Replies

Thank you for the thoughtful reply. Good to see the criminal figure revised downward by 90%.

I don't think you'll find an argument from GWB that the situation is not good. His plan is to indeed document those who are currently undocumented. One has to start somewhere. Pragmatism and realism seem to be two characteristics of GWB's approach, not only on this issue but others as well.

You are correct in assuming most of my life has been lived in suburban areas. Today I live in a trailer park in a town of about 40,000 where the hispanic population is large and the unemployment rate is low.

I am under no illusion that a violent crime cannot happen anytime, anywhere. I've walked through some of the nastiest parts of LA and Chicago, spent months here and there in an urban environment. While I don't particularly care for it, I was not cowering in fear.

In short, these millions of immigrants, whether legal or illegal, are not all on a mission to wreak havoc. With or without them, there is a ton of work to do, including a practical way of documenting these folks and allowing thewm the same opportunities we've enjoyed by virtue of our forefathers.

Great...There was no revision downward, only a redefinition into two categories: criminals and "terroristic criminals." In numerous countries the maximum penalty for the crime of invading a foreign country without government approval, is, the most extreme. Here, it is also heavy -- 10 year + sentences (even heavier for the criminals that employ them), that is, if prosecutors don't dismiss charges for one reason or another (a common practice that Ashcroft recently imposed measures to prevent).

The premise of your latest argument is that of a plantation owner:"there is a ton of work to do." As the "owner" of that suburban plantation over the long-run it seems to me that you have three basic options, bring them in legally (screened) -- the position that accomodates democratic left-wing progressivism with pseudo-conservative libertarianism in an alliance to annihilate the nation-state, bring them in illegally (the position of destroyers of liberty and order), or 3 abandon the plantation and have more kids (Americans to fill those needs) -- the latter being the position of Federalists and conservatives through the 1960s (before the movement was contaminated with anarchistic drivel from neo-libertarians defiling Jefferson's ideals). Cultural terrorism from the Left has created a society in which America slaughtered 36MM kids through "legal" abortions since 1972 (one that Pope John Paul II compared to Hell on Earth by calling it a "Culture of Death") and replaced them with about the same number of legal and illegal immigrants. The greatest tragedy in the history of man...So now we are supposed to live and let live -- and let them do it all over again, only on a more massive scale in coming decades?

By the way, when one has a 78 year old grandmother fight off (successfully!) a mob of 4! young Domicans (they were shocked!), go through 9/11 knowing damned well that it could have been prevented if we had even border security at a level that Britain has (the barest minimum for a "real country"), hear of neighbors attacked repeatedly over the course of 20 years by such thugs, and then hear of cases of people be prosecuted for daring to defend themselves in a "society" that goes out of its way to keep decent people utterly defenseless to the predations of hostile invaders, it is not "cowering in fear" for neighbors to move out. It is common sense. Cowering in fear is letting the criminals be effectively PARDONED because the WH doesn't have the courage to uphold the law and the constitution -- and all in return for obtaining votes and money for political campaigns ("influence peddling" for all those in the GOP who make such a quid pro quo explicit).