Replies

Let's see: you propose creating a massive new Federal bureaucracy to deal with rounding up and processing criminals (and you're a conservative who faults Bush's domestic agenda?); creating a new class of criminals - American employers (not just "big business", but middle class families and individuals); prosecuting and deporting and/or jailing millions of people whose crime is that they wanted to feed their families (as if you wouldn't try to sneak into Canada if you woke up tomorrow and found yourself in the same situation that millions of Mexicans are in), is that about it? Well, I have a few questions.

Do you really think that the American people are going to stand for the adverse economic impact of all this ("short term", i.e. 2-5 years though it might be)? Where, in any known party or walk of American life are you going to find the politician/leader who can "sell" your proposal, and where will you find the legislators to implement it? Not in this country, and probably not on this planet. You correctly identified the three current proposed solutions to the problem. Unfortunately your proposed "fourth way" is less practical and politically acceptable than any of the others. Guess we're stuck with "solution number 1" for now.

Let's see: you propose creating a massive new Federal bureaucracy to deal with rounding up and processing criminals (and you're a conservative who faults Bush's domestic agenda?);

This happens to be a task the federal government is SUPPOSED to be doing.

creating a new class of criminals

Uh, I hate to break this to you, but employers hiring illegals is already against the law. No "creating" required, only enforcement of EXISTING laws.

Let's see: you propose creating a massive new Federal bureaucracy to deal with rounding up and processing criminals (and you're a conservative who faults Bush's domestic agenda?); creating a new class of criminals - American employers (not just "big business", but middle class families and individuals); prosecuting and deporting and/or jailing millions of people whose crime is that they wanted to feed their families (as if you wouldn't try to sneak into Canada if you woke up tomorrow and found yourself in the same situation that millions of Mexicans are in), is that about it?

No, not even close, really.
The bureacracy necessary for enforcement of our immigration laws would be similar, I imagine, to that necessary to run the background checks on 8 to 12 million Illegals and process them for the Bush Amnesty.
Nor would there be a new class of criminal employers, just enforcement against the existing ones.
Nowhere do I suggest incarceration for millions, which suggests to me you didn't read carefully.

Do you really think that the American people are going to stand for the adverse economic impact of all this ("short term", i.e. 2-5 years though it might be)?

Yeah, I think it will be a blip that hardly goes noticed, though unemployment will decrease, as well as welfare costs. I sincerely doubt that our economy is as dependent on Illegals as apologists suggest.

Where, in any known party or walk of American life are you going to find the politician/leader who can "sell" your proposal, and where will you find the legislators to implement it?

Since the vast majority of Americans don't support Amnesty by any name, I think you're overestimating the difficulty here.

prosecuting and deporting and/or jailing millions of people whose crime is that they wanted to feed their families

Feeding their families is not a crime. Breaking the law in order to feed their families is a crime.

Do you really think that the American people are going to stand for the adverse economic impact of all this

Yes and here's just one example of why.

Right now approximately one third of California's public schools are populated by the consequences of 50 years of unregulated immigration. That's over $9,000 per student in tax money being shelled out needlessly each year and that number grows yearly.

Nothing we do will even approach the billions being wasted just this year in California alone. Mutiplyed nationally those unnecessary expenses and we could probably fund an enforcement activity approaching that which we undertook in Iraq.