Unfortunately, to eliminate the citizenship of “anchor babies” would require a constitutional amendment.

However, the Constitution does not mandate that we extend either citizenship or residency that that baby’s next-of-kin.

Mind you, I’m not necessarily advocating one or the other, just pointing out what’s hard vs what might as well be impossible.

What you just said is that you believe that the citizens of a country have no right to write a law that that limits who enters their country.

I hope you do not claim to be any kind of democrat.

You’re a pedant. All men are equal. However, all men are not citizens of a given country. Therefore, all men are not due the legal protections of said country. Just because you’re human and living in Uzbekistan, in no way gives you US coverage on a legal basis. It’s called being a resident.

We have decided for a number of reasons which you simply do not like, that we as a country want to limit the influx of immigrants. So laws and regulations were set in place to do this.

You simply don’t like the concept and my guess is, no matter the rationale proposed, you would reject it as not being an umbrella for the mythical ALL you refer to.

You actually believe ALL people on this planet have some unstated “right” to come here? Even those whose primary goal in life is the destruction of our society? If not them, then your ALL fails and we now simply seek the proper limits. If them as well, I have to question your rationality as being self-destructive and must inform you that I am in no way obligated to accompany you on that path, your assertions notwithstanding.

However, people should realize that there’s very little chance the solid wall that many people insist on will be built on the Texas border. The currently authorized segments of real and virtual fence will be built, but there won’t be a solid wall. A wall would have to be built well north of the river, and that would cede back too much territory to Mexico.

Drivers’ licenses are – right now – defacto ID’s. Also, the Dept of Homeland Security should ‘encourage’ the states to adopt the kind of license that cannot be copied. Such materials exist. However, they are German made. There is a strong ‘laminate’ lobby in the US of A.

Nobody, but nobody EVER frickin’ mentions that illegal immigration was NOT a problem from the period of WWII through the end of the 1960’s. (It wasn’t a problem earlier than that either, btw.)

Why? It was the period of the long vilified by the proto-lefties of the period, and the PC-istas of the current period, Bracero Program. (Which was often justly vilified for it’s excesses during the Chavez period of the 1960’s, but the damn thing worked in the main, and should have been repaired, not ended.)
Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bracero_Program

It was started during the early 40’s (from earlier antecedants) because we needed the inexpensive farm labor that the Mexican government was willing to provide, to do the jobs the Mexican migrant laborers were eager to do. As legal, card-carrying temporary immigrants.

So …what happened? Well, a certain Democrat administration and Congress in 1964 decided to throw the bill out …because of the typical problems you have arise when greed causes individuals to cheat, basically. Some employers were systematically stiffing the workers.

The Dem’ admin’s solution? Throw the baby out with the bath water. (Rather than arrest or fine the few assholes who were gaming the system, and making it right with the victims.)

The eventual outcome? The 1965 TED KENNEDY Immigration bill, which threw open the borders. (Yeah *that* Ted Kennedy!)

And which led directly to the 1980’s (Reagan, sadly enough) amnesty, which – as we now SHOULD know solved absolutely nothing, and made matters even worse, by causing cheaters of the US Immigration laws to hope for a repeat – led to the current, even worse illigal immigration mess …and the purely idiotic, never-read-a-history book current proposals to try the same damn 1980’s non-solution thing again.

Which leads one to ponder the old saw about the definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over, and expecting the results to be different.

Roger’s moronical “solution” didn’t work when we did it before (the differing details don’t mean squat, people), and it won’t work this time. It solves nothing, because it fricking repeats the Grand Mistake of the previous “solution”.

Which mistake is, you ask? Simple.

We didn’t respect our own immigration laws, and made an “an exception for exceptional circumstance” to our laws.

We put people who broke the law in front of people who’d been legally working through the system, trying to legally immigrant for years in some cases …and we expected no one to figure out the implication of that. And even unschooled rural Mexican peasants aren’t that frickin’ stupid.

And now, insanely enough, we’re being asked to do the 1980’s amnesty again …only this time we’re asked to expect a different result.

Roger? – This is an idiotic proposal. Period.

But – as another old saw goes – if you don’t read history, you’re doomed to repeat it. And sometimes I wonder if people commenting on these problem would recognize a history book if it bit them in the butt.

You wrote: “This country is not a political theory experiment in the ideal form of government for Everyman.” And you wrote: “America is not an IDEA.” Is that your way of trying to prove that America was NOT founded on the notion that all men are created equal? If so, I think you’ve failed. You cannot simply wish the Declaration of Independence out of existence.

The only support you’ve offered for the notion that government should have the power to limit immigration is the claim that all other governments are doing the same. But even if that is true, it certainly doesn’t prove that it is proper. At one time, the majority of governments — the VAST majority of governments — consisted of a single ruler (and an associated clique) who possessed virtually unlimited power over rightless subjects. I assume you would agree that simply because every other government was doing it didn’t make this the proper way to govern.

America was indeed the first nation founded on the explicit acknowledgment that ALL men are created equal and ALL possess the same rights. The desire now to close our borders is a repudiation of that principle — and it is particularly sad to see it being repudiated by a political movement that claims to believe in freedom and limited government.

“The comment from the Midwest (Oligoncella) seems simplistic to me.”

Simplistic how? All I did was give my observations about what is happening. Observations — not conjecture.

“…all over the Midwest (and the world) at lower prices because the fruit and vegetable pickers work for relatively wages.”

Your point being that it’s OK because it makes money for the hirers of the illegals? Not impressive or convincing.

“Also her answer about the long line for immigration was limited.”

His. And limited how? We encourage illegal immigration by allowing it, al la Roger, not by our system, which is being used by many people as we write this. People more than willing to wait because it is the legal thing to do and they have the morals to abide.

The legal immigrants have the moral high ground — over both the illegals and the hirers of such.

Michael Smith — You seem to see this country as more of an abstract idea, rather than a group of people with common heritage, along with others of differing heritage that wish to join in. CULTURE MATTERS! This country is not a political theory experiment in the ideal form of government for Everyman. It is a real country built by individuals, families and communities with common cultural, linguistic, religious, historical backgrounds. Along with outsiders and newcomers, welcomed into the melting pot with their unique flavors, the way a new spice is welcomed into a pot of stew.

America is not an IDEA. Is is, if you will, an extended family. And as with every other country and family in the world, it disciminates by conferring more benefits and rights to members than to non-members, and to deciding which non-members can join (naturalize) based on the narrow view that the newcomers will further the short- and long-term interests of the nation itself.