Truely a great man.

JAVOL!

First, you Canuckistanian moron, it’s “Jawohl”, and second, you’ve just Godwinized yourself. If you aren’t affected by the issue, you don’t GET an opinion. So just imagine that I’m showing that I can still draw the English longbow…

At least one “Teddy” got it.

this is one of those issues that i know *I* have an opinion on, but i just don’t understand what the “political” positions are.  what’s the stereotypical right/left view?  i’m curious to see where i stand in comparison ;) (and remember, i’m first generation on my mommy’s side).

“Well, that’s just racist...um nativist. I can’t believe someone could say something like that an hold office.”

“Who said it? No he didn’t that’s just right wing spin.”

That’s what I get when I offer this quote.  Funny huh?

As far as I can tell, the typical Red State position is that immigration is good because legal immigrants end up contributing more to the U.S. than native-born citizens.  Generally speaking legal immigrants are very patriotic, enthusiastic about the country, the process, they want to work, raise familes, etc.

But it has to be LEGAL immigration.  Because illegals, who already don’t give a shit about the law by definition, also don’t give a shit about the nation, the community or anything other than 1. escaping whatever it is they’re running from, or 2. making money to send home.

Illegals flood courts, jails and the health care system in immigration heavy states and place amazing financial burdens on the populace.  We need to allow legal immigration and clamp down on illegal immigration.

As far as I understand the left position...illegal immigrants are taking jobs that no one in America wants.  If we didn’t turn a blind eye, our lower-tier service economy would collapse.  Also, it’s a violation of basic civil rights to discriminate based on ethnicity.  Furthermore it’s financially and physically impossible to seal the border to the south.  Lastly, most proponents of clamping down on current laws (or making new ones) are racists at heart.

If you are a left-leaning person who disagrees with controlling illegal immigration, please, by all means, correct me if I am wrong.  Obviously I have a much better grasp on my own “side’s” position.

Basically I’m with Teddy.  You cannot proclaim allegiance to La Raza, REAL allegiance mind you, I am not referring to being proud of your heritage...you can’t claim allegiance to Mexico and still call yourself a patriotic American.  It’s one thing to be proud to be __fill-in-the-blank__, it’s quite another to raise the Mexican flag and attack the “gringo” way of life and talk about taking back the Southwest or being a “nation within a nation.”

La Raza as a matter of ethnic pride is commendable.  La Raza, as a political movement, is a racist position.  I wish that people could see that difference.

Also, it’s a violation of basic civil rights to discriminate based on ethnicity.

Those 14th Amendment Rights do not apply to those who are not here legally. The COTUS is an agreement between the Federal Government and the citizens, not those interlopers who don’t have any respect for the laws of the US in the first place.

Drum: No doubt.  Maybe “civil rights” was the wrong term, although I believe that many on the left (or anyone on the open-borders side regardless of political affiliation ) would use that specific term.  Some might choose the more broad “human rights.”

*I* don’t believe that.  I believe that choosing to ignore the laws and choosing to become a drain on the country you emigrate to illegally means you get no rights beyond basic humane treatment while we deport your ass.

JimK -

You asked about the Left’s position, and though I don’t consider myself a member, I read and talk to people who do, and I lean a lot more towards the Left on this issue.  So I think I may be qualified to answer your question/statement:If you are a left-leaning person who disagrees with controlling illegal immigration, please, by all means, correct me if I am wrong.  Obviously I have a much better grasp on my own “side’s” position.On your first statement:Because illegals, who already don’t give a shit about the law by definition, also don’t give a shit about the nation, the community or anything other than 1. escaping whatever it is they’re running from, or 2. making money to send home.I picture this response: the division you’ve made between Legal and Illegal Immigrants isn’t the relevant distinction if you’re worried about “respect for the law” or crime.  Consider the number that attempted to cross through the deserts in Arizona (don’t know the exact number; I just remember because I lived there at the time).  Many died of starvation, and yet they kept coming, even when the probability of death was high.  This kind of desperation doesn’t come from someone just not giving a shit about the law; it comes from hunger and fear for families, as well as those that also don’t give a shit about the law.  In short, the distinction between Those That Care About The Law and Those That Don’t doesn’t really exist - it’s “Those That Are Desperate Enough” and “Those That Are Not.” This doesn’t negate your point or really prove anything, except to make the actual debate a little more complicated, given that it’s harder to say “keep out the desperate” than it is to say “keep out the lawbreakers.” Although that still may be necessary.One more word on this, given that you’re quoting Roosevelt - it’s ironic that the president that decided to create a soverign nation by violating another soverign nation (Panama from Colombia) should be the one quoted to decry the same “I’m going to do what’s necessary” attitude in others.  Keep in mind that I’m not decrying that attitude myself - in politics and life, it’s sometimes much better to ask forgiveness than seek permission.  But the illegal that flouts US law because he thinks it necessary to end his desperation isn’t so different from the president that runs roughshod over another country to create a canal he thinks necessary.  Those that can do what they think they need to, do it.
On the second statement (this response will be much shorter):
As far as I understand the left position...illegal immigrants are taking jobs that no one in America wants.  If we didn’t turn a blind eye, our lower-tier service economy would collapse.  Also, it’s a violation of basic civil rights to discriminate based on ethnicity.  Furthermore it’s financially and physically impossible to seal the border to the south.  Lastly, most proponents of clamping down on current laws (or making new ones) are racists at heart.
From a working class Texan’s standpoint (me), the first statement isn’t true.  I’ve actually never heard this anywhere, and I’m kind of curious where you picked it up (I could just be totally oblivious, of course).  As far as civil rights go, the concern is - ostensibly - the Legal Immigrants who might be harassed, not, as Drumwaster suggested, the outside-the-scope-of-civil-rights Illegals, although in practice he’s right, the intent is usually to protect the Illegals.  No comment on the wall.  And the last statement, even though whether or not a lawmaker is racist is entirely irrelevant to the question of whether or not the law is good, is often true.  There is a lot of racism fueling this debate, although I’ve found it to be just as powerful on the Immigrant side.  Take Rush just a few weeks ago (and as a caveat, this link is from Media Matters, so take it for what it’s worth: Rush on Immigrants and Vicente Fox).  The racism isn’t that “all Mexicans are lazy,” it’s the assumption, here left without basis, that the ones that cross over are the lazy ones, and that Mexico is glad to get rid of them.  The statement is partially true at best, but Rush left it sitting, as if it were self-evident.
And one last statement:
You can’t claim allegiance to Mexico and still call yourself a patriotic American.  It’s one thing to be proud to be __fill-in-the-blank__, it’s quite another to raise the Mexican flag and attack the “gringo” way of life and talk about taking back the Southwest or being a “nation within a nation.”
As irrelevant as this response is, if I know my Left, someone would bring up Israel, and the constituent of Jewish Americans that claim and vote on Israeli allegiance.  I can also picture someone saying the following: “the notion of immigrants forming a ‘nation within a nation’ isn’t something so new and dangerous; it’s been happening ever since people started immigrating when the country was founded.  We’ve always had Chinatowns, South Bostons, and any other area where certain ethnicities congregate and live according to their old customs.  The issue here isn’t those forming a Nation Within a Nation; that’s been tried by others and never works beyond a few generations.  The fact that you bring up only the Mexicans suggests racism.”
It’d be a cheap shot, and would probably end the debate, but the history, at least, is true - most of our worries about people not assimilating are groundless.  People have not assimilated for centuries; even Teddy’s statement:
We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language...
...is absurd.  English is not, and has never been, the official language of the US.  By the time we thought about making it law, Spanish accounted for nearly 30% of US language; right now it’s almost half.  The United States has never been a completely English-speaking country, and for most of its existence, it hasn’t even been close.
My apologies, becasue this is getting long, but I’ll end with what I’ve gathered is the impression the Left is getting from the Right, insofar as it’s even useful to group people into two large Opinions.  Keep in mind that this doesn’t have anything to do with the part of this debate that’s about tax money; this is just the impression that comes when people insert arguments about Language and Assimilation into a debate that should, in my opinion, be only about where our tax dollars are going.  The characterization is only useful in that it helps to see how the other side thinks; I certainly wouldn’t make any arguments or policies on it.  But here it is:
“The Mexicans, Puerto Ricans, etc., all the Latins have been her for years, decades, some even centuries.  Their language has been spoken for centuries here.  Now they’re becoming a seriously significant portion of the population, and now you have a problem?  You’ve only just noticed this?  This isn’t about money; this is about you having a problem with people who are different suddenly moving in on your space, after so many years of being distant enough from you for you not to take notice.  That’s racist.”
And it’s not true.  But it’s a characterization to avoid.
So, to sum up - accirding to the Left, most everything you said except “amazing financial burden” is irrelevant to this debate, and is usually used to furthure obscure the key point, and really the only point, of this debate, which is this:
We have a serious money problem, and it’s because of illegal immigrants.

What the frick?My apologies; I though my HTML was right.  It was right on the Preview...someone either fix that or delete it and I’ll re-post it.

Drum: I conceed I did “Godwin” myself. Fair enough. Your claim, though, that one can’t have an opinion because one isn’t directly affected by an issue is classic Drumwaster lunacy, so I’ll just forget you mentioned it. All western countries have illegal immigration to some degree, the US just has it the worst due to geography (up here the current cause de celebre are the illegal Portugese in the construction industry).

Giving it some additional thought (I was definitely too knee jerk before), Ol’ Teddy is not incorrect, however xenophobic his contemporary language was. If someone attains the citizenship of a country, their “loyalty” should be to that country. Does that mean that they can’t reflect their heritage and call themselves an Italian-American and have an Italian flag on their house? Of course not. To suggest so would be idiocy and would be an insult to patriotism. The one language thing Teddy is completely wrong. If it meant so much to him, he should have codified it. He didn’t. No one has.

And, as is painfully obvious, nothing of what Teddy has to say has anything to do with illegal aliens. He is comparatively referring to an American citizen who immigrated from Iran who’s loyalty is to Iran, and not to the USA. The specific reference to “becomes an American and assimilates himself to us” obviously excludes illegal aliens. If, however, the illegal aliens were provided with the opportunity to becomes legal, and they did so, and then still put their patriotic loyalty in a foreign country.. then the quote would be directly applicable.

I’m a left-leaner and I completely agree with doing something to curtain illegal immigration. Laws are there for a reason. However, I’m also a realist and the reality is that the border will never be shut down anymore than the drug war will be won.

Instead of taking a militaristic approach to the problem, which would essentially achieve nothing (see War on Drugs), the complexity of the situation must be acknowledged and mature grownups (i.e. no “my way or the high way” children.. sadly, this eliminates virtually all of the current political crop) should sit at the table and work out an effective solution. Those that are already in the country are, with the obvious exception of how they got here, largely law abiding, sales tax paying people who want nothing more than the opportunity to earn a far more than honest days work for the shit money they are paid. Instead of deported, these people should be thanked and given a green card. Issue them a fine that they can work off as a penalty, or whatever, or require them to leave the country for a period or 30 days or something (but only on the condition that they are allowed back in with a green card). I do not think they should be granted citizenship. That would be rewarding them (however, their kids would be citizens. No point further penalizing them). A green card and income taxation, however, they’ve more than earned in sweat equity (yes, I’m sure there are exceptions to the rule). The green card system needs a vast overhauling to recognize the significant and immediate need for unskilled and skilled labor. This is the cornerstone to ending illegal immigration… providing them the opportunity towards legal immigration. This simply does not exist right now. All of this is not predicated on ceasing enforcement of the immigration laws. This is predicated on facing the reality of the situation and accepting that the current hard line route is an abject failure and requires reworking. Throw in a significant revamping of agricultural subsidies and you’re starting to have a plan.

Of course, the catch-22 of all this is that if these hard working people are given the opportunity to immigrate and work legally, they might not be allowed to work for such shit wages anymore… further pissing off the farmers.. further driving up food costs… further requiring the need for farm subsidies… that further make it impossible for their former home country’s to compete… continuing their poverty… and forcing them to illegally immigrate to the US.

We’ve always had Chinatowns, South Bostons, and any other area where certain ethnicities congregate and live according to their old customs.  The issue here isn’t those forming a Nation Within a Nation; that’s been tried by others and never works beyond a few generations.  The fact that you bring up only the Mexicans suggests racism.

Oh fuck you.  Way to distort my point and obfuscate it with bullshit.

I come from immigrants on BOTH sides.  Irish and Italian.  Both sides of my family were poor as shit.  The Irish side were indentured servants building the great railroads from east to west, trying to earn their way up into normal poverty.

My Irish family maintaine Irish pride throughout its history, but first and foremost they were AMERICANS.  They enlisted and fought for AMERICA.  They flew AMERICAN flags.  They took pride in the voting process.  They were proud to be here, and those of us that came after them were proud of them for how hard they worked and how fast that became part of the American fabric.

The Italian side of my family is even newer to these shores.  I was born while my great great grandmother, the woman who came over on a boat and went through Ellis Island, was still alive.  Never ONCE did anyone in my Italian family swear allegiance to another flag or another nation.  Never once did they put the needs or desires of another nation above those of the United States.  They were as fiercely proud of helping to make this country great as my Irish family.  Some of them fought, served and died for the Stars and Stripes as well.

Never once did they fly the flag of Italy over a US flag.  Never once did they claim they were separate and deserved special treatment that other U.S. citizens did not get.  never once did they claim that since so many Italians lived in a certain section of Brooklyn, it should be ceded to Italy.  Never once did my Irish ancestors say Boston should belong to Ireland.

They did not call themselves “The Race” and set themselves apart from other Americans.  They were PROUD TO BE AMERICANS.  Naturalized or native.

It’s sad that you can’t see the difference between illegal immigrants trying to force a country to treat them as citizens and hard-working, proud Americans who happened to be born elsewhere.

well, as i said, i’m first generation on my mom’s side.  after wwii, my grandparents couldn’t come to the u.s., so instead, they had an easier time getting to south america.  so, mom, being born on a boat en route (as at least jimk knows), lived in brazil for 9 years where we already had family.  then, in 1957, after my grandfather came over ahead of time, my mom and grandmother came over LEGALLY.

there is a reason why illegal immigrants are ILLEGAL.  IMHO, this is not a RACE issue.  (at least it isn’t to me.) i would feel the same way if it was sean who was here illegally.

i am 100% for immigration reform.  if you want every person accounted for, then get rid of some of the red tape for people to become legal.  i don’t want to stop immigration.  i’m all for it.  in fact, i’m for increased LEGAL immigration.

i believe the borders need to be secured.  south AND north (sorry again, sean ;)… but, i’m very much opposed to militias.  what is my solution?  i’ll take the cop out and say that there are many people who understand that more than i do, whose job it is to figure it out.

there is no reason why people shouldn’t be proud of where they come from, and very much disagree with “one flag, one language.” please, feel free to be bilingual.  please, feel free to fly your [insert country] flag as you please.  that’s all covered by our 1st amendment. feel free to criticize the crap out of this country once it is yours.  that is your right as a citizen.  but don’t expect the rights as a citizen when you are not one.  it’s just not fair.

i don’t know if this is left or right thinking, but it’s MY thinking. 

i heard an immigration activist on CNN say that being called an illegal alien is akin to calling someone a kyke or the “n” word (this is not a line of convo that went over well with i THINK it was lou dobbs—i was listening on the radio not watching on tv).  i just don’t see it.

again, i’m not trying to be closeminded.  anyone who knows me knows that’s not who i am.  i truly believe more people should be allowed in this country legally.  but “legal” is the key.

La Raza is a separate issue from illegal immigration, though there are some overlaps. I wouldn’t have assumed you were talking about La Raza specifically from your original posting. I don’t think Paco picking tomatoes for Taco Bell down in Southern Florida gives much thought to the establishment of a Mexican state in California.

JimK - You asked what a Leftist would think.  So I told you, based on what friends of mine had told me.I’ve been reading you for years, and have been a fan ever since Moorewatch.  I know well where you come from, your history, and anything else you’ve told about yourself on this blog anytime throughout the past two years.You’ll notice I put that section about “the fact that you bring up only the Mexicans suggests racism” in quotes.  There’s a reason - I don’t believe it, but it’s the kind of argument I’ve heard.  And whether or not the argument applies specifically or not to your family history is irrelevant - historically, several sections of the US map have not assimilated, and it hasn’t been too much of a problem.With all due respect, man, you managed to take one section of my post, a section where I was quoting what I thought my Left friends would say - and only because you asked - and apply it to yourself as if it was meant to be a personal insult.  You’re way off the mark.

It’s sad that you can’t see the difference between illegal immigrants trying to force a country to treat them as citizens and hard-working, proud Americans who happened to be born elsewhere.And I have absolutely no idea where you got this from.  The problem is still one of money and taxes.

A letter sent to Andrew Sullivan’s site pertaining to the illegal alien question (though, not the separate La Raza question):

“I am descended (as are thousands of other Americans) from an illegal immigrant named Moses Cleaveland. According to the family history, his activities on behalf of Mr. Cromwell made him unpopular with the authorities and he could not get permission to come to America. He stowed away on a ship. Moses Jr, who spelled his name slightly differently, founded the city of Cleveland, OH.  Another one of his descendants, Grover Cleveland, was President of the United States. I have a more recent ancestor that was forced into Napoleon’s army. He escaped illegally to America, and avoided dying like his friends in the invasion of Russia. A more upright and law-abiding family than the one he started could not be found.
Most of the illustrious Puritan ministers could not get permission to come. They bought tickets in other people’s names, traveled supposedly separately from their families, often with disguises. George Bush himself is descended from at least one of these illegal immigrants, as are most people with colonial New England ancestry.
Before we mistreat illegal aliens, we need to look in the mirror.”

jojo: No offense taken. We need to secure our southern and northern borders from you bastards as well. :-) Of course, the challenge is to find a way that respects our longstanding respect for each other and does not impede the (I forget how many) billions in traffic that crosses the border daily.

You see how he twists it?  “before we mistreat illegal aliens.”

Nice.  Real nice.  Also, Sean, no matter how many times you say it, I don’t agree.  Neither do some of the leaders of the movement from what I’ve been reading and hearing all week.  Then of course there were the marches and protests...they are kind of prima facie evidence that illegal Mexican immigration and La Raza are all sorts of in bed together.

JimK - I’d still like to hear you respond on one point, the distinction between Legal and Illegal Aliens is one of Those That Respect US Law and Those That Don’t, which I don’t agree with at all, especially if you’re quoting Roosevelt, who, when America needed cheap fuel for their fires but could only get it unconstitutionally, was quoted saying, “To hell with the Constitution when the people want coal.” And, even though I already said this, you haven’t responded past the first rant, so here it is again:

I can also picture someone saying the following: “the notion of immigrants forming a ‘nation within a nation’ isn’t something so new and dangerous; it’s been happening ever since people started immigrating when the country was founded.  We’ve always had Chinatowns, South Bostons, and any other area where certain ethnicities congregate and live according to their old customs.  The issue here isn’t those forming a Nation Within a Nation; that’s been tried by others and never works beyond a few generations.  The fact that you bring up only the Mexicans suggests racism.” It’d be a cheap shot, and would probably end the debate, but the history, at least, is true.

How the hell can you misinterprit that?  And understand that I’m only pissed about this becasue you took it as an insult to your Irish heritage.  And if I insulted yours, I’d have to insult mine, and I doubt ancestral Irish farmers take that very well.

Either you are American or you are not.  Your first allegiance should be to America and it should be unshakable. My Grandfather told me my Great-grandmother would not let them speak Armenian in public because “We are in America now. I want you to become Americans so you can live in the greatest country on earth”.

If immigrants come here because they WANT to be Americans and they love this country as much as the people who were born here then we have something to work with.  IF on the other hand they are here because they are starving or need money to send back to their country, as the left would argue, screw them. I doubt these illegals are braving the desert because they love America so much that they can’t follow our laws.  If they are suffering they can rise up and fix their own government as we have in this country’s great history or they can starve.  Makes no never mind to me. If we don’t force them to save their own country, Mexico can never change and we will forever have a parasite neighbor sucking off our tax dollars.  Please don’t say they can’t revolt.  We did, the Cubans did, the Russian republics did and many nations have changed because conditions got too tough.  I’m sure Americans would even go down there and help them topple their corrupt government if thethe Mexican people started it. We can not be an enabler of our closest neighbor so that they never cure their society because they can and will continue to just export their problems to us. If I need to get laid should a left wing liberal woman be forced to “help me” because I am in desperate need? How would that be different from a loyal Mexican who “really needs” work but loves Mexico?
My family fought for this country and my citizenship is one of my most valued possessions. You can not sell it or use it as a political tool without harming the fabric of this country. To say we should “understand” because they are hungry is to say the hard working American who can’t feed his family because his taxes are too high should shut up and take it because the Mexican government isn’t doing their job and that is just disgusting.
I love this country and anyone who loves it, no matter how right or wrong they are, is welcome here and entitled to our help. Following our laws is a sign of love and respect for this country. Anyone who is here because their own country is too screwed up and they are hungry, but still loves that country and holds it in higher regard than America, can starve or die in the dessert. The argument that we should let them in because they are hungry is crap. When Mexico lowers its immigration standards so that poor Americans can live there illegally and get federal benefits then you might have a small case for a lax immigration policy but that’s not what it is.  Mexico is very protective of their sovereignty and yet people think America should let anyone in who will pay or “really needs us”.  America is not Mexico’s whore and I will say fuck you to anyone who thinks we should be!!! The two lessons liberals need to learn is that Love of Country does really matter to most of us (as those before us were willing to lay down their lives for Love of Country) and every time you tear apart American culture to get some short term political gain or sooth your liberal guilt you are piece by piece destroying the country you claim to love and THAT is why you are called Anti-American.

Just once I’d like to see liberals hold other countries to the same standards they claim to hold America to. If you do care so much about the “starving Mexicans” then get up a fund drive and go down to Mexico and help them there.  I’ll even donate because it is tough to see people suffer. But to say that we should take these people on at our expense will only lower the standard of living for all of us and do nothing to ease your liberal guilt.
America is the greatest country on earth. More people live free in the world because people like my grandfather and his friends shed blood to help them be free. If you don’t have the Honor or respect for those people and what they sacrificed then just sit back and enjoy the benefits loyal Americans will provide you, because we have the Honor to know that you are one of us, but don’t demand we allow you and your pussification agenda to do things that destroy this country or you may find we begin protecting this country from people like you.

Sindri -

More people live free in the world because people like my grandfather and his friends shed blood to help them be free. If you don’t have the Honor or respect for those people and what they sacrificed then just sit back and enjoy the benefits loyal Americans will provide you, because we have the Honor to know that you are one of us, but don’t demand we allow you and your pussification agenda to do things that destroy this country or you may find we begin protecting this country from people like you.

I come from military on both sides, Army and Air Force, and have ancestors that fought in every war backwards from Vietnam back through the World Wars.  So, with all due respect, please be careful chastising what you think might be my “pussification agenda.” And as for this:

Please don’t say they can’t revolt.  We did, the Cubans did, the Russian republics did and many nations have changed because conditions got too tough.

Cuba is not free.  Russia is not free.  Their revolts weren’t what you’d call successful.  And the US did not revolt because conditions were tough, but because the British government was dangerously overstepping its bounds when making laws for America, laws that, according to the charters of the colonies, were to be made by the colonists themselves.  Your Revolt Scenario doesn’t apply to any of the countries you’ve mentioned.  I don’t believe that we should feel sympathy; it doesn’t matter one way or the other.  When I say “understand that these people are hungry,” I’m not saying that we should feed them, nor am I saying this:

The argument that we should let them in because they are hungry is crap.

We shouldn’t let them in because they’re hungry.  They’re going to come in (some of them, anyway) because they’re hungry, because hunger is one of the most powerful motivating forces in existence, and no amount of argument about what Right and Honorable Rebellion should be taking place in Mexico is going to change the mind of a desperate person.  Not all are desperate, of course, but my point is this: I don’t have any “liberal guilt,” I don’t think we should be obligated to help everyone who needs it, but this problem doesn’t exist because Liberals are Pussies, nor because Immigrants aren’t “One of Us” while people that are born here are - the problem exists because people that want and need to come over here can, and when people can do something, even if it’s illegal, they will do it.  Roosevelt did it; hell, JimK and I do it with file-sharing, and I know I’ve heard him reference his parents and marijuana, which was and still is illegal, and yet I know you wouldn’t call him or his parents anti-Patriotic.  They’re not; that’s stupid.  But it’s still illegal, and laws are laws, which makes me, JimK, and his parents, according to your logic, just as bad as Illegal Immigrants. 

The two lessons liberals need to learn is that Love of Country does really matter to most of us (as those before us were willing to lay down their lives for Love of Country) and every time you tear apart American culture to get some short term political gain or sooth your liberal guilt you are piece by piece destroying the country you claim to love and THAT is why you are called Anti-American.

I am out of responses.

If JimK and his parents break our laws they run the risk, as does every citizen, of going to jail and/or having their lives ruined. Because they are citizens we can find them if they jump bail or don’t show up in court.  We can seize their bank accounts and any property they have too.  In other words, we have recourse if they, as American citizens, break our laws (whether the laws are correct is another issue.) If America were invaded (unlikely) JimK would stand by my side and defend this country with his life as would I. That is what it is about.  We are emotionally and financially vested in this country and everything that happens here. If the Government tries to pass a law we know is wrong, we will react and attempt to prevent it. You as well as I have a history of our ancestors fighting for this country and therefore feel a tie and a duty to this country. Right?

Now, what does the illegal migrant job seeker have invested? First if he breaks our laws, as he has done getting here, he will just disappear. The loyal citizen who was harmed will have no recourse and the Government should never allow that. He owns no property and we have no way to track him down and punish him because his social security number is fake. The illegal would feel no duty to answer for his crime because he is here for a job and food.  If he feels he is going to get caught he will go back to his home country and even if we find him we can’t do anything because Mexico will not extradite one of their citizens. He will be able to get food in Mexico so all is not perfect but he’s not in jail.

The immigrant who is here because he loves America may run afoul of the law but he again loves this country and will face his punishment. Because he has all legal documents, we can find him and threaten to throw him out if he doesn’t behave.  If he really loves this country he is on the straight and narrow from then on.

Illegal immigration unchecked will lead to a complete break down of our society and its laws because of the differences in way the above people will act.  You lose control of the society and then it simply falls apart.

The fact that they are hungry just doesn’t matter.  Yes they will come and we need to put a stop to that. Your argument is the same as Winnie the Pooh when his honey was being stolen. “Well, if we give them some of our honey, they can’t steal it”. They will come anyway????? So then what??? Just roll over and take it? Open the border more and weaken the laws so they aren’t really breaking the law anymore? If you, as an American citizen, break the law, you are taking a risk but as a citizen if you are caught I suspect you will pay whatever penalty you must if you are convicted. Patriotism isn’t decided by how you act when you break the law but it is decided by how you act when you are caught.  If the penalty for file sharing was deportation for you and JimK, I suspect you might stop.

They are going to come anyway is the pussification argument. I understand they are coming now but our government has done very little to prevent it. If you want to grant citizenship to all of the illegal’s here now I have no issue with that but it has to come AFTER the border is sealed. Refusing to seal our border is anti-American (by definition since the concern is higher for non-citizens than for citizens) Holding America to a border policy weaker than ANY other country in the world is anti-American. We can let a million people in a year if you want, but it must be done OUR way not Mexico’s way. America should be open to people who want to come here because they see America as a great country where they can provide a better way of life for their families but that’s not what the argument is. We can not allow lawlessness in our most basic functions and continue to be that great country.

Last, change the argument and you will see how dumb it is. Companies require people to apply for jobs. Sometimes they give applicants tests. Would you argue this is unfair because they need jobs to feed their families? Should a company be required to take anyone who walked through the door and not screen out the undesirables? If someone shows up one day and starts working at a desk and is doing a really good job but wasn’t actually hired, should the company “just leave him there. He’s doing a good job”? Would they be discriminating if they called security and have him arrested? This is no different than people coming into OUR country without going through the application process.

If you like, leave your doors open and allow anyone who needs shelter to live in your house and eat your food.  Don’t see if they are sick and let them take what they want.  Do that and while we may call you crazy, no one will stop you. The problem comes when you demand we leave our doors open too.