[Plutarch]

If Mexican immigrants ultimately voted 75% Republican, Ol' Nathan would be personally planting land mines along the border.

[TigersEye]

Critics of immigration from the right like to say they support "defending our borders." This is a clever phrase, because it erases the distinction between peaceful workers and invading armies.

According to the author's logic if a family of people came into his house uninvited and just helped themselves to his food, TV, and furniture it would not be immoral. I don't mean that they steal it, mind you, they just use it right there. They mean no harm and threaten no one they just help themselves to whatever. If asked to leave they scream and rant and call a lawyer. They put up a sign out front with their names on it too.

No, nothing immoral about that. If you're a liberal.

[Teacher317]

Or is it wrong to break the law, per se?

Well, yes. However, it is a rebuttable presumption. I have yet to hear a valid argument from the pro-illegals that effectively rebuts the presumption. Typically, they spout little more than Marxist principles.

[AmeriBrit]

Message To All Illegal Alien's:

http://tinyurl.com/o2ht4


From one who came into the U.S. the right way, the LEGAL way. If I and so many others can do it so can you, damn it!

[Marine Inspector]

On the other hand, no one is harmed by it in the strictest sense.

I consider murder, rape, assault, battery being harmed in the strictest sense.

No one's person is violated.

Tell that to the victims and families of the above crimes.

No one's property is stolen or damaged.

Tell that to the citizens that own property along the border that is being destroyed and their houses broken into. The damage to my National Parks can also be included.

The authors an idiot.

[Zhang Fei]

People who enter and stay in this country without permission aren't immigrants - they're colonizers. When we evict these people, we're merely engaged in decolonization. Isn't decolonization supposed to be a *good* thing?

[jordan8]

Cloud cuckoo land libertarianism that can't tell the difference between a nation and a state (or an empire, for that matter) and pretends that people are interchangeable economic units that have no effect on society other than economic.

[dr_who_2]

I don't believe in trespassing on private property. I believe it is the duty of a government to keep certain undesireables out of U.S. territory, public or private. But I think it's unrealistic to paint with a broad brush and try to keep a majority of "in-bound aliens" out, because as long as territories south of the border are less hospitable/inviting than the US, there will be lots of foreigners trying to get in one way or another. I also think that property owners who live next to a border need to realize that the final responsibility for the defense of their property falls to them even though they are bound by laws. It's normally going to be easier where U.S. territory literally stops at the water's edge. Should the U.S. demand vigilance on the part of their neighbors so that the U.S. can properly enforce its laws? Certainly, but it's nuts to demand more than our own government can deliver in order to fully comply with its own laws, if that. If changing our position forces Mexico to change its "behavior" in a generally positive way, good. But don't expect miracles. On the other hand, if you want total isolation, imagine what the situation would be like if Mexico was like Cuba.

Should "a" wall be built that ensures people intending to enter or leave the U.S. be filtered through official U.S. checkpoints? To the extent that the U.S. government could provide enough of these checkpoints, yes. Border traffic is far more than just illegals trying to get in. You can't pen people in in a free society. Border property owners will have to make allowances to the U.S. for it to work, and the U.S. will have to do a good job of maintaining and fortifying a big structure that will have to be more than a typical cement wall or fence to stop people from crossing it. The money will inevitably come from the same place highway, entitlement, pork money comes from, but there are limits to the amount you can collect before it ceases to work. A wall is like any levee, especially in this case. If the mood of the electorate or their elected officials moves back in favor of something else, then the wall will become less and less effective with time, although the property owners I speak of should be allowed to step in, as their interests are directly protected by a wall. To those who have boundless faith in some self-taxing system of border/citizenship enforcement, look at public schools, etc. Many of us here would like to extricate schools from federal, state, and local governments altogether for some reason or another. People here can turn a blind eye to waste, fraud, and abuse in a pentagon-run national defense because the 1789 model wouldn't work in this day and age. Amtrak, like the USPS, is increasingly worthless but just won't go away.

I would caution anyone against thinking that a wall wouldn't adversely affect our relations with Mexico, and that poorer relations with our neighbor Mexico is something of no consequence. If you think every criminal act along the border amounts to another battle in an on-going border war, then we're at war anyway and always will be. But don't complain if it gets worse, much less spirals out of control as a result of tit-for-tat behavior. Mexicans are not any more helpless than Americans would be in the same situation, or else we would have won the drug war by now. To the hot heads here who would say, "What's the matter with having another war with Mexico?", I'd say that a genuine ongoing war with a neighboring country is the number one national security threat, and worse the war, the worse the threat. And if you think that rogue states and stateless terrorist groups don't pose a real threat, then you have an unhealthy obsession with Mexico. There's nothing like a war close to home to keep the U.S. pinned down. If you think I'm being paranoid here, stop and reexamine your own rhetoric. It's better to influence a neighbor than to make a permanent (dare I say useful) enemy out of him.

To an extent, good fences make good neighbors, as long as both neighbors mend the fence, even an "invisible" one. So it's far more than a question of who starts laying the bricks first. I don't think the situation with Mexico or any other foreign nationals is as bad as the other side claims, but we could easily and unnecessarily make it worse. People here (including me) have written off France, but I think it's fair to say that our track record will remain better than theirs now and in the future, even though there's hope for that country as well. More than what the headlines suggest.

[dr_who_2]

But once they're in America, guest workers tend to want to stay.

Got any statistics on that point?

[MarkL]

Why is it that nobody askes the question, "Why doesn't Mexico allow "illegal aliens" to take the jobs Mexicans won't do? Why do they have their military patrolling their own southern border for just that reason?

Mark

[backhoe]

I have been psuedo-blogging, for years, a couple of the elements in WWIV ( III being the Cold War ), in which we find ourselves engaged.

The first element?

-Islam, a Religion of Peace®? Some links...--

The other, somewhat interlocking element is this one:

-Thunder on the Border-- (Minuteman Project)--

---

Not yet, but within an hour, I will update these collections of links with further links connecting these two seemingly disparate groups. Stay tuned.

[PeoplesRepublicOfWashington]

Sorry, but until Mexico allows me to enter their country anytime I wish and buy property anywhere I want--preferably along the coast--it's wrong--legally and morally--for Mexicans to assume such privileges.

[Wonder Warthog]

"No one's property is stolen or damaged. It's true, of course, that illegal immigrants may bid down the wages of low-skilled native-born workers."

The whole article is a lie, but this is the biggest one. Illegal aliens steal jobs from poor American citizens and legal immigrants. They steal tax-funded benefits they receive. They are thieves on all levels.

[azhenfud]

"In short, an undocumented Mexican who enters the US is doing something illegal, but it is not clear that he is doing anything immoral."

What idiotic thinking! Does the writer not think one has a moral obligation to adhere to law as best they can? Such thinking is food for ambivalent fools.

[A. Pole]

But states have generally permitted the entry of peaceful traders, who do not threaten the lives or property of citizens.

ILLEGAL "peaceful entry"? "Traders"? This is a lie.

[Libertina]

Hmmm, in a nutshell:

1. It goes against the constitution in which the government is charged with upholding the sovereignty of the country

2. It takes away the priviledges of true US citizens, and does so without their consent

3. Not all "immigrants" are peaceful, thereby consituting a clear & present danger to our national security

4. Not all illegals want to assimilate, thereby constituting a threat to our laws & culture

5. Allowing law-breaking sends a message to others to do the same

6. Change must be made using our constitutional process of voting and legislation through representation of CITIZENS

Theres is much more, such as the outdated practice of bestowing citizenship on babies of illegals, the proven drain on our medical, educational, and service insitituitons etc. But we should get the point...

Illegal immigration is harmful to rightful citizens. The US immigration policy is currently unenforced and changes must be made to address its vast problems.

[hosepipe]

Moonbat Logic-->> "Is it wrong for a poor but able-bodied Mexican without the requisite documents to cross the Rio Grande to look for work in El Norte? Certainly, it is illegal."