[Sabertooth]

I agree with your implication that there is substantial grassroots opposition to illegal immigration. It is, however, highly uncertain whether such opposition would be sustained throughout the duration a crackdown campaign lasting months or even years.

We can never know the future, with certainty.

However, there's far less evidence that appeasement to the Illegal Alien lobby is a political winner. It has the additional disadvantage of being morally wrong, as well as cowardly.

If you won't follow your moral impulse when every past experience indicates it will win, and only failed Leftist agitprop weighs against it, when the heck won't you appease?

When one considers the political risk associated with a crackdown on illegals, and couples that with the fact that many elected officials who would have to support such a measure don't personally have to deal with the negative effects of illegal immigration, a crackdown is a non-starter.

He said, forcefully wringing his hands.

It's a non-starter only so long as people like you, who claim to know better, openly and knowingly support appeasement.

[Metternich]

When you think about the politicians who support amnesty and related policies, which of the following statements do you most agree with:

1. These politicians understand the cultural and economic consequences of amnesty, and they just don't care.
2. These politicians simply do not understand the cultural and economic consequences of amnesty.