[mbraynard]

So you don't think laws need to be changed or added to affect the following status quo:

• Chain migration.
• Anyone born on US soil - even if their parent just snuck across the border - being granted US citizenship.
• Letting Obama's illegal relative stay in the US.
• Illegal immigrants being entitled to education, health, and all kinds of social benefits.
• Immigration quotas that favor the third world

So you don't support reforming that (like Mitt and Tank do)? Not even a little bit?

Do you moonlight at the Wall Street Journal?

[calcowgirl]

So you don't think laws need to be changed or added to affect the following status quo:
• Chain migration. [1]
• Anyone born on US soil - even if their parent just snuck across the border - being granted US citizenship. [2]
• Letting Obama's illegal relative stay in the US. [3]
• Illegal immigrants being entitled to education, health, and all kinds of social benefits. [4]
• Immigration quotas that favor the third world [5]

As I said, I think that changing laws does not correct problems unless those laws are enforced. Our problem today is the lack of enforcement, not the lack of laws. Furthermore, the major problem today is with illegal immigration, not legal immigration.

"Chain migration" (your #1 example) has been around since 1965 or so. In theory, I think it is good policy ("family unification") when applied with sensible immigration quotas for LEGAL immigration. It is OUTRAGEOUS when it is applied to the massive Amnesty (or "path to citizenship") as proposed by some of our politicians.

As to #2, anchor babies... as I said in my "Clintonesque" post, if you work to eliminate the illegal immigration problem, you begin to solve the anchor baby problem. And you can't ultimately solve that problem unless you get the Supreme Court to reverse their findings, something that is also not within the reach of Congress and their "Comprehensive Immigration Reform" legislation.

As to #3, you aren't really suggesting that we need a new law to deport Obama's relative, are you?

As to #4, if you don't have illegal immigrants you don't need to worry about entitlements. Enforce the darn law and we will have more room in our schools, hospitals won't be going bankrupt everday, and the welfare rolls will reduce significantly.

As to #5, quotas are modified all the time. There is no need for a law to change them -- it is within the authority of the Administration to do that already.

So you don't support reforming that (like Mitt and Tank do)? Not even a little bit?

I'm not familiar with any detailed "reform" proposal set forward by Mitt and, honestly, it's been too long since Tancredo was on the scene for me to remember exactly what he was proposing. But, I can say once again, at this time, I do not think any kind of legislative action is required for immigration reform.

Do you moonlight at the Wall Street Journal?

And by that you mean what?

[sickoflibs]

RE :” So you don't think laws need to be changed or added to affect the following status quo: Chain migration.
Anyone born on US soil - even if their parent just snuck across the border - being granted US citizenship.
Letting Obama’s illegal relative stay in the US.
Illegal immigrants being entitled to education, health, and all kinds of social benefits.
Immigration quotas that favor the third world “

So you trust Obama/Pelosi/Reid to fix these problems?? Go read the stimulus package if you need an idea what they might do. Jeeze!