The thing that I find disturbing is the press so often using the term immigrant to apply to both illegal immigrant and immigrant, often done when talking about anti-illegal immigrant views or laws even.

The whole key is to look for the polls on voters, rather then polls on Americans in general. Basically the definition of American in these polls is you have a phone in the US, it has no basis in actually being a U.S. citizen.
Republicans and Democrats are against amnesty.
Even Hispanic/Latino voters prefer that enforcement happen first and no amnesty.

Union members polled are against amnesty.

Yet the groups themselves, Democrats, Republicans, Unions and hispanic groups support amnesty in general anyhow.

So the American voter is being ignored and it is the groups that have banded together to support amnesty and high immigration numbers.

One thing you might want to ask is what the groups hope to gain, because the groups themselves are not in existence for altruistic reasons. We should be concerned.

Anyway I haven’t lived in the southwest, but in CO there were lots of Hispanics and my blue collar friends never said they were feeling a squeeze from them. And in the South they were getting far more shut out because of overseas outsourcing (my mom’s job was to go in to places were there were layoffs and help them find new jobs so she had a finger on the pulse of what the blue collar economy was doing) and only once did I hear of people being replaced by migrants.

Jason — everything I’ve read illegals are much less likely to be violent. I’d have to find it again, but the second generation is too…it’s the third generation that has normal crime rates.

I capitalized “Socialism” because it began the sentence of note in my posting, not because I was referring to Dr. Z’s party in Spain.

Do you even have any evidence that violence is more common among “illegals” than among the general population?

From what research I have seen, the reverse is true.

Blame Bush for not upholding his oath of office on that one, because this happened on his watch.

1. Of the two amnesty programs, one came under Popular Party (conservative) rule and the other under PSOE (socialist) rule, so claiming that amnesty is purely left is unreasonable, in this case.

2. Just generally speaking, you would be advised to understand that your understanding of “socialist” and the REALITY of “socialist” in Spain is vastly different. In Spain “socialist” is just the brand-name for the liberal party, they could be called labour or anything else, it’s just an ornament, don’t take it literally.

“Give all applicants AND all current immigrants a basic criminal background check and check against international “watch lists”.”

A few things here, again from Spanish experience.
1. Many illegals claim identities that aren’t real, they lack identifying documents. Actually they don’t lack them, they hide them in order to avoid problems.
2. In order to give resident status we ask for certificates stating no criminal record. They all bring them, nice and shiny. This happened with the “monstruo de machala” an Ecuatorian who had raped and strangled multiple women in his country, and then did it again here. He had all his papers in order. Getting a clean record from your country is just a matter of payment. As for the US, illegals, being illegals, don’t always give the same name, so when you check against their REAL name, you may find nothing, since they have never given their real name.

I probably don’t need to point out that Jason Steck omitted a key word here and there: “illegal”.

And, of course, it’s not just “conservatives” who oppose amnesty, and once everyone sees what it actually does about 85% of Americans will not be happy at all.

The omission was intentional, for several reasons:
1) I listen to a lot of right-wing political analysis. It has been striking the degree to which it is obvious that the “illegal” distinction is a red herring. Opposing “illegal” immigration is only a part of their general opposition to immigration generally. They perceive foreigners as security and cultural threats. Even if every potential immigrant were following the rules, they would be (and are, in fact) supporting highly restrictive rules.
2) The research documenting the positive economic effects of immigration include illegal immigration. Illegal immigrants pay taxes, purchase goods and services, and do basically all the same things that legal immigrants and native-born citizens do. In fact, some studies indicate the increased immigration (legal OR illegal) is our only hope to avoid collapse of the social security system, catastrophic labor shortages, and other problems of an aging population.
3) I am not aware of any evidence that indicates unique problems from “illegal” immigration. Right-wing immigration opponents throw around claims of increased violent crime and disease, but utterly without credible evidence of any type. This increases my suspicion from #1 that the “illegal” focus is just a red herring designed to make these people sound way worse than they actually are.

Anyone who reads my stuff knows I’m not a right-basher by any stretch of the imagination. But on the issue of immigration, the right wing is absolutely infested with bad thinking and even poorly concealed racism.

I think the best immigration policy is simple: Give all applicants AND all current immigrants a basic criminal background check and check against international “watch lists”. If they come up clean, let them come in or let them stay, period. I am aware of no moral argument about the nature of justice that justifies excluding these people.

Next come voting rights. Another advantage for the Dems.

> Spain is going on two
> amnesty programs now,

Socialism = exploiting the Herd

> and the illegals keep on
> coming, stronger than ever.

Consider the “push factors” in northern Africa in about 10-20 years compared to now. That’s setting aside any rise in terrorism.

1. Most countries have lowered fertility but some are still high, and the Middle East faces exponential growth (rather than decline) in an urbanized desert with retarded economic development and a struggle to find (potable) water.

2. You in Spain face a more-narrow Mediterranean than elsewhere. Just dodge the large tankers and freighters, and…you’ve arrived.

As for the Wall Street Journal, its stance is obviously in support of the business community:

“There shall be open borders” (constitutional amendment)

They are arguably even more pro-immigration than the idealistic, irritating liberals in the 1960s who wanted our policy changed from the way it was before to a policy based on “family reunification.”

Most people (including a number on the Left) who favor immigration reform want something like the points systems used by so many other countries, and possible exceptions for those who would make $ub$tantial inve$tment$ if they immigrated here.

That needs to be amended to “This won’t make the blue collar working class happy.”

It isn’t right-left on this issue Michael, it’s middle-lower middle class vs. upper middle-elite. The people at the top or near there love the idea of maximizing business profit, and could care less what the do to workers of the country to achieve this end.

And people wonder how socialism got started.

I do not believe that the social infrastructure we have in place can continue to handle the burden. Immigration brings increased drivers, increased needs to medical, increased needs for schools, etc. There is a point where we just can’t handle the burden.

I also have concerns about what crimes qualify for deportation. Using a fake social security number doesn’t from a case I read. Often DUI doesn’t, or driving without a license or insurance. Only specific felonies, “crimes of moral turpitude” qualify. Crimes committed prior to age 18 do not qualify for deportation or denying a visa. It is interesting to note that for “crimes of moral turpitude” the motivation is what counts.

If illegal immigrants are here for the low paying jobs we do not want, then we will just get more illegal immigrants. After all they join unions now, so they are are under the same laws. Indeed it is likely that many will unionize once they are legal, even in jobs that are not unionized now. This is why the labor movement supports illegal immigration amnesty. Then the employers no longer have cheap labor. So how does this solve the problem.

And, of course, it’s not just “conservatives” who oppose amnesty, and once everyone sees what it actually does about 85% of Americans will not be happy at all.

that would be a “Republican-In-Name-Only” since I doubt if Arnold has done anything in the last six months that Gray Davis would not have done.

C STanley,

Take a look at the demographic trends in California. The total number of whites and blacks is decreasing due to the population pressures of the illegal immigrants and their off spring.

I guess the goal of the Democratic party is to make all of the U.S. like California.

They want the US to be ruled by a Republican?

I wonder when to live in certain parts of the country Spanish speaking will be required but English will be unnecessary.

Those who obtain legal status will suddenly find themselves without jobs, as illegal countrymen step in to take their sub-minimum wage sub-human conditions work.

This is the stereotype, but research indicates that it probably isn’t true.