Which immigration problem do we want to solve?

Finally, a leader with the courage to protect you from children.

Finally, a leader with the courage to protect you from children.

Answers are only helpful if you know the question. That’s the problem with our efforts to build a sane, reasonable immigration scheme. Markets could provide us with solutions to our immigration challenges, but not until we decide exactly what problem we want those markets to solve.

Is the mere presence of a large number of migrants from Latin America a problem, or are we trying to address the broader problem of illegal immigration? The reason we haven’t settled on an immigration reform scheme that we still aren’t being honest about our priorities.

There are good reasons why illegal immigration should be discouraged. Having a large pool of people who exist beyond the reach of basic legal protections – essentially outside of the social contract – is harmful. Even if it created no economic costs, and in reality illegal immigration probably benefits us far more economically than anyone wants to admit, there are social and moral consequences to this situation that we should not be willing to bear.

That said, when we debate immigration issues it can be difficult to separate authentic problems from cultural biases. Chicago, for example, has a very large population of illegal migrants from Latin America. It also has many from Poland. Guess which population gets the most attention from law enforcement and the public?

When someone says that we should address our immigration problems by first “securing the border” they tipping their hand. It’s gentle way of saying that their main concern is not whether people can come here but who is coming.

We have the most militarized, secured border in the free world. The West has seen nothing that compares to it since the Berlin Wall collapsed. We don’t need a single additional customs agent to address illegal immigration. In fact, with a decent proposal we could send a lot of them home. The solution to the problem of a massive illegal workforce neither starts nor ends at the border.

Securing our physical border in the context of the immigration debate means stopping people from coming here. It means that the problem we are trying to solve is not illegal immigration, but Latin American immigration. If that’s our problem then we are in trouble.

The East Germans had their hands full guarding 800 miles of border stretching across well-settled, easily guarded territory. Our border with Mexico stretches across more than 2000 miles of hell and we are not a monolithic totalitarian state. We want to be able to trade across that border. We want trucks and trains passing through on a consistent basis loaded down with mangoes and strawberries and Volkswagens and computers.

Our campaign to stop illegal immigration so far costs about $25,000 per detainee. That cost will go significantly higher as we seek to achieve even tighter enforcement. The size of the border patrol has increased by more than 500% since 2003. All the while, immigration traffic across our Mexican border has been falling. Estimates of the cost of increased border security range between $28-40bn, a little more than half of what we spend on the entire food stamp program.

That doesn’t begin to account for the billions in lost economic output incurred by the unnecessary delays at border crossings. A universal forced deportation scheme being pressed by the far right would cost roughly $250bn, just shy of what we spend on Medicaid. “Border security” is an extremely expensive solution in search of a problem.

There is no small irony in the fact that the same people moaning about government spending, liberty, and Federal power happily embrace the exploding economic and political cost of a militarized border. It’s almost as if their concerns about government spending were little more than rhetorical cover for some other, deeper concern. What might that be?

On the bright side, if our real concern is the impact of illegal immigration then we have some very powerful options. Many, if not all of the problems presented by mass illegal immigration would be eliminated or at least mitigated if these people had legally protected status and the accompanying responsibilities. We could potentially reform our immigration system to open realistic, practical options for people to immigrate here by choice.

It is virtually impossible to immigrate legally to the US now without existing family ties and even then it is an extremely complex, lengthy and expensive process. Practically none of the Latin American migrants we see in the news have any realistic option for immigrating through official channels.

If we made that kind of immigration possible in numbers more in line with actual demand we could address many of the problems that rise from illegal immigration. Market mechanisms could help cope with some of the problems of mass migration.

The biggest problem with mass immigration is the way it would depress wages at the low end of the labor market. Over time immigration is an economic bonanza, but it has to be understood in much the same context as a capital investment. Immigration does not produce a massive social return on day one. It takes time for new migrants to become established. Some of them, as in any speculative venture, will fail. Opening the floodgates to mass migration of people with little or no modern work skills might produce fantastic returns over time – after all that’s how we built this country. The near term costs could be very painful, though.

What if we could structure labor market incentives in a way that encouraged the outcomes we want while pricing away the outcomes we do not want? Maybe, if we tuned down the rhetoric just slightly, we could build an immigration law structure that made it relatively easy to come to America if you are skilled and prepared to contribute now. Maybe we could also keep the door open for lower skilled labor, but require them meet a higher standard of productivity. Maybe we could make the crime of hiring an illegal migrant or abusing a green card holder, too dangerous for anyone to risk – without having to impose a draconian regulatory scheme.

Best of all, the most powerful mechanisms could come from markets and private action rather than a bigger government. But that would depend on building an intelligent structure. More to come.

Once you know what problem you want to solve, the solutions become clearer.

Chris Ladd is a Texan living in the Chicago area. He has been involved in grassroots Republican politics for most of his life. He was a Republican precinct committeeman in suburban Chicago until he resigned from the party and his position after the 2016 Republican Convention. He can be reached at gopliferchicago at gmail dot com.

Tagged with: , , , ,
Posted in Economics, Immigration
314 comments on “Which immigration problem do we want to solve?
  1. Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

    With just a little snark…I present a line that is making its way around the inter-webs:

    To the children fleeing to the US. When angry white people scream mean things at you as you cross the boarder, tell them your name is “Fetus”

    • rucasdad says:

      “If fetuses has guns, there would be no immigration problem.” – Tea People

      Or something along those lines…

      • texan5142 says:

        Yep , remember the campaign slogan “a chicken in every pot” the GOP used in the 30’s . Now it would read “a fetus in every womb ” with their draconian ways.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Ok Texan, you had to work really hard to beat out Rucas, but you did it. You get the award for dumbest post of the day.

      • texan5142 says:

        Why, thank you Cap, that really means a lot to me , especially coming from YOU .

      • CaptSternn says:

        You are most welcome. Especially since Rucas works really hard at winning that for himself.

      • rucasdad says:

        Oh Capt, cheer up you big goober! I’m just using a republican slogan – I didn’t create it. However, at least my posts are intentionally silly where as yours are unintentionally idiotic.

  2. Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

    Since we have now drifted to the “totally not related” portion of this blog…

    The GOP/TP is standing up to Democrats and taking a strong position to help women and put this “war on women” nonsense behind them.

    McConnell is going to introduce a bill that will really help women. The bill will forbid employers from refusing to allow women to use their own money to purchase birth control.

    Now, you might be saying, “Wait, when were bosses not allowing women to purchase birth control with their own money?”.

    If you are the kind of person who would ask questions like that, you are not part of the GOP/TP’s plan to win the hearts and minds of women, and you may, in fact, be a communist.

    Now, it is possible that I do not understand the GOP/TP’s upcoming legislation, so maybe we’ll let Mitch explain it to us:

    “We plan to introduce legislation this week that says no employer can block any employee from legal access to her FDA-approved contraceptives,” McConnell said. “There’s no disagreement on that fundamental point.”

    Well, I’m sure this will cause a massive swing of women voting for the GOP/TP. Nothing like presenting a bill that upholds the existing status quo to fix a problem that is not happening.

    It is almost as though he thinks women are not very smart.

    • kabuzz61 says:

      I would think even Homer would understand a political trick that both sides are playing. The democrats are so desperate to change the dialogue that they are going forward with legislation for late term abortions so they can use the ‘war on women'[ trick. It is what was used in 2012 but won’t work again. Nice try Homer my desperately reaching friend. Your guys blew it. All the GOP has to do is allow Obama to continue on his own going to golf games and fundraisers when there are crisis’.

      I would give you a ‘nice try’ but it really isn’t.

      • Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

        Your GOP/TP leader is playing a trick on women?

        Man Buzz…your guys kinda suck.

      • kabuzz61 says:

        Border Crisis, Ukraine, IRS, Germany, VA and the list goes on and on and on or the absolute imcompetence of Obama and the dem’s when it comes to leadership. And the thing is, you know it too.

      • rucasdad says:

        “…Ukraine, IRS, Germany, VA, Spain doing bad at the World Cup, Twinkies, cost of tea in China, ios7 problems, soft tacos, cold coffee, hiney rashes, Benghazi(!), gay stuff, football season not being year-round, scary brown/black people, Ramadan, Indian food (it hurts my tummy), reefer madness, stubbed toe…”

        Yes, the list does indeed go on and on.

      • John Galt says:

        “Border Crisis, Ukraine, IRS, Germany, VA and the list goes on and on and on or the absolute imcompetence of Obama and the dem’s when it comes to leadership. And the thing is, you know it too.”

        Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha….

        Seriously, Kabuzz, the laughs you generate are worth every cent.

        On July 14 at 10:18am I posted to you:
        “You pin all the problems on Obama. Were I to care to do so, I could go back through posts and find you using nearly identical language about Benghazi, Ukraine, debt, the economy, Iran, Iraq, Egypt, and so forth. You’re a record that skips, playing the same line over and over again.”

        Your direct response:
        “Wrong again. I have blamed Obama for some things, after all you may not know this but he is the leader of his administration, so if there is a problem in an area of his responsibility that is called being held accountable. Surely you can understand this?”

      • kabuzz61 says:

        Read my response again only slower JG. It may occur to you that the issues I listed are under his purview. Did you not know that???

  3. kabuzz61 says:

    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/07/15/Senator-Democrat-Leader-Reid-Our-Southern-Border-is-Secure

    Just the democratic leaders saying there is no border crisis. Reid says no crisis, SJL says all is under control.

    You libs must be so proud.

    • texan5142 says:

      So that is where you get your information …….this explains much.

    • rucasdad says:

      Buzz, you’re only a few breitbart articles and a couple of fox segments away from typing your gibberish in all caps. I’m honestly concerned that the tea in your bag has soured…long, long ago. Maybe, even though it’s wrong, you should just stick to plagiarizing.

    • kabuzz61 says:

      I find it telling you don’t dispute what Reid and SJL said, just resort to calling names. Prove it wrong big man.

      • rucasdad says:

        I find it highly ironic that you’re calling people out for not replying to your claims directly since you, yourself, are known for the same exact thing. But just for s**ts and giggles, what names did I call you?

      • Owl of Bellaire says:

        Yes, Kabuzz is widely known as an abject coward.

        And, now, a thief.

    • Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

      Buzz…I read what Reid said, and it certainly seems accurate.

      Our southern border is secure.

      • rucasdad says:

        Never mind facts….Reid said it, therefore, it CAN’T be true.

        BENGHAZI!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  4. Actually, the notion that those of us who talk about “securing the border” really mean “no more Mexicans” is wrong. It has to do with the sort of problems that come from having a relatively open southern border that people can more or less walk across without consequence.

    You mention the high number of Polish illegals in Chicago. How did they get here? By and large by getting a visa, flying into the United States, and then not returning home. In other words, we know who they are — it simply becomes a matter of devoting the time and resources to finding them and returning them to Poland. Now consider the issue with the average person coming across our southern border from Mexico or points south — they never had papers, we do not have a record of who they are, and they often cross into this country with the aid of organized crime. Add to this the criminal activity they engage in against American citizens whose life an livelihood is in the area along the border and you have an entirely different set of problems created by illegal alien Juan Garcia than by illegal alien Stefan Kowalski. And given the fact that there are many more whose profiles match that of Juan Garcia than that of Stefan Kowalski, there is going to be a focus on the former rather than the latter.

    How do we stop Stefan Kowalski? Easy — match those entering and those leaving the country and make a concerted effort to locate anyone from Category A who does not show up in Category B at the appointed time. Juan Garcia is a different matter, because we have to stop him on the way in or he is harder to find.

    By the way, there is one other reason that we focus on the Juan Garcias rather than the Stefan Kowalskis — it is numbers. The Pew Hispanic Research Center several years ago estimated that 57% of illegal aliens are Mexican nationals and another 24% come from the rest of Latin America. About 9% of illegals are from Asia while Europe and Canada contribute another 6%, with 4% coming from the Africa and other regions. If we rid ourselves of Stefan Kowalski, Sean O’Connor, Hans Klein, Chou Liu and Krishna Patel, we still barely make a dent in the illegal immigration problem — we have to focus on Juan Garcia and those like him who come here from Mexico and points south.. That isn’t racism — that is reality.

    • tuttabellamia says:

      Greg, the problem with this approach is that there are SCORES of Juan Garcias here who are U.S. citizens and/or LEGAL residents. That is also a reality.

      Focusing on anyone with a Hispanic surname, for the purpose of catching illegals, risks turning into profiling.

      • You really missed my point, didn’t you? I picked a common name to use as a representative of the class of people based upon how they come to this country and where they come from — I was not suggesting rounding up everyone named Juan Garcia or everyone with a Hispanic surname.

        So let’s look at the point I made — the way that Juan and Stefan got into this country are different. Juan comes in a way that cannot be tracked and which is more harmful to Americans than the way that Stefan comes. There are also many times more people like Juan than there are like Stefan. That makes it crucial that we focus on stopping the Juans rather than the Stefans, because the Stefans are a drop in the bucket compared to the Juans.

      • objv says:

        Tutt: profiling is wrong, but doesn’t the illegal expat, Juan Garcia, cause problems for the legal citizen, Juan Garcia?

        Say there is a illegal expat named Isabella (my kindle’s correction for your name) who gains access to your social security number and decides to take your identity. The first inkling that something is wrong comes when medical records are consolidated online and your doctor asks you why you needed to go to a clinic to be treated for Hep-C due to a contaminated tattoo needed.

        Isabella is a bit of a wild child and has a fondness for buying stuff. When she finds she can get away with using your social, she opens credit cards in your name, buys a house and a car but falls behind on payments. Your credit is shot. You spend untold hours trying to correct the damage and Isabella claims that she is Tuttabella and that YOU are the one who is stealing HER identity.

        For a similar story:

        http://www.collegenews.com/article/total_identity_thief_lives_her_dream_and_ruins_the_life_of_the_real_candida

      • tuttabellamia says:

        I do get it. It was probably not a good idea for you to have said over and over that we should “focus on the Juan Garcias.” Better to have simply said “focus on the Mexican border.”

      • tuttabellamia says:

        Of course, OV. (And thanks for using my favorite term – “illegal expat.”). I have posted many times that I am totally opposed to ID theft and fraud. But what does this have to do with profiling? Is this about going after everyone named Tuttabella?

      • tuttabellamia says:

        You wouldn’t go after everyone named Tuttabella. It would be a question of tracing the so-called Tuttabella doing all these things in my name.

      • objv says:

        Tutt, admittedly, my post has gone off track like my dogs do when they chase a bunny. My comment was not so much about profiling as how illegal “expats” more often cause harm to people of their own nationality. Illegal Juan Garcia would be as likely to steal the identity of a fellow Hispanic as illegal Stefan Kowalski would another man with a Polish name.

        Both identity thefts would cause grief to the victims and are one of the “immigration problems” in need of solving.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        OV, I agree. Hispanics are often screwed by their own people. Coyotes are the prime offenders. Also, “notary publics” pretending to be lawyers, and other shysters in administrative positions offering to “help” vulnerable immigrants, both legal and illegal.

    • kabuzz61 says:

      Tutt, there is the operative word. We will for a short time have to profile as we did with Middle Easterners after 9/11.

      I will say if we remove their employment by fining their employers, they will probably leave.

      • I’m not suggesting profiling. I’m suggesting that we focus on stopping the major conduit of illegal immigration by tightening up that southern border. It isn’t a question of who is coming — it is a question of how they are coming and where the problem exists.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        But, Kabuzz, along the lines of what Greg pointed out, there will be many, many more Juan Garcias than Mohammed Attas, for the simple reason that Mexico and other Latin American countries are so close to us geographically, and most of the Juan Garcias here are probably US citizens or LEGAL residents. You can’t profile the entire Hispanic community. It’s both unfair and impractical.

      • John Galt says:

        Just for fun, I looked up Juan Garcia Houston in whitepages. It stopped listing at 100. (Yes, Greg, I get that it was just an example, but it illustrates the problems.)

        I think you’re also mistaken about the difference between Kowalski and Garcia: estimates are that something like 40-50% of illegal immigrants enter legally and overstay. Since the bulk of immigrants are from Latin America, this means they are doing this in large numbers.

        Now, as for tightening up that southern border: how much are you willing to spend? Please be honest enough to give us a cost estimate for tightening up a 2,000 mile border through a vast desert. What is the cost-benefit analysis of that?

      • Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

        Buzz…I’m hoping this is an issue of you just not clearly getting the words on the screen to match what you are thinking.

        You just wrote that we are going to have to start profiling Hispanic-looking folks “for a short time” in order to fix this problem.

        Aside from it kinda being illegal, do you recognize the ramifications of that statement?

        I fear you do understand it, and that is what makes it scary.

      • Turtles Run says:

        Buzzy wrote: We will for a short time have to profile as we did with Middle Easterners after 9/11.

        I am so happy to see you think that I should only have to live with being profiled by the police and society in general for a short time like those other brown fellows from the ME. Can you define a “short time” for me because It has been almost 13 years since 9/11 and they are still profiled like crazy? I would like to know how long I should expect to be continuously treated like a criminal?

      • Tuttabella says:

        HT, I think it’s a question of false logic, of making an innocent but incorrect assumption.

        It’s easy, but incorrect, to make the jump from: “Most illegals are Hispanic” (true statement) to “Most Hispanics are illegal” (false conclusion).

        On the surface it would seem to make sense, it sounds good, but it’s totally wrong.

        I don’t know what the term would be for this type of false logic.

      • Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

        Buzz…you are way more generous in your interpretation than am I.

        It would seem that these examples of lack of logic tend to more often apply to some groups rather than others.

        No one would say, “Most people on welfare are White” (true) and thus, “Most White people are on welfare”.

        No one is jumping from “Most serial killers are White men” (true) to “Most White men are serial killers”.

        The practical word to describe the logical error you are discussing is “bigotry”.

      • Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

        Tutt….I wrote “Buzz” there when I meant “Tutt”, as I was attempting to respond to your comment about Buzz’s comment.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        HT, you have a point, but how about:

        “Many people against illegal immigration are racist” (true statement)

        “Therefore, anyone against illegal immigration must be racist” (false conclusion)

      • Crogged says:

        Borders and migrations go both ways, so when we ‘tighten’ our incoming border and somehow only get the ‘illegals’ when we recreate the awesome work we do with racial profiling, we may find some ‘tightening’ of our outgoing border and maybe a little less welcome mat for Dick and Jane in Cozumel, Cancun, Acapulco et al………..

      • tuttabellamia says:

        Crogged, as long as Dick and Jane are generous with “tips,” they will be welcome with open arms.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Crogged, are thos places having problems with U.S. illegally immigrating to the nation? I hadn’t heard that. In fact, I am pretty sure places like Mexico are very strict concerning illegal immigrants.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        Cap, in Mexico, as long as you have money to dish out, it doesn’t matter where you’re from, legal or illegal.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Point taken, Tutt. Sad one at that. Guess I should have said that the laws are far more strict if they are enforced.

    • John Galt says:

      We actually do not know when someone has overstayed a visa. We should, but we don’t check passports leaving the country. The airlines make sure you have a valid one, because they don’t want to haul you back to the country of origin if you don’t, but there is no system in place to do what you suggest for Mr. Kowalski. Nor for Sr. Garcia, if he crossed legally with a valid passport.

      But even if we had such a system, a bigger question is why? Resources are finite: why should we devote them to a needle-in-a-haystack manhunt for someone unless they are suspected of a more serious crime?

      Your claims that it is not about racism is hollow, too, because it has always been about racism. Even when legal, this nation of immigrants has treated immigrants horribly. The Irish were considered little better than vermin. Boston descendants of Irish immigrants still hold a grudge about how they were treated 160 years ago. The West Coast Chinese were subhuman. Chinatown didn’t come about because they wanted to build a tourist attraction. We interred Japanese, even native-born citizens, in WWII and suspected German immigrants of being spies for the Kaiser. A largely forgotten form of humor was “Pollock” jokes.

      Those of us with the advantages of arriving a generation before have always looked down on newer arrivals especially if they are from a different part of the world than our parents were.

    • lomamonster says:

      I say we ought to deport anyone with a Facebook profile…

  5. kabuzz61 says:

    Since the liberals on this site are for open borders and conservatives are not, time to change the pace.

    Democrats and liberals argue that when conservatives say “We want to take back our country” they accuse us of veiled racism. Well, here you are:

    Some examples. In the 2004 race, Democratic nominee John Kerry sometimes asked supporters to help him “take back our country.” “It’s time to take back our country,” Kerry declared at a rally in Manchester, N.H. in late October. When Kerry called John Edwards to invite him onto the Democratic ticket, aides revealed that Kerry’s words to Edwards were, “John, Teresa and I would like to ask you and Elizabeth to join us on our ticket to take back our country.”

    Early Democratic frontrunner Howard Dean used the phrase “take back our country” too many times to count. In fact, Dean wrote a campaign book titled “You Have the Power: How to Take Back Our Country and Restore Democracy in America.”

    Former Vice President Al Gore said it, too. “We need to take back our country,” Gore declared in endorsing Dean in January 2004.

    At a Democratic fundraiser in December 2003, Hillary Clinton pledged to work “on behalf of a campaign to take back our country.” After the election, in 2005, Clinton declared, “We are ready to go forth and fight to take back our country.”

    From the podium of the Democratic National Convention in July 2004, Rep. Louise Slaughter declared, “We will take back our country.” Also at the convention, Sen. Debbie Stabenow said, “We’re here to take back our country.” And Los Angeles leader Antonio Villaraigosa, chair of the party platform committee, declared, “We Democrats have come to this convention … to take back our country!”

    And it didn’t stop with the 2004 campaign. Clinton used “take back our country” countless times in her 2008 presidential race. And when Clinton finally conceded defeat and endorsed Obama, she said, with Obama right next to her, “We are not going to rest until we take back our country.”

    So it is clear that again, the dem’s and liberals have shown just how hypocritical they are. How do you live with yourself when you have no core belief?

    • desperado says:

      Nice copy and paste job. Ever have an original thought?

    • John Galt says:

      The contexts in which Dems and Reps use this term are completely and totally different, so your post is like comparing apples and Buicks.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Yep, liberals want to take the country back from capitalists, conservatives want to take it back from socialists.

      • Owl of Bellaire says:

        Sternn, your use of “socialist” is almost always in the witless “derogatory word meaning ‘bad'” sense of most modern, ignorant conservatives.

      • CaptSternn says:

        If you think socuialism is bad, maybe you should stop supporting it. Call me a capitalist all you want, I am not offended by it in the least.

      • Tuttabella says:

        We have an eternal tug-of-war in this country.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        Does a tired cliché about an eternal tug-of-war qualify as plagiarism?

      • Owl of Bellaire says:

        Nah, Tutt. It’s just a cliché.

        Kabuzz, on the other hand, is apparently not only a coward but also a thief.

      • Owl of Bellaire says:

        Sternn, you are a laissez-faire capitalist, which is part of what makes you a monster, and also a laggard a century or more behind the times.

        I, on the other hand, believe in regulated capitalism, which makes me a modern American in full accord with the popular will and, in European terms, a “democratic socialist”. Which is not the scary Marx-idolizing property-denying bugaboo you like to pretend it is, whether for your own lazy rhetorical convenience or out of your own deep ignorance and isolation.

      • CaptSternn says:

        I have never said there should be no regulation. Just more stuff you make up on the fly.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        Actually, I think you guys are being unfair to Kabuzz by going off on a tangent and focusing on his possible plagiarism. There’s a lot of “he said, she said” on this blog.

        John Galt hit the nail on the head when he said that it’s about context.

        I don’t have a problem with one party saying they are going to take the country back from the other party — thus the “eternal tug-of-war.”

        I have a problem with people saying they are taking the country back from immigrants, or other “diverse” residents.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        In other words, you guys are “barking up the wrong tree.” How’s that for a cliché?

    • Owl of Bellaire says:

      Kabuzz, are you paying Byron York or are you just stealing those words by posting them, unattributed, as if they were actually your own?

      http://washingtonexaminer.com/on-obama-take-back-our-country-and-accusations-of-racism/article/2548914

      Your word for the day: “plagiarism”. Either your formal schooling never went far enough to include it (a junior-high dropout?), or your senility is degrading your basic knowledge and ethics, or you’re showing the deep hypocrisy characteristic of conservatives by failing to respect intellectual property and stealing when it’s convenient.

      So which is it, kabuzz?

      • Confederate Rose says:

        darn, you beat me to it!

      • Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

        Owl…I do not think you are being fair to Buzz.

        The more obvious answer is that Buzz’s real name is Byron York and he works for the Washington Examiner.

        It is now clear that all along Buzz has been getting paid (probably by the Koch brothers) to infiltrate this blog and use well reasoned, sound arguments to change public opinion.

    • Confederate Rose says:

      Catsuit man got his cut and paste here: http://washingtonexaminer.com/on-obama-take-back-our-country-and-accusations-of-racism/article/2548914 without giving them credit for THEIR article.
      Plagiarism:The act of appropriating the literary composition of another author, or excerpts, ideas, or passages therefrom, and passing the material off as one’s own creation.

    • kabuzz61 says:

      Now it is context JG. So the left gets to say what context conservatives mean it but we conservatives can’t tell you how you mean it? No.

      You guys want to take it back to when blacks and other minorities were totally under your authority. You want to take it back to when the military was just a bare shell of what it could be. You want to take it back to when you controlled all the information flowing out of Washington. That is what you mean.

      The left is definitely on the losing side of this slogan.

      • texan5142 says:

        Low on medication?

      • Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

        You know Buzz…you (as Byron York), have a good point, but your complete inability to present an argument without hyperbole, partisan ranting, and digging and cutting the other side makes your (as Byron York) positions impotent.

        Undoubtedly, folks at times hear GOP/TP dog whistles when none such exist.

        There have been a few idiots who inarticulately say that people criticize Obama because he is Black, which gives you (as Buzz) the opportunity to twist that and say, “You people think all criticism about Obama is because he is Black”.

        I think folks on my side would readily concede those points, but you (as Buzz, and potentially as Byron York) refuse to acknowledge there is some level of racism in the feelings regarding Obama.

        Your folks could have spent years slamming Obama on legitimate differences in policies, but your folks managed to have a leading presidential candidate base his entire election bid on Obama’s birth certificate. Newt spent a bit too much time talking about Kenya.

        If the GOP/TP would somehow get a larger number of Blacks, Hispanics, and other minorities to join the party, they might have more influence to stop some of this bull-crap that comes out of the GOP/TP that sincerely gets in the way of the better parts of your message.

      • kabuzz61 says:

        Homer, Eric Holder, Obama, Liberals talking heads, NPR, Columnists, etc. A few idiots? Come on. You know, you are spouting so much bullshit it is incredible. Talking about spewing hyperbole. The liberal movers and shakers are one voice stating it is Obama’s color.

        You dissapoint. Really.

      • Owl of Bellaire says:

        So, kabuzz, how do you ethically excuse your thievery?

        Ignorance, senility, hypocrisy, or something else?

      • Bart-1 says:

        You can always plead the “Joe Biden Syracuse Law School” paper defense!

      • Bart-1 says:

        “Attorney General Eric Holder said Sunday he and President Obama have been targets of “a racial animus” by some of the administration’s political opponents.
        “There’s a certain level of vehemence, it seems to me, that’s directed at me [and] directed at the president,” Holder told ABC. “You know, people talking about taking their country back. … There’s a certain racial component to this for some people. I don’t think this is the thing that is a main driver, but for some there’s a racial animus.” Maybe Homer is calling our AG an idiot. Could be proof of “underlying racial animus”.
        http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/212082-holder-sees-racial-animus-in-opposition#ixzz37e7DkCh4

      • John Galt says:

        “You guys want to take it back to when blacks and other minorities were totally under your authority. You want to take it back to when the military was just a bare shell of what it could be. You want to take it back to when you controlled all the information flowing out of Washington. That is what you mean.”

        How do you come up with this stuff? You have a fantastic imagination. You have missed your calling: you should be writing scripts for Hollywood.

      • Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

        Oh Byron…you would be so much better if you would stop trying to be Ann Coulter and actually tried to have a real discussion every so often.

    • sad and tired in Houston says:

      Stern – you wouldn’t know a socialist if they came up and bit you on the ….. You and Kabuzz
      are different sides of the same broken record. Do yourself a favor and ACTUALLY read the works of Karl Marx and Max Engels – perhaps you may learn something.

    • rucasdad says:

      I like how Capt was smart enough to understand that the piece that Buzz plagiarized and attempted to use as his coup de grace, didn’t actually mean what he (Buzz) thought it meant. Like JG said, that’s like comparing apples to Buicks. Just something to get the not-so-smart people all riled up. Buzz, as always, I honestly just feel bad for you.

  6. CaptSternn says:

    It’s funny, I keep seeing the title to this entry, “Which immigration problem do we want to solve?”, and the answer is one that is obvious and easy yet nobody has really just come out and said it. The immigration problem we want to solve, or should want to soolve, is the illegal immigration problem.

    • kabuzz61 says:

      The dem’s and the GOP don’t have the stomach to make the hard, right decisions. I do know by executive order (which Obama prefers) Obama can change or waive the hearing process and start sending back the children. A message definitely needs to be sent. But between the spineless dem’s and greedy GOP, it won’t happen.

      • desperado says:

        Wrong. The Senate has passed an immigration reform bill, Boehner won’t bring it up for a vote in the House.

      • CaptSternn says:

        How does the senate bill solve the illegal immigration problem, Desperado? If the house passes it as it stands, there will be no more illegal immigration? Maybe you are just repeating the Soros talking points because you think they saound good?

      • desperado says:

        How does nothing solve anything?

      • CaptSternn says:

        Yeah, just think of all those jobs bills passed by the house still sitting on Harry Reid’s desk.

      • John Galt says:

        After all the conservative hyperventilation about Obama’s executive orders, you now think he should use one to bypass legal due process and send children back to impoverished and violent countries? What kind of priorities are these? You posted above a ridiculous leap of rhetoric in an attempt to accuse democrats of hypocrisy. If you want an actual example of hypocrisy, then look in the mirror.

      • CaptSternn says:

        The job of the executive branch is to enforce the laws. The Obama administration not only does not enforce the laws, he tries to change them and make new ones be speeches and decree.

      • kabuzz61 says:

        Captain. Shh! JG doesn’t know the executive enforces the laws.

      • Owl of Bellaire says:

        And Kabuzz doesn’t understand the basic idea of intellectual property.

        He’s a thief.

      • John Galt says:

        And the LAW states that immigrant children from countries not sharing a border with the US must be granted full immigration hearings to determine whether they have grounds for asylum. It was intended to stop trafficking for the sex trade (good intentions). You now propose that the administration ignore this law to deport children without the legally required due process. Both of you have posted dozens of rants about Obama supposedly acting extra-legally, most of which are BS, but now you are upset that he is not doing something that would be clearly extra-legal.

        Have the intellectual honesty to maintain some consistency in your argument.

      • kabuzz61 says:

        We are being honest JG. It is you who is lost. Obama does not enforce laws he doesn’t like and he looks to create laws where no laws were broken. He sent the Department of Justice to Nebraska to investigate a float that depicted Obama in front of an outhouse. Clearly a huge crime.

        Plus, Obama can and should use the constitutional provision of keep americans safe which supercedes all. Activate FEMA and a lot of laws are on hold.

  7. texan5142 says:

    It is a sad day for humanity when the most powerfull country in the world can not find concenses , on how best to handle , these kids, teens, mothers, etc. on a humanitarian bases.

    • Doug says:

      Heck, I couldn’t even find consenses in the dictionary.

      • desperado says:

        I guess the English teachers are on summer vacation and looking for something to do.

      • kabuzz61 says:

        It’s funny how the liberals give Obama a pass for causing this humanitarian crisis. All and any harm done to these kids is on his head. He is the executive and responsible for the departments under him.

      • texan5142 says:

        So when some tea part nut opens fire with an AK on a bus load of theses people it is Obamas fault?

      • John Galt says:

        Obama is responsible for a bipartisan immigration bill passed in 2008 and signed by GW Bush?

      • desperado says:

        What a shock that AEI would come to that conclusion.

      • Bart-1 says:

        speaking of READING COMPrehension. The challenge was to name ONE SOLITARY MOSQUE’s “Benevolence program” actions and you never even attemtped EPIC FAIL . I win by default I guess.

    • desperado says:

      That’s what happens when one of the major political parties is in the clutches of heartless, selfish, “libertarians” and “conservatives.”

      • Owl of Bellaire says:

        Most libertarians appear to actually be sociopaths.

      • Bart-1 says:

        Hasn’t that stereotype been repeatedly disproven, Despo? Liberals are more compassionate about giving Other People’s Monies. Conservatives give more of their own, especially to religious organizations. Ever heard of Arthur Brooks of the American Enterprise Institute? http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=725

      • Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

        Bart…you almost always bring a little joy to the day when you make an appearance and toss in your very old, tired talking points.

        It is very true that the study results indicate that “conservative” folks do give more to charity than do “liberal” folks.

        Now, when you cut out money to churches from “charity”, then numbers are a bit different, but hey, let’s not quibble.

        I think the more telling part of your study results is that the studies pretty consistently show that gay folks give more time and money to charity than do straight folks.

        So, the real point probably is why aren’t more straights like gay people?

      • bubbabobcat says:

        Yup, bart is proud of giving more money than liberals to make his church bigger and prettier. His church that apparently sanctions lying and bullying. Because you would neeeever violate the 9th Commandment as a “good Christian”, right bart?

        Still no alms for the poor only donation box bart? They have them in mosques ya know. But you’ve never been in one as you spew hate against those “nasty Mooslims”. Can’t have Muslims use a mosque to store weapons of war in a war zone but it’s ok for a Catholic priest to kill an 8 year old child in a terrorist attack right bart?

      • Bart-1 says:

        bubbabobcat says:
        July 16, 2014 at 11:00 am
        Yup, it’s the “Lefties, Lub’ruls, Democrats,…” that respond emotionally and irrationally with invectives and insults. Riiiight bubba?

      • bubbabobcat says:

        For most people the truth sets them free. For bart it onlys sets him to hypocritically braying even louder. Notice he didn’t say I lied.

      • Bart-1 says:

        well, Homer,first I didn’t bring up the “tired, old talking point about how uncaring, and mean Conservatives supposedly are, Despo did. I simply shot it down. Sorry if that bothers you. Are you now claiming that people can CHOOSE to be gay? Could you guys make up your minds? Second, I didn’t say water is wet either Bubba, some things don’t have to be said but are obvious. Thirdly, it is you who knows absolutely NOTHING about the benevolence that my church does. Do you even know what church i go to or just talking out your rear? I would gladly challenge you to list any mosque’s acts of charity and I would show you it is not close to ours. But why bother with facts when you can make unsupported irrelevant attacks about Catholic priests and me personally right? Put up or shut up with some facts before you make tired, old baseless accusations, (like me being forced to retire) if you want to talk about being honest for once with your hate and anger, or at least look at your posts and their incessant vitriol. get help.

      • bubbabobcat says:

        Awww bart is suffering from reading comprehension again. And no one is surprised. I believe Homer is throwing your wingnut insecure chest beating back in your face with “conservatives are more charitable” meme bart. Gays are even more charitable. And that is even before Homer shot down your fake stats when correcting for “donations” to make your church biggest and baddest on the block. Homer isn’t asking you to have sex with another guy to be more charitable you dimwit. Just open your eyes and mind a bit to understand they ain’t as “icky” as you like to hysterically convince yourself to believe. They are even pretty nice and loving and charitable. MORE than your beloved “virtuous” wingnuts. But it’s a free country. Find whatever excuse you need to justify your coming out of the closet bart. As long as you’re happy and free. Which you obviously ARE NOT right now.

        “Water is wet” eh bart? And thank you for gutlessly acknowledging indirectly (of course) you are a consummate liar and NOT a “good Christian”. And you still lack an irony detector or a mirror bart. I don’t know your church eh? “Irrelevant attacks” about an acknowledged Catholic terrorist priest bart? Like your so very “relevant” hate rant about armaments in a mosque 10,000 miles away from you in another country in a perpetual war zone damning all Muslims bart? Duh.

  8. tuttabellamia says:

    There is much joking here about some posters living in alternate realties.

    I wish we could create an alternate world of news and media with other topics besides the usual ones of illegal immigration, climate change, abortion, and racism.

    There has got to be something else to talk about. If I can come up with something, you will be the first to know.

    • kabuzz61 says:

      Only the USA has an immigration policy that isn’t enforced. One commenter actually thinks the world is watching us protesting illegal immigrants when if they do watch, they are wondering why we put up with it.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        Kabuzz, for better or for worse, the US is subject to a higher standard.

        The rest of the world tends to view our actions as those of a big, bad bully. I doubt they see us as a pushover.

      • Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

        I don’t know Buzz, the US ranks in the high teens when it comes to per capita documented immigration. Lots of countries let in lots of immigrants.

        We just also do it with a wink and a nod to let folks in illegally because supporters of people on both sides of the aisle want it that way.

      • texan5142 says:

        Grab your pitchfork and go protest with them Kabuzz.

      • Anse says:

        We can always rely on you to reveal your utter cluelessness, kabuzz. Illegal immigration is a problem in Europe, too. The numbers of illegals crossing into EU countries is probably a lot lower than it is here for the reason of simple logistics; North African migrants have to cross an ocean to get there. For a suitable analogy, consider the comparatively low number of Cubans who’ve successfully made the trip across to Florida.

      • kabuzz61 says:

        We are talking illegal immigrants. Does Germany house them and represent them through a lengthy process? NO. Get a clue.

        Of course Homer has to be schooled on the fact we are talking illegal immigration. Yoohoo! Anyone homer?

      • Anse says:

        I can’t say anything about Germany, but I know Britain has a policy of screening unaccompanied minors and allowing those who have legitimate refugee claims to stay. My wife was a social worker in London for three years in a program that was set up to document and track young people like this, most of whom were from Africa. Those kids were in essentially the same kind of situation these children from Central America are.

        One of the reasons Europe has such specific, documented numbers of illegal immigrants is because they carefully track them, unlike the United States, which until the Obama administration, simply put them on a bus back to the border and dropped them off just on the other side, regardless of nationality or age. Obama is retaining these kids because under a law passed in 2008, they are required to receive a hearing before a judge. The law was meant to combat child trafficking. It applies here. We’re not going to just send them back because Congress and the president (I believe the law was signed by Bush, but I don’t remember) at that time actually gave a crap about kids with dire needs. At the very least, Obama is keeping a record of every individual caught crossing the border. The border patrol has openly questioned the wisdom of allocating so much in resources to this endeavor, but what we’ll get is a very clear picture of who is coming here and why.

        I know it’s not fast enough for the nativists, but it’s how good government works. I’m not surprised you don’t recognize it. After so many years of inept leadership by Republicans, we’re not accustomed to government actually functioning properly.

      • John Galt says:

        It’s estimated that there are 1 million illegal immigrants in Germany, a bit over 1% of the population. In Britain it’s a half-million or a bit under 1%. In both countries, a big pool of the potential illegal population has been removed by making it legal for EU residents, even from poorer eastern countries, to work throughout the EU. It’s higher in Italy and Greece, which are the frontiers for migrants from the Middle East and Africa.

    • tuttabellamia says:

      Texan, I thought this part was kind of funny:

      **The protester added that he did not think that the demonstrations would frighten the refugee children because “they’ve been all the way through Mexico.”**

    • CaptSternn says:

      Why is the world watching? If they had gone to Canada, they would be quickly detained, turned around and nobody would hear a thing about it. Being caught in Canada illegally even leads to prison time.

      We definately do have a problem with illegal immigration here, mainly because the laws are not enforced or are too weak to begin with.

      • texan5142 says:

        Derp

      • tuttabellamia says:

        As for the protesters, as I have often posted, what we choose to focus on, where we choose to place our time and energy, shows what our priorities are.

        Yes, parents sending their kids illegally to the US are breaking the law. This is a free country, but I have to ask: Why protest specifically against this, when there is so much evil going on in the rest of the country, and in the world at large? What is at stake here that is so new, that wasn’t at stake during earlier immigrant “invasions?” What makes this one any different, really?

      • texan5142 says:

        Protesting is easy, changing the law takes work.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        Protesting, the mere physical presence of a large group of people, carries with it the suggestion of intimidation, and it risks going beyond a simple stand-your-ground defense, especially when it’s against kids.

      • texan5142 says:

        Agreed Tutt, and it is disgusting in my view. If one has a certain view then they should work to change the law . Protesting a bunch of kids, young adults, and mothers just make them look like the assholes they may or may not be. Puts America in a bad light. The government is following

      • texan5142 says:

        law as written. It dose not matter what one believes caused this conundrum , what matters is how we treat these people, and that should be with some decorum of passion and respect as human beings. Most probably will be sent back, but let’s try to be as humane about it as possible. We are better than that.

        There, done with my rant, carry on.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        Trying to change the law may be hard, and protesting against kids may not be the wisest move, but does sitting here typing about it help matters any?

      • texan5142 says:

        No

      • texan5142 says:

        Maybe, who knows, posting here is better than protesting there, I guess.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        I don’t know about you, but the more I discuss it the more numb I become to it.

        Just for the sake of taking a fresh approach, for the sake of clarity, it might be a good idea to pretend we are establishing a new country and begin this whole immigration thing from scratch, instead of trying to make sense of our current bloated system.

        This might lead to some really good ideas.

        Good night.

      • kabuzz61 says:

        Funny how the left absolutely loves protesting unless it is in front of abortion clinics, Obama speeches, town halls, etc. The liberals usually cry how dissent is democracy.

        And it is also amazing that the left thinks only conservatives are protesting. Of course they aren’t protesting the children, they are protesting Obama’s dump policy. Dumping kids in their communities without health records. It is an overeach and over reaction from Obama.

        Remember I commented on this becoming a crisis weeks ago but Obama ignored the warning from politico’s. Now the children are suffering and it is on Obama’s head. He is so detached people are hurting.

    • John Galt says:

      If Canadian redneck assholes blocked roads to scream obscenities at children, then they’d be on TV and criticized too.

    • desperado says:

      Welcome the children, deport the protesters. They don’t deserve to be called Americans.

      • texan5142 says:

        Amen Des! They have no shame. Time for the church to put money where mouth is and step up. This is about people, real people, not something in abstract.

      • kabuzz61 says:

        Hey derp! Churches are taking them in. How about you and Al Franken take some in? Call and offer. All mouth this one.

    • tuttabellamia says:

      Texan, special circumstances are created once kids are involved, and parents often use this to their advantage.

      On the one hand, I understand that parents would want to get their kids out of dangerous Central American countries — parents will sacrifice themselves for their kids, kids are the future, kids need special protection. However, parents are sending their kids alone on dangerous trips, in uncertain conditions when they send them here, and via Mexico, to boot.

      Perhaps this could be compared to Jewish parents sending their kids out of harm’s way during the Holocaust. I don’t know. I am uncomfortable making this type of comparison.

      On the other hand, and I guess I have become cynical, I can’t help wondering if the parents plan to eventually join their kids here, and then it will become a situation in which we are raked over the coals for wanting to separate families, etc.

      • texan5142 says:

        I would think that you or I would use anything we could to our advantage to escape the situation that they are in. Can’t fault them for that.

      • kabuzz61 says:

        If A equals a child in an impovershed country and z equals america, what parent would send their children through the unknown B-Y? Rape, abuse, trafficing, kidnapping. Yes, they are great parents.

        CPS won’t let us send our minors across a city on their own.

      • bubbabobcat says:

        Yes crossing a US town is equivalent to crossing Mexico.

        And to answer your rhetorical only question with a real world answer, a parent who has to deal with the horrible dilemma of putting them at risk now for a possible better and safer future or put them at risk now AND for however long their future is in their current country.

        So nice to hypocritically pontificate when you have the luxury of NEVER having to make that decision. Now go hypocritically pray and pretend to be a “good” Christian in your “loving” church.

      • kabuzz61 says:

        A single mother today, was arrested because she went to work and her four year old was found in the park. She was arrested. This mother who was trying to put food on the table so her kid could have a better life. She was arrested. Had she sent her four year old through a couple of countries with strangers and a desert she would have been lauded by the left.

  9. geoff1968 says:

    Let’s put some pressure on the national governments to the south. Is it that we are so attractive? Or is it that the situation in those countries is literally repelling millions onto our side?

    We can’t take you in fast enough, friends. This manufactured “Crisis” has been happening for a long time and it’s time to drop the gavel on it.

    • Anse says:

      I’m pretty sure that the Republican solution is to make life absolutely miserable here so nobody will want to come here. That wall along the border will end up being more about keeping us in than keeping them out.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Only if they are here illegally. And make it hard for those that aid or hire them as well. However, you are free to leave at any time, if you can find a country that will allow you to move there. maybe if you tried that you would find out just how hard it is to get into other countries as an immigrant.

    • Owl of Bellaire says:

      Could it be that we owe some collective debt to those Central American nations, after the chaos, corruption, and injustice aided by U.S. corporate interference and military action?

      Nah. That’d be too much like “reparations”.

  10. DanMan says:

    “We have the most militarized, secured border in the free world.”

    Why bother trying to make sense of this word salad when it contains statements like this?

    Of coarse we could simply adopt Mexico’s immigration policy and end the influx today.

  11. Anse says:

    This is one of those issues on which right wingers will never, ever be satisfied, because the specter of illegal immigration is always there. It’s been around since the founding of the country, and every modern president going back a century has grappled with it, and no president has ever satisfied the nativists who are convinced we are being invaded. That fear is and always will be there. We could build a wall 40 feet high and put armed guards in towers every 30 yards along it, and it would never be enough.

    We can prove to them that election fraud is virtually nonexistent, and it doesn’t convince them. Our president finally released his birth certificate, which I knew was a waste of time and it was; of course, documents can be faked, and the Birther conspiracy is still there, festering in their minds. We can prove that human beings are having an impact on the globe’s climate. We can provide mountains of evidence that prove why evolution is the guiding principle of all of the life sciences. We can prove that Saddam never had WMD. We can do these things–we HAVE done these things–but the right wing mind is an impenetrable force.

    I read Texas Monthy’s interview with Rick Perry, and it’s amazing. The guy is completely impervious to contradicting evidence. Point out how far we’ve fallen in national rankings in education and health care and the environment, and it rolls right off him like rain on a freshly-waxed fender. You cannot break through.

    If you want evidence of the power of faith and magical thinking, there you have it.

    • texan5142 says:

      Science and facts, who needs em when one has faith and/ or belief.

    • CaptSternn says:

      I would love to see proof that human beings are controlling the global climte, or even having a major influence on it. Won’t be presented because it doesn’t exist.

      Prove that Saddam Hussein never had WMD? Sure, prove it to the Kuyrds and Iranians he gassed.

      No, as usual you do not live in reality with the rest of us, which is why you can’t even join a decent discussion over immigration issues. Lifer managed to even put up a decent entry without shouting “RACISTS” every other word, and we have bee having a decent discussion as a result.

      • Anse says:

        At no point has any climate scientist that I have ever read ever made the claim that human beings are “controlling” the climate. The science exists, Sternn. It’s there. Do we need to bring it up? Because when we present it to you, you’ll just insist that it’s fake.

        Chris made a really compelling point about immigration. The fixation on law enforcement is a waste of time because immigration law as it stands cannot be enforced to the max. One thing that hasn’t been said enough in this conversation is the reason we’re housing these kids instead of sending them right back: because the law requires it. The Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 requires illegal immigrants who are minors be given a court hearing to determine if they are victims of illegal trafficking. The law requires the government to give those kids a chance to stand before a judge. That’s why they haven’t been sent right back.

        The Obama administration is following the law. But this is why we can’t talk about this stuff, Sternn. You are completely immune to facts. They have no impact on your worldview whatsoever.

      • Turtles Run says:

        “I would love to see proof that human beings are controlling the global climte, or even having a major influence on it. Won’t be presented because it doesn’t exist.

        Prove that Saddam Hussein never had WMD? Sure, prove it to the Kuyrds and Iranians he gassed.

        No, as usual you do not live in reality with the rest of us,…..”

        Cappy – I have to agree with you on this comment. Those claims have only been made in your alternate reality. Here in this reality no one is making such claims.

        It is useless having a discussion with you because you rather argue comments you imagine people have made versus what was really stated. Then there is your head in the sand approach to any sort of contradicting evidence that is presented to you.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Anse, the answer has already been put out there, and not from me originally here on this board but I will keep on repeating it, make this place very unwelcome for illegal aliens and people that support/hire them.

        Turtles, Anse made thos claims in his comment up above. I only responded to the claims.

      • kabuzz61 says:

        Anse, your childish rant couldn’t be more devoid of the facts.

        Conservatives believe the climate is warming but no scientist has proven that humans are the driving reason that is so while a lot believe it is cyclical.

        Enforcing our immigration laws means when 9 out of ten illegals do not show up for their hearing, have local law enforcement find them and then deport them. Local law enforcement can’t get involved since Obama came in. If you want to see that statistic change for the better, start sending the law breakers back and then see how many start showing up for their hearing.

        If you are here illegally, no financial help, no free schools and lunch programs, etc. You are on your own.

        Businesses hires illegals, fine them in proportion to their profits the last full year. Make it hurt.

        If you are here on a visa and you fail to renew or go back, when caught, you will be deported and not able to come back.

        As far as the rest of your rant, well, it was silly.

      • DanMan says:

        “Chris made a really compelling point about immigration.”

        I call BS. Again. He made the dems case to pad their voting rolls. Funny how the party that supposedly has the lock on future elections because of the numerical decline of those mean old white guys has to resort to opening the borders, cheating in elections and bribing people to vote for them.

      • John Galt says:

        What is silly Kabuzz, is your continued responses. Schools are not permitted to discriminate against students based on immigration status, per the SCOTUS. To change this would require a change of laws. “Catch and release” is a policy governed by current law. To change this requires a change in those laws. Fining businesses based on profits? Under what existing laws?

        Chris suggests that immigration reform is needed. You respond that we need to do a lot of things not currently legal first. You bitch and moan about Obama supposedly enforcing laws selectively or making up new ones and are here basically suggesting he do exactly that before you’ll get on board with changing immigration laws. It’s kind of funny, actually.

      • texan5142 says:

        Once again kabuzz, no one has said that humans are causing climate change. Humans are increasing the rate at which it happens naturally.

      • CaptSternn says:

        No, Texan, humans are making anything happen faster or making things worse. We don’t have the ability to have any influence over it. But, since you believe we do, you should be cheering the fact that we stopped that horrible global cooling that was going to wipe out half the population by the year 2000.

      • Anse says:

        Sternn, you don’t know climate change from the hole in your backside. That’s the kicker about this issue, really. We’re like a bunch of janitors arguing over brain surgery. None of us are qualified to take a solid stand either way on climate change. So for me, the best bet is to go with the scientists, because they dedicate their lives to this stuff and their opinion is based on experience and on science. What in the heck is in it for scientists, exactly? We know what’s in it for rightwingers. They’re convinced climate change means we all have to give up our SUVs and whatnot.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Yes, Anse, I will go with what scientists are saying. Human contribution is so minor it is insignificant.

      • DanMan says:

        “What in the heck is in it for scientists, exactly? We know what’s in it for rightwingers.”

        about $4.7b/year in funding to continue the charade Anse. Always follow the money.

      • kabuzz61 says:

        JG, local and state law enforcement assists the federal authorities when they are after drugs, arms or any other major sting operation, but Obama told Arizona that they could not enforce immigration laws. He can change that by just asking for assistance like any other fed case.

        After just a little while, why the illegals start seeing other illegals being deported right away for not showing up at their hearing, well, you get the idea or are you just being purposely obtuse?

      • Anse says:

        Dan, so the scientists are just in it for money? Really? So scientists can’t get money any other way? Like the Koch brothers, who ponied up a few million bucks to a scientist to disprove climate change–only to be told that in fact, the science was solid, and the theory sound?

        It would be fine for you goofballs to keep this charade up if it weren’t for the fact that you are advocating policies that actually make the problem worse.

        Take 97% of the scientific community being in agreement, go with the 3%. Typical rightwingers.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Correction, 97% of the scientists that believe in AGW agree, which means 3% that believe it don;t agree. And that is only a handful of scientists since the majority do not believe in AGW. Might as well say that 97% of the people commenting here agree with the things I say since we will only count myself, Kabuzz, Dan, Bart, TThor, Tutt and OV. The rest of you are not included in the percentage. Yeah, that works out just fine. Derp!

      • Tuttabella says:

        Cap, keep in mind that I agree with you only about 75% of the time, with a margin of error of 5%.

      • CaptSternn says:

        True on that, Tutt.

      • John Galt says:

        Cap, I’m going to say this as bluntly as I can. Your comments that only a handful of scientists believe in AGW are bullshit. I don’t know what right wing drivel news source you are getting it from, but it is utterly and completely wrong. There is excellent agreement amongst climate scientists that human activity is driving a large part of the warming trends. These conclusions have been evaluated by major scientific societies throughout the world, which have issued statements affirming these conclusions. These include the National Academies of Science in the United States and similar bodies in all G8 nations plus China, Brazil and India have all issued statements that agree that AGW is real, happening now, and a threat.

        You can continue to think whatever you wish, but the statement that most scientists agree with your denial of AGW is wrong. 100%, clear as day, wrong.

      • John Galt says:

        “After just a little while, why the illegals start seeing other illegals being deported right away for not showing up at their hearing, well, you get the idea or are you just being purposely obtuse?”

        Sorry, ma’am, I don’t have time to investigate your burglary, I’ve got to arrest this gardener over here. Most local police forces want nothing to do with enforcing immigration law, with one publicity-mad Arizona sheriff excepted. It distracts them from pursuing more serious crimes and damages their reputation in immigrant (legal) communities, reducing cooperation when it comes to solving serious crimes. It is not a local police priority for good reasons.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Nope, John, just a handfull of scientists on the government dole that would rather destroy all their data than allow it to be peer reviewed, and a whole lot of politicians that want to hamper the top economies and redistribute the wealth among the nations.

        Funny how people that so strongly believe in evolution and want to hear nothing else also think nature should be static and never changing.

        Our contribution is completely insignificant, a tiny percentage of even one percent.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        John and Cap, I have often posted that illegal immigration is up there with prostitution and possession of marijuana — one of those offenses that PERHAPS ought to be decriminalized.

        Illegals own their own homes, open bank accounts, go to school (paying in-state tuition fees for college), and may even get drivers licenses. They are like ordinary, legal residents, except for the legal status. Granting them amnesty would be the equivalent of making an honest woman out of a mistress who is in every way a wife and marrying her.

        Like mistresses, illegals know what they’re getting into, but shame on us nonetheless for using them for our own benefit.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        The thing is, once you give them legal status, you have to pay them minimum wage and give them all the benefits that come with being a legal employee, and therefore they lose their appeal for employers who like to pay dirt cheap wages, and so a new batch of illegals will come in to pick up the slack for those who were once exploited and have now moved up.

      • John Galt says:

        Tutt, I’m pretty ambivalent about illegal immigration. On one hand, their illegal status makes them easy prey for abusive conditions and very low pay (someone called it slave labor, which is not exactly right, but captures the sense). On the other, they chose this course, presumably with open eyes. They are breaking our laws to come here, but our laws are pretty stupid as currently written and enforced. We are all (at least the vast majority of us) from immigrant stock, but the arrival of a lot of us predates the formation of the INS. What motivates these people is exactly what motivated my ancestors: the chance to build a better life for themselves and their children.

        What I’m not ambivalent about is the children of those who make this decision. Many have no memories of their “home” country. This is their home. We should not punish them for the crimes of their parents and should help them to become productive members of society through the same educational opportunities and access to health care that any other kids have. The costs of doing so are modest when compared to the return on this investment.

    • Crogged says:

      Anse this little clip explains much, angry guys in suits are never wrong.

  12. tuttabellamia says:

    I apologize to everyone for going on and on with short posts. I’m on my iPhone, plus I am home sick with a fever, so I’m delirious.

  13. CaptSternn says:

    “Ov, a good way to tell the difference is if people have a problem with Hispanics here LEGALLY. Then you know the problem is with their ethnicity, not their residential status.”

    Now you are just using common sense and logic, Tutt.

    • CaptSternn says:

      Oops, sorry. That was supposed to be at the bottom of the page.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        Thanks, Cap. Another test is to see how their treatment of Hispanic illegals compares to their treatment of illegals of other ethnicities.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        OR whether they call some people EXPATS and others with similar status MIGRANTS, or immigrants. That says a lot right there about their true, albeit unconscious feelings.

    • Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

      Or…maybe folks who assume someone with a Hispanic-sounding last name is here illegally.

      Since Chris moved here, I haven’t read the chron.com, but the comments there would make your soul hurt.

      If anything bad involved someone with a Hispanic-sounding name, the number of comments about “illegals” or “I bet he is here illegally” was depressing as heck.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        YES, you are so right. My heart and soul could no longer take it, and I had to escape that horrible place, especially seeing the absolute worst term for Hispanics, in my opinion: “wastes of skin.”

      • tuttabellamia says:

        The worst were the Sunday, all-day hatefests.

      • flypusher says:

        I still go there occasionally, but less and less, for the same reasons. How much is trolling and how much is real is anyone’s guess, but either way too much of the speech is downright putrid.

      • John Galt says:

        How do you live without the slideshows of the 10 best BBQ restaurants in Houston or the 19 best Astros players?

      • flypusher says:

        SciGuy is still there. A pity his blog has less of his postings these days, but I hope that’s because the chron’s giving him plenty of other work.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        Fly, i lost all respect for the Houston Chronicle for allowing this type of garbage and I canceled my print subscription. True, the posters and the paper have their right to free speech, but then so do I. Home delivery subscribers are people, too!

      • tuttabellamia says:

        I did love the OH-pinion pages, but the Chron let them wither away. I will always have a special place in my heart for the OP-ED section, because that’s where Cap and I met. 🙂

  14. flypusher says:

    My definition of the problem is that we have collectively allowed a shadow economy to develop, something that runs off a modernized version of slavery. It’s been allowed to grow for multiple financial and political reasons, which I shouldn’t have to repeat here, as others have defined them well. If something simple like “secure the border” or “make them all citizens” was really the answer, we wouldn’t be even having this discussion. Solving it is going to involve some unpleasant self reflections (how much are our comfy lifestyles really subsidized by cheap, desperate labor) and Americans don’t tend to be very good at that.

  15. kabuzz61 says:

    First off, this humanitarian crisis is the result of Obama and the dem’s pushing amnesty. What they have caused is these poor children risking their lives to come here to have to go back.

    Obama is in Texas for fund raisers but doesn’t visit the border. How callus and undetached is that? He does make his fundraisers though.

    Democratic leadership’s answer to the crisis is to hand out lollypops.

    HHS won’t even let congressman or senators in, well until McCain ordered them to stop that policy immediately.

    This is Obama’s Katrina and one the democrats can ill afford as we approach November.

    Scabies, Hepatitis, chicken pox, tuberculosis, we are on the verge of a pandemic and our government is dumping these sick kids in states without letting the governors know who or where.

    Thank’s dem’s for your open borders nonsense.

    • John Galt says:

      Yawn. Every problem in the world elicits the same response from you: it’s Obama’s fault.

      BTW, mighty Christian of you to want to forcibly deport sick children.

      • kabuzz61 says:

        Wow! Denial to the max. You can’t even bring yourself to put this one on him while the rest of the country certainly thinks so.

        And never mind the ignorant Chrisitanity lessons. Please don’t lower yourself to the troll of Minnisota.

      • John Galt says:

        You pin all the problems on Obama. Were I to care to do so, I could go back through posts and find you using nearly identical language about Benghazi, Ukraine, debt, the economy, Iran, Iraq, Egypt, and so forth. You’re a record that skips, playing the same line over and over again.

      • kabuzz61 says:

        Wrong again. I have blamed Obama for some things, after all you may not know this but he is the leader of his administration, so if there is a problem in an area of his responsibility that is called being held accountable. Surely you can understand this?

    • Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

      Buzz…I am sure that somehow in your world, Obama is to blame for the economy in Honduras, El Salvador, and Nicaragua.

      You might think to allocate at least some, maybe a tiny, tiny amount, of the “blame” there.

      If you believe what you wrote above, maybe this issue will highlight the need for the GOP/TP to watch what they say and maybe cut down on the hyperbole.

      You would be hard pressed to find a lot of Obama administration folks on TV using the word “amnesty”, but you will see a few dozen GOP/TP complaining about “amnesty”. If you believe what you wrote above, you have to recognize that the folks using that word are coming from your side of the debate.

      Unless, of course, you are assuming that these poor, desperate people from Central America are adept at deciphering our political word soup from 2,000 miles away.

      So, if I utilize a similar line of thinking to yours, the GOP/TP is to blame for poor people expecting amnesty because they are constantly on TV talking about amnesty.

      If your 2016 election strategy starts with the word “scabies”…you guys are going to be walloped.

      • kabuzz61 says:

        Very good spinning of the facts Homer. Nice try, not biting.

      • Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

        I don’t know Buzz…I venture to say you have typed the word “amnesty” a dozen times today, far more than anyone on the other side.

        All those folks in El Salvador reading this blog are heading to the US because of you.

        What to go Buzz…you probably should run to Costco and buy some lolly pops to hand out because we are routing all of the detained children and their scabies to your house.

      • CaptSternn says:

        HT, the democrats are talking amnesty, they are just trying really, really hard not to call it that.

      • Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

        And the kids wandering up here understand the word gumbo coming from the Democrats and are not at all affected by every GOP/TP screaming “amnesty” into every camera and microphone they can find.

        You should probably also not there are a fair number of GOP (read – RINOs) talking about essentially the same solutions.

        There ya, go, you typed amnesty once, and I typed it once…that is two more scabies-ridden children heading to Buzz’s house.

      • Bart-1 says:

        Did Obama NOT get directly involved with the Honduran Supreme Court who ruled Zelaya illegally tried to rewrite their Constitution, like his buddy Chavez did in Venezuela, to permit unlimited terms of office in 2009? Remember, it was right after claiming he didn’t believe in “Meddling in sovereign country’s affairs” when the Green Protesters were murdered in Iran in 2009. Sec. of State Clinton and Obama cut off all aid and threatened to removed them from the OAS if they kept the President that wanted and trie to describe the actions of their judicial system as a “Military coup”. Naw, he has no responsibility for the government there (the biggest sender of these “children”) at all does he?

      • Turtles Run says:

        Bart

        So wanting to conduct a national poll to gauge the interest in amending the nation’s constitution to allow him to run for a second term is the same as attempting to rewrite the constitution. And the abduction of the President in the middle of the night by the Honduran military and dropping him and his family in another country is not a “military coup.”

        Right

        Obama was correct to protest these actions and labeling it a coup because that is exactly what it was.

        Zelaya was opposed by the right wing in his nation and here because he had the audacity to institute programs that would benefit the poor in the nation and wrest control from the wealthy that had long controlled the nation. Instead of supporting a person trying to improve conditions in Honduras for the poor and vulnerable the right wing supported the coup and the continuation of the exploitation of people in that nation.

        Now the people of that nation are trying to gain a better life for themselves and are coming here in mass. But its Obama’s fault, yes we get it.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Help the poor, Turtles? Would that be the same kind of help they got from Chaven in Venezuela? Food and toilet paper shortages? Chvez’s friends got awfully rich from him, though.

      • kabuzz61 says:

        Turtle, you know not what you speak.

      • Turtles Run says:

        Cappy – So the choice is a lack of tp or to be preyed upon by a corrupt government and drug gangs. hmmmm….which shall I pick (eyes rolling).

        Buzzy – Yawn, blah blah blah

      • Bart-1 says:

        Why am i not surprised Turtles supports the Communist Chavez? You think his (Zelaya) “requesting a poll” WASN’T an act to rewrite the country’s Constitution to allow him multiple terms (exactly like Chavez did? You think that the “shortage of Toilet paper’ is the major economic problem the people in Venezuela are facing or were you just being dumb? I noticed while you defended Obama’s flip/flop on “interfering in the affairs of sovereign states” in Honduras you never addressed the killing of 7 Mousavi protesters in Iran just prior. Why is that? Is the military following the decision of the Congress and Supreme Court of Honduras a worse violation to you?

      • Turtles Run says:

        Bart

        As for the military and Supreme Court, if they were acting within their rights then please point out in the Honduran Constitution the section where the President should be arrested in the middle of the night and deposited in a foreign country without being tried in court. The fact is that the wealthy in the nation hated Zelaya and wanted him out because of the reforms he passed and his popularity with the people of the nation.

        So if you are upset about our current border situation then blame yourself for supporting these governments that exploit their people.

        Presidents have to deal with the reality of any situation and if they must react contrary to previous statements because the environment has changed then so be it. The POTUS’ reaction to foreign policy events in Honduras vs Iran should be based on the best available information and the myriad of other metrics that allow him to make the best decisions possible in the given situation. Only the truly stupid refuse to adapt to ever changing events especially when additional knowledge is present. But that is the entire tea party/ far right wing mantra – remain stupid at all costs.

      • Bart-1 says:

        So in Turtles world, The ever changing world of a President being found in violation of his country’s Constitutional authority demands immediate US intervention where murdering protesters in Iran over a stoled election by Ahmadinajad (sp?) does NOT. Got it. That is a brilliant statement Turtles. ranks right up there with supported a self avowed Communist like Chavez, and he only caused a toilet paper shortage.

      • Turtles Run says:

        Bart

        The one problem with you Honduras claim is that the President of that country did not break any laws or violate the constitution, hence that is why the was shipped out in the middle of the night instead of being arrested and then given a trail. Unless you are telling us that the Honduras constitution has a “kidnap he President and his family in the middle of the night and send them to another country” clause.

        As for Iran, we have a very tortured past with that nation. Foreign policy experts suggested that if the US would have spoken out the people of the nation would rally in support of their country’s government instead of protesting it.

        Sometimes brains are needed Bart not empty rhetoric.

  16. texan5142 says:

    That picture should have a NSFW warning……….I see a pair of boobs.

  17. John Galt says:

    “Securing the border” is an utter waste of time and money. It cannot be done for any reasonable sum of money. Even if we collectively go insane and build a 2,000 mile long fortified wall, it will not stop illegal immigration. Something like 40-50% of these immigrants come to the US legally and simply never leave. A wall does not stop this – it simply drives the immigration paths to different routes and we’re out $50 billion or so. Insisting that this be the first step in immigration reform is the same as saying that we don’t want to think about it right now.

    • kabuzz61 says:

      If you understood what the full context of securing the border is instead of listening to dem talking points you wouldn’t have written such an absurd comment.

      • John Galt says:

        Yes, I understand the issue quite well. Here is the take of leading GOP light Rand Paul.:
        http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/06/12/Op-Ed-Secure-the-Border

        It’s even from one of your favorite sites.

        “Libertarian” Paul is calling for modernizing the visa system (good), but also for physical and technological barriers. He does not mention e-Verify or any other employment verification scheme. He does not mention targeting the employers who fill his campaign coffers. He does not mention the cost. Most absurdly, he proposes that Congressional votes on border security be an annual prerequisite of continuing immigration policy. Yep, every year.

        These are the words of a man tipped as a potential presidential candidate with absolutely no interest in solving this problem.

      • flypusher says:

        Enlighten us, oh grumpy kitty. Give us your definition of “full context of securing the border.”

    • Bart-1 says:

      JG, Regarding our previous discussion about those who believe that the Illegal immigrants don’t drain our Safety Net entitlement programs: http://toprightnews.com/?p=761 As for being “willfully ignorant”. I’m sure there will be the Ostrich types who will see “Fox News” and without thinking, believe this is untrue. I guess we can just “raise taxes more” right?

      • John Galt says:

        Listen, Bart, I didn’t dispute that illegal immigrants use certain services. What this woman is supposedly doing is fraud and she should be prosecuted for it. But illegal immigrants don’t “drain our Safety Net.” This is not exactly uncharted waters here: dozens of studies, including one by a former Texas comptroller, have attempted to estimate the net costs to governments (spending on them minus taxes they pay) of illegal immigrants and found it to be small. The CBO, generally considered to be non-partisan, looked at a bunch of these and, while they didn’t put an overall number on it, concluded that it was “fairly modest.” This did not include any economic costs or advantages that they bring (such as depressing wages at the low end or making food cheaper). Spending on illegal immigrants is a tiny part of our overall spending on welfare programs. Enforcement of the rules (to detect fraud) costs money and preventing it outright costs a lot of money. Maybe we don’t have the line drawn in the right place, but if it costs $50 to prevent the last $1 of fraud, is that worth it?

      • kabuzz61 says:

        JG, the CBO only works the numbers with the parameters given to them for any given calculas.

        The border states are especially hard hit in terms of healthcare costs, schools and programs that provide food and clothes.

        We don’t need to go after fraud, just make it impossible for illegal immigrants to get anything that only citizens can get.

      • Bart-1 says:

        JG, I don’t buy the straw man argument about the cost to stop fraud. Why do people slow dwn when they see a policeman on the road? They fear being financially punished. Make theft and Employment fraud COST. The IRS collects much more in preventing tax fraud than it costs to maintain it (even with their crashed hard-drives expense). If we made HUGE penalties for those hiring illegally, and those caught committing fraud, it would cut down dramatically. Fear of an audit motivates the high rate of Income tax compliance. Why wouldn’t it work in those cases? Answer, It would but that is EXACTLY why out “representatives” will never change the laws to do so.

    • Bart-1 says:

      JG states, “Securing the border is an utter waste of time” while the Senate Majority claims the Southern Border IS secure”. Could you Democrats get your meme straight? http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/212328-reid-southern-border-is-secure Rememeber couple years ago DHS Sec.Napalitano, VP Biden, and PresidentOnama claiming the US border with Mexico is “the most secure it has ever been”?

  18. flypusher says:

    I’m guessing the illegal Poles are overstaying visas? Oh yes, the Berlin Wall 2.0 would be reaaaalllly effective in stopping that, wouldn’t it? And all those people coming in from China, etc, being smuggled in the cargo containers on the big ships would run smack into it too, right?

    • CaptSternn says:

      Some people don’t seem able to grasp the difference between a fort and a prison.

      • flypusher says:

        I grasp the difference perfectly, and choose “none of the above”. The Wall won’t work well enough to justify the ginormous cost.

      • Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

        Interesting set of choices…the US should be neither.

        I guess from a deeper, more philosophic perspective, one could argue that the only difference is based on which side of the wall you happen to be located.

      • goplifer says:

        The difference between a fort and a prison is very subtle. Ask a GI.

      • CaptSternn says:

        A GI is an indentured servant. Doesn’t exactly compare to a free citizen being protected.

      • John Galt says:

        I don’t want or need protection from poor people trying to make a better life for their families and I can think of hundreds of things that $40 billion/year would do to promote America’s long-term interests better than a wall.

    • objv says:

      fly, if it were only people crossing the border, I’d agree that a wall wouldn’t work, but it’s not only human smuggling that is a problem. Drug cartels freely move drugs and weapons across the border. Many in the Mexican military seem to be complicit in illegal activity and enter into American territory to protect the cartels. A fence would not completely solve the problem, but it would serve as a deterrent and greatly cut down on illegal activity.

      • flypusher says:

        But wouldn’t you agree that waves of people crossing the border looking for work is perfect cover for those smuggling drugs and weapons? Don’t you think that if we could put in a working system for dealing with the people who want to support their families through honest work, the border patrol could focus more on the cartels?

      • John Galt says:

        Drug trafficking is certainly a problem on the border, but as this article illustrates, increased pressure on one route simply shifts the trafficking to other routes. Increased surveillance in Honduras and other Central American countries that feed the overland trade has pushed the Caribbean traffic up four-fold in the last couple of years. The answer to that particular problem is legalization.
        http://www.economist.com/news/americas/21602680-old-route-regains-popularity-drugs-gangs-full-circle

  19. CaptSternn says:

    That is interesting. I wasn’t aware of the illegal aliens from Poland in Chicago, but I did a quick search and in 2008 there were around 70,000 in Chicago, tourists that decided to ignore our laws and stay illegally. How is it that illegal aliens own property and homes? Something is wrong with that.

    Somebody else here came up with the solution to secure our borders, and that is to really come down hard on those who aid and/or hire illegal aliens as well as making sure illegal aliens get no government benefits for being here. Make the nation a very unwelcome place for people here illegally and we won’t have many people here illegally from anywhere.

    • goplifer says:

      You are writing the intro to the next piece.

      • flypusher says:

        I think a Venn diagram of people who hire lots of undocumented workers and people who give generously to the RNC would show some interesting overlap.

      • CaptSternn says:

        I have been giving your reply some thought, Lifer. If I were to bet money, I would bet you are going to be against cracking down on people that aid/employ illegal aliens and making illegal aliens unwelcome here.

        For what little it is worth, I appreciate the fact that you didn’t shout “RACISTS” every other sentence under this latest entry. I think you only brought race up once, the different view of illegals from Poland and from south of the border. That is a legitimate point in my opinion.

        It falls in line with what Tutt, OV, Fly and others have said about the difference between immigrants, migrants and ex-pats. Maybe there are other contributing factors that really have nothing to do with race, such as where most illegal aliens have come from, but I don’t think that should matter to anybody that is actually and honestly concerned about the issue.

        Some here are not satisfied with that and try to bring it back to the forefront, but that is just the way of things when they have nothing constructive to bring to the discussion.

        Thanks and we shall see if my prediction is right.

      • Bart-1 says:

        I’m guessing you are talking about my proposal Sternn. Fly, what in the world makes you think that those wanting the “Dream Act/Comprehensive Immigration reform/Amnesty” are more prone to be contributors to the RNC? The Billionaires fund BOTH parties. Whoever will screw the middle class and help them most (both Democrats and establishment GOP politicians). Why should the Oligarchs care about the negative impact on social programs, public schools, unemployment, and crime? They are all safe and protected. Sadly our Bought and sold “representatives” will never make E-Verify mandatory nationally and fine the hell out these Billionaires who profit from hiring them. That would end the gravy train that makes the majority of them MILLIONAIRES themselves. That is who and why they serve, don’t be fooled into believing that they only/mostly fund those on one side. the fund those who will do their bidding.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Thank you Bart for reminding me who voiced the idea here. I will promote and repeat it as it is the right idea imo, but I don’t want to take credit for something I didn’t come up with on my own.

      • flypusher says:

        ” Fly, what in the world makes you think that those wanting the “Dream Act/Comprehensive Immigration reform/Amnesty” are more prone to be contributors to the RNC? ”

        Wrong set of people Bart. I’m talking about the people who hire under the table so they can skimp on taxes, pay, and/or safety. Did you ever wonder why Rick Perry changed his tune on the issue so abruptly during his Presidential bid?

    • Bart-1 says:

      no, I didn’t wonder for a minute. Rick perrry also never delivered on his promise to secure the border when running for Governor against kay bailey Hutchison jus before that. She was actually taking him to task for being against mandatory EVerify and increasing its fines and enforcement. Here in Texas, that meant losing his financial support from the likes of Bob Perry and Howard E Butts. Nationally, the amount of money folks like Buffet, Soros, and Gates donate to the other side is even worse. As Cenk Uygur of the Young Turks has stated nonstop for years. It is not just the RNC (though the establishment GOP candidates are highly dependent on it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHykDEElIjg https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00009922#raised

  20. kabuzz61 says:

    Anse makes the lazy argument that if you don’t want reform you are racist. Anse, I discount any idea you have out of hand because anyone that thinks they know the motivation of the millions of people that want the existing law enforced is a loon.

    When conservatives say they want the existing laws enforced, it just doesn’t cover border patrol. It covers the millions of illegals that are released and told to show up at a hearing later. 1 in 10 actually shows up. So 9 out of 10 illegals don’t even respect our laws or are good to their word. This has become a rinse and repeat situation that has to stop. Put alot of muscle behind those that don’t show up for their hearing so we send a message that we aren’t kidding about this stuff. Demonstrate to the latin american countries that the USA is serious about this subject. We are doing neither now. That is what enforce the laws means.

    Now you idiots are free to start your racism insults.

    • goplifer says:

      That is the law. What part of this situation eludes you? We have built an immigration law system, much like our gun control system, that doesn’t work and cannot be enforced by any practical means. THATS why we need new laws on the subject.

      Want enforcement? That’s the status quo. The law is being enforced to the extent that anyone can enforce a broken, completely irrelevant set of laws.

      • kabuzz61 says:

        Chris, conservatives want new border security issues addressed FIRST. If the politico’s would quit trying to pass a massive bill that conservatives won’t approve unless the security is addressed, then it goes nowhere. With the existing laws we can send out warrants for those that do not show to their hearing and have servers and bondsman search for them, find them and bring them to detention for deportation. That is the message that has to get back to the latino countries. When that is demonstrated, you will see a very supportive group of conservatives address work permits, etc. Security first.

      • flypusher says:

        “Chris, conservatives want new border security issues addressed FIRST. ”

        Which sums up exactly how and why you people are doing you part in preventing any serious action. Add in the lefty obstructionists with their reasons, and the politicians who pander to both, and nothing meaningful happens, and the underground economy festers on, feeding criminals and devouring the unlucky.

    • Anse says:

      “Demonstrate to the latin american countries that the USA is serious about this subject.”

      That statement is loaded with barely-veiled paranoia. It summarizes the conservative hysteria about this issue perfectly. You seem to think the governments of Latin America are coordinating some kind of action, as if this really is an invasion. I’m very sad for you guys, really. Life must be an unceasing litany of terrors lurking behind every corner. No wonder you all want to be armed to the teeth all the time.

    • flypusher says:

      Buzzy, if you don’t like the “catch & release” practice, changing the law is the way to deal with it. If you don’t like illegal employers getting wrist slaps at best, changing the law is the way to deal with it. How messed up is it that all the “libs” you snark at here actually agree that there is a problem, want to solve the problem, want to fix the laws in order the have enforcing those laws actually do something, but you are just so locked into that “enforce the laws” mantra you can’t see there’s more agreement than disagreement. And there’s all these others just like you, who won’t look at all the common ground we have for starting reform. Add that to JG’s dead on assessment in the previous post of why the politicos don’t do anything realistic, and it’s the perfect status quo recipe.

      • kabuzz61 says:

        Fly, did you know that when an illegal doesn’t show up for a hearing a bench warrant is issued? But that’s as far as it gets. Those warrants need to be executed. Even using local PD’s.

      • flypusher says:

        And if you changed the law so that they weren’t released ITFP before their hearing………..?

      • kabuzz61 says:

        I am saying have law enforcement look for them and immediately deport them. They forfit their hearing rights. After awhile doing that, we could realistically contain them. It’s a joke right now. That is why any race is abusing it.

      • flypusher says:

        Wouldn’t it be cheaper and a more efficient use of police man hours if they didn’t have to go hunting for these people because the law had been changed so that undocumented people were detained until their hearings?

      • Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

        Buzz…if 9 out of 10 don’t show up, can you imagine the people hours needed to go find folks? The costs for this make-work program for Dog the Bounty Hunter would be astounding

        Hey, I guess that is one way to cut unemployment, bring in a few million new bounty hunters.

        It is the lack of practicality that confounds so many of your positions.

      • kabuzz61 says:

        When quite a few are captured and sent back, you can bet more illegals will make their hearings.

        The problem is simply the left doesn’t want to secure the border in the full context of what that means. You would rather try to paint the heart/emotional picture while you keep your head in the sand.

      • flypusher says:

        Wouldn’t it be a more direct and long-term cheaper point if you closed that catch & release loophole?

      • kabuzz61 says:

        Yes it would but there is no place to house them for a few months. Not at these numbers.

  21. Tuttabella says:

    Lifer, good point about needing first to define the problem before proceeding. I think the definition is left intentionally vague for political reasons. Take the word REFORM. For some it means border control. For others it means amnesty. It’s whatever you want it to mean.

    Either way, it’s too simplistic, and once anyone takes the time to suggest or craft a plan, they get booed off the stage. Heck, even Dan, Kabuzz, and Cap would be seen as traitors because they suggest doing something other than mass deportation and border control. Fly would be criticized by the other side for making Dream Act standards stricter.

    • flypusher says:

      Hey Tutta, I have zero doubt many to the left of me wouldn’t like my proposed standards one bit, but I’m willing and able to duke it out with them too. I very much approve of the concept of allowing people to prove themselves and earn a place in this society. But the bar has to be set reasonably.

  22. Tuttabella says:

    Lifer, until you begin referring to certain visitors from Latin America as EXPATS instead of MIGRANTS or IMMIGRANTS, then I will suspect you to be almost as guilty of the classicism and/or racism of which you accuse others.

    • Anse says:

      What in the heck is wrong with the word “immigrant”?

      • tuttabellamia says:

        Because the term is misused, based on class and/or country of origin. Americans, Britons, etc, are usually called EXPATS, are rarely called immigrants, even when they intend to remain permanently. Latinos who plan to stay a few years, save money, and then go back to their country, are still usually referred to as migrants or immigrants.

        The term should be based on the circumstances of their stay, not where they are from.

      • Turtles Run says:

        Tutt – EXPATS are generally sent to a country to work for a time by the employer. If an American is sent to London to work for 2 years he would be called an EXPAT, if he decides to move there to live and work and become a citizen, then he is an immigrant.

        There is not malice in labeling people “immigrant”.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Turtles, the point is that if the U.S. citizen moved to London to get a job and work, but never intended to stay and become a citizen and eventually followed the intentions and moved back to the states to retire, he would be an ex-pat and not an immigrant.

      • Tuttabella says:

        Turtles, that is how it is in theory but not in practice. There may be no outright malice, but it is a subtle form of classicism/ethnic bias.

        Migrants are also temporary workers who intend to return to their home country. Why not call them expats? I know several permanent residents here from the UK who are technically immigrants but are called expats.

    • goplifer says:

      I think you are making an interesting point. I was an expat in Britain for a while, with a work visa. I never thought of myself as a migrant or immigrant. In fact, for a few months I was an illegal immigrant. It was a hell of a lot of fun.

      Not sure the term “expat” necessarily applies in the way you are using it, but we tend to assume that everyone who comes here from Latin America is desperate to stay while people who come here from Europe are “expats.”

      In that sense, the term ‘immigrant’ is taking on a connotation that obscures some of the realities behind the situation. You have a point.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        Thank you for acknowledging that. It is a major pet peeve of mine.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        Even Dan was savvy enough to acknowledge that many Latin American “visitors” are here just to save up a little nest egg and then go back to their home country, that not every Latino who comes here is desperate. There is something condescending about assuming everyone is. That is where I have a problem with “progressives.”

      • objv says:

        Tutt: I think you do have a point, but I wouldn’t consider it a matter of classicism/ethnic bias. I’ve always thought of my European parents as immigrants and it never entered my mind to call them expats even though I a was considered an expat by my husband’s employer while living overseas.

        Traditionally, people coming here to stay have been called immigrants no matter what their ethnic origin. The waves of Germans, Irish, Italian, and Scandinavian people have always been referred to as immigrants.

        Expat and migrant would better illustrate classicism and ethnic bias since both are descriptive of people in the country temporarily.

      • Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

        Tutt….talk about damning with faint praise when you have to start a sentence with “Even Dan was savvy enough….”

        I do have colleagues in the UK and Netherlands who will toss about the word “immigrant” when talking about ExPats from the US, but it normally is in a mocking tone teasing us about our immigration system.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        “Even HT” managed to post a short, to-the-point comment.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        Ov, i agree expat vs migrant best illustrates the bias, but as i posted elsewhere, i know of several permanent residents here from the UK and Canada, technically immigrants, nonetheless referred to as expats.

      • objv says:

        Tutt: People can call themselves anything that they like although I think using the word immigrant would be a better choice for the people you are referring to who are here permanently. Since I’ve always considered my parents immigrants there is no negative connotation for me and I often hear people refer to their ancestors that came to the US as immigrants and never expats.

        Now, as far as “migrant” and “expatriate” is concerned, it would make me smile to hear a farmer say, “I’ve got five expats picking fruit today,” even though I agree that not every Hispanic that comes here comes is desperate. Immigrants/expats/migrant workers should be able to ask people to to refer to them with their term of choice.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        I favor the term ILLEGAL EXPAT myself.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        Ov, i got into a shouting match with a Hispanic lady at work (she started it). My mom was a Mexican native who became a naturalized US citizen late in life, and i referred to her as American, and this lady literally shouted, “NO, SHE’S NOT; SHE’S MEXICAN!”

      • tuttabellamia says:

        I know at heart my mom was Mexican, moved here at age 30, and she planned to move back upon retiring, but at some point, after 40 years here, she told me, “You know, This is my home now.”

      • tuttabellamia says:

        Ov, but how do we know what word people prefer to call themselves? I personally dont like the terms Latina or Chicana (i prefer Mexican-American), but i dont make a big deal about it. Just dont insist that i am ONLY American. I am definitely that, but my Mexican heritage is very important to me, and i will not show disrespect to my mom and her heritage because of what some morons on the Chron think, as if they held the keys to a person’s self-definition, that i am any less American than they.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        We were having a discussion about the terms expat vs migrant, and I asked my dear friend from Canada what term she preferred for herself, and she said ALIEN. I objected, said it was too harsh, and i suggested VISITOR, which implies the person is welcome.

      • objv says:

        Tutt, my mom would identify. She moved to the US at age 22, and when people ask her where she’s from, she always says Cleveland. Then, they usually ask, “Where are you REALLY from?” This bothers her since she has lived in the States for over 50 years and wants to be considered American.

        Even I get asked about my nation of origin because of my weird Scandinavian name. Yesterday, I was introduced to someone and he immediately put on a fake German accent and burbled, “Zo, you’re von da olt Kountry, ja? An emphatic, “Nein” from me did not nothing to stop more references to “da olt Kountry” during the next five minutes I was talking to him.

        I wasn’t offended because he wasn’t trying to cause offense, but I can see where someone who is more sensitive might be bothered.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        Ov, sometimes people will greet me with HOLA (OH LAH), and i will respond with Bonjour, Bongiorno, or Tag.

        People shouldnt really get mad at me for emphasizing my ethnicity, when others do it, even when i try to get away with saying i’m from Houston. But where are you FROM? Texas. No, where are you really from?? Ok, if you insist.

      • kabuzz61 says:

        Not to break up the love fest Tutt, but my grandparents came over from Czeckloslovakia. They really were into the american dream to a point of not wanting to speak to me in their native tongue, slovak. I asked but they adamently told me “You american.”

        That was well before society decided to hyphenate our citizens. African-Americans, Mexican-Americans, etc. I prefer we are all americans and practice our culture with family and friends.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        Kabuzz, aren’t we all “friends” here? Shouldn’t we feel free to be hyphenated, to be ourselves, here on this blog? Your grandparents may have felt you should be English only, 100% American, and that was cool, their personal preference, but that was just them, and other people have different views about what to make of their heritage.

        My own mom was a Mexican native and never learned proper English, so I grew up totally bilingual (and picked up other languages along the way), I spent summers in Mexico, which is so close geographically. The presence of Mexican culture and heritage can’t really be compared with many others because it’s constantly present and all around us. To a certain extent, even YOU have been touched by Mexican culture, simply by living in Texas.

      • goplifer says:

        I’m Scots-Irish, according to Grandma. We’ve been here since the 1730’s on her side. Another generation on dad’s side.

      • Tuttabella says:

        Kabuzz, you had a natural curiosity about your grandparents’ native language. It’s too bad it was brushed aside. Hey, it’s never too late to learn Slovak!

      • Tuttabella says:

        Kabuzz, about the hyphenation: that was used to ADD the American part, not to qualify it. We went from being called just “Mexican” to “Mexican-American,” not from being called “American.” People were once referred to simply as Irish, Italian, Mexican, etc. And keep in mind this is how OTHERS have called us, not we ourselves. I can tell people I’m from Houston, and they will call me Latina, Hispanic, even “Spanish.”

  23. Anse says:

    Anybody who thinks this issue is not soaked to the bones with racism is just not being honest. It complicates the bigger picture. Of course we should have rules for immigration. A boundary is a fundamental expression of national sovereignty. But for a nation whose historical trajectory has been profoundly driven by immigration, the issue is not straightforward. We can make the law whatever we want. We can make it easier to immigrate here. The people raising heck over the enforcement of the law are missing this point. So let’s press these law-abiding righteous Americans on this point. Let’s talk about easing the restrictions on legal immigration. Let’s open the door to more people. But they don’t want that, no matter how fixated they may be on enforcing the law, because it’s not really about the law. It’s about a whole lot of Latino people wanting to come here, and that’s it.

    • kabuzz61 says:

      Anse, everyone know except liberals that the only group of people that thinks in terms of color are liberals.

    • objv says:

      Anse, Undoubtedly,racism by some people is involved in feelings about immigration. However, saying that people are racist does not solve the multitude of problems associated with having millions of people here that are undocumented.

      I lived in a Latin American country for awhile and know many Hispanics that are here legally. They are also upset with all the folks that come here illegally and feel entitled to stay.

      Paul Rodriguez in an interview with CNN anchor, Don Lemon, sums up what I usually hear:

      • tuttabellamia says:

        Ov, on the other hand not all “legals” have a problem with “illegals.” My mom was here legally but didn’t look down on illegal people here to make an honest living. She DID take issue with ID theft and lying to get benefits.

      • objv says:

        Tutta, I don’t know if it is matter of looking down on people here illegally, it is probably more a matter of wanting things to be done correctly. A Hispanic friend of mine married a man who was here illegally. She helped him gain legal status even though it took a good deal of time and money.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        Ov, it can be both, or either. Some people are rightly frustrated about the lack of respect for our laws. Others do look down on certain groups of people.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        Ov, a good way to tell the difference is if people have a problem with Hispanics here LEGALLY. Then you know the problem is with their ethnicity, not their residential status.

      • Bart-1 says:

        OV, what a GREAT clip.! I found it absolutely fascinating that the panel and host had NO response to his debunking the falsehoods that Americans are divided and that there IS NO legal immigration path *albeit Chris claims Obama is just “following the law” and “there is NO current path”.his point of what will we do when the tsunami that will undoubtedly follow, also gets no solution. only a “Don’t you think people would be surprised to hear this coming from an immigrant”? It is quite poignant that in our overly PC world, WHO makes a statement matters more than what they actually say.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Goodreads

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 476 other followers

%d bloggers like this: