April 30, 2006

A BIG FENCE WITH A WIDE GATE:

Poll finds Californians back comprehensive immigration policy (Mark Z. Barabak, April 30, 2006, Los Angeles Times)

Californians generally favor a carrot-and-stick approach to illegal immigration, mixing tougher border enforcement with a guest-worker program and a pathway to citizenship for people already in the United States, according to a new Los Angeles Times Poll.

By a ratio of more than 3 to 1, those surveyed said they preferred a comprehensive approach to the immigration issue, which President Bush and a bipartisan group of U.S. senators advocate, rather than the more punitive legislation passed by the House of Representatives.


Just gain control over the process and we can admit them by the millions without so much angst.

Posted by Orrin Judd at April 30, 2006 4:06 PM
Comments

Exactly right.

Posted by: erp at April 30, 2006 5:16 PM

Once again, foreigners demonstrate that they don't know jack about America or Americans.

If they came here and waved American flags instead of Mexican flags, shot off fireworks on July 4 instead of May 5, and even attempted to learn & speak English instead of insisting that we cater to them in Spanish------then they'd be welcomed with open arms.

Instead, they come here and want to bring their culture with them. The very culture that is the whole reason that they are fleeing Mexico.

Posted by: ray at April 30, 2006 5:23 PM

Um, Ray, what about St. Patrick's day? or Chinese new year? American culture is very open to other cultures. The idea is simple. Play by the rules, keep your culture if you want to.

Posted by: Robert Mitchell Jr. at April 30, 2006 5:30 PM

Actually, the best reason to import them is the culture they bring, overwhelming the secular anticulture of cities.

Posted by: oj at April 30, 2006 5:54 PM

Thank you for your time AOG, but I can't get your link to work. As to my point, I have been a member of the OA, and a Navy brat. I have seen how open America is to other cultures. I'm sorry I wasn't clear.

Posted by: Robert Mitchell Jr. at April 30, 2006 6:19 PM

Guest workers yeah..

Guest voters no.

Posted by: bill at April 30, 2006 6:55 PM

what's this? "control of the process"?? I thought this was only what us "wahoos" were going for? Congratulations on your growth in this regard, OJ.

Posted by: Palmcroft at April 30, 2006 7:16 PM

Palmcroft: Hear, hear. Not long ago OJ basically called me a racist for saying what he just said, and then when I denied being a racist he called me a liar. Now he's all eager to get control over immigration. I wonder what's changed?

Posted by: PapayaSF at April 30, 2006 7:20 PM

To the contrary, we've said over and over that we should know who every one of the untold millions we let in is and should screen out political and philosphical undesirables (atheists, communists, criminals, etc.).

Posted by: oj at April 30, 2006 7:23 PM

I finally just read the words to "Our Anthem."

Who exactly is "our people?"

Posted by: Sandy P at April 30, 2006 7:27 PM

Papaya:

Nope. We've said all along that immigration should be orderly and unlimited. Legalize everyone who's here and everyone who wants to come so long as they believe in our Founding ideals.

Posted by: oj at April 30, 2006 7:49 PM

Robert: "Play by the rules, keep your culture if you want to."

But that's the heart of the matter. don't you see.

We call then "illegal aliens" because their very presence is a continuing illegality. Not merely do they sneak into the country to begin with, buit once here they partake of an ongoing, daily web of lies and fraud.

Maybe one has to be a Roman Catholic to understand this. Living in a state of sin is not just one offense; rather, it is a continuing offense. Perhaps adherents of other traditions look as such matters in the same way but express the concept differently.

You have stolen, for example, and know that you have stolen. You could make restitution to the victim on any day of your life, but retain the fruits of your theft. Thus you live a thief and will die a thief. What does "Ask the Rabbi" say about that one?

The illegal alien lives an ongoing fraud, telling lies and uttering forgeries, day in and day out.

Little wonder, then, that honest, law-abiding people have serious objections to granting line-jumping privileges to illegals.

ReplyObj. 1: This is not a "racist" position, not in the slightest. Polish or Italian illegal aliens are no less illegal than Mexicans, and are to be treated identically.

Reply Obj. 2: The argument that a law which is unjust is not law has no application here. Unless we have redefined sovereignity to the extent that nations may not prescribe rules for admission of aliens to residence and citizenship, America's most generous and reasonable laws are the law of the land.

Reply Obj. 3: Some will be so degraded as to have the effrontery to argue that everybody lies and cheats, so we should not single out the poor illegal aliens for condemnation. On the contrary, I say that many of us do not lie and cheat, and if do, we know that we have fallen short. Last week Y.O.S. purchased a used boat and trailer and was suborned by the seller to understate the purchase price to save a few measly dollars of state sales tax. I could be a hard and even crafty negotiater, but I was hurt by the implication that I would have been interested in falsifying official papers to save a trivial sum. I mention this not to boast, but as an example of what it means to be honest. Millions of us feel this way. If we did not our system could not function. It is called honor.

Posted by: Lou Gots at April 30, 2006 8:03 PM

Lou:

Except that the sin lies in treating them as criminals, not in their illegal status.

Posted by: oj at April 30, 2006 8:06 PM

America's immigration laws are indeed just, but they aren't moral.
They're also irrational to the point of insanity.

Is it any wonder that America has devised a livable work-around for a broken official system ?

Illegal immigration, like the weather, is something of which many people have opinions, but nobody does anything about.

Until national politicians start losing elections over not spending enough money on policing the border, it's just talk.

Posted by: Michael Herdegen [TypeKey Profile Page] at April 30, 2006 8:56 PM

PapayaSF,

yes, OJ has regularly called me a "racist" for simply opposing immigration; I was also a racist for opposing the Dubai port deal; I was also a "wahoo" for opposing Harriet Miers.

Posted by: Palmcroft at April 30, 2006 9:00 PM

Palm:

No, I called you a racist because you oppose Latino immigration and the Dubai port deal on no other basis than ethnicity.

Posted by: oj at April 30, 2006 9:05 PM

P.S.: Opposition to Miers was anti-Christian elitism, not wahooism. Of course, anti-immigration is anti-Christian too.

Posted by: oj at April 30, 2006 9:08 PM

Thank you for your thoughts Mr. Gots. Since you are perfectly able to follow the regulations of your city, county, state, and of course, America, can I get your phone number? I have been illegal, my house has been illegal, my Windows have been illegal, my car has been illegal, my papers have been illegal, my enlistment was illegal. I could us e the help. Those of us who are not perfect are a little more tolerant about people with bad papers. We would like to see the police go after dangerous people first. Comparing my sister's ongoing problems with INS to Orginal Sin is reaching(in my view). Again, thank you for your time.

Posted by: Robert Mitchell Jr. at April 30, 2006 9:27 PM

NYC was a murderous hell-hole until Giuliani stopped going after the more dangerous people first.

The US needs to have complete control over its borders and explicitly authorize any and all immigration.

The only argument is how many and what type of legal immigrants to let in.

Posted by: Pepys at May 1, 2006 12:51 AM

Pepys:

That is a good philosophical position, but the reality is that such won't occur until it's very cheap to control the borders.
While that will happen sometime over the next twenty years, with UAVs and patrol robots, it doesn't help at all now.

The current argument isn't over controlling the borders, but about how best to legalize all of the illegals already here, and those that will come in the future.

Posted by: Michael Herdegen [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 1, 2006 2:33 AM

Mr. Mitchell;

It was a link to a picture of the NYC St. Patrick's day parade, which feature entire phalanxes of American flags with the occasional Irish one. This is in stark contrast to the recent illegal immigrant marches and shows that the comparison is simply a rhetorical device, which falls apart as soon as one actually looks at the facts.

Posted by: Annoying Old Guy at May 1, 2006 11:29 AM

AOG:

No, it was a link to the cops marching at the parade, noticeable because the only ones carrying American rather than Irish flags. In Chicago they die the river green, not red, white, and blue.

Posted by: oj at May 1, 2006 12:00 PM

How can immigration be both unlimited and orderly? And how do we discover if immigrants have our "Founding ideals"? Doesn't that assume some limits on immigration?

Posted by: sharon at May 1, 2006 12:18 PM

Sharon, the British did just that for about 150 years. If I remember correctly, they didn't even require passports.

Posted by: Robert Mitchell Jr. at May 1, 2006 12:30 PM

sharon:

To be orderly we just need to do a brief background check on them, issue them with id, and obtain their genetic fingerprint. We'd still admith them by the millions, just legally.

Posted by: oj at May 1, 2006 12:35 PM

How does this prove they have our "Founding ideals"? And isn't legal immigration supposed to do this now? Is there any guarantee that the same people thumbing their nose at current immigration laws would obey these?

Posted by: sharon at May 1, 2006 12:37 PM

Yes, it's just legal immigration without quotas and with the INS empowered to bar folks based on philosophy.

Posted by: oj at May 1, 2006 12:42 PM

The only problem I have with OJ's view, as stated here, is that I don't believe that our current, politically correct politics would support asking the right kinds of questions of the immigrants, much less barring them for wrong answers. Other than that, I'd be OK with it, even the specific questions OJ wants.

Posted by: Annoying Old Guy at May 1, 2006 4:49 PM

Thanks for your thoughts AOG. I think that removing a few thousand PC nitwits would be easier then building a two thousand mile fence, especially if you are going to have to calibrate the PC twirps to build the fence. Either way we have to deal with the PC morons, so why pick on the Mexicans?

Posted by: Robert Mitchell Jr. at May 1, 2006 5:28 PM

We simply disagree on that. I will just note that the Democratic Party in Congress sunk the recent immigration bill in large part because the GOP attached a rider which would deport all illegal immigrants who have been convicted of felonies while in the USA. If legislation like that is DOA, what chance does the OJ scheme have? A fence just costs money and provides a lot of lucrative contracts for political contributors.

Posted by: Annoying Old Guy at May 1, 2006 11:14 PM

Thank you for your time AOG. A fence would have to go through priceless wetlands, unique scrub, and rare, exotic lands(desert to the layman). The PC people will stop the wall before it ever breaks sod.
Look at how nine loons in New York city stopped almost all new construction there as a hobby. Whatever project you have in mind, the PC people will have their pound of flesh first. You can't escape them.....

Posted by: Robert Mitchell Jr. at May 2, 2006 1:00 AM
« TRAGIC ABOUT ANNE FRANK...BUT, ON THE BRIGHT SIDE, I GOT A NEW LIVER OUT OF THE DEAL! | Main | HAD ENOUGH?: »