Replies

The truly remarkable thing about this bill is that it assumes-as a given-that people who were born in Mexico deserve priority status over each and every person born anywhere else who comes here through legal channels.

Do you know how many AmerAsians are languishing in the Philippines or Indonesia, waiting to immigrate to America before they are deported back to Vietnam?

These are people that are, to all intents and purposes, Americans, and yet they have no rights, whereas someone who comes over from Tijuana, pops out a kid-by exploiting public services we pay for-is automatically on the fast-track to American citizenship.

I prefer the status quo. Anmesty is permanent.

Under the status quo, we've gone from 3-5 million illegals in 1986 to four times as many now. If you're going to accept the status quo, then by definition, you are not going to stop or even slow the slow of illegal immigration. The status quo has no chance of working. None.

Sealing the border is a promise that will not be kept.

If that is true, then there's no scheme that has any hope anyway. Amnesty or status quo, we're doomed. So if that's your viewpoint, why bother participating in the debate at all? After all, you're assuming at the outset that no plan can work because the borders are going to remain open.

The only logical way to proceed is to fight for the toughest border protection we can get. And if you don't think they'll enforce it, then here's your solution -- peg amnesty eligibility to stopping the flow of illegals. If the number of illegals crossing the border exceeds a certain amount in a calendar year (or quarter, or whatever), no amnesty will be granted until the number goes below that amount for two consecutive quarters. Write that into the law.

At least a plan like that has a chance to succeed. The status quo already has proven it won't.