It will get uglier and it will all come down to Florida. God help us.

Plus I like the way your smiling face pops up front and center before scooting to the side, as each page loads.

Sorry, I thought I was responding to “His amnesty plan has me seeing red. Why in the world would he grant amnesty to illegals?”

I have no argument with following the laws of the land once they’re here. I’ll wait until you dedicate a post to this topic. Till then.

The laws are on the books for a reason. If the people don’t like it, they are free to lobby their legislators to change the law. We are not free to break the law because we think it’s unfair; however, I believe we can do so the law is immoral.

In my view, there doesn’t need to be a “moral” or “natural” reason behind any law. A country has the authority to regulate it’s own borders. I would argue that the US does have a moral obligation to regulate its borders. It’s called national security and protecting national sovereignty, something that used to be near and dear to the American people.

If people want to come to this great country, they need to follow our laws, whether they or any American likes it or not. If those who are here illegally don’t like our system, there is one right they definitely have: the right to leave.

Generalizing “illegals” as shiftless, gangsters, theives, troublemakers, taking-jobs-away-from-us is only shifting our “bane-of-our-existence” stereotypes from a group once distinguished by the color of their skin or ethnicity to a group who are politically undocumented. For all the adjectives we ascribe to illegals, they were once ascribed to Blacks, Irish, Poles, Italians and so on.

The problem we have is with the truly criminal element(drugs, theivery, gangs etc) which is compounded in part to the illiberal ideas that once here, they have full access to the benfits and rights normally reserved for citizens. Let criminal justice deal with the real criminals. If deportation is necessary, I have no theoretical problem with “branding” them so they can’t come in again.

What Vann and Bush are pointing out is that “illegals” are here and there is no practical way to round them up and ship ‘em out. Believe me the blow to the economy would be felt if that were to happen. And at what cost to our own liberties?

So here we are; laws that say one thing, but wink-wink, we’ll bend the rules to accomodate everyone—that’s fine as long as everyone does their part not to attract negative attention. However, human nature being what it is, we have bad apples amongst them and as a result, the “illegals” take the rap as a whole and get kicked around like a political fotbol.

Amnesty, rehabilitation, engagement, who cares what it is called. What’s clear is that our war on illegal immigration has been going on for nigh 2 decades with nothing positive to show for it and plenty of dead victims. Anyway we slice it, there is no easy solution, but go forward we must, by first having a real discussion on immigration in and of itself.

What’s wrong with Bush trying a different approach. Bottomline, life sucks back home and they will do anything to get to the promised land. We may as well come up with a workable solution, the better to achieve a win-win situation for all. I’ll dare say that his approach is more Christ-like as opposed to keeping them out. Building wider and higher walls only comes at our expense with nothing really to show for it, except another bureaucracy.

Stemming the “illegal” route by formalizing a provisional process for temp/seasonal migration is a worthy 1st step. If by dint of individual effort and fortune, they can show that they are productive members of society, then naturalize them and allow them access to the benefits thereof. This is how it works in some countries.

Furthermore, the kind of passport/ID control that Vann referred to is rather common in most countries, the question is whether or not this is how we want to live our lives in the US.

For REAL, my man. The black voter would have some serious thinkin to do with her on the ticket…….I say republicans would get 20%, hands down, if not more.

Here’s a better one, bro. Bill Owens declines, and we slam the liberals even harder with a – get this – Jeb Bush/Condi ticket. They’d have bad dreams. Nightmares & ulcers. All the way thru to 2016.

Hey, I’ve helped elect him twice here in Florida and the man has done great things for this state, especially with 9/11 messin up the tourist industry as it did.

Or, we could lock Dr. Rice & Hillary in room, ’cause I think Miss Condoleeza knows her some Bruce Lee, Kung Fu Jeet Kun Do stuff. Hi-Yaah!!! She’d be runnin on walls, flyin across the room & just layin the smack down — okay, figuratively.

Still, lights out. Party over. Conservatism rules.

I’m gone, Andy. Later.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml;sessionid=20VNR4MM0WLLFQFIQMGCM5OAVCBQUJVC?xml=/opinion/2004/07/27/do2702.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2004/07/27/ixopinion.html

Security and Immigration are not part & parcel of the same issue. As an open society, we will always have a security risk. But for me, that’s the way it must remain.

Personally, I’m for throwing the doors wide open. But–Big BUT, once someone comes here, they must be prepared to integrate with this society–lock, stock & barrel.

I know this will be an unpopular concept with most.

My rational is that we’re a country of immigrants and by what right do we close the door behind us.

The counter-arguments, such as overpopulation or economic damage is frankly a canard. This country is quite capable of support twice the current population and more. And if these immigrants come seeking a better life, self-determination and are willing to pull their fair share, it would be our gain and their homeland’s loss. Believe me, when enough people freely vote with their feet and future, even the most tin-potted dictatorship will have to sit up and take notice.

That’s my 2 cents.