[UCANSEE2]

Half a century ago, Dwight Eisenhower, informed there were a million illegals in the United States, most of them from Mexico, ordered them sent back. The project was called “Operation Wetback.”

And did it solve the problem? The statement is made as if to suggest it was successful. It obviously wasn't.

[liberallarry]

Absolutely sensational observation!

[WOSG]

Half a century ago, Dwight Eisenhower, informed there were a million illegals in the United States, most of them from Mexico, ordered them sent back. The project was called “Operation Wetback.” And did it solve the problem? The statement is made as if to suggest it was successful. It obviously wasn't.

Actually, it was successful for its time. The problem was much less in that decade than today. But it was superceded by other policies that went in a different direction. What intervened historically was the end of the Bracero program *and* the 1965 Immigration Law, a law that opened the floodgates to 3rd world immigration.

Our current out-of-control immigration situation is proof that the 1965 Immigration Law was and is a complete fiasco and should be repealed and overturned . Another disaster thanks to Ted Kennedy. We are still suffering from the consequences of the 1965 immigration law, which dicriminates against European immigration in favor of 3rd world immigration (eg the diversity visa program), which allows for "chain migration" of extended families, whether or not they have employment prospects waiting for them (often not, which is one reason why immigrants have much HIGHER RATES of being on welfare and using social services than native-born Americans).

Illegal immigration is tied in with this form of legal immigration because amnesties of various forms have in effect let whole extended families in due to the amnesty of a single person. This creates further incentive for illegal immigration because there is always the hope that one amnesty or 'anchor baby' will get the whole family in.

If we change the legal immigration law to restrict family sponsorship to nucelar fmailies only, it would go a long way to reducing the incentives for illegal immigration.

[88keys]

The project was called “Operation Wetback.”

And did it solve the problem?

Brevity is the soul of wit, and in this case, wisdom...

"U" are quite brilliant with that one, "U"!

This sums up everything about Pat Buchanan that is quite simply wrong...he has the right ideas and principles, but sadly has gone completely over the edge with his rhetoric. (news flash to Pat: you saying "the President is saying" doesn't make you right...especially since your "interpretation" is completely wrong and self-serving!)

"Operation Wetback" did not work in any real sense over any period of time, and I can only imagine the repercussions if any such thing was attempted today (liberallarry is right about that). Those who continue to espouse such a position, with or without also taking the opportunity to second-guess and bash the President, simply do not IMHO help to advance the discussion of what practical means can be used to address the serious immigration problems we face.

This is not to criticize anyone here, as I am certain we all agree on the need to "deport" as possible...it would also be helpful to consider the word "amnesty" in the same light as "is" (as someone previously posted)...despite what some would have you believe, the President is not proposing "instant citizenship, and no penalties for illegals" nor is he proposing "open borders" (another term that is used far too loosely and deceptively)...

A strategic proposal to identify illegal workers and those who illegally employ them is likely to reduce the attractiveness of illegal activity, even if certain immigrants are allowed a "temporary stay"...IMO, this is in part a "carrot", not to "pander for votes" but rather to compensate for the "stick" which is going to follow, namely much more enforcement of existing laws, and much tougher physical border controls...

If you disagree with that theory, consider this...why would President Bush, based on his track record, want to present such a proposal, if we believe everything that's been written about it?

This is a good way to consider all his decisions, many of which are vilified in these pages by those who have very strong feelings of their own about the way things should be...so while I'm at it, I may as well say also that it is entirely the fault of the US Supreme Court that we're stuck with "Campaign Finance Reform"...I do not hold it against GWB for not vetoing it. A veto would have been entirely impractical, and he had every right to think SCOTUS would rule correctly. Alas, they did not, and consider the long-term consequences of the next judicial appointments if they're made by Howard Dean or Wesley Clark or Hillary...

Brevity is good, but so is pragmatism, even if "at length"! ;)