Immigration and the GOP Is it still the party of Reagan, or of Tom Tancredo?

Wall Street Journal ^ | 3/31/2006 | Review and OUtlook

[UNflagburner]

Borders are meaningless unless a nation enforces them.

That's true.

-- i.e., does what is necessary to prevent illegal entry.

That one's only true if illegal entry is considered a threat to the country's security. Lettuce pickers hardly qualify.

At this point in time, the border is largely unsecured, and entry is not a difficult prospect -- as evidenced by the torrent of illegal aliens flooding our country on a daily basis.

One could just as easily cite a large number of traffic violations and how easy it is to run a stop sign, and how plenty of it happens on a daily basis.

If the law regarding stop signs were largely unenforced, to the same degree with which illegal aliens enter our country, then yes, stop signs would become meaningless.

Is that a "yes they're meaningless"? More importantly, McKennedy will enforce the law by making violators pay fines. But I'll bet you're opposed to that.

[Proud2BAmerican]

That one's only true if illegal entry is considered a threat to the country's security. Lettuce pickers hardly qualify.

Why is country's security the only qualifying aspect to the equation? So if we stand by actionless while the entire 3rd world enters into our country (to pick produce), the damage they would bring -- in terms of depressed wages, increase in crime that generally follows with areas of high poverty, strain on government services (welfare, health, other social services), deterioration of property values and all the economic damage that would follow with that --- somehow our NOT enforcing the borders for produce pickers would do nothing to affect the existence of a meaningful border?

Of course not. A border is only meaningful if it's enforced; i.e., those a country wants in are let in; those the country wants kept out, are kept out.

At this point in time, the border is largely unsecured, and entry is not a difficult prospect -- as evidenced by the torrent of illegal aliens flooding our country on a daily basis.

One could just as easily cite a large number of traffic violations and how easy it is to run a stop sign, and how plenty of it happens on a daily basis.

If police were not serious about stopping traffic violators, and if police departments allowed violations to go unimpeded, then the traffic laws would be meaningless. This is only anecdotal evidence, but when I drive around, I see cars stopped at red lights. I see pedestrians crossing the street and NOT getting run over. Sure, every now and then, I see a car run a red light. But the streets are not overrun by red-light runners to the extent that illegal immigrants are making their way into this country.

More importantly, McKennedy will enforce the law by making violators pay fines. But I'll bet you're opposed to that.

I believe Reagan said violators were going to be fined back when he passed the last amnesty? Do you know how many have been prosecuted since then? I believe it's an extremely small number.

I wonder, if the govermment is unable, or unwilling, to enforce current illegal immigration laws, what makes you think the government has suddenly discovered the gumption to enforce a new set of laws? Do they really REALLY mean it this time? Pinky promise? ;-)