"the real world" = suck it up, folks, illegals are here to stay and there ain't squat you can do about it.
Must be from the reality-based community.
More dumb stuff from the open borders crowd at the Wall Street Journal. Dumb hyperbole, dumb straw man argumentation and dumb about American sovereignty. Their flag is their dollar bill.
I thought the WSJ was above such misinformation and distortion. Shame on me.
Illegals are drain on the economy. Plain and simple. Build the wall and be done with it. If the wall does not work, it can come done. The Berlin wall came down when it was found not to work.
On the other hand, if illegals are kept out and the illegal activity they engage in is stopped, the wall has proven its value.
Lazy Americans will have to go to work and employers will have to pay Americans decent wages for work done.
Those jobs that illegals do because Americans are cheap and/or lazy, will just go away and Americans take care of their own kids, clean their houses, mow their lawns and clean their own pools.
"The legislation is aimed at placating a small but vocal constituency that wants the borders somehow sealed, come what may to the economy, American traditions of liberty or the Republican Party's relationship with the increasingly important Latino vote."
Yeah, if you consider 80% to be a small but vocal constituency. What a dufus !!!
"For the past two decades, border enforcement has been the main focus of immigration policy..."
What world is this idiot living in? The 1986 amnesty was all "comprehensive" and no enforcement, and that is why the problem still exists today. The guest worker amnesty fails every time it's tried.
"Republican Party's relationship with the increasingly important Latino vote."
All about hispandering, eh Wall Street Journal.
It's said to see the nation's #2 newspaper, that everyone thinks is conservative, talk about open borders. I feel like I'm reading the New York Times.
You can always count on the Wall Street Journal to come through with a radical globalist approach to the subject of national sovereignty.
I wonder how enthusiastic the folks at the WSJ would be about unfettered immigration if I started hiring illegal immigrants to steal copies of their newspapers from people's doorsteps and hack into the WSJ website to get access to their on-line articles that are only available to paid subscribers.
ping
Ping!
The Berlin wall was about keeping people in, not out!
And it was effective.
The Journal usually makes a big to-do about how these illegals all pay their taxes, etc, but the truth is, except in income-tax-free states like Texas, they DON'T pay any significant taxes.
Illegals ONLY pay sales taxes, because those are the only ones collected from everybody.
Sure, their employers take out withholding taxes from their pay, but what they do is list 14 or so "dependents," so their withholding is zilch. Surely nobody thinks they actually file income tax returns?
Not even the Manhattanites on the WSJ editorial staff are THAT out of touch, are they?
Apparently you can't read the Editorial sidebar, much less do a proper search.
I wonder what he thinks about our plans to help build a wall across the Dominican Republic to keep out Haitians?
Gated community? Wow, the left is really going to like that idea! Maybe we have some common ground, finally.
Another joke from the Wall St. Journal, as usual hiding behind an outdated poem to mask their real agenda, which is the importation of a never-ending supply of cheap labor. It must be lonely for them knowing their views are supported by about 1% of the population.
"The number of unauthorized migrants in the United States has risen to almost 11 million from about four million over the past 20 years, despite a 519% increase in funding and a 221% increase in staffing for border patrol programs."
What an intellectually dishonest argument. First, its irrelevant how much MONEY we are spending the only thing that matters is how many BORDER PATROL AGENTS are actually employed and enforcing the immigration laws. Second, the Border Patrol didn't have enough people 20 years ago. Third, had many BP agents are needed is a function of how many illegal aliens are attempting to enter the country.
For example, If you start out with 10 BP agents in 1985 and increased it to 100 BP in 2005, you've increased the number 1,000% but you still only have 100 BP agents when you need 10,000.
To anyone who's been around this argument is depressingly familiar. It was used by Liberals against the war on crime in the 1960s and 1970s. Y'know - "Lets not hire more policemen or build more jails because we've done that and crime hasn't gone down. We need to attack the root causes of crime." Of course, it wasn't until we actually started putting enough people in jail that crime has come down.
Its rather pathetic when the WSJ adopts liberal talking points to argue for breaking the law and not enforcing it.
How many WSJ editors and writers live in gated communities or buildings with restricted access?
Culturally, the US is not a nation that would accept Elian Gonzalez style apprehensions once let alone 15 Million times.
Politically, the resulting deportation print and video would hand the White House, House of Representatives, Senate, and the keys to every washroom to the Democrats.
Another way it vital. A wall is a start but voluntary registration with an exit date certain is practical. Doing nothing but debate is dangerous.
The WSJ and the Open Borders Elitists are dead scared of a wall, because they fear it just might work.