In Limbaugh's case, I think it's personal. He was "betrayed" by his Hispanic housekeeper and her husband in the Oxycontin deal.

Nah, I think it's a simple case of 'fairness'. Why should we be more generous then they are? OJ's point is solid, but gets overlooked by many, because they aren't impressed with our laws either.

You said
"I keep expecting it to occur to the anti-immigrationists that if the US has one set of laws, and the ChiComs and Mexico have a different set, that might indicate something about which set is more conducive to national success."
--------

My first post here, I'll ass.u.me I'm misreading something.

1. [a]nti-immigrationists?
2. [C]onducive to national success?
3. [Laws]?

Do not EVER compare American laws, actions and intentions with disfunctional first world nations, let alone third world ones.

The immigration issue is difficult, the enemy just that.

Welcome to the blog. You might have more success if you don't try to tell us what we should never do.

Leaving the rudeness to one side, I don't understand your point. Save your disdain for those who want us to adopt Mexican or Chinese law.

Thank you for posting Mr. Zamboni. How else would we compare America with disfunctional nations, if not by laws and actions?

The ChiComs and Mexicans enforce a speed limit on their roads. Should we not also?

In Limbaughs case, I think he is making the case by illustration. He doesn't seriously say that we should abide by Mexican third world standards.

It would be nice if Mexico would decide to leave the thrid world and enter the 21st century. Might even give them a competitive leg up to have an advisor so close to home on how it's done. Only problem, Mexican leadership, like the Arabs, are so adicted to taking the oil money that they need the populace to strike out at a perceived enemy to take the focus off their looting ways.

Change that, change the world. Odd that both terrorism and the illegal immigrant problems have the same root cause, don't you think...

I'm with what erp said on a previous post. Why all the hysteria? Bush will be judged kindly by history. Lincoln is judged by the war, but the Homestead Act and the railroad legislation were very important.

We'll be just fine. Time marches. Chill.

Ghostcat's first post regarding Limbaugh's motivation is slander. The point that Limbaugh and Fred(http://www.fredoneverything.net/FOE_Frame_Column.htm) have been making is that it isn't somehow racist for Americans to make and enforce immigration law. Other nations do so routinely, even Mexico with respect to Americans, and enforce their laws without apology.

Personally, I'd put the fence in place and force everyone without legal status back onto the Mexican side via extremely coercive employer mandates before I'd open our borders again by tripling or quadrupaling existing immigation quotas. I'd be equally willing to give dispelled Mexican aliens a preferential marker for second place in line behind every existing legal applicant.

As an American Catholic I have absolutely none of Derbyshire's lingering antipathy towards Catholic hordes as the "others" polluting our (IMAO mongrelized) heritage. I have huge problems with allowing selfhelp as the definition of prospective citizens.

The definition of what constituted a Roman citizen was the basis of a civil war that decimated Rome. Most of those individuals on this blog that oppose amnesty haven't been working in the industrial and service sectors where they're in competition with working class Americans for wages and jobs. Yes, I read everyone of Orrin's dismissive quotes about how no REAL AMERICANS want to mow lawns or wait tables anymore.

That's not the real issue. America is morally a contract amongst the governed describing every element of our agreed status. If you want the transnational view of citizenship read Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars series where illegals jump into the planet without authorization but with, in his view, perfect justification. Mexicans are not here by consent of the governed. And until they are their status is governed by our as of yet still native generosity.

I've read a lot of Derbyshire's drivel on China. I think maybe he's spent a little time here, married a Chinese lady, and became an expert by default. He knows the real China like I know the dark side of the moon.

Why wouldn't Derbyshire break China's immigration laws? He broke this country's laws and has freely admitted it. Almost bragged about it, in fact. He's made a joke about how he's a reformed drunk when he screeches about Hispanic immigrants.

Yeah, I know, it's a lot easier for a pasty-faced Brit, even with that accent, to blend into NYC than Beijing.

Derbyshire's exact comment, which is really pretty funny:

"A couple of readers to this effect: 'Aren't you a bit embarrassed to be laying in to illegal immigrants, having confessed that you yourself were once an illegal immigrant?' No. I look on it as being sort of like the reformed drunk at a temperance meeting."

I've already posted about the nasty racism underlying this joke: "I'm white, so I don't count as a real illegal." Derbyshire knows that many NRO readers will agree with that subtext. But you still got to admire the man's chutzpah.

Ther is nothing to admire about Derbyshire. An awful man.