<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: War and Immigration</title>
	<atom:link href="http://pajamasmedia.com/victordavishanson/war_and_immigration/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://pajamasmedia.com/victordavishanson/war_and_immigration/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 27 Nov 2009 05:20:37 -0800</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Jeffrey Neher</title>
		<link>http://pajamasmedia.com/victordavishanson/war_and_immigration/comment-page-1/#comment-583</link>
		<dc:creator>Jeffrey Neher</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 05 Nov 2006 01:06:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pajamasmedia.com/victordavishanson/2006/10/30/war-and-immigration/#comment-583</guid>
		<description>If the GOP loses control of Congress next week, the conventional wisdom of why will be almost as bad as the result itself.  No one, this side of OBL, can be comfortable with a Speaker Pelosi, this is an unassailable fact.  But lost in the translation will be the real reasons the GOP lost.  Before examining that, I in no way think this is a foregone conclusion.  But I at least have to acknowledge the possibility.  If the dems gain control, we will hear several reasons for that.  The war in Iraq, the war in Iraq, the war in Iraq, and people want Bush investigated and impeached.  Never mind the dem trunout will be at record lows, as will probably be the GOP turnout, this will be the CW coming from the dems/media.  The truth couldn&#039;t be any further from that nor any plainer.  If the GOP loses, it will first of all be the fault of the elected repubs for their lack of performance and the low turnout generated by this poor performance.  The real and perceived problems GOP voters had with their party are as follows: Illegal Immigration, the budget, and not being aggresive enough to gain victory in Iraq.  That&#039;s it in a nut-shell.  The lack of leadership in understanding where the people were on immigration, the anger over the expansion of government, and the PC mind-set in the war on terror.  If the GOP wins, there is also the possibility they will misinterpret their victory.  Hopefully this won&#039;t be the case. If they win it won&#039;t be an affirmation of their policies on these three issues but rather a rebuke of the alternative...the dems.  God help us all.........
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If the GOP loses control of Congress next week, the conventional wisdom of why will be almost as bad as the result itself.  No one, this side of OBL, can be comfortable with a Speaker Pelosi, this is an unassailable fact.  But lost in the translation will be the real reasons the GOP lost.  Before examining that, I in no way think this is a foregone conclusion.  But I at least have to acknowledge the possibility.  If the dems gain control, we will hear several reasons for that.  The war in Iraq, the war in Iraq, the war in Iraq, and people want Bush investigated and impeached.  Never mind the dem trunout will be at record lows, as will probably be the GOP turnout, this will be the CW coming from the dems/media.  The truth couldn&#8217;t be any further from that nor any plainer.  If the GOP loses, it will first of all be the fault of the elected repubs for their lack of performance and the low turnout generated by this poor performance.  The real and perceived problems GOP voters had with their party are as follows: Illegal Immigration, the budget, and not being aggresive enough to gain victory in Iraq.  That&#8217;s it in a nut-shell.  The lack of leadership in understanding where the people were on immigration, the anger over the expansion of government, and the PC mind-set in the war on terror.  If the GOP wins, there is also the possibility they will misinterpret their victory.  Hopefully this won&#8217;t be the case. If they win it won&#8217;t be an affirmation of their policies on these three issues but rather a rebuke of the alternative&#8230;the dems.  God help us all&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: gs</title>
		<link>http://pajamasmedia.com/victordavishanson/war_and_immigration/comment-page-1/#comment-582</link>
		<dc:creator>gs</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 04 Nov 2006 02:58:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pajamasmedia.com/victordavishanson/2006/10/30/war-and-immigration/#comment-582</guid>
		<description>Reasonable people can disagree about the appropriate level of legal immigration.  I favor a high level of legal immigration together with immediate drastic steps to stop the illegal influx.  The time to decide on policies for the illegals already in the country is after new incursions are stopped.

Both political parties have tolerated flagrant illegal immigration, and they have continued to do so during this wartime.  I suspect that most of their reasons would not bear scrutiny in the light of day.  IMO the fundamental issue about immigration is the government&#039;s inability/unwillingness to fulfill one of its basic responsibilities (guarding the nation&#039;s borders).  Ultimately the illegals are secondary; this is about &lt;i&gt;us&lt;/i&gt;.

I hope that future candidates who run on the border-enforcement issue will also call for reform of the dysfunctional legal immigration system.  That would be both good politics and common decency.  Good politics, because it would inoculate against charges of bigotry and mean-spiritedness.  Common decency, because people who ask to join America are paying us a compliment; they deserve to be treated with respect, courtesy and responsiveness whether or not we grant their request.

IMO the way the government treats legal immigrants is how, left to its own devices, it would treat us citizens.  Eternal vigilance...

</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Reasonable people can disagree about the appropriate level of legal immigration.  I favor a high level of legal immigration together with immediate drastic steps to stop the illegal influx.  The time to decide on policies for the illegals already in the country is after new incursions are stopped.</p>
<p>Both political parties have tolerated flagrant illegal immigration, and they have continued to do so during this wartime.  I suspect that most of their reasons would not bear scrutiny in the light of day.  IMO the fundamental issue about immigration is the government&#8217;s inability/unwillingness to fulfill one of its basic responsibilities (guarding the nation&#8217;s borders).  Ultimately the illegals are secondary; this is about <i>us</i>.</p>
<p>I hope that future candidates who run on the border-enforcement issue will also call for reform of the dysfunctional legal immigration system.  That would be both good politics and common decency.  Good politics, because it would inoculate against charges of bigotry and mean-spiritedness.  Common decency, because people who ask to join America are paying us a compliment; they deserve to be treated with respect, courtesy and responsiveness whether or not we grant their request.</p>
<p>IMO the way the government treats legal immigrants is how, left to its own devices, it would treat us citizens.  Eternal vigilance&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chip</title>
		<link>http://pajamasmedia.com/victordavishanson/war_and_immigration/comment-page-1/#comment-581</link>
		<dc:creator>Chip</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 02 Nov 2006 03:49:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pajamasmedia.com/victordavishanson/2006/10/30/war-and-immigration/#comment-581</guid>
		<description>If Iraq is a quagmire what the heck is South Korea?  I&#039;m amazed at the number of foreign commitments we have overseas which have dragged on for years into decades, but the most recent and difficult venture is where the politics are and therefore the bone of contention.

The only real option for &quot;redeployment&quot; would be the Kurdish regions.  There the U.S. could protect the closest thing we have to an ally in Iraq, keep a close eye on the unfolding sectarian strife, and prevent an Iranian takeover.

The real mistake was not realizing Iran&#039;s Shia, Syria&#039;s Baathists, and Saudi Arabia&#039;s Takfiri Wahhabis, along with jihadis from all over the world, would flow into Iraq the second our troops took a water break.  It is possible more troops would have helped, but only if their intent was to punish the neighboring states acting as conduits for foreign intervention intent on preventing democracy.

Now Iran has the initiative and influence in Iraq through Al Sadr.  Not bombing him in Najaf saved short-term grief for the risk of long-term failure.  But unlike Ralph Peters, I think it&#039;s too late to kill him.  Only Maliki could take action, and he probably won&#039;t.

Iraq was drawn on a map by the British seemingly in an effort to create internal strife.  Given that fact the progress thus far is about what was to be expected.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If Iraq is a quagmire what the heck is South Korea?  I&#8217;m amazed at the number of foreign commitments we have overseas which have dragged on for years into decades, but the most recent and difficult venture is where the politics are and therefore the bone of contention.</p>
<p>The only real option for &#8220;redeployment&#8221; would be the Kurdish regions.  There the U.S. could protect the closest thing we have to an ally in Iraq, keep a close eye on the unfolding sectarian strife, and prevent an Iranian takeover.</p>
<p>The real mistake was not realizing Iran&#8217;s Shia, Syria&#8217;s Baathists, and Saudi Arabia&#8217;s Takfiri Wahhabis, along with jihadis from all over the world, would flow into Iraq the second our troops took a water break.  It is possible more troops would have helped, but only if their intent was to punish the neighboring states acting as conduits for foreign intervention intent on preventing democracy.</p>
<p>Now Iran has the initiative and influence in Iraq through Al Sadr.  Not bombing him in Najaf saved short-term grief for the risk of long-term failure.  But unlike Ralph Peters, I think it&#8217;s too late to kill him.  Only Maliki could take action, and he probably won&#8217;t.</p>
<p>Iraq was drawn on a map by the British seemingly in an effort to create internal strife.  Given that fact the progress thus far is about what was to be expected.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: JohnD</title>
		<link>http://pajamasmedia.com/victordavishanson/war_and_immigration/comment-page-1/#comment-580</link>
		<dc:creator>JohnD</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 31 Oct 2006 18:02:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pajamasmedia.com/victordavishanson/2006/10/30/war-and-immigration/#comment-580</guid>
		<description>&quot;That was then, this is now&quot; implies that in the sweep of history men,politics, and warfare have visibly changed. Another opinion may add, that it is the technology which has evolved expodentially in proportion to those who run it. The Southern Europe and North African conflict preceeds the current &quot;Mid-East Crisis.&quot; Israeli&#039;s conflict is far older.No new arrow or internet has solved it so far.Fences, bombs, and negociations are also not new. Staying to the basics of responsive leadership, quick resolve, just cause, national inspiration, and acknowledged survival have worked so far. They grant some continuance to history which equates to another chance. These can not readily be digitized.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;That was then, this is now&#8221; implies that in the sweep of history men,politics, and warfare have visibly changed. Another opinion may add, that it is the technology which has evolved expodentially in proportion to those who run it. The Southern Europe and North African conflict preceeds the current &#8220;Mid-East Crisis.&#8221; Israeli&#8217;s conflict is far older.No new arrow or internet has solved it so far.Fences, bombs, and negociations are also not new. Staying to the basics of responsive leadership, quick resolve, just cause, national inspiration, and acknowledged survival have worked so far. They grant some continuance to history which equates to another chance. These can not readily be digitized.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Donald Singer</title>
		<link>http://pajamasmedia.com/victordavishanson/war_and_immigration/comment-page-1/#comment-579</link>
		<dc:creator>Donald Singer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 31 Oct 2006 16:45:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pajamasmedia.com/victordavishanson/2006/10/30/war-and-immigration/#comment-579</guid>
		<description>Professor Hanson,

As always, you have penned an excellent and thoughtful article on the current state of affairs.  I would note that the rightward movement you correctly see on the illegal immigration issue is a direct result of the public&#039;s growing realization that the problem has spiralled out of control and an enforcment-first policy is the only sane and reaonable option at present.

The mavens of multi-culturalism are wrong in their belief that the current crisis with illegal immigration is simply another fake issue ginned up by cynical and clever politicians to manipulate the electorate.  Rather it is a deeply troubling matter that resonates with ordinary Americans who believe the laws of our country should not be cast aside and ignored to please corporations on the make for cheap labor and to satisfy the utopian fantasies of multi-culturalists on the left.

Finally, those who are intellectually honest must acknowledge illegal immigration for what it is: a massive criminal enterprise aided and abetted by the Mexican government that constitutes a large-scale, full-throttle assault on the fundamental American principle of the rule of law.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Professor Hanson,</p>
<p>As always, you have penned an excellent and thoughtful article on the current state of affairs.  I would note that the rightward movement you correctly see on the illegal immigration issue is a direct result of the public&#8217;s growing realization that the problem has spiralled out of control and an enforcment-first policy is the only sane and reaonable option at present.</p>
<p>The mavens of multi-culturalism are wrong in their belief that the current crisis with illegal immigration is simply another fake issue ginned up by cynical and clever politicians to manipulate the electorate.  Rather it is a deeply troubling matter that resonates with ordinary Americans who believe the laws of our country should not be cast aside and ignored to please corporations on the make for cheap labor and to satisfy the utopian fantasies of multi-culturalists on the left.</p>
<p>Finally, those who are intellectually honest must acknowledge illegal immigration for what it is: a massive criminal enterprise aided and abetted by the Mexican government that constitutes a large-scale, full-throttle assault on the fundamental American principle of the rule of law.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Don H</title>
		<link>http://pajamasmedia.com/victordavishanson/war_and_immigration/comment-page-1/#comment-578</link>
		<dc:creator>Don H</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 31 Oct 2006 13:43:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pajamasmedia.com/victordavishanson/2006/10/30/war-and-immigration/#comment-578</guid>
		<description>Sharp insight into the relationship between Gulf War I and II.  I left the military in 1994 during the downsizing, and I attest to the fact that the fighters weren&#039;t looking ahead to smaller, lighter, more lethal forces.  The current unhappiness with Rumsfeld stems more, in my view, from his willingness to slay many sacred cows at the same time.  The war in Iraq is a convenient cover for those who can&#039;t argue the necessity for transformation.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Sharp insight into the relationship between Gulf War I and II.  I left the military in 1994 during the downsizing, and I attest to the fact that the fighters weren&#8217;t looking ahead to smaller, lighter, more lethal forces.  The current unhappiness with Rumsfeld stems more, in my view, from his willingness to slay many sacred cows at the same time.  The war in Iraq is a convenient cover for those who can&#8217;t argue the necessity for transformation.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mark P.</title>
		<link>http://pajamasmedia.com/victordavishanson/war_and_immigration/comment-page-1/#comment-577</link>
		<dc:creator>Mark P.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 31 Oct 2006 12:35:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pajamasmedia.com/victordavishanson/2006/10/30/war-and-immigration/#comment-577</guid>
		<description>I think the tendancy of the American public to lurch from support to opposition and back again, in this or any war, is the result of fair-weather patriotism.  It&#039;s easy to be on the winning side.  We feel good when our guys are on top.  The response is strictly emotional.  Remember the poll numbers for George Bush Sr. shortly after Gulf One?  Ninety percent in support!  A few months later he lost an election.

When things turn ugly, the mood of the nation swings in the other direction.  But is what&#039;s going on in Iraq today any worse than the last hours of Gulf One when the fleeing Iraqi army was caught and annihilated on the Highway of Death?  The carnage was horrific along that road.  The difference:  we were enjoying the emotional high from a quick and overwhelming victory then.  Today we face no good news, at least if you believe the media.  What we get, fair or not, is a constant litany of failure.  Let&#039;s face it, televised carnage appeals to our emotional side.  Underneath a picture of bleeding marines you don&#039;t get a crawl that reads, &quot;But in other news, power was restored to ten villages in Anbar Province, two hospitals and three schools were opened, safe water is being delievered to . . . &quot;

The media controls the mood of the nation.  The appeal is emotional.  Most people feel from the gut rather than think from the head.  And we&#039;re stuck with it.


</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think the tendancy of the American public to lurch from support to opposition and back again, in this or any war, is the result of fair-weather patriotism.  It&#8217;s easy to be on the winning side.  We feel good when our guys are on top.  The response is strictly emotional.  Remember the poll numbers for George Bush Sr. shortly after Gulf One?  Ninety percent in support!  A few months later he lost an election.</p>
<p>When things turn ugly, the mood of the nation swings in the other direction.  But is what&#8217;s going on in Iraq today any worse than the last hours of Gulf One when the fleeing Iraqi army was caught and annihilated on the Highway of Death?  The carnage was horrific along that road.  The difference:  we were enjoying the emotional high from a quick and overwhelming victory then.  Today we face no good news, at least if you believe the media.  What we get, fair or not, is a constant litany of failure.  Let&#8217;s face it, televised carnage appeals to our emotional side.  Underneath a picture of bleeding marines you don&#8217;t get a crawl that reads, &#8220;But in other news, power was restored to ten villages in Anbar Province, two hospitals and three schools were opened, safe water is being delievered to . . . &#8221;</p>
<p>The media controls the mood of the nation.  The appeal is emotional.  Most people feel from the gut rather than think from the head.  And we&#8217;re stuck with it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
