It has gone on since forever. FOREVER.
We have never had closed borders, only immigration control that has failed because the normal gates of entry are ignored for pathways woven from thousands of feet and vehicles sneaking in...dangerous to national security in today's world, most especially.
Hitlery took of the immigration problem superficially, in an attempt to joust President Bush and future presidential hopefuls on the republican side into putting their feet into their mouths in an effort to keep her from getting out front on this issue. Which of course, she was never going to do and will not do.
Why?
Because it is one good way to lose control of her base.
And why will republicans continue to shy from it...because we have a massive hispanic population and it might result in losing the house and senate down the road.
Is that worth it? Is it?
Our President is working on the border situation, and he is doing so from a rational standpoint, with the full understanding that NOTHING is going to keep a man or woman from slipping into the USA if it means a job wherein they can feed their family. Period.
Were I in the congress or senate, I would be working overtime to encourage businesses and enterprises to build in Mexico, I would be offering incentives to Fox to keep the borders tight on his side, I would be for intiating some kind of lasers that would completely cover the borders and I would be doing the same with the Canadian borders.
Our President was the governor of Texas. He knows full well the pressure of illegal immigration. And he also knows that there is not to much that can be done to keep a person seeking to feed their family from taking immense risks to get to a place where that can happen.
Improving Mexico...and fast...and taking control of their natural oil...oh yes takinng it by way of repayment in return for economic build-up is exactly what I would be doing, were I king.
From Nat'l Review's 'Bench Memos':
http://bench.nationalreview.com/
Initial Thoughts on the Miers Nomination
[Edward Whelan 10/03 09:54 PM]
1. Like lots of folks, I was disappointed that President Bush did not nominate someone who has a public record that clearly demonstrates a sound understanding of the proper role of judging. From a conversation with an informed source, it’s my impression that the White House carefully reviewed a broad range of candidates—including virtually every possible woman—and concluded that Harriet Miers was the best candidate, or at least the best female candidate, who would get confirmed. I suspect that the White House was far less ready to face a substantial risk of non-confirmation than many of us would have liked.
2. All of point 1 is behind us now. Harriet Miers is the nominee, and the relevant question going forward is whether to support her nomination, oppose it, or stand on the sidelines.
3. I spoke today with four individuals who know Harriet Miers very well and have worked very closely (in at least one case, extremely closely) with her. I know three of these individuals very well and deeply trust their judgment on matters of judicial philosophy and character. Although I do not know the fourth individual, that individual’s public record gives me ample reason to trust his judgment on matters of judicial philosophy. All four individuals are genuinely enthusiastic about Miers’s nomination and strongly believe that she will be an excellent judicial conservative (i.e., a proponent of originalism and judicial restraint). Indeed, one of them, who made clear that he was an ardent admirer of Chief Justice Roberts, said that he was even more comfortable with Miers than with Roberts.
Another person with whom I spoke shed some light on the fact that some who served in the White House appear to have less positive impressions of Miers. According to his account, Miers, in her role as staff secretary, often had very limited interactions with other staffers—making sure the paper flowed, for example, but not engaging in policy debates—that didn’t display the full range of her abilities.
4. The very encouraging assessment of these three individuals is bolstered by other evidence, such as Miers’s lead role in the effort to have the ABA revisit its pro-abortion stance, her sponsorship of a fundraiser for a pro-life organization, and her active role in her evangelical church. (To be clear: I am not looking for justices who will impose conservative policy preferences. I am merely taking comfort in the fact that a person who has conservative policy preferences will be unlikely, as a justice, to be bamboozled into reading the Left’s agenda into the Constitution.)
Bottom line: Setting aside my initial disappointment at the fact that certain individuals with clearer records were passed over, I see a lot of cause for hope that Miers will be a very strong justice.
Mexico is responsible for improving Mexico. I am NOT willing to send any economic aid to that corrupt sh!thole. We already have NAFTA, many factories in Mexico, and they receive preferential trade status. We Americans do not have to throw good money after bad in Mexico. And I am always grateful that we do not have a monarchy, cause they might just make you king.