Pajamas Media

62 Comments

1. Cletus:

Good ‘ole Ruben. Tell me, Ruben, exactly WHO on the right wants to end legal immigration, other than the New World Order anti-government crazies and the white power nazis, (who nobody listens to or takes seriously)?

Sep 6, 2008 - 12:30 am 2. Ed Wallis:

Oh, “Cletus, ” you SCAMP!

We BOTH know that “Ruben” is PJM’s way of saying “we care about the Latino voice” until they can locate a more articulate writer with an ability to express OTHER THAN lock-step-with-amnesty thoughts and analysis.

NOW, “Ruben” is just plain getting FUNNY with his…err…”writing: “Those on the Right should just admit that there is an element in their ranks that is anti-foreigner and wants to end not just illegal immigration but the legal kind too.” In an attempt to appear “fair and balanced” he promotes one of the MOST OFFENSIVE STEREOTYPES possible.

I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT.

How about some PEDRO references to “balance” that out, Mr. Navarette? /sarc

This is POOR WRITING and ANALYSIS, at best.

Sep 6, 2008 - 2:07 am 3. Ed Wallis:

Ruben writes,

“In nearly 20 years of writing opinion pieces and columns, not once have I ever written that I support illegal immigrants or illegal immigration.”

and “How could so many readers get the idea that I’m supportive of illegal immigrants?”

OH YOU POOR, SWEET, INNOCENT THING. /sarc

YOUR WRITING REVEALS YOU TO BE A RANK A-P-O-L-O-G-I-S-T for illegal behavior in the United States and nothing less, Mr. Navarette.

This has nothing to do with a “broken dialogue” but rather with inadequate and bigotted thinking on your part, sir.

Sep 6, 2008 - 2:50 am 4. cedarford:

Navarette is an old “Open Borders” fan who has done numerous pro-Open Borders, Amnesty for all articles for various media outl;ets. And laid the “racism” charge out thick that anyone who doesn’t think every Latin has a birthright to cross the Rio Grande is “Fearful….Ignorant…Bigoted..)

=================
Cletus – Tell me, Ruben, exactly WHO on the right wants to end legal immigration, other than the New World Order anti-government crazies and the white power nazis, (who nobody listens to or takes seriously)?

Cletus might be ignorant of other groups and individuals like those doing border watch.

1. There are plenty of people that oppose “legal” chain family reunifications that have vrought whole Palestinain and Nigerian villages here legally.

2. Most Americans oppose “the right” of illegals to birth an instant citizen here. We are the last developed country that has jus solis citizenship still given out to any baby born here under any circumstances.

3. Many, many Americans question why we must take in no skill refugees, many with extreme beliefs and history of violence – that can travel through 10 or so “safe countries” before they get to the countries they demand to live in that have great services and benefits.

4. And Americans object to “special rules” special interest groups have passed that allowed Cubans, El Salvadorans, “persecuted” Soviet Jews to jump to the front of the legal immigration line.

5. You also have Americans that want a big timeout from all immigration to allow the masses to assimilate, allow wages depressed by immigrant labor to recover and do something about blacks in cities displaced by illegals now having 35-50% jobless rates.

6. Finally, Americans are slowly realizing that mass immigration and family reunification (chain migration) has made the US population explode from 225 million in 1973, to 300 million today, to US Census projecting population will reach 368 million in 2030, and 439 million in 2050. (More than the entire Indian subcontinent had in 1900, plus the entire population of Africa as the 20th century started.) The subcontinent now has 1.4 billion, Africa will reach 1.1 billion shortly due to astronomically high breeding rates..

This immigrant-driven population explosion has already had very negative effects on the quality of life in the SW. Rapidly declining schools and hospitals. Traffic gridlock unimaginable in the 1970s. Premium arable land converted into square miles of barrios in California. Significant water shortages that may not be solvable without rationing. Plus inadequate grids of natural gas, electricity, sewage lines to serve the SW’s exploding population. Half the criminals in S California, Arizona turning out to be immigrants,

And nationwide, realization that the massive population increase has already negated the whole energy conservation drive from the 1973 Emargo up to today. 80 million new energy users will do that, even as some aging yuppie buys a Prius and feels all noble about that and installing Gorebulbs in their house – while selling the “evil” SUV to welfare clients fresh from Somalia – Abdullah and Fatima and their 7 kids. Thus remaining willfully, blissfully blind to the idea that all their conservation and worship of “exciting new energy” is negated by waves of 3rd Worlders pouring in daily.

============
If we allow immigration, it should only be those that have valuable skills in short supply in America..vetted for criminality and extremism. No more family reunification. No more refugees.

Sep 6, 2008 - 3:40 am 5. M.P.:

The bottom line for me is the cost of having so many millions of illegal immigrants in this country. On the whole, these are good, hard working, law abiding people looking to make a better life and they do contribute much but with my property taxes increasing at an outrageous rate and my income feeling more and more taxed, I am not willing to continue paying for their free healthcare, free education and other free social services. I don’t believe they contribute as much as they take or if it does balance out, I am the one paying while clearly someone else is benefitting. If they paid for the services they receive just like the rest of us, then welcome.

Sep 6, 2008 - 4:55 am 6. RE:

There is nothing shrill about demanding that laws passed through the democratic process be honored and enforced. What is shrill are the accusations of bigotry towards those who demand respect for the law and the democratic process. (i.e. – Lindsay Graham and La Raza.)

It is not a matter of being shrill. It’s a matter of disingenuousness – of which Mr. Navarrette has been a champion with his apologetics for illegal aliens and disregard for the law. One might even start to suspect that Mr Navarette has a strong racist streak in his myopia – it being that ‘Hispanic’ seems to trump everything else in his world.

Mr. Navarrette lost credibility with me long ago. He’s old school activist who views the Constitution as something to be circumvented. New blood is needed – Constitution respecting new blood, that is.

Sep 6, 2008 - 5:55 am 7. Valerie:

cites, guys. Gimme cites. You are accusing this guy of lying about the content of his own articles. If you are correct, you should be easily able to back it up.

The last immigration bill was defeated in part because it was not comprehensive enough. It failed to deal with people who come here only to work. This country acts as a safety valve for the miserable economies to our south: when times are tough, people flow north, not because they want to leave home, but because they need to provide for their families. The money that they send home is significant to the economies of our neighbors when times are bad, and it flows exactly where it is needed, without the spillage that accompanies aid filtered through the local government.

Our immigration policy has the perverse result of encouraging people to come here illegally, and then bottling them up in our country once they get here. We need a guest worker program, we need to get Congress out of the business of trying to set quotas, and we need to take citizenship completely off the table for people who enter this country illegally. We need to have a means of, at minimum, rapidly deporting criminals who are also in this country illegally. We also need to make case-by-case exceptions for those who can show that they have tried to comply with our laws, especially those who have paid their taxes.

If we choose to be generous, our guest workers who have paid their taxes should be granted a portable benefit similar to, but not measured by or tied to increases in, Social Security. This would encourage people who came here only to work to go home, because that portable benefit would go much further in a poor economy than it would here. People who come here to work are already primed to learn from us, and their attitudes change as they see how our system works. When they go home, they are seen as Americans. If we choose to be generous, we will in time export Americans back to the places most in need of protection, economic support, and reform.

Sep 6, 2008 - 6:02 am 8. RE:

and yes, I watched the O’Reilly interview. It’s very inconsistent with what Mr Navarrette has written in the past.

Sep 6, 2008 - 6:03 am 9. WR Jonas:

Ruben has NEVER embraced deportation either. Of course he is eager to disguise his political identity, he is a liberal. Thats the way they work. Their real agenda and objectives are to conceal their motives. Like a stealthy creature …. lets see ,perhaps a snake. An even better comparison is a termite. They burrow and breed unseen in your house until everything of importance is finally consumed .In the end the building is destroyed. Are you proud Ruben ?

Sep 6, 2008 - 6:21 am 10. mac:

Charity begins at home, Valerie. We can’t afford to raise the rest of the world to our standards on our dime. We need to send all illegals packing immediately, build the fence immediately, and curtail legal immigration drastically. Allow ONLY those immigrants in who WE need and who have qualifications that are in short supply here. Immigrating to the United States is a PRIVILEGE, not a right as half the world, and all of Mexico, seem to believe.

Illegals out NOW!

Sep 6, 2008 - 6:24 am 11. F. Francomano:

Dear Ruben,
Although in my heart of hearts I can feel that both you and BOR are hardened Democrats who will somehow pull the marxist Obama lever in the dark, rather than vote for a war hero whose wife owns a beer company and drives race cars, as would a normal American, I think you are on the money in the immigration debate.

Of course the border must be closed and regulated according to law. However, what you, and the people to the right of you and the faux-fair-and-balanced BOR know very well, is that the demographic make-up of the good old US of A is already completely changed. Whether the border is closed tonight, or not, Latinos simply will become the dominant identifiable ethnic group in the country. Latinos will be 30 percent, come hell or high water. In the Southwest, they’ll be the majority. Neither good, nor bad. It simply is. End of story.

Of course the border must be closed and regulated according to law, since there simply will be no mass deportations. What there should be is an end to government subsidy of any kind to illegal aliens. Let their “anchor baby” offspring support them. The completely unofficial practice, sanctioned by no real law, of automatic citizenship for the children of illegals should end. There should be severe penalties for employers-of-illegal. “Self-Deportation,” might increase, or not. No matter. This will be a heavily Latino country.

However, for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. The huge (and let’s stop talking “12 million”) illegal alien invasion has brought a politically incorrect and most unattractive reaction from many Americans who are, (surprise, surprise) “racists,” and much more apprehensive about “dark foreigners” than you or I are apt to be. If 1500 Italians could temporarily upset the economic apple cart in Lowell, Mass. in 1890, imagine the effect 15 or 20 million ILLEGAL immigrants have had on the country as a whole.

The left, and I include you, has played this inevitable nativist reaction like a violin to prevent anything substantive being done to correct the problem. Not that the right has had any real interest in correcting the problem, particularly in the Southwest, where folks like John McCain and George Bush still think of Mexicans in a 30’s cowboy-movie paradigm, e.g., those friendly “little” tan folks who make one’s life so pleasant on the old rancho… and cheaply, too!

Pat Buchanan (another guy I hate to agree with) had it more or less correct when he said nothing would be done because, “Illegal Immigration is cheap votes for the Democrats, and cheap labor for the Republicans.”

So the question becomes a practical one of dealing with the new Latino-ized America. In other words, how do we Americanize this huge and sudden wave of newcomers who dwarf all previous immigration, before they Latino-ize us (any further)?

Let’s stop talking about it, and get on with it. Para español, oprime número dos.

Regards to you,
FF

Sep 6, 2008 - 6:45 am 12. GDT:

There can be no meaningful debate on immigration policy so long as existing policy is selectively enforced. We must begin with the enforcement of our existing laws. We can’t begin any meaningful assessment of whether our existing laws are effective or fair until those laws are in place. We can not begin this process from a state of complete chaos – with local law enforcement and individual cities doing anything they want based only on the fluid whims of mayors and individual police. Immigration law is one of the few constitutionally mandated purviews of the federal government. “Comprehensive” immigration reform may well be necessary – but it must begin with a baseline. That baseline must be an assessment, through enforcement, of existing U.S. law.

Sep 6, 2008 - 7:30 am 13. MarkD:

How about a law saying we adopt Mexican law with respect to immigration and the rights of immigrants?

Oh, that would lead to arrest and deportation of millions. We can’t have that.

I’m not anti-immigrant; I brought my (now citizen) wife here long ago. However, she became an American and never expected any special treatment because her native language wasn’t English.

The problem with the competing monologues (and I’ll not dignify them by calling them debates) is that neither side seems willing to consider that there are rights, responsibilities and reality that need to be considered.

Get used to more of the same, because that’s what we’re going to get.

Sep 6, 2008 - 7:39 am 14. Aureliano:

Way back on May 17th, Ruben wrote an article titled “Is Racism Hurting Obama in Middle America” arguing that Barack Obama lost the primaries in states like West Virginia due to white racism. He also argued that even in those states he won, such as Wisconsin or Minnesota, it was in spite of white racism.

Somehow he believes such views place him above the rank bigotries of his critics. This guy is a natural born sophist, to be sure, and supersaturated in postmodern racial prejudices.

Just an example of sophistry as it relates to the May article. In the primaries, there are a number of simple ways to analyze how people voted, re:major candidates and race. The voting process can be described as follows:
1) Voting for Obama
2) Voting for Hillary
3) Voting Against Obama
4) Voting Against Hillary

Any vote you cast is thus:
1) Voting for Obama/Voting Against Hillary
2) Voting for Hillary/Voting Against Obama

But Mister “I’m above it all” chose to describe blacks voting for Obama not as voting against Hillary, but with the formulation of voting ‘for Obama’. Meanwhile, he chose to describe whites voting for Hillary only as voting ‘against Obama’. Substituting the names for race, Ruben’s formulation is:

Voting for Black / Voting Against Black

Thus, he says in the article, whites are racist because they voted AGAINST Barack (negative reasons), but blacks aren’t racist because they voted for FOR Barack (positive reasons).

One problem, however, is the alternative, equally valid formulation, which is as follows:

Voting for White / Voting Against White

Using his logic, then, we could say blacks are racist because they voted AGAINST Hillary (negative reasons), but whites aren’t racist because they voted for FOR Hillary (positive reasons).

This is classic sophistry. It’s such a PERFECT example of it that it should be taught in a classroom.

What Ruben doesn’t realize is that nearly ALL his articles are this way. Everything he writes is just an illustration of how disingenuous pundits with political agendas twist reality, and more apropos, how completely unaware of it they are.

But what do I know? I never graduated from Harvard, and I have this ridiculous habit of contributing to charities that help ALL people, not just people of one particular race (as does Ruben).

Sep 6, 2008 - 7:45 am 15. Ed Wallis:

Valerie – 6:02am,

It’s Saturday where I am. I’VE read his tripe. YOU GO BACK and READ THEM YOURSELF if you don’t believe it.

We ARE – as you suggest – GENEROUS…just NOT stupid, which is what you, Ruben and the likes suggest we be. NO THANKS.

Sep 6, 2008 - 8:34 am 16. Ed Wallis:

Aureliano – I thank you for your lucid and articulate elaboration. Delightful!

I fear it is a bit over the heads of Ruben and his compan(insert tilde)eros….

Sep 6, 2008 - 8:37 am 17. isitjustmeor:

I believe you are wrong when you say people on the right want to end legal immigration, and that changes your whole line of argument. All we want is LEGAL immigration. Why would that sound shrill? The average person does not understand why people who sneak across the border from Mexico or elsewhere should be given precedence over people who apply to come here legally. I have never met anyone or heard anyone say anything against legal immigrants. What is our country but a land of legal immigrants and their children? Did you see the Olympics? You can’t tell who the Americans are because we’re all nationalities of the world and we’re proud of it.

We want the border closed for security purposes and we want the emphasis to be on legal immigration. How complicated is that? Instead of trying to accommodate anyone who sneaks in here, what can be done to make Mexico a place that people don’t have to escape from?

Sep 6, 2008 - 9:14 am 18. Jabba the Tutt:

All Ruben Navarette Jr talks about is immigration. So, if “our” talking about immigration is broken, all of Ruben’s talk must then be broken. Ah, so why is anyone paying any attention to his latest talk?

Sep 6, 2008 - 10:12 am 19. Rod:

Mr McCain, tear down this wall!

Most all of us are the descendants of immigrants. The only folks who have a right to build a wall are the American Indians, and they won’t do that ’cause they want folks coming to their casinos!

Hispanics have better “American Family Values” than most American families. Go to any park in Southern California on any holiday and look who’s there… huge families of Hispanics celebrating together. Stroll the Hispanic streets of American and see who’s dressed up in their Sunday finest walking hand-in-hand to their local church. Now turn your eyes to the underbelly of America. It’s Hispanics that are doing the cooking, cleaning, harvesting, landscaping, construction, and other jobs we can’t staff otherwise. Look to the street corners to see who’s standing there with a sign saying “Pity me, I need help.” It’s never a Hispanic, they’re all lined up at Home Depot offering work for their money!

Immigrant bashing is a grand tradition in America, even though we are a nation of immigrants. We bashed the Irish, we bashed the Italians, we bashed the Chinese. Ironically, we bashed the Blacks, though we brought them here against their will. Each new generation of Americans, themselves the sons of immigrant fathers, has disparaged the latest “flood” of immigrants.

Building a wall is Un-American. It’s not who we are. Those who ask for walls forget the ideals on which we have built this great Nation. I say we reject the ugliness rising from the fear in our hearts and embrace the hope that was and is America.

“The New Colossus” by Emma Lazarus, 1883

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
“Keep ancient lands, your storied pomp!” cries she
With silent lips. “Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

We should open our arms to these hard working, family oriented, church going, Hispanic people just as our own fathers were welcomed to America’s shores in the past.

Also as in the past, we demand that immigrants become a part of America, not a sub-country within it’s boundaries. English is our national language, and our immigrant fathers struggled to learn it immediately upon arriving at our shores. Neither in the past have we invited those who wish to beg in our streets for a hand out rather than offer their labor in exchange for their place in America.

Let those who are here performing our work and raising families within our borders join America as citizens of equal stature to others who have come before. Let those at our borders looking in with envy, who have been good citizens of their homelands, who have learned our national language, who have sponsorship of American employers, let those people join our Nation as guests. Let these guests demonstrate their character and continued employ as productive guests before granting full citizenship.

America is not a piece of land owned by its current residents, it is an ideal that belongs to all Men. It was founded on faith in the ability of hard working people to govern themselves as equal participants in a free and prosperous future, to live the American Dream. It is, and has always been, the duty of those who live the Dream of our immigrant fathers to embrace the new generations of immigrants who share faith in that same Dream.

Mr McCain, we need leaders who remind us of who we should be rather than pander to who we are. We need leaders who lead with hope rather than fear.

Mr McCain, tear down this wall!

Sep 6, 2008 - 10:26 am 20. Ed Wallis:

“isitjustmeor”,

YES, it’s just you.

All you have to do is look up a couple of this guy’s older articles, and you’ll see why a number of posters here have little to no respect ´for the words of this “writer”…because they come off as crocodile tears backed up with the melody, “…why dey always be pickin’ on me?”

Sep 6, 2008 - 10:36 am 21. Ed Wallis:

Oh, “Rod,” puh-LEASE!

Even the EAST GERMANS came across The Wall’s border LEGALLY.

YOUR analogy STINKS.

LEGAL IMMIGRATION (insert math symbol here for: DOES NOT EQUAL) ILLEGAL ENTRY, ILLEGAL RESIDENCE, ILLEGAL EMPLOYMENT,etc etc….

Sep 6, 2008 - 10:57 am 22. ex-democrat:

I’m a legal immigrant; been here over 20 years and NEVER experienced anything but ‘welcome to the land of the free and home of the brave’ in all of that time.

Sep 6, 2008 - 11:01 am 23. Cletus:

Cedarford

We were never talking about certain aspects of legal immigration, which may or may not work. It’s obvious that the legal immigration system is broken and needs to be revamped. There’s nothing wrong with wanting to end special rules for certain groups of immigrants, or tightening family reunification laws to clamp down on scammers of the system. But Ruben was talking about people on the right who want to end ALL illegal immigration. Just because someone has a beef with anchor babies doesn’t mean they want to end legal immigration all together. That’s what Ruben was talking about, and that’s what I was asking to clarify.

Sep 6, 2008 - 11:02 am 24. john from cinncinati:

ok here we go again. who wants to be an American? everyone…1620, sails on the horizon, natives on the beach see them, and say what the hell is that? we should deport them before they anglofy the land. the rest is history. lets just mix all the issues into a grab bag and pull something out and try to find a solution,or lets line them up and find solutions that work. they wouldn’t be illegal if we documented them and gave them a green card so we could have some control. the criminals have to be dealt with by our criminal law. illegal immigrants can’t be thrown in with murders, just cuz they both broke the law. how shall we designate anchor babies? how about a star on their jackets. if they want to be Americans there has to be a streamlined process that doesn’t take 20 years to complete. i heard Ellis island stories, where they came with $1.25 in their pockets and became an American success story. well $1.25 in your pocket isn’t going to get you a visa nowadays. hence we have illegals. hungry people will do a lot. running thru 120 degree deserts is only the first. being starved in your home country doesn’t get you a lot of loyalty. getting trashed in America doesn’t get us gratitude either. i think you need to be ready to be American.

Sep 6, 2008 - 11:08 am 25. Cletus:

Rod:
you’re right that not many poor hispanics need to stand on the street corner and beg. That’s because they have a plethora of special interest groups to do it for them.

oh and….

test
test

Sep 6, 2008 - 11:12 am 26. Rubicon:

I have read, and commented, about a number of Mr. Navarrette’s articles. I have heard all the justifications that according to a poem on the Statue of Libery, we are obligated to open our borders to all. I have listened as people asking reasonable questions have immediately been branded racists or bigots. I have seen people demanding rights, who left their own countries because the socialists in charge were sucking the life out of those countries, & are now demanding they get what they want here.
Writing one article talking of reason & dialog, does not reverse the plethora of articles & comments that attacked anyone who asked for the law of their country to be enforced.
Many attack a fence as “un-American.” That is simply a deflection. Every amnesty America has issued has resulted in even larger numbers of people coming in, illegally. Every benefit given has resulted in settlements where social services ended up exhausted. (look at LA as the example).
The fence stops more than illegal aliens. The fence creates an impediment to the hundreds of lbs of drugs coming in that are killing our nation. The fence creates an impediment to the movement of criminals & their booty crossing our most porous southern border at will. The fence also acts as an impediment to entry by terrorists or their weapons of mass destruction. And if you think the possibility of WMD is just a fear tactic, then read about the tons of radioactive materials missing from just former Soviet satellite nations.
One article calling for reason and finally talking about the issues enforcement advocates have been pushing all along, does not obviate the articles & excuses previously written.
Now that attrition has shown it can & is working, many on the open borders side of the debate are attacking those workplace raids as violations of civil rights. But some are taking the tact of suddenly appearing to go along with enforcement advocates &/or suggesting we should all sit down and talk reasonably.
Reason was not evident when open borders advocates attacked the Shaw family for trying to get people to sign a petition to end LA Special Order 40 forbidding Law Enforcement Officers to question the legal status of criminals they picked up. Jamiel Shaw was murdered by an illegal alien who was in the country illegally for perhaps the fourth of fifth time. In addition, the murderer also had an extensive felony criminal record. BUT, LA police never asked if he was in the country legally. That would have violated their precious special order. So, that family that was working within the legal system like any other American, were attacked by open borders illegal aliens. By the way, did I mention the Shaw family is black? So much for immigration enforcement advocates being racists! Its about the law, not race or ethnic background. Its about enforcement, not bias.
I see this article as an attempt to create the appearance of cooperation. Its a ruse.

Sep 6, 2008 - 12:20 pm 27. Ed Wallis:

B..b…bbbbbbbut “Rubicon”…

You’re talking about…REASON!!! Don’t you SEE?!

Mr. Navarette is trying to reach your HEART…your emotions…don’t you CARE?! /sarc

You write so beautifully; I envy you and “aurelio.” Great stuff!

Sep 6, 2008 - 1:20 pm 28. mina:

I would never pretend to have all the answers to the immigration problem and the illegals already here. But here might be one solution. Already established a federal regulation states that as a new immigrant (legal) you may not by sworn oath, tap into any federal or state relief program for a period of the first five years here in this country, if you do your sponsor is held financially responsible and must pay the money back. With the infrastructure already established it would not be impossible to verify the legal status of an welfare applicants parents, such as in the case of a new born, or chain immigrant (who by the way are already bound by this law). Once enacted a law similiar could be enforced to deprive that particular childs parents from being elegilble from receiving any benefits for the child or children if born here after the parents have entered illegally as would be the case.There is no sponsor of these illegals and therefore no one to be held financially liable, so there exists a prejudice against legal immigration. At the same time the I.R.S. needs to be forced into enforcing a one number one payee system. As of right now the illegal who’s employer actually does deduct and pay forward the taxes collected on an illegal number has those moneies go into a “pool” a limbo like place, except that this surplus is easily diverted on paper to cover funds already short through bureacracy mismanagement. Instead make both the employer accountable for paying the taxes on all illegals, and the benefit seeker accountable for proof of payment of taxes, by verification of income tax filings. If the illegal immigrant fails to pay taxes, he is committing another illegal act and should be deported.If the employer fails to pay taxes he should be jailed. If the illegal is paying taxes on an illegal number that money should go to benefit the person whose number it really is. The third step would be to issue the illegals a real number legally and then as I have stated hold them to the five year rule plus 5 more for entering illegally. During those first five years they would have to pay into the system before being able to drain from it. In the meantime they would have to rely on the local charities for assitance, including medical. After all it is those same charities that are normally advocating asylum so give them the responsibility for the care.Of course there would be no such thing as an augmentation program as it already exists. Meaning if you haven’t paid in enough in your first 5 years to be eligible for full welfare benefits (for any reason or disability) you don’t draw out more. This revamped non augmentation could also be pro-rated to cover only a percentage of what is paid in after the second five year waiting period, meaning a low paying job with low taxes does not get rewarded with high returns in support, more children means less benefits for each. After 10 years of paying in, you would be eligible for full benefits as is the case now.
An enlistment program can also be established adn mandatory. Such as Ameri Corp and the Military and other civil corps. Put in the time, and earn credits toward citizenship. No time no advancement,after 15 years no criminal felonies,you could apply for citizenship if you entered illegally, provided you have served 3 yrs in a civil service, if you don’t apply citizenship you are deported. The not so educated usually get landscaping jobs and just think how beautiful they could make our already adorning landscape. In effect it would be the illeal picking up their own litter but on a national scale.
We are not truly being benevolent by encouraging illegals to come and to bleed the system no matter what their immigrant status race and creed are, but we are lowering the bar as to what it really means to be an American, which many of these illegals could care less about becoming.
In early times it was the responsibilty of the richest farmer or farmers in a county to find work or create a job for those poor unfortunates who were either disabled or unable to work in a normal capacity. If we were to make the richest corporations today responsible for the illegals and their welfare,I guarantee the over whelming flow would stop instantaniously. Americans and those who really want to become Americans need to take back our country from those interests who have no interest in yours or their citizenship or look at the illegal for just cheap labor.

Sep 6, 2008 - 1:21 pm 29. Art:

It’s really too bad that you aren’t pro-Mexican, because that is where the problem really lies.

Mexico is an incredibly rich and beautiful country. It has abundant natural resources – oil, gas, timber, minerals. It has to beautiful coastlines and vast tracks of arable land that produce more food than it’s population can consume. It’s people are hard working and family oriented. Yet, despite all of it’s God given advantages, Mexico has been cursed with a vile and corrupt political and social elite.

What kind of nation actively encourages it’s citizens to leave, rather than address the political and econmonic corruption that makes it so hard for Mexicans to provide for their families and realize their dreams at home?

The U.S. isn’t the problem. It’s not about the border, our motives, or the “broken” debate.

The U.S. is the most welcoming nation on earth, period. We take in more legal immigrants than all the other nations of the world combined. We welcome these people as citizens and grant them a degree of respect and access to opportunities that few other people do.

The next time you are tempted to wag your finger at Americans who you claim are, “anti-foreigner and want(s) to end not just illegal immigration but the legal kind too.” You may want to reflect on why these people are here in the first place.

Sep 6, 2008 - 1:42 pm 30. Anonymous Patriot:

Dear ROD;

You are conveniently using the term “immigration” instead of “illegal immigration,” which is an entirely different subject and which you have managed to avoid altogether.

You’ve also managed to blame the US for enticing people to come here illegally, which is disingenuous to say the least.

Your assertion that illegal immigrants are good for America is simply wrongheaded. It may be politically correct for you to assume that anyone against illegal immigration is a somehow a racist, but you are completely wrong and miss the point.

Americans, agree with and live under the “rule of law.” When Americans see someone break the law it makes us angry, regardless of race, creed, color, sex, religion, etc., and we want to see the lawbreakers prosecuted and punished for their crime(s).

People of your mindset seem not to be bothered with what I call situational law abidement; disregarding laws that one doesn’t agree with. Somehow you rationalize that a particular law is unfair, unjust or inconvenient for you and decide to break it, like coming across the border illegally.

This is dangerous territory. Let’s say for sake’s argument that suddenly tens of millions of Americans decide that they don’t want to pay their property taxes anymore. Do you think that because they don’t agree with the law and therefore don’t abide by it that they should not be prosecuted?

I live in Southern California which puts me right at ground-zero of the Latino illegal immigration issue, and I also used to work in the electrical trade which was/is directly affected by illegal immigrant workers. My wage continuously went down because of the “cheap labor” to the point that I had to change careers in order for me to support my family.

By the way, those “huge families of Hispanics celebrating together” at our local public parks are:

a. Setting up moon-bounces without obtaining permits (illegal).
b. Consuming alcoholic beverages in a Public Park (illegal).
c. Leaving their trash on the ground (illegal).

Don’t get me started on the illegal taco wagons.

You forgot to mention a few inconvenient truths…

1. Illegals work for less money than American citizens.
Result: Illegal gets work, American citizen collects unemployment at US taxpayer expense.

2. The majority of illegals don’t pay income taxes.
Result: billions of dollars of uncollected taxes.

3. Illegals send the majority of their earnings to their home countries.
Result: billions of US dollars flowing out of the US and into foreign countries.

4. Illegals don’t care about assimilating in America.
Result: Spanish language marketing and media in US cities.

5. Illegals send their anchor baby children to US taxpayer paid public schools unable to speak English.
Result: US taxpayer paid English as Second Language (ESL) curriculum.

6. Illegals use US taxpayer funded hospitals and clinics for their emergencies and illnesses.
Result: US taxpayer subsidized health care.

7. Many illegals are afraid to call the police for fear of deportation.
Result: rampant crime in heavily populated Latino communities.

8. Employers of illegals get away with not paying/matching payroll taxes because the employee is working under the table.
Result: billions of dollars of uncollected tax dollars.

9. Employers of illegals often disregard city/county/state/federal safety standards and codes.
Result: illegals working in dangerous situations often get hurt and end up in US taxpayer funded emergency rooms.

10. Illegals don’t report employers that violate US labor laws in fear of reprisals and/or deportation.
Result: illegals do jobs Americans won’t do.

11. Illegals drive without obtaining driver’s licenses or proper training/testing.
Result: unsafe drivers on US taxpayer paid roads and highways killing Americans.

12. Illegals break a minimum of three laws while working in the US.
1. Entering the country without passports, valid ID, etc.
2. Evading paying taxes by working under the table.
3. Driving without a driver’s license.

13. The majority of Latino street gangs like MS13 and 18th Street are illegals.
Result: illegal gang members preying on illegal immigrants afraid to call 911.

14. The majority of Latino street vendors and taco wagon operators operate without permits, business licenses, health department licenses, workers compensation or insurance.
Result: food borne illnesses and millions of dollars of uncollected fees/taxes.

Now I ask you; how can you argue that illegal immigration is good for America.

Sep 6, 2008 - 2:05 pm 31. Martin:

“The last immigration bill was defeated in part because it was not comprehensive enough. It failed to deal with people who come here only to work. This country acts as a safety valve for the miserable economies to our south:”

People do not come here only to work, but to live. And it is not this country’s job to be a safety valve. It is not our job to be the provider of medical care and education to citizens of Mexico, or Somalia, or any other place.

And yes, many of us oppose legal immigration too. Why not? I am under no obligation to dilute the benefit of my franchise and my citizenship for the benefit of strangers. I would rather this country be kept for me and mine, rather than for some foreign other. No nation can exist as an idea. It can only exist as a real, tangible place – the expression of an actual people, with its own culture, history, language, and traditions. This was the way that America was until 1965. And if you don’t like that, it only goes to show that my ancestors never should have let your ancestors immigrate in the first place.

Sep 6, 2008 - 2:21 pm 32. cedarford:

ROD – WHAT LEFTY DRIVEL!

1.Most all of us are the descendants of immigrants. The only folks who have a right to build a wall are the American Indians..

In case you missed it, all Native Americans are immigrants. Existing when the West arrived because they had killed off or assimilated earlier waves of immigrants. No humans evolved in the Western Hemisphere. They all immigrated here. NA’s have no greater claim than any other citizen of the nation, regardless of all the sentimental crap spouted by Multiculti progressives about how “noble” they are.

2. Hispanics have better “American Family Values” than most American families..

Bullcrap. While most hispanics are OK, they have higher crime and more illegitimacy and more parasitic use of taxpayer paid services than any ethnic group besides blacks. That does not make them or the blacks cursed with their dysfunctional underclass “bad”, but it sure doesn’t make them “more American values” than most native-born Americans, or for that matter, Asian and European immigrants.

3. Look to the street corners to see who’s standing there with a sign saying “Pity me, I need help.” It’s never a Hispanic..

That’s because chances are it is a black man displaced from an industry by cheap illegal labor.

4. …we are a nation of immigrants.

We have all heard that meme endlessly chanted by multicultis, Republican businessmen caught dumping American workers for cheaper illegals, hispanic and Lefty advocates.
It doesn’t make it true, anymore than claiming Japan, Mexico, Italy, and Iran (and 160 other nations) are also “nations of immigrants” because all their people migrated from somewhere else.
People cease to be immigrants when they assimilate and take on an American identity. Most Americans see themselves as descendents of 4 to 25 generations of other Americans – not as “sons of immigrants”.

5. America is not a piece of land owned by its current residents, it is an ideal that belongs to all Men.

What horse puckey. I guess by the same insipid logic Israel is an ideal that belongs to Arabs as much as Jews, it is not just a piece of land. And, as Japan has many great ideals, I suppose it belongs to me as much as any Japanese – and I should have the right to vote there, get free medical care there, get any job – and not be deported because Japan belongs to All Men.

6. Mr McCain, we need leaders who remind us of who we should be rather than pander to who we are. We need leaders who lead with hope rather than fear.
Mr McCain, tear down this wall!

Left to his own devices, the old bastard would happily go with Open Borders and Amnesty for all to serve his corporate donors.

That is why Republicans always need to keep a close eye him, given what a treacherous backstabber McCain is. He almost got away with foisting pro-abortion, activist judge admirer, and liberal neocon Lieberman on us as his VP candidate.

Sep 6, 2008 - 4:30 pm 33. Self-hating boomer:

It’s the “illegal”, stupid.

Say what you mean, or mean what you say. If you want open borders, change the law. If you don’t change the law, enforce it.

Is that so hard?

Sep 6, 2008 - 4:38 pm 34. dvd:

Mexico is dysfunctional government.

We should trade immigrants for land….one province per 20 million residents into us. The first provence should be on on the carribean side.

next we offer israel 1/2 of the first New province, and the build up of new israel can begin.

Israel through a brokered deal with saudi arabia/ lybia and Iraq for big $. Israel begins deconstruction on a 10 year timetable and relocates to New israel de USmexicous.

we solve two of the worlds great problems on a time line everyone is happy with…..oila. peace at last?

Sep 6, 2008 - 5:15 pm 35. Bullfrog:

Can we characterize this debate a little more accurately by calling it, “enforcing immigration laws”? I am not anti-illegal immigrant, I am “anti-letting people selectively obey our laws based on convenience”.

Usually when I share my views on this subject with a person who believes people should be allowed to just walk across our border (something NO sovereign nation allows), what I get back is some emotional tripe about how they are people too and they have “human rights”. I get treated like a racist, anti-human rights nut case as soon as I suggest it’s wrong to think differently than them.

This is not an emotional issue, this is a moral (enforce laws) and financial (allowing it hurts us financially)issue.

Sep 6, 2008 - 5:55 pm 36. john from cinncinati:

everyone is an immigrant and even the native americans are from somewhere else, so who gets to keep those they find objectionable,or not good enough out? KIll them all and let god sort them out. what nativist drivel. mr. navarette has one thing right and that is there has to be a more sane dialogue. the immigrant issue is just a rehash of what has been going on in this country since it first began. only the names of the immigrants have changed. those that can’t compete get out of the way. didn’t the robber barons of the 19th century do this?

Sep 6, 2008 - 6:35 pm 37. Jim Stutts:

john from cinncinati:

“what nativist drivel.”

The mating cry of the liberal.

Sep 6, 2008 - 7:42 pm 38. Ken Hahn:

As normal Ruben conceals his purpose in reasonable sounding prose. He wants the Right to admit to a deep seated prejudice and the Left to admit to a tactical error. Then the Left can claim the moral high ground and all of us “haters” on the Right will be marginalized. The Left has lied, not only about controlling the border, but also about their contempt for people who don’t want race to be used to judge anything.

Ruben, the Democrats and the entire Left need an ongoing discussion of race that never ends. Without hugh majorities of votes among racial minorities, the Democrats would be a footnote in American politics. Unless they can convince Blacks, Hispanics and others that it is more important to vote their groups’ interest instead of their individual interest the Left is doomed. But the Democrats know that they can buy off the “leaders” of those groups and they know that the members of Ruben’s profession will carefully avoid reporting that anyone other than a Democrat might be good for individuals of all races.

Ruben writes interesting propaganda, but it is propaganda nonetheless.

Sep 6, 2008 - 8:59 pm 39. penny:

“Those on the Right should just admit that there is an element in their ranks that is anti-foreigner and wants to end not just illegal immigration but the legal kind too.”

Ruben, if that attitude exists on the right it is certainly not mainstream nor is it being proposed by any conservative with stature or influence and you know it. You’re being ridiculous and disingenuous.

Rod, if squatters set up tents on your yard, liked the landscaping and decided to stay I take it that evicting them wouldn’t be an option for you. For the rest of us it would. I have a right to secure my property. So do nations. Mexico or France would throw me out if I decided to relocate there without an invitation and a vetting process. The American frontier ended a century and a half ago. The legal immigrants you refer to were invited here when American manufacturing need bodies and our population was much smaller. We are a mature country now. There is no country in the world that would put up with millions from a bordering country squatting at will. Most Mexicans a nice people, but, you are wrong in saying they have “better “American Family Values” than most American families”. That’s simply not true. They have the highest high school drop out rate nationally. It appears to not improve over generations as a study in New Mexico examined four generations with those results. They have a high incidence of out of wedlock births and there is plenty of pathology with their teenage males with gangs and drugs.

I’m sorry Mexico is a mess, Mexicans deserve better. I feel bad about dysfunctional families in my neighborhood too, but, I’m certainly not going to share my house with them or raise their kids because dad won’t pay his bills. It’s not my responsibility.

Sovereign nations have a right to secure borders, to know who is in their country and to chose the skill set of immigrants as needed. Your emotional drivel is immature and fact challenged.

Sep 6, 2008 - 10:03 pm 40. Tony USA:

Let’s get serious. All our borders need to be secured. The gates are open and the enemy is coming in freely. There are those who not only become criminals by entering in illegally but many who are already criminals and start committing crimes in our country including murder. The worst of these are the enemies of this country who are entrenched already as citizens and even worse in political positions of power who are at the head of this charge. They are not identified by race for they are of many colors. They are socialist marxists. They have passed laws to provide many “freebies” to illegal immigrants which in turn entices all the more to cross the border to come and get them. They themselves become entrenched with babies becoming citizens by being born here. What a voting block and all we have to do is give them the ability to vote even though they are not citizens. As you know overtly or covertly they have been trying to do this. “Put us into power and we will give you more! The more voted in the more “change” you will see but who cares if you don’t like it because you’re bitter and they know better. In their eyes just as Barack’s this capitist country of liberty must come down and he is “the one” you’ve been “waiting for” to do it. This has nothing to do with the race card being played but it’s all about a revolution right underneath your noses. Don’t fall for the marxist propoganda. You believe in the liberty of this nation founded by God, follow Him in truth and in spirit and elect men with wisdom and understanding of this country’s founding principles. They will set themselves to guard not only them but also against those from without and from within who seek to destroy them. Without God we have no strength to resist and without God no men shall rise up to do so.

Sep 6, 2008 - 10:15 pm 41. Gozer the Carpathian:

I’ve brought my wife from Australia over and we hope to bring her mom here too. That’s it. We’re going through the LONG, SLOW, EXPENSIVE, and TEDIOUS process of legally doing all of this.

Why am I being punished for doing things the right way when millions just come into the country and stay here like it’s their right?

The legal way is too much a pain in the arse and wallet. The illegal way is far to easy and heck is almost rewarded and protected!

Sep 6, 2008 - 10:23 pm 42. arturo fernandez:

Ruben, I hope you’re just trying to placate anti-illegal-immigrant fanatics, but let me tell you, it will not work: their viciousness is uncompromising. Don’t waste your time.

Sep 7, 2008 - 12:20 am 43. AL:

The economic reality is that the only sure-bet and speedy way from housing crisis (and consequent crisis of finance system) is to begin granting green cards to hard-working illegal emigrants. They will immediately start to get mortgages and buy houses, and big SUVs for that matter.

This is unavoidable. Rep’s know it very well. The only thing remaining to demand is tough policy against illegal-alien criminals and wellfairers.

Sep 7, 2008 - 2:54 am 44. Gene:

Ruben -

Ah yes, we all need to listen and be respectful of others’ thoughts on the illegal immigration debate.
An understandable sentiment, especially if you feel you are being attacked.

But consider some of your thoughts in a recent piece:
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/getting-illegal-immigrants-to-self-deport/

You say:

1. Want to secure the U.S.-Mexican border? Some idiot in Congress will propose a 2,000-mile fence that would only make it harder for the undocumented who are already in the United States to go home.

2. Worried that U.S. authorities can’t round up and deport 12 million illegal immigrants… ? The answer, some say, is to create an environment so hostile and so unwelcoming — by doing things like cracking down on employers — that illegal immigrants pack up and leave on their own…
Still, the idea, while laughably impractical, is just simple and pain-free enough to appeal to many Americans.

Hmmm, let’s see. Only an idiot would think that building a fence between the US and Mexico could help address the problem; and the idea that drying up jobs – the reason that the vast majority of illegals come and stay in this country – as another element in addressing the problem is laughably impractical.

So Ruben, do you think you are being fair to those you don’t agree with? Especially considering that, in this piece, you don’t put forward even one suggestion as to how to handle the problems of illegal immigration.

You don’t bother to show why, for instance, a national approach to drying up jobs will have no effect and is laughably impractical. Apparently the idea is so ludicrous that it need not be engaged in honest debate… just ridicule.

You offer only mockery for those that have put forward ideas you don’t agree with, and you are shocked, shocked to find that some might think you are pro-illegal immigration???

Sep 7, 2008 - 8:42 am 45. Dr. Dean:

Let’s make one thing perfectly crystal clear: We are NOT a “nation of immigrants”. We are Americans. Period. The vast majority of us were born here. There are many great Americans who immigrated here and became, or are working on becoming, Americans. But we could not be less “a nation of immigrants”. Get over that pathetic liberal trope and come into the real world of the 21st century.

American citizens have the basic human right of self-determination as a nation of people. Illegal immigrants violate that right as do those who support them.

Sep 7, 2008 - 2:10 pm 46. msyb:

http://www.pe.com/localnews/opinion/localviews/stories/PE_OpEd_Opinion_D_op_0217_bessette_loc.215c168.html

“… Congress and the president must address the supply shortage in legal work status; otherwise the demand of both American employers and foreign individuals will continue to foster a black market in labor, along with all the other crimes that accompany that market (e.g., identity theft and tax evasion).”

Anything that does not address this aspect of the problem is doomed to failure.

Sep 7, 2008 - 3:29 pm 47. Johnnie:

People get the idea you support illegal immigration because you support amnesty, which is rewarding the act you allegedly do not support.

Sep 7, 2008 - 5:53 pm 48. Javelin:

If Mr Navarette wants to back away from previous pro illegal positions, I see that as progress. There is room for compromise as long as people are willing to enforce the laws. If the laws were strictly enforced, amnesty is no piece of cake since they have to leave the USA then re-apply later.

As far as enforcing the borders, even though McCain is pro Mexico, the Repubs would do a much better job than the Dems. After all, Obama said there is no such thing as an illegal person.

Sep 7, 2008 - 10:00 pm 49. Phineas Worthington:

Socialism and multiculturalism are the fundamental problems, not immigration.

Sep 8, 2008 - 5:22 am 50. memomachine:

Hmmmm.

As a first generation immigrant born in South Korea and naturalized in the 1970’s I must say that I find it greatly helpful to be told “Those on the Right should just admit that there is an element in their ranks that is anti-foreigner and wants to end not just illegal immigration but the legal kind too.”.

Up until now I had no idea that I was “anti-foreigner”. I’d always thought I was against illegal immigration because of a multitude of issues.

Evidently being a columnist on PJM is no bar to being total ass.

Sep 9, 2008 - 9:41 am 51. dlc:

Ruben, I usually enjoy your insights, but I have to say that your comment about those on the right are anti-foreigner is dead wrong and insulting. I do not think it is right that illegal immigrants are taken the place of others who want to come here illegally. Do you realize that the illegal immigrants are taking the place of those who might be living in a war zone in Africa? Or maybe living in a totalitarian country such as China? It morally wrong to give preference to illegals from Mexico just because they are on our border.

Sep 10, 2008 - 10:03 pm 52. Rod:

I remain shocked at the emotional reaction people exhibit in regards to immigration.

1) It’s illegal, so enforce the law
2) They’re taking our jobs
3) They’re spending our money

It’s also interesting that anyone such as myself that accepts the practical reality of the situation, is immediately branded a liberal lefty!

I’m a conservative and have been my entire life. I am pro-business. I beleive in the importance of hard work and personal responsibility. I beleive that each man is owed respect for the work he does on our behalf, regardless of that work.

We are short on labor. Period. So is much of the west. Our unemployment has been near the theoretical minimum for an economy of our size for a long time, even with immigrant labor performing most of America’s “invisible” jobs.

How many Amercans are lining up to pick lettuce and strawberries in California? How many of us are lining up to be maids in our nations hotels. What jobs, exactly, are these immigrants doing that someone posting here feels deprived of?

At the same time, how many of us take for granted the affordable year-round produce we have access to? How many enjoy watching the Sunday game while Manual (Labor that is) is out mowing the lawn?

Would people posting here export the millions of immigrant laborers? Are they prepared to suffer the economic consequences that will immediate results?

The fact is, we all enjoy the benefits of the services being provided by immigrant labor, we simply don’t want to let “those people” join the club.

English? Required. Sponsoring employer? Required. Taxes? Required. Tolerance and respect for your fellow man and the ideals that make America great? Required.

I agree with folks that illegal immigration is defacto illegal (duh). We, however, make the laws and can change them as we see fit. Forgiving past sins with a warning to follow the law from this point forward? Hmmm… I’m guessing everyone here has had the benefit of this form of forgiveness… or have ALL of you always received that ticket when you know you were speeding? Remember, it’s the law.

Sep 10, 2008 - 10:09 pm 53. Jim Stutts:

Rod:

“I remain shocked at the emotional reaction people exhibit in regards to immigration.”

Americans tend to like their country. They tend not to be expected to pay to support people who are stealing from them. Tend not to like criminal aliens forgiven of identity theft and fraud. They tend not to like businesses who expect me to pay for their profit margin. Tend not to like to see people killed by those who have no legal place here. They tend no to see a serious “War on Terror” when the 9/11 attack was perpetrated by ILLEGAL ALIENS (visa over-stayers). They tend to place the interests of their own country over their personal bottom line. They tend to really detest those who do. Americans – especially Conservatives – are NATIONALISTS.

We don’t have a shortage of workers in this country. We have a shortage of workers able to abuse the “welfare” and system to the extent an illegal can so they can pocket that lower paycheck. A surplus of “cheap” (to the employer, at least) labor reduces the push to automation, reducing our productivity.

In short, you really don’t understand “conservatism”, do you? What do you think that word means? What do you think we’re trying to conserve against the Balkanists who see nothing wrong with “press 2 for English”?

Oh, and I mow my own damn lawn. I don’t hire illegals. I’m not a criminal.

Sep 11, 2008 - 10:24 am 54. A Clay:

Mr. Navarrette just can’t drop the false assumption that if you are critical of current immigration policy, you are anti-foreigner. I have corresponded with him about this, but he either has forgotten or refuses to change his position because it allows him to create a false equivalence between the two sides. The most vehement critics I know of current immigration policy are LEGAL immigrants, particularly those who came over after WWII. They were required to have sponsors who promised to repay the government for any public services uses. Imagine if we enforced that requirement today. As a former FSO, I saw the legal immigration machine up close – it isn’t pretty and is rife with fraud and abuse. US immigration policy, towards both legal and illegal immigrants, needs a major overhaul. Stating so doesn’t make one anti-foreigner. Mr. Navarrette will not be trusted as the honest broker he so desperately wants to become until he plays fair.

Sep 11, 2008 - 1:35 pm 55. Rod:

Jim: I am a free-market conservative, not a social or nationalist conservative. Remember us, the business side of the coalition we call “conservative?”

I don’t knowingly hire illegals either. Outside my family, I have absolutely idea whether anyone I see on the streets is legal or is guilty of a crime of any sort. That would include you and everybody else out there.

Do you do no business with spanish speaking peoples of any kind? Truely? Do you check their citizenship papers? How can you be so that you do no business with illegals?

Sep 11, 2008 - 11:44 pm 56. Jim Stutts:

Rod:

“Jim: I am a free-market conservative, not a social or nationalist conservative. Remember us, the business side of the coalition we call “conservative?””

A “conservative” seeks to “conserve” something. If you do not see that commerce must not be at the expense of our security as a nation, you aren’t a “conservative”. When your profit margin is at my and every other citizen’s expense, that crosses a line. Business is FORCING us to subsidize their labor. That isn’t the free market. Those businesses aren’t having to compete fairly with other businesses for labor.

“Do you do no business with spanish speaking peoples of any kind? Truely? Do you check their citizenship papers? How can you be so that you do no business with illegals?”

I don’t do business with obvious illegal aliens. It’s not all that hard to tell. I certainly don’t hire them myself.

Sep 12, 2008 - 6:33 am 57. Rod:

Jim:

“I don’t do business with obvious illegal aliens. It’s not all that hard to tell.”

Would you mind sharing with me how I can identify an illegal alien? Though I grew up in border states and have been living comfortably in Southern California since the ’80s, I am now beginning to realise I may be surrounded by the enemy who seek to ruin me and my beloved country. I need to know how to spot them!

I guess maybe I am a conservative after all. Here are some of the American ideals I’m trying to conserve:

This 1776 sentiment seems worth conserving: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

By 1790 we still equated “equal men” with “white” but we neverthess embraced immigration: “any alien, being a free white person who shall have resided within the limits of the United States for a term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof.”

We were fighting our most bloody war over, amongst other things, that “white” word in 1863: “Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.”

By 1883 our immigrant traditions were celebrated in bronze: “Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

See, I do in fact seek to conserve, and I think I’ve picked some good things to focus my efforts on. I’m wondering what others wish to conserve in regards to immigration? Hopefully it’s not just the word “white” from The National Immigration Act of 1790.

Sep 12, 2008 - 10:37 pm 58. Jim Stutts:

“Would you mind sharing with me how I can identify an illegal alien? Though I grew up in border states and have been living comfortably in Southern California since the ’80s, I am now beginning to realise I may be surrounded by the enemy who seek to ruin me and my beloved country. I need to know how to spot them!”

I’ve lived in border states. I currently do not. The obvious illegals are the Indians from southern Mexico here VERY FAR from the border and recent arrivals.

“This 1776 sentiment seems worth conserving: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.””

Our Founders were clear they created our country for their posterity, not for the whole world. That was a general statement of principals. It is in no way a statement that everyone in the world had a right to our country.

“By 1883 our immigrant traditions were celebrated in bronze: “Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!””

We had quite strict immigration control during the last major wave. The Statue of Liberty was a gift from France expressing our shared history regarding our own liberty, not “immigration”. The “New Colossus” poem was attached to it in the 1900s. More to the point, the Founders would be disgusted at the idea of business “conservatives” forcing this on your fellow citizens and making us pay for it. Absolutely disgusted.

The Statue of Liberty had NOTHING to do with immigration. We have only as much an “immigrant tradition” as every other country. We are not a “nation of immigrants”.

If the Founders were as open as you suggest, why the restriction on the birthplace of a President? Why the early restrictions on alien – immigrant – ownership of property?

“See, I do in fact seek to conserve, and I think I’ve picked some good things to focus my efforts on. I’m wondering what others wish to conserve in regards to immigration? Hopefully it’s not just the word “white” from The National Immigration Act of 1790.”

Ah, there it is. Trying to assume a racial element your opponents. You can take that and bury it with your distorted view of our Revolution. Disgusting and, frankly, telling of your political persuasion. Profit margin vs lives, culture, and billions stolen from your fellow citizens. Disgusting.

Sep 13, 2008 - 10:53 pm 59. Spanish:

i think all illegal immigrants should be deported!!!! i am a hispanic and it looks bad on me.I dont understand why people cant still be proud to be a Mexican American or any kind of American and still be spanish and proud of there race and be against illiegal immigration? I am and im tired of being looked down on because of Illiegal Immigrants. LEts stand up together ! Lets no have the people who represent us talk for us all!!!

http://dontspeakforme.org

email me with questions

spanish4america@yahoo.com

Sep 14, 2008 - 1:06 am 60. Rod:

“The obvious illegals are the Indians from southern Mexico here VERY FAR from the border and recent arrivals” Ha! You can tell by just lookin’ at ‘dem funny lookin’ little buggers!

You say you seek to conserve, but are selecting what you conserve and choosing your arguments to serve your fears, sir.

“That was a general statement of principles.” A brash individual might say the Enlightenment produced more than a few “general statements of principles.” Indeed, the very principles for which our founders risked their lives and families so men could live in peace and seek happiness free of tyranny in the first nation founded on the concept of rights. Amazing.

The immigration act of 1790 was the one penned by our founders. It said 2 years residency. Unfortunately, the grand “general principles” on which we were founded were lost in waves of xenophobia such as you promote.

Seriously, you can’t bring yourself to see any relationship between the location of the Statue of Liberty and Ellis Island? No relationship between plaque being placed on the statue in 1903 and Ellis Island seeing it’s maximum immigration peak around the same time? Have you tried squinting really hard?

Not a nation of immigrants? The Federal Park Service estimates that 100 million Americans can trace their ancestry through Ellis Island alone. Thats a 100 with six zero’s behind it.

You choose to ignore the lax requirements for the House of Representatives and focus on one job in a nation of millions, the Presidency. Illegals for President!

I think I’m done here. I am reminded again that the great and noble men of “general principles” are gone, replaced by legions of small men and full of fear and hatred. Alas, tis saddening.

Buenes tardes, Senior!

P.S. You might want to read a bit of Locke, Voltaire, Hobbes, and Mason to get a better grasp on the founding of America. You might encounter another little affair of “general principle” called the French revolution along the way. With luck, you might even come to understand the republican politics surrounding the Statue of Liberty. So sad.

Sep 14, 2008 - 1:43 am 61. Jim Stutts:

Rod:

“You say you seek to conserve, but are selecting what you conserve and choosing your arguments to serve your fears, sir.”

I am seeking to preserve my country, sir.

“The immigration act of 1790 was the one penned by our founders. It said 2 years residency. Unfortunately, the grand “general principles” on which we were founded were lost in waves of xenophobia such as you promote.”

Opening wide the gates to anyone with no regard for the good of the country is not how our past great immigration waves was conducted.

“Seriously, you can’t bring yourself to see any relationship between the location of the Statue of Liberty and Ellis Island? No relationship between plaque being placed on the statue in 1903 and Ellis Island seeing it’s maximum immigration peak around the same time? Have you tried squinting really hard?”

The association of which you speak came much later because so many immigrants saw the Statue first. Immigration at Ellis was strict and that last wave was followed by a moratorium for a reason. What you promote is the Balkanization of the country.

“Not a nation of immigrants? The Federal Park Service estimates that 100 million Americans can trace their ancestry through Ellis Island alone. Thats a 100 with six zero’s behind it.”

No more a “nation of immigrants” than any other nation.

“I think I’m done here. I am reminded again that the great and noble men of “general principles” are gone, replaced by legions of small men and full of fear and hatred. Alas, tis saddening.”

When the country is bankrupt and has become a corrupt “republic” like Mexico, we will know who to thank, sir. We have nothing culturally in common with them, yet our immigration policy is specifically slanted (since 1965) to prefer people from the 3rd world who will be welfare clients.

“P.S. You might want to read a bit of Locke, Voltaire, Hobbes, and Mason to get a better grasp on the founding of America. You might encounter another little affair of “general principle” called the French revolution along the way. With luck, you might even come to understand the republican politics surrounding the Statue of Liberty. So sad.”

You might want to understand the difference between principles and the interests of a sovereign power. Frankly, they’d have quite a lot to say about anyone who wanted to force his fellow citizens to change their country and pay for the privilege. They would call it tyranny, sir. When we become a “democracy” and have those 50 million more people from Marxist southern Mexico and associated others from less nice places voting in our elections, even your narrow business focus will take a hit – they will vote themselves YOUR money and property.

Sep 14, 2008 - 9:38 am 62. Jim Stutts:

Spanish:

“i think all illegal immigrants should be deported!!!! i am a hispanic and it looks bad on me.I dont understand why people cant still be proud to be a Mexican American or any kind of American and still be spanish and proud of there race and be against illiegal immigration?”

That’s because you’re a good American. Those against you are not.

Sep 14, 2008 - 9:40 am

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: