The WSJ is a broken record on illegal immigration. This time the track is "We-recognize-the-concerns-you have-but-please---for-little-Billy's-sake---open-the-borders-now."
Why didn't it surprise me to see Harvard Law Professor next to the writer's credentials?
First they told me again and again, and again, that I must not have more than 2.3 children if I were to be a responsible citizen of the world.
(When those who created the first social-security systems chose 65 as the age of eligibility, they were counting on the fact that relatively few people would live beyond that age to become burdens on the state.)
They devised a plan to take a good percentage of MY money, and hoped against hope, that I wouldn't live long enough to collect any of the money they stole, while doling out what they feel is appropriate.
"the retirement of the baby-boom generation will put unprecedented strains on the federal government
Then, if I DO LIVE, I am considered a "burden on the state" and a "strain" on the all knowing, revered federal government.
WSJ advocates open borders and cheap labor.
Screw the middle class, cheap labor means profit for tax-cheating corporations.
Oh no, not according to the FROBL, who extol the miraculous ability of illegals to reduce costs but not lower wages.
There are also some in the United States who want to close the door to newcomers simply because they are outsiders. Over the course of the twentieth century, that attitude seemed to be fading away, but in recent years sleeping nativist sentiments have been irresponsibly inflamed by anti-immigration groups. . . sovereign nations have the right to control their boundaries
What is the nature of the "right to control their boundaries?" Why is not protecting your culture and people from becoming a minority, at best, in their own homeland not part this so-called right? If that isn't a legitimate reason for controlling your borders then there is no legitimate reason for doing so. I also love the term "nativist." Why doesn't she just say racist? What is it about the nature of the debate on immigration policy that forces this little evasion? Could it be that openly calling immigration foes racist makes plain the racial nature of present immigration policies which might make the "natives" see that nature and that they, too, have group interests?
The Senate is not just granting amnesty to illegals, it is granting itself amnesty. Each Senator swore to uphold our laws and Constitution. They have not enforced the law. They have done nothing to stop illegal immigration. The legislation they now propose, in essence, grants themselves AMNESTY.
Fight all you want about whether illegals are getting amnesty, but there is no doubt, the legislation proposed by McCain and the other spineless Senators grants amnesty to themselves.
They are letting themselves go free. They will no longer be abdicating their duty to uphold our laws if legislation passes in its present form.