So I guess if we put up a fence, we'd get an even braver lot of illegals coming over, even more determined to make it here. Sounds like a win-win - immigration darwinism if you will.

Posted by: pjbbuzz at June 29, 2007 10:23 AM

And to think I thought they were all tb carriers coming to sign on to the dole.

In my mind, living near the border, the key reason the Tancredo view is shared as broadly as it is is that immigrants are not always viewed as 'straight arrows.' This is because crime, gangs and DUIs appear to be disproportionately problems of immigrants here.

Most folks realize that most immigrants (legal or illegal) are in fact "straight arrows" (one need only drive down the main drag on Sunday and see how full the parking lots are for the Spanish masses -- I just learned even the most snooty Episcopal church here now has one).

However, the crime problem is real among a minority of immigrants and many sensationalistic crimes have been committed by illegals. Ironically, a 'comprehensive approach' to immigration reform, had it been drafted by people with a clue about the real world, probably could have been designed to filter out the criminal element by better integrating with local law enforcement and while retaining the 'straight arrows.'

That's correct pjbbuzz. The immigrants will find a way in and make it work. The stupid and lazy stayed home or were born here. Those of us who stopped the fence did so because the price to pay was too high. Shooting people because they want to escape their prison would be almost as bad for the American soul as our current habit of killing innocent babies. I know, we should help our neighbors clean up their act, too bad the Democrats poisoned that well for us. Those countries stay mired in poverty because any improvement makes them look more like the hated Americans(Being invaded and used like tissue isn't liked? Who knew?). Those who are not trapped in their hate can stay home(Quietly of course. They'll be cut down if they try to change things) or they can come here. They are hated for the same reasons the Jews are. They work harder and smarter then the people who hate them. Old lazy money always hates new hard working money. They make the style game you fill you empty days with look, well, empty.....

LastRealAmerican, your tag would be example of that. If you are the last real american then the American culture failed in it's first, primal task, to thrive and grow. Culture is a means to an end, that end is to protect families and create children who will do the same. Barren 30+ women having sport children is not part of a healthy culture. Killing millions of babies without cost or guilt is not a sign of a healthy culture. The only reason we have gotten a far as we have is because immigrants have come to do the work our dead and never conceived children can't.

Here's what I don't get--doesn't Congress decide how many legal immigrants we accept? So why don't they just increase the number by a factor of 10 or so (or as much as it takes), and make it trivial to get processed in--just fill out a form at the border, and you're done. Maybe say you can get stripped of citizenship and deported if you commit a felony w/in 5 years. I personally would abolish dual-citizenship, but we can worry about that later. This would implement the "touchback" provisions pretty effectively, since you would have to fill out the forms upon entry, NOT while already in the country. Add in some sort of limitation/extra-checks on citizens from terror-sponsoring states. Opposition to such a plan would probably be limited to Tancredo-type extremists.

Of course, I don't think the Dems actually want to pass anything "reforming" immigration. They just want to keep poking the issue and making the GOP base jump.

b:

Because it's about race, not legality.

Indeed, Cubans, Haitians and Vietnamese were barely slowed by the water.

It's all about Compassion

You lost me H-man. You seem to be saying that Kennedy is more caring then you? And given that he killed a poor young lady the bar is set really low?

oj: No, it's all about politics. It would be trivial to separate the Tancredo-type nativists from the legalists (who do exist in large numbers, despite your assertions to the contrary) by just cranking up the numbers of legal immigrants we accept, but for their own political reasons Congress won't do that.

B, how do you set racial quotas without being racist?

Robert Mitchell

It's all about race the same way Kennedy is all about compassion. All mouth.

I get a chuckle out of the 'race' argument since, as this article makes clear, the point of open borders is to replace our current underclass with those of a stronger work ethic.

Posted by: pjbbuzz at June 29, 2007 12:56 PM

No one would be trying to stop them if that was the case, pjbbuzz. The new blood is hated because they don't know their place, instead they live the American dream. Far easier to whine about how the brown back took your dream job just because he works harder, smarter, and got the training then to, you know, actually do that stuff....

Robert: Of course the current system, which sets quotas based on country of origin (at least as far as I understand it), is rooted in racism. But my point was that I presume it would be easier politically to change the parameters of the current system by radically increasing the numbers of immigrants we accept than it would be to completely overhaul the system. Would it be the ideal way to go about it? Not at all, but it would be a huge step forward. If we said that we are more than happy to accept a million immigrants a year (or whatever huge number you like so that no one has to wait), you remove the incentive to "cut in line" and come here illegally. Those who opposed something like that would be hard pressed to say that they were not being nativist/racist since you would remove the "illegal" part from the equation.

If you are referring to my point about putting limitations on immigrants from terror-sponsoring states and implying that that's racist, well there's just zero political and/or common sense in pretending that something along those lines isn't necessary.

Rosa Brooks and a Harvard Sociology professor? As they say, "any port in a storm," OJ.

Posted by: Thom at June 29, 2007 2:21 PM

"terror-sponsoring states"

b

I agree your prejudices seem totally admirable and above reproach.

h-man: You're right, I shouldn't be so upset about terrorism. I should just go ahead and propose banning all Arabs, since as the pathetic Dubai Ports World fiasco showed, that'd be a huge political winner.

It doesn't help that we have become so discreet about the crime associated with previous (legal)waves of immigration. We have forgotten ... at least, those few of us who ever knew have largely forgotten ... about Irish, Jewish, Chinese, etc. mobsters. It's as if only the Sicilians and Mexicans brought crime with them. And as if the Anglos didn't.

pjb:

Yes, they have superior values.

b:

Ask them--they don't want legal immigration boosted.

Yes, it's a sad day at Stone Mountain when the Harvard Faculty is more decent than the GOP.