Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Losing faith in the Federal gov't on immigration

You regularly hear critics of the Arizona immigration law argue that public support for it mainly reflects a broader desire for Federal immigration reform. And, of course, we'd all like to believe that that's true.

Which makes this finding from Rasmussen all the more depressing:

Which is the better approach to dealing with illegal immigration -- allowing individual states to act on their own to enforce immigration laws or relying upon the federal government to enforce immigration laws?

53% Allowing individual states to act on their own to enforce immigration laws

41% Relying on the federal government to enforce immigration laws

This really underscores the urgent need for action on the Federal level -- and illustrates the catastrophic consequences of inaction thus far. As more states step into the breach, people are simply losing faith in the Federal government's ability to solve this problem.

Result: People are warming to the idea that states are the appropriate level of government to handle it. This will make it tougher for the Federal government to contest such laws on the grounds that state-based solutions will create an unworkable patchwork across the country, as the Obama administration argues. It will also embolden local pols to float more and more onerous solutions.

The cycle will continue, and probably get a whole lot worse. Time to move on this, Dems!

By Greg Sargent  |  July 30, 2010; 3:35 PM ET
Categories:  Immigration  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Obama to auto-workers: If GOP had had its way, your jobs would be gone
Next: Happy Hour Roundup

Comments

Whose's Federal Government are we talking about?

President Obama has only been in Office for 18 months, and had to spent all that time trying to put out the Economic Inferno that The Republican Arsonists caused.


Do the math. Republicans controlled the White House for twenty out of the past twenty eight years; including the most recent eight year stint; so if there is any blame to be ascribed to who failed to fix the immigration problem, then of course it all belongs to The Republicans.

President Obama will try to get something done, to improve the situation.

The Republicans will do everything in their power to make sure that he is blocked from doing so.

Posted by: Liam-still | July 30, 2010 3:58 PM | Report abuse

agreed, Liam, just saying this shows the consequences of inaction.

Posted by: Greg Sargent | July 30, 2010 4:01 PM | Report abuse

@ Greg: People were all for interning the Japanese and more recently rounding up Muslims in New York after 911 as well. This is a second term issue for a president, because like civil rights, it is the right thing to do and it will have long term political benefits, but in the short term, the dems may lose the anti-immigration zenophobes and maybe the border states and high immigration states for a generation.

Posted by: srw3 | July 30, 2010 4:02 PM | Report abuse

I don't trust any issue poll from Rasmussen, but this result still makes me sigh and sink my face into the palm of my hand. How can it not be common sense for the majority of Americans that immigration policy, of all things, requires uniform federal application?

Posted by: QuiteAlarmed | July 30, 2010 4:02 PM | Report abuse

It's also possible that local and state governments, being closer to certain issues and still having those powers the Federal Government does not have, are going to legislate better solutions and/or serve their citizens in a more productive manner than those in D.C. ever could.

Posted by: jcannes76 | July 30, 2010 4:03 PM | Report abuse

It's also possible that local and state governments, being closer to certain issues and still having those powers the Federal Government does not have, are going to legislate better solutions and/or serve their citizens in a more productive manner than those in D.C. ever could.

Posted by: jcannes76 | July 30, 2010 4:03 PM | Report abuse

I've asked tea tanrums here in Arizona if they think the state should be able issue its own passport, and literally their only response is that they get an even stupider look on their face.

Posted by: flounder2 | July 30, 2010 4:04 PM | Report abuse

"The urgent need for action on a federal level..."

Really Greg? I understand where you are coming from, but let's try to understand a couple of basic facts.

1) Immigration is already down
2) Crime in borders states is already down

The "urgent need" is caused by the (totally expected) increase in xenophobia caused by our economic woes. The facts on the ground don't point towards any "urgent need."

Whenever our economy faces a downturn rightwingers cast about frantically looking for a scapegoat. Try to keep in mind that rightwingers loath responsibility and love nothing more than pretending to be victims. Who do they blame? Anyone that is not like them (usually that means people with skin that is a different color than theirs.)

There could be literally zero illegal aliens in America right now and the rightwingers would STILL be blaming the scary brown people for everything that is wrong.

And as to, "The cycle will continue, and probably get a whole lot worse. Time to move on this, Dems!" I say nonsense.

A) The Dems can't, "Move on this," because they would need GOP support to do so. And for all the fear mongering Repubs do, the money behind the GOP loves the status quo and will fight to stop any changes. Business likes cheap labor.

B) As I've stated above the problem, imo, is not immigration at all, it is the economy.

C) Rushing new rules to appease rightwing fearmongers will only encourage rightwing fearmongers. The problem, literally, is all in their heads (and you don't want to go there.)

Now, Greg, I get what you are saying. Letting each state/city set their own rules would not be productive. But the answer is not pushing through legislation (legislation the GOP would block in any case).

Posted by: nisleib | July 30, 2010 4:16 PM | Report abuse

It is all about catering to Xenophobia, and fear of the outsiders, and those who look different. It becomes easier to stir up passions, during times of economic hardship, and America not being able to impose it's will, globally, like it used to, is also a contributing factor.

Finding scapegoats; during such turbulent transitional periods, has always been made use of by Demagogues.

Republicans are playing with fire, for short term political gain. We saw much of the same sort of scapegoating in Germany, between the two wars; when it was economically depressed, and feeling militarily impotent.

Republicans; you better stop lighting those matches, before it is too late.


The strange thing about Arizona is; the vast majority of those who support the crack down on illegals, are not natives of that region. They are of European descent, and many of them moved to Arizona from other parts of the US, in the not too distant past. Many of them are retirees that only moved there, from place like Chicago, after they had stopped working.

How many of those people can tell the difference between the indigenous Native Americans in the State, and Hispanics from outside the state. Not many of them can, I would wager, so under the Arizona law; you could end up having Native Americans rounded up, and kept in prison camps, by people who are new comers to the Native Americans' ancient lands.

Posted by: Liam-still | July 30, 2010 4:25 PM | Report abuse

There's an important distinction to make clear here Greg. The survey asks whether states should act on their own to "enforce immigration laws", meaning existing federal Acts and statutes. It doesn't ask whether or not states should actually make and enforce their own immigration laws, which is what Arizona has done.

States simply cannot step in and make immigration law. People don't emigrate from, say Chiapas to Arizona, or Ho Chi Minh City to San Diego. They emigrate from Mexico to the United States, or Vietnam to the United States. The act of immigration, whether legal or illegal, is exclusively under Federal jurisdiction, governed by the Immigration and Nationality Act.

http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/immigration

The Administration does make the unworkable patchwork argument, but that line of defense, in my view, is irrelevant. They should be doing a much better job of convincing the public that they are cracking down on illegal immigrants and their employers, and that border security is currently the tightest it has been in the past 10 years. Both of which are true. They are losing to the Wurlitzer yet again.

This WSJ article by the heads of CBP and ICE lay out the story the way it should be handled by the Administration.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703940904575395593838030462.html

Getting these facts reported properly even by the networks is virtually impossible. There are several reasons for that, most of which you have discussed here. But Obama doesn't help his cause by not pounding clear, salient facts home every single day, and by not employing a regular stable of skilled surrogates to fight the fight every single day. It's as if he thinks that to defeat the Wurlitzer you have to become the Wurlitzer. I'm desperate for the day he realizes how wrong that is.

Posted by: andrewlong | July 30, 2010 4:26 PM | Report abuse

States can not even tell if Green cards are legit, or forgeries. Only the INS can distinguish between the real green cards, and false ones, so it is an exercise in futility for to start having local police forces checking immigrants papers.

Posted by: Liam-still | July 30, 2010 4:31 PM | Report abuse

Why aren't the democrats making it clear it is the hypocritical republican's that won't come to the table for immigration reform.

If they want to seal up the borders, just add it to the legislation. No need pretending Obama has to do it. They are Washington also and there is no reason they can't seal the borders as part of comprehensive legislation...

Someone really needs to call them out on this one or the Democrats will loose the support of their base...

Posted by: soapm | July 30, 2010 4:37 PM | Report abuse

Ironically, one of the most effective ways of dealing with the immigration issue would be for the Federal Govt to issue everyone a national ID card. The problem (and irony) is that the people who really hate immigrants also really don't trust the US government and fight against the national ID card.

Their hatred of the Government does battle with their hatred of brown people, thereby sustaining and feeding both sets of hatred.

Posted by: nisleib | July 30, 2010 4:39 PM | Report abuse

@Liam = "Do the math. Republicans controlled the White House for twenty out of the past twenty eight years; including the most recent eight year stint; so if there is any blame to be ascribed to who failed to fix the immigration problem, then of course it all belongs to The Republicans."

More reason for the Democrats to campaign on how nothing gets done when the republican's are in charge except deregulation and tax cuts for the rich. That is all they care about. How much money will wall street make.

HC, Immigration and many other problems have existed through many Republican administration and not one of them touched it. At least the Democrats had the will to make some tough decisions... And they didn't just say NO.

Posted by: soapm | July 30, 2010 4:40 PM | Report abuse

What Rasputin Polling is really saying is that the teabagging nitwits they cherry picked and hand selected are all whipped up into a frenzy about brown people; blithely ignorant of the Constitution and centuries of jurisprudence; and while they hate big government in their lives they wish there was a big government to punish brown people for them and give them free money and stuff.
Give me mine and skrewe all y'all!

Posted by: sparkplug1 | July 30, 2010 4:41 PM | Report abuse

Still,

Just to be on the safe side; Republicans might want to recommend that all Japanese Americans be rounded up and interned again.

O

Posted by: Liam-still | July 30, 2010 4:43 PM | Report abuse

Most polls have shown more support than not for the AZ law, but the questions asked in this poll are suspect in my completely amateur opinion.

84% claim to have followed it somewhat or very closely. I find that entirely unbelievable. Even so, 91% are either for or against it. So you have at the very least 7% of the responders forming an opinion after they've admitted to not following it closely.

That might be minor, but question 4 asks:
"Which is the better approach to dealing with illegal immigration—allowing individual states to act on their own to enforce immigration laws or relying upon the federal government to enforce immigration laws?"

Generally, people like to be "allowed" to do things and don't like to "rely upon" anyone. I wonder if the answers would be different if the questions were asked differently. Maybe I've read too much Nate Silver, but this sounds a bit misleading to me.

Even so, the law is the law. Even with Citizens United or Bush v Gore which I totally disagreed with. The court has the final say.

Posted by: SDJeff | July 30, 2010 4:50 PM | Report abuse

O/T: Fox News Sunday: Former Gov. Sarah Palin (R-AK), Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH).

That's what I call fair and balanced...

Posted by: srw3 | July 30, 2010 4:58 PM | Report abuse

QuiteAlarmed

"common sense" is a misnomer

it actually ain't that common

Posted by: nada85484 | July 30, 2010 5:02 PM | Report abuse

I dunno, the poll wording seems sufficiently loose -- suggests people support states' taking matters into their own hands. that's the problem here...

Posted by: Greg Sargent | July 30, 2010 5:04 PM | Report abuse

srw3: "People were all for interning the Japanese"

There was polling data on that? I thought, historically, that wasn't a policy that was widely publicized. The Roosevelt administration wanted to keep it on the down low, and for good reason.

"and more recently rounding up Muslims in New York after 911 as well"

There was polling data on that?

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | July 30, 2010 5:13 PM | Report abuse

"...people are simply losing faith in the Federal government's ability to solve this problem."

I'm a liberal. I believe that the Federal Government can be a force for good. But do I believe the Federal government can "solve" this problem? NO.

A fence won't do it. No matter how you blockade the border, people, once sufficiently motivated, will find a way around it. If your choice was to spend the rest of your life in a cardboard house eating a stew made up of bugs and dirt, and you knew that moving 10 miles to your north would offer you the chance at a wooden house and edible food, would you let a fence stop you? No, you wouldn't.

Any real answer would have to rely on cutting off not only supply, but also demand.

Now I suppose if you started fining any employer who hired an illegal $50,000 per infraction, you might make a dent in the immigration issue. But the GOP would never allow it.

Also too, if you made a national ID card mandatory, and hiring anyone who doesn't have such a card a crime subject to jail time and large fines, you might make a dent in the immigration issue. But the GOP would never allow it.

Or, if South America as a whole had a massive economic upturn, and opportunity abounded south of the border, that might make a dent in the immigration issue. But I don't see that happening.

Posted by: nisleib | July 30, 2010 5:18 PM | Report abuse

@flounder2: "I've asked tea tanrums here in Arizona if they think the state should be able issue its own passport, and literally their only response is that they get an even stupider look on their face."

Well, ask a stupid question . . .

@sparkplug1: "What Rasputin Polling is really saying is that the teabagging nitwits they cherry picked and hand selected are all whipped up into a frenzy about brown people; blithely ignorant of the Constitution and centuries of jurisprudence; and while they hate big government in their lives they wish there was a big government to punish brown people for them and give them free money and stuff."

I think there's a great Democratic campaign commercial right there. Go with that.

@Liam-still: "Just to be on the safe side; Republicans might want to recommend that all Japanese Americans be rounded up and interned again."

Another beautiful campaign commercial, right there. "A Vote for a Republican is a Vote to Re-Inter Japanese Americans!"

What's that smell? I think it's victory!

BTW, generally speaking, there are lies, damned lies, statistics, and polls.

The only thing after polls are predictions, projections and prognostications.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | July 30, 2010 5:20 PM | Report abuse

Isn't it over due for the US to amend the constitution; so that some State with just a million residents no longer has the same voting power in the Senate, as a state with over twenty million residents.

Think about this; the five smallest states have the same combined voting power in the US Senate, as the five largest States combined.

Five tiny Red States can Offset the Senate Representation of California; New York, Illinois, Michigan, and Wisconsin. That is absurd, and not proportional representation.

To demonstrate how truly absurd it is; there are a number of states who are only entitled to one Congress Rep, because their populations are so small, and yet they get to have two US Senators.

Think about that; Their proportional representation census figures only entitles them to one 435th of the entire congress, but they get to have the same number of Senate Votes as a State with more than twenty times the population size. Combine that with the fact, that it takes sixty votes out of one hundred, to get anything done in the Senate, and you have to conclude that system has to be changed.

Also; Congressional Districts now have larger populations that the States had, when the country was established; so it is silly to still put all those seats up for reelection every two years.

It is time to go to a six year election cycle for all offices, so that we are not constantly in campaign mode, and raising money, especially in the House. It is stupid to continue to have a system, where a house member can not take any chances with a vote, because he will have to defend it, in the following year's election.

Give them six year terms, and do the same for the Presidency. That way; we can give the politician a chance to stop campaigning for a significant period of time, so they can focus on providing long term solutions.

It is also time to change the Senate so that the largest States get the most Senators, and the smallest get only one. It is stupid to continue to let a few tiny rural states, wag the big dogs.

What is so special about a voter in Wyoming, that entitles him to have twenty times the Representative power of a similar American living in California.

Posted by: Liam-still | July 30, 2010 5:32 PM | Report abuse

@KW: Those who've read my [David Neiwert's] book Strawberry Days: How Internment Destroyed a Japanese American Community are aware that not only was the evacuation and incarceration of 120,000 Japanese Americans -- including some 70,000 American citizens -- during World War II an extremely popular measure, it was in fact avidly demanded by a near-hysterical public, particularly along the Pacific Coast, after Pearl Harbor.

Having a harder time with the Muslim roundup polling...But I think it is accurate or was just after 911.

"A summary of the Cornell survey, entitled “Restrictions on Civil Liberties, Views of Islam & Muslim Americans,” appeared on Dec. 17 on the Associated Press wire that “nearly half of all Americans believe the United States government should restrict the civil liberties of Muslim Americans, according to a nationwide poll.”" --http://www.finalcall.com/artman/publish/article_1818.shtml

Posted by: srw3 | July 30, 2010 5:35 PM | Report abuse

"O/T: Fox News Sunday: Former Gov. Sarah Palin (R-AK), Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH)."

All they're missing is Beck and Limpballs...

Posted by: soapm | July 30, 2010 5:41 PM | Report abuse

@liam: Its built into the constitution and since it takes 2/3 of the states to change the constitution and there are more than 1/3 of the states with small populations, it ain't gonna fly, even if it makes sense. I mean, look at the electoral college, a totally vestigial body, formed because the founders didn't trust the great unwashed to know enough to vote on their own....The Senate was designed to entice the small colonies to join the union by promising that the big states wouldn't just ride roughshod over the smaller states. Its pretty anti democratic, but the founders weren't the gods that some on the right and on the left believe they were. It was a political compromise. On the Bright side, vermont, delaware, rhode island, are all small dem states....for the most part. It doesn't balance out all of the red state west states with tiny populations, but it does make some difference.

Posted by: srw3 | July 30, 2010 5:43 PM | Report abuse

They did not carry out a mass roundup and interment of German Americans. Fright Did Not Come In White.

Posted by: Liam-still | July 30, 2010 5:44 PM | Report abuse

All, Happy Hour Roundup posted:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/07/happy_hour_roundup_61.html

Posted by: Greg Sargent | July 30, 2010 6:00 PM | Report abuse

What's even more depressing is the reason there's so much distrust of the federal government. Too many people believe the often repeated Big Lie that Obama is doing nothing to enforce immigration laws when the truth is he's doing more than Bush did by any objective measure.

The Republicans' lie has traveled round the world while the truth not only hasn't gotten its boots on; it hasn't even gotten out of bed yet.

Posted by: Spacer | July 30, 2010 6:07 PM | Report abuse

This article in the New Yorker is interesting: http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2010/07/26/100726taco_talk_finnegan

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | July 30, 2010 6:17 PM | Report abuse

When the Federal government goes after Arizona for allegedly "making its own immigration laws" while allowing "sanctuary cities" to set their own immigration laws without comment, who wouldn't lose faith in the Federal Government's commitment to enforcing our laws?

In addition, we were promised enforcement in exchange for amnesty in 1986; it was an obvious and blatant lie.

People kind of get suspicious when 1.) the government doesn't do what it promised to do and 2.) it selectively enforces the "law."

Posted by: MaryJessel | July 30, 2010 6:31 PM | Report abuse

@MJ: we were promised enforcement in exchange for amnesty in 1986;

Talk to Reagan and Bush I. They had 6 years to build up enforcement and basically punted.

Posted by: srw3 | July 30, 2010 6:34 PM | Report abuse

The Administration, the Media, and the pro-illegal interests can all assert that racism is driving the opposition, but in truth pragmatism is the primary motivator. Overpopulation, congestion, urban sprawl, diminishing resources, crumbling infrastructure, vanishing farm land and green spaces, overcrowded schools and hospitals, crime, pollution, lack of affordable housing, water and energy shortages, concerns over food safety and the fact that food production is being driven farther from population centers, depressed wages, increased tax burdens, the balkanization of our communities, the marginalization of American workers, taxpayers and voters, the overall decline in quality of life, are all the result of unconstrained immigration. The liberal agenda fails to accept logic in that too many people competing for the same limited resources is NOT sane, sustainable social, economic or environmental policy. Indeed, simply securing our borders and enforcing our immigration laws would do more immediately to address Carbon footprint and energy independence than all the harebrained 'Cap and Trade' taxation schemes of this Administration put together.

Virtually every industrialized nation, China, Mexico, Great Britain, the European Union, most of Asia, the Middle East, have all adopted zero tolerance policies for illegal aliens, as well as strict enforcement and deportation practices. The same nations have also adopted policies aimed at curtailing legal immigration, limiting such immigration to only that which is prudent, demonstrably necessary, readily assimilated, sustainable, and above all other concerns, limited to only that which is in the best interests of their native population. It's dangerously misguided to suggest that the United States not do likewise!

Posted by: edweirdness | July 30, 2010 6:45 PM | Report abuse

andrewlong:
Actually, the Arizona law SB 1070 mirrors federal law, save for the specific language intended to preclude profiling, and the additional provisions and protections against discrimination. The strength of the Arizona legislation is in that it virtually mirrors federal law and makes it a violation of state law to be out of compliance with the federal regulations. Apparently A.G. Holder, the President, Congressional Democrats weren't the only people who failed to read and understand the Arizona bill. By now you should be reading about the Administrations plot to circumvent Congress and usurp the will of America's citizens by enacting an egregious amnesty through Executive power. For those who missed grade school social studies, it was the intent of our Founding Father's that the will of America's citizens serve as the guidance in our governance. The overwhelming majority of America's citizens support the Arizona law, support securing our borders and enforcing our immigration laws, and oppose any form of amnesty or path to citizenship for anyone who's violated our immigration laws. Indeed, so intent were the Founder's that their legacy be that the will of the people be the guidance in our governance, they provided our second amendment as insurance against the time that government and the courts no longer felt compelled to accept the will of the people as their guidance.

Posted by: edweirdness | July 30, 2010 6:56 PM | Report abuse

@ed:Virtually every industrialized nation,

except for the US is facing a calamity in the form of a shrinking population of workers relative to retirees. Immigrants to the US are helping to compensate for our ageing population.

Posted by: srw3 | July 30, 2010 7:30 PM | Report abuse

@ed:The overwhelming majority of America's citizens support the Arizona law,

Just like Japanese internment, jim crow segregation, segregated military, and Invading Iraq....All great policies to be sure, but you should watch out for what JS Mill called "Tyranny of the majority."

Posted by: srw3 | July 30, 2010 7:36 PM | Report abuse

I thought the greenies say we have too much population and it needs to be reduced. The good news, for the greenies, is that the US birthrate is declining. Allowing even moderate immigration would counteract the desirable (for the greenies) goal of a reduced birthrate. Since greenies tend to align with the Democrats, how does immigration and naturalization of any sort jive with them? Wouldn't there be a conflict w/in the party? Or is overpopulation no longer a concern?

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | July 30, 2010 7:50 PM | Report abuse

@ed 'Cap and Trade' taxation schemes of this Administration put together

Actually McCain ran on a cap and trade platform and republicans supported it until we elected a democratic president. Individual mandates for health insurance? It was a part of the republican response to health care reform under Clinton, popular with republicans until we elected a democratic president. Immigration reform? Linsey Graham supported it for a while, and McCain cosponsored a bill with Kennedy on it until we got a democratic president and then they turned against it.

Do you see a pattern here?

Posted by: srw3 | July 30, 2010 7:51 PM | Report abuse

ok...watch this....im going to solve a few problems in a few lines...anxious for the feedback...1. Bring US forces home from the Middle East. We're not being "invaded" by Iraqis and Afghanis. 2. Mobilize war trained US forces and invade Mexico under the reasoning that the Mexican govt is defunct...unable to govern and stop lawlessness and crime being committed there and here, therefore making Mexico either a territory i.e Puerto Rico or grant statesship via same process as the other 50. 3. This solves the immigration issue because ALL Mexican "nationals" in this country or there would become US citizens and be taxed, documented, etc. The jobs and opportunities creating the infrastructure...roads, schools, hospitals, govt buildings would create a plethora of jobs and investment opportunities. 4. The border to Mexico's south..Guatemala and Belize would be easier to police than the 2,000+ miles we're defending now. 5. Legalize marijuana to minimize organized crime's ability to use the black market to generate income. Ease the monetary burden of incarcerating and using court docket time for simple "users". Tax $ could be used for education and rehabilation...this has effectively reduced cigarette and alcohol useage. There will always be a % of the population who will abuse anything.

Posted by: kerns1964 | July 30, 2010 8:22 PM | Report abuse

ok...watch this....im going to solve a few problems in a few lines...anxious for the feedback...1. Bring US forces home from the Middle East. We're not being "invaded" by Iraqis and Afghanis. 2. Mobilize war trained US forces and invade Mexico under the reasoning that the Mexican govt is defunct...unable to govern and stop lawlessness and crime being committed there and here, therefore making Mexico either a territory i.e Puerto Rico or grant statesship via same process as the other 50. 3. This solves the immigration issue because ALL Mexican "nationals" in this country or there would become US citizens and be taxed, documented, etc. The jobs and opportunities creating the infrastructure...roads, schools, hospitals, govt buildings would create a plethora of jobs and investment opportunities. 4. The border to Mexico's south..Guatemala and Belize would be easier to police than the 2,000+ miles we're defending now. 5. Legalize marijuana to minimize organized crime's ability to use the black market to generate income. Ease the monetary burden of incarcerating and using court docket time for simple "users". Tax $ could be used for education and rehabilation...this has effectively reduced cigarette and alcohol useage. There will always be a % of the population who will abuse anything.

Posted by: kerns1964 | July 30, 2010 8:26 PM | Report abuse

@MJ: we were promised enforcement in exchange for amnesty in 1986;

Talk to Reagan and Bush I. They had 6 years to build up enforcement and basically punted.
----
Yes, they did. But that doesn't mean that this Administration should make things worse by following their lead. Holder stands as a blatant hypocrite for suing Arizona while giving San Francisco a pat on the back for its illegal "sanctuary city" policies.

Posted by: MaryJessel | July 30, 2010 8:37 PM | Report abuse

Mobilize war trained US forces and invade Mexico under the reasoning that the Mexican govt is defunct...unable to govern and stop lawlessness and crime being committed there and here, therefore making Mexico either a territory i.e Puerto Rico or grant statesship via same process as the other 50. 3. This solves the immigration issue because ALL Mexican "nationals" in this country or there would become US citizens and be taxed, documented, etc. The jobs and opportunities creating the infrastructure...roads, schools, hospitals, govt buildings would create a plethora of jobs and investment opportunities.
---
We are a bankrupt country. The last thing we need is to absorb a Third World nation's problems and dysfunctionalities. We do not have the money to build Mexico's infrastructure; we don't even have the money to maintain our own.

Posted by: MaryJessel | July 30, 2010 8:39 PM | Report abuse

@Mary
dont underestimate the natural resources such as oil, ore, gold, minerals not being mined because of the Mexican govt's refusal or inability to govern...we would also inherit CanCun, Acapulco, Porta Vallerta, etc.
the cost of the invasion would be minimal compared to the war in the Middle East...you must take the plan as a whole...isolating one without the other...certainly you might pick it apart...but the idea as a whole is more than sound and the positives surely outweigh the negatives.

Posted by: kerns1964 | July 30, 2010 8:53 PM | Report abuse

Just in case no one saw it yet, CNN reports Senate Republicans have an internal memo from Homeland Security which indicates the Obama administration plans to allow millions of illegals to remain in the US. They claim the memo is intended to circumvent immigration law and grant amnesty to these illegals.
Eleven Republican Senators have asked Homeland Security Chief Janet Napolitano to reveal how many times this "discretionary authority" has been used to allow illegals to stay in the US. Of course this may be a tempest in a teapot, but what if the administration and Homeland Security are really doing this, and do plan to allow millions of illegals to remain here? Will these illegals be legalized and allowed to vote? The votes such an action could generate might be enough to give Obama a second term. Pretty scary thought.
Anyone want to count on our federal government to put the interests of US citizens first? I don't.

Posted by: meand2 | July 30, 2010 11:50 PM | Report abuse

edweirdness forgot one: loss of precious bodily fluids.

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | July 31, 2010 12:31 AM | Report abuse

actually, edweirdness, that was brilliant performance art. Cheers!

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | July 31, 2010 1:12 AM | Report abuse

Brewer just wants to prolong her position as Arizona Governor taking advantage of the US economic recession using the tactics of Adolf Hitler by demonizing immigrants as political tool the same way the Nazi party got into power during Germany’s economic recession by demonizing the Jews engaging everybody else into a feel-good predatory rage. Now fuehrer Brewer has become more popular than ever playing the xenophobic card. If anybody disagrees with the Nazi comparisons just check out the new Gestapo headquarters in Arizona set by a publically self-proclaimed “proud KKK member” sheriff Joe Arpaio and his concentration camps and compare that to holocaust records.

Posted by: seansmith5511 | July 31, 2010 2:26 AM | Report abuse

sean-

as much as i disagre with Arpaio, the Nazi-card is, er uh, deep...ya dig?

IOW, careful grasshopper...

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | July 31, 2010 5:24 AM | Report abuse

Just how big a "problem" is illegal immigration, anyway? Not so big that it keeps Phoenix from being ranked in the top four safest big US cities, along with three other border cities in the SW.

Posted by: rhallnj | July 31, 2010 7:14 AM | Report abuse

Wasn't Texas stolen from Mexico by a bunch of Illegal White Migrants;an violent armed gang of foreigners, if you will?. Why the hell didn't The Mexican government do a better job of keeping all those violent white foreigners out. They should have required them to carry their immigration documents at all times, and set up concentration camps for those who looked alien.

Posted by: Liam-still | July 31, 2010 10:22 AM | Report abuse

Because of the failure of the Obama Adm. and the now the courts to uphold our immigration laws, we have foreign nationals demonstrating in our streets making demands. No other sovereign nation in the world would allow this to occur. That leaves our legislative branch who can't even pass health care legislation for first responders on 9/11 without worrying about a debate concerning whether illegals would receive health care as well under this bill. So, our first responders go without, again because of illegals. This madness needs to stop. All legal taxpayers of this country need to wake up and vote these people out of office and return sovereignty to this nation.

Posted by: 78vette | July 31, 2010 11:16 AM | Report abuse

Sam Houston was a foreign national in Mexico; who got away with his violent acts against the legitimate Mexican Government of their territory. Remember the Alamo. It was occupied by a bunch of violent foreigners on Mexican soil.

Posted by: Liam-still | July 31, 2010 11:28 AM | Report abuse

@liam-still
"Sam Houston was a foreign national in Mexico; who got away with his violent acts against the legitimate Mexican Government of their territory. Remember the Alamo. It was occupied by a bunch of violent foreigners on Mexican soil"...
are you serious? youre comparing the early 1800s to 2010?!!? well if you want to take that approach then how about this...
"if they want it...lets see them take it."
now thats as ignorant a response as yours BUT it does substantiate my theory of invasion. "To the spoils go the victors"

Posted by: kerns1964 | July 31, 2010 12:19 PM | Report abuse

@rhallnj
"Just how big a "problem" is illegal immigration, anyway? Not so big that it keeps Phoenix from being ranked in the top four safest big US cities, along with three other border cities in the SW."
i dont know where you got your MISinformation but i live in Las Vegas, Nv and Phoenix is the murder and kidnapping capital of the West. Border cities in Az are bankrupting because of the social services and health costs associated with Mexican "nationals" INVADING our country.
It blows me away that people that live so far removed from the West seem to know whats best. Tell you what....I wont tell you what to do with the failing public school system of Alexandria and you mind your business regarding subjects west of the Potomac.

Posted by: kerns1964 | July 31, 2010 12:27 PM | Report abuse

Kerns,

Glad to see that you are aware that you are an Ignorant Moron.

You are all for one sided ethnic cleansing just, as long as it is only being done to people of color.

The Same Right Wing Nut Jobs Who Are Always Complaining about losing territory to Mexicans, are the very same people who are all for Israel taking over the lands of Palestinians in The West Bank.

You hate mongers always want to have it both ways.

Posted by: Liam-still | July 31, 2010 1:09 PM | Report abuse

im about trying to find a solution...
not talking trash to everyone with an idea. im this and im that...we're this and we're that...but the one thing i am the most is a proud American.
so ive identified myself...
i dont know if you live here...but if youre that embarrassed by this country and how it came to be...im sure there are plenty of us who would gladly buy your ticket to any other destination you desire...
and dont pretend to know me...ive never favored the iraeli/palestinian issue. im not as shallow and narrow-minded as you seem to be.

Posted by: kerns1964 | July 31, 2010 2:38 PM | Report abuse

@Liam-still: It might interest you to know that what you refer to as Sam Houston's "foreign" army contained a large number of Mexicans who despised the corrupt and despotic Mexican government. They were not foreigners, and they did not help Sam Houston "steal" anything from Mexico. The white settlers who were in Texas at that time were allowed in by the Mexican government. Those whites and the Mexicans who fought alongside them were fighting for freedom, just as our nation's founders were in the American Revolution.
Fighting for freedom from tyranny is not stealing. Tyranny is stealing, and those who fight against it deserve to be honored.

Posted by: meand2 | July 31, 2010 11:31 PM | Report abuse

Enough is enough! Legal U.S citizens help us take the steps to save our country and support our cause before illegal immigrants have more rights than us. This is our last stand! Also we must take steps to lower local city and state councilmen salaries too they are all robbing & hurting the people they serve. So please read and sign this online petition. "Petition to Reduce the Wages of Congress Men and Women from $174,000 per year to $50,000 per year at “change.org’. " Copy & Paste below link into your web address bar:

http://uspoverty.change.org/petitions/view/petition_to_reduce_the_wages_of_congress_men_and_women_from_174000_per_year_to_50000_per_year

Pass it on!

Posted by: n2riskybiz | August 1, 2010 2:38 PM | Report abuse

Who still has faith in Washington on immigration? Maybe the illegal immigrants. The elite of both parties have shown that they intend to do NOTHING to stop illegal immigration. Their is a bipartisan consensus amongst the elite that open borders is what is good for us and the majority of Americans are just wrong.

Posted by: PeteMoylan | August 1, 2010 7:41 PM | Report abuse

THESE ARE THE ONLY FACTS

youtube.com/watch?v=7Lxx1FZNCu0&feature=related

www.immigrationpolicy.org/just-facts/economic-and-political-power-immigrants-latinos-and-asians-all-50-states

Posted by: Max9010 | August 1, 2010 10:59 PM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company