JeanE, Should the US maintain her sovereignty? Yes. Should we choose who gains the privilege of citizenship? Yes. If we install the world’s greatest border fence, refuse all government services to illegal aliens and deport everyone we can catch, will we still have people entering the country illegally? Yes.

Who would then be thrown out as soon as they were discovered. That is the process that must be put into place. Nothing less will do.

Why would people come here illegally in the face of all those obstacles? Because the quality of life and economic opportunity is still better on this side of the border. It like asking why rocks roll downhill- it’s because of the forces acting on them.

They come because they know that they can stay and do as they wish and we will do nothing to them, except extend citizenship to them after x number of years.

I don’t oppose “enforcing our laws”, I just don’t think that enforcing our existing laws will satisfactorily solve the problem.

Read that sentence again. You don’t know what enforcing our existing laws will do, because we we don’t enforce anything – except making sure to railroad border guards into prison, tacking on idiotic “gun” penalties to minor crimes (if that) to show what enforcement of law can look like when someone really wants to do it. What we can do, if the President chooses to enforce our law, would be quite enough. And if it isn’t, then those parts of the law need to be strengthened, not weakened.

American citizens who employ workers can and should be penalized for hiring illegal aliens, but we have to make sure that the employers can figure out who is and isn’t here legally.

And that legislation should have passed on its own years ago. It has nothing to do with enforcing the law on illegals. That section pertains to enforcement on US citizens – a different class.

That’s why tamper-proof ID and social security verification is important- employers won’t support tough programs unless they have reasonable protection from fraudulent ID’s.

It’s not up to employers.

Why will Mexico help limit illegal immigration? Follow the dollars. Remittances to Mexico are a significant portion of their economy. If the availability of those remittances is tied to legal status, they will be anxious and eager to make sure that every guest worker obtain legal status before entering the US. (the Heritage Foundation folks understand how to do this- I admit I do not know enough about the law to fully grasp this.)

That’s just preposterous. Sorry, but all of known history says something quite different. I’m all for cutting off their ability to send money. That’s fine with me, but it won’t move Mexico to be more above board. Mexico will only change they realize that we are taking this situation seriously – and amnesty says quite the opposite. Now, if we start charging Mexico for the cost of handling their illegals and the illegal traffic they support …

What do you propose doing about the illegal alien Maria who marries a US citizen Joe? Deport her? Deport him? Deny her admission to the hospital when she is having their first baby?

She’s illegal. Deport her. Period. If he wants to follow her, then fine. Nothing else to say about that.

As an illegal, she has no right to hospital services. But if you’re sying to let her in the hospital, then she has to be shipped out the day she’s released.

These are real questions here in Texas, and I promise you that you won’t get a lot of support from Joe and his family if you try to force Maria into the shadows.

He’s married to an illegal. Obviously, I’m not going to get any support from him for the rule of law.

More importantly, police know that communities that live in the shadows are much more likely to shelter criminals- the residents are afraid to call the police even when they witness crime, and when everything is a blackmarket deal, it fosters contempt for the law and separation from the larger community. In other words, it creates the kind of separatism that might lead to secession.

The faster we get them out the better. The shadows argument doesn’t work. You can use it with every criminal group to argue for amnesty.

I think your approach would exacerbate the very problems you fear. Right now the vast majority of immigrants, legal and illegal, want to integrate into American society- they want to get a job, find a home and raise a family, and they want their kids to have better opportunities than they have had, I think your approach would Balkanize communities that have successfully integrated immigrants for decades.

It is not their right. Period. I don’t care how much they want to be Americans, it is OUR choice to invite them, not their choice to force themselves on us.
I expect we will continue to disagree on the best approach to the problems of illegal immigration, but I hope I have demonstrated that McCain supporters are not simply “shrugging it off without a thought”. We have just come to different conclusions about how best to address the issue and preserve America’s security, prosperity and domestic tranquility.
I do appreciate your effort, but I just can’t accept any of your arguments. It is a nice change to hear your side’s reasoning. Thank you.

I agree with many of your positions, but I don’t think your approach to dealing with the existing problem is GOOD FOR THE US OR FOR ME AND MY FAMILY. I am not worried about upsetting illegal aliens or multiculturalists, or the President of Mexico. I am concerned about dealing with a real problem in an effective manner.

Should the US maintain her sovereignty? Yes. Should we choose who gains the privilege of citizenship? Yes. If we install the world’s greatest border fence, refuse all government services to illegal aliens and deport everyone we can catch, will we still have people entering the country illegally? Yes.

Why would people come here illegally in the face of all those obstacles? Because the quality of life and economic opportunity is still better on this side of the border. It like asking why rocks roll downhill- it’s because of the forces acting on them. I don’t oppose “enforcing our laws”, I just don’t think that enforcing our existing laws will satisfactorily solve the problem.

American citizens who employ workers can and should be penalized for hiring illegal aliens, but we have to make sure that the employers can figure out who is and isn’t here legally. Are you going to support bringing the hammer down on a business owner who gets snookered by a fake ID, with the result that he goes out of business and 50 citizens lose their jobs? You might, but lots of others won’t- like the 50 people who lose their jobs. That’s why tamper-proof ID and social security verification is important- employers won’t support tough programs unless they have reasonable protection from fraudulent ID’s.

Why will Mexico help limit illegal immigration? Follow the dollars. Remittances to Mexico are a significant portion of their economy. If the availability of those remittances is tied to legal status, they will be anxious and eager to make sure that every guest worker obtain legal status before entering the US. (the Heritage Foundation folks understand how to do this- I admit I do not know enough about the law to fully grasp this.)

What do you propose doing about the illegal alien Maria who marries a US citizen Joe? Deport her? Deport him? Deny her admission to the hospital when she is having their first baby? These are real questions here in Texas, and I promise you that you won’t get a lot of support from Joe and his family if you try to force Maria into the shadows. More importantly, police know that communities that live in the shadows are much more likely to shelter criminals- the residents are afraid to call the police even when they witness crime, and when everything is a blackmarket deal, it fosters contempt for the law and separation from the larger community. In other words, it creates the kind of separatism that might lead to secession. I think your approach would exacerbate the very problems you fear. Right now the vast majority of immigrants, legal and illegal, want to integrate into American society- they want to get a job, find a home and raise a family, and they want their kids to have better opportunities than they have had, I think your approach would Balkanize communities that have successfully integrated immigrants for decades.

I expect we will continue to disagree on the best approach to the problems of illegal immigration, but I hope I have demonstrated that McCain supporters are not simply “shrugging it off without a thought”. We have just come to different conclusions about how best to address the issue and preserve America’s security, prosperity and domestic tranquility.

The illegals would more aptly be called “migrants” – as they used to be called before it became politically incorrect – or more aptly, “invaders”. I don’t fault you on the terminology, but those running the open-border side of the debate who have gone out of their way to confuse the issue with their intentional abuse of the terminology.

As to any chance of us counting on the Mexican government helping us on this, that idea has to be totally discounted, as the Mexican government has worked AGAINST us on this, trying to push as many people through the border as possible. Anything that depends on cooperation with Mexico is doomed to utter failure – just look at the country of Mexico, itself.

As to tamper-proof ID’s and other laws to be enforced in the future, I don’t see why our current laws cannot be enforced but new laws will be. I just don’t believe it. Not in any way whatsoever.

As to illegals who have been here 20 years (they are not the bulk of the problem, as the border was swung wide open by Bush, mostly, and a huge number of illegals were allowed to come rushing in here AFTER 9/11!!!!!) .. but, those same illegals who have been here for 20 years had no problem uprooting themselves from places they lived for far longer than that – to break into our country.

You have to understand why our southern border was open, to begin with. It was as a favor to Mexico, to allow migrant farmers to travel here with the seasons, make money, and return. But they became greedy when they realized that we let them operate on the honor system and started abusing our generosity. No good deed goes unpunished. This is like someone who takes all the change in the bowl by the cashier. It’s there for everyone and if people can’t be trusted to be decent, then it will be there for no one.

You have to keep in mind one very important fact, most of your side of the argument rests on the idea that we cannot enforce our own law, because we’re “too nice” to do anything like that, but then no new law can be passed with anyone taking it seriously. Do you see my point? All of your ID cards and requirements and such will mean nothing, and the flow of illegals will not stop, even with a border fence.

Americans have to decide if we want a sovereign nation. It’s just that simple. Bush, McCain, most of the Dims, and others have chosen “No”. This is understandable for Bush, his family has had a bug up their butt about globalism for a long time. They don’t seem to like the notion of sovereign nations. McCain seems to be just too dumb to understand the situation.

What we will get, though, by legalizing the illegals, and having them bring their families in to keep them happy, will be secession votes, eventually, in the states of the southwest where these nice illegals already think it should be Mexican property. We don’t have the guts to throw a few million illegals out, do you think the US would survive secession votes by those states (which would infect others, too)? This would spell the absolute end of the United States as an entity, and the entire world would lose the greatest nation that has ever existed – all for the sake of a few million third worlders who have no business here, to begin with.

As to how I would deal with the illegals here, I would cut off all services to any of them and throw them out as they come into contact with any offical points of contact. By attrition, they would mostly leave. And for those who didn’t, I would make their lives totally unbearable.

Look, the US is in the great position of having everyone in the world wanting to come here. We can choose the best of the world, and should. To have millions of aliens imposing their will on us, and take up spaces that I would rather have filled by quality individuals, thus restricting our choice as to who we want here, is a cost so great that it would make your head spin if it was properly accounted.

But the question of whether a sovereign nation should enforce its own laws, even if it makes some people unhappy, is not one that really needs any defense.

We will always have illegals here, and it’s better to solve this potentially fatal problem now, rather than trying to push it off and pretend that it won’t come back (as McCain does). It will come back, even moreso, because the prize of legal US residency is just worth too much to have its gifting, to those who should never get it, do anything but encourage more to come.

But, when people want to be loved by everyone (even those who hate us and love stealing from us) these are the sort of dilemmas we get ourselves into.

Personally, I think that Bush should have been impeached (and worse) for his refusal to defend American borders, especially after 9/11, and I will hope and work for impeachments and treason charges for all the people who try to give this country away in lieu of acting like adults and enforcing our laws.

Do I want illegals living in the shadows? Yes. Absolutely. They have no right to live in the sunshine of a country that didn’t invite them and doesn’t want them. It’s interesting how they all know how many problems they are causing us, and how Americans are incensed at their presence, but they still refuse to leave. Still! Yeah … that’s a great bunch of potential Americans, there.

I shed no tears for the illegals, except in seeing how they are destroying my country and how many of my fellow citizens seem oblivious to the danger … and worse.

Sorry if I was confusing. Immigrants would be individuals who have come into the country to find work and become part of the community. We want them to go through legal channels, but neglect of the border for most of my lifetime has resulted in a large subset of the immigrant population who have entered the country illegally- illegal aliens. I’m trying to recognize the difference between those who are in the country legally vs. illegally, and distinguish both groups from those who enter the country specifically for the purpose of carrying out criminal or terrorist activity.

I don’t especially like the fact that we have had virtually open borders for at least a couple of decades, but I can’t change the past. From my reading (Heritage Foundation), immigration reform really is a package deal- improve border control, reduce incentives for illegal immigration, create system to manage legal immigration and guest worker programs, and deal with the people who are already here.

McCain’s proposal is too fuzzy on details of border control and how to manage the number of guest worker applications, but it also has good points, such as a tamper proof ID for guest workers/ immigrants and getting the Mexican government to take a more active role in restricting illegal immigration.

The problem is always what to do with those who are already here. I don’t expect the problem to simply go away- it hasn’t before, and that’s why we have to deal with it now. Tamper proof ID and tougher enforcement on employers will encourage some illegal aliens to leave on there own. Those who have been here for 20 years are unlikely to pick up and go. Would we rather maintain a large number of people living the shadow of the law, or find a way that enables them to gain legal status? There are reasonable ways to limit this- proof of employment for X years beginning prior to a given date is a common proposal. Of course it is possible that the government will ignore the laws that we pass today, leading to a greater problem in the future. That hardly seems like a good reason to avoid passing laws to deal with the problem now.

Other than plunging the nation into recession, which I concede would reduce economic incentives to stay in the US, how do you suggest dealing with the 12-20 million people who are already in the country illegally?

It’s hard to know what you’re talking about, since you seem to mix “immigrants” with “illegal aliens” and I can’t see where you split the two disjoint sets.

What you have described, legalizing the illegals here, will destroy the United States. Destroy it, literally.

McCain refuses to back down from this, even today, and makes some silly claims that somehow the flow of iilegals could be stopped by having a border fence. That is just untrue, as we give tens of millions of tourist visas every year, and any number of those “tourists” could stay on their trip and become the next illegals. This would bring us back to the situation we are in, in no time, and the solution would be … legalize them?

I have not seen such a total disrespect for the sovereignty of the US and the rights of American citizens as you people seem to feel is “reasonable”. Psst: We don’t need illegal labor, and once we legalize them, they cost the same as Americans – thus drawing more illegals to fill the vacuum.

McCain refuses to support interior enforcement (which would be his job as President, not getting legislation passed that would legalize the illegals) and without interior enforcement of OUR laws, we will not have a US to talk about before long. Make no mistake, this is not hyperbole on my part, but a very serious issue that you and the rest of the McCain supporters like to shrug off without a thought.

This is exactly why I find McCain to be a danger to the very existence of our republic, and your explanation (along with the explanation I always hear out of McCain and his supporters) proves that nothing will change any of you. This is why, in addition to other issues, I have such huge problems with McCain in the Presidency. It is a suicide pact to elect him, plain and simple.

But, since you are defending McCain’s desire to open the US to the entire world, tell me, after you get your amnesty, and the fence is built, and then we find huge flows of illegals through visa overstays and temporary worker overstays and whatever other means they find to get here, what will be done about the next 20 million illegals that decide they have the right to live here? What are you going to do about them? Obviously, it can’t be what you just described as the solution for the 20 million we have now (plus the tens of millions of “family” that will have come along to keep them company), since that would just be an admission of the total capitulation of US sovereignty, but I’d like to know what you really think would be done. Seriously.

And, by the way, McCain is much more adamant about legalizing illegals than any of the other candidates. His campaign spokespeople are talking about legalizing the illegals today, on TV. I know that all of the potential candidates want to do the same, but McCain’s the only one stupid enough to keep saying it, and I consider it a mortal threat to our country. I don’t think you people realize how truly serious a situation this is because you talk about it as if it will be done and forgotten. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Frankly, the only hope for the US, at this point, is a deep recession that will drive the illegals out of the country (as the illegals are extremely mobile when they see a few bucks somewhere else), since we cannot count on the government to actually do its primary job and we cannot count on the GOP to defend the notion of US sovereignty.

This is all very sad.

You asked for a discussion of McCain’s politics, and I think amnesty is the most important issue for many opposed to McCain, so I’ll start with that.

McCain has been advocating immigration reform for years. As a senator from Arizona he is well aquainted with the problems of unchecked immigration, and also with the connection of immigrant workers and the economy.
The disparity between the US economy and the Mexican economy draws workers over the border in droves. It is often better to channel powerful forces than to try to shut them down, and there are already millions of workers who are in the country illegally, but are working and could be productive, tax paying members of the community if they could obtain legal status. McCain’s proposal would provide tougher penalties for employers who hire illegal workers and provide a way for immigrant workers to enter the US legally. Reducing the economic incentive to cross the border illegally should significantly reduce illegal immigration, and providing a way for workers to enter legally would channel the economic forces that drive immigration. There remains the problem of what to do with people who are already here illegally. They have broken the law, and that should not be dismissed, but most of the illegal aliens are not involved in any OTHER criminal activity, it seems reasonable to require a fine for violating the current immigration laws, then allow them to pursue legal status.
The proposal is not perfect, but is a reasonable approach to deal with a real problem. It is a far sight better than ignoring the issue, and I believe it is better than proposals that ignore the driving force of immigration or call for deporting all illegal aliens. These proposals ignore the reality on the ground and are thus little better than ignoring the problem.

McCain has acknowledged that the federal government does not have credibilty on immigration, so it is necessary to implement programs to halt continuing immigration before dealing with illegal immigrants who are already here. I think he is right, but unfortunately I think this will create divisions in our communities. Again, we must accept the reality on the ground, even if I don’t like it.

I believe that the next administration will provide some sort of immigration reform. Obama or Clinton will basically grant unconditional amnesty and do little to stop further immigration. McCain’s proposal does a much better job of addressing conservative concerns about unchecked immigration, even if it is not all that they might wish for.

Got to go now.

I am not a Republican. If you called me a Democrat I will take the insult very personally. I am not looking for my ‘party is in power’ crap, I do not have’partisan lust for power at the expense of the nation’. You insinuated I was treasonous. I called a remark like that stupid, not you.

You have failed at persuasion. Address me on McCain’s politics or not at all. progressoverpeace also has legimate reasons to not vote for McCain that I could not articulate. Address these issues intelligently, without name calling or scare mongering.

If you can’t, just let us know. We don’t all have the answers when we want them. But if you know you can never change our minds about McCain based on his record, admit that too.

Pat :
My apologies if I came across as lecturing. And I’m certainly open to persuasion on the subject of time frame. It seems self-evident to me that when we’re asked to pick a leader for the next four years, it’s the country’s welfare during that time that we should be thinking about. But maybe I’m wrong about that — what would you say is the right time frame, and why?

I can only tell you that the scope of my assessment stretches into the decades. I am concerned for the continuation of the Republic 30 or 50 years from now more than our state over the next 4 years. Marathoners don’t worry about who’s leading for the first 2 miles and anyone who would have that as their main concern would probably not do well in the race.

Now, if someone thinks that something over the next 4 years will bring irreparable damage to the US (beyond high taxes or other relatively inconsequential considerations, in terms of the existence of our nation, which don’t scare me in the least) then it is not that they think that the next 4 years are important, in and of themselves, but that some deadly action will be taken during that time that will cause our eventual demise.

While certain actions in the larger war might have such an effect, the chances are very slim, and no different than what they have been for the past 3 years, anyway. Bush has gotten us back into the pre-9/11 position of waiting to react to a hit, and we are stuck here unless someone has the guts to deal with the real world. For all his talk of “pre-emptive war”, Bush never did anything but react. Iraq, which had to be taken down, whether people remember how things were before or not, was a reaction to a long festering problem, not a pre-emptive war. In legalistic terms, even, Iraq had been in violation of every single agreement/cease fire they signed and had been at war with us continually since the pitiful “end” of the first Gulf War. Bush’s policies have drifted so far off in his second term that I would not vote for him if he were running this time. He is about to leave office with 2/3 of the Axis of Evil stronger and more dangerous than they were on 9/12 and he has managed to almost totally ostracize the country that has been our traditional ally in world wars (with much worse governments and actions than they have now). I mean Russia.

None of the current potential candidates, McCain certainly included, has shown any desire to treat the world as it is, all of them instead choosing to continue following the idiocy of the past few decades, including staying in the UN, accepting OPEC as a legitimate organization, giving more lip service to the Geneva Conventions (even though the very existence of our strategic nuclear arsenal PROVES that we really never took the Geneva Conventions seriously – because the conventions never bore any relation to the realities of war), refusing to act as ruthlessly as our enemies demand, treating other cultures as if they were Westerners, etc. etc. All of the potential candidates, with minor differences, offer us more of the same, waiting to be hit again, until we can finally do what should have been done a long time ago, and certainly after 9/11 – though I still don’t trust any of them to do it even then. The Geneva Conventions certainly precludes any real warring, as all the tactics of a real war are “illegal”. It is all a pthetic joke. Our only hope is that this hit takes place somewhere else and scares America enough to say “stop with the idiocy”, or that India and Pakistan go nuclear on each other and finally force us to get serious and defang the rogue states that have been destabilizing and threatening the civilized world for decades. But I see no real differences, otherwise.

So Obama would pull out of Iraq. So what? McCain would force Israel to capitulate to the Palestinians and we see the jihadist bases already establishing themselves in Gaza and Sinai (a new development that will ultimately destabilize Egypt, leading to … very, very bad stuff) as a result (to some extent) of our idiotic policies that I pointed out earlier, not to mention the jihadist government we forced to be allowed to arise there. And let us not forget something, Israel has a large nuke arsenal and if Israel feels its existence truly threatened (which it is currently on the edge of) then the ending disposition of that nuke arsenal is more important than anything about Iraq. Whether Israel ends up launching those nukes in a Mutually Assured Destruction protocol, or collapses quietly and the arabs come into possession of the arsenal – both are totally unacceptable options for us. Obama, Clinton (both), McCain, Bush, Rice, … are all in a mad race to make Israel as insecure as it can be, and that is a strategy that can be fatal to all, whether they like Israel or not. The same would be said about the India/Pakistan nuke situation, except that the same geography that kept that area safe for millenia renders it also safe for nuclear war to take place without too many effects spilling over into strategic regions and we haven’t bothered trying to force them to do anything. I’ve seen no analysis of this type from anyone in the running (though their words and actions seem to indicate that they have not even considered these issues) and I have very little faith in any of them with this larger war.

Obama might be beyond on the pale on the larger war. Beyond his desire to pull out of Iraq, he might be able to irreparably damage the US, but even that I find highly unlikely. I am generally distressed by the idea of any of these people becoming President, in terms of how they would handle this war. But, that is the situation we are stuck with.

That aside (as they would all be awful war leaders, in my mind) it brings me to the domestic issues. Our country will be destroyed, by my estimation, with any amnesty. The US will not continue to exist if we flood the population with anti-Americans (those who carried signs that said, “We didn’t cross the border, the border crossed us” are exactly the sort of people I am talking about). In this case, amnesty is more likely to be passed under McCain, and I feel that our existence as a country is more threatened by him. Obama and Clinton both want to pass amnesty more than McCain, but they would be less likely to do so – for various reasons.

I’d go further into this, along with the many other considerations in this election (global warming idiocy, first amendment rights, …), but I think you get the general gist of my thinking.

I don’t like having to listen to McCain supporters, most of whom have not considered any of these issues, telling me what it is important to consider in my voting and acting as if they see something that I don’t. If they did, they would be able to say it, and I would be happy to engage that debate. But we never get such debate from the McCain supporters – the same way no one ever offered a reasonable defense of their amnesty proposals.

Because of all this, I generally find McCain to be at least as great a threat to the US as anyone else currently running. McCain would be marginally better in the larger war, but not by much and perhaps not to our ultimate advantage, either. And if he delivers the deathblow of amnesty to the US in the meantime, which he is intent on doing, it won’t matter anyway.

These are some of my reasons. Other people against McCain have their reasons – I have heard myriad different ones, though most understand the mortal danger of amnesty to the US. This idea that people won’t vote for McCain because they just don’t like him is well off-base.

Yep. That’s exactly right. Robert Heinlein said it best: “There may be no candidates and no measures you want to vote for . . but there are certain to be ones you want to vote against. In case of doubt, vote against. By this rule you will rarely go wrong.”

And if you believe that McCain is worse than Obama, you should vote against McCain. I say that in all seriousness.

“Ronald Reagan used to say that ‘I didn’t leave the Democrats. They left me. I’m beginning to feel the same way about the Republican party.’”

Well, that’s why I’m urging people to forget about parties and just pick the best (or least bad) leader. But then, I’m an independent, so that’s how anyone would expect me to think.

“Don’t lecture me on what the appropriate time frame is for any analysis.”

My apologies if I came across as lecturing. And I’m certainly open to persuasion on the subject of time frame. It seems self-evident to me that when we’re asked to pick a leader for the next four years, it’s the country’s welfare during that time that we should be thinking about. But maybe I’m wrong about that — what would you say is the right time frame, and why?

The problem is that we can defend principled conservatism, but that isn’t the same thing as defending McCain. On many instances, it is the opposite (McCain-Kennedy, McCain-Feingold, McCain-Lieberman).

Then when he attempts to woo the conservatives, he screws up again. His stance on immigration is precisely the opposite of what the party faithfuls want. His most recent speeches spew the mantra of “securing the border FIRST.” First before what? We all know, because it is the same open borders policy he has pursued for his entire career. The party faithfuls want to secure the borders and imprison CEOs who hire illegals, McCain wants to secure the borders “FIRST” and then open the doors to continue the flood.

This changes nothing. It continues the policies of repairing Mexico’s crime and poverty problem on the backs of the American middle class taxpayer. McCain doesn’t care since he is an open-borders socialist.

So therein lies the problem. You have stated it well. He needs the very people he has enraged, and more than just for votes.

More than likely he won’t get them. No true conservative I know is going to vote for McCain, and we certainly aren’t going to defend his views in the marketplace of ideas.

My vote is precious to me. I am not for sale and not a political hack. I will not cast a vote for continuing to break the backs of the middle class with immigration. As for who will be President … well, the party should have thought about that before they cast their collective votes for McCain.

I see this preparing the way for four years from now. Will the GOP’s heart be softened to return to her roots, or will she die from trying to please everyone?