1. Again, those people have no right to be here working and are thus increasing the labor pool artificially.Wrong. You're looking at it backwards: you are attempting to use the power of government to artificially decrease the size of the labor pool.
By recognizing them, that artificially expanded number becomes the new normal.
Wrong. The norm remains the same; it is merely recognized as reality.
Rather, the should deport the illegals they find and punish their employers,
Ah, yes. The authorities should punish employers--not their fellow citizens, who have proven to to be insufficiently motivated.
The government, the last time I checked, was the servant of its citizens. You seem to wish that the government become our master.
shrinking the illegal population and allowing the real market for wages to be established.
The real market wage was determined long before you were born, pal. You just don't like it.
2. The fact that a politician does not do something does not mean that it is unpopular. Are you aware of the concept of cross-cutting cleavages? Or the concept of interest group politics?
Sorry, you said "politicians" in the plural form. Now you're changing the frame of argument to avoid looking at your premises to closely. A fine move, Mr. Rather, but us pajama-clad bloggers are a wee bit too smart for you.
3. I never said that Bush's proposal establishes residency.
However, any child of an illegal born in America becomes a citizen and can then pull in his/her family.
By not establishing residency or allowing dependents to come in on a guest worker visa, the anchor baby problem is eliminated.
1. No, I am saying the labor pool in America is Americans, not the whole of the Third World.
as for deeming the current state of affairs as the normal that should be recognized instead of remedied is fallacious. It is "normal" that people have their homes burglarized. We do not "solve" the problem by giving thieves good title to what they steal.
And why you seem to have a problem with punishing people who break the law, I don't. Of course, some "conservatives" seem to think that anything that businesses do is good simply by virtue of the fact that they are businesses. IMHO, conservatism does not countenance deciding which laws are "good" and should be obeyed.
as to whether government is the master over citizens, this is just silly. Of course the citizens are master. And the master has, through its duly elected representatives, has made hiring illegal aliens a criminal offense. The government is duty bound to enforce those laws until they are changed.
As to whether the real market wage has been determined before I was born, 1. You do not know how old I am. I could be 14 or I could be 94. 2. The market wage changes constantly in relation to any number of factors, including the labor or technology changes. It's set every time an employer hires someone and I think folks hired people long after I was born.
I will admit that you got me on the use of "politicians" and then "a politician." This "stunning" discovery puts you right up there with Power Line. I trust I'll be seeing you on Fox any minute now.
But before you become a famous PJ model, could you answer my question of whether you are familiar with concepts of cross-cutting cleavages or interest group politics? The concept is the same whether dealing with one politico or a whole gaggle of them.
Finally, the anchor baby problem. Here's the scenario you do not seem to understand: Guest worker Pablo comes in sans his family. While in America, he has relations with Julia. She gets pregnant She has the baby, John, on U.S. soil and John is now an American citizen. As a citizen by birth, John has the right to pull his father Pablo as a legal resident on the track to citizenship. When Pablo becomes a citizen, Pablo has the right to pull his family above the Rio Grande. Those family members then have the right to pull their family in. And so the "family reunification" chain goes.