concrete forms, pouring the slab, framing, roofing, installation of windows, electrical, interior plumbing, gas, insulation, sheetrock, alarm system, painting, flooring, landscaping – the entire house was built by people that didn’t speak English (Hispanics).

     My point is, I think most people have this idea that Mexican immigrants are picking lettuce and cleaning toilets. They do that, sure, but they are far more integral to our economy than that stereotype would suggest.

     From what I can tell the emerging world economy is being set up as three spheres; Asian, European and American. With globalization, and again from what I can tell, the idea is that individual nations will not be able to compete globally as the US has in the past. Instead a larger American economic bloc including Canada, the US and Central America is the competitive design.

     So really, people need to get over it. Politicians are playing on people’s fears and prejudices in this debate. Neither party is going to stop illegal immigration. Forget it, it isn’t going to happen. It wouldn’t just drive up the cost of lettuce, it would shut down the US economy.

     They’re blowing smoke up your ass.

     I said it then, and I’l say it again: we have illegal immigration because we want illegal immigration.

     When you walk into a Seven/Eleven to buy a cup of coffee, and see a Hispanic foreign-looking employee at the cash register, do you demand to see his green card, do you assume that he is here illegally, and walk out the door, or do you do the polite, convenient, non-scene-making thing and quietly make your purchase?

     Every two years, a lot of us vote for the politicians who promise to do something about illegal immigration, but the vast majority of us vote, virtually every single day, for illegal immigration, with our wallets, by purchasing the goods and services that we know damned well that they provide.

     The consistent Dana (af9ec3) — 6/13/2013 @ 3:35 pm

     
     

296. Strawmen-R-U

     daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/13/2013 @ 3:42 pm

     
     

297. When you walk into a Seven/Eleven to buy a cup of coffee, and see a Hispanic foreign-looking employee at the cash register, do you demand to see his green card, do you assume that he is here illegally, and walk out the door, or do you do the polite, convenient, non-scene-making thing and quietly make your purchase?

     Actually I assume the person’s here legally. There’s about a one in four chance the 7/11 you walked into is corporate-owned, and generally speaking large multinational corporations don’t take the kind of risks you’re talking about. And even if it’s a franchise, they still have to run it 7/11’s way. These franchise companies provide the owners with a lot of services and generally HR is one of them. I haven’t walked into the manager’s office of any local 7/11 but I’d be surprised to see them all using their own forms and hiring procedures. I’d bet they’re all using 7/11’s forms and practices.

     As far as work on the house goes, I do check to make sure contractors aren’t using illegal aliens as labor. There are practical reasons for that. If the contractor is going cheap on the labor, what else is the contractor skimping on? All the while no doubt charging me the full price for everything and pocketing the difference.

     I know of contractors who will use illegal labor. They do lousy work.

     Steve57 (7895a0) — 6/13/2013 @ 3:55 pm

     
     

298. Every two years, a lot of us vote for the politicians who promise to do something about illegal immigration, but the vast majority of us vote, virtually every single day, for illegal immigration, with our wallets, by purchasing the goods and services that we know damned well that they provide.

     Amen.

     nk (875f57) — 6/13/2013 @ 4:03 pm

     
     

299. Comment by The truthful Dana (3e4784) — 6/12/2013 @ 10:51 am

     And we are lying to ourselves if we think that that is going to be changed.

     But we are also lying to ourselves when we say this will be the last amnesty.

     Since there is a strong enough lobby to prevent such a lie from being made, there will be no bill until people get over that idea, too.

     Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 6/13/2013 @ 4:28 pm

     
     

300. “I said it then, and I’l say it again: we have illegal immigration because we want illegal immigration.”

     Dana – You can keep saying it, but that does not mean it is true.

     I reject your argument that the economy will collapse without illegal immigration.

     Please be more specific on the “we” that you believe want illegal immigration, because I don’t see it.

     I built a new house as well in 2001 and the only workers on the GC’s different crews that did not speak fluent English were a couple of the Polish finishing carpenters who did excellent work.

     daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/13/2013 @ 4:46 pm

     
     

301. Mr Rocks wrote:

     “I said it then, and I’l say it again: we have illegal immigration because we want illegal immigration.”

     Dana – You can keep saying it, but that does not mean it is true.

     Oh, but it is. How many people her, in this forum, actually take serious efforts to not buy products made by illegal immigrants or use services provided by people we cannot be certain are her legally?

     When you go to a restaurant, to you inquire as to whether the dishwasher hidden in the kitchen is here legally? When you stop to buy gasoline, to you ask to see the cashier’s green card if he looks foreign?

     Everyone who spends money on goods and service provided in part by illegal immigrants is voting, with his wallet, for them to come here and stay here.

     The realistic Dana (af9ec3) — 6/13/2013 @ 6:30 pm

     
     

302. Daleyrocks, just because someone speaks fluent English it does not mean he’s legal. I live in a suburb of Philly and if I refused to patronize businesses with illegals I’d starve, have grass ten feet tall and never be able to buy gasoline.

     Hoagie (3259ab) — 6/13/2013 @ 7:13 pm

     
     

303. How many strawmen do you plan on destroying?

     JD (b63a52) — 6/13/2013 @ 7:17 pm

     
     

304. i love the illegal immigrants i just don’t think we can afford to legalize all of them and sprinkle benefits all over them meghan’s coward daddy style

     also i’m loving how Team R’s message is illegals hell yeah but ohnoes not gay ones

     these Rs and their crazy good political skillz

     watch and learn baby

     happyfeet (8ce051) — 6/13/2013 @ 7:27 pm

     
     

305. “Daleyrocks, just because someone speaks fluent English it does not mean he’s legal.”

     Hoagie – Thank you for that information.

     daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/13/2013 @ 7:35 pm

     
     

306. “I live in a suburb of Philly and if I refused to patronize businesses with illegals I’d starve, have grass ten feet tall and never be able to buy gasoline.”

     Hoagie – How do you know the employees are illegal? Do they look different or smell different or do you ask for ID?

     daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/13/2013 @ 7:38 pm

     
     

307. happyfeet,

     One solution that isn’t going to happen unless they make me King of America is to eliminate welfare except in emergencies, and then only after drug tests and community service. Just essentially gut the welfare system. SS disability, food stamps, etc. Then you means test Social Security payouts, not because I like it but because Math. Then you impose a flat sales tax to replace the income tax, progressive style (Fair Tax’s proposed prebate) and you impose a balance budget that raises or lowers the tax rate with last year’s spending (with a rainy day fund to cover emergencies).

     Do all that, and suddenly the fear of illegal immigrant costs goes away (as do some of the moochiest immigrants, I suspect). Then we can let any law abiding person enter our country. Hopefully we can spruce up the freedom a little bit so as to attract bright folks with a dream.

     After a little while, I think America would be pretty healthy financially. Unfortunately, no matter how many times I declare myself king, nobody at the grocery store will do what I say, so I guess this is all riding on my ability to mind control the President. I’ll keep working on it.

     Dustin (303dca) — 6/13/2013 @ 7:39 pm

     
     

308. I didn’t get Leahy’s amendment, either? Is anybody for real up there?

     nk (875f57) — 6/13/2013 @ 7:42 pm

     
     

309. “I live in a suburb of Philly and if I refused to patronize businesses with illegals I’d starve, have grass ten feet tall and never be able to buy gasoline.”

     Hoagie – Why couldn’t the businesses survive with legal immigrants if we reformed our immigration system? Are they illegally paying the illegal immigrants you believe they employ below the minimum wage Democrats keep raising? If so, is that something of which you approve?

     daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/13/2013 @ 7:43 pm

     
     

310. ==have grass ten feet tall==

     daleyrocks, I fear I’m showing my age here, but regular old junior high and high school boys and girls used to hire themselves out to mow lawns for spending money and to save for college. I’ve noticed they don’t seem to do that much anymore.

     elissa (d6d80a) — 6/13/2013 @ 8:22 pm

     
     

311. But in my experience when people lash out, act extremely out of character for them, and it all comes seemingly out of nowhere, there is usually an underlying reason.

     Comment by elissa (d6d80a) — 6/13/2013 @ 1:05 pm

     That’s what they say are warning signs for drug use in your teenage children. Dana, do you live in Colorado? Are you taking advantage of the new law? Having refereshments? 😆

     peedoffamerican (ee1de0) — 6/13/2013 @ 8:37 pm

     
     

312. Everyone who spends money on goods and service provided in part by illegal immigrants is voting, with his wallet, for them to come here and stay here.

     I was watching a PBS show a few years ago on people who volunteered to live exactly like humans in pre-colonial America did, and who were early immigrants from 1600’s Europe. One of the volunteers was a black guy, and it was fascinating at how upset he became — at his own behavior — because he found his disdain for the idea of slave labor eroded by his personal experience. IOW, life was such a struggle in that re-created reality, that he apparently envisioned himself eventually totally rationalizing away the horrors of slavery. In effect, he was confronting “limousine liberalism” in its full glory.

     So now in 21st century America, because of what past generations did to America, this society remains corrupted by the so-called “peculiar institution” (ie, the slave trade). I see no reason to believe that a variation of that in 2013 — referring to decades of unfettered illegal immigration from traditionally dysfunctional societies — will have any less of a negative impact on our socio-economic stability well into the future.

     America’s chickens are coming home to roost.

     Mark (cd1aee) — 6/13/2013 @ 8:39 pm

     
     

313. you would make a very good king you ask me

     happyfeet (8ce051) — 6/13/2013 @ 8:47 pm

     
     

314. test

     peedoffamerican (ee1de0) — 6/13/2013 @ 8:55 pm

     
     

315. Poor senator Landrieu. First her son is arrested for DUI and leaving the scene of a hit and run accident in the Latin Quarter. Now this:

     http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/06/13/Democrat-Senator-gaffes-while-attacking-border-security-South-Dakota-has-a-border-with-Canada

     elissa (d6d80a) — 6/13/2013 @ 8:55 pm

     
     

316. When you walk into a Seven/Eleven to buy a cup of coffee, and see a Hispanic foreign-looking employee at the cash register, do you demand to see his green card, do you assume that he is here illegally, and walk out the door, or do you do the polite, convenient, non-scene-making thing and quietly make your purchase?

     Comment by The consistent Dana (af9ec3) — 6/13/2013 @ 3:35 pm

     Joe Biden sees Indians.

     😆

     peedoffamerican (ee1de0) — 6/13/2013 @ 8:58 pm

     
     

317. “daleyrocks, I fear I’m showing my age here, but regular old junior high and high school boys and girls used to hire themselves out to mow lawns for spending money and to save for college. I’ve noticed they don’t seem to do that much anymore.”

     elissa – I mowed my own family’s lawn and during high school mowed other lawns to earn spending money. On the North Shore, though, in some towns I thought you could get fined if you did not hire illegals to do it for you these days.

     daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/13/2013 @ 9:02 pm

     
     

318. Fortunately, I’m in a bit better health than Hoagie — who is a few years older than I am — and I am able to cut my own grass!

     That said, a previous neighbor, in his mid 20s, with an absolute babe of a live-in girlfriend, was so lazy that he hired people to cut his grass for him, despite having a small yard. In this mostly rural area, there are few minorities at all, so there isn’t a big chance that the people he hired to lawn his mow (a Danaism, not a typo) were illegals.

     The 60-year-old Dana (3e4784) — 6/14/2013 @ 5:15 am

     
     

319. Daleyrocks:

     “Hoagie – How do you know the employees are illegal? Do they look different or smell different or do you ask for ID?”

     No, and that’s exactly my point. ( I’ll let the look and smell different comment slide since I assume you’re being sarcastic ). I don’t ask for ID and I don’t think it’s my job to. So how would one know if an alien is illegal? Beats the hell out of me.

     Owning restaurants for 37 years allowed me to interview many, many illegals for jobs. My opinion was always if a person could not show me a valid, legal ID I would not hire them. Usually the illegals wanted to be paid under the table. But I didn’t want my employees paid under the table for several reasons ( min. wage laws, paying taxes, underage workers, illegals and restaurants are prone to injuries so I need them on workman’s comp ) so I would not hire anyone who couldn’t prove to me they were legal to work.

     But obviously daleyrocks, other employers do hire illegals and we have no way of knowing which they are, looks and smell notwithstanding. ( my sarc. )

     Hoagie (3259ab) — 6/14/2013 @ 6:25 am

     
     

320. Daleyrocks asks:

     “Hoagie – Why couldn’t the businesses survive with legal immigrants if we reformed our immigration system? Are they illegally paying the illegal immigrants you believe they employ below the minimum wage Democrats keep raising? If so, is that something of which you approve?”

     First, businesses can and do survive and thrive with legal immigrant labor. I did. Second, I believe the employers do pay below min. wage and they also circumvent taxes by paying in cash. Finally, no I do not approve of breaking the law, undercutting the labor pool of Americans or tax evasion. However, I also do not agree with minimum wage laws unless it’s accompanied by minimum price laws. Labor should compete just like enterprise has to compete.

     Hiring illegals under the table harms American labor, the tax system, fair trade and competition and opens an employer to law suits and law enforcement. It’s just stupid to me.

     Hoagie (3259ab) — 6/14/2013 @ 6:39 am

     
     

321. “Hiring illegals under the table harms American labor, the tax system, fair trade and competition and opens an employer to law suits and law enforcement. It’s just stupid to me.”

     Hoagie – I completely agree, which why I find the arguments of the pro-amnesty supporters pure strawmen and economically foolish.

     Since we’ve never made a real effort to enforce employment verification or border security, I see no reason not to make those conditions before granting provisional legalization, along with a new visa tracking system.

     People who say we can never have border security are correct in that people will always manage to slip in somehow, but since we have never made a concerted effort including employment verification and visa tracking, how much illegal immigration will we have compared to today?

     daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/14/2013 @ 7:23 am

     
     

322. America is gradually losing her identity. Too many immigrants flooding the country with their native languages and customs, soon English will no longer be the major American language. It is true that this is the land of immigrants but if nothing is done there will be no United States as we know it. The future is scary. The question remains, who are the true Americans? What is the American way of life?

     The Emperor (d25300) — 6/14/2013 @ 7:37 am

     
     

323. Mandatory e-verify would be a good start. But asking for ID is racist.

     JD (b63a52) — 6/14/2013 @ 7:41 am

     
     

324. America is gradually losing her identity. Too many immigrants flooding the country with their native languages and customs, soon English will no longer be the major American language. It is true that this is the land of immigrants but if nothing is done there will be no United States as we know it. The future is scary. The question remains, who are the true Americans? What is the American way of life?

     Stormfront called. They miss you.

     JD (b63a52) — 6/14/2013 @ 7:42 am

     
     

325. @jd
     I am not a racist. Far from it. Just expressing a concern that most Americans are afraid to voice. And by Americans I mean both the whites and the blacks. Immigration, unchecked will lead to the ultimate dilution of the American identity. There has to be a place to draw the line. One fault I know I have is that I am not good with political correctness, I speak from my mind. Take it as you will.

     The Emperor (5364a1) — 6/14/2013 @ 7:58 am

     
     

326. JD said: “But asking for ID is racist.”

     Whaaaa? I do hope you’re kidding because if you’re not than having ID would be racist too.

     Hoagie (3259ab) — 6/14/2013 @ 8:01 am

     
     

327. Stormfront called. They miss you.

     Not sure if that sarcasm is because of the background of the forumer. He may be a different person than the one with the handle I’m thinking of, or I may be confusing screen names, but I thought Emperor was a liberal. Regardless, what he says shouldn’t be dismissed since it’s painfully accurate, so lobbing words like “Stormfront” at such observations is more the reaction of a loony liberal.

     As for the matter of 100%-verifiable bigotry coming from people of the left, when Franklin Delano Roosevelt — one of the icons of the Democrat Party and liberalism — was outed in a recent LA Times op-ed piece several weeks ago to be a surprisingly racist/bigoted person (ie, he thought Jews deserved some of the blame for anti-Semitism in 1930s Germany and Europe, deserved to have restrictions applied to them to limit their numbers in schools or elsewhere, and that Asians and Caucasians shouldn’t get married or certainly have children), I was speechless, although I shouldn’t have been.

     Mark (cd1aee) — 6/14/2013 @ 8:02 am

     
     

328. JD, why is it racist for The Emperor to want to maintain the American make-up and by extension the American culture which has created the one nation on earth that it seems almost everyone wants to get in to?

     On the one hand our racial and cultural make-up has created a “city on a hill” on the other we’re supposed to destroy that make-up by millions of non-assimilating immigrants. I don’t get it.

     Hoagie (3259ab) — 6/14/2013 @ 8:07 am

     
     

329. “Just expressing a concern that most Americans are afraid to voice.”

     Lovey – Is that your concern or are you giving voive to a concern you believe others have?

     daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/14/2013 @ 8:17 am

     
     

330. Well, my wife is an immigrant from South Korea and just became an American citizen last year. But, if I suddenly noticed 20-40 million South Koreans swamping our boarder I would be alarmed. I love my wife and her fellow Koreans are very nice people…but they do not wholly reflect American thinking. I would especially be alarmed if all those Koreans came here and began “collecting” stuff, or if suddenly I’d have to “press one for English, two for Spanish and three for Korean”. Or if I went to vote and the ballot was in Korean.

     Hoagie (3259ab) — 6/14/2013 @ 8:26 am

     
     

331. America’s identity has been a mix of old immigrants and new immigrants, and always has been. We have always been willing to enable a hard working immigrant to start at the bottom and work his/her way up. This is one of our strengths as a nation.

     And regarding current hispanic immigrants, let us remember that they were occupants of our southwest before the immigrants from Europe prevailed militarily. Should it be a surprise now if some feel entitled to live in land their ancestors occupied in their day?

     Gramps2 (7a0f23) — 6/14/2013 @ 8:27 am

     
     

332. Perry – admit it.

     JD (b63a52) — 6/14/2013 @ 8:31 am

     
     

333. “And regarding current hispanic immigrants, let us remember that they were occupants of our southwest before the immigrants from Europe prevailed militarily.”

     Gramps2/Perry – The occupants of those territories were not removed or exiled when immigrants from Europe arrived. Should it be a surprise you do not know your history?

     daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/14/2013 @ 8:33 am

     
     

334. Yes Gramps2, we have always been willing to enable a hard working immigrant to start at the bottom and work his way up, and we still are. What is a game changer is when we get an influx of 25 million immigrants from one country who want us to respect their culture while they dilute ours. We do have a culture you know?

     And anyone who feels “entitled to live in land their ancestors occupied in their day” should be thrown out. We’re not talking 500 years ago so stop living in the past. They’re not entitled to jack shit till they earn it.

     Hoagie (3259ab) — 6/14/2013 @ 8:34 am

     
     

335. @daley
     Are you not concerned?

     The Emperor (db6b08) — 6/14/2013 @ 8:54 am

     
     

336. @daley
     Are you not concerned?

     He is not, nor am I. America has always been a land of mutts, the great melting pot, a land of freedom that welcomes legal immigrants.

     JD (b63a52) — 6/14/2013 @ 9:01 am

     
     

337. @jd.
     “melting pot” is the key word there. How is the melting taking place in the pot? Are they melting into the American culture or is America melting into theirs? Nothing wrong with immigrants coming to America, the issue is does this nation have the capacity to retain it’s identity while trying to accommodate her visitors and new members? Whats is the American culture? What is her identity? The Mexicans know theirs. Do the Americans know theirs?

     The Emperor (3195bd) — 6/14/2013 @ 9:40 am

     
     

338. JD, America’s a melting pot only so long as those who come here melt (assimilate) to our culture. As long as many of them refuse our language, receive government largess, work under the table and in some cases vote illegally they are not melting and show no sign of wanting to become an American.

     We are right now akin to Rome being invaded by the barbarians. They are willing to take from and to destroy our culture but bring very little with them but a Dark Age for America.

     Hoagie (3259ab) — 6/14/2013 @ 9:43 am

     
     

339. I am sorry you fear The Other, lovie.

     JD (b63a52) — 6/14/2013 @ 9:44 am

     
     

340. I have no problem with having them learn English. Aren’t there already laws about federal welfare? Some of the States like CA will continue to give away be bank, but that is on them. Personally, I think we should start by actually enforcing our laws, and work from there.

     JD (b63a52) — 6/14/2013 @ 9:46 am

     
     

341. And regarding current hispanic immigrants, let us remember that they were occupants of our southwest before the immigrants from Europe prevailed militarily. Should it be a surprise now if some feel entitled to live in land their ancestors occupied in their day?
     Comment by Gramps2 (7a0f23) — 6/14/2013 @ 8:27 am

     — They can feel as entitled as they damn well please . . . as long as they emigrate legally and don’t rely on the welfare state to support them once they’re here.

     Icy (1008d7) — 6/14/2013 @ 9:48 am

     
     

342. Oh my goodness! an incredible article dude. Thanks Nevertheless I am experiencing concern with ur rss . Don? know why Unable to subscribe to it. Is there anyone getting identical rss problem? Anybody who knows kindly respond. Thnkx

     mulberry outlet handbags (256d86) — 6/14/2013 @ 12:29 pm

     
     

343. You made some decent factors there. I regarded on the web for the problem and found most people will go together with with your website.

     Isabel Marant (262c05) — 6/14/2013 @ 12:29 pm

     
     

344. Can I just say what a reduction to find somebody who truly is aware of what theyre speaking about on the internet. You definitely know tips on how to deliver a difficulty to gentle and make it important. Extra individuals need to learn this and understand this facet of the story. I cant believe youre no more in style since you definitely have the gift.

     Karen Millen Dress (2fab12) — 6/14/2013 @ 12:30 pm

     
     

345. “Just expressing a concern that most Americans are afraid to voice.”

     Lovey – Is that your concern or are you giving voive to a concern you believe others have?

     Why are you afraid of the “evil racially divisive black man” in the Oval Office. You need to grow up and give up your hate.

     daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/14/2013 @ 12:42 pm

     
     

346. Perry Gramps2 wrote:

     And regarding current hispanic immigrants, let us remember that they were occupants of our southwest before the immigrants from Europe prevailed militarily. Should it be a surprise now if some feel entitled to live in land their ancestors occupied in their day?

     Well, that’s just it: they were here — after having militarily conquered the Indians Native Americans who were here before them, of course — and they lost in a war of conquest. That means they have no more right to the land than the Indians Native Americans they beat.

     Howsomeever, were we to take your argument at face value — without laughing our butts off — then the obvious question would be why they should be allowed to settle anyplace other than the southwest. Since we know that you’ll never see that restriction as valid, then why ought anyone else to see your notion that they have some right to feel entitled to the southwest as valid?

     The Dana amused by the metaphor (3e4784) — 6/15/2013 @ 5:50 am