Well, that's because the alternatives are just blatantly obvious to anybody smart enough to breathe. There have been several good, workable plans suggested right here on FR. 
Posted on 01/15/2004 9:49:14 AM PST by Theodore R.
Bush gives country away
Posted: January 15, 2004 1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com
President Bush's plan to legalize 8 million to 12 million illegal aliens – maybe considerably more – is one of the most irresponsible, dangerous, reckless proposals to come out of Washington in my lifetime.
And that's saying a lot.
In my lifetime, I have witnessed:
wage-and-price controls imposed by Richard Nixon;
the greatest expansion of unconstitutional, immoral wealth-transfer programs in the history of our country;
the use of the Internal Revenue Service by President Clinton to harass and intimidate political adversaries;
the sacrifice of more than 50,000 U.S. servicemen in a war they would not be allowed to win;
the shredding of the Constitution in a thousand ways to bring us to the point at which politicians no longer even question the limits of the federal government;
the transfer by President Clinton of sensitive technology with military applications to a budding superpower for campaign cash;
the demoralization and emasculation of the country under President Carter;
I watched all this and more in nearly a half-century of life. But, honestly, President Bush's proposal to legalize untold millions of illegal aliens is potentially worse than any of these blunders, any of these mistakes, any of these abuses.
Why?
First, because it is immoral. Bush claims this is the "compassionate" thing to do. But he is misusing the term "compassion" the same way do those who would most like to unseat him from power. There is nothing compassionate about inflicting pain on others, in hurting the country, while accepting none of the responsibility, nor pain, nor sacrifice yourself. This move will not materially affect George W. Bush's life. But it will impact those competing for jobs at the lower end of the economic ladder. It will impact those who live in crime-plagued areas of the country and who don't have Secret Service protection. It will impact those who chose to obey the laws rather than flout them as their first act in America.
Second, it is unconstitutional. The federal government has few and limited areas of responsibility in our republican system of government. Among those clearly defined areas are the defense of the nation and the defense of our borders. This act is a reprehensible betrayal of the president's oath of office to uphold the law and execute it.
Third, it is bad policy. Even the simple act of proposing this notion encourages more illegal immigration into our country. More foreigners will want to get in on the action. It sends a horrible signal that America doesn't really believe in enforcing its laws. It promotes chaos at our borders and crime in our streets.
Fourth, it risks national security. Presumably, there was a reason this president placed the Immigration and Naturalization Service under the Department of Homeland Defense. The American people assume it was because he finally recognized that out-of-control immigration is a real threat – especially at a time when terrorists are trying desperately to kill and maim as many of us as possible.
It's not strong enough to call Bush's proposal "irresponsible." It is borderline seditious. And there is a widespread perception he is making this move because he believes there is personal political gain in it.
That is hardly "compassion," Mr. President. That is the worst kind of cynicism. That is the worst kind of selfishness. That is the worst kind of example a leader could set for the nation.
Shame on Bush. Shame on his party for standing by quietly as he sets out to destroy the fabric of our nation. Shame on the opposition for suggesting his move doesn't go far enough. Shame on all Americans who lie down and accept this outrage from Washington.
Well, that's because the alternatives are just blatantly obvious to anybody smart enough to breathe. There have been several good, workable plans suggested right here on FR.
There have been any number of alternatives put forward by a lot of very smart people. Some of them are really interesting, many are mutually exclusive and a lot have some very serious flaws, but I certainly think they deserve to be discussed. Later in this very thread, I praised a series of steps proposed by Sabertooth on a previous thread. My point in the post you responded to was that ranting about a proposal without suggesting an alternative is generally counterproductive.
No, my logic is simply based on reality: We COULD come up with a criminal justice system that got crime down to zero, effectively. However, the monetary costs and the hits to our liberty would be so high, it really wouldn't be worth doing.
Similarly, we COULD come up with a system that effectively got the number of illegals down to zero. But, again, the costs involved would be too high to be worth it.
In the real world, our realistic goal over the next decade or so is a gradual reduction of the illegal population back down to manageable levels. Five million is just a number I threw out there. Maybe can do even better. But to say our goal is to get the number of illegals down to zero, well, that's not living in the real world.
What you described is France. I don't want to live in France, but you apparently do.
This is just overheated rhetoric. I bet you still call French fries "Freedom Fries."
Can we dig up Teddy Roosevelt and wake him up?
I agree with you -- if the illegal horde of illegals could be reduced to "less than five million within a decade," it WOULD be a major victory. In two decades, maybe that number could be reduced further by half of that. But we won't be able to reduce it AT ALL without a MAJOR plan and committment.
As to this so-called "point of diminishing returns," one never endeavors that they will lose the battle before the charge -- It is this cynical, defeatist attitude which prevents America from turning back this poisonous tide of PC Liberalism and New World Ordered multiculturism, and taking back OUR country...
So pick up your sword, get back on your horse and CHARGE!
Nor would we need to put our entire armed forces on the borders, though, frankly, I'd rather see them defending America than engaged in nation building in Iraq. By enforcing employer sanctions, you diminish the economic incentives for illegal immigration--many illegals would then simply go home. And, if need be, we could build a fence. I've yet to see a rational argument as to why such a fence would not work.
And how is there "accountability" for illegal immigrants under Bush's plan? Now, it's "impossible" to enforce our laws, but, after Bush waves his magic wand, the illeglas will suddenly be held "accountable?"
That's a great defeatist attitude and one that will lead this country to ruin.
If you have an enforcement resource problem, allocate more by law and let the local police hold illegal aliens for regularly scheduled pickups.
If you have loopholes in the law, plug them by legislation, like loopholes are plugged in other areas.
If you have judge problems, regulate the judges like Congress has the power to do via Articles 2 and 3, and state legislatures via their own constitutions and customs.
Because I think that if it were not for his evil influence, Conservatives would have been able to get to the President and move him to the Right.
But my post #173 presents an argument that goes to most of the world inside the "Beltway."
William Flax
Traditional conservatives are not represented .. for this presidency is as far left as any Democrat presidency has been IMO. ( I might add that I have voted for Bush 1 & 2 and gladly voted for both.. They have done an excellent job confusing the constiuency.. right is left..and .. left is right and in doing so, we gladly gave our vote to someone who apparently, judging by policy, is taking conservatives much for granted and obviously isn't concerned about the conservative position.)
However, to return to your main premise, my only real difference from your assessment is in the use of the term "neo-con." They are not that, however some of them may like that label, because it helps them appear to relate to the Conservative trend that Reagan engendered. In actuality, they are the same "Modern Republicans" that I fought in my youth: Internationalistic; identified with Eastern establishment types and Universities; carrying water for the Corporate conglomerates and often indifferent to the needs of independent business, agriculture, labor, professions, etc.; and above all else, desperate to appear respectable, "politically correct," within the usage of the moment; and absolutely and totally unable to defend themselves in a debate with anybody who really understands the issues.
William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site
The simple answers to that are (1) either get back on the track to real welfare reform, as started in the Contract With America, or (2) increase the incentives to use labor saving devices. We have the technological abilities to move in that direction.
The idea of changing the nature of our societies by bringing in peoples not particularly congenial to traditional American norms, is addressing a transient problem that affects some Americans, by permanently damaging the future of all of us.
Immigration is like fire. It is a dangerous servant, but a fearful master. While we can control it, it still affords possibilities for unwanted changes. When it controls us, as in the case of the present open border, we are in real trouble. (See Immigration & The American Future.)
William Flax
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.