This has been in the works for a very long time.. funny, in Europe immigration is being pushed by the EU.. the same arguments are being touted.. now the question.. WHO or what group is pushing so hard for this.. and what is the motive.. I'd love to have some insight..
If they are here ILLEGALY, then they have broken the law and should be DEPORTED! This is not rocket science.
This statement is dishonest at best. The strategy has been very effective when properly resourced. A simple trip to the San Diego border demonstrates the reality although a doubt anyone from the WSJ has ever been near the border.
It was not the Border Patrol’s strategy that failed but virtually every other element of immigration policy. During the 1990 interior enforcement was shut down. Congress offered further incentives to illegal immigration in the form of a rolling amnesty to millions under the provisions of section 245(i). Federal, State and local government officials could not out pander each other far enough for the special interest money and potential votes.
The critics prefer to toughen their enforcement-only approach that ignores labor market realities, offers no practical recourse to the millions already here illegally, and results in hundreds of migrant deaths every year.
Another dishonest statement. The WSJ ignores our nations national security realities and offers no practical recourse on how a new amnesty will not result in a further increase of illegal immigration just as the last one did. They are in the position of saying that increasing illegal immigration benefits national security. Not a very tenable position.
The WSJ and other multi national business and special interests groups due not have our countries best interests at heart. They are infected with the sickness of greed would destroy this country for their own self-interests.
Hey, Mr. Ridge, you don't reward that type of conduct, period!!! Not with citizenship, nor a library card, nor a drivers license.
What Ridge is doing is setting the stage to carry out amnesty by phases. First, the illegals will get their work permits. Once that has become palatable to us, once we have become de-sensitized, then they will grant full citizenship and voting rights. I, for one, am never going to be on board for creeping or outright amnesty, so these idiots can stop floating their test balloons and trying to convince me. The answer is NO, and the answer will always be NO.
1) We have no Mexican/American terrorist problem.
2) Isolationism doesn't work.
The Wall Street Journal is at the forefront of this process. In Bartley's own words: "I think the nation-state is finished." This is not the anti-Americanism of the non-patriotic Left, but rather the post-Americanism of the non-patriotic Right. Post-Americans, like the leadership of the Journal, are not enemies of America; they have just "grown" beyond it.
A tent panel too far. If the late, loathesome Mr. Bartley and the editors of the WSJ are "conservatives" then the word and movement have lost all meaning.
I've said this before on this forum, the reason the WSJ and other conservatives support the present invasion is not because they think it is good for the economy, but because it shields them from the charge of "racism". Every wave of immigrants that floods our shores makes it that much less likely that Republicans, conservatives, or Libertarians will win elections or have their ideas put into action. That is the bottom line. Yet all these groups have strong levels of support for policies that are not merely antagonistic to their alleged goals and beliefs but are in fact suicidal. In other words, they choose to value multiculturalism over ALL other values. Why? When you answer that question you will have the key to modern politics. (The WSJ might think that having millions of Central Americans and others are good for the economy today, but what will the economic benefit be when we have the sort of society and government that Venezuela has? The grown-beyond-it editors of the WSJ simply don't care about such things as long as the seegars and brandy flows for them and as long as they believe their children and grandchildren will inhabit the same ether. They live in a different country and don't care about their colonial subjects (who after all are failures and inferior according to the new "conservative" social darwinism), or who those subjects are, just as long as they continue to shut-up and pay)
What the secretary deserves is a raise. Mr. Ridge was making the eminently practical point that the best way to reduce illegal immigration and thwart genuine terrorists is to come up with a better way of identifying foreigners who are already in the country. This means formulating a policy that allows for more people to arrive in the U.S. and work legally. But it also means devising a process to normalize the status of illegals who are already here.
"[S]ome kind of legal status" is code-phrase for, if not blanket, then massive legalization and everybody knows it. There is no plan to fundamentally change immigration policy and if there were it could just as easily be implemented without legalization. The level of rococo dishonesty in American discourse is astounding, and a Japanese-like ability to read between the lines has become essential. All this paragraph is calling for is a large expansion on legal immigration while doing nothing substantial to stop illegal immigration, a bit like arguing that a the cure for cancer is to inject more cancer cells into the patient in the hope that it starves the original cancer cells. Eventually it will.
While the Bush Administration opposes a blanket "amnesty," it is open to giving illegal aliens an opportunity to work toward a green card. "I'm not saying make them citizens, because they violated the law to get here," said Mr. Ridge. "You don't reward that type of conduct by turning over a citizen certificate. You determine how you can legalize their presence."
Isn't "legalizing" the law-breakers rewarding them? The only thing the legalized aliens may (or may not) do is vote. They'll never leave, that's for sure, and will eventually become citizens. Spin and weasle words from people who have nothing but contempt for their constituents.
The White House says it's considering several legislative options that would address these concerns while allowing undocumented U.S. residents a way to earn legal status, which is essential in a political environment where "amnesty" is used as a pejorative to try to end discussions.
The truth is a "perjorative" amongst the elite, and the White House is doing its best in this particular case to eliminate that perjorative.
A guest-worker program alone won't do the trick (and is unlikely to sell politically) any more than simply handing out greencards will solve the problem. The key to eliminating this huge underground labor market is some combination of both.
So the answer is a larger "guest worker" program combined with a hand out of green cards, that's what's going to solve the immigration problem.
The U.S. Border Patrol counts 1,379 such deaths since 2000
How many Americans have been murdered or raped by these aliens? If we're going to have a body count, let's count both sides. Oh that's right, helots don't count. (Speaking of racist rape, I read a newspaper article recently about American women who are now coming forward with stories about being raped by the Mexican police. You'd think that the media might be interested in such a story, particularly with its strong suggestion of racism by authority figures. You'd think the U.S. government would lodge strong protests over the victimization of its citizens and issue travel alerts warning about the problem. You'd think these things if you weren't aware of the institutionalized racism that controls the press and governments in this country, the same racism that drives our immigration policies.)
One final thing, nowhere in the immigration debate is there any real suggestion that what the American people want, in this so-called democracy, has any bearing on the policies. That's why the White House has to find a lie to cover the coming amnesty. It's grossly unpopular with the people but supported by the establishment. Guess who's opinion takes precedent. To the other charges against the supporters of mass-immigration you can add anti-democratic authoritarianism.
What subjective drivel. Kindly make an argument on your first assertion that allowing just anyone in our country, without supervision or accountability, is safe. And make a second argument that people, who believe that allowing just anyone in our country is not safe, are dishonest, misguided, and racist. And use spell check this time, if you want to be taken seriously.
Balderdash! The sad thing is, many Americans believe this pro-illegal immigration propaganda.
Whereas many Latino activists don't even bother trying to camouflage their racist opinions.
AMEN.