Immigration and Security

The Wall Street Journal ^ | Wednesday, December 24, 2003

[presidio9]

Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge recently committed the political sin of telling the truth. His helpful candor has reopened a much-needed debate over immigration and exposed some of the specious arguments used by those who want to close U.S. borders.

[Pelham]

If an expert living 3,000 miles from the border can airily dismiss "culture", then everyone better sit up and pay attention. Preach it, choochoo, the xenophobes need your wisdom.

[FITZ]

It might be higher than 50% getting caught but then they turn around and come back. Some illegals have been caught 8 or more times but after a while they get the hang of how it works and they stop getting caught. I'm not sure the borders have to be all that closed at the actual border anyhow --- I'd be more for cutting off all access to the handout programs and deporting those who commit other types of crime like document fraud and end the anchor baby way of immigration. They can get rid of the problem immigrant easily enough and in my opinion the fences are only needed in certain spots.

[FITZ]

And of course deportation goes on their record which affects their ability to come back legally --- versus voluntary departure which doesn't go on their record.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"It might be higher than 50% getting caught but then they turn around and come back. Some illegals have been caught 8 or more times."

So then, how in the world could you make a statement like "we have open borders"?

The problem with your argument, and many people's argument in FR, is that you use excessive hyperbole, and destroy your credibility.

"I'd be more for cutting off all access to the handout programs"

For everyone, not just immigrants. It actually pisses me off more to know that my money is going to a native-born welfare queen, than to an immigrant family.

"...end the anchor baby way of immigration."

You mean overturning the Fourteenth Amendment?

[FITZ]

It actually pisses me off more to know that my money is going to a native-born welfare queen, than to an immigrant family.

Why? Welfare moochers are welfare moochers --- why is your immigrant welfare queen somehow better than the native born one?

[Luis Gonzalez]

Because one family has had generations to "get on their feet", and I would prefer extending needed help to one that is just starting out.

But that's just my personal bias.

[FITZ]

No ----once someone realizes there is a free ride they don't easily give it up, their kids learn to wait for the welfare check and food stamps to show up and the welfare becomes generational.

This country reminds me of one of those looney old ladies that starts out with 6 cats which she can take care of well enough --- but her kind heart leads her to start taking off everyone else's unwanted cats and strays. Soon she's got 40 cats but she still can't stop taking in more, soon she's overwhelmed with cats and eating scraps of bread so she can feed her cats out of her limited income. Next thing she's got 110 cats. Still they keep coming --- she's got a big heart.

[FITZ]

The 14th Amendment was meant for the families of slaves ---- it wasn't set up for everyone in the entire world to figure out a way to get a welfare check.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"The 14th Amendment was meant for the families of slaves."

Show me where on the Amendment it says that.

You can't both stand on the literal meaning of the Second Amendment, and the interpretation of the Fourteenth.

When you start "interpreting" Amendments, you leave that interpretation open for someone else's interpretation.

[God is good]

Must he be a terrorist to be detrimental? Do not other crimes and detriments exist? Where is your imagination? You failed to back up your claims, btw.