[kabar]

(1) At the border: Stop further invasion.

Who is going to disagree with that? Under the Constitution, the President must protect and maintain our sovereignty--just like every other country on the face of the earth.

(2) IN the interior: swift and severe enforcement of e-Verify.

No objection here to turn off the job magnet. I assume that we will also identify illegal aliens holding jobs now and will deport them. Or will we be merciful and allow them to continue to work while the border is secured and a system in place to track and deport visa overstays who comprise 40% of the illegal alien population?

He's not trying to thrill FReepers here: he's saying: here's why we have to accomplish #1 and #2 before anything else.

The Democrats will never allow an enforcement first approach. They are holding it hostage to amnesty for the 12 to 20 million lawbreakers. It will take five to 10 years to get a real enforcement approach in place to include state and local law enforcement.

Zmirak doesn't say how this will be carried out in terms of sequencing and its impact on those already here. The way I read it, the lawbreakers will be exempt from the employer crackdown and will be allowed to stay here by a merciful American people who will willingly foot the $6 trillion bill. And this will not include the millions of their family members who will be allowed to join them thru chain migration. I can't imagine anyone preventing a father from being reunited with his wife and children--or aged parents.

Frankly, I think if you do that --- plus #3, stop money transfers, remittances --- the illegals will self-deport.

Now you are imposing your own views and not those of the author who seems to favor allowing the lawbreakers to stay and work here. If their families join them, remittances will decline. Over $120 billion a year are sent from the US annually with $22 billion being sent to Mexico alone. Remittances are being sent by both legal immigrants and illegal aliens. It would be difficult to limit remittances without affecting legals and illegals.

[Mrs. Don-o]

" Frankly, I think if you do that --- plus #3, stop money transfers, remittances --- the illegals will self-deport....
Now you are imposing your own views and not those of the author.

Very true --- that was my own point, not John Zmirak's. (That's why I said, "I think".)

But. If you were to google Zmirak, you can see he's written a lot on illegal immigration that is a lot "hotter" than this. In fact, he is pret'near distraught over this whole lawless invasion thing, particularly as certain Catholic Bishops are enabling it so cluelessly and so ruinously.

I think he needed to force himself a drink a tall glass of chill in order to write this brief article using a lexicon that people like the bishops could understand --- and not crumple up and toss after Paragraph One.

Many people of Faith --- Catholic, Protestant, Jewish --- are really in the throes of perplexity over this, wanting to do the just and merciful thing, and not really perceiving the underlying subversion that's being carried out --- with the the vulnerable poor and young of Central America being exploited as pawns in a huge Hemispheric socialist power grab.

I think Zmirak has succeed in making the main points while using such language as can appeal to well-meaning "people in the middle."

I could not have sent my bishop many of Zmirak's earlier writings, where he was almost consumed with anger.

Just like real estate is all about "location, location, location," persuasive writing is all about "audience, audience, audience."