Maybe they can enlist John Edwards' lady bloggers to rekindle anti-Catholic feeling.

They'd be natural allies, Bryan.

Extremist groups only thrive when a legitimate issue is ignored by mainstream politicians, and people become frustrated. Far from empowering the Klan, Tancredo would undermine it. The true people empowering the Klan and its ilk are all the politicians who did nothing to secure the border over the past 20 years.

If people think the nation needed more immigrants than provided by (an already generous) law, fine. But they needed to present their arguments to the American people and convince them to change the law. Instead, they decided it would be easier to simply not enforce the border and then give amnesty afterwards. Not only does that undermine the rule of law, it angers people to feel they have not been consulted.

Mr. Durnell, how do you view a racial quota system with the entry numbers too low by a factor of a hundred and taking twenty years or more to process an immigrant as generous? And extremist groups can thrive when they rabble rouse an extreme issue as well, as Hamas has done the Jews, and the Muslims have against the Chinese in Indonesia. As a rule, if there's a racist element, the issue is wrong. Could you bring up a opposing example?

"Could you bring up a opposing example?"

Welfare reform.

Obviously there were some people who were in favor of it because they saw it as a way to stick it to the brothers (just like there were some who opposed it because they saw it as the man stickin' it to 'em again). It is equally obvious that welfare reform was in the best interest of the nation as a whole and the black community in particular.

I remember it the other way Carl. I saw those trying to stop it play the race card, accusing the Republicans and Mr. Gingrich as cold, heartless racists. Could you point out any example of the Republican leadership pushing "Stick it to the Brothers"? I believe the Democrats were the ones pushing that line, projecting motives that the Republicans didn't have and they did(as they so often do.).

Chris:

Except that the majority favor amnesty.

Chris: Precisely.

Robert: "A racial quota system"? That went away many decades ago. You're right that the legal immigration process is too slow, though.

OJ: Maybe the majority favors amnesty plus border enforcement, but there's no way they favor amnesty without it.

Yes, they favor both. They'll get one.

PapayaSF, most favor enforcement of the border, but will not sign off on any working plan to do so.
Do you really think that we can get enough guards to shoot women and children as they try to get over the wall to make a difference?

Rove had a good one yesterday--that, of course, has the wingnuts freakin'--when he said he didn't want his son picking fruit.

Robert, if you put up a border barrier to a popular vote, it'd pass 70-30, no matter what OJ thinks. And it's worked on the Pacific end. It'll never be perfect, but it doesn't need to be.

Vote? Who's going to pay for it and man it? A fence could work in conjunction with reinstating the draft.

Robert,

I did not mean to imply that the debate, at least on the the pro-reform side, in the congress was driven by racist rhetoric. I agree that the the race baiting in congress was generally on the anti side. But I listen to enough talk radio, both local and national, to hear plenty of callers in favor of the reforms spew lots of racist bilge.

In other words, while the debate in congress was conducted with a certain decorem, there was a portion of the 60%+ of the population that favored welfare reform that did so for racist reasons. I can't say what the percentage was but they most certainly existed.