Kate haven't you heard, the term illegal alien/immigrant is as offensive as the "N" word?

(What exatly are you supposed to call a foreign national who entires a country illegally?)

Anyone notice that the labour movement has its hands all over these protest? Looks like some of that commie socialism is seeping across the border.

I think deportation is pretty much logistically impossible but these people are demanding immidiate citizenship site unseen. Is that realistic, or responsible?

Not much in NYC today. All I could find was a 'couple of hundred' school kids holding hands in a human chain as a protest.

Why give up a days pay to protest and get videotaped.

They snuck in illegally, while the law-abiding wait in line for years.

I love a honest immigrant who follows the rules and pays taxes, THEY I want.

Those who are here illegally should be deported.

As a Canuck who has to spend a large amount of time and money to jump through Immigration's hoops in order to work down here,( each and every year), I find this whole thing disgusting. It has turned from the problem of illegal aliens to one of undocumented hard working people who do jobs that nobody else will do and "their rights".

Nobody is saying that these people aren't hard working. Certain folks in Canada could learn from their work ethic, but illegal is illegal, period. What ever happened to the stand in line and wait your turn? The left leaning bleeding heart commentators are quick to point out that the Irish, etc came over here and worked hard to build a new life but unless I'm wrong, they all came in legally, mostly through Ellis Island, NY. There are a million and one books about that and it is facinating reading but it is NOT the same. Funny how that part is never mentioned, eh.

Some people are blaming the employers for hiring them and to a certain degree that is valid, however, speak with a small business owner and they will tell you that if the prospective employee has (phony) documentation you cannot make further inquiries. Hell, the cops can't even inquire when they stop and arrest someone. Many business people only find out after several years when the IRS tells them that the SSN numbers are not valid.

Can the illegal work force hurt the economy? Maybe for a short while but remember, Hawaii which has an illegal alien workforce of 0.something % also has the lowest unemployment rate and I don't see macadamia nuts traded on the gold exchange or the rationing of pineapples.

Illegal is in fashion these days. The illegals of course are led by G.W.Bush who is above the laws. At last count there were 750 laws broken by the man. So if someone or eleven million someones break a single law by entering illegally what's the big deal? Besides they are knowingly employed illegally by American business. Apparently, Mexicans will work cheaper than anyone else so they are much appreciated by employers. I don't really understand what the problem is.

Once again steve d. jumps in and blames Bush as if this problem was only a recent thing. Time to read some history dipwad. This problem has been around for a lonnng time. They did an amnesty back in '86 but didn't patch any of the leaks in the border so guess what? Pool is full again.

There is nothing I detest more than ill-informed opinionated people who think they know it all. Read what I said above, if the person gives you a social security number and another form or ID then you cannot question it. Also, besides being in the country illegally, the worker may have phony documentation which is a crime, is not paying taxes lest they be found out which is another crime, and the list goes on.

Oh, BTW, it is not only "gringos" who are not in favour of amnesty but a lot of legal hispanics themselves. They do not like to be painted with the same brush.

The problem is that their children automatically become citizens of the US because they're born there. They need medical treatment and education that their parents don't pay for through taxes because they are 'illegals'.

Legal, taxpaying citizens have to foot the bill and they (rightly in my opinion) resent it.

That's just one problem.

Oh no, Toronto ...

Canada and the US were built on the exploitation of cheap labour. This continues with the use of illegal immigrants. It is just another opportunity for businesses to exploit people, with the tacit approval of the government. Having so many illegal aliens (millions in the US) living in North America shows that the "war on terror" is really a sham. And it's ridiculous to think that organized labour supports having illegal immigrants in the work force. Using this illegal labour force actually pushes the wages down.

I won't try to deal with substantive issues about the illegal alien issue down here, too many others are doing so more eloquently I can.

I will just mention that a huge number of Americans are fighting this colonialization of the American Southwest tooth and nail. Today I was on the phone to our Senators, my Congressman, and the majority leader of the Senate.

Though it is not reflected in the MSM, as a matter of fact American politicians are aware of the fact that illegal aliens don't vote. (legally.)

The House sent a bill to the Senate that was extremely hard line against amnesty for illegals. In fact, it called for making illegal aliens in the US felons.

The Senate is trying to have its cake and eat it too, and American voters become more irritated with them every time illegal aliens hit the street with another commie protest. (It is obviously no accident that today's marches coincided with May 1st.)

I would like to ask all American conservatives reading this blog to stop yelling at each other in their living rooms and to start yelling at their congressmen and senators. We have the power to beat this thing back, just like we did the Dubai port takeover, but it will take serious efforts of all of our parts, working together.

Let your politicians hear from you.

I'm getting so tired of dunderheads like Steve D. who blame every sniffle and cough on George W. Bush and I sure would like to know what are the 750 laws he has broken.

Don, read this:

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/04/30/bush_challenges_hundreds_of_laws/

Charlie Savage, president of the George Bush Fan club... NOT! If this guy were any more left he would win the limbo contest at Gitmo. Please, some facts not pulitzer fluff.

Hey TC, I guess you'll have to wait for Dick Cheney to write the "truth."

Anon,

I guess the nuance of challenging laws vs breaking laws is lost on you then??

steve d.,

"I don't really understand what the problem is."

It shows.

I didn't say he was breaking 750 laws, I just said "read this."

In the US and Canada,giving deceitful illegals amnesty is a SLAP IN THE FACE to all of us,but especially to those honest immigrants who respect our laws and go through the process we require.
Also,those employers who knowingly hire illegals should be prosecuted.It is BS to claim they do work we will not.It is only an excuse by some employers who refuse to pay what the labor market dictates,even for unskilled workers.If you want to reduce wages and working conditions then just flood the labor marketplace with unskilled immigrants. Supply and demand my friends.

BTW...steve d....did George W. abuse you as a child or something?

However, if you're curious about which laws Bush HAS broken, google "Laws broken by Bush." 27,200,000 hits...perhaps some light reading just before bedtime.

Anon,

Actually, I stand corrected. Steve d. said Bush broke 750 laws. You provided the link.

The nuance is missed by Steve D. then. Not surprising...

Anon, you did say "Canada and the US were built on the exploitation of cheap labour."

That sounds like Marxism to me. I'd reword that as "Canada and the US were built by the hard work of its citizens using the superior Capitalist system which has created the highest standard of living for the highest number of people in history - as opposed to the communist system which killed 120 million people and kept over 2 billion people in terror, poverty and oppression." That's how I'd word it...

Texas Canuck

Oh, the problem goes back to 1986? Well, see I thought those 11 million came in yesterday. Yeah, I heard they all crawled in under one hole in the fence in a single night and when everybody woke up the next morning there they were.
Oh my, someone on TV just said these people just walk in to the country like they were welcome or something. Then everybody starts giving them jobs and educating their children and healing them when they were sick. You people have a funny way of treating illegals. I think maybe you just don't need anymore cheap labour right now. Maybe you will leave the border open again some day. Yes? I think so. Because I hear they are not growing too many minimum wage workers in America. They get a little schooling and they get uppity. So I will bet a lot of money that they will forget to close the border again very soon.

Ural
You're funny. Like YOU KNOW what the word "problem" means! Duh.

So, Steve d.,

Enlighten us. Are you saying you are in favour of using illegal immigrants to artificially reduce wages in the US below what the lefties refer to as a "living wage" then?

Or are you saying that illegal immigration should be curtailed so that the wages paid by these corporations will rise to the real market rate?

Please, we're all waiting on baited breath.

Don
Do I have to tell you everything? Google!

Oooh, Marxism...scarey. Do you mean the superior capitalist system that used African slaves to pick cotton or the superior capitalist system that imported Chinese labour to build the railways in Canada?

steve d, your sarcasm is underwhelming to say the least. It is obvious you cannot discuss anything seriously so I will not even attempt to stoop to your level.

Warwick
Its not artificially lowering wages. Its called supply and demand economics. Lots of supply lowers the price of the object. The object being human this time but in economics we don't differentiate. There are cost items and profit items. Nothing personal or human about it.

Capitalism NEEDS low wages like junkies need a fix. That is why they have set up these modern slave zones in south east asia. Big business gives a jobber a contract and the jobber worries(read: costs such as wages,benefits and training) about labour. That is why they will never close the border for long. They will find a way to get them in.

Yes, Anon, that capitalist system.

I'm not sure if you know this, but you are making a case against immigration in the railway system. Cheap labour is a factor of people working for less money and the native population (and I mean native in the "born here" sense, not the "first nations" sense.)

Also, slavery was abolished by the Americans in a war that (in comparison to population) was more devastating to the Americans than both world wars. That system of farming using slaves was also more akin to feudalism than capitalism. Look it up sometime.

Aside from distant history, there are deaths from communism in the world still occurring today in places like North Korea and even Cuba to a lesser extent. On the other hand slavery is gone in the capitalist world (it still happens in places like the Ivory Coast and the Sudan) and the railways are now staffed by highly paid union workers who benefit a great deal by our economy. And if the Chinese workers didn't want to do the work they were doing for the wages they were making, they'd have stayed in China. Seems obvious to me... The word "exploited" has the connotation that a deal was not reached by both parties, that one side was coerced. There was no such coercion in the case of Chinese labour in Canada. Remember the "head tax"? It may have been racist and unfair but the Chinese would hardly have paid it to come here if they didn't end up better off...

Your class warfare arguments just don’t hold water. If you can name a country that has a better standard of living than the capitalist democracies, let me know.

Anti-illegal immigrants = anti-immigrants = racist.

A simplified leftist/liberal formula.

Steve d.

You are an economic illiterate.

Those "slave" zones provide the highest paid jobs in their countries. If you make $2 an hour in one of those places but you could only make $.75 and hour in any other job available, then that makes you better off. In some cases they are the only jobs available at all. It’s their country’s comparative advantage. It’s what makes development and the transition from 3rd world to 1st world possible. Without trade, these countries would never get anywhere. Look at S. Korea, Singapore, even Japan. All started with low-wage, unskilled, and unproductive labour and progressed from there. Wages MUST be tied to productivity. If you cost your employer $1 but you produce $.50 you will lose your job.

Illegals don't provide cheap labour because there is lots of them, they provide cheap labour because they are illegal. They don't qualify to get a job legally so in order to make it worth it for an employer to hire them, they must work at a discount. If labour is available at a discount, employers have no incentive to pay more to legal workers. It isn't "the market" it is a distortion of the labour market.

And Capitalism doesn't need low wages. Unproductive and inefficient enterprises do. In undistorted capitalism, things that can't be done at a profit using legal employees don't get done (nor should it) and the profits of those things that can be done at a profit are reduced to market rates. In other words, there are no "rent seeking" by companies using illegal labour.

steve d, I thought you were banned. Are you back illegally? Now, that would be ripe with irony.

What's disgusting about today's demonstrations is the blatant sense of entitlement. Given the high birth rates of illegal Mexicans we will find ourselves in the SW someday in dhimmitude to Mexico City. The numbers aren't in our favor. Assimilation into Anglo language and culture isn't a necessity when your extended family is a day's drive away in Mexico. I've seen plenty of that attitude. This is not a group that's going to assimilate like our European grandparents. Of course, our peabrained legislators haven't done that math.

Victor David Hanson had a recent book "Mexiflora" which has a pretty bleak view of where this is all going if it isn't stopped.

Greg, I'm with you. Our spineless legislators aren't going to do much without lots of angry emails. If Bush thought he could stall this to make nice and pick up Republican votes from Hispanics he has been dead wrong and been given real bad advice. Hispanics are easy converts to the Dem's victim politics game. A Republican Hispanic is about as elusive as the jackalope is in New Mexico. Never saw one. Adios.

steve d.,

"Like YOU KNOW what the word "problem" means! Duh."

You got me Steve - I don't have a moonbat dictionary. Please tell me what the word problem means (without the caps if you can).

I didn't say that non-capitalist countries have a better standard of living than capitalist countries. We seem to be going off topic here. My point earlier was that the illegals are here in North America, working at reduced wages. Thus, they are being exploited because of their status as illegals, to the benefit of many businesses. If governments are serious about preventing this, why are there so many millions in North America? Who snuck them in?

assimilated by Mexicans?, holy crap that's almost as bad as being tanken over by jihadists. Antarctica is starting to look good.

BOTH parties hope to get the votes of the illegals when they become citizens. In most places, however, voting is done on the honor system, and no proof of residence or legality is required. The commie labor unions are screwing their own members in hopes of getting more members down the line when the illegals are legalized. Industry and agriculture love those guys who work for cash long and hard without complaining. They are the ones running the debate now. The Catholic church is losing anglo parishioners and as most illegals are catholic and more religious than the more secular anglos, the church is trying to ingratiate itself to them. (What a sentence!) What you are seeing is THE TAIL WAGGING THE DOG. The MSM is tripping all over itself to see who can be the most accommodating to the illegals. Nobody mentions drug smuggling, murders and rapists roaming free, 30% of the federal prison population being illegals, etc. etc. Two things that would solve 90% of the problem: Fence the southern border and patrol it vigorously. Second, dry up the jobs by prosecuting/fining the employers. When the jobs are gone, most of them will leave.

Unions and the Catholic Church are promoting illegal immigration!?! Don't forget the Freemasons and the Jews. (Ugh!)

and now for something completely different...

"the answer is not open borders, but NO borders, the libertarian case is not whether private property rights restrict immigration or not, but that a free society is based on private property".

The Libertarian Immigration Conundrum

http://www.mises.org/story/1980

Ural
The modern spelling for 'problem' is I-R-A-Q maybe now you can look it up. You can find it listed under "Bushies Follies".

Penny
I though YOU were banned! Maybe Kate gets a little bored reading the same old stuff. Maybe she likes a little colour, analysis and counter-point. You probably haven't noticed, but a lot of people basically agree on everything all the time.

I don't know if I'm completely off base - but this is what I think I'm seeing. For any of the ethnic groups (doesn't matter if it's Chinese, East Indian, Russian, etc) those that have come before (in those ethnic groups) exploit those that come later.

I know that I wouldn't hire any one that I couldn't communicate with.

Well, anon, both the unions and the Catholic church have taken very vocal positions against Bush's non-amnesty, guest worker plan and the citizen's groups who are trying to police the border.

The Catholic church which has been in serious delcine gets its pews filled again. Most illegals are Catholic. The unions, also in decline, would love to make more inroads into agriculture and construction - both industries with lots of illegals. Those two groups lose the most if the numbers were seriously legalized downward.

Illegals aren't exploited here. They earn what a free market affords anyone and everyone given their skill set. They are exploited in Mexico where they make one hell of a lot less at the same job if they can find it. Mexico also only had one party to vote for until about 6 years ago.

Strange, you've got nothing bad to say about a country like Mexico where 5% have all of the weatlth, corruption is rampant and land reform never materialized. Instead you spew your uninformed venom at the US, not the logical target if you ever checked a fact or had the tiniest knowledge about economics and history, especially Mexico's.

Masking ignorance with snarkiness isn't working too well for you.

steve d.,

"The modern spelling for 'problem' is I-R-A-Q maybe now you can look it up. You can find it listed under "Bushies Follies"."

Many thanks. I thought the moonbat dictionary said something like that.

Hey penny, no need for personal attacks and name calling just because you disagree.

"Illegals aren't exploited here. They earn what a free market affords anyone and everyone given their skill set."

I seriously doubt it...why don't you prove it. It's hard to imagine, for example, a farmer would pay illegal workers the same as legal ones, and risk getting in trouble.

"Strange, you've got nothing bad to say about a country like Mexico where 5% have all of the weatlth, corruption is rampant and land reform never materialized."

I never said people weren't being screwed there.

"The Catholic church which has been in serious delcine gets its pews filled again. Most illegals are Catholic. The unions, also in decline, would love to make more inroads into agriculture and construction - both industries with lots of illegals. Those two groups lose the most if the numbers were seriously legalized downward."

It seems that, in your mind, the Catholic Church and the unions cannot possibly have any altruistic motivations for supporting illegal workers...indeed, you seem to infer that these organizations want to exploit them. However, the capitalist system is beyond reproach, right? The leaders of Enron, World Tel, et al were only concerned with the common good?

OK...whatever.

For what it is worth...
I worked at a greenhouse-market garden operation one summer in my youth. There I had my first contact with seasonal "legal" Mexican workers. More or less the same crew of 10-12 workers came up to Alberta to work 6 months of the year. The same ones returned year after year and not one of them wanted to lose their spot.
I asked the owner of the market garden why he brought Mexicans in. He said they tried to find Canadian laborers (university students, transients etc) but no one would work for minimum wage ($3.25/hr in Alberta at that time) in the first place. Secondly the Mexicans could work out in the hot sun for 12-14 hours a day doing what he called "stoop labor", standing behind a hoe all day. They would work six months at minimum wage and go back home wealthy with several months off until the next season. It was a win-win situation. It didn't seem like the Mexicans felt like anyone was taking advantage of them, they were happy to come and have the work. With the small profit margins growing vegetables, the owner was happy to have an afforable efficient labor pool.
Daniel

I'm in So. California. This is one of the things that happened today:

http://www.aztlan.net/greetings_from_aztlan.htm

This is offensive to me. We give ILLEGALS so much and they treat this country like we are something to be spat upon. If they pulled something like this in Iran or Iraq or in many other places in the world, they would be rounded up and shot. I kept wondering why INS didn't do a round-up of everyone, escort them to the nearest border and at LEAST make them start over by having to crawl back across the border. This is so insulting. What do we owe them? Why is it okay for them to desecrate the flag and carry flags with the communist star on it (they did that... MSM didn't bother to show that, but they did it) and DEMAND the rights that are reserved for citizens?

Like I said, this is insulting. It has a Leftist anti-American feel to it. We should deport them (the Leftists)for supporting this kind of stuipidity.

I have been covering, ( Or, as Seamole calls it...-backhoe's pseudoblog--... ) psuedo-blogging, this issue for years:

--Thunder on the Border-

It's pretty pathetic how the Democratic Party is just encouraging all of this ILLEGAL immigration all for the sake of cheap votes. Perhaps Democrats should remember that the next time they lambaste Wal-Mart and accuse them of hiring illegal aliens.

there's a simple way to reduce the number of illegal immigrants in the US and Canada, give them status. Yup, give them citizenship.

Warwick - your posts and analysis are excellent. Steve d/anon - you are repeating meaningless socialist platitudes.

It's a typical left tactic, to 'discuss' issues only by bringing in an emotional level. In this case, it's 'exploitation of cheap labour'; it's abuse of the workers.

Nonsense. Keep the emotional guilt trip tactics out - and stick to the facts.

1) These people are illegal immigrants; they enter the country and expect the same benefits as citizens - but: pay no taxes. So - if you want to be emotive - then, the citizens are being exploited. They work at higher wages, which are reduced by high taxes - which must go to pay for common elements (roads, police, schools, medical care, security etc) which are enjoyed by the illegals. And yet, the illegals don't pay for these services. But, they use them.

2)The 'low wages' of the illegals are untaxed. If you added the taxes they should be paying, they wouldn't be so low. So, who is being ripped off? Not the workers. But the rest of the population.

3) Mexico gets a great benefit from this arrangement. It doesn't have to develop an economic infrastructure to provide jobs for 11 million people! It simply enables them to slip into the USA! It's the US that provides the jobs for these Mexicans! Mexico doesn't need to develop its economy. And, doesn't need to provide social services (housing, roads, schools) for these people!

4) And- Mexico benefits because these illegals sent a great portion of their income back home to Mexico. Neat.

5) What absolute nonsense to assume that workers aren't exploited in communist countries. That's all they are - is exploited. No private property, no ability to work hard and get more.
There isn't a single example of a Marxist economy that didn't exploit the workers.

6. The basic problem is: illegal workers who don't contribute to the tax basis (i.e., the communal 'pot of money' to use for communally built services - schools, roads, etc). They DO contribute to Mexico -which doesn't have to provide jobs or services for them..and gets an income as well.

So- who is exploited in this issue? The hard working US citizen - whose taxes go to support these people.

7. Warwick has answered the question concerning cheap labour and illegals. As he said, they don't qualify for legal jobs, so, they must work at a discount. This isn't exploitation.

And remember who is being exploited here. It's certainly not the Mexican labourers.

Just in case anyone is wondering. I'm leaving this site and won't be posting anymore. The level of discourse keeps spiralling downward with name calling and child-like narrowmindedness.

Passion has been replaced with misguided zeal. In short, pseudo intellectuals are sounding dumber and dumber.

Good-bye and good luck.

No one seems to have noticed that the photo looks strikingly similar to those taken of the Manhatten peace march of Saturday, 29 April 2006. Hmmm ...

The fact that millions of illegal aliens (most of whom criminally breeched border security) can ransome citizenship by holding government hostage to the embarassment of their numbers, tells me that US border security and immigration have been criminally neglected for a long time.

Bush will fold like a cheap hand towel on this. Of course they'll trot out the typical pseudo-conservative rationale as an excise....round up and deportation is too costly....may as well make them legal so we can collect the taxes they have been avoiding.....humaine mush etc.....Welcome to the united states of Aztlan.

On May day, some where that demon Karl Marx is smiling knowing his desciples in the Aztlan, MECHA and La Raza demonstration ranks have stolen US border sovereignty, and cheapened citizenship to that of criminal immigration.

Any government that cans piss billions away in Iraq but finds homeland border/immigration security too "costly" should be thrown from power decisively.

Is it possible to be thrown from power indecisively?

Ya...look at the current liberal opposition.

Either enforce the border or abolish it.

This will be the issue that demolishes republicans in November. They need to get tough on ILLEGAL immigration and set out a clear, fair policy on legal immigration. Nothing worse than having unenforced rules.

Norman, wouldn't you agree that having unjust rules enforced is worse than having unenforced rules? I used to have much the same opinion on this issue, essentailly that countries have the right to limit citizenship and that anyone circumventing the rules should be deported. The more I think of this issue, I think the underlying moral questions overpower the adherance to the laws as formulated. If I was living on the border in a Mexican town and barely sustaining my family and I saw that there was an opportunity for me to provide a better life to my kids by breaking the laws of the US, I would seriously consider this. It seems to me unfeeling for us to sit on our wealth and hold people away at the point of a gun. The west is trying to export democracy, lets put our money where our mouth is, throw open your borders. The difference in the standard of living cannot be sustained. My industry (software) is being moved overseas to a great extent and there are many in the industry that are wanting the government to protect the jobs, but what right do I have to tell people that they have to use my services with the threat of force. I saw bring them on, lets start a new chapter. To the extent that we can sustain the impact on our infrastructure, lets allow anyone willing to work and to pledge to uphold the laws and constitution of the country in question in.

Wlyonmackenzie - the US hasn't 'pissed billions away in Iraq'. It has freed the Iraqi people from a monstrous dictator and enabled them to set up a democracy. That seems to have escaped you.

Moving from a tribal dictatorship to a democracy isn't easy; it isn't a mechanical 'flick a switch' act. And, the old guard want their power back - and the other nations such as Iran, don't want democracy in the area...So, they'll fight it.
But - the freedom from a dictator and the establishment of a democracy - that's an enormous achievement on the part of Bush.

As for Mexico- I don't think it's so much as 'enforce the border or abolish it'. It's deeper than that. As I said, Mexico gains enormously in this current system. It doesn't have to provide jobs, housing, schooling, social services - zilch - for 11 million of its population. That's quite an enormous economic gain for Mexico.

The US doesn't gain as much as the emotive left asserts. As Warwick has pointed out, the cheap labour isn't what makes the US economy run - and the costs to the rest of the citizens - the taxpaying ones - isn't to be ignored.

I don't know the solution - possibly transient worker's visas - but - there are three issues, at a minimum, to be dealt with:

A. Mexico's current enormous gains from not having to provide jobs and services for 11 million of its citizens.
B. The cost to the US taxpayer for providing the services to these 11 million, who pay no taxes.
C. The economic benefit of these low-wage workers, who are low-wage because their wage does not include taxes and benefits..but..they get the benefits anyway.

Mexico won't do anything about the problem unless we incentivise - cash transfers from illegals in the US is the second largest cash flow in the country, right after oil exports.

How about a 50% tax on cross-border money transfers? That ought to garner some attention in Mrxico City...

As I said, Mexico gains enormously in this current system. It doesn't have to provide jobs, housing, schooling, social services - zilch - for 11 million of its population. That's quite an enormous economic gain for Mexico.

And......

The biggest gain Mexico gets is it can postpone the inevitable revolution that should befall it for another generation. That's the biggest reason the politicos there want an open unrestricted border. Take away access to US jobs and the mass demonstrations would and should be on the streets of Mexico City.

We aren't doing Mexicans any favors in the long run. Vincente Foxe piddled his time away. The American taxpayer subsidizes the corruption in Mexico ultimately. Not smart.

We have no moral obligation requiring us to surrender our borders to citizens of a failed state any more than my neighbor has squatters rights on my property because he's not as successful financially. Only a birdbrained lefty in their dangerous emotive illogic fails to see that point.

steve d,

"At last count there were 750 laws broken by the man (Bush)"

Blogwell Fray,

"I'm leaving this site...the level of discourse keeps spiralling downward."

You don't say.

Penny.. "We have no moral obligation requiring us to surrender our borders to citizens of a failed state any more than my neighbor has squatters rights on my property because he's not as successful financially. Only a birdbrained lefty in their dangerous emotive illogic fails to see that point."
Ouch.. I am about as much of an anti-government liberaterian as you can be and still manage to stay sane in this country. I don't think your analogy holds, in that there is no reqirement for me to surrender property rights (as if we had them in Canada) to anyone emigrating to my country. I just wonder if your view would be different if you happened to be born in a country where you might live in mortal fear of your children getting sick and see if it still makes perfect sense that, because of where you live and the government that is thereby imposed upon you, you must live within that context. Lets allow true freedom to citizens of the world to choose how they are governed. How much power would tirants have if their people had freedom of movement?
I am off to munch some granola ;)

Jeff, Jeff, Jeff, What part of illegal don't you understand? I'll be the first to say that hispanics, and that is what we are mostly talking about, are hard working basically good people but they are still breaking the law. Also along with the honest folk there are gang members, drug runners and a whole lot of unsavory charactors. The legal taxpayer is also footing the bill for these people , don't forget. Even if you are a nice person, if you don't pay your taxes you are breaking the law. If you want amnesty then you should have been a bigwig liberal because it ain't going to happen anytime soon.

This is a large problem with no simple answer but something has to be done on many fronts. Simply forgive and forget simply doesn't cut it.

"How much power would tyrants have if their people had freedom of movement."

There lies the crux.

Who is responsible for the mess these people are leaving? Could it be themselves? Who elected or allowed tyrants to govern?

Let's take Canada for example - if it was solely up to them, what kind of government would Muslims want here? What would happen if they gained the majority vote? Think France in 20 years.

Generally, people get the governments they deserve.

Irwin, that is indeed the question. Do you think you deserve the government you have? or something better? Just think, we have a process whereby we can change the label of our gladhanding simps. What would you have the people in Indonesia do. It is somehwat blithe to suggest that just because we happened to be born in Canada instead of Darfur, that people who find themselves in the grips of a repressive regime somehow deserve what they get. In the final analysis, when I put myself in the position of the Mexican, I cannot say I would not subject myself to the risks involved in breaking the immigration laws in order that my children born on US soil would become citizens of that country. Very complicated sure, but I think that there is a real international/human rights/freedom argument that says that immigration laws can be looked at, in and of themsleves, to be immoral.

Lets allow true freedom to citizens of the world to choose how they are governed

You do surrender your property in that you surrender your money via taxes to support illegal immigrants. They don't pay taxes. We do. You surrender the wages of native non-skilled workers as wages fall. Take a look at the construction industry here. Oh, and if you are a rancher/homeowner at the border your property value has been surrendered.

"How" is far different than "where"?, which is the crux of the matter. So, are you suggesting that we live in a borderless world? "anti-government liberaterian" means no laws, no sovereign nation state, no community that can defend it's culture or economic system?

How much power would tirants have if their people had freedom of movement?

More, in Mexico's case. You didn't get my point. The ruling elite stay in power because the US solves their economic problems. If we had a real wall on the border, trust me, the marches would be in Mexico City directed at the corruption at home.

The poor will always be among us. Diluting the standard of living of all makes us all the poorer. What's solved there? I can't fix Africa and I can't fix Latin America. At some point in time, their citizens need to deal with the rot where they live.

You are hardly a Libertarian, my friend. You're closer in thinking with lefties who feel their way through life cluelessly without facts or principles.

"off to munch some granola".....perfect exit. My bet is that you live off mom and dad's allowance.

Jeff - how are immigration laws immoral?

What you don't seem to realize, and what many of us are pointing out, is that the illegal immigrants from Mexico, both the hard workers and the criminals, are releasing MEXICO from its obligations to its citizens. It need not provide them with a sound economic infrastructure to build jobs; with education; with medical care; with roads, housing - anything. So, Mexico remains impoverished. And its citizens, rather than demanding change in Mexico - simply run, illegally, to the US - where the US citizens are obliged to support their needs.

This enables more and more corruption in Mexican gov't - as they are released from accountability, by their citizens having an 'out'.

You ask - how much power would tyrants have if their people have freedom of mov't? As Penny points out - more. Because the people who need their gov't, can't get their gov't to do anything..and so, if they can, they leave. That means that the tyrant doesn't have to do a thing. He and his cronies can take taxes from the city people who remain...and..build roads and schools only for them..but not develop any economy for the majority of the population.

What do you mean by 'true freedom to choose how they are governed'? Can Mexicans get their gov't to develop an industrial infrastructure that enables the majority of them to get jobs? Or, is the economic infrastructure confined only to a small elite segment of the population, in the cities - and totally, completely, ignores the worker class - who have no jobs, no schools, no medical care...and get all of that in the USA.

Irwin, I don't think that people get the government they deserve. No-one deserves, for example, the Taliban, or the Iranian gov't or Stalin and etc.

Penny's implication that, without the safety valve of illegal immigration to the U.S., there would be a revolution in Mexico is probably correct. What's more, it would probably be a Communist revolution.

I doubt that the U.S. would welcome the development of Venezuela North right along the Rio Grand!

Mexico doesn't wield as big an energy stick as Venezuela, but it is very important to the U.S.

Very complicated sure, but I think that there is a real international/human rights/freedom argument that says that immigration laws can be looked at, in and of themsleves, to be immoral.

Are you for real??

There isn't a damn thing complicated about this issue. It's real simple. It's about laws. It's about sovereign borders. Only a muddled mind like yours could make it complicated.

Who and what entity in your numbskulled universe are you invoking to arbitrate between the illegals and the objecting nation's rights.

Tell us, Jeff, as a wage earner, taxpayer and property owner - hey, maybe you have some kids too - more about how your more "moral" borderless world would enhance your life and finances. We are all ears.

Penny, you have me all wrong my friend, I am a liberatarian much like what you describe, I oppose the government in my life to a great extent, I do believe in a set of minimalist laws that set about the rights and responsibilities of each citizen and do nothing more than that. I do understand that the governments of the fleeing people would be ambivilent in the short term, but the long term prospects for Mexico are dire, because the people with initiative, the human capital that is needed is leaving, only the dregs would remain if people had freedom of movement. I do not ask that my government protect me against myself nor protect my standard of living beyond my ability to compete with anyone in the world. I do not at all beleive that my standard of living is protected by the government, quite the opposite, if the government would perform only as an arbiter of justice, my standard of living would improve quite a bit. I did not say that I supported the idea of illegal imigrants, I think the government is going about it all wrong. I say c'mon in, live by our laws, contribute to our society. My suggestion is that everyone who wants to, can become a citizen; not that we have a government-created class of people who are living in the country and not sharing fully in citizenship.

btw, my parent's allowance is not enough for me, so I am thinking of getting a paper route ;)

My suggestion is that everyone who wants to, can become a citizen

"everyone"? What if the US doesn't want or need all of these "everyones"? Not everyone has a good motive in being here. Some are drug peddlers. Some have criminal backgrounds. Some have mental health and substance issues. Most are uneducated and unskilled, a big drag in a skill-based economy.

Our resources are finite.

"Everyone"? If you're not a US citizen effected by this mess, I guess "everyone" is cheap and easy to wish upon us.

Grab your paper route fast, Jeff, an illegal may get there before you. Ooops. Your extra spending money will be gone.

Penny, not cheap nor easy. I don't wish anything upon anyone. I just wish that if there was a way that everyone born of this world had the right to self determination. I have alwas been an internationalist and I understand that that puts me offside with most of the people I run into. Believe me, I understand the concerns that you raise, and I am not proposing this as a practical matter, even in my "numbskull universe", I understand that the nanny state that our countries have adopted cannot sustain such a course of action. I was just proposing that there is a way of looking at this issue that does not force me to subject people to the conditions in which they were unlucky enough to be born into.

Zog- why would you assert that a possible revolution in Mexico would be communist? I strongly doubt that; no-one in their right mind now moves a country into communism, for it is well known that it is useless. Only small pockets of renegades opt for communism, and their income is usually tied to drug running and hostage taking (really valid communist economic endeavours!).
Your hypothesis that the US OUGHT to take the Mexican illegals, to prevent a presumed Mexican communist take-over - is, to say the least, pretty far-fetched.

Jeff - you are not interested in Mexico's gov't and citizens developing their economy. You are asking that the US citizens both remove the 'excess' Mexican population and provide work and services for that population - even though those illegals don't pay any taxes towards the services that they use.

You seem to be a romanticist - not an internationalist.

And remember, if those illegal Mexicans become citizens, then - they pay taxes, and their wages must increase to pay those taxes..and that also means that they won't have enough to send millions back home to Mexico, as they do now. So- even with higher wages - the now-legal Mexicans will be in trouble - because of that lost income formerly sent home to Mexico.

Mexico won't like losing that income from those illegals...because it supports a large segment of the Mexican population for whom the Mexican gov't doesn't provide services, education, jobs.

Jeff, give it up.

Your "Libertarian"...."internationalist"..."immoral" borders....yadda, yadda, yadda...shtik is tiring.

"I was just proposing that there is a way of looking at this issue that does not force me to subject people to the conditions in which they were unlucky enough to be born into

Life's not a zero sum game. What I have isn't taken from another's mouth. Got that. Life is tough. So are cancer, hurricanes, famines and all bad things visited upon the human condition. Being the virtucrat that you represent yourself to be, incapacitated because of misplaced guilt that the world's problems aren't solved, everyday is a bigger struggle for you than most. Ever crossed your mind that people in the Third World might have, in spite of political and economic deficits, fuller lives than twits who wallow in guilt and spout useless utopian dribble from their little towers of phoney virtue?

ET
O.K., perhaps "Communist" is a bit hyperbolic. Try "extreme left wing" and look at recent events in Venezuela and Bolivia as prime examples.

Even in Latin countries not in the grip of demagogic idealogues, the shift to the left has been pretty well defined lately. Could Mexico follow the trend? Damned right!

Don't put words in my mouth. I didn't say that the U.S. OUGHT (capitalization yours) to take illegals to relieve internal pressure in Mexico, nor would I presume to do so.

I do believe that the potential for a real blow-up is one of the considerations which have disuaded the U.S. from taking any serious measures to stop the unarmed invasion of the country. The others are the more obvious ones - the addiction to cheap labour and pandering for votes among former illegals legalized in previous indulgences (and their millions of American-born
children). If large numbers of the current crop are also given the opportunity to become citizens, the party that does it will be assured of their support too.

Penny, "Life's not a zero sum game. What I have isn't taken from another's mouth. Got that" I certainly do, I wonder if you do. If that were true universally, then there would be no problem with welcoming all immigrants. As it is, the problem with immigration is that as soon as someone is on Canadian or US soil, they somehow have a claim on my resources. I don't agree that anyone has a claim to my resources, but my government sees fit to give a good portion of my income to other people. So don't get all tied up, I know it cannot work, but what I am saying that if we were a truly just society, we would be able to have an immigration policy that was welcoming, just another artifact of the statist country we live in.

Thanks for your obvious concern, but my days are fine. No guilt here, just occasional frustration with the state. It has crossed my mind that some people in this world are perfectly happy where they are... I can even see some of them from my tower of phony virtue :)