Article

2004-12-07 Home Front: WoT

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by tipper 2004-12-07 08:53|| || Front Page|| [11133 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 This lengthy article in the City Journal by the wonderful Heather MacDonald deserves at least one extracted quote:

If the government were serious about ending illegal entry and its threat to national security, it would fund adequate detention space.

But the administration seems determined to maintain the schizophrenic status quo: we try to catch trespassers at the border, but once they slip across, they're home free.

Finally, putting national security ahead of political correctness would mean ending the special status granted Mexican illegals.

President Bush should announce that henceforth, illegal entry will be treated like the crime that it is. To be against alien lawbreakers is not to be against immigrants, he should explain. Border laws protect the country for those immigrants who respect America's laws. Our inability to control who comes into the country is our biggest security threat, he should explain, and we must empower every branch of law enforcement to apprehend the lawbreakers. Washington should allocate the resources to detain and deport illegals, and should start enforcing long-standing laws against employing alien lawbreakers. A deafening roar of "racism" will result; but with the country at war, pandering to the race advocates must give way to protecting American lives.

Posted by Mrs. Davis 2004-12-07 9:43:52 AM|| 2004-12-07 9:43:52 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 I think we also need to halt the flow of federal funds to cities, counties, and states who refuse to abide by our immigration laws but provide 'sainctuary' to illegals and terrorists by outlawing cooperation betweeen local law enforcement and federal law enforcement. In many cases the local cops cannot even investigate (or ask) if a person is an illegal alien or not.

Also we need to point out that illegals are not, legally, immigrants and stop the verbal association between illegal aliens who are lawbreakers and the image of the immigrant (who are welcome and made this country great!) who comes here legally and are law abiding. Legally there is no such thing as an illegal immigrant since (obviously) illegals have not been granted immigration status.

Posted by CrazyFool 2004-12-07 10:21:03 AM|| 2004-12-07 10:21:03 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 Ah, just annex Mexico and give it Commonwealth status as PR. Imperialism? Yep, just ending Mexico's stealth imperalism. You don't respect my southern border then there is no need for me to respect your northern border.

Posted by Don 2004-12-07 10:24:54 AM|| 2004-12-07 10:24:54 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 Don, the problem is we don't want Mexico. They would prefer we pay for everything and we will if the border for the US ends up next too Honduras.

Posted by Charles 2004-12-07 11:30:44 AM|| 2004-12-07 11:30:44 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 Well said, Mrs. D. CrazyFool-I like your ideas too-let's add community colleges and other educational institutions to the list. They need to start demanding that students present acceptable forms of ID, including soc #s, to be able to attend classes in the US.

Tipper, you always post the best articles. This one's a keeper.

Posted by Jules 187 2004-12-07 11:40:04 AM|| 2004-12-07 11:40:04 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 I think we also need to halt the flow of federal funds to cities, counties, and states who refuse to abide by our immigration laws but provide 'sainctuary' to illegals and terrorists by outlawing cooperation betweeen local law enforcement and federal law enforcement. In many cases the local cops cannot even investigate (or ask) if a person is an illegal alien or not.

An *excellent* idea. Too bad GWB wouldn't have the balls to put this into practice for fear of offending Latinos. (even though illegals include others besides Latinos)

Posted by Bomb-a-rama 2004-12-07 12:05:08 PM|| 2004-12-07 12:05:08 PM|| Front Page Top

#7 Exactly, BAR. Exposes the Achilles Heel of the Repubs--the party is split into those who stand up for rule of law and those who don't. Those who advocate rule of law have a couple representatives in the Repub party on the immigration issue. Those who don't advocate rule of law easily fit into Dem circles on immigration and that says something. Amazing that we're at this juncture with so little leadership from our governmental reps after 9/11-apparently, it is insignificant to them that the hijackers were in the US on false IDs.

On the bill coming out of the 911 report, the common denominator of bipartisanship was not rule of law or the safety of the US.

Posted by Jules 187 2004-12-07 12:18:58 PM|| 2004-12-07 12:18:58 PM|| Front Page Top

#8 Let's present the Mexican Government with a fat bill at the end of each year to cover all Federal, State and municipal services given to persons entering illegally from Mexico. If they don't pay, yank their $20+ million per annum in foreign aid.

Posted by eLarson 2004-12-07 3:26:08 PM|| [http://larsonian.blogspot.com] 2004-12-07 3:26:08 PM|| Front Page Top

#9 The WH has no business sending our soldiers to fight in foreign wars, claiming it's to make our nation safer, all the while letting every illegal Miguel and Mohammed to come through our southern border. It's just a matter of time before we suffer the consequences of our President's oversight. And btw what's the point of doing deep body cavity searches on airline passengers to the tune of billions of dollars of year, when terrorists can choose to bring an array of nasty goods across the deserts of California or Arizona using Mexican soldiers as escorts? If GWB's overt pandering to business interests and Latino votes were't so dangerous to our national security, this would be a comic situation kind of like a Keystone Cops film. GWB's open borders mentality has nothing to do with being compassionate. If you all feel "more safe" because Saddam has been removed inspite of our open borders here, you must be drinking some pretty expensive Egg Nog.

Posted by Glomosing Crong 2004-12-07 7:12:52 PM|| 2004-12-07 7:12:52 PM|| Front Page Top

#10 Talk about overt pandering.

Posted by .com 2004-12-07 7:17:41 PM|| 2004-12-07 7:17:41 PM|| Front Page Top

#11 Talk about overt pandering.
Whats your point?

Posted by Glomosing Crong 2004-12-07 7:25:21 PM|| 2004-12-07 7:25:21 PM|| Front Page Top

#12 Let's see... how many things can you accomplish at once? No, a step-wise approach isn't allowed. Satisfy all of MY concerns at once or you're shit. Everything you've done is shit. Me Me Me. You have to commit political suicide every time I have a tic about an issue. ME ME ME! You're SHIT Bush! I'm the Great Arbiter of All Things!

FOAD / HAND

Posted by .com 2004-12-07 7:25:57 PM|| 2004-12-07 7:25:57 PM|| Front Page Top

#13 Jules, the problem with Social Security #s is that they are so easy to forge. Birth Certificates are not much better and need to be standardized. A passport or greencard would be better ID but not everyone has a passport. A drivers license is worse then useless.

We may well need a [puts on asbestos suit] national ID card to prove citizenship.

Posted by CrazyFool 2004-12-07 7:31:49 PM|| 2004-12-07 7:31:49 PM|| Front Page Top

#14 GS: The WH has no business sending our soldiers to fight in foreign wars, claiming it's to make our nation safer, all the while letting every illegal Miguel and Mohammed to come through our southern border.

Our troops fight abroad so we don't have to fight at home. Note that all the jihadis are talking about going to Baghdad to fight Uncle Sam instead of staging another attack on US soil. Why? For the same reason that the Confederate Army was drawn into stand-up fights with the Union Army in order to defend Southern cities after Sherman burned Atlanta. You draw your enemy out by attacking what he holds dear.

As to GWB's border policy, I have my disagreements with it, but Kerry would have made it even worse. Clinton brought forth the motor voter law. What would Kerry have wrought, in addition to amnesty?

Posted by Zhang Fei 2004-12-07 7:34:03 PM|| [http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2004-12-07 7:34:03 PM|| Front Page Top

#15 CF - as a pretty libertarian Republican, I never thought I'd support a nat'l ID card, but times, and I, have changed. National ID with biometric stds is it!

Posted by Frank G 2004-12-07 7:41:18 PM|| 2004-12-07 7:41:18 PM|| Front Page Top

#16 # 14 Zhang Fei you are correct. Camp Pendelton, C.A. President Bush appearing before cheering U.S. forces Tuesday, declared that terrorist wont be able to control Iraq's destiny because "Free people will never choose their own enslavment". The million dollar question is "will they ever be free?". I think Mr. Bush is promising ROSES- and who will receive the THORNS??

Posted by Andrea 2004-12-07 7:44:42 PM|| [http://ajacksonwesternmass@Yahoo.com] 2004-12-07 7:44:42 PM|| Front Page Top

#17 wow Andrea! That was DEEP

Posted by Frank G 2004-12-07 7:47:16 PM|| 2004-12-07 7:47:16 PM|| Front Page Top

#18 # 15 Frank G. I agree with you on this- but it would only be another way to steal identity- along with cloning of people, sheep, cats we are on a slippery slope. I'm NOT sure that would work.

Posted by Andrea 2004-12-07 7:48:20 PM|| [http://ajacksonwesternmass@Yahoo.com] 2004-12-07 7:48:20 PM|| Front Page Top

#19 I would not accept a "national ID". National standards for an Drivers License yes. A national ID no. I am a Citizen of the Republic of California, A state in the United States. A California ID or driver license is all I need. I don't fly, plan on flying. I don't need to identify my self to the federal government. I don't want shit form the feds and I don't need their ID or permission to do jack shit. I don't want some faceless assclown in Washington DC determining if I am a "citizen" with a right to exist/work. How many of you can prove you are a citizen besides your easily faked birth certificate?

Posted by Sock Puppet of Doom 2004-12-07 7:50:13 PM|| [http://www.slhess.com] 2004-12-07 7:50:13 PM|| Front Page Top

#20 Thanks for the response. I have posted more under OPINION section that is note worthy.
I'm logging off now- more work to do at home
where my security is safe- except for a stolen car or two!

Posted by Andrea 2004-12-07 7:51:32 PM|| [http://ajacksonwesternmass@Yahoo.com] 2004-12-07 7:51:32 PM|| Front Page Top

#21 Let's see... how many things can you accomplish at once? No, a step-wise approach isn't allowed. Satisfy all of MY concerns at once or you're shit.
Oh, sorry, GWB has had only 4 years to deal with open borders. How selfish of me to expect that he would include border control in a new intelligence reform bill that he has personally rammed through Congress inspite of outcry from his own House Republicans.

No,you are totally right, com. I should be a more "global minded" citizen and rejoice that Jorge Bush is keeping Iraqis, Germans, Phillipinos,and South Koreans safe. I'm a better person to think "them, them" than "me, me." Thank you for opening my eyes to your selfless worldly wisdom.

Read the article, Republicans: losing the border while winning the war, in today's Washington Dispatch before you suggest that border control is such a trivial selfish issue.

Posted by Glomosing Crong 2004-12-07 7:52:46 PM|| 2004-12-07 7:52:46 PM|| Front Page Top

#22 SPOD - a national std DL would be OK with me - too many states are accepting crap for ID

Posted by Frank G 2004-12-07 7:53:13 PM|| 2004-12-07 7:53:13 PM|| Front Page Top

#23 cloning of people, sheep, cats

WTF! They're cloning cats? Andrea stand by for an important communication from CapLock Joey on alternate channel Alpha Tango Delta Charlie.

Posted by Shipman 2004-12-07 7:58:42 PM|| 2004-12-07 7:58:42 PM|| Front Page Top

#24 Frank, I think that those days are close to over, except for illegals in California. I believe it is now Federal law that states must get I-9 quality ID before issuing a DL to an American.

Immigrants are a different story. I'd make them register once a year, just like when we were kids. Remember the PSAs every January directing aliens to go to the Post Office and complete their allien registration form? We should also be getting DNA, prints, retinas and all the other biometrics we are getting in Fallujah for foreigners, expecially Mexicans.

Posted by Mrs. Davis 2004-12-07 7:59:30 PM|| 2004-12-07 7:59:30 PM|| Front Page Top

#25 LOL Ship! Really! Mrs. D - I have no problems with that - I want secure borders, with only legal immigrants and visitors. How we reach that is a discussion, but putting the military on the border (which would distress some) would be my first step. F*ck Mexican sensitivities! I live here in San Diego, and we deal with it every day.

Posted by Frank G 2004-12-07 8:03:46 PM|| 2004-12-07 8:03:46 PM|| Front Page Top

#26 SPo'D - I seldom disagree with you, but I do here. If it takes a national ID to actually do what everyone says they want, including you: immigration laws enforced, the ability to identify individuals with certainty, the removal of political shenanigans from the process, flight safety (I'd already decided to undergo the biometrics qualification), etc - then this is where that road leads. You sound like you have a strong Libertarian bent... Did you serve in the US Military? If so, then all of the aspects of your privacy that you're objecting to are already on file, bro. If not, better pay those delinquent parking tickets, heh.

Magic won't do it. Integrated nation-wide databases, hard biometrics, and national standards will. It may or may not require a standard ID card, but it will require blanket standards. At that point, what does it matter what it says on your DL or whatever? The effect and benefits will be the same. And that fact will scare the shit out of some people, but then those that are worried are probably worried more about hiding from "the man" than they are for the security of their fellow citizens. Tough shit.

My take.

Posted by .com 2004-12-07 8:03:47 PM|| 2004-12-07 8:03:47 PM|| Front Page Top

#27 Frank, If you're in SD, you've got the problem big time.Love the road signs with the fleeing family. I don't know whether that means I get bonus points or what. I'm not sure how much military we need. Based on the Israeli example, I'd say it's more like a quaretr mile of broken glass and a wall from sea to shining gulf.

Posted by Mrs. Davis 2004-12-07 8:09:42 PM|| 2004-12-07 8:09:42 PM|| Front Page Top

#28 Glom - If you were interested in the issue, instead of making it sound as if George W Bush is personally responsible for what displeases you - and your issues are the only issues that matter, then I'd take you seriously. You're apparently not.

What he has accomplished in the last 3 years is, obviously, not a perfect match for your personal bitch list, not to mention beyond your ken. Sorry. I'm sure you are the only person on the planet who gets it - and Bush is clueless. Right.

Why don't you go back to your Dhimmidonk haunts and cry a river. Bush will continue to do what it is possible at each moment in time and you can complain about the other reality where you get everything you want precisely when you want it because you're the only person with the vision and intellect to run things. Y'know - that other reality where you're President.

Posted by .com 2004-12-07 8:13:42 PM|| 2004-12-07 8:13:42 PM|| Front Page Top

#29 The problem for Dubya on this would be the DEAFENING roar from the MSM so loud, it would make abu Graib seem like the silence of outer space. Drown out all other sounds. Drown his message.

Mexicans have crossed that border unmolested for a century or more. It was, and is, in the interest of BOTH countries. Mexico rids itself of population that can't afford, and we get Mexicans WILLING to work. I know many people who do because they are here to work and earn money for their families. And they do work....hard.

The problem is the risk of Jihadis co-mingling with them and getting over the border. The Mexicans and coyotes would be very leery of allowing any Aarbs along due to the huge increase in risk. Worst case now, they get sent back. Have some Aarabs with them and the risk is immensely higher, like Apache's, JDAMs or talking to the FBI. Plus, they might figure Aarabs have some monetary value and take them themselves to turn them in for the reward.

I think it much easier, and more likely that illegal entries will come through Canada. After all, they have done it before.

Posted by Brett_the_Quarkian 2004-12-07 8:14:32 PM|| 2004-12-07 8:14:32 PM|| Front Page Top

#30 Brett - that's not the only issue - we have hospitals closing and huge deficits in state programs because of illegals using the emergency room as their primary physician (the courts say we have to treat and pay for em - *spit*) and their children are resonsible for huge school expenditures that are not recouped. They are a fiscal drain as well as a security risk and a stream of warm piss on our sovereignty

*rant over, for now*

Posted by Frank G 2004-12-07 8:21:14 PM|| 2004-12-07 8:21:14 PM|| Front Page Top

#31 "the courts say we have to treat and pay for em - *spit*"

ROFL!!!

Posted by .com 2004-12-07 8:22:35 PM|| 2004-12-07 8:22:35 PM|| Front Page Top

#32 Let's see... how many things can you accomplish at once? No, a step-wise approach isn't allowed. Satisfy all of MY concerns at once or you're shit.

I agree with .com. It's ridiculous to think that Bush can wave a magic wand and not only end illegal immigration, but miraculously make the millions of illegals working here suddenly disappear. Do you think our economy wouldn't completely reel when the MILLIONS upon millions of jobs they fill and houses they occupy suddenly went empty? It's not a simple problem let's not pretend that it is.

The immigration issue IS key to homeland security - but it needs to be tackled at the congressional level. The president can and should push for it, but saying he should "fix it" is like saying he should "fix" health care. What do you think, that he can get his pen and write "free health care for all" and that will make it happen? No, it's huge and complex and needs to happen at the congressional level. Same with illegal immigration. It's too complex to just say that Bush should fix it and think that he can make it so.

Posted by 2b 2004-12-07 8:23:12 PM|| 2004-12-07 8:23:12 PM|| Front Page Top

#33 Oh, 2b - he could effectively end illegal immigration with a pronouncement the border is closed to illegals and stationing the mil (including state nat'l guard) on the border. 99% drop in 1 week

Posted by Frank G 2004-12-07 8:25:14 PM|| 2004-12-07 8:25:14 PM|| Front Page Top

#34 Nope the feds got nothing on me .com other than a copy of my finger prints that are about 21 years old if they can find them. Last time I checked about 6 years ago they couldn't. I want it to stay that way. A national standard for drivers licenses is the way to go. We don't need a national "passport." A national ID reeks of internal passports. Any data a federal employee needs on me can be kept on the back of my drivers license that can be matched against a database kept and controled in my home state. My wife who actually travels a heck of alot more than me has a real national ID it's called a US passport. If I wanted one I would get one.

Now if you want to go the Starship Troopers route I might go along with more federal intrusion. Our immigration issues with our border can be dealt with by militarizing our border with Mexico and legalizing all the Indios we have here now.

Posted by Sock Puppet of Doom 2004-12-07 8:28:59 PM|| [http://www.slhess.com] 2004-12-07 8:28:59 PM|| Front Page Top

#35 2b - Thx... Though I'm sure Skeery could do it. He'd look right into the TV camera and say so and tell you it wouldn't cost a dime. And the result? We'd be taxed to death for his "plan" - which wouldn't accomplish shit after it was PC-ized.

Magik is the Dhimmidonk solution. It's the same as the Cry of the Three Year Old: IWWIWWIWI!*.

* I Want What I Want When I Want It!

Posted by .com 2004-12-07 8:31:19 PM|| 2004-12-07 8:31:19 PM|| Front Page Top

#36 Last I checked the military was pretty busy and "state of the art" national guard would only take how many years and how many trillions? A stepwise approach for such a big and long term problem would yield better (and less painful) results over the course of time. The economy in CA and Texas would collapse if they all just disappeared. Wishing and proclaiming doesn't make things so.

Posted by 2b 2004-12-07 8:31:48 PM|| 2004-12-07 8:31:48 PM|| Front Page Top

#37 I agree .com. I like Bush because he doesn't promise things he knows he can't deliver.

Posted by 2b 2004-12-07 8:32:42 PM|| 2004-12-07 8:32:42 PM|| Front Page Top

#38 2b - my last on this tonight - you underestimate the effect of teh force on the border and overestimate it's need - wide swaths are virtually unpassable, and we already use remote sensing to cut down on personnel needs. San Diego was a sieve. We built fences and channelled the traffic to the desert and east, effectively cutting illegal immigration by 80-90% in the SD sector (which formerly was the highest intrusion area)

Posted by Frank G 2004-12-07 8:36:51 PM|| 2004-12-07 8:36:51 PM|| Front Page Top

#39 2b - And when he does promise things, unlike 90% of politicians - and we can quibble about the number, he delivers.

BTW, this thread now deserves a BDS / PEST Warning! Label, heh.

Posted by .com 2004-12-07 8:38:30 PM|| 2004-12-07 8:38:30 PM|| Front Page Top

#40 Frank, I've seen the border - the thousands waiting to cross nightly - and I agree that we need to fix it. We could fix it in a night if we just started shooting them dead. But we WON'T so it's a meaningless solution.

I'll leave it at I like Bush because he didn't promise what he knew he couldn't deliver. It needs to be done at the representation level.

Posted by 2b 2004-12-07 8:39:56 PM|| 2004-12-07 8:39:56 PM|| Front Page Top

#41 I've done a lot of studying on this issue, and know how complex it really is. Unfortunately, there are no easy solutions, and the few difficult solutions are expensive. There is nothing that can't be done, however, with enough money and enough people working on it. There IS a solution. I worked out a plan that would provide a limited closure (40%) in two years, moderate closure (75%) in five years, and full closure in ten years. The cost? $42 BILLION, plus $1.6Billion a year to operate. That's just for the US/Mexico border. We'd have to do the same thing in the north to truly keep out the jihadis, at a cost of $60Billion, plus 1.8billion a year to operate. It would also take ~246,000 people to fully staff and operate all the pieces. I'm not sure the entire thing would be cost effective. Then I consider the cost of one 30KT nuke in Chicago or Omaha, and wonder why we're not doing it already.

Posted by Glitle Craviter4297 2004-12-07 9:04:05 PM|| 2004-12-07 9:04:05 PM|| Front Page Top

#42 GC - Can you identify where you are (I understand a desire for anonymity) in this issue? Do you work at a Govt agency, on staff for a politician, State law enforcement, etc.?

And details would be pretty awesome - obviously this is a topic of great interest. It's so late in the day, however, I'd actually hope you'd post any details you feel comfortable making public on a similar thread tomorrow - so we have more time to bat it around. Are you game?

Posted by .com 2004-12-07 9:09:56 PM|| 2004-12-07 9:09:56 PM|| Front Page Top

#43 You could post whatever you're happy sharing in an Opinion, too, if no thread suits the topic, tomorrow.

Posted by .com 2004-12-07 9:14:20 PM|| 2004-12-07 9:14:20 PM|| Front Page Top

#44 Why don't you go back to your Dhimmidonk haunts and cry a river. Bush will continue to do what it is possible at each moment in time and you can complain about the other reality where you get everything you want precisely when you want it because you're the only person with the vision and intellect to run things.
The fact that the House Republicans rebelled the first time round that the intelligence reform bill surfaced, that is until the WH twisted their arms, would seem to indicate that there more people than selfish old me who see the dangers of open borders, including elected GOP. Furthermore, the majority of citizens according to various polls are concerned about illegal immigration. The public wants our borders sealed so why should GWB be afraid of what the MSM has to say about him enforcing immigration laws on the books.
According to stats and live links provided by numbersusa:
84% percent of Americans worry about illegal immigration. Of those, 37% worry a "great deal" about it. (Gallup Poll, March 8-11, 2004)

65% of Americans favor stopping ALL immigration during the war on terrorism (Fox News/Opinion Dynamics Poll, November 2001)

No issue upset the public more than President Bush' amnesty/guestworker proposals, with only 30%of Americans supporting him on that.
(CBS News/New York Times Poll, January 2004)

74% of resondents believe the U.S. should NOT make it easier for illegal aliens to become citizens of the U.S. (CNN/Gallup/USA Today Poll, January 2004)

52% of Americans oppose President Bush's guest worker-amnesty program for illegal aliens from Mexico; 57% oppose such a program for illegal aliens from other countries. Furthermore, at least 2X as many Americans strongly oppose the proposal as strongly support it
(ABC News Poll, January, 2004)

How can people say that's it's impossible to fix illegal immigration here but it's highly possible to democracize Muslim countries in the ME?

Posted by Glomosing Crong 2004-12-07 9:24:21 PM|| 2004-12-07 9:24:21 PM|| Front Page Top

#45 Yep, just as I thought. Another Dhimmidonk loonie (aka operative) who had to go reload at DU in order to respond. Polls. Right.

The answer to your closing question, though you do not deserve an answer, is politics, as you so ably demonstrate. The reason this will be a long, hard, slugfest is because of partisan jackasses like you.

Name your solution. Go ahead, big mouth. Lay out the plan. How many troops and border agents? What technologies would you employ? What would the ROE be? Would you deport everyone caught? All countries equally? Would you naturalize everyone? How would you handle the economic effects? How about in-country security - would you implement a national ID system?

No, wait. Pfeh. Nevermind. No more DU Talking points. Just play with yourself.

Posted by .com 2004-12-07 9:35:12 PM|| 2004-12-07 9:35:12 PM|| Front Page Top

#46 At the end of the day, what do we really have? A re-shuffled org chart? A czar? (Or do you prefer Tsar? If the so-called czar can't kick some apparatchik to the curb on his own authority, then he ain't a czar no matter how you spell it. But I digress.)

Who controls the spy sats? And the info they produce? If it needs to go plinking around a bureaucracy like a ball in a pachinko machine before it reaches the field, how's it going to be different than today?

Posted by eLarson 2004-12-07 9:55:43 PM|| [http://larsonian.blogspot.com] 2004-12-07 9:55:43 PM|| Front Page Top

#47 99.9% of all non hispanic dhimmicrats hate anything with word mexican/guest worker/amnesty attaced to it. Some day Hispanics will get a clue and stop getting kicked in the teeth. I don't think the Di or it's frothy frinds at the dailykoz ever will.

Posted by Trolling for allen 2004-12-07 9:57:53 PM|| [http://www.slhess.com] 2004-12-07 9:57:53 PM|| Front Page Top

#48 Another Dhimmidonk loonie (aka operative) who had to go reload at DU in order to respond. Polls. Right
You initially accused me of being selfish -remember you used the phrase "me, me, me"? I replied with supportive info, not spleenic sputtering, to show it was you that was out of step with the majority of Americans not me. And please take note, mr. brightlight com, numbersusa is not a liberal website.

As for solutions, I'd implement a biometric national id system for all American residents. Spending $ on more czars and bureucrats per the intelligence bill is throwing good money after bad if you don't secure the borders and get a handle on who is legally supposed to be here.
Those who are found to be illegal aliens should be deported asap. Then I'd enforce existing law that was put into place under the Reagan administration - fines against employers of illegal aliens. National security takes precedence over big business concerns about cheap labor. Does big business deduct from their profit margins the tab for health care, education, welfare, federal prison costs for illegals. Until they do, they have no room to whine. If the above measures don't quell the tide of illegals, then yes I would militarize the borders.

If you want to adopt illegal aliens and act as their sponsor feel free to do so on your own dime and at your own risk.

99.9% of all non hispanic dhimmicrats hate anything with word mexican/guest worker/amnesty attaced to it.
The most vocal champions of illegal aliens are left wing bleeding heart limousine white Democrats, so stuff your unfounded anti-whitey rant. Even legal Hispanic citizens are p.o.'d about our WH's lacklustre efforts to protect our borders.

47% of Latino voters in Arizona voted in favor of Proposition 200.

30% of Hispanics in California would like to shut down all immigration for awhile.(Zogby Poll, March 2002)

Hispanics are evenly divided about an amnesty for illegal aliens from Mexico, with half opposing it.
(Zogby Poll, September 2001)

43% of Hispanics believe the U.S. government doesn't do enough to stop illegal migrants from entering the country.
(International Communications Research Poll, May, 2000)

75% of California Latinos think illegal migration from Mexico to California is a problem.
(Public Policy Institute of California, January 1999)

http://www.numbersusa.com/interests/publicop.html

Posted by Glomosing Crong 2004-12-07 10:47:57 PM|| 2004-12-07 10:47:57 PM|| Front Page Top

00:04 Sherry
23:53 True German Ally
23:44 Frank G
23:44 Glomosing Crong
23:41 Dcreeper
23:33 Alaska Paul
23:33 Mike Kozlowski
23:26 Alaska Paul
23:18 Alaska Paul
23:13 Wo
23:11 Lone Ranger
23:10 someone
23:07 Alaska Paul
22:59 Alaska Paul
22:56 Sock Puppet of Doom
22:52 Matt
22:51 Alaska Paul
22:47 Glomosing Crong
22:43 Zenster
22:36 Zenster
22:33 SC88
22:29 Sobiesky
22:24 Sobiesky
22:21 Uninese Unineger1573