You disagree with me, evidently because you favor the mass incursions from the south. To you perhaps, open borders are part of an ideal world where the state doesn't interfere with migrations. However, this particular migration is more akin to an invasion. We'll have a state that has been transformed from the sorts of people who founded it to a whole different culture before this is over.
I think we could handle gradual transformation, but having it happen in the course of one or two generations is unacceptable to me. I think it's troublesome to most Americans, including many who have recently immigrated here the old fashioned legal way.
All in all, I would argue that if President Bush were stronger on this issue he might have an even greater chance of being elected. He has a real opportunity to distance himself from his opponent. As it is on this issue, it's unclear how significantly different they are.
Either way, this issue is important enough to discuss, election year or not.
Your feeble attempts to prevent it from being discussed on the basis of this being a close election are unconvincing.
No it's not. "Invasion" is typical of the words used by the Buchanan/Tancredo group to inflame inflame the emotions of xenophobes.
You're being played and apparently don't even realize it.
The rate of immigrant labor influx is determined by the demand for their services. If they can't find work here they return to their country.
But we determine whether we want them to stay based upon our demand for their services. That is not an invasion.
If you want to make this election a referendum on immigration then you have already lost, regardless of who wins.