Redstate

It has to have a Respect the Law foundation and an assimilation requirement. This ranges from immediate deportation for non-productive, non-attached or criminal aliens, the elimination of citizenship for any child born to a mother illegally in this country to the elimination of the public publication of documents in any foreign language except those directly related to health and safety. A pathway to citizenship must be established and except for those assigned temporary worker status, must be adhered to by all immigrants.

911 conspirator bragged about getting away with it yesterday.

He will now be housed, fed, medically treated and protected by the Federal govt. for the rest of his life....only if France does not get its way and have shipped to france to 'serve' his sentance.

We now see the complete plan of the left for this country:

Open the borders to illegals, render law enforcement powerless to deal with threats from the open borders, and then when a guy confesses to helping to plan the murders of 3,000 people, liberal defense attorneys will get the killer off.

As bad and weak as Republicans may be, what the left has in store for this country is infinitely worse.  

As much as I have supported President Bush on a range of issues at his flaccid and barely comprehensible position on immigration we part company. Republicans are rightly vulnerable to charges of hypocrisy on our traditional bread-and-butter issues of national defense and law enforcement when we will not take the necessary steps to ensure that all within our borders are there with the imprimatur of the federal government.

No one could have summed this up better. As I've said to you before, it is incomprehensible to spend billions to try and secure the borders of Iraq while leaving our own undefended.

Even the rabid blue staters understand that border security is a problem, even though their party does not. This could be a real opportunity for the Republicans to gain serious traction - but we're blowing it!!!

We could be taking votes away from the Dems, instead of breaking our base apart and convincing our most loyal supporters to stay home on election day.

What's going on here Streif? President Bush was willing to go to the mattresses to defend the Dubai Ports World deal, but your comment about him being 'flacid' on this issue, which is actually important rather than a stupid tempest in a teapot, is dead on. The only time the President is willing to throw around a veto threat and get angry is over a non-issue.

Who is the White House listening to that it comes up with this as a policy? That is something I just can't fathom.

I know this sounds real naive and oversimplified but what is keeping local law enforcement from taking an illegal that has been placed into custody and after booking give them a choice of sitting in lock up or transport them to the local airport and put them on a one way fight back to their country of origin? By the time that they are in the air the ACLU would be screaming murder but how can they stop a voluntary repatriation? If this were done a few times the urban legend would cause a high deterrence factor and very few elected officials would stick their neck out. The cost would be far less than the current process and would be a great deterrent plus a great photo op. The real stick in the eye to the Fed.'s would be to send them the bill for the ticket.

Who is the White House listening to that it comes up with this as a policy? That is something I just can't fathom.

How about $$$$$$$$$$ the business lobby?

Sure you can blame the business folks, but come on, who bears the most blame?  What institution lies at the core of the problem?  The government, who is charged with national security, has blown this completely.  I see the hiring of illegals as more of a symptom of a piss-poor government handling of the borders and immigration policy.  I would purport that immigration and border control have been mismanaged to a greater extent than the federal government's reaction to Katrina.

Is "piss" considered profanity?  Hope not.

Would I support cracking down on businesses that hire illegals?  I would 100% after we get sensible government policy and execution in place.  Right now, I would support it a bit less, but in the end the law is the law.

The business lobby has a definite, and I think understated, interest in this issue. Cheap labor is a powerful motive to oppose immigration reform.

This is one those rare 'strange bedfellows' issues where people with no political common ground can find agreement. This issue is tearing both sides up. It's pitting Dem base and against Dem leadership, Republican base vs their leadership, union vs. union, minority vs. minority, and conservatives versus business.

Strange days indeed.

Business wants a grat many things that they don't get for one reason or another. The manufacturer would probably like to sell Sidewinders to China but we don't let them for national security reasons (only the New York Times is self-authorized to do that.)

Employing illegals ought not to be any different. It is government's responsibility and they have abdicated it. Constitutionally if the federal government does not do its job the several states should act. If they won't then the responsibility and authority falls on the citizens.

who the WH could be listening to, not who to blame for the policy- I'm assuming Bush isn't listening to La Raza so, based on what Bush is proposing, I don't know who else they're listening to other than the business lobby.

That doesn't mean I am "blaming" business, I consider myself pro-business. Business is going to try to do what makes the most economic sense for their interests, I don't begrudge them that.

My guess is that Bush has abdicated the responsibility to enforce the laws against businesses employing illegals and is complacent with a pourous southern border because of lobbying from the business community about their labor needs. I agree that blame for problems resulting from that is ultimately on the government not business.

It is a third rail that threatens to electrocute so many of the alliances that make up our present two-party arrangement.  The lily-livers aside, union laborers are not favorably disposed to people who undercut them.  Similarly, business interests like the depressing effect that illegal immigration has on wages even if they do not themselves hire undocumented workers.  Minority groups are split between the hifalutin argument for solidarity and the principle of self-interest that acknowledges that one of the largest sources of competition for unskilled laborers (disproportionately minority) are illegal immigrants.  To argue that this is merely a threat to the Democratic Party is simply not true.  

I am not the kind of liberal that typically sees the Machiavellian hand of Republican strategy in every public event that occurs, but it is interesting, should Streiff's contention hold that this will be to Republican benefit, that the immigration issue will possibly supplant Iraq as the defining '06 issue.  I'm still not convinced that 1) the Republican party can capitalize on an antiimmigration/pro-legal immigration/whatever you want to call the position platform because your party is as or more fractured than mine on the issue and 2) that, barring the continued foolish insistence of immigrant organizers to have big "scare middle America" protests, the issue will continue to hold its strength.

Anyway, immigration is an important issue, so I don't see it as an unmerited distraction from other issues, but even if Republicans can't truly capitalize, it has to be taking pressure off of other unpopular administration policies.

Bush may be listening to business, but he may just be of the opinion that we are receiving good people from the south and augmenting our society in a good way.  There is evidence that Clinton enforced more raids by the INS in his terms, far more, than Bush.  But there is one more thing.  Clearly not aligned with business interests, Clinton could be counted on for more enforcement, but Clinton did nothing to stop the border crossings and Al Gore, in his name, naturalized people at a rate so high as to require skipping background checks that are normally part of the process.  We cannot expect anything except "open borders" from the democrats.  There are enough potential democrat voters in this country now that democrats like Hillary don't even mind advocating a fence to pull disgruntled voters to her side.  She can still be assured of a high percentage of the voters in country as soon as she can get their voter cards approved.

Bush comes from Texas and Texas has a long history of a mingling of the Mexican and Texan cultures.  The area south of San Antonio is more Hispanic than Yankee, but the people and culture are comfortable with what they have become.  Bush doubtless realizes that our two cultures can work together and would doubtless cite Texas as an example.  Texas works far better in their form of assimilation than  California where immigrants have overpopulated schools and crowded emergency rooms to the detriment of the business of the state.  Such is not my experience in Texas, and so I give Bush the benefit of the doubt.

However, Bush should have realized that border control is not anti Hispanic.  If more immigration is desired, let it be the legal kind.  By not enforcing the borders or policing the employers, Bush has clearly left himself open to the criticism that this is a republican economic issue.  Too bad really, I have long argued that the concern on the part of republicans was the potential loss of the Hispanic vote and the spurious charge of racism that lies below the surface of the debate.  I believe the democrats have control of this issue and are going to soundly berate republicans over it in the upcoming elections.  This issue is one that Bush clearly had from the early days of his campaign.  It was the only issue I really did not support in his platform, but I could never say that he surprised me with his position.

that this is merely a threat to the Democratic party. The last couple of paragraphs should make that pretty clear when you get around to reading them.

but rather a pretty ripe apple poised to fall into our laps if we have courage.

Immigration, outside the wholesale legalization of illegal immigrants (a position not much different that what the GOP advocates, I must point out), is simply not going to cut to the advantage of the Democrats. And I do agree that Republicans may be more fractured that Dems on this, but unlike the Dems we have a chance to be unified in a way that is congruent with national opinion.

Republicans do have the chance to seize the issue and nationalize this election in the manner of 1994, and yes, it can be a diversion. If the GOP candidate is campaigning on, as in this case, the mob of day laborers congregating in your community and the Dem is campaigning on a "culture of corruption" the GOP wins.

Herndon is too small & too unusual, because of the controversy over the day labor center.

CA-50 may provide better tea leaves.  The GOP nominee, Bilbray, is a former bigshot at FAIR (Federation for American Immigration Reform), America's largest anti-amnesty, anti-illegal immigration group.  The Dems are making a major push here, for Duke Cunningham's old seat. Bilbray is staking everything on his anti-amnesty crdentials.  If Bilbray knocks the cover off the ball in the June special election, now THAT would be evidence to me that running on the anti-amnesty issue is a winner.

was that in Herndon we have a polity that voted for Kerry by  a good margin and we know that the only issue being contested was that of the day labor center.

I don't see how running as a Republican and winning a former Republican seat in a Republican leaning district proves very much.

Is Bilbray's opponent in favor of amnesty?

But understand nobody turns out for these elections.  You only have to animate a small percentage of the voting public in order to effect policy.  

Surely the controversy over the center is what makes this a useful pointer for public attitudes on the topic.

Yes, I have read that the Dem (Busby) endorsed the McCain-Kennedy proposal, i.e., amnesty by another name.  

People who live in CA-50 have reported that national news coverage of that race, i.e., the 4/11 primary, was amazing.  The news stories were full of "culture of corruption is the issue" talk, while the voters & the candidates were almost exclusively talking about amnesty, & trying to prove "I'm more against it than you are."

It isn't THAT Republican a seat.  W won by 55% in '04 & 54% in '00. A well-kept secret, IMO, is that the Dems  really, really believed they were going to win this seat outright on 4/11, by getting over 50% for Busby. Didn't happen.  And GOP nominated the FAIR director.  

As Jay Cost (my favorite analyst) has written, to win the House, Dems HAVE to win this open seat & several OTHER open seats (DeLay's) that look to be even HARDER to win.

I still maintain that if Bilbray crushes Busby, the balloon goes up on anti-amnesty as a national campaign issue.

RE: Herndon election.  I dispute nothing you said.  It's just that the average voter elsewhere hasn't been hearing about a particular day laborer center every day for a couple of years.  Needless to add, I hope Herndon IS a harbinger of a great national outcry.

how all elections play out. Hence the idea of a base.

He may be listening to business, but he is also listening to those fellow politicians who are trying to get elected / re-elected in states with heavy Hispanic populations.

like Kyl and Cornyn? Or Pelosi and Boxer?

The opportunity for the Republicans on this issue is huge. First, it is not a fight they picked ala Prop 187, it is a fight that has been picked for them by millions of illegal immigrants marching and demanding citizenship/amnesty. The simple response is not to go off the deep end, but to merely respond by building a wall and wait on citizenship until we have the border secured. What are they going to do, leave? 70% of Americans want to build a wall and control our border and decide who comes and who doesn't. Britain and France are right now debating and toughening up immigration laws, not illegal immigration laws, but who can come legally... They are trying to compete to get the good immigrants and not the bad (muslim) immigrants. Meanwhile, we can't even decide who to let in, because the immigrants get to decide themselves. What could be easier for the Republicans, build the wall. The only fortunate thing is we have another party that will fight it.....

Yet too much money, time, and effort has been invested in this ritual suicide for it to be lightly cancelled. It makes me shudder when I think that intelligent men and women came up with New Coke as a substitute for the old and Open Borders as a winning issue.

This subject has a huge upside for the GOP, if only they are smart enough to take it. There are plenty of

Democrats who see illegal immigration as an attack on poor Americans. Potentially the GOP clould split off another large segment of the Democratic base, including African-Americans, if they only played this right.

But the "overclass" seems to cut across party lines on this issue.

America tolerates an immigration policy that adds millions of very low-skilled workers every decade, who come to this country at the expense of low-skilled native workers. Why? There is no good explanation, especially for Democrats, who like to believe that their core constituencies are the middle and lower classes of America.

Bush, back when he was governor of Texas, and his brother's mixed race children were born, learned the "lesson" that it was evil to discriminate in any way against Mexicans(or anyone)

  And while that is true, it can be carried to an extreme.  That is Bush's problem, he thinks that protecting our sovereignty against Mexicans would be a horrible, evil, bigotry.

I get your point now.  I wonder if the practice of hiring illegals is like speeding.  You figure you're breaking the law but as long as the law's not being enforced you're going to do it.  Once you get busted, however, you should do like we all do and take your medicine.

jsteele had an interesting comment that if the government doesn't enforce the laws then the citizenry have the authority to do it.  Does that essentially mean that vigilantism can be warranted?  I would tend to agree...ultimately the law must be enforced and I would think that one of the hidden purposes of law enforcement is to lock up bad guys before a mob gets to them.  Because the mob will get to them if the crime is egregious enough.

it has become "common knowledge" amongst the party aparatchics that Republicans lost because they were on the wrong side of 187. In an effort to never take a drubbing like that again, they are desperate to be on the right side of immigration issues.

Of course, what's usually left out of that description is that most if not all of the losers were AGAINST 187 and said so publicly and oftern prior to the election.

The California GOP tied itself to Proposition 187.

Well, that move was unnecessary. Additionally, some of the commercials for 187 looked like they'd been done by the Friends of David Duke.

The combination of ugly (and wholly unnecessary) commercials in support of 187 and the CA GOP imprimatur on 187 convinced a lot of previously apolitical Hispanics of two things:

1. They needed to start participating in the political process out of sheer self-interest, and

2. Republicans were anti-Hispanic as a core principle.

(Remember, in politics, perception is reality, and that a lie is halfway around the world before truth gets its boots laced up.)

The net effect of 187 was to mobilize over 1,000,000 new Democrat voters.

Now, maybe you think that recruiting over a million new voters for your opponent is a good idea.

It isn't.

The net effect of 187 was to mobilize over 1,000,000 new Democrat voters.

Also, you say that Hispanics "needed to start participating in the political process out of sheer self-interest."

Why? How did prop 187 affect legal Hispanics?