[Proud2BAmerican]

My brain is frazzled trying to follow the argument between you guys that started up on the first page of this thread....And not that I'm particularly interested in the background (OK, I'm mildly interested), but I'd like to know:

Do any of you guys disagree with Malkin's take on amnesty for illegals? I mean, to me, it seems pretty much cut-and-dried that we needlessly significantly increase our threats to homeland terrorism by offering amnesty to illegals already here on our soil (who, obviously, are breaking the rule of law -- are any of you pro-breaking the rule of law?). She cites various *facts* in support of her thesis that I find compelling.

Which, if any, of you disagrees with her thesis, and why?

[Sabertooth]

Which, if any, of you disagrees with her thesis, and why?

Not me.

[nunya bidness]

I heard the taco dog got runned over.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Malkin wrote an article that features the phrase "Well, duh!" in its opening sentence. It's difficult for me to take any writer seriously who uses that sort of language in a supposedly serious article.

The flaw with her argument, is that the terrorists who committed the acts on 9/11 entered the country legally. It stands to reason that if you are putting a plan of the magnitude of 9/11 together, you do not want to risk it by trying to sneak the personnel into the country, thus risking detention of some if not all the conspirators, and failure of a carefully conceived, and planned act of terrorism.

If anything, what she fails to mention, because much as she wants to she can't completely drop her Political Correctness, is that we should immediately stop any immigrants from countries where radical Muslims are known to exist, including Saudi Arabia.

The next thing she needs to do is to quit trying to score points off the Mexicans, we know they are here illegaly, and we know that we must deal with that problem, but there's never been a single act of terrorism against Americans by Mexicans. So, what's her point?