Indeed.

Secondly, my response was to a common qoute that I here quite often “what have they ever done for this country”. When they have done nothing except to be born here in the US.

Also true, but…

What did George Bush, Ted Kennedy, Bob Bennett, Herb Kohl, Jay Rockefeller, Sam Brownback, Al Gore, et al do to deserve the fabulous wealth and/or power into which they were born or married? They didn’t earn it – their parents or other relatives did.

But the fact that they didn’t earn it didn’t obligate them to share their wealth or connections with the rest of us which, for the most part, they haven’t.

Likewise, America is our inheritance. There are tens of trillions of dollars in communal property that belongs to us all: roads, schools, parks, prisons, government facilities, fisheries, mineral deposits, water rights, ad infinitum. It would be unwise to do anything that would devalue that property too much.

This is not a xenophobic rant. This is a plea to be wise stewards of our inheritance, and we simply aren’t doing so.

Look at how many of our own citizens do nothing but blast how rotten the US is. Many immigrants (even some of the illegal ones) have more appreciation for this country than current citizens.

I’m quite confident that I have more appreciation of Bill Gates’s wealth than his own children do – but that doesn’t mean that he will (or should) leave it to me.

My Mayflower and other ancestors stole this country right out from underneath its original inhabitants. When they came here the Indians could’ve dealt with them rather quickly. Some wanted to. But instead they believed the claims of the Pilgrims that they came in peace and respected the natives. And, for their part, they probably did. But the demographic reality wouldn’t let that last for long. 2nd and 3rd generation settlers poured in, and they had no emotional attachment to the history or to what the Indians had done for the earliest settlers. By the time of King Phillips’ War around 1675, the ENglish had pushed the Indians out of half of New England.

When the Pilgrims first arrived, they were a small, sick, poor, pathetic lot. Why did Massasoit, Squanto, and other Indian leaders allow them to live? Because they knew the technology they carried, and they were in a pissing match over who could be the biggest badass in New ENgland. Kinda like our politicians and busienssmen today, come to think of it.

The third generation problem – the failure of later generations, either new settlers or descendants of original ones, to understand or care for the original inhabitants – is a widespread phenomenon. The Muslims who came into Europe after World War II were grateful for being allowed in. They were even somewhat patriotic. They knew how much better their lives in their new country were than their lives in the old. But the second and third generations have no idea. They compare themselves only to the natives, and find the comparison disheartening. That’s why France is burning in the burbs.

We live in a difficult world, where survival is never a sure thing. History proves this. It’s happened countless times that one group has obliterated or conquered another, from when our ancestors first walked out of Africa and committed genocide on their H. erectus cousins who had lived in Europe and Asia for over a million years, to the time that European settlers oved into Australia, New Zealand, and the AMericas and obliterated the natives.

But you can live in your theoretical, hypothetical, nonsense world, that ignores all of reality. Enjoy it for the brief time that it lasts.

And don’t buy your kids any sort of suit – there won’t be room for them in your Brave New World.

No one can question your emotional attachment to this problem, by golly, but the fact remains that you are wrong.

Consider – If your Mayflower ancestors were held to the same standards you want to hold the current wave of ‘new Americans’ they would not be allowed entry into *your* country either.

I sure don’t want a group of religious extremists, lead by a convicted felon (Thomas Brewer was ultimately convicted in England for his continued religious publication activities and sentenced in 1626 to a fourteen year prison term) just prancing into *my* country like they owned the place that’s for damn sure.

Come to think of it – Isn’t fear of ‘religious extremists’ was one of the main reasons you folks use for wanting to build walls and turn away this generation of productive, able-bodied dreamers that want nothing more than a better life for themselves and their families?

Yep, xenophobe is the right word… wear it with pride, and while you’re at it you might as well buy your kids a suit of it to match… call it a family tradition.

Now you go ahead and lay into me, instead of discussing the issue, the last word is yours… I’m going golfing (25¢ skins / 10¢ putts).

Few things have done as much to destroy my faith in politicians, urinalists, and the Republic in general as the debate over amnesty.

People won’t buy their bait-and-switch because they’ve been fooled before.

First, the amnesty supporters tell lies. Then when people stop believing their lies, they start calling them nativists, racists, and xenophobes. Then when the people no longer care about being called names, they just tell them to shut up.

You polticians don’t like it? Then get out of politics. Or else move to China. I’ll be more than happy to provide the (one way) ticket.

So any law that has been a law for less than 90 years…isn’t a law? Or isn’t legit?

Well, there goes our traffic laws. And racial equality. And women’s rights. And the GI Bill. And environmental protection laws. And…

The point is, the Constitution gives the Congress the right to manage immigration. It’s in there – I linked to it above. Clearly the founder’s understood the possible importance of issues like immigration and citizenship, even if they didn’t do anything specific about ti at the time. At that time, of course, they were separated from the rest of the world and could only be reached by making a dangerous journey across a vast ocean aboard often unreliable (and dangerous) seagoing vessels.

The xenophobic rhetoric just seems to build and build in each new ‘old talking point’ post on immigration.

It’s the data, not the rhetoric. I’ll make a challenge to you: read 10 columns by 10 columnists supporting amnesty, and then read 10 columns by 10 columnists opposed to it. Add up the facts and data that they list. I guarantee you will find more facts in the arguments by the opponents of amnesty than by the supporters of amnesty. And if you bother to verify the facts they quote, you will find that much of that supplied by the amnesty supporters is bogus.

But I’ll leave you to cal me a xenophobe – because that’s all you can do.

Many of our ancestors did nothing more than board a ship across the pond to get here, signed their name at Ellis Island and viola American citizen.

Speak for yourself. The earliest settlers of this country paid a very dear price. My mother has done extensive genealogy, and I would dispute that.

The Roanoake Island colony disappeared completely, perhaps wiped out by Indians. Jamestown suffered 80% mortality in the first years of its existence. Half the passengers on the Mayflower died during the first winter. 2 of my ancestors on that vessel – Priscilla Mullins and Mary Chilton – lost both of their parents.

When they got here there were no roads, no schools, no homes, no hospitals, no forts for their defense – nothing. There was no welfare system, either. Today immigrants make almost no sacrifice to get here. Even the supposedly high mortality suffered by illegals crossing the desert – about 400 a year – is paltry compared to the number who cross (1 million/year) and compared to historical standards.

When immigrants get here, the only “risk” is that their incomes will increase only five-fold instead of tenfold.

When I turned 18, I was required to register for selective service, in case my country ever needed me. Two months ago, I was required to file an income tax return. When I went to the store tonight, I was required to pay sales tax on my purchases.

Americans paid over $4 trillion in taxes last year. Over a million Americans have died in this countries wars. To then say that Americans have “no special right to live here” as compared to someone from another country is complete nonsense. China, Mexico, India, Saudi Arabia, Japan, Korea, Brazil – none of those countries would dare say that an American has as much right to live there as a native.

If the government of Americans doesn;t look after Americans first I can guarantee that the government of Mexico won’t. This is our home; it’s the only one we have; let’s take care of it and ensure our survival rather than buying into some pie-in-the-sky nonsense about open borders and creedal nations and whatever.

Listening to how some here talk about immigration you’d think the Immigration Laws were written by the founding fathers and a part of the U. S. Constitution. Nothing could be further from the truth… The Immigration Quota System that so many refer to has been law for less than 90 years.

Laws concerning immigration and naturalization

Prior to 1790 – If you were here (but not a native ‘injun’ of course) and said you were an American… you were an American.

1790 to 1882 – Immigration required getting to the United States… period. Naturalization required you be a “free white person” of “good moral character” who had resided in the country for two years and had kept their current state of residence for a year.

1882 – Congress passed the “Chinese Exclusion Act”. This act was the first significant restriction on free immigration in U.S. history, and it excluded Chinese laborers from the country under penalty of imprisonment and deportation. It also – a) levied a 50 cents tax on all aliens landing at United States ports; and, b) gave authorities the power to deny entry to “convicts (except those convicted of political offenses), lunatics, idiots and persons likely to become public charges”.

1921 – Congress passed the “Emergency Quota Act” it was the first law to set quotas on the number of immigrants permitted to enter the country. It provided – a) Immigration from a specific nation was limited to three percent of that nation’s population living in the United States, as reported in the 1910 Federal Census; and, b) An overall maximum annual quota of 357,000 immigrants.

Every time a new ‘different than us kind of people’ arrives in the United States the reaction has been the same hateful / fearful rant that we’re seeing now… time passes… things calm down and get better and the ‘those people’ become part of ‘us’. Africans, Chinese, Italians, Irish… Even the Dutch Michael… even the Dutch.

15 years ago, every liberal in the country was worried about “overpopulation.” But that, apparently, was only when it was Americans who were doing the “overpopulating.” Now that it’s left-wing voting immigrants doing the overpopulating, they’re more than happy to let overpopulation happen.

It’s just a sign of the American haters on the left that they coudn’t care less about the impact of excess immigration on American workers. After all, they’re Republican votin’, gun totin’, Bible-believin’ crazies who don’t deserve to have more material possessions thatn the rest of the world. So best to let the rest of the world come here to even up the score.

Given the stance of leftists on immigration, you’d have to be crazy to believe anything they say about concern for the working class or the environment.

This is what Ted Kennedy said about the 1965 bill.

“The bill will not flood our cities with immigrants. It will not upset the ethnic mix of our society. It will not relax the standards of admission. It will not cause American workers to lose their jobs.”

Kennedy is now the chair of the United States Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Citizenship, and remains a strong advocate for immigrants, both documented and undocumented

About the same time there wasn’t enough room for citizens to have children.

The Unacknowledged Holocaust

Back in the 60’s the Federal Government came into the public schools and brainwashed us as little children with the message that the children we were about to have were unwanted because the population was rising so fast. They launched a program called Family Planning. They pushed birth control pills. I think you and I now both know that you only have to trick people for their few child bearing years and there is no going back.

Many of us never had a say.

I am the result of two living cells. One from each of my parents. They are the result of two living cells, one from each of their parents. I wasn’t just born. I am a continuation of life. I am a living thing that reaches back into time perhaps 400 million years and the result of billions of joining of pairs of cells. It is possible that if you were to follow my cells back to my parent’s cells and beyond that my family tree touches every living thing here on earth. That is if we limit ourselves to believing life was created here on earth. If it rained down from the immensity of the universe it could reach back into that immensity of time and space, and who knows what relationships and who knows what species.

At least until I came up against the Federal Government and their plan to control the population.

I have seen the Federal Government do little else to control the population.

The open border United laws only apply to some, is a serious slap in the face. No, not a slap in the face, it reaches well beyond that. Maybe back to the beginning of time and stretch to the bounds o the universe.

Now don’t no one go lightin’ any matches – because with all the straw men in the room it’s bound to cause one helluva fire.

Yes, immigration reform is a complicated beast. One, in fact, that they got terribly wrong the last time around. Many of the supporters of this bill – McCain , Kennedy, Lott, McConnell – were there in 1986 when they got it terribly wrong. Why trust them again?

Of course the representatives are gunna be making the law. Has anyone suggested otherwise? What you seem to be saying – what you really seem to believe – is that our elected representatives should ignore the views of the people. Well, they’re perfectly free to do so. In fact, many already are. But they are not free to avoid the consequences of doing so. Everything in their actions and language shows their dishonesty on the matter. Just look at all the perfectly rational amendments they have voted down. (Scroll down to see all the votes.)

The voters aren’t idiots (well, not all of us). We know what’s gunna happen: exactly what happened last time. Congress will take out a loan to buy amnesty, promising enforcement as repayment. Within weeks, though, they’ll file for moral bankruptcy and get to keep their amnesty without repaying us a dime’s worth of enforcement.

The xenophobes of the right, and this issue has mobilized them seemingly like no other, are screaming bloody murder about “amnesty,” but evidently they are in the minority — and it isn’t even close.

There are political, cultural, economic, and environmental consequences to excessive immigration – legal or illegal. Americans have the right to decide whether they think the benefits of large-scale immigration are worth the costs. They have the right to express their feelings on the matter. And they have the right to do so without being called nativists, racists, xenophobes, or bigots.

But if you prefer to keep using that terminology, then go right ahead. American’s have heard such accusations from far more prominent people than you, and they aren’t buying it anymore. They’re tired of, indirectly, getting told to “f*%^ off.” In fact, the more they hear, the more opposed to amnesty they become.

You should know that your commentary about Bemocrats has no place in my thinking. I don’t ,in any way, care which party benefits or loses from the passage of the bill. In fact, I tind it very depressing when the problem is discussed in those terms.

We disagree about the best solution to a comples problem. I don’t think it would do any good to rehash all the arguments heard over the past months.

I expressed my opinion. You disagree.
Let’s leave it at that.

The compromise would be that go give amensty to 12 million illegal aliens, then future illegal immigration would need to be cut to less than 1% of current levels of less. When the government certifies that it has cut illegal immigration, then let’s talk about amnesty.

Also, allow for citizen lawsuits to force the government to comply with all enforcement provisions just like the environmental laws are written to allow citizen lawsuits.

I doubt that the Democrats would be so excited about immigration reform if they knew that all future Democratic administration would be continually sued for failure to comply with the law.

I did have one major concern about the bill It was so long and complex that I doubt many people even know what all they were supporting or opposing so vehemently.

I noted another major lapse in the debates. While scores of statistical reports came out, many of them supporting directly opposting arguments, about the illegals here, almost nothing has been done about analyzing the cost effectiveness and efficacy of the fence. With visions of tunnels and boat people dancing in my head, I still have major doubts that it has much more than an emotional, symbolic value. The rare voices piping up about possible negative effects have been totally ignored.
I would prefer the money needed for construction and upkeep be put into reforming the Immigration Dept. and an I.D. system with a sound methodology for enforcement.

I would scuttle all my personal concerns and preferences in a flash, though, if I saw a chance tor the nation to accept that in order to move forward, there needs to be compromise. That word may as well be stricken from American dictionaries, it would seem.

As it is, money will be wasted on patchwork efforts, and the angry arguments will continue, with nothing changed, and, certainly, nothing improved.

This does not speak well for our abitlity to deal with other major problems waiting to be addressed.

Mix one part progressive values, one part traditional values, shake and voila, a new drink known as the “No Consensus in Sight”.

The only sensible thing from the Democratic POV is that it would produce millions of new Democratic voters and would create the need for millions more social welfare jobs that would be filled by the public sector unions.