And the under-the-radar legacy of redesigning the military for the 21st century.

Well, that's 1 way of getting most of the dead wood kicked out of Congress in '08.

Steve Sailer? Tancredo? Your thoughts?

I'm telling you in this election season, both the Democrats and the Republicans are running against amnesty. If the Democrats take the lead in passing it, they'll be punished in the 2008 election. They won't do it.

Americans want amnesty, just by a different name. Pretend that you're controlling the border as part of the amnesty and there is no political price to be paid.

Brad S

Sailor, Tancredo's thoughts.

I imagine that they would say America is going to become more crowded and urbanized, more racially divisive politically with mainstreaming of affirmative action, greater welfare, more regulation of business, more socialistic in redistributing wealth, more Democratic, more secular, less free speech, less common bond between citizens resulting in less private community action and a rootless populace showing less patriotism, more crime and less white, with more revenue to the government. That new status quo will of course be dutifully defended by conservatives, as the most wonderful country in the world.

That is what has occurred with all previous waves of immigration and that is what will happen in this one.

OJ
Americans want the laws enforced.

That's what they'd say, not their thoughts. The thought of the Darwinian Right would be: We're gonna need bigger ovens.

Americans oppose unjust laws and consider it to be unjust to deport immigrants.

They will deport themselves if the laws against hiring illegals is enforced. That deportation amounts to puchasing a bus ticket to Mexico.

How many Jews left Germany? And you don't even have an SS to enforce your laws.

Pretend that you're controlling the border as part of the amnesty and there is no political price to be paid.

That's what we've been doing for 20 years since the last amnesty, and there is a price being paid right now.

h-man is right: Most Americans oppose illegal immigration, and don't consider it "unjust" that immigrants be legal.

Tragic, what happened to Jews in Germany, and it has no relevance to Mexican citizens illegally living in the US.

If such behavior towards Mexicans was likely, of course I would agree with you. It isn't.

Pap:

Then why do Americans favor the open borders party over the nativist party by such wide margins?

h-man,

I ask this because both of them have been notoriously quiet about what's going to happen to Tancredo's House colleagues on Tuesday. Makes me think that those two would rather have the issue (and be paid by John Tanton) than actually DO anything about the issue.

I wonder if Tancredo's parents were "patriotic" when they got off that boat and settled here.

Tancredo (don't laugh) wants to run for President. So, an issue is better than a law for him.

"How many Jews left Germany? And you don't even have an SS to enforce your laws"

Is this our Obligatory Nazi Reference for the day?

Brad
OJ would say his parents were probably not patriotic, since OJ is desparate to label him a Nazi. I have no idea.

If one were to define patriotism as loyalty and bonding to ones fellow citizens, then I think there is less patriotism today than in the past. And yes I would say that immigrants from other than Europe and the Anglosphere show less of that trait and are less interested in attaining it. They come primarily for economic benefit and while that is admirable, the net result is that America will become more of economic entity, existing for the benefit of our bureaucratic government, with little concern for the principles enunciated in the Declaration of Independence.

They why do Americans favor the open borders party over the nativist party by such wide margins

Which one is which? I'm telling you, everyone is running against amnesty and open borders. They're both nativist parties because that's the most popular position.

They why'd they vote for the amnesty?

Some of us are of the opinion that requiring guest workers to be regularly admitted and that they compete fairly with American labor is "immoral" the way telling the SS that your neighbors are hiding Anne Frank in the attic is immoral.

Some of us think the opposite, that enabling the coyote system of peonage is immoral.

Lou:

Yes, you can separate them out from the racists by their position on amnesty. If your problem is that they're here illegally it goes away when you make them legal. People who oppose higher levels of immigration are racists. People who think it ought to be regularized for everyones good are harmless.

h:

You're a nationalist, not a patriot.

It's not a reference when you call applied Darwinists Nazis.

OJ,

Who voted for an amnesty? What are you talking about?

House Democrats and the majority in the Senate.

If your problem is that they're here illegally it goes away when you make them legal.

Do you support the same attitude for drug laws, for prostitution, for tax evasion?

What do you do about all the people who've been playing the game by the rules and not cheating? Or is this offer to "fix the game" only good for people who speak Spanish and have a lax attitude toward laws they find inconvenient?

"You're a nationalist, not a patriot"

I defined patriotism in my previous post, and I strive to just that. In addition I'm committed to the principles in the Declaration of Independence.

If I fall short of that, then so be it. We've discussed your restricted definition of nationalism ad nauseum, to the point that it's boring. Just say my priorities are first to this country and my fellow citizens and secondarily to the rest of the world.

Yes, the Declaration is universalist and incompatible with your nation first notions.

Raoul:

Yes. That's exactly the point.

OJ,

You're missing my point. The Democrats are campaigning against amnesty. At least, they are in Arizona.

The Arizona incumbents who lose on tuesday will be those who voted against amnesty.

Nobody campaigns FOR amnesty; they just use the word 'comprehensive' and then vote for it and hope that it doesn't bite them.

The anti-global hard left hates immigration because it reminds them too much of NAFTA.

The La Raza types protest for amnesty (and even more), but they know a reconquista is just foam. It's their version of reparations.

And no Democrat (outside of the safest in the CBC) can afford to ever endorse reparations. Somebody like Dennis Kucinich might go along with reparations and La Raza, but he is definitely an outlier.

Oj: The reason it's no go, the pig's head on the stake, is the competitive advantage enjoyed by the coyote peonage worker over the regularized worker. The peon has this advantage because he is off-the-books. The advantage include both the avoidance of labor laws and the extent to which the illegal is motivated by need to put up with conditions the rest of us would not tolerate.

If the illegal immigrant is amnestied and put on the books, he loses this advantage and will be replaced by less legal illegals. Why do you think the immigrant community opposes amnesty if amnesty is linked to enforcement?

Everyone knows these things. The whole debate is a cynical sham.

Lou:

That's quaint, but wrong, which is why nativists oppose amnesty. The fact is they'd fill all those jobs regardless, because natives won't.