PS: Hating immigrants? Not a winning issue. Or, for that matter, a limited government issue.

You completely lost me here. ILLEGAL immigration is a serious problem, and one of the few things the federal government should actually be dealing with (that’s a significant part of international relations, the primary Constitutional function of the federal government).

If you want more immigrants, ok, fine. I think many people who are rallying to the law in Arizona (for just one example) would be fine with that, too. But ILLEGAL immigration causes several different problems, none of which are fun to live through.

People farther north of our southern border don’t seem to understand how close this is to an actual, literal invasion. If federal government can’t do the one job we really need it for, why bother having it at all? (especially considering all the massive problems that if causes in areas where it shouldn’t be doing anything at all – as you are well aware)

slew of slots available in the Guest Worker Program that has gone without applicants — easier just to sneak across I guess.

Obvious statement is obvious.

Is it easier to hire some guy to drive you in a van across the border in the dark of night for a few hundred bucks, or is it easier to spend months and the same amount of money dealing with a government bureaucracy that lives by neither reason nor efficiency?

More, it would be equivelent to someone violating the law to enter the country, and being awarded with hundreds of thousands of dollars in welfare. Or someone stealing a car, and being awarded hundreds of thousands of dollars in welfare.

It’s not like this is the first time this sorta thing has happened. In 1986, there was a mass amnesty. Immigration leaped up to 800000 a year, as people imported their relatives in and more immigrants entered with the expectation of amnesty. By 1997, the number of illegal immigrants had returned to 5 million In the same way, that if you enacted an amnesty for all underage drinkers in the US, the likely result would be more underage drinkers.

If you make a mockery of the law, people violate it more. Illegal immigration is intimately tied to legal immigration. If you’re pro more immigration, that’s fine, but most people in Arizona aren’t.

“PS: Hating immigrants? Not a winning issue. Or, for that matter, a limited government issue.”

Assuming he’s referring to the new immigration bill, 70% of likely voters support it. It’s a winning issue, a huge winning issue, and likely to win all its supporter’s many votes. Since the likely result of mass immigration is more Democratic governments, and more welfare payments, whether it’s limited government is debatable as well. The government needs less tax money to keep immigrants out than it needs to fund their social welfare.

Gotta love that argument.

Not like amnesty doesn’t amount to changing the “the law” and legalizing something (or rather, someone). Once amnesty is granted, the uh… law is still the law. It’s just a different law. Or at least applies differently. Or… something. It would be no different from someone hitting that magical number of birthdays where they’re suddenly allowed to buy alcohol legally.

Really. If the only problem with immigrants is that they’re illegal, then simply legalizing them solves the “problem” instantly, right? Right?

Opposition to “amnesty” is not about race at all. It’s all about the rule of law. The law is the law and must be enforced. Period.

Yup, the same bad argument emanating from the flawed premise that all laws must be just.

First of all why are stuck on trying to confuse and conflate an issue of Rule of Law and Sovereignty with an economic one?

Because economics is tied to the Rule of Law and Sovereignty, same as it’s tied to everything else humans do.

Now all that oppose your view are “Racists” are you a Democrat by chance?

Nope…I’m an individual, not a collectivist. I don’t pretend that being a member of a party is the same thing as having an ideology. Nor do I pretend that being a member of either party somehow validates an odious belief.

Legal immigration is fine and has served this country well.

Especially in the era before immigration quotas designed to “preserve culture” (which is what a lot of the Tea Party immigration rhetoric is really about). “Legal” immigration is a misnomer because immigration is not a crime…it’s a consensual activity on the part of an individual. And I disagree that it’s served this country well at all. Some of our greatest periods of prosperity occured when no immigration quotas were in place.

Last I heard there was a slew of slots available in the Guest Worker Program that has gone without applicants — easier just to sneak across I guess.

Which tends to support my point that the unwelcoming nature of immigration policy and programs is what forces immigrants to come here “illegally”.

All we are doing with our porous boarder policy is taking the pressure off of Mexico to change its corrupt oligarchical system to one that provides opportunity and fairness to their citizens.

If we actually cared about that, our first order of business would be the legalization of drugs. Of course, that position also assumes a rather paternalistic and condescending attitude towards Mexican sovereignty that I tend to disagree with. Frankly, I see nothing that immigrants do here in the States that makes them any more of a problem than the average American. They pay taxes, they give us cheap labor, they keep the prices of goods and service low. The more the merrier, as far as I’m concerned.

Personally, I’ve seen too many people claim to care only about the rule of law regarding immigration who, in other circumstances, find it less important compared to other principles.

I seem to remember, a few years back, Michelle Malkin arguing, in back to back posts, that:

1) Opposition to “amnesty” is not about race at all. It’s all about the rule of law. The law is the law and must be enforced. Period.
2) While the fundie mormons from Texas had technically broke the law by marrying girls as young as 13, it was really an entirely concentual crime that didn’t really hurt anyone and it wouldn’t be just to enforce the letter of the law in this case.

Rule of law indeed.

BINGO! where were these people when bush was in the white house? there’s about a dime of difference between bush and obama – bush exploded federal power to create a stasi-state and blow the heads off innocents halfway around the world in the process of lining the pockets of the defense industry, while obama – not ceding back what bush gave, mind – explodes it to line the pockets of the insurance industry while at least providing a few million people with access to health care, which is kinda the opposite of blowing heads off. i voted for neither, but if i have to be ruled by one i’ll take obama.

Now all that oppose your view are “Racists” are you a Democrat by chance?

Legal immigration is fine and has served this country well. Last I heard there was a slew of slots available in the Guest Worker Program that has gone without applicants — easier just to sneak across I guess.

All we are doing with our porous boarder policy is taking the pressure off of Mexico to change its corrupt oligarchical system to one that provides opportunity and fairness to their citizens. I think most Mexican would rather earn a living at home than here. They do have a pretty fair resource base that would provide a great deal of opportunity if all the wealth was not invested outside the country.

Well got to go do my yard work now — have a ball.

Illegal immigrants are law breakers and if you don’t see the problem you are in denial.

Being as I live five miles from the Mexican border, I don’t see a problem with immigrants at all. I do, however, see a problem with criminal groups that make profit on immigrants because of restrictive immigration quotas championed by closet racists and pro-union cronies who don’t seem willing to extend the same rights to a Latino that they would to an immigrant from, say, English-speaking European countries.

Scratch beneath the surface of an “illegal immigrants are criminals” mouthpiece who also opposes raising quotas and you’ll find a mouthbreather who 40 years ago would have been wearing a white hood in Alabama while standing under a burning cross.

The voters seem happy with Sheriff Joe. It’s their decision.

Yet another reason why I find majority rule to be an often laughable form of governance.

Your “slice of the pie” argument is simply silly. America takes care of Americans. Mexico takes care of Mexicans.

Then you obviously never bothered to read Milton Friedman, or much about economics at all…which means I can pretty much not waste my time explaining basic concepts of trade and mutual benefit to you.

The voters seem happy with Sheriff Joe. It’s their decision. If they illegal aliens as a problem they may well support his methods.

Your “slice of the pie” argument is simply silly. America takes care of Americans. Mexico takes care of Mexicans. That’s how it works.

Sheriff Joe’s job is to catch criminals. Illegal aliens are criminals.

Sheriff Joe’s job is to enforce the laws of Maricopa County. He’s been alternately exceeding and neglecting that duty for quite some time. And immigration was never his job. He only “cracked down” on it because a) Joe Arpaio is a racist bully, and b) it got him a lot of headlines, which he likes even better than being a racist bully.

Jails punish offenders to change behaviors. Joe’s certainly try.

The numbers on recidivism in Arpaio’s jails are no lower than anyone else’s jails. The only difference is that the incompetent manner in which Arpaio runs his jails puts the county (and the taxpayers) on the losing end of a lot of lawsuits that a sheriff who actually gave a crap about the laws and his community wouldn’t get the county involved in.

Government can be smaller with less crime and welfare.

You’ve premised this on two fallacies…the first of which is a non-sequitur assuming that creating a bigger police force to reduce crime will eventually lead to a reduction of police forces once crimes drop. The national crime rate has been on a downward trend for 30 years…we have no fewer cops than we ever did. Secondly, your argument against welfare is an argument against welfare, not illegal immigration…get rid of the ability of dirtbag Americans to suckle at the state teat and the immigrants won’t be suckling either.

Mexico needs to take care of its own citizens and not make the US its defacto social service provider.

Another faulty argument, this time premised on the “fixed amount of pie” argument on economics that immigrants can only benefit if they “take” from Americans, not provide utility and value of their own. Thereby an argument to be discarded without serious consideration.