May 19, 2007


I don't understand the illegal immigrant issue.

Who is it who's arguing for illegals to stay here and get citizenship? And why do they matter? What does amnesty do for the US? Does it improve our relationship with Mexico? If so, why do we care? Does it improve our relationship with legal Hispanics? I thought many of them poll against amnesty.

What is the reason we haven't built that fence yet and that we've got an amnesty bill in Congress right now?

I'm serious here; I really don't grok.

Neal Boortz says it's the votes, stupid. He thinks that both parties are racing to be the one who helps illegals so that when they can vote, they'll vote for the party that got them in. Boortz is an awful cynical guy, but is that right? Is that the reason our elected officials are acting like fools?

I don't think the American public as a whole supports amnesty. John Hawkins found out that a mayor in Pennsylvania who's running on a strict anti-illegal platform won both the Republican nomination and the Democrat write-in! He got 94% of the Republican vote. I think the American people want that fence built and they want our existing laws to be upheld.

So what's the deal with our politicians then?

Posted by Sarah at May 19, 2007 10:06 AM | TrackBack

I watched Glenn Beck a couple of nights ago where he was arguing against amnesty, for the fence and border patrol etc with Geraldo Rivera. It was the most unusual argument I've ever seen because although Rivera was supposedly arguing for amnesty, he really couldn't come up with ONE good reason for it. He danced around the issue for a while, called Beck a racist for being against it, but really said nothing. This is what always happens, it seems. I have always seen it as a no-brainer...protect the border!

Posted by: Nicole at May 19, 2007 03:18 PM

I can actually think of one instance in which I would support amnesty for people who are already here illegally - if, in order to earn (that's right - EARN) their citizenship they perform significant community service within a specific time frame to ameliorate the crime of breaking the immigration laws in the first place.

Military service for at least two years might be one option, but it certainly should not be the only one. And the "we already have a life, we don't want to pick up and move to earn citizenship" argument just would not wash - how ridiculous! You BROKE THE LAW! Maybe it was for a good reason - like a starving person who steals a loaf of bread. But mitigating circumstances do not change the fact that when you make a conscious decision to break the law, you also make a decision that whatever you gain from breaking the law are worth the consequences.

I have to admit to being quite biased on this issue - my husband's family escaped the Soviet Union under threat of gulag and came here legally. And if he can do it... you know what I mean? This is rather personal for us.

Also, if we're going to bend over backwards to make things nice and easy for people to enter the United States illegally, I darn well expect Mexico to quit its whining and demands about extraditing Dog the Bounty Hunter.

Posted by: airforcewife at May 19, 2007 04:07 PM

Near as I can figure, the politicians are bucking for the future votes. Even if the illegals are never legalized, their children born here are citizens. This is a fight for future generations of votes, and which party those generations will view favorably.

Not to mention cheap labor. Both parties must take into account businesses, and their labor concerns. Illegals work hard/lousy jobs for low pay, that is a fact. Remove that source of labor and the costs go up across the board.

The majority of us are non-politicians, so we look at the situation without considering the fact that we must suck up to a large growing population to keep our government jobs.

Posted by: John at May 26, 2007 02:07 AM