Immigration is already in the process of flipping so that the Reps are pro and the Dems anti.

The author by saying "they have virtually no other resources" is declaring his political agenda. What he means is they have no governmental agencies guiding them to make sure they stay in the poverty.

By making the unbelievably brave decision to come to the US, they have already demonstrated their other resources: their courage, their talent, their strength and their intelligence. The same resources all of us or our ancesters who came here before us had in abundance.

They may also have family, friends and neighbors to lend a hand and encouragement.

From these beginnings come the next generation and the next. Welcome fellow Americans.

David:

But it is the GOP House that will spike reform this year.

A few photo ops from President Bush with "moderate" Democrats in immigrant-heavy districts and all those GOP House members will fall in line (except the Tancredos).

Nativism is a losing hand - ask Pat Buchanan.

"Other than race, why would Republicans turn such folk away"

1. It's against the law.

2. While helping the economy by providing cheap labor to Businesses for purposes of producing low-value-added product and services, it is in effect a subsidy to low-value-added products and a penalty to high-value-added.

3. This particular stream of immigrants doesn't speak our language and is slow as molasses in learning it. (this is a burden on the rest of society)

4. Past history of native born and illegal mestizo immigrants is that they have not pursue higher education as much as other immigrant groups.

5. Legal immigration of more productive, better educated immigrants is being crowded out, because of reluctance of society (their politicians) to raise the quota from Korea, China, India.

6. This particular stream of immigrants, more than other immigrant groups puts greater strain on the health industry, and on the schools.

7. (non-racial reason, but certainly cognizant of presently existing laws) This group will benefit from affirmative action programs and the inclination of all our public institutions to benefit "minorities" at the expense of native born citizens. Could be true of Asians in theory, but in practice they rarely seek that extra leverage.

h;

That's what's been said of every prior immigrant group. It's always just ethnicity that matters.

OJ: It's in the process of flipping. It'll still take a while to get a working majority of pro-immigration Reps -- though I wouldn't bet against the president.

H:

1. That is is against the law is one of the frustrating arguments that is true but irrelevant. First, we're considering whether the law should be changed. Second, I've never understood what moral obligation a Mexican peasant in Mexico has to obey US law, or why it should trump doing what is best for his or her family.

2. You say "subsidy", but that's assuming the point in question. If the natural or default state of the world is relatively unhindered immigration, as I believe it should be, then restrictive immigration law is a subsidy to labor unions and high-cost domestic manufacturers.

3. As opposed to which stream of immigrants, other than the Irish, who were not welcomed with open arms either? Many Americans had grandmothers or great-grandmothers who never learned to speak the language.

4. You say that this is not about race, but a number of your arguments rely on the supposedly immutable alleged characteristics of Mexicans.

5. The whole debate is about what immigration law should be. If educated, hard-working Asians want to come into the country, let them. From your other arguments, I'm surprised that you would admit that they would face competition from uneducated, non-English speaking peasants and their uneducable children.

6. My responses to your points 3 and 4 also work here, but historically immigrants and the children have always been a net benefit to the country. Indeed, if we subtracted from GDP the value added by immigrants and the descendents of immigrants, the remainder would be, in round numbers, $0.00.

7. I'm not arguing for Affirmative Action. It does seem odd to cede that fight (which is all-but-won) while continuing to fight to hold back the tide of immigration (which is all-but-lost)

OJ: True. Ethnicity. However, in your post, you said "race." Hispanic (or Latino) is not a race, El Centro de la Raza's stupid heinous name notwithstanding.

You are correct. They are an ethinic group, Like Greeks. Italians. Polish. Argentinians. Or Irish. As a population, they have an significantly higher percentages of people with significantly higher percentages of mixed bloood (Indian and European), but this does not -- indeed, cannot -- make them a race.

Generally speaking, they are Catholic/Christian. Pious. They are vehemently heterosexual in orientation and unflinchingly pro-family. They are such a big part of the American future. Because they have children, they WILL assimilate. This doesn't mean that we should open the borders. Seal them tight, I say and reform the system. But let's just stop talking about race. It only helps the reactionary agenda of Marxist racists like Centro de la Raza.

h: they may be slow as molasses in learning English, but their kids are faster than snakes on ice.

George:

Germans, Irish, Jews, Latinos, etc. aren't actually different races, just ethnicities, but we've all opposed their immigration because of mere racism.

"You say that this is not about race, but... immutable alleged characteristics of Mexicans"

OJ, thinks it is immutable that Mestizos are religious.

"affirmative action...all-but-won"

Hah

"hard-working Asians want to come into the country, let them"

They have greater obstacles than rattlesnakes. They are trying to get in legally, but have to deal with bureaucrats.

OJ

Many things have been said of immigrants in the past. Sitting Bull, Running Bear, or whoever said that the Paleface would destroy their way of life.

h:

They were right and it needed to be destroyed. Religious immigrants will help us destroy the current secular culture too.

It's only against the law because we haven't changed the law--yet. We should.

I spent a long, very, very long weekend in jail in Laredo, Tx (of all places considering the subject matter) in 1974. Timothy, I said the same thing you said.

For speeding and "alleged" drinking.

From what I saw the jail was the nicest spot in Laredo.