[dennisw]

Typical nitwit reasoning from this Sanchez. For her and other Hispanic mouth pieces being an illegal alien is simply a matter of you not having “papers” or having “papers” that need to be adjusted. It has nothing to do with unwanted 3rd world masses crashing our borders. It has nothing to do with the white Mexican elites (as white as Ms Sanchez) offloading their unwanted brown people into the United States of America

[Kimberly GG]

“Problem is, our immigration quandary does not yield to black-and-white explanations.”

Sure it does. Either you came here LEGALLY or you came here ILLEGALLY. Period.

[cdcdawg]

“To them, “rule of law” is a way simply to call out anyone who sees shades of gray in the immigration issue. Those who invoke the term are beholden to a hard and fast view that one group is entirely good - legal immigrants - and another is entirely bad - illegal immigrants.”

The straw-man. A classic logical fallacy. The left is stupid. There is no other way to say it. Stupid. There could (theoretically) be good arguments to be made on their behalf, but they are too stupid to make them. By “stupid” I mean lacking intelligence. They do not seem to possess even rudimentary reasoning skills, which doesn’t really seem to matter because they lack even the most basic information and knowledge about a given subject. The writer of the column is stupid. If somebody can find a nicer way of saying it, I am all ears.

[Earthdweller]

"Immigrants whose paperwork is out of order - a misdemeanor, in many cases - are to be demonized because, they threaten "the rule of law," or so goes the thinking. "

The numbers are too large for a misdemeanor for all of them...it's a soft invasion. Build the fence.

[Dick Bachert]

"Sanchez?"

Guess it takes a hispanic to be really objective on THIS topic.

[Ragnar54]

Being opposed to the Mexican invasion does not mean holding "a hard and fast view that one group is entirely good - legal immigrants - and another is entirely bad - illegal immigrants. "

My view is that at least half of all recent immigrants should not be here. As Coulter pointed out recently, it used to be the case that half of all immigrants gave up and went back to the old country because they could not hack it. Now we give welfare treats of various sorts (free medical care, free education, free food, welfare payments,untaxed cash wages, etc.) to legal and illegal immigrants. The Mexican immigrants end up with so much disposable income that they can send billions back to Mexico, where it is collected by those who control the Mexican economy (e.g., Carlos Slim). The Mexican billionaires are like ticks with sombreros, feasting on the blood of US taxpayers.

Sanchez does make a point, if not the one she intended. There is a danger in focusing too much on the "illegal" aspect of the invasion: If we sent all illegal immigrants home and replaced them with legal immigrants, most of the bloodsucking would continue. The main difference between legals and illegals is that the latter group is a more likely supply of criminals and terrorists. The Somalian colonies in Maine and Minnesota (established by the Clintonistas) and the UK "doctors" prove that not all legal immigrants are desirable. We should at least demand that all immigrants stand on their own (without taxpayer subsidy) until such time as they become citizens. Requiring that all immigrants be self-sufficient (including learning English, educating their own children, paying for their own medical care, etc.) would reduce the flood to a manageable trickle and we at least would not be paying for our own undoing.

We also need to shift the focus of the debate away from the "poor, poor, pitiful immigrant" to the ticks with sombreros. Why can't Congress pass legislation targeting businesses owned by the ticks? A special excise tax on the American operations of Mexican businesses (to pay for the costs of illegal immigration) seems reasonable (e.g., American Movil has 8 million subscribers in the US). The money collected could be distributed to local law enforcement agencies based on how many illegals they round up; the number rounded up could be used to readjust the estimated cost and therefore the tax. If we tax the ticks enough, the Mexican government will build the fence.

[Travis McGee]

The rule of law is what separates America from the banana republics to our south.

[STE=Q]

“This is not to argue that we do not need to uphold our laws. Rather, sometimes it is equally important to acknowledge that the old laws have led us astray, and clinging to them more firmly is folly.”

How can laws that have not been enforced ‘lead us astray’?

The problem has been created by the lack of enforcement of the laws, in order to serve some Americans at the expense of others.

Now we want the laws enforced.

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

>>What would happen to his outlook on immigrants and the “rule of law” if Congress managed to rewrite immigration law? Many of those who are now in the “illegal” category would make it to the “legal” lineup? What would King say then? Would he find another tortured analogy to refute the people’s change of status? Or would he stand for the new “rule of law?”<<

What would you think if some act of congress freed all prisoners from federal facilities? Then they would not be “criminals.”

The reason that people shut down the senate phone system is that the law the senate was trying to sneak by us would have been a bad law.