Immigration Secure Border

By Jeff Knox

Buckeye, AZ –-(Ammoland.com)- As we have been scrambling to counter threats like the Obama administration’s recent assault on common rifle ammunition, another, less immediate, but more dangerous threat has been looming and growing; the threat of amnesty for illegal immigrants . . .

As a political operative focused almost exclusively on Second Amendment issues, some might think illegal immigration and amnesty are a bit far afield for me to be getting into, but there is no greater threat being faced by gun owners right now than the consequences of rapidly converting millions of illegal immigrants into legal, voting citizens.

The equation is very simple: for a variety of reasons, illegal immigrants overwhelmingly support Democrats and Democrat policies over Republicans or other parties. Data from the Pew Research Center indicates only 4% of (probably unauthorized immigrant) Latinos identify as Republican, and that in 2012, 71% of Latino voters cast their ballot for Obama, while only 27% supported Romney.

Providing a “path to citizenship” for some significant portion of the illegal immigrant population, conservatively estimated at 11.2 million, or 3.5% of the total population, would give the Democrat Party a huge advantage in several states and at the national level. This should be a serious concern to supporters of gun rights because over recent decades the Democrat party has shifted from their populist, working-man roots to an elitist, nanny-state philosophy, and part of that shift has been away from the right to arms and toward strict government control over firearms and ammunition.

In short, the Democrat Party has become the party of gun control, and allowing illegal immigrants to gain citizenship and vote would make the Democrat Party the dominant party in this country. The results for gun owners would almost certainly be devastating.

Neal Knox
Neal Knox (a son of immigrants)

From a personal perspective, I support liberal immigration policies, especially from our continental neighbors. My own great-grandfather crossed the border just after the turn of the last century and built a life for himself and our family in the Indian territories of Oklahoma where he met and married a young Mennonite missionary. The day he became a U.S. Citizen was one of the proudest of his life, right up there with the days each of his children graduated, and the day he read a copy of Washingtonian magazine declaring his grandson, my father, Neal Knox, one of the 100 most influential people in Washington, DC.

Grandad Gomez worked and produced and contributed to this country for almost 80 years. When he finally was unable to work any longer, he was cared for and supported by his children and his grandchildren, not the government.

There are plenty of other hard-working, responsible people around the world who see the U.S. as a land of opportunity where they can build a better life for their families, and are taking the steps necessary to obtain access to that dream – legally, and without depending on shortcuts from government programs, or breaking the law, to accomplish their goals.

On the other hand, there are millions more, some of them equally hard-working, who have bypassed the legal process for access to the American dream. They have come here illegally or overstayed visas to establish themselves in our country, and now they want the rules changed so they can be declared citizens and be granted the right to vote for our leaders. Many of them don’t want to adopt our culture, learn our language, or obey our laws – like the laws they broke to be here in the first place. At this point, it can’t be looked at in just black and white; there are many shades of gray involved.

Our border policies have been anything but clear over the years. It is unfair for us to treat people who were invited here or allowed in with a wink and a nod, the same as people who knowingly and intentionally violated our laws to get here. It is wrong to break up families and unilaterally pull the rug out from under 20 or 30 years of work and contribution. There is no practical or fair way to simply deport all 11 million or more people who do not have proper immigration paperwork, but neither is it fair or reasonable to just hand them all citizenship and the right to vote.

Practically speaking, there is going to have to be some sort of amnesty and/or guest worker program. Our laws and morality demand it. But whatever Congress comes up with must consider the impact on U.S. citizens and those who have been legally pursuing citizenship first. Rights advocates and constitutionalists must be participants in that debate and the creation of these programs.

We must insist on assimilation and Americanization as a requisite part of the plan, and we must ensure that those who do come here or are allowed to stay are educated about the principles, rights, and responsibilities they are choosing to embrace.

The right to arms for self-defense and self-determination is a fundamental human right which belongs to everyone. Too many immigrants to this country – both legal and illegal – don’t understand or appreciate that this right belongs to them. They come from places where this right has been denied for so long that they no longer have any knowledge or experience with it, or even the concepts underlying it.

Rights advocates must oppose any effort to convert law-breakers into citizens on a massive scale, but we must also actively reach out to people wishing to assimilate into American culture to educate and inform them about the rights and responsibilities they would share. And we need to inform them about those who would deny those rights to them.

Immigration reform is a complex and multi-faceted issue with no easy answers. Amnesty for illegal immigrants is also more complicated than many would like to make it, after all, these are human beings we’re talking about, not just numbers, but any plan that would tip the balance of power away from protection of rights and the Constitution, is a plan that must be opposed.

Wouldn’t it be a tragic irony if we allowed people coming here seeking freedom and individual rights, to be the death-blow to that dream?

About:
The Firearms Coalition is a loose-knit coalition of individual Second Amendment activists, clubs and civil rights organizations. Founded by Neal Knox in 1984, the organization provides support to grassroots activists in the form of education, analysis of current issues, and with a historical perspective of the gun rights movement. The Firearms Coalition is a project of Neal Knox Associates, Manassas, VA. Visit: www.FirearmsCoalition.org

Recommended For You

252 Responses to The Biggest Threat to Our RKBA – Amnesty

    • Most TX counties are very lightly populated. Note the tiny clusters of blue at Austin, DFW and Houston–the most heavily populated areas of the state. That blue line at the border is moving northward as well, don’t kid yourself.

      • Every time I see a map like that I halfheartedly wish North Korea would target those cities if it ever nukes the US.

        I can dream, can’t I?

        • Your comment is no different than the anti-gunner fanatic that wishes/hopes we pro-2a supporters blow our own heads off, and then revel when it does happen.

      • Reagan’s fault.

        And just because he was Republican, doesn’t mean he wasn’t a statist. Reagan, was just a RINO.

        • >> Reagan, was just a RINO.

          An extensive description of the evolution of GOP over the past 3 decades in 5 words! Bravo.

    • This does have to be dealt with.

      The status quo is unsustainable. Deportation is not the answer.

      Would be nice if conservatives could make inroads with groups like this. As opposed to being the xenophobic party.

      And political consequences are not a reason against doing the right thing.

      Those that call this group ‘lawbreakers’ are the same who have no problem still owning guns if the .gov bans them. Who are willing to draw a line in the sand and fight against tyranny. Don’t go to “they broke the law!” as a discredit to them.

      • “Those that call this group ‘lawbreakers’ are the same who have no problem still owning guns if the .gov bans them. Who are willing to draw a line in the sand and fight against tyranny.”

        First of all, the U.S. Constitution recognizes an INALIENABLE right to keep and bear arms. Foreigners do not have a right, inalienable or otherwise, to live here.

        No sovereign nation on the planet allows “free entry” by illegal aliens, offers them unlimited benefits, and then recognizes any kind of prosperity. Holland has been trying it, and it has been disastrous for their economy and infrastructure.

        If you want foreigners to come here, then give them room and board, and a “living wage” job, and sponsor them for a green card. What’s that? You’re not willing to do that? Then SHUT THE HELL UP!

        • USA had free entry for anyone (and, consequently, no such thing as “illegal immigrant”) for the first 100 years of its existence or so. Ironically, to many conservatives today, those 100 years are also the period of the country’s greatest achievements, and the time of lost freedoms worthy of emulation… except when it comes to those pesky illegal aliens, that is.

        • Int,

          Those immigrants assimilated into American culture, defended the constitution, and made a contribution to the nation. Those immigrants help build the strongest nation in the world. Most of today’s immigrants are looking for free sh!t. If immigrants have a contribution to make, and demonstrate an understanding of and willingness to fight and vote for our constitution, I will happily welcome them in. Let’s import skilled workers who aren’t criminals, who will pay taxes, and who actually are proud to become Americans.

        • Can you show any data demonstrating that “most of today’s immigrants are looking for free sh!t”? It’s an assertion that is often made, but whenever anyone asks for evidence, all that people have are anecdotal stories about how many Mexicans they see in a supermarket line with food stamps or some such. Anecdotes aren’t data, though. And data is there, and since it’s the govt running things, it can be trivially obtained thanks to FOIA. You’d think that any Republican candidate who pushes this plank of the GOP platform heavily would do that first thing, and make a nice report that lays it out crystal clear. So where is it? Because all I’m seeing so far is emotional rhetoric that’s designed to inflame and not engage.

          (Granted, this is broadly true of American political discourse in general, and Democrats do it all the time, too, on guns etc. But we’re talking about a topic that is a favorite of Republicans, so …)

        • How do any of your links demonstrate that the majority of immigrants want free shit”, again?

        • The welfare state is a red herring argument anyway. Just because we have a terrible welfare system doesn’t mean that innocent people who had no say in establishing it suddenly don’t get the right to travel or immigrate. If using welfare necessitates deportation (and maybe it should) there are a whole lot of trailer parks and Social Security recipients that can get sent off too.

          And Immigration was practically unrestricted during the time that German and Irish poor flooded here and the EXACT same arguments about not assimilating and “stealing” jobs was made then. I’m not for granting amnesty. They did break the law after all. What I am for is making immigration so easy that no one has the need to immigrate illegally.

          Also, this crap has no business being on gun page or a civil rights blog. There are a lot of libertarians and natural rights advocates who see the right to travel and sell one’s labor via the free market free from big government violence and coercion is just as important as the civil right of gun ownership.

        • “USA had free entry for anyone (and, consequently, no such thing as “illegal immigrant”) for the first 100 years of its existence or so. Ironically, to many conservatives today, those 100 years are also the period of the country’s greatest achievements, and the time of lost freedoms worthy of emulation… except when it comes to those pesky illegal aliens, that is.”

          I am not a “conservative,” nor a “Republican.” I am a Constitutionalist, and a “republican” to the extent that I believe in our republic and its founding principles.

          My wife is Mexican, and I have had the opportunity to spend a lot of time with Mexicans from both Mexico and the U.S. As a people, they are anti-gun, and pro-state. I am admittedly painting with a broad brush, but IN GENERAL they are happy to take handouts, whether they are hard-working or not. I’ve yet to meet an illegal immigrant who will stand on the principles of constitutionally-limited government.

          My issue is two-fold: if immigrants are allowed unfettered access AND tax refunds without working and “free” healthcare and other benefits, this country will cave in on itself. It is unsustainable.

          I read a paper back around 2002 or so, which detailed the cost of health care at hospitals around the country. At a single hospital, births of children to illegal immigrants accounted for US$30,000,000 for a single year (either $5,000 per birth and 6,000 births, or $6,000 per birth and 5,000 births, I can’t remember). This is money that was not paid by the delivering mothers or their families. There has been a rash of closings of Emergency Rooms and Hospitals in California due to people not paying for their services. Do you believe that Government can wave its magic want and make it all “okay”? How about the resurgence in the U.S. of diseases like tuberculosis, which had such a low incidence 20 years ago as to be insignificant? Epidemiologists attribute this to immigrant populations, largely illegal, which do not assimilate.

          You are the one operating on emotion. I am basing my position on the facts. Even if you were to legalize all immigrants, would they suddenly stop taking government handouts? You need to grow up, and put the same expectation on immigrants that we do on our children: get a job, don’t steal (i.e. take government handouts), take care of your family, and depend on your church, family and community to take care of you in the event of “hard times.”

        • >> My issue is two-fold: if immigrants are allowed unfettered access AND tax refunds without working and “free” healthcare and other benefits, this country will cave in on itself. It is unsustainable.

          I do not disagree with that. A sane immigration policy has to explicitly tackle the welfare issue (which it doesn’t even try now, by the way). You don’t want to import people who immediately go on to be free-riders. To some extent, it may even make sense to restrict welfare to second generation immigrants only (the first gen always have the choice of coming back if they find it too onerous to uplift themselves with no safety net).

      • You don’t have to be a xenophobe to dislike the Hispanic influx. I say that as a Hispanic myself. My mother’s family came here legally, with great sacrifice and years of effort. They were not rich, and I resent that others waltz across the border with no penalty and with greater ease than those that did it the right way.

        Beside which, it’s about much more than just “breaking the law” – It’s that many illegals would never be allowed to come here to begin with.

        Basics of immigration law:
        We don’t allow criminals (why would any sane country WANT criminal immigrants?)
        We require vaccinations (to prevent re-introduction of mostly eradicated diseases)
        We want educated/hardworking immigrants (what country would allow another country to hand them their welfare leeches?)
        We want immigrants who want to BECOME AMERICANS. -We don’t want revolutionaries or troublemakers.

        So because we aren’t willing to enforce our own immigration laws, we have throngs of low-skill, low-education, socialist leaning, unvaccinated immigrants. Not even mentioning the ones involved in the drug or human trafficking trade.

        And these people want to change our country to suit their ideals.

        Sorry, but my mother’s family saw what Latin ideals create. That’s why they came here. Either these illegals came here to become Americans, and agree with the Bill of Rights in it’s entirety or they don’t belong here. You don’t want to be an American? Fine. Leave. None of this “multicultural” crap. Go back where you came from if you love an all powerful self-serving Government. Don’t try to make another one here.

        (That last bit goes for you blue-staters moving to red states too. :P)

        • “Basics of immigration law:
          We don’t allow criminals (why would any sane country WANT criminal immigrants?)
          We require vaccinations (to prevent re-introduction of mostly eradicated diseases)
          We want educated/hardworking immigrants (what country would allow another country to hand them their welfare leeches?)
          We want immigrants who want to BECOME AMERICANS. -We don’t want revolutionaries or troublemakers.”

          The basics of some hypothetical ideal law, perhaps. The one that’s there in practice is a very far cry from that. You can be law-abiding, vaccinated, educated and hardworking, and willing to integrate, and that doesn’t even remotely guarantee success.

          I mean, just take some random Mexican guy who doesn’t have relatives in US. How should he go about immigrating to US legally? I’m all ears.

        • I live in a So Cal suburb that has been welcoming to Mexican immigrants, with language help, social support, but no free handouts. The local elder network of immigrants is very pro-work, and conservative. I have spoken to a few of the first generation, those who came on their own as guest workers (braceros) or illegals (wetbacks), and they are 90% in favor of legal immigration, not illegal. They see the corrosive effect on their kids and especially grand kids who dont learn a work ethic, who disrespect their family, and get involved in gangs.

          The Democrat platform since LBJs Great Society has been to get every minority to vote Democrat. Its that simple. By giving away handouts for votes, they create a majority, that is self-reinforcing.

          California’s Governor Jerry Brown recently gave a speech where he welcomed all illegals, and by executive action, has created a sanctuary state. The Democrat supermajority (overcomes vetos) has existed for 3 years now, after decades of Democrat majority rule in state congress, and last six with Democrat Governor.
          Its the experiment that will show how well welfare state demographics and giveaways work.

          By all indications, California is right behind Illinois in fiscal collapse, and several cities are following Detroit’s of bankruptcies created by outflow of productive workers, with the remainder paying for unsustainable pensions and benefits.

          http://city-journal.org/california/

        • “The basics of some hypothetical ideal law, perhaps. The one that’s there in practice is a very far cry from that. You can be law-abiding, vaccinated, educated and hardworking, and willing to integrate, and that doesn’t even remotely guarantee success.

          I mean, just take some random Mexican guy who doesn’t have relatives in US. How should he go about immigrating to US legally? I’m all ears.”

          What do you mean, “guarantee success”? Since when does life come with a guarantee? Even in a statist hell-hole (pick any country in Europe, or former Sov bloc), there were no guarantees. Except for the ones that got you killed for speaking out against the state, of course.

          You’re not all ears. You only listen to your emotion (I was going to suggest you do it all to pay yourself on the back for being “morally superior” due to your compassion, but I can’t possibly know that).

          As I said before, there is a simple solution for this hypothetical random guy without family who wants to come here: you, personally, give him room and board, help him find a job, and sponsor his visa or green card. If you’re not willing to foot the bill, why should I, or anybody else, just because you think it’s “right”?

        • I’m not saying that you should give them room or board or a job or money any other handout, and I’m not going to do so, either. What I’m saying that you should not prevent them from seeking such on their own, through their efforts and their labor, by barring them from the country. Do you understand the difference?

  1. Democrats give amnesty. All those good little (former) illegals become registered voters, all Democrat, and vote straight-party D on everything. This is what is going to turn Texas blue. Once TX is blue, the GOP will never win another Presidential election. The Ds will have CA, TX, FL, NY, IL, and MA and from there they only need 3-4 more states to win.

    The GOP’s chances in 2016 are already poor. ’16 could very well be their last shot at the Presidency.

    • Oh, I don’t think it will get that far. A lot of democrat voters will suddenly see the light, when it starts negatively effecting them. And don’t count out the “11%”, they will become instant 3rd class citizens(by the pop #s), not worthy of being pandered to, and they will not be happy about that.

      • It’s already negatively affecting them. Why do you think so many teenagers and 20somethings without college educations are having such a hard time finding jobs that pay more than minimum wage?

        • Too bad they are having problems adding 1 plus 1, most of them still stupidly blame Republicans for these problems. So yeah unless O or other Demo-rats rape a child on the front green of the White House Lawn, they wont come around until its too late.

          If it already isn’t..

    • Jim R,

      I am sad to say that I concur. That being the case, we have to really consider pulling out all the stops to get a Republican in the White House in 2016 for the last round of appointing judges to the bench that will at least appear to support the United States Constitution. Once those judges are on the bench, we need to get the last and most important challenges before them.

      Much past 2020 all three branches of government will be against us on the federal level … and on the state level as well in much of the U.S.

    • This is the biggest difference between Texas and California: unlike Cali, Mexican immigrants become Texans. Texas has been like 50% hispanic since its founding and we’ve been getting more and more freedom minded since.

      Basically, if they want to be leaches, they go to Cali. If they want to succeed and prosper through their own hard work, they go to Texas. Texas going blue due to immigration is a myth, most of our Democrats are trust fund youths and their adult handlers holed up in Austin.

  2. It’s a done deal already. And the actual numbers are at least twice what the official figures (lies) indicate. So in our lifetime: permanent Dem majorities (not that the RINOs would be any better, if not worse), and Nuevo Aztlan in our southwestern states. This is not some recent plot; it goes back to the late Senator Kennedy’s machinations in the mid-1960s, my theory being it was his revenge for knowing he’d never be elected to the WH, thanks to Chappaquiddick.

    Come one, come all; open borders forever!

    “The Camp of the Saints” in North Murka!

    Habla Espanol, amigos?

  3. The logic of this article can be defeated by adopting policies that convert the immigrants into Republican voters.

    Some immigrants are criminals. Most immigrants are hard working people looking for a better life and more freedoms and opportunities in America. Most immigrants value traditional family values, are Christians/Catholics and have high work ethics. They should be Republicans/Conservatives, but they are being sold a narrative by Democrats that the Republican party wants them jailed or thrown out. In some cases, this narrative is true.

    Immigrants can be our new worst enemy or our greatest allies when it comes to putting gun-friendly conservative politicians into office. Continuing to make them “the enemy” will accomplish just that.

    • Most LEGAL immigrants are hard working. Those that have come here ILLEGALY, don’t care about becoming an TRUE United States citizen, they are simply parasites. Most of their money is sent home, and we pick up the rest of the tab.

      • Most of those who came here illegally have basically zero chance of becoming citizens legally (are you actually familiar with the process of obtaining citizenship? do you know the amount of red tape and the length of queues involved? I have found in practice that most Americans who have an opinion on this topic are utterly clueless about how the system works today). So it says nothing about their desire to work hard etc. It only says that they’re desperate enough to get away from their native hell-hole that they’re willing to risk getting caught and being deported (and losing any even remote possibility of getting citizenship legally in the future).

        • Yes, I am aware of how the process works, and I don’t give a rat’s ass how hard it is, or long it takes. This country should not be a dump station for people from 3rd world s**tholes. We spend more than we have supporting our own citizen leaches, no need to allow a constant flow of them, from another country. I take it you support illegal immigration?

        • I am a legal immigrant. I support immigration in general, and I understand why so many people take the illegal route given that the legal one is completely closed to them, and the dire situation they’re in.

          You haven’t actually addressed any of my points, though. You cannot judge people’s character and their desire to work, or their overall morality, based solely on their illegal status in US – because many of them would have taken the legal route, and would be willing to work and pay taxes etc, if they had an opportunity.

        • What Red in Texas said. This country needs to focus inward a bit if it has a chance to survive as a nation. We already have 18 trillion plus in debt with trillions more on the way. Importing Democrat voters will not save our nation.

        • Immigration is inherently an inward focus (because that’s where immigrants end up). Outward focus is spending money on other countries (investments or humanitarian aid, doesn’t matter), or waging war against them.

          US has resources to easily and comfortably support far more people than it already has, and those people needn’t be a burden – every man that comes in, comes with a head and a pair of hands, meaning they can and should work and contribute to the economic growth and the benefit of all. Furthermore, there are many areas in US that used to be well-developed but degenerated into a mess, and could use an influx of rugged, hard-working people – how about repopulating Detroit, for example?

          The trick is managing immigration right. It has to be a gradual, multi-step process, which, on one hand, sets clear milestones and goals between expressing the intention and getting your citizenship certificate (unlike today, where green card – which is almost citizenship already – is the first hard milestone), and on the other hand, requires a certain commitment and paying into the system (with taxation etc) before proceeding to every next step. It also makes it possible to screen out those who are unable or unwilling to integrate – don’t know the language, can’t abandon some barbaric customs etc – on early stages.

          Oh, and that whole “importing Democrat voters” thing, do you realize how ridiculous it makes you sound? So you’d be okay with importing Republican voters by trainload, if there was a place that would supply them in quantity?

        • Oh, and that whole “importing Democrat voters” thing, do you realize how ridiculous it makes you sound?

          It’s true. The demographic groups benefiting from the current de-facto open borders policy vote overwhelmingly D. It is entirely accurate to say that Obama is abusing immigration policy to create a long-term electoral advantage for his party.

          Goddamn idiots.

        • The point isn’t whether the average political affiliation is factual or not, but making your mind on the issue based mainly on that. By the same token, you should support all laws that make anything that is associated more with liberals (like, say, smoking weed) illegal, because that means more liberals becoming felons who cannot vote. Does that strike you like a reasonable approach?

        • You are confusing the reason Obama and the Democrats in Congress are doing something with the reason I oppose it.

          The reason I oppose it has nothing to do with who I expect the immigrants to vote for. The reason I oppose it is because the process for changing the existing immigration laws on the books is for Congress to propose a bill, debate it, amend it, vote on it, and then send it to the President for signature (or veto). That is not what Obama is doing.

          Half of my relatives are immigrants. I’ve been at several thanksgiving dinners where I was the only one in the room who was a natural-born citizen. They immigrated legally, worked hard, assimilated and learned the language, and I have no problem at all with any immigrant who does the same.

        • So you don’t have a problem with amnesty per se, if it were signed into law by the Congress?

        • If the House and Senate think they can come up with an amnesty bill Obama would sign, and pass it, sure. At least they’d be following the rules instead of this ad-hoc bullshit that is far closer to rule-by-decree than should ever happen here.

        • @int19h Technically they did that back in 86 (I believe) when Reagan signed a bill passed by Congress to grant, in effect, amnesty with the condition that the border be secured. Obviously the former happened but the latter didn’t. As the whole saying goes, fool me once shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me. That is why many Conservatives don’t trust the Liberal Corporate Democrats or Corporate RINOs on this issue.

          For the record, my parents are immigrants from Hong Kong, and one of my best friends immigrated with his family from what is now known as Slovakia. Neither my parents nor my friend has much patients for the defacto open border and illegal immigration policy that’s been going on, in fact they are outraged by it.

        • “You haven’t actually addressed any of my points, though. You cannot judge people’s character and their desire to work, or their overall morality, based solely on their illegal status in US – because many of them would have taken the legal route, and would be willing to work and pay taxes etc, if they had an opportunity.”

          Actually, I can assess their morality. They have unlawfully crossed our border. They have unlawfully assumed an identity in order to get a job. They have lied about their status in order to get a job. They are liars and scofflaws, so their actions are immoral.

          The opportunity is there. If you don’t like it, then you are free to convince our representatives that the criteria should be changed. But you are immoral to aid and abet thousands or millions of illegal aliens in their efforts to get here, make a life, and establish a family. It is irrelevant how “nice” you want to be, or want to be PERCEIVED to be. Change the laws if you don’t like them, but don’t tell me it’s moral to allow illegal aliens a free pass into this country.

    • I agree with this for the most part. The problem is that many of the adult immigrants who are coming here illegally really are here just for the benefits. The working adults, we can convert them. But the ones who don’t, we’d have better luck focusing on their kids.

      • The immigrants that come here legally and illegally from South America are largely the same type of people. Some simply won the lottery of getting a green card (whether through marriage or the literal green card lottery) and some didn’t and took matters into their own hands. The economy benefits from almost anyone who works productively because they, by definition, produce more value than they’re charging their employer. And most illegal workers pay their taxes (because the IRS enforces their laws much more strictly than the USCIS), and most of the ones that don’t do so only because they’re afraid to be deported by filing. Many studies have also shown that illegal immigrants take very few social welfare benefits, especially compared to Americans of the same socio-economic strata.

        Even those that send money out of the country benefit you. By taking a dollar out of the US economy temporarily, they have made the dollars you own a tiny bit more valuable. A lot of the value of the dollar is currently resting on the fact that many international markets (see petrodollars) use them as their de-facto currency, keeping them out of the US economy. The US government fights hard to keep this going to maintain the value of American wealth, while you seem to want the opposite.

        Finally, I would argue that it’s beneficial for America in the long run to have people face difficult challenges (even legal ones) to come here. That means we’re getting people with an entrepreneurial spirit, ability to overcome challenges and take risks. God knows that many of the spoiled children of the American middle class or the welfare-raised children of the American lower class are not showing it. Australia has shown that children of even hardened criminals can create a lawful and successful nation; here we have people that have committed a virtually victimless crime. Yes, many of them don’t have education to lead the economy, but I would be shocked if their children and grandchildren were not overrepresented in the American entrepreneurial class in 50 years.

        Or is that where the problem lies? Are you afraid of a little competition? Do you feel that you’re owed an easy climb up the socio-economic ladder without having to compete with people willing to work 80 hours a week, take huge risks, break a few rules, and do what it takes? Because that’s how this country got to where it is and people who feel that they’re owed this are the ones who are sinking it, not the immigrants.

        • You make me laugh, Alejandro, thanks for that. Did you get those positive impacts of illegal immigration from LULAC, or La Raza Unida?

        • ” few social welfare benefits”
          You’ve clearly not seen the free and reduced lunch data at the border States’ school districts.

        • “Even those that send money out of the country benefit you. By taking a dollar out of the US economy temporarily, they have made the dollars you own a tiny bit more valuable.”

          That is not supported by basic economics. The value of the dollar is based (mostly) on the number of dollars printed, NOT the number in circulation “in this country.”

          If all dollars were overseas, save the three or four I had in my pocket, it wouldn’t change one whit the price of a loaf of bread at the supermarket.

        • They vote STATIST and they will take your guns, raise our taxes and continue to reinforce the party that bends over for jihad.

          Close the freaking borders, deport most illegals, throw their defenders off of THETRUTHABOUTGUNS.COM and make all media either English only or all foreign language broadcasts must pay a tax to cover and must advertise free every quarter hour English language and American history classes, with all teachers vetted as non commie.

        • >> They vote STATIST

          >> make all media either English only or all foreign language broadcasts must pay a tax to cover and must advertise free every quarter hour English language and American history classes, with all teachers vetted as non commie.

          Please tell me you’re trolling?

      • I don’t know about Mexicans, but we have a lot of Salvadorians in Northern Virginia, six of whom work at my company (all now legal but not all citizens yet ). They may have started out seeing Dems as their benefactors, but they are socially conservative Christians and are up to their necks in debt working full-time jobs plus side jobs of their own creation, usually in landscaping/lawn care using thousands of dollars worth of equipment they have purchased, chasing their version of the American dream (house, cars, self-owned business). Back in El Salvador they say could work all day and after the ‘mafia’ got their cut, only earn only earn enough to buy a hamburger at Burger King there. When they got to the US, they were initially amazed they got to keep so much of what they earned here without being ‘shaken down’, and are now working hard to get everything they could never afford back home.

        They have more or less been recently converted since Obamacare kicked in and they now realize how much it is going to cost them, whether they wanted health insurance or not. Before that happened, their health insurance was their credit cards. Now they all swear they are voting Republican next time. When they aren’t speaking English, I frequently overhear them say things like “Pinche cabron Obama” and I have to laugh. They tend to be much less politically correct than native white Americans when it comes to certain other minorities in this country, whom they view as inherently lazy.

        I don’t personally favor amnesty, but I think their demographic may not be lost to the Democrats in the long run. Once they get a financial foothold and have more to lose than to gain from big government, they may trend just as much to the GOP side. Time will tell.

    • Don’t know where you live Peter. I was raised in NYC and now live in south Florida. My upbringing in Brooklyn taught me many things, but the one thing that came in the clearest was that the vast majority of Latino immigrants while conservative in religious or abortion views, they are OVERWHELMINGLY liberal on most other subjects. Their views on firearms are for the most part staunchly liberal, many of the countries they arrive from do not recognize an individual right to be armed by the public, unless they are tools of the respective governments-cops, soldiers, bodyguards and other “special folk”. The liberal base here has made many attempts to chip away at the fear of deportations for these illegals, while the conservative base wants the law to be enforced. Who would under these circumstances see more support from these aliens were they to achieve citizenship? The only way past this absolute tilt to the dems is legal resident status, as opposed to citizenship, which via voting/running for office would allow them, over time to progressively change our country to their liking. Picture that, allow them to violate our laws, then give them the power to do as they wish once those laws are violated, NOT cool.

    • Hispanic or Latino immigrants, now legal, or illegal who are amnesty-ized by the Democrats any way they can, will *never* be moved to vote conservative in any numbers sufficient to overcome the damage that will have been done during the forthcoming years while they vote Democrat.

      As a block, it is in their nature and propensity to vote Democrat in line with the immigrant activist’s rhetorical lock on their minds. They like hearing the ‘promises’ from Democrat politicians with emphasis on furthering the Latino/Hispanic cause, and as immigrants continue to gain purchase in our political system we will see many more in office…as Democrats.

      • Not at all.

        There’s a reason the Proggies go to so much trouble to keep Mexicans from assimilating or learning English. If you let us learn English and become a part of the mainstream culture Mexicans tend to discover just how conservative they really are.

        Educate them and especially teach them a bit of actual history on top of that and you end up with, well… me – especially when you hit the second generation. (take a look at the name)

        In fact, you might want to take a look at what the Democrats have done with the black community and what they are trying with the Hispanics. Isolate the group. Keep them in ignorance. Keep them dependent for basic sustenance. That’s how you control the groups that you need to keep you in power.

        Pay attention, because they’re doing the same thing with the Anglos. They are controlling far too much of the education system. They are paying people to get as many on entitlements as possible. We do have to win in the here and now, but we cannot ignore the next generation – regardless of race or social class – or we’ll lose in the next generation.

    • Bingo…

      The assumption that freshly-minted Americans (read; immigrants) are automagically Democrat voters is absurd. I grew up in an area where the population was almost exclusively Mexican by birth (not just latino, but Mexican) and they are some of the most conservative people you’ll ever meet as a culture.

      Once they get a taste of liberty, they crave it. Far more than most Americans born into relative freedom; I might add.

    • That was my main issue with the article. If the problem is that groups of immigrants tend to vote democrat because that party favors them, I don’t see a ‘double-down’ as being effective against it.

    • First, you have to understand these people. This is not the German and Irish migration through Ellis Island. These illegals do not understand what freedom is in the American sense. They are extremely uneducated, and uninterested in American politics or becoming an American. They only know socialism and collective misery as a form of government.

      Plus saying that if republicans just became democrats, then democrats would vote for them is asinine. Go home Carl Rove you’re drunk

    • If immigration law and response to illegal aliens is how you measure xenophobia, then the US is one of the least xenophobic nations on the planet.

    • Find me a nation on Earth more tolerant of illegal immigration than us. Find a nation that admits even half as many non-refugee immigrants in a given year as us.

      • On a per capita basis, both Canada and Australia admit more. Moreover their immigration laws aren’t based on arbitrary number limits set up by the protect-my-jobs crowd, they’re based on actual labor needs and applicant qualifications.

        In fact the US had a policy of open, unlimited immigration until certain groups were deemed undesirable by the WASP politicians (Italians, Greeks, Chinese, Mexicans, take your pick). Today’s anti-immigration crowd use the same arguments, just with more tactful excuses.

        • One of the first US anti-immigration laws specifically limited immigration to White people. That was actually in force for almost half of the 20th century, and tell you all you need to know about the roots of these policies.

      • Thing is, the logic of this article (and, generally, all the conservative anti-immigration rhetoric) is equally applicable to legal immigrants – the word “illegal” is just thrown in to provide a convenient excuse against this very accusation, along the lines of, “I’m not against immigration in general, just against those immigrants who break the law”.

        But seriously, do you think that, if the same guy immigrates from Mexico legally, he’ll have different political views? Of course not, that’s absurd. The implicit assumption here is that legal immigration should also be severely curtailed, to only let in those people who align with conservative views.

        • Arguably a legal immigrant from Mexico will be even more anti-GOP than illegal immigrants, having been subjected to an at least 15 year wait mandated by politicians pandering to economic protectionists and worse.

        • Import conservatives and you’ll get votes for less government, lower taxes, and more freedom. Import liberal progressives and you get the opposite. I’m just fine with only importing people who will actually support and defend the Constitution.

        • If all you care about is that they vote the “right way”, why go for an expensive and lengthy workaround? Just overthrow the government and establish a conservative dictatorship that will enforce “less government, lower taxes, and more freedom”, no elections needed. Heck, doesn’t even need to be a dictatorship, you could just strip all minorities of the right to vote, and then you’ll get a solid Republican majority for many decades to come.

        • Great, let’s have the government decide what kind of political test to give to people who want to move into this country.

          Brilliant idea.

        • @Sex T,

          Right now there’s isn’t much deciding on immigration. I can’t say I have much faith in our .gov to come up with a great plan. As I’ve said before – naturalize folks who aren’t criminals, are able to make a positive contribution, and will actually defend the constitution. Have them pay taxes just like me – and I assume you pay up as well. I seriously doubt you’ve got a better plan than that.

        • My rule is, if you didn’t even enter and reside within the U.S. without following the law, why should i automatically give you a pass you aren’t going to keep breaking other U.S. laws? Like I said before, my parents were immigrants. They told me there was almost a chance I wasn’t going to be born in America because their work visas were not guaranteed to be approved (they were originally here for College studies). If the government didn’t approve of them to remain here, they knew they would have to leave the country and re-apply in Hong Kong if they wanted to come back to America. At no point did they consider breaking the law and staying past their expired visas.

          I will also note it becomes a liability and security issue if you have a United States government that cannot even follow up who is here legally or have overstayed expired visas. I am pretty certain that half the 9/11 hijackers were here on expired student visas, yet the government was incapable or unwilling to follow up and deport them prior to their final hijacked flight.

          As for the Race angle of immigration quotas, cry me a river. I could give two ships less about the fact the U.S. actually barred Chinese immigration into the country during the later part of the 1800’s. There are now legal avenues for immigrants from China to come to the U.S., I’m not going to give considerations to ones that sneaked across the southern border just because of our various immigration restriction policies in the 18th, 19th or 20th century. That’s just a broken stick beaten against a long dead horse that hides the real issues we are facing with illegal aliens today.

        • Oh I see how it is with you. Once you have yours, you couldn’t give two shits about everyone else. Because, IT’S THE LAW!

          Your circular argument is amusing. Illegal immigrants broke “the law”, ergo they shouldn’t stay, because they can’t obey “the law”.

          You demonstrate typical Chinese abasement before authority.

      • That’s moronic.

        We cannot stop certain things from happening without being totalitarian. People have legs and the WILL move to where there is a better life for them. We cannot change this. They will come until conditions in Mexico improve or conditions here worsen.

        What we can do is make it easier for good people to come here safely and prosper economically by exploiting our once capitalist system.

        The problem is not immigrants. The problem is socialism. We are encouraging leaches to come here and suck on the blood of Americans through socialism. We need to end socialism completely, or at least for immigrants.

        If we do that, we will still have immigrants, to be sure, but there will be two major differences: First, the slave trade will be radically reduced and people will not be dying in the deserts because there would be safe and legal ways to come here. Second, the people coming here will know that they will have to earn their own way and there will be no free lunch. These people will not become democrats.

        Immigration failures have been another classic instance of the evils of socialism. Socialism gives people a moral mask to forbid things that they normally would not. It gives busy bodies an excuse to tell others what to do and the resentment of paying for others causes more people to be busy bodies.

        It doesn’t matter if Mexicans and Guatemalans come here. It’s what they do when they’re here that matters. If we give them free stuff, they will be socialists and vote for the communist/socialists which have thoroughly taken control of the democratic party.

        • “The problem is not immigrants. The problem is socialism. We are encouraging leaches to come here and suck on the blood of Americans through socialism. We need to end socialism completely.”

          Fixed it for you.

  4. Its gonna happen sooner or later anyway. I’m 50 and I believe before I depart this earth we will be fighting, literally for our gun rights…. Its just in the cards…

    • Unfortunately, I believe there is a decent probability that you are correct. That being the case, it would be wise to invest some effort to prepare for such a scenario.

      Speaking of preparing for the future, this is a great time to begin a fitness regimen (if you don’t already practice one). This is also a great time to hone your skills so that you have them if need be.

  5. Consider the security theater we’ve enjoyed since 9/11/01 — meanwhile the border with Mexico is wiiiiiiiiide open. Whom are they kidding?

    • Have you seen the stupid average fat American voter? That’s all they need to fool and they’ve done a bang up job.

      This country is so &@$%#^… 🙁

    • You should make the next logical step. The border is wide open, yet how many terrorist attacks have there been since then? And how many of them were because of that border?

      The security theater starts long before things even get to the border…

    • I’d argue that the Republicans’ anti-science stances as well as general backwardness is a bigger threat. This level of willful ignorance doesn’t sit well with a lot of people, myself included. It’s embarrassing, and voters are fleeing. Blaming Mexicans is silly.

      • Republican and anti-science. Riiiigght. Because it’s so reasonable to think that John Moses Browning made intelligent designs, but if you believe in the Intellgent Design of human beings you are somehow a knuckle-dragging moron who cannot accept science.

        • LOL. JMB’s design process was well documented. Intelligent design, not so much.

          The GOP’s embrace of social conservatism is literally the #1 reason it will lose elections in the near term.

        • If you believe in anything in the face of overwhelming evidence indicating otherwise, then yeah, that’s pretty anti-science.

          (Well, or you could be sneaky like Catholics who simply said that evolution is intelligent design – it’s all God’s plan that we evolved the way we did, see.)

        • My stepfather, who is a fellow anatomy professor at a well-known medical college, would not agree with either of you. But hey, I’m anti-science, even though I aced Zoology, Sociology, and Biological Aspects of Conservation with a triple major at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. I fully understood all of the concepts of evolution thrown my way be lefty professors, even though I didn’t agree with them. I subsequently got fed up and left higher education. Too many idiots.

        • Yeah, no wonder you didn’t finish. The entire field of biology hinges upon evolution. Not like we’ve gotten anything out of that…

          Beginning to think it wasn’t the professors who were “idiots”. Then again, if you have empirical proof that evolution is false, you should be collecting your Nobel Prize.

        • https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=expelled%20movie

          Today’s “scientists” are not so tolerant as they would have you believe – especially when it comes to facts. Global warming / climate change hysteria is another field that’s gone wonky. Maybe you’re more into politicians flying around the nation in private jets telling taxpayers how to minimize their carbon footprint. Today, I respect engineers more: they’re into math. Anyways, my stepfather has actually won numerous awards, and has more scientific credentials than any of you. My mother is a retired nursing professor with similar beliefs. Hate to burst your bubble, but we do have accomplished scientists who aren’t into unguided macroevolution. Calling me an idiot really doesn’t have much effect at this point. Some of you can do no worse than my horribly arrogant, intolerant left-wing college professors.

        • >> Hate to burst your bubble, but we do have accomplished scientists who aren’t into unguided macroevolution

          Are there any accomplished scientists in relevant fields, who have a problem with evolution (and not for explicitly religious reasons, like the guy I’ve linked to who basically justifies it by “cuz Jesus”)?

          Hell, how many biologists can you find who even think that the distinction between “micro” and “macro” evolution is meaningful in the first place?

          Or are you talking about “scientists” like baraminologists?

        • >>Today, I respect engineers more: they’re into math.

          Let’s just blatantly disregard the mathematics backing evolutionary science. Things like carbon dating of fossils with observably shared ancestry.

          Also, why is a supposed triple major in the STEM fields wasting his time as a cop, busting non-criminals on behalf of the State? Is it because you’re just lying about your education?

        • “So what is your father’s work on disproving evolution? Got any links to peer-reviewed papers that he published disproving evolution? Any evidence disproving evolution at all?”

          A theory (i.e. Darwin’s THEORY of Evolution) can be disproved, but it begs to be proved. It’s foolish to assume a theory is true.

          Carbon dating is grossly inaccurate beyond 10k years, a point which was acknowledged by Willard Libby, who received a Nobel Prize for his work on — wait for it — carbon dating.

          If I’m off in my estimate of distance to target, say by 100 yards at a true distance of 400 yards, I am likely to miss the animal’s vitals entirely, unless it’s a blue whale.

          If I can’t observe a particle’s or phenomenon’s behavior, then I can’t really know whether it behaves the same after a few million years. You’ll scream “gravity” or “photons” or something to try to prove me wrong. Regardless, you’re still guessing, and really have no idea because…you weren’t there to observe it.

        • Nice try. It’s a theory backed with vast amounts of biological and geological evidence.

          Consider the theory of gravity. Classic and modern physics have described its effects but nobody knows the actual interactions that cause gravity. But by your logic, gravity is not proven.

          Leave the science to serious people, you and your ilk need to take some remedial middle school courses in scientific theory.

        • “Leave the science to serious people, you and your ilk need to take some remedial middle school courses in scientific theory.”

          I am a biochemist, with a focus on cell signaling, and currently work with investigators from Harvard and the NIH, among many others. I dare say that I am well versed in “scientific theory.”

          You can believe what you want. We can observe “gravity,” and have been and continue observing and characterizing its effects.

          Evolution? Not so much. Scientists regularly find fossilized dinosaur bones with soft tissue still attached. Most scientists agree that soft tissue (muscle, fascia, even erythrocytes) would not last for millions of years under conditions that would fossilize a bone. When they go to publish, they are usually fired from their universities, threatened with public humiliation, and their attempts to publish are rejected.

          They are treated, in the end, the way rational pro-gun people are treated by irrational, anti-gun types. Not with rational discourse, but with hyperbole based on panic that their precious theory is being threatened with truth.

          If you haven’t done it, I suggest you look for evidence that doesn’t support your conclusion. There is a lot of it, and it is quite compelling.

        • Just like gravity, mutations and the process of natural selection have been observed, even in the tiny timeframe of a mere two centuries. Feel free to post any compelling evidence that disproves the theory. And no, that doesn’t include simply asking questions on things yet fully explained. That doesn’t constitute contrary evidence and you know it.

          Why did you put “gravity” in quotes? Is it because you believe God created gravitons?

        • “Why did you put “gravity” in quotes? Is it because you believe God created gravitons?”

          Because you can’t observe gravity, you can only observe the effects of it. I can see things fall, I can’t see gravity as it pulls them.

          “Just like gravity, mutations and the process of natural selection have been observed, even in the tiny timeframe of a mere two centuries. Feel free to post any compelling evidence that disproves the theory. And no, that doesn’t include simply asking questions on things yet fully explained. That doesn’t constitute contrary evidence and you know it.”

          One of the stipulations in Darwin’s theory is that any mutation which does not confer a benefit/advantage will be lost. Take the kidney, which is made up of functional units called glomeruli. A single glomerulus has no homologue in any other species, i.e. it wasn’t a stand-alone “thing” (sorry for the quotes) in any other species. If it arose by chance, then it would have been lost. Yet somehow, the glomerulus appeared, and in such numbers, that there were enough to spontaneously assemble into a functional kidney.

          You laugh at my faith in God, but you have such amazing faith in the statistically and logically impossible, it is amazing you don’t see your own hypocrisy.

          Examine the evidence yourself, don’t just accept somebody’s terse assertion of “the truth.” (again, sorry for the quotes) There is no end to the hoaxes, fabrications, and outright lies concerning evolutionary theory. I work in the biomedical research field, and the one thing I can count on is (based on years of observation), that researchers will lie through their teeth to get a government grant, and they will argue until they’re blue in the face against anything that proves them wrong.

          They are just like the anti-gun crowd.

        • >> One of the stipulations in Darwin’s theory is that any mutation which does not confer a benefit/advantage will be lost.

          No, it does not. It says that beneficial mutations accumulate (statistically, and over long periods of times), and harmful ones go away, but the ones that do nothing? They can accumulate just as well, it just takes longer because it requires more chance.

        • “No, it does not. It says that beneficial mutations accumulate (statistically, and over long periods of times), and harmful ones go away, but the ones that do nothing? They can accumulate just as well, it just takes longer because it requires more chance.”

          If beneficial mutations increase survival, then the lack of beneficial mutations will not increase survival. A non-beneficial mutation-carrying organism will not compete as effectively for survival as the beneficial mutation-carrying organism.

          Consider this: the chance of “creating” a functional protein (i.e. a protein that does something, like an enzyme, which are required by all living cells, prokaryote or eukaryote) with lightning and primordial soup is based on chance, and will be influenced by the numbers of different amino acids in the soup, and their relative concentrations. The chance of randomly assembling a functional protein of 100 amino acids (which is smaller than the vast majority of functional enzymes) is roughly 20 to the 100th power, assuming 20 unique amino acids. What does the protein do? It needs a substrate on which to operate. Let’s not forget that enzyme-substrate reactions are key-lock type relationships. There is not a lot of “loose fit” in this. Another really long shot, probability-wise, that the right substrate happened to pop up in the mix. Then what? If the enzyme made an actin or myosin molecule (a ridiculous proposition, all by itself), it then does what? Then it happens, with a whole slew of like molecules, to then become conveniently encased in a lipid membrane, which happens to somehow then randomly produce all of the enzymes required to replicate nucleic acid chains, glycosylate proteins, target some of them to certain parts of the membrane to make a flagellum, and voila! you have a single-celled flagellated prokaryote? Where did the biochemical parts of the flagellum come from? Bacteria have hundreds of enzymes, and a complex genome. The probability of all of these steps happening ad infinitum are so ridiculously small as to be simply ridiculous.

          A kidney’s glomerulus is so much more complex than a flagellated prokaryote, and for it to suddenly appear by mutational chance is beyond absurd.

          On the other hand, the Bible is full of accurately fulfilled prophecy. Before you scoff, why not ask a Biblical scholar to discuss it over a cup of coffee?

          Oh, and what does “requires more chance” mean?

        • http://evolutionwiki.org/wiki/Evolution_of_flagella

          Admittedly I’m not aware of a similar treatment of glomerulus, but based solely on the track record of all “irreducible complexity” arguments so far – which have all got their proper explanations that do not require the outright rejection of observed facts elsewhere, i.e. evolution – I’m sure there’s an explanation there, too. Just like there was one for flagella, and for eye etc.

          The problem with the creationist argument is that it’s fundamentally the “God of the gaps” – you can parade seemingly unsolvable problems, but then as soon as we solve them you just move on to the next one, and the world being as vast and complex as it is, there’s never a shortage of non-obvious things that need extensive research. At some point, though, a self-honest person would look at the mounds of explained “strangeness” and conclude, “Hey, this evolution thing really has pretty awesome power to explain and predict things! It must be true”.

          Well, unless they are starting with the premise that a literal reading of the Bible is true, and proceeding from there, seeking for evidence to prove their faith.

          Anyway, why don’t you go argue with Todd Wood? He’s a devout creationist and he has a degree in the field… and he doesn’t believe there’s any problem with evidence and predictive strength of evolution as a scientific theory – his only problem with it is that it’s not compatible with the Bible.

      • Republicans are great at building up boogeymen to scare the base into turning out. ISIS in your malls! Mexicans terk yer jerbs! Christianity is gonna be illegal because gay people want to marry!

        • It’s the combos that are most hilarious: like ISIS launching a terror attack across Mexican border because illegals.

        • Illegals sell super-pot to ISIS to launch terror attacks on churches that refuse to perform gay marriages.

        • Actually, I do. But 3rd party doesn’t have much chance in the upcoming presidential election.

        • So you don’t vote on your convictions, only to be part of a winning team?

          Does the GOP send you a gold star when they win an election?

        • So, int19, if you were going to terrorize the U.S., how would you get in to do it? Why do you think the southern border is such an absurd possibility, especially in light of the fact that a few million people just crossed our border and were blindly bussed to various communities around the country.

          I assume Democrat politician = stupid, liar, or both (with a few notable exceptions). I am happy to assume that ANY politician = stupid, liar, or both. However, a broken clock is right twice per day, so why would you assume that, just because Republicans say it, it’s the most idiotic idea known to man?

        • I don’t think it’s an absurd possibility at all. I’m just saying that, despite said possibility being out there and being very obvious for many years now, no-one has actually used it. Maybe the evil, America-hating terrorists aren’t actually all that much of a danger as DHS and NSA and any presidential administration would like you to believe, you know?

        • UK is not a US state, last I checked. Yes, they have ridiculous laws about hate speech. Yes, a lot of Bible is hate speech. Duh.

      • Yes, yes, yes, I’ve heard it all before. The GOP is ruining everything and the only way to save us all is to embrace the left. Never mind that the left is desperately trying to kill off any ability to question the EPA when it starts making wild claims using data you’re not allowed to see. But no… no… we can’t POSSIBLY allow any of the proletariat to actually QUESTION it’s betters. They might start to THINK!

        Why the hell are you even on this site.

        • You don’t have to embrace “the left”. You just have to realize that there’s vast fertile ground between “the left” and “the right” that can be easily claimed (especially as there’s more than one direction!), yet you insist on edging closer and closer to the cliff with every year.

        • Honestly what the hell are you even on about anyway? I’m talking that as long as the left continues to manipulate the facts to favor them you’ll be at the whim of whatever BS they sling out.

        • Your narrative is obviously firmly established – you’re putting a lot of words in my mouth.
          I come to this site to read about topics relevant to my right to keep and bear arms, not bullshit Republican propaganda disguised as such. And if you think that running off intelligent members of the community who disagree with you about irrelevant topics is going to help preserve that right, you are painfully mistaken.

  6. They want these big red states like Texas to fall so what better way do a bunch of America hating communists go about it? They get the stupid American voter to vote democrat and get amnesty to have a bunch of freeloading America-hating illegals to vote democrat and rob hard working Americans.

  7. Unsaid in the article is that immigration at this scale results in the immigrants holding onto their culture vice assimilating into the new countries culture. They are coming from a culture of no-gun rights and have been raised to believe this is for safety. They are less likely to adopt a pro-gun view (regardless of party affiliation) and more likely to continue to hold onto their anti-gun cultural views.

    Note, folks in Texas and Colorado complain about how Californians fleeing the conditions there created by progressive liberals, still vote for progressive liberals in their new states. They fail to make the connection between the conditions they were fleeing and the politicians they voted in. Same thing will happen with the illegal immigrants.

    We’re becoming a lawless nation- all the pro-illegal immigration arguments boil down to ignoring the rule of law. Rationalizing lawlessness. Had we insisted on enforcement of our immigration laws there wouldn’t be an immigration problem — neither political party was motivated to do so whatever platitudes they uttered to get elected.

  8. And how do those illegal immigrants feel about the RKBA? As long as we’re making wild conjectures, let’s try this one:

    A large number of illegal aliens become citizens through Democratic policies and then tend to vote for Democrats for a variety of reasons. However, having fled countries where gun control policies have led to violence, gangs, police corruption, and a helpless populace, they are very supportive of the right of citizens to keep and bear arms. Result: a large influx of Democratic voters now support the 2nd amendment, party platforms adjust to account for this shift in their voter base, and the antis lose power and influence in their traditional stronghold.

    Therefore, we should support amnesty for the sake of the 2nd amendment. Or not. You can’t really draw any conclusions from specious arguments such as mine and Mr. Knox’s, but it’s evident you sure can use such arguments to drum up support for conservative policies on a purportedly non-partisan forum as long as you can draw some tenuous connection to the RKBA.

    • That last line is especially spot on. I’m waiting for the article on how abortion is the same thing as gun control.

      • It’s obvious, no? Abortion is exercised mostly by white people (unlike, say, Latinos, who tend to be Catholic and strongly pro-life… and don’t forget Muslims either!), thereby reducing the pool of Republican voters, and that’s why Democrats will win in 2020. ~

        • “However, having fled countries where gun control policies have led to violence, gangs, police corruption, and a helpless populace, they are very supportive of the right of citizens to keep and bear arms.”

          Yes, because of the way they vote.
          Look at what they are running away from then look at the way they vote.
          Pretty simple to me.

        • Voting in Mexico is irrelevant as Mexican politicians don’t make law in the US. Further, Mexicans aren’t the only immigrants to the US. If you’re going to argue something, at least have some knowledge of what you’re talking about.

  9. All this could be avoided though if the GOP would have policies that help poor people and had a realistic immigration proposal. Illegals who get to become legal will vote Democrat because they represent the poor better than the GOP. Votes for Dems today are because there is a path to becoming legal, there is an easy way to steal those votes and get rid of the amnesty. The hatred of Obama though is only making the Dems stronger In this area.

  10. Missing the bigger picture. Its that the executive branch doesn’t follow the laws and it takes an act of congress or the judicial system to stop them despite immediate harms. This is being fueled by partisan politics. The amnesty is just a small pebble.

  11. i think they are setting up future gun laws and they will use the illegal immigrants as the basis for that control. Just as they did with Marijuana Laws. They literally made weed illegal thinking that it would get rid of the illegal mexican immigrant problems of the 30’s. they will use the immigrants to try to win the election then do an about face and say that the immigrants are the reason for the new stricter gun laws. and the mexicans will still consider themselves Dems too. so sad.

  12. Maybe if the GOP didn’t cater to the xenophobes, nativists and protectionists, then the new arrivals wouldn’t flock to the anti-gun Demonrats en masse.

  13. Screw the political parties and take immigrants to the range. The parties will screw every one of us if it means money for them. Besides, what would be more effect on the RKBA? Whining about a bunch of corrupt thieves who laugh at you or showing an immigrant the value in guns?

    Immigrant above can be interchangeable with any label you want.

  14. Look to California as a case study. Schools with illegal children getting free education, free healthcare, and free social services. Scads of illegals over-represented in hit and run crashes. Illegals are not paying payroll taxes, except in rare cases. Our amnesty-style illegal immigration program is not financially sound and floods the streets with criminals.

    Anyone who says otherwise is divorced from the reality on the streets in CA. I’ve encountered the criminal side of illegal immigration, and it is an ugly thing. An Amnesty state that has a rock-solid Democrat super-majority and loads of statist laws to follow. Add zero voter ID, because it’s “unconstitutional,” and the perfect recipe exists to stack congress and the courthouses with lefty politicians and judges. Cue the expansion of the EPA into your backyard, the celebration of the Obamacare failure, overpriced gas, unprotected borders, and the end of the 2nd Amendment.

    I absolutely oppose liberal immigration policies based upon the realities of California. Further, I’ve helped deport illegals involved in serious crimes – only to have them slip back through our porous southern border to commit more crimes. Think, folks. Illegal immigration, blocking voter ID, and amnesty disproportionally benefit the Democrat party. That’s why they are pushing it. Democrats, at the upper levels, aren’t idiots. The people who vote for them and their statist policies are. They know that Mexico voters will overwhelmingly vote for idiotic Democrat party statist policies just like Californians vote lefty once they leave the political disaster known as California and settle in a different state. Remember Obama and his ties to the Chicago political machine? How’s that working out for our nation?

    I don’t have an issue with work permits in the slightest. Come to our nation, and make a contribution. I contribute to our nation, support the economy, and protect the Constitution. Import people like me, regardless of their color or race, and you will have a strong nation. Import lawless criminals who vote for Democrats, and you’ll have California. Trust me, you don’t want CA politics and gun laws to spread to your state. I’ll fight them while I’m here and pop an expensive bottle of champagne when I leave.

  15. I don’t think it’s going to be a problem. Once the illegals start to destroy the country even more than it’s been destroyed and crime returns to crack-epidemic levels, the backlash will be all-powerful and all-encompassing.

    • It’s cute when people actually believe anything other than the federal government is responsible for destroying this country.

      Let’s blame the illegals!
      Let’s blame the drug users!
      Let’s blame the communists!
      Let’s blame the terrorists!
      Let’s blame the Catholics!
      Let’s blame the Italians!
      Let’s blame the Irish!

      Way to drink the government kool-aid, Ralphie.

      • Newsflash: Ralph is much more politically savvy than you are. Also, “blaming” illegals for over using social services, failing to pay income taxes, and disproportionate representation in criminal activity when those things can be factually proven is in fact perfectly reasonable. Look to inter-city of CA for real-world examples. Thanks for playing, though.

        • Oh my, calling someone who thinks “illegals” will be responsible for a crime explosion “savvy”. It’s just too much.

          By the way if you actually examine crime statistics, not only has it dropped to its lowest historical levels, “illegals” were and still are only responsible for a small fraction of it. Guess what the most disproportionate statistical group of criminals are? Oh right, native-born blacks.

          Funny how crime is at its lowest even as illegal immigration is on the rise. 🙂

        • I never said the black community was not also disproportionately responsible for criminal activity, particularly in the inner cities. Being politically correct is not one of my faults. I do however, encounter illegals committing crime while working the street. On a daily basis. How novel it is to have a random person on the Internet “call me out” for blaming illegals for crimes and avoiding taxes. Maybe you should look at the police reports. The defense attorneys certainly do.

          Please feel free to visit SoCal before you dismiss my observations. Drive through the Home Depot parking lots and go ahead and hire those guys to work on your house. Investigate hundreds of hit and run crashes
          and see who the drivers are. If you guessed that 80-90% are illegal Hispanic males, you’d have the same statistics that I do on my investigations and arrest reports.

          I imagine you must have some sort of insider perspective if you know illegal crime better than cops near the border (me) and law better than lawyers (Ralph). It reminds me of getting gun advice from anti-gun politicians.

          Anyways, I’ll blame criminals for crime because it’s my job, and I usually do so with great enthusiasm.

        • Encountering illegals who commit crime isn’t doesn’t prove illegals will be responsible for a massive crime wave. Especially when the latter has zero statistical evidence. But since being a cop comes with an IQ limit, it’s easy to see how you made that mistake.

          I do like how you consider avoiding taxes to be a crime. Even though it is the most noble protest one can make against the government. Typical cop, you outsource your morality to the state then snivel about “illegals” committing “crimes” against the state, like walking across a line in the desert, or selling a harmless plant.

        • Ah, that’s right. You “read someplace” that cops have low IQs, so it must be true. You “read someplace” that illegals do really good work and aren’t responsible for that much crime. You are a much more reliable source than my own observations and crime reports. Meanwhile, CA is becoming more like Mexico. You sir, are an intellectual giant.

        • Try the FBI annual crime statistics report. It’s probably slightly more reliable than your local news channel trying to scare hysterical housewives with stories on illegals. And definitely more reliable than a bunch of goon cops swapping anecdotal stories.

        • They don’t make the FBI reports, because of “oour” catch, and release policy. Hard to add a conviction to the statistics, when you allow someone who has already broken one law, free bail. Sure, I’ll report for my deportation hearing in 90 days……..

        • Good. Enforcing garbage laws is a waste of time.

          If the ATF simply released every single person caught with an “illegal” machine gun and asked them to come to a hearing in three months, I doubt anyone on TTAG would complain. Maybe except the cops and other law-and-order absolutists.

  16. I might not understand the political pair of it—–but if a person(s) is hard working for 20 or 30 years, this is what this country needs—I’ve been working since before 16 years old, but know some ‘Americans’ that have made 30 weeks——as for being a dumping ground, If I remember history, (vague memory thanks to my friend bud wieser), this country as well as Australia were used as such centuries ago, (prisoners of politics, religion, etc.).

  17. This post has to be the least associated with firearms I’ve read on here since the discontinuance of knives and/or Israeli supermodel commentary.

  18. Meh…we’re screwed. The so’-called conservative republicans don’t have the will or the backbone to stand up for a damn thing. Both houses of congress(and a tenuous supreme court) and it seems most are concerned with “negative” press(or getting re-elected). Even so come LORD JESUS…

  19. ABSOLUTELY CORRECT!

    If you love and support the Second Amendment, you WILL be a active in your opposition to amensty!

    Note this…….with amensty, DHS is “relocating” illegal aliens to cities across the country with one major factor determining where these people are sent. That factor is that they primarily vote Republican…..BUT, Democrat voting is very close to Republican levels. These people are NOT being sent to democratic enclaves.

    Truth is………with 5 to 20 million illegals “en process” to become citizens(or voting unlawfully)…….the state legislatures of most states will become overwhelming Democrat in 2020. Once that happens, redistricting will ensure a Democratic majority in the House of Representatives………a simple majority in the Senate (another outcome of strategic relocation of illegals ) will also ensure Democrat control of Congress.

    Now, think of this………Democrat control of the majority of state legislatures. Democrate control of the Congress. The next logical outcome, pursuant to the “Progressive” agenda is repeal of the Second Amendment.

    I have two hot button issues. Illegal immigration and gun control (not that I ignore others, but these are my primaries). Few days pass that I do not write or call a state or national “lawmaker” in support of these issues.

    If you love the Constitution, and in particular the Second Amendment, I strong urge you to do the same.

    • How exactly do you repeal the Second Amendment (or, for that matter, any part of the Constitution) with a simple majority in the Senate and the House? The requirement for amendment is for 3/4 of all states to ratify.

      • There’s no need to repeal the 2nd Amendment when lefty politicians makes laws against it (AWB, mag cap limits, may issue, no NFA items, etc.) and when lefty judges such as the 9th Circuit uphold those laws as “constitutional.”

        The 2nd was effectively dead in DC, and is being resurrected by gun rights advocates. Those in NYC, CA, NJ, and other Democrat / statist strongholds aren’t so lucky. An influx of Democrat voters, politicians, and judges will not only severely damage gun rights, but will bankrupt our nation.

        • So I have to ask again: aren’t you basically aggravated by democracy in general? That whole “one man – one vote” thing? I mean, all your complaints pretty much boil down to “these guys don’t vote the way I like, hence they shouldn’t be voting”. But the same is true of a hundred million of your own citizens. By the same logic, don’t you want to disenfranchise them? Or just get rid of the voting, and make sure that the guys who run the country have the right ideas and don’t have to be answerable to any finicky electorate in the first place.

        • @Int,

          It boils down to some pretty simple concepts: defend the constitution. Obamacare is not constitutional. Mag cap limits are not constitutional. “May issue” CCW is not constitutional. Voter ID is simply a fraud prevention measure. It isn’t perfect, and fraud would still exist, but it would keep some idiots from voting who lack the brainpower to carry an ID, or those who are simply trying to vote on behalf of dead people, or outright frauds from voting. In other words, it would do irreparable damage to the Democrat party.

        • By all the stats that we have, it will prevent far more people from voting who actually do have the right to vote, than the fraud it would block. And funny thing is, there are ways to implement voter ID laws right (i.e. in such a way that they don’t hinder voting) – but somehow the voter ID laws that are supported by GOP politicians are never in that category. I wonder if that has anything to do with the fact that the people it prevents from voting tend to vote for the other party…

          As for the Constitution, last I checked, it bans poll taxes, and any non-free voter ID scheme is inherently a poll tax (yes, I know that SCOTUS ruled otherwise; of course, they also ruled that abortion is a constitutionally protected right…).

        • Voting is for citizens. It is not possible to ‘disenfranchise’ an illegal immigrant, they didn’t have the right to vote in this country in the first place.

        • I was not talking about immigrants. I was talking about every citizen who votes for Democrats. If the fact that a person would vote D after becoming a citizen is sufficient grounds on disqualifying, then why should people who happened to already have citizenships be exempt? Either you believe it’s a very bad thing (and then you should pursue any and all means of making it not happen), or it’s okay to disagree.

        • Int,

          I voted 1.4 mile from my home in Brea, CA. I have my CA DL and work ID in my left pocket (as well as my NRA card and a bunch of credit cards) as I’m typing this. It’s just not hard to have an ID with you. At all. Should voting time come, and it is announced well in advance, simply take your ID to the voting site. Just like you’d probably need an ID for mundane things like buying beer, cigarettes, guns, getting loans, etc. I vote in all elections and don’t have any problems taking my ID, despite being a “dumb cop.” As I said before, voter ID is a fraud prevention measure, and I have a hunch that your “studies show” regarding voting prevention comment is actually a bunch of bullsh!t. People died for the right to vote. I honer their memories by researching politicians and voting in elections. If you or your friends lack the wit to maintain possession of an ID, then voting isn’t your thing.

        • You’re right – people have died for the right to vote. It’s also one of the few rights that the Constitution explicitly reserves to the citizens and no-one else. That is why any form of voter discrimination, such as poll taxes, is abominable.

          Like I said, there’s nothing wrong with voter ID per se. Most countries in the world practice it. However, for it to be constitutional, it has to be free, otherwise it amounts to a poll tax. For some mysterious reason, though, most voter ID laws that are proposed or enacted in this country specifically require IDs that are non-free and not easy to obtain.

        • Free IDs. Now, you’re speaking my language. Historically voter ID has, at times, been used as a measure to deny votes. That is wrong. However, free IDs should be given to American citizens free of charge to prevent them from being used as a form of poll tax. I would be remiss if I didn’t mention that many low-income folks are already whipping out their IDs to get government hand outs.

          I wouldn’t deny citizenship based upon an association with the Democrat party. I would deny based upon a lack of willingness to defend the US Constitution. While there is some overlap (probably a lot, given today’s D party), I’m more interested in the support of the Constitution. I apologize if I’ve offended the 5 or 6 Democrats who do actually support the Constitution. For the record, I am an Independent (Constitutional Conservative), not a Republican.

        • Fair enough. The reason why I reacted the way I did was because of the way your initial comment was worded – it did make it sound like it’s basically all about the votes (and not about the people casting those votes, which is IMO the most important part of any immigration policy).

          For the sake of consistency, I have to note that the same argument on poll taxes should really apply to 2A (i.e. any licensing scheme should not place any financial burden on the person exercising his RKBA – otherwise it’s not really “shall issue”). We don’t have a separate amendment devoted to that, unfortunately, though I think that it is inherent in the plain reading of 2A… but it would still be nice to make it explicit. Along with a bunch more stuff, like clearly spelling out the individual nature of the right, that it is not constrained by the militia clause or any other, and that legitimate uses include (but are not limited to!) personal and collective self-defense, and resistance against external aggression and internal tyranny.

        • I absolutely agree. The right to keep and bear arms should not cost the legitimate gun buyer. We already pay too much in taxes, and shouldn’t be forced to pay more. CA is mis-appropriating funds from background check / DROS (Dealer Record of Sales) fees to go after gun confiscation of “prohibited persons.” CA is also using sales tax to enforce the anti-gun CA DOJ which has the notoriously unconstitutional “Safe Handgun Roster.”

      • Look at the dissent in Heller for your answer.

        “In a dissenting opinion, Justice John Paul Stevens stated that the court’s judgment was “a strained and unpersuasive reading” which overturned longstanding precedent, and that the court had “bestowed a dramatic upheaval in the law”.[51] Stevens also stated that the amendment was notable for the “omission of any statement of purpose related to the right to use firearms for hunting or personal self-defense” which was present in the Declarations of Rights of Pennsylvania and Vermont.[51]

        The Stevens dissent seems to rest on four main points of disagreement: that the Founders would have made the individual right aspect of the Second Amendment express if that was what was intended; that the “militia” preamble and exact phrase “to keep and bear arms” demands the conclusion that the Second Amendment touches on state militia service only; that many lower courts’ later “collective-right” reading of the Miller decision constitutes stare decisis, which may only be overturned at great peril; and that the Court has not considered gun-control laws (e.g., the National Firearms Act) unconstitutional. The dissent concludes, “The Court would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons…. I could not possibly conclude that the Framers made such a choice.””

        IE, even though the amendment to us is plainly evident on reading, they simply deny it means what it said!

        If SCOTUS ever goes solidly left in makeup we can kiss the RKBA goodby.

        It may take 50+ years, but it will eventually be gone. Faster if a nuclear war devastates our country back to the 1700’s.

  20. Mexicans f**king love guns! …They just love welfare checks more.

    …and they don’t get that they’ve moved to a country where laws actual mean things.

  21. “It is wrong to break up families and unilaterally pull the rug out from under 20 or 30 years of work and contribution.”

    “Deportation is not the answer.”

    I must ask why and why?

    Deport a few million and many of those left will leave on their own. Taking away the homes, cars, and assets of those who have illegally worked here for decades will send a very loud message. Make life unbearable for those who successfully invade here and word will get back that America is not where its at.

    We eff up peoples lives all the time w/ enforcing laws – some of which are very unpopular. Why can’t we do it here? Easy answer – the wealthy in both parties want a steady stream of poor people so America is easier to control. If a nation is unable or unwilling to keep out and kick those who would come in illegally then it is no longer a nation.

    • “Taking away the homes, cars, and assets of those who have illegally worked here for decades will send a very loud message.”

      Screw the 4th amendment, amirite?

        • Naturally nativists advocate using one of the worst abuses against the Constitution practiced by the government against the American people as a way to achieve their goals.

          Have fun alienating even more people trying to achieve your delusional goals.

      • Are they going to pay 30 years of back taxes?

        Otherwise, just get a judge to sign a search warrant. I did that on a murder case. That particular illegal immigrant murdered her live-in boyfriend, and fled the border again. It’s not particularly secure. When she returned several years later, she activated a cell phone. Bad idea.

        • If they haven’t been paying their taxes to date, they will in fact be on the hook for IRS once they’re out (even in any legal amnesty scheme). Remember, IRS doesn’t care if your income is illegal or not, you’re still required to report it (and they cannot share it with LEO). In fact, you can even claim deductions if they were associated with the process!

          Because of that, quite a few of them actually do pay taxes. It’s hard to say for certain, because IRS doesn’t collect that bit of information, but there is an indirect way. An illegal immigrant cannot obtain an SSN, so to file a tax return they need to use ITIN. The number of returns filed with ITIN was around 2 million back in 2007, and it was rising steadily then, so it’s certainly more now. Now, not all of these are necessarily illegal immigrants – they also include people who do not reside in US but need to file taxes here (e.g. anyone who owns property in US and rents it out, but lives elsewhere and is not a citizen). However, based on numbers from other sources that should correlate with ITINs, more than half of those 2 millions cannot be explained by any legitimate activity, and therefore almost certainly represent illegal immigrants filing taxes.

          So yes, why not? If they’re illegal, refer them to IRS for any taxes they haven’t paid but should have, and then their property is fair game to cover that debt, according to the usual rules.

  22. The 4th amendment does not cover property that was obtained illegally. Asset forfeiture is not against the constitution. The problem many people have w/ it is when it is done against Americans without a conviction. Stealing a citizen’s property on the pretense of a crime committed is unlawful.

    It is the height of hypocrisy to expect the laws of a nation to protect you when your presence itself is illegal.

    “delusional goals”

    Try illegally entering a country other that this one. Life can be hell. Heck there are many nations out there that have standing, shoot-on-site orders to soldiers patrolling no-go zones on their borders. Boundary enforcement is possible if the will is there – sadly in this country it is not.

    • >> It is the height of hypocrisy to expect the laws of a nation to protect you when your presence itself is illegal.

      Not really, no. The laws protect anyone, whether criminals or not. What good would it be, if the moment you’re deemed a criminal you lose any and all constitutional protections?

      The only reasonable angle here is whether the ownership itself is legitimate (i.e. if you buy something with stolen money, it’s not really your property). But it’s also invalid to assume that any property owned by someone who is not in the country illegally is automatically illegal. For one thing, it’s perfectly legal to own property in US without ever crossing the border or having a visa. For another, one can cross the border legally and buy property etc, and then become illegal. Finally, even when one is illegal from the get go, they can still obtain property legally by buying it with their own money, or receiving it as a gift.

      All of those are legally and morally owned property, and deserves as much protection as anyone else’s.

      • “The laws protect anyone, whether criminals or not.”

        And hypocrites.

        BTW criminals do lose constitutional rights – in some cases even the right to life itself.

        I half agree w/ you that merely deeming someone a criminal (including a criminal invader) is not enough to throw everything to the wind but, this discussion is centered around people who are deemed illegal. If an alleged illegal alien makes the defense that he/she is a citizen and is not illegal that is far and away different than what we have been discussing thus far. Presumption of innocence does not apply to someone who has admitted guilt.

        “But it’s also invalid to assume that any property owned by someone who is not in the country illegally is automatically illegal. For one thing, it’s perfectly legal to own property in US without ever crossing the border or having a visa. For another, one can cross the border legally and buy property etc, and then become illegal. Finally, even when one is illegal from the get go, they can still obtain property legally by buying it with their own money, or receiving it as a gift.”

        But forfeiture of property can be part of a sentence or even procedure. To put it another way – a judge can rule that alien x should pay y amount of dollars as part of his/her punishment. Citizens in this country lose property everyday after losing criminal and/or civil cases. Officers in our military in these modern times have commandeered property in foreign lands and at sea. Just do the same to (illegal) foreigners that are here.

        If immigration laws do not matter then why should any laws matter? Look boundary enforcement is tough. Sending a family back to their home country (which are oftentimes dangerous) sucks but a line is a line. If you don’t want to do the tough work to enforce it then maybe it should not be there.

        • >If immigration laws do not matter then why should any laws matter?

          Because good laws punish actual harmful behavior, whereas US immigration law is political theater designed to punish positive economic behavior at the behest of economic protectionists and racist xenophobes.

    • “The 4th amendment does not cover property that was obtained illegally.”

      You have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about. By your argument, an illegal picking fruit on a farm can have all his earnings seized. Good luck convincing any court to rule so.

      “It is the height of hypocrisy to expect the laws of a nation to protect you when your presence itself is illegal.”

      The real hypocrisy is the fetishiziation of terrible immigration laws passed by nativists and xenophobes, while advocating the wholesale destruction of the 4th amendment by the seizing private property of people you happen to dislike.

      • “The real hypocrisy is the fetishiziation of terrible immigration laws passed by nativists and xenophobes, while advocating the wholesale destruction of the 4th amendment by the seizing private property of people you happen to dislike.”

        What terrible immigration laws? Like the mere fact that we have them. Whatever immigration laws the U.S. hae the U.S. has a right to enforce and if it doesn’t . . . then why have any at all. Seriously, why have any immigration laws if we are just going to look the other way when they are broken. Let anyone and everyone come here who wants to and then we would not have to worry about the whole thing. If we are going to draw a line in the sand then let’s do it and use force to back it up.

        • That’s your retort regarding terrible laws? The US government has a right to enforce laws, ergo today’s immigration laws aren’t terrible? What’s your point?

          If you studied history then you know the US had no immigration laws for decades. Every single law restricting immigration in this country was passed either by racial agitation or economic protectionism.

          Today’s laws are undoubtedly terrible: arbitrary limits based on countries as opposed to actual labor needs and applicant qualifications, random lottery systems, extremely long waiting times even for applicants with familial times.

          Arguing for laws regardless of their absurdity is the definition of fetishization. It’s no different from anti-gunners who advocate banning “shoulder things that go up”. Nativists know absolutely nothing the immigration laws they argue for.

    • It is the height of hypocrisy to expect the laws of a nation to protect you when your presence itself is illegal.

      Like laws against murder?

  23. Ah, f’ it, let em all in. Then our our country can finally become as beautiful, and prosperous as the countries they left To come here. Imagine it now. Open sewers running down the street, all our children standing on street corners selling candy, peanuts, and gum. No need for auto insurance, and your very own half built, dirt floor “house”. I can’t wait.

  24. Ah, f’ it. Let em all stay, and let more in. Then, maybe, if we’re lucky, our country will finally become as beautiful, and prosperous as the countries they left. Imagine it now. Running sewers in the streets, murderous, corrupt politicians living in the lap of luxury. Our children wandering the streets, selling candy, and gum for pocket change. No more auto, home, or health insurance. A half built, dirt floored home of your very own. I can’t wait.

  25. My wife worked in Head Start and in the Hispanic community. The Head Start class was only for Hispanics, not whites. The Hispanics have many illegals in their community. They get forged documents and have kids on US soil so they can get free stuff. The illegals plan things to get free stuff. Many of the illegals do work low wage jobs, but they still qualify for the government goodies. Many do not want to learn English, and since we are so accommodating, they do not have to. Illegals have fake documents so they can drive and falsify their insurance documents.
    When we had Germans, Swiss and Irish coming in, we did not have a welfare state. It was work or perish. Many of the Irish, Swiss and Germans did have skills.

    • Nothing like a good dash of racism thrown in for good measure.

      It’s especially ironic given that Irish, for example, were similarly derided back in the day (1850s) as lazy bastards unable and unwilling to work an honest job. Naturally, that causes them all to pursue a criminal career. Not to mention that they’re Catholics, and hence will do the Pope’s bidding – ruining the glorious Republic in the process.

      Germans, too, got similarly cold shoulder, at least the new immigrants in 1840-50s, and especially if they were Catholic.

      It’s especially hilarious that people doing that wanted to call themselves the “Native American Party”. Because they, of course, were native Americans, unlike those other newcomers.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Know_Nothing

      Then, of course, there was the Yellow Peril scare (which resulted in the first laws that actually restricted immigration to the USA):

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_Peril#United_States_of_America

      • Since when is reality racism? Illegals forge documents en masse. There’s a burgeoning black market for forged documents. I’ve made multiple arrests of illegals with forged documents. Some are printer shop deals, faked passports, counterfeit driver licenses, faked state credentials, etc. There are DMV employees falsifying records for cash. Heck, we get daily calls of illegals trying to register stolen cars at the DMV.

        I had another case where an illegal faked documents to become a “citizen” and a registered nurse. He was actually wanted for a murder case and two attempted murder cases out of Guatemala. He’s now wanted for murder in the US as well. He was scheduled to attend a state license hearing to suspend his CA nursing license after a patient died under his care due to his negligence.

        He never showed up at the hearing, and is still at large. Porous borders – not good.

        • LOL @ reality. Are you saying that Catholic immigrants were lazy criminals who follow the Pope’s orders?

          Please, tell us more personal anecdotes. Maybe if you tell a few million more, then your claims about the link between immigrants and crime will have some statistical significance.

        • Sex T,

          They’re called examples. I’ve may have more than 1,000 examples. Just continue being lost in the left.

          Or maybe try this on for size: You’re driving to work and need to stop suddenly on the freeway. Would you want the driver behind you to have:

          A. A license
          B. Registration
          C. Insurance
          D. All of the above
          E. None of the above.

          You are laughably lost if you think illegals drive responsibly. I had a day in South Central LA where I stopped 6 drivers and all 6 didn’t have licenses. Why does that make a difference? I’ve personally investigated nearly 1,300 traffic collisions over the last 14 years. Unlicensed / illegal drivers are about 2.5 times more likely to be at-fault in a collision. They are also about 2.5 more likely to not have insurance.

          Is the rubber meeting the road yet?

        • It’s funny when a cop dings an illegal for not having a license when acquiring a license runs the risk of deportation.

          And shockingly, poor immigrants are more likely not to have insurance. Why do you side with a government-mandated racket to punish people with less money? Is it because the car insurance business buys free gear for cops?

          Feel free to post actual statistical backing on the 2.5 times more likely at fault. There’s a reason Mexicans drive slowly on the highway, it is to avoid pigs like you.

        • Racism is the part where he says that Germans and Swiss are a-ok, but all those dirty Mexicans, now that’s another story.

        • Not to mention the Germans didn’t exactly integrate. Ever been to the Midwest? German culture still has its marks everywhere the German immigrants set up their “cultural enclaves”. Hell, there’s places actually NAMED Germantown. Double standards much?

      • You’re spot on A81, completely spot on. My only hope, is that the people that so viciously support illegal immigration, end up being victimized by it somehow. Perhaps then ,they will realize they were wrong.

        • Thanks. I’m beginning to think I stumbled upon on of those idiotic left-wing sites. These things become more personal when its you, your car, your victim, etc. Anyways, I’ll just keep on keeping on. I make enforcement actions based upon the totality of the circumstances. I’ve had a number of people try to call me racist, but the fact of the matter is that I could care less about what race someone happens to be. I also do not have a single sustained complaint, and video record the vast majority of my enforcement contacts from beginning to end (the exception being when the equipment is unavailable or malfunctions).

          Then there are people “challenging” me to post crash and arrest reports over the internet – which is downright idiotic. I’m not going to violate information / collision / arrest report release policies simply to win an argument with a random person on the internet. I’d challenge them to actually talk to a street cop with a decade or so of experience who actually works the streets of LA, East LA, San Diego, etc. That’s probably too much trouble because it wouldn’t jive with their sophisticated world view.

          I wouldn’t wish that Int or Sex T gets involved with a hit and run or other crime with an illegal, but they don’t seem to understand that likelihood on California roadways. Oh, well. It’s not going to cause me to lose any sleep.

          My basic premise is this: naturalize non-criminal citizens who will *defend the Constitution* and contribute to our country in a positive manner. People don’t have an automatic right to be a US citizen just like Germany is not required to make me a German citizen. Sounds pretty reasonable to me. I’m not into freeloaders.

        • More likely to be victimized by a citizen than an illegal immigrant, per crime stats.

          But that’s really Christian of you to wish violence and misfortune befalls those you disagree with.

        • @ Grind: ? He said “I wouldn’t wish that Int or Sex T gets involved with a hit and run or other crime with an illegal…” Projecting much?

          There is a difference between actively wishing for misfortune on another person and being apathetic if a person suffers from the consequences of their political decisions.

        • By parity of logic, you would be fine with anti-gunners gloating about accidental gun deaths amongst pro-gun people?

        • Might want to work on that reading comprehension. I’ve directly quoted him below:

          My only hope, is that the people that so viciously support illegal immigration, end up being victimized by it somehow.

          You don’t even understand what you’re posting.

  26. I’m going to go out on an unpopular limb and say the damage is done and that this particular battle was lost. If you think we’ll round up the several, several million immigrnats that were basically given a free pass, that’s great, but I don’t see hard line deportation as being possible at this point for the masses. Maybe once BO is out of office we can do something about those that follow, but not these. At best, we can limit the damage they do.

    Personally, I think our fallback position should be education. These people will have kids and frankly it’s that generation that stands to have the most influence on our country, and like it or not, nobody is going to kick them out. Yes, work toward strengthening the boarders in the aftermath of this president’s policy, but realize what is coming rather than what is now. I worry less about Mom and Pop who don’t speak a lick of English and more about their kids growing up in our horribly flawed edcation system designed to by and large indoctrinate them the moment they step onto campus. That needs to be our next battle.

    IMO, the boarder influx is merely the tide, but it’s the generation they create that will be the tsunami that either makes or breaks this country.

  27. “Today’s laws are undoubtedly terrible”

    So that gives foreigners the right to break them? National boundaries are by nature arbitrary. But they are there. And each has the right to expect outsiders to enter through the front door. If you don’t . . . try crossing from Myramar to Thailand illegally and see where that gets you.

    Eventually, if you have any kind of boundary enforcement, you are going to have to deport someone who wants to stay. It will suck for that person but if you do not do it then what is the point of the law in the first place?

    And for all your crying about nativism . . . This kind of thing goes on around the world everyday. Do you see people crying about non-western nations when they engage in much more forceful enforcement of their boundaries? No. Because the let everyone-go-where-they-want tent has a healthy streak of racism running through it.

    • Heh. Allow immigration regardless of race is now racist. Nativist doublespeak takes on a new level of crazy.

      I do like how you justify crappy US laws but citing other the crappy laws of other countries.

      • Seriously. When did I ever state such? But are you seriously saying that a nation restricting its numbers from countries of its choosing is crappy and/or racist?

        ST,

        Throw me a bone. If you have a nation and you have laws regarding entry then eventually you are going to have to enforce those laws? Right? And does that not suck for the person(s) who have to leave? But you still have those laws anyway.

        • >> a nation restricting its numbers from countries of its choosing is crappy and/or racist?

          If it’s restricting people from specific countries or geographic regions, or imposing uneven quotas (like the “whites only” policy that was practiced in US from late 19th century to mid-20th), then yeah, sure it’s racist, pretty much by definition – what else could it possibly be?

        • It most certainly is crappy, and in the context of US history, most certainly racist.

          So your argument in favor of US immigration laws is because such laws must exist? Who do you think wrote those laws? That’s right, corrupt politicians influenced by economic protectionists and racist xenophobes.

    • >> So that gives foreigners the right to break them?

      Anyone has the right to break immoral laws. For example, if you were to build an integrally suppressed 20mm machine gun in your garage while being high on LSD, as far as I’m concerned, more power to you – you’re not doing anything wrong, and if you end up in court and I’m on the jury, I’ll nullify.

      • So you think U.S. immigration laws are immoral? Or do you think any and all boundary laws are immoral? Cuz if you have any kind of immigration law eventually someone will break it and if the law is enforced it will suck for whoever broke it

        • I think that US immigration laws specifically are immoral because they don’t serve a rational objective (like e.g. preventing crime) – they block way too many people for no reason. In fact, they start with the assumption that a person needs a reason to immigrate. A reasonable system is the one that embraces freedom of movement, and only blocks those people for whom there’s a good reason to not want them here (criminals, ill, those who are obviously trying to cash in on welfare, those that indicate the lack of desire to assimilate etc).

  28. “Racism is the part where he says that Germans and Swiss are a-ok, but all those dirty Mexicans, now that’s another story.”

    Racism right there. What you and many others do not get is the stream of foreigners into this country (both legal and illegal) help the wealthiest 1 percent in their birth countries. If western nations were not the pressure valve for these despots and oligarchs then conditions for change would be more favorable.

    And news flash. You cannot hold certain public offices (in fact most) in Mexico if you are a naturalized citizen. That is institutional nativism right there.

  29. >> Racism right there. What you and many others do not get is the stream of foreigners into this country (both legal and illegal) help the wealthiest 1 percent in their birth countries. If western nations were not the pressure valve for these despots and oligarchs then conditions for change would be more favorable.

    So what you’re saying is that people should be prevented from immigration because, if they’re locked up in their home country, they’ll be forced to work to improve it?

    And how exactly is it any different from the “socialist” policies that you decry?

    I’ve heard this attitude before, and, as an immigrant, my only answer to you guys is: fvck you. You weren’t born in a shithole. You haven’t been faced with that choice. You don’t have any right to judge the people who are over the choice that they’ve made. For most people, their families come first, and they won’t sacrifice their well-being (and in some cases, their very life – I doubt that e.g. Mexico could be helped by anything short of an armed insurrection) for the sake of a country that they haven’t seen anything but bad things from.

    >> And news flash. You cannot hold certain public offices (in fact most) in Mexico if you are a naturalized citizen. That is institutional nativism right there.

    That sucks, and if I were a Mexican resident I’d be very concerned about that. There are other things that suck in other countries, too; e.g. in Saudi Arabia women can’t drive. That tells a lot about Saudi Arabia and Mexico, respectively, but why should Americans even deign to compare their country to such places?

    • And I married a woman from a India (been there myself) and she went through the front door – so no love lost from this side.

      “For most people, their families come first, and they won’t sacrifice their well-being (and in some cases, their very life – I doubt that e.g. Mexico could be helped by anything short of an armed insurrection) for the sake of a country that they haven’t seen anything but bad things from.”

      And so basically screw your countrymen and the place where you are going for the sake of your family. Family first at the expense of everyone else. That is the mentality of the 3rd world and the mentality of many who come from it to here. That attitude makes for a week nation not a strong one. And it gives the rich A-holes in the 3rd world what they want.

      “but why should Americans even deign to compare their country to such places?”

      I cannot speak for all Americans but I can for myself. Because I truly believe I am no better or worse than people in those countries.

      Throw me a bone. If you make a border than you should enforce it. Some people get in and some don’t. It sucks but if you enforce a border no matter how good your policies are eventually some well-meaning person will not get/stay in. Or you can just let any and everyone here. Is that what you are suggesting?

      • >> And I married a woman from a India (been there myself) and she went through the front door – so no love lost from this side.

        Seriously, that’s your cred? Just FYI, family immigration in US is exceptionally easy – it’s basically the easiest, cheapest route to get green card and citizenship, and requires almost nothing other than having a citizen relative or a spouse. Most people aren’t so lucky. Have you looked at what it takes to take the skilled immigration route?

        >> And so basically screw your countrymen

        How exactly am I screwing them? By refusing to work for their benefit? They’re not entitled to the fruits of my labor. I’m not taking anything away that they own, unless you want to suggest that they somehow own me, solely by the virtue of me being born in that country. Last I checked I didn’t sign any contracts with them professing my eternal allegiance; and neither did my parents on my behalf (not that such would even be valid).

        No, they screw themselves, and I merely refuse to participate in that. Especially since I get to suffer along with them even though I’m not complicit in the process that got us there in the first place.

        >> the place where you are going

        How exactly am I screwing this place? I’m literally paying more in income taxes than 99% of the citizens of this country. I pay property taxes from my (fairly expensive) property. I pay payroll taxes, but because I am not a citizen, I don’t get to most of the social welfare programs that they pay into, even if sometime in the future I should need them (and so I also have expensive unemployment and disability insurance, paid on my own dime). Not only I earn every single cent I spend on myself, but I subsidize a bunch of your citizens who are on welfare, and create jobs for many more through my spending.

        >> If you make a border than you should enforce it.

        Really? US had a border that it didn’t enforce, immigration-wise, for almost a century. Maybe you should talk to those dummies – Washington, Jefferson etc – who set up such an obviously broken system.

        >> Some people get in and some don’t. It sucks but if you enforce a border no matter how good your policies are eventually some well-meaning person will not get/stay in. Or you can just let any and everyone here. Is that what you are suggesting?

        I’m suggesting that “it sucks, oh well, whatever” is not a proper way of dealing with bad laws. You fix the laws until they’re not bad, or at least as good as reasonably possible. Then they can actually be enforced morally.

      • And so basically screw your countrymen and the place where you are going for the sake of your family. Family first at the expense of everyone else. That is the mentality of the 3rd world and the mentality of many who come from it to here. That attitude makes for a week nation not a strong one. And it gives the rich A-holes in the 3rd world what they want.

        So then you don’t support the “family-first” conservative policies?

  30. “I think that US immigration laws specifically are immoral because they don’t serve a rational objective (like e.g. preventing crime) – they block way too many people for no reason. In fact, they start with the assumption that a person needs a reason to immigrate. A reasonable system is the one that embraces freedom of movement, and only blocks those people for whom there’s a good reason to not want them here (criminals, ill, those who are obviously trying to cash in on welfare, those that indicate the lack of desire to assimilate etc).”

    But by this measure most immigration laws around the world are “immoral”. Nation-states by their very nature restrict movement. And the list of “good reason[s]” to prevent someone from entering are near impossible to enforce.

    Nations that have it good know it. They also know that many will want to come and that those new people can potential turn it into a country that is not good. You were born in a sh*t hole? Then can you blame people for not wanting their nation to become one? Seriously who are you to judge. Sh*t holes have been the norm of human existence which is why we need fewer of them. Everyone jumping ship to the few non-fecal hole countries will not make this country or any other better.

    • >> But by this measure most immigration laws around the world are “immoral”. Nation-states by their very nature restrict movement.

      Today, that is true. But you’re wrong that nation-states do it “by their very nature”. Very few did have any form of immigration enforcement until mid-to-late 19th century.

      >> And the list of “good reason[s]” to prevent someone from entering are near impossible to enforce.

      How so? It doesn’t mean that you just let them walk across the border unimpeded. Like customs, you stop them and ask them to provide the necessary documentation and such – criminal records, medical certificates etc. The point is that if there’s nothing about them that is wrong, then there’s no reason to not less them pass. They shouldn’t be the ones trying to conjure a reason as to why they want to cross the imaginary line on the ground. “I want to live there” is good enough for a reason, and in the absence of any disqualifying reasons to deny the request, the default should be to allow.

      >> Then can you blame people for not wanting their nation to become one?

      And of course it will become one if you only let us filthy immigrants in? And otherwise it’s all peaches and roses?

      >> Everyone jumping ship to the few non-fecal hole countries will not make this country or any other better.

      It will make the lives of the people who jump better, at the very least, and that’s already a lot. It will also make the productivity of the non-shithole country better, and at some point enable it to uplift those shitholes and force them into civilization. Because there’s no way they will uplift themselves.

      Who am I to judge? A human being, with the notions of individual freedom and responsibility, and empathy.

      • “Very few did have any form of immigration enforcement until mid-to-late 19th century.”

        More than you would think and many nations let local lords or law enforcement handle new comers so it was not always done at a federal level but often was handled.

        “Like customs, you stop them and ask them to provide the necessary documentation and such – criminal records, medical certificates etc.”

        So if they do not have the proper paper work they cannot pass? And suppose they just go over land and blow-off customs? Do we deport them? If they get on welfare is that reason enough according to you?

        “And of course it will become one if you only let us filthy immigrants in? And otherwise it’s all peaches and roses?”

        Watch it my wife is an immigrant. Will you at least admit the possibility that immigration has the potential to bring a country down. If it does then nations have a right to boundary enforcement.

        “It will make the lives of the people who jump better, at the very least, and that’s already a lot. It will also make the productivity of the non-shithole country better, and at some point enable it to uplift those shitholes and force them into civilization. Because there’s no way they will uplift themselves.”

        Not always and the devil is in the details. It can make the lives of the people who come better or worse. How about kids who do not want to leave? It does not always make the productivity go up and even when it does there is a risk of bringing the quality of life down in other ways. And very often it enables the sh*tholes to plug along as despotic sh*tholes. They can uplift themselves. Nations have done it. If they can’t its fool hardy to think it can be done from here.

        “Who am I to judge? A human being, with the notions of individual freedom and responsibility, and empathy.”

        Am I less than that?. Seriously, you are coming across as a douche who sees himself as superior because he was born in a different place.

        • >> So if they do not have the proper paper work they cannot pass? And suppose they just go over land and blow-off customs? Do we deport them?

          Yes. If the legal route is viable and does not impose unnecessary burden, there’s no excuse to circumvent it.

          >> If they get on welfare is that reason enough according to you?

          Yes, unless they have paid enough into the system first (this is properly handled by having several grades in the system, whereby naturalized citizens progress through them as they pay the corresponding taxes for some period of time).

          >> Watch it my wife is an immigrant. Will you at least admit the possibility that immigration has the potential to bring a country down. If it does then nations have a right to boundary enforcement.

          I did not dispute that right in general. But it can only be exercised where immigration is actually harmful, and only to the extent necessary to prevent said harm (just like the right to self-defense doesn’t mean that you can shoot random people on sight on account of you thinking that they have potential to do you harm at sometime in the future, or just because you don’t like them).

          >> Not always and the devil is in the details. It can make the lives of the people who come better or worse. How about kids who do not want to leave?

          I know it made my life better, and every single person that I know. Those who don’t like it here can go back anyway. Ditto kids.

          By any objective metric (income, quality of life, political freedom etc), it’s also better.

          >> It does not always make the productivity go up and even when it does there is a risk of bringing the quality of life down in other ways.

          Perhaps (though I’d love to hear a specific example), but so long as those people contribute more to the society than they take from it, you don’t have any grounds to complain. They don’t owe you any extra productivity anymore so than they owe it to their country of origin.

          >> And very often it enables the sh*tholes to plug along as despotic sh*tholes. They can uplift themselves. Nations have done it. If they can’t its fool hardy to think it can be done from here.

          The problem is that you for some reason think that people born there have an obligation to fix things that were set in place long before their birth, for no reason other than that incident of their birth in a given area. Now if you were in a similar position yourself and stayed and helped uplift, you’d have the right to judge and hold others to the same standard.

          But when you’re a natural born citizen of a first world country, and you have all that from birth – and so did your parents, and their parents (and ultimately it most likely also terminates at someone who decided to leave their homeland for a better place) – and you presume to judge those people and tell them what choices they should make – well, that comes across as highly hypocritical and offensive.

          There’s also that tiny aspect of actually being able to meaningfully contribute to said uplifting. For those of us whose countries are not just economically backwards, but also socially and politically so – where open political opposition is repressed, often with violence – there’s no peaceful avenue to improve matters. At best we can stay and be subservient and hope that what little economic gain our work produces (because there’s often no economic opportunity to fully realize one’s abilities) will be a drop in a bucket that’ll bring that society forward, decades or even centuries from now. Does that sound like something you’d wish for yourself?

          Or should we go for an armed uprising? Even ignoring all the personal aspects of risking one’s life, 80% of the people there like the way things are, so we’d basically be a minority trying to impose our will on the majority. Even if we succeed, it’d be a tyranny. Does that sound any better?

          >> Am I less than that?

          You do seem to be lacking on the empathy part.

          >> Seriously, you are coming across as a douche who sees himself as superior because he was born in a different place.

          I don’t see myself as superior. I’m merely saying that I have more personal experience to understand the various aspects involved. In particular, unlike you, I know how that choice is made and what goes into it.

  31. “How exactly am I screwing them? By refusing to work for their benefit? They’re not entitled to the fruits of my labor.”

    No they are not. But you could give it freely that is patria – love for your country and countrymen. You want to change America but not where you came from. Don’t you see how that seems messed up?

    “How exactly am I screwing this place?”

    No one said you did, but it seems like if you needed to you would. You know family first. And if you would not fight for the nation of your birth should the need arise would you fight for this one? If you do not like the taxes don’t pay them! You want to talk about bad laws. And you knew they were high when you came and if you did not then you know now but are choosing to stay. Seriously, please stop subsidizing people on welfare!

    “Really? US had a border that it didn’t enforce, immigration-wise, for almost a century. Maybe you should talk to those dummies – Washington, Jefferson etc – who set up such an obviously broken system.”

    But they had one and it is their right to enforce how they saw fit. We have immigration laws now. Lets get them off the books if we are not going to enforce them. But even with “good” laws some people will not get in even by your measure . . . which btw is at odds with not just the U.S. but with almost every other nation’s immigration laws out there. I would also add that your view is serious in the minority to the point of being extremely so.

    “Seriously, that’s your cred?”

    O I got more. I have been on 4 continents and over 10 countries. I grew up in Southern California so I witnessed the balkanization of America first hand (English only might be nativist but it is sad seeing neighbors not even able to talk to each other). I work everyday with foreigners. I am a U.S. Air Force veteran. And I happen to be right 🙂

    What’s your cred? You were one of the billions born outside of America? You came here?

    * And you know I am right that the oligarchs in the 3rd world are getting what they want.

  32. >> But you could give it freely that is patria – love for your country and countrymen.

    Why should I give it freely? I never got any from them; in fact, most of them hate me for the views that I espouse.

    >> You want to change America but not where you came from. Don’t you see how that seems messed up?

    Not at all. It’s actually possible to change US with less effort. Furthermore, the gains are much more obvious and immediate (and I’m not talking about just money here, but also things like personal freedoms or social stability). Long-term, it’s also beneficial for my children, and their children etc. Basically, an investment into this society pays back, and a relationship that is based on mutual respect and profit is the more stable one. Speaking of which …

    >> . And if you would not fight for the nation of your birth should the need arise would you fight for this one?

    I’d fight for this one because, again, this one respects me and cares enough about me (and my wife, and my children) for it to be worth it. Unlike the other one. It’s really as simple as that: countries that don’t treat their citizens well don’t get any respect or love.

    And I have to ask again, what’s so special about the nation of my birth? Why does me being born there give it some special right to my allegiance? That is precious, and I give it to such that deserve it.

    >> If you do not like the taxes don’t pay them! You want to talk about bad laws. And you knew they were high when you came and if you did not then you know now but are choosing to stay. Seriously, please stop subsidizing people on welfare!

    See, I don’t actually have a problem paying taxes towards welfare. I think it results in less crime and better life for me and mine in the end. So that’s not a bad law.

    There are plenty of bad laws hereabouts, and I do what I can to change them – what’s really nice is that there are so many ways to actually get involved into this kind of stuff and see meaningful consequences of your efforts, without the fear to stick out your neck too much in the process.

    >> But even with “good” laws some people will not get in even by your measure . . . which btw is at odds with not just the U.S. but with almost every other nation’s immigration laws out there. I would also add that your view is serious in the minority to the point of being extremely so.

    Do you really want to invoke the “every other nation’s laws” argument here? I mean, why not look at what their laws are on guns, or “hate speech”, or many other things?

    And yeah, I realize that my view is seriously in the minority these days. It’s very unfortunate because the restrictions on immigration are largely benefiting large transnational corporations, which use them to artificially segment the markets and reap profits by producing in areas with low wages, and then selling in areas where they can charge more. There can be no free market if one of the most basic goods on the market, labor, is so tightly regulated. So people bitch about outsourcing, not realizing that this is the direct and obvious consequence of restricted immigration.

    • Why should I give it freely? I never got any from them; in fact, most of them hate me for the views that I espouse.

      Children receive love before they can reciprocate. Sometimes being the bigger man means well being the bigger man. And I am reminded of a famous 1st Rabbi who had some irregular views but he changed the world.

      “the gains are much more obvious and immediate ”

      I won’t argue with that one other than to say even so those changes are needed so much more in those crap holes.

      “And I have to ask again, what’s so special about the nation of my birth? Why does me being born there give it some special right to my allegiance? That is precious, and I give it to such that deserve it.”

      Because if it is so crappy then it needs stand-up dudes. The “specialness” of it is that once you were actually there. And you were from there. You were/are in a position better than most to affect positive change.

      “See, I don’t actually have a problem paying taxes towards welfare. I think it results in less crime and better life for me and mine in the end. So that’s not a bad law”

      Well it seemed like you were griping about them. And you just demonstrated the problem in spades. The Founding Fathers of this nation fought, killed, (and some) died in a war that had alot to do with taxation. We are paying way more than was being paid then. And the sky is the limit. Seriously, how high do taxes have to be before you say “enough”? Americans historically have been rowdy and willing to fight way before others will (USA 1776; India 1948). I do not want to contribute to the myriad of bad things that tax revenue goes towards.

      Do you really want to invoke the “every other nation’s laws” argument here? I mean, why not look at what their laws are on guns, or “hate speech”, or many other things?

      Yeah I do. As messed up as their laws are its theirs. While I agree its acceptable to go against immoral laws by in large I try to abide by laws even when I think they are wrong. It has to get really bad before I object. I am sure there are a ton of laws here you find good that others do not. Do you wish that they blow them off because they are deemed immoral? And I am willing to bet that you do not want someone on your property even though he/she genuinely believes that the idea of land ownership is immoral.

      I mention other nations as many have more draconian immigration laws (especially enforcement). You hardly ever hear a peep about them but the U.S. catches more flack than any other nation on this issue. Many people from those countries come here. So off the bat you do not have reciprocity at least as far as governments are concerned.

      “And yeah, I realize that my view is seriously in the minority these days. It’s very unfortunate because the restrictions on immigration are largely benefiting large transnational corporations, which use them to artificially segment the markets and reap profits by producing in areas with low wages, and then selling in areas where they can charge more. There can be no free market if one of the most basic goods on the market, labor, is so tightly regulated. So people bitch about outsourcing, not realizing that this is the direct and obvious consequence of restricted immigration.”

      A pure free market has never existed and never will. Its a Keynesian fantasy. Also, there are loads of other reasons to restrict immigration other than economic considerations.

      • >> Children receive love before they can reciprocate.

        They’re not my children. They’re grown adults who can and should take responsibility for their own life.

        >> Because if it is so crappy then it needs stand-up dudes.

        Who is “it”? The people don’t want me there, I’ve been told as much plenty of time (the most common line that a guy who is in political opposition can hear is, “just emigrate and don’t tell us how to live here”).

        >> The Founding Fathers of this nation fought, killed, (and some) died in a war that had alot to do with taxation. We are paying way more than was being paid then. And the sky is the limit. Seriously, how high do taxes have to be before you say “enough”?

        There’s no hard limit. The limit is defined by the goals that are necessary to achieve. I consider not having people die from starvation or illness on the street outside of my house to be a worthy goal.

        And the Fathers didn’t complain about high taxes per se. They complained about taxes that were higher than elsewhere, and, more importantly, enacted without consent of those taxed (“no taxation without representation” etc).

        >> I am sure there are a ton of laws here you find good that others do not. Do you wish that they blow them off because they are deemed immoral? And I am willing to bet that you do not want someone on your property even though he/she genuinely believes that the idea of land ownership is immoral.

        Obviously, I’m going to judge whether the law is good or bad based on my own morality, not someone else’s. They may genuinely believe that the idea of land ownership is immoral, but I don’t, so I’ll kick them out and call the cops.

        Other than that, yes, I’m perfectly fine with people blowing off laws that I deem immoral. For example, smoking weed is still a federal offense, but I couldn’t care less. Similarly, I don’t care about anyone violating NFA – if you want to build a machine gun in your garage, you’re welcome to. If I ever find myself on a jury in cases like that, I’ll nullify.

        >> I mention other nations as many have more draconian immigration laws (especially enforcement). You hardly ever hear a peep about them but the U.S. catches more flack than any other nation on this issue. Many people from those countries come here. So off the bat you do not have reciprocity at least as far as governments are concerned.

        Absolutely, most countries have immigration laws that are far worse. But one reason why they don’t get as much attention is that they don’t try to paint themselves as immigration-friendly in the first place. They’re basically saying from the get-go that they’re douches, there isn’t much to argue about there. In US tho, the interesting thing is that many citizens are firmly convinced that legal immigration is easy and readily available to anyone “of a good moral character” who is only willing to take the effort, and they judge based on that.

        >> A pure free market has never existed and never will. Its a Keynesian fantasy. Also, there are loads of other reasons to restrict immigration other than economic considerations.

        You keep trying to reframe the discussion as if I’m against any and all restrictions on immigration, even though I have repeatedly said that it’s about the purpose and scope of those restrictions. Those that are there now are disproportionately useful for what I have described, and little else.

        • “They’re not my children. They’re grown adults who can and should take responsibility for their own life.”

          So, basically screw them.

          “Who is “it”?”

          It sounds like the it (your country of birth Russia) is in desperate need of stand up dudes. And if it is as bad as you say then well, violence from inside or outisde maybe necessary. I am not sure if you have been watching the news but the orcs are not staying in Mordore. And there are many groups in Russia who are looking at breaking away.

          “There’s no hard limit. The limit is defined by the goals that are necessary to achieve. I consider not having people die from starvation or illness on the street outside of my house to be a worthy goal.”

          The vast majority of tax revenue does not go towards the programs you mention. It goes towards defense. The US DoD spends more money both in terms of raw amount & percentage of revenue on defense than any other nation/empire in history. Its obscene.

          “hey don’t try to paint themselves as immigration-friendly in the first place.”

          Who does this? America? That might be what many believe about America – those who live outside in but a cursory look at American history is one exploitation of people who came here.

          “In US tho, the interesting thing is that many citizens are firmly convinced that legal immigration is easy and readily available to anyone “of a good moral character” who is only willing to take the effort, and they judge based on that.”

          Not me. Compared to other nations we are in the middle or even a little hard depending on the circumstances. We are softer than many in terms of how we deal w/ illegals. Stray into Chinese waters and see the reception you will get.

          “You keep trying to reframe the discussion as if I’m against any and all restrictions on immigration, even though I have repeatedly said that it’s about the purpose and scope of those restrictions.”

          I know you are not but I am saying that wherever that line is drawn it needs to be very hard. If you can be shot for trying to enter restricted places within America then I have zero problem with measures deemed draconian by some to enforce immigration laws.

  33. “Yes. If the legal route is viable and does not impose unnecessary burden, there’s no excuse to circumvent it.”

    And there will always be people who gripe and complain and will say you are being unfair. The problem is your words “unnecessary burden”. People take that in many different ways. If the person is trying to come here illegally then that person believes the legal route is an unnecessary burden or they would go the legal route.

    “Yes, unless they have paid enough into the system first (this is properly handled by having several grades in the system, whereby naturalized citizens progress through them as they pay the corresponding taxes for some period of time).”

    And if you included social services in general to this you would be talking about many people who are here in America – legally and illegally. Enforcement on this would be difficult and besides we do not need more people pouring money into the Military Industrial Complex.

    “Those who don’t like it here can go back anyway.”

    Not if they are dead – like boat people who drown. People crossing in places of extreme heat or cold. Or they get used as weapons in a war – like the US did w/ the Irish in the Civil War.

    “Ditto kids.”

    You mean kids who were dragged to this country illegally can now try the daunting process of trying to get home without proper paperwork?

    “The problem is that you for some reason think that people born there have an obligation to fix things that were set in place long before their birth, for no reason other than that incident of their birth in a given area. Now if you were in a similar position yourself and stayed and helped uplift, you’d have the right to judge and hold others to the same standard.”

    If you do not have the “obligation” than who does? You mentioned this word, “responsibility”. Like I states earlier I have tried to help where I can both here and abroad.

    “Perhaps (though I’d love to hear a specific example), but so long as those people contribute more to the society than they take from it, you don’t have any grounds to complain. They don’t owe you any extra productivity anymore so than they owe it to their country of origin.”

    Two words: Population Density. Generally speaking a low one makes for a better quality of life. A high one makes for lower quality – there are exceptions but population density is one of those things that it does not matter the who just that it is. If the immigrants are rich, poor, skilled, old, young, etc. for this one it matters little. Compounding the problem is that immigrants (especially today) tend to settle in urban areas.
    And some immigrants do take more than they contribute. Will you at least admit that?

    “But when you’re a natural born citizen of a first world country, and you have all that from birth – and so did your parents, and their parents (and ultimately it most likely also terminates at someone who decided to leave their homeland for a better place) – and you presume to judge those people and tell them what choices they should make – well, that comes across as highly hypocritical and offensive.”

    I am saying use the front door. And I have seen immigrants who brag all day about their home country and have not done squat for it. You also wrongly assume that myself and everyone in this nation has it good cause its America (insert every pie-in-the-sky every nonAmerican has had about this place). My mom is and was one of those Americans who did a job that supposedly Americans would not do: she picked fruit.
    I helped this country where I can and I have also tried to help overseas. I do not presume to judge but I would say that I have earned the right to speak – more so than many from America.

    “There’s also that tiny aspect of actually being able to meaningfully contribute to said uplifting. For those of us whose countries are not just economically backwards, but also socially and politically so – where open political opposition is repressed, often with violence – there’s no peaceful avenue to improve matters. At best we can stay and be subservient and hope that what little economic gain our work produces (because there’s often no economic opportunity to fully realize one’s abilities) will be a drop in a bucket that’ll bring that society forward, decades or even centuries from now. Does that sound like something you’d wish for yourself?”
    I agree w/ you that in SOME countries peaceful resolution is not an option. Guess what the other option is? War – for good, bad, and otherwise it forged this nation. In fact, there would not be a nation without it.
    “Or should we go for an armed uprising? Even ignoring all the personal aspects of risking one’s life, 80% of the people there like the way things are, so we’d basically be a minority trying to impose our will on the majority. Even if we succeed, it’d be a tyranny. Does that sound any better?”

    I just disagree w/ you on the 80% number and I think you pulled it out of your rear. Again, the details matter here. In some cases a full on revolution is the answer. In some cases a break away republic. In some cases annexation by another country and in some cases peaceable resolution. It depends on the country (which you did not state where you are from BTW).

    “You do seem to be lacking on the empathy part.”

    So you do feel morally superior? I can sympathize not empathize and I do. I have been to other countries some seriously crappy (the number is 9 counting here not 10 had to sit down and count). I also know that bringing too many at one time almost guarantees they will not assimilate. If they can cluster in ethnic enclaves most will and do.

    This pertains to the original issue that spawned this thread – the 2A and illegal immigrants. For most people not from here the 2A is not the default.

    “I don’t see myself as superior. I’m merely saying that I have more personal experience to understand the various aspects involved. In particular, unlike you, I know how that choice is made and what goes into it.”

    You come across that way even in the paragraph were you trying to explain that you are not. I know what its like, unlike you, to be born in a nation lusted after by many and hated by some (sometimes both at the same time). I am also keenly aware of American exceptionalism and it being the reason why we went from a colony to world super power in less than 2 centuries.

    • >> And there will always be people who gripe and complain and will say you are being unfair.

      Sure. And the people who are caught stealing will also complain that it’s unfair. Yet we talk about fair laws and unfair laws, because a reasonable person can look and make a decision.

      Anyway, for starters, how about you (and I mean all Americans, not just you personally) actually make an effort to decide if the existing immigration laws that you have are fair or not? Because in most cases you guys don’t actually have the slightest idea of how those laws even work.

      (Granted, this is depressingly common in US in general – people have all kinds of political opinions on how things should be, without a clear understanding of how they actually are. A lot of that is due to mass media pushing hysterical opinions on the populace, laden with emotion and pretty bare on facts.)

      >> besides we do not need more people pouring money into the Military Industrial Complex.

      I thought you’re all about following laws, and last I checked both income tax and military spending are put in place by the Congress through proper procedures 🙂

      >> Not if they are dead – like boat people who drown. People crossing in places of extreme heat or cold.

      That’s the risk that they take voluntarily. And if they’re willing to take that risk, think about what it says about their origin.

      >> You mean kids who were dragged to this country illegally can now try the daunting process of trying to get home without proper paperwork?

      Why are we discussing illegal immigration specifically, now? The conversation was about expanding legal immigration to the point where no-one (who is not a burden) has to take the illegal route in the first place. That doesn’t carry all the risks that you mention. On the contrary, if you do make legal immigration harder, there will be more illegals (as with any other market, when you try to ban something that there’s a heavy demand on, the black market for it grows). So if you really care about people dying from extreme heat or cold, or kids stuck here without paperwork, why, the obvious solution to this problem is to arrange things so that they don’t have to cross in dangerous places or without paperwork. Duh.

      >> If you do not have the “obligation” than who does?

      The people who consciously decide to tie their fate to that specific country, if any.

      If there aren’t any, then such a country does not deserve to exist.

      >> Two words: Population Density. Generally speaking a low one makes for a better quality of life. A high one makes for lower quality – there are exceptions but population density is one of those things that it does not matter the who just that it is.

      If you look at population quality distribution in US, it’s obvious that this argument doesn’t hold water. By most objective metrics, it’s better in well-developed urban areas, where population density is higher compared to the “flyover country”.

      There is such a thing as overpopulation, yes. So in practice there’s an optimal global maximum on the graph somewhere. US is nowhere even near that graph as a whole. Some of its urban centers (like LA) are arguably getting into that territory. On the other hand, there are plenty of places that could be settled, if the immigration stream is specifically directed towards them. In short, it’s nothing that a well designed immigration program cannot handle.

      For example, Canada has a provincial immigration program, whereby specific provinces make it easier to immigrate, but require the people to settle and get a job there in return, and integrate into the local culture (e.g. Quebec gives significant extra preference to applicants who know French, or are willing to learn it). Think about how the same system could work in, say, Detroit or Appalachia. Amnesty in exchange for moving to Detroit – why not? Think of it as resettling the frontier 🙂

      >> And some immigrants do take more than they contribute. Will you at least admit that?

      Sure. Just like some citizens do. They’re all people, after all, and you’ll always have some proportion of freeriders. The question is, 1) to what extent it is the flaw of the system (i.e. does it make welfare too easy to get?), and 2) what is the proportion.

      >> I am saying use the front door.

      It’s too narrow for 9 people out of 10 who want to apply.

      >> You also wrongly assume that myself and everyone in this nation has it good cause its America

      Not at all. I’m well aware that there are poor people and poor areas here too, that there are crime problems in some places etc. And obviously people just have bad luck.

      However, what you do have, is a better starting point. In other words, all other things being equal, you will do better in US than, say, in India.

      >> I just disagree w/ you on the 80% number and I think you pulled it out of your rear.

      It comes from opinion polls. Actually it’s closer to 85% of support (for the country’s government). My personal experience seems to indicate that it’s valid.

      Oh, and the country is Russia. So poverty is not so much of an issue (well it is, just not for me personally), but politically it’s bad and getting worse. And trust me I did what I could while I was there to turn it the other way, but eventually I gave up after realizing that most people there really want to live in a country-wide gulag. It’s like a source of pride of them, even – seriously, you have people saying “yeah, we’re orcs, let them fear us”.

      >> . I also know that bringing too many at one time almost guarantees they will not assimilate. If they can cluster in ethnic enclaves most will and do.

      I actually agree with that, but again the question is, how many is “too many”, and what can be done to prevent it other than just restricting the numbers? The problem with you guys is that your immigration policy doesn’t even try to force people to assimilate, or reward them for doing so. For a culture that (rightly) prides itself on being a #1 melting pot of the world by design, it’s really weird.

      For example, you are heavily encouraging family immigration, but make skilled immigration very hard. It takes less than a year in most cases to obtain a green card for someone whose close relative is already in US, but for, say, a software developer to do so through work, is anywhere between 2 and 10 years depending on which country he is from and his degree. Obviously, when you encourage bringing in family in droves, you get ethnic enclaves.

      >> This pertains to the original issue that spawned this thread – the 2A and illegal immigrants. For most people not from here the 2A is not the default.

      It’s not the default in a sense that it’s not what they lived with. But remember, they immigrated because they didn’t like the way they lived!

      • “I thought you’re all about following laws, and last I checked both income tax and military spending are put in place by the Congress through proper procedures 🙂

        If you read what I wrote you see that I am for civil disobedience in some circumstances. Plus, it is beyond the scope of this thread but I could go at length w/ you and anyone else regarding the legality of filing or not filing personal federal income tax.

        “That’s the risk that they take voluntarily. And if they’re willing to take that risk, think about what it says about their origin.”

        Not if they are kids. And think of it this way. If you are willing to risk death to leave why not risk it fighting. At least that way, if you die you might take down some of the SOB’s that are oppressing you.

        “Why are we discussing illegal immigration specifically, now? The conversation was about expanding legal immigration to the point where no-one (who is not a burden) has to take the illegal route in the first place.”

        Because the thread is about amnesty. You believe that people have a right to come hear regardless of what the host nations’ laws or people think and that once they are hear illegally someone should just wave the wand and make them legal. Would you not agree that a child who was brought to this country illegally and without his/her consent is up a creek if he decided to return?

        “So if you really care about people dying from extreme heat or cold, or kids stuck here without paperwork, why, the obvious solution to this problem is to arrange things so that they don’t have to cross in dangerous places or without paperwork. Duh.”

        And we can just abolish any and all immigration laws while we are at it but even you have stated you are not advocating that. An alternative is to enforce the laws we do have. Put the word out that this is not the place to go to. That if you get here illegally that your life will suck. Admit it, it could be done. Economically speaking if we are successful enough in that people will seek other 1st world nations that are softer targets.

        “If you look at population quality distribution in US, it’s obvious that this argument doesn’t hold water. By most objective metrics, it’s better in well-developed urban areas, where population density is higher compared to the “flyover country”

        I disagree w/ your assessment and it does not apply to just the US. There are plenty of examples where this holds true. Most of the objective metrics you mention are biased towards more urban living as that is who establishes the bar. Plus, many fail to take into account cost of living when measuring wealth. Urbanites usually have more money and higher incomes but do they do so in relation to the cost of things.

        “In short, it’s nothing that a well designed immigration program cannot handle.”

        I actually agree w/ you on this one except that it sounds easier than it is and you have to be willing to shut the door in peoples faces if they won’t go to the portion of the country that you want them to.

        “It’s too narrow for 9 people out of 10 who want to apply.”

        Says you. The crux of our disagreement is who gets to dertermine that. I say Americans. You say each individual who might immigrate. You think that there is this general right to go to any country you want (you mention some caveats) and I think that is just wrong.

        “Oh, and the country is Russia.”

        One nation out of how many with people trying to get here? Yeah 80% might be true there but at least admit w/ me that there are people who come here who do not try at all or who in an oppressed MAJORITY who could make things better in their land of birth. BTW a nation of orcs is still a problem for you, me, and everyone else even though you are not there.

        “I actually agree with that, but again the question is, how many is “too many”, and what can be done to prevent it other than just restricting the numbers? The problem with you guys is that your immigration policy doesn’t even try to force people to assimilate, or reward them for doing so. For a culture that (rightly) prides itself on being a #1 melting pot of the world by design, it’s really weird.”

        I unlike you do not have a problem w/ numbers restriction and I agree more should be done to foster assimilation. Keep in mind, some have tried (like English only programs) and are met w/ cries of xenophobia and nativism. And what is this ad campaign you keep referring to?

        “But remember, they immigrated because they didn’t like the way they lived!”

        And guns are probably the furthest thing from the minds of the vast majority of immigrants who come here.

    • Jeremy, TTAG is about the gun culture. Democrats are deliberately importing illegals through executive action that is aimed at creating democrat voter majorities and supermajorities, that lock in welfare state benefits, that benefit illegals- free or subsidized medical care, automatic American citizenship for children born here, subsidized education and free college, with preferences for minority applicants.

      This is well known and if you go back to the articles in the press about the big surge a few months ago, it was due to the mis-information spread by Democrats about amnesty.

      The vast majority of low-information voters in the Democrat demographic vote as they are told by various community groups, get out the vote, and “community organizers” coordinating racial groups, in exchange for promises of jobs, benefits, and continued free stuff…

      Democrats overwhelmingly vote against gun-rights. There is no mystery there, and its one of the party platforms. Most immigrants, legal or illegal, are not familiar with gun rights, having none in their home country, and cowed by corruption and police abuse. They are untrustful of the police and unlikely to cause a fuss, for their constitutional rights, even if they knew them, for fear of being deported.

      Thus, as the NRA has pointed out, illegal immigration is a threat to future 2A rights.
      I hope you understand the connection, and appreciate that TTAG is trying to make a difference in the culture.

      As Andrew Breitbart famously said “you cant change the politics without changing the culture’.

      • automatic American citizenship for children born here

        You do realize that this has been part of the Constitution since it was written, right?

  34. “The problem is that you for some reason think that people born there have an obligation to fix things that were set in place long before their birth, for no reason other than that incident of their birth in a given area.”

    No, the problem is that you think they should just pack up their s**t, and come to this country illegally. Why should “we” have to provide people with things they aren’t willing to provide for themselves back home? How can you wish for the destruction of the very country that gave you the chance to get what you have today?

    • >> Why should “we” have to provide people with things they aren’t willing to provide for themselves back home?

      What exactly did I ask you to provide them with? Did you miss all the parts where I specifically said that newly minted immigrants, legal or not, should not be entitled to welfare?

  35. Good article on the very real threat posed by amnesty. I’m going to go out on a limb and say that the GOP needs to get in the game on immigration reform. Right now, the Democrat’s amnesty policies are the only ideas on the table, and all the Republicans can do is say no. The Republicans are allowing themselves to be made the bad guys by not having their own proposals on the table and refusing to take up the issue in Congress. The border does need to be secured, but holding everything else hostage to that is political suicide in the long run. The Democrats will continue to have the Latino voting block locked up as long as the Republicans do nothing.

    The immigration system is badly broken and doesn’t work for anyone. It’s very difficult and expensive to become a US citizen. The amount of bureaucracy is a disincentive to take the legal path. It’s the sort of big government mess that Republicans love to hate. They should put together a sensible reform proposal and come out swinging. They need to be the party with a plan, not the party that is opposed to doing anything. They should make the Democrats either debate and oppose them, or support their legislation. The hard fact is that the Latino voting block is too large to ignore. Republicans need to compete for their votes.

  36. Since when is it the government’s responsibility to “help people?”

    As I understand the founders, government exists to protect and defend the rights of the individual.

    There is no “right” to be helped, by anybody or any government.

  37. Look. Welcome to the club. I have been beating this drum since the Bush admin. When I told gun owners about illegal immigration and what a problem it was. They couldn’t see it. I hope it is not too late now.

    So far, it looks like Cruz is your best bet. Send money now, because early fund raising will get the RNC to support him. Right now they are kissing up to Bush because he has made large fund raising gains.

    So send money now. I am.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *