2. I am not terribly comfortable with immigration laws at all, particularly those which have been designed to favor or disfavor particular countries. Other than the short-lived Alien and Sedition laws which destroyed the Federalist Party by 1800, we did without immigration laws altogether for a very long time. Those familiar with early twentieth century proto-Planned Barrenhood enthusiast writers like Margaret Sanger, Lothrop Stoddard, and Madison Grant, among many others, ought to share the qualms. We have had anti-Chinese quotas in the 19th Century for pure racial purposes to keep America white. We have had other national quota laws on immigration to resist Catholic immigration and Jewish immigration. All of these make me very uncomfortable. Present day reality may make it necessary to be more rigorous in screening any immigrant. I tend to agree with Peggy Noonan that there is nothing wrong with particular scrutiny of particular nationality or even religious groups from which the actual terrorists have been sent to our country. As she says, special scrutiny of, for example, Muslim young to middle-aged adult males is justified as it would be justified to give particular scrutiny to blond, blue-eyed Irish-American females who write books and columns for a living if that proves to be a group disproportionately providing terrorists. I would also agree with laws that require, as our immigration laws formerly did, a minimum degree of occupational competence to qualify as an immigrant, but NOT a higher-education-based credentialism.
3. If we are going to retain all these socialist programs, we can spread the burden nationwide. I would prefer that we get rid of the socialist programs, save all of us a tremendous amount of money, unemploy liberal bureaucrats and do it across the board affecting everyone equally, rather than trying to restrict unconstitutionally the effects to burden only Mexicans or only immigrants of whatever nationality.
4. It is certainly a legitimate function of the US government to provide national security against any terrorists, domestic or foreign, natural born or immigrant, legally immigrant or not. Indeed, that is one of the few genuine excuses for government. The 9/11 butchers apparently entered legally. We cannot, however, afford, as a nation, to fold our military and waste it on border patrol. As ever, there ARE legitimate interests of the United States (not the United Nations) which must be protected by projections of American military force (see the seminal works of Alfred Thayer Mahan, USN) or the credible threat of same coupled with adequate funding, readiness, and weaponry. The only way to minimize the personnel along the borders AND coasts and the cost of same while securing borders and coasts in order to continue the ability of the US to project military force as necessary abroad would seem to be the old Korean War Douglas MacArthur idea of a cobalt strip laid around our entire perimeter. I don't really care for that image. The Statue of Liberty seems a better national image than a cobalt curtain.
5. It is not racist to address such questions or to take a position of advocacy on either side unless there is something inherently racist in the presentation as there certainly is not in your presentation. Why? Because we are Americans and used to civilized debate as a national way of life. Finally, though you did not ask, the proper agency for the translation of public policy into reality is, as it always has been, the duly established federal and state governments of our country and NOT self-appointed citizen groups who think they have some business substituting themselves for legitimate government authority.
I trust that my answers are as respectful as your questions were. God bless you and yours.
1. Illegal immigration is just that - illegal. I believe in the rule of law.
2. It is patentedly unfair to those who use the legal process.
3. No one has a "right" to join our social (societal) contract. Immigrants are invited...illegal immigrants ignore that.
4. Weekly, I read about a survey, study, panel, commission, poll that shows the negative impact this mass migration is having on American taxpayers.
5. The unsustainable size of the incoming human wave doesn't allow for assimilation which is beneficial to the societal contract....which brings me to another reality of the problem -
6. Lowering our standard of living. I have personally witnessed the California dream turn into a poverty stricken nightmare in sections and whole towns of Ventura, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and San Diego counties. I have seen entire neighborhoods degrade in value and living satisfaction. I attibute this not to any racial differences but simply due to overcrowding, which is a verifiable fact. The early Irish and Italian ghettos were products of overcrowding, although the wide open spaces and relatively unlimited resources eventually helped the situation. Times have changed.
I contend that the millions of Americans, and yes immigrants, who have worked to produce a lifestyle unlike any the World has ever seen have the right to maintain it. Remember, the people coming into America and signing on to our social contract do so at the pleasure of those currently within that society.
As for your belief that millions of more "right" thinking voters will cause the demise of Roe v. Wade when the decision lies with 7 individuals who have surprised conservatives before is simply naive. You suggest we add more problems and misery to our society and communities to maybe, possibly, hopefully overturn that decision? With respect, that's not rational.
I'll address the other stuff later...it's late.