Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Immigration protests: the day of the illegal
Posted by: McQ on Tuesday, April 11, 2006

The Atlanta Journal Constitution reports that we had about 50,000 protesters here yesterday protesting pending immigration legislation:
The turnout in Atlanta was equally impressive. Tens of thousands of legal and illegal immigrants wearing white shirts, waving U.S. flags and chanting "USA, USA" and "Si, se puede" assembled at the Plaza Fiesta mall on Buford Highway on Monday morning to join the nationwide protest.

DeKalb police officials estimated the number of marchers between 30,000 and 40,000. But Arturo Adonay, who manages Plaza Fiesta and has witnessed many celebrations with a huge Latino attendance, put the crowd in the parking lot after the march at about 60,000.
Apparently the lesson was learned about waving Mexican flags since there were scant few in evidence. Jim Wooten, an editorial writer for the AJC commented on the irony of the protests:
It is fairly amazing that on Monday, people who are in this country illegally gathered in mass demonstrations to oppose legislation by the governing body of a nation that can be deemed to have "invited" them only because it has declined to enforce the law.
Indeed it is fairly amazing. But then with the weak-kneed crew (on both sides of the isle) in Congress is it really any surprise? And it's not like President Bush has shown strong leadership in the regard either.

Wooten also echoes what I have been saying for quite a while: border security must be the first priority, then you can talk about the immigration problem.
U.S. Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.). "It is an amendment," he explained to the Senate, "that very simply says no provision of any act we pass that contains a guest worker program will go into effect until first the secretary of Homeland Security has certified to the president and to Congress that our borders are reasonably secure."

That is the key. That is the essence of where immigration overhaul should go. First, secure the borders. Then deal with routes to citizenship.
I agree - that is the key. It is the key in two regards. 1) It will demonstrate whether the US government can summon the will to do what is necessary to control its borders. 2) It will provide the basis for meaningful immigration reform, not the phantom sort we've been treated too in the past. Mark Krikorian explains:
Policy-makers would do well to familiarize themselves with the first rule of guest-worker programs: There's nothing as permanent as a temporary worker.

The Bracero program, for instance, dramatically increased the number of Mexicans living permanently in the United States. During the 22 years the program lasted (1942-1964), annual Mexican immigration — permanent immigration, leading to citizenship — grew from little more than 2,000 to as high as 61,000, for total permanent settlement of more than a half-million Mexicans.

Nor do guest-worker programs achieve their goal of replacing illegal immigration. During the Bracero program, there were 4.6 million Bracero admissions, but also 5.3 million Mexican illegal-alien apprehensions.
Unless we want a repeat of that failed program it is imperative that we first control the borders and then, once we have the virtual flood of illegals turned down to a trickle, talk about 'guest worker programs' (or as some have labled it "defacto amnesty").

Sen Isakson has proposed a relatively low-cost interim method of better border security:
Isakson noted that in recent weeks he had gone to San Diego and Tijuana, and to look at enforcement in Fort Huachuca, Ariz. A Predator unmanned aerial surveillance vehicle "has a stretch of the border secure because we have eyes in the sky 24 hours a day, seven days a week," he said. "For $450 million we can deploy a fleet of 26 of those unmanned Predator aircraft to have eyes in the sky 24/7 along the entire 2,000-mile border."

That would, of course, allow for more efficient use of border patrol agents.
That is something we could do in relatively short order.

Until we take the vital first step of securing the border, until we do what is necessary to better secure our border, all we can hope for, best case, is a repeat of the effects of the Bracero program which promised "immigration reform" and delivered more illegal immigrants than before.

And that simply isn't acceptable.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
it is imperative that we first control the borders
Ok. How?
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net
Read the post.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
Well by constructing a REAl as opposed to "virtual" wall on the 500-700 most traveled kilometres of ingress route, and constructing a "virtual wall of sensors and UAV’s along a the end’s of the real wall and a stepped up border surveillance program in conjunction with the Minutemen of the rst of the border,the SOUTHERN border...I’m not that PC. I’m not too concerned about Canucks swamping us, there’s not that many and I LIKE Tim Hortons....

Is it difficult, yes it is...it is NOT impossible. Also I agree with Glenn Reynolds and others, time to force REAL socio-economic change on Mexico. You don’t want to deal with the ILLEGALS already here, Ok, Bush doesn’t want to anger buisnesses employing them OK. But we can try to reduce the supply at the border AND by forcing more back into Mexico we add impetus for Mexico to change, and as Mexico changes and provides a better climate for its citizens that will reduce the supply, too.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Until we take the vital first step of securing the border, until we do what is necessary to better secure our border, all we can hope for, best case, is a repeat of the effects of the Bracero program which promised "immigration reform" and delivered more illegal immigrants than before

Couple that with measures that punatively punish- severely- businesses that hire illegals, and you have a nice start.

All these idiot politicans don’t see it coming, because they see all the illegals protesting, but the enormous smack in the collective face that’s coming their way will be incredibly satisfying to the rest of us
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
Is it difficult, yes it is...it is NOT impossible.
It’s not even that difficult.

As you point out, we have sensors which can be deployed along the entire length of the border along with the drones and their cameras. Get a sensor hit, fly the drone into position, deploy the border patrol agents, round up the illegals.

Technically this isn’t that tough to do at all.

It’s more about the will to do it.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
Yeah, I see the part about, essentially, "more effective border patrols", but I just don’t see how that would be terribly effective. Sure, it might control one specific area. But that doesn’t eliminate the demand — it simply shifts demand a little east or west. I’m far from persuaded that more eyes in the sky will do anything but make the border crossers a bit more cautious.

But let’s assume — arguendo — that more eyes in the sky will lead to a much higher rate of detention. Huzzah! So what? I mean, what are we going to do? If they were determined to come here on Tuesday and they didn’t make it...they’ll still be determined to come here on Wednesday. And we’ll just release them to try again.

This kind of "securing the borders" might decrease illegal immigration slightly, but it will almost certainly just increase the churn. We spend a lot of money, they have to work a bit harder. That’s a deadweight loss.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net
I have a better solution. In order to control illegal immigration in the United States, have the president install cardboard cutouts of Jack Bauer along the US/Mexico border. Even illegal immigrants know better than to cross Jack Bauer.
 
Written By: Chris
URL: http://
I understand Jack Bauer forgot one day where he had placed his car keys. He then tortured himself until he revealed the location.
 
Written By: Billy Hollis
URL: http://
But let’s assume — arguendo — that more eyes in the sky will lead to a much higher rate of detention. Huzzah! So what? I mean, what are we going to do? If they were determined to come here on Tuesday and they didn’t make it...they’ll still be determined to come here on Wednesday. And we’ll just release them to try again.
Two points: this would be the initial way to begin enforcing border security. Like a military campaign, you’d learn the tactics of the border crossers and adapt your tactics accordingly. At this time, we really have no such understanding of how it all works.

We’d take further measures in some areas and we’d find that sensors and drones are sufficient in others. But to believe we can’t be succssful in doing so simply defies the capabilities of available technology. It exists and can help us organize our response to crossings at an efficiency level we’ve never had previously.

If you catch the crossing early enough, you just send ’em back across the border. No detention necessary.

Secondly, once you begin to be successful in turning back aliens, even multiple times, the ROI on crossing the border changes (and the price of "coyotes" rises, hopefully pricing a lot of them out of business). If the purpose of gaining access to the US is to work and make money, that isn’t served by being caught everytime or mostly everytime you attempt to cross the border. Perhaps the calculation then includes the time necessary to apply for "guest worker" status as a reasonable alternative to repeated unsuccesful attempts at crossing illegally.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
You have a great deal more faith in our ability to effectively police thousands of miles of border than I do. Considering the extreme measures we’d have to take, combined with the fact that we’ll simply release them to turn right back around and walk back in, I don’t even find the notion remotely plausible. Al they have to do is stand beside the border until nobody is watching — 5 minutes later, they’re lost in the crowd on US streets. Or riding discreetly in a US vehicle. Etc.

The border is almost 2000 miles long and its crossed by people about 350 million times a year. In order to gain actual control over that, we would require tens of thousands of border agents to patrol everything from the barren deserts to the populous cities. And while one agent might be able to cover many miles in the wasteland, it takes far more than one to cover highway entries, or to stand guard at the wall between US and Mexican cities. In the latter case, I doubt even one agent every .1 of a mile could stop entry. Are we really interested in putting that many guards on our borders? In a goal that would require tactics similar to those used by Israel or East Germany? Not only do I doubt we’d have the will to do that, I doubt we could do it effectively if we had the will.

We can police a border that large, sure, but controlling it? That’s a fantasy. An expensive, destructive one.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net
You have a great deal more faith in our ability to effectively police thousands of miles of border than I do.
Maybe that’s because I’m very familiar with similar efforts to monitor the fronts of armies and how we do it successfully.
The border is almost 2000 miles long and its crossed by people about 350 million times a year. In order to gain actual control over that, we would require tens of thousands of border agents to patrol everything from the barren deserts to the populous cities.
Not at all.

A) Terrain analysis. Some of the terrain is what we’d call "no-go" terrain in the military. The risk of using it is higher than the potential payoff. You monitor that with drones.

B) You analyze the rest of the terrain and you configure sensor arrays in depth on the most likely avenues of approach. This isn’t a single line of sensors, but sensors deployed in depth. What that allows is not only the identification of the entry point, but the track of the border crossers as well.

C) Once you begin to understand where the majority of crossings are being attempted, you deploy your agents accordingly. They use the sensor data to position themselves to intercept the illegals on the path the sensors indicate.

D) As the border crossers adapt to avenues not tried previously (because they are more dangerous or arduous) you simply redeploy your border agents appropriately.

Lastly, you set up arrays on the border to turn on strobing lights (and sound sirens in unpopulated areas).

This is to alert the crossers they’ve been detected. The point in doing that is to convince them that their effort is doomed and to have them turn back immediately.
We can police a border that large, sure, but controlling it? That’s a fantasy. An expensive, destructive one.
Completely disagree.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
Jim Wooten naively assumes that those protesting were themselves illegal aliens.

I think the vast majority of them were probably legal residents or citizens.
 
Written By: davebo
URL: http://
But it’s too harrrd. And it costs too muuuch.*whine* And it’s not perfect.*sniff*
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
I think the vast majority of them were probably legal residents or citizens.
Not according to the news reports in Atlanta. They’re reporting the probablility of an even split based on the observations and conversations reporters had with people in the crowd.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
Timactual - BINGO!

Apply the too hard principle to 10-12 million registered tax payers refusing, literally refusing, to pay their income taxes on April 15th.
Sending in their 1040’s with the words "I REFUSE TO PAY" on the amount due line.

Do you think for one minute that the IRS/government would just roll over and play dead on that? That they’d suddenly grant amnesty to the non-payers because it would be ’too difficult’ and ’too costly’ and ’would increase detentions’? Not bloody likely. And if radio stations broadcast the idea,
bet your bottom dollar the IRS would have restraining orders, etc.

What they’re demonstrating to us is, if enough of us choose to break nearly any law consistently, they’ll just roll over on it. Sounds like we’re living in....
FRANCE.



 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Unfortunatlty it now seems that essentialy the ruling class has deemed American citizenship irrelevant. Illeagals are now getting drivers licenses, opening up bank accounts, getting mortgages, being allowed to vote in certain elections, having day laborer centers built with taxpayers money, etc.. It now seems that the ruling class has deemed that America does not have the right to define and defend it’s borders from massive migrations of people into the United States. It now seems that the ruling elites have deemed it the responsibility of the United States to employ, educate, offer medical services and incarcerate Mexico’s surplus population. And finally, it seems that the ruling class has deemed that Mexicans are to have more of a say in how we run our nation than do the Ameican people. How else can you have poll after poll saying one thing, i.e. we want a crack down on illeagal immigration, and the politicians doing exactly the oppisite. Nothing will
be done, because both parties benifit from the situation in one way or the other.
Dems get a new victim class to pander to and the Repubs get fat campaign contributions from the exploiters of our new serf underclass.
 
Written By: Radical Centrist
URL: http://
Radical: While every state pays for its social services differently (and since I don’t know where you live, I don’t know how yours works), I live in Houston, and here we have no state income tax. We pay for medical care and schools through property taxes, and for various other services through sales taxes. Both of these are paid by all residents, whether they are here and employed legally or not — thus, at least in Texas, illegal immigrants DO pay taxes for all the services we provide them. Ironically, the average immigrant pays more in taxes here than many corporations who demand tax breaks under the threat of relocation.
 
Written By: Tom in Texas
URL: http://
I have a great idea for reducing the flow at our borders: we could just follow the guest worker approach and tell all immigrants that they are not welcome to become American citizens, and then feign outrage that they fly the flag of the only country that allows them citizenship. We could be as inhospitable as possible and insist that their language, culture, flag, and customs are inferior and second class. That should keep em from coming.
 
Written By: Tom in Texas
URL: http://
You know Tom it might... But then I look at Mexico and see a lot of AMericans moving SOUTH into such a country and think it might not be effective.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Is there an exodus of immigrants from the US into Mexico? I wasn’t aware of that. Maybe that’s a good reason for a wall: sort of a reverse Berlin Wall. There, East German officials claimed their wall wasn’t built to prevent their citizens from escaping, but rather to prevent the huge number of West Germans thirsting for a chance at their social worker’s paradise. Here, we could claim it’s about preventing illigals from infiltrating our borders, when in reality it would be to prevent the mass exodus from Iowa to Juarez.
 
Written By: Tom in Texas
URL: http://
Tom a lot of Americans are RETIRING to Mexico. It’s a good place to retire to, IF YOU’VE GOT MONEY. That’s the problem with Mexico, it’s a good place to be king, but if you aren’t king, you get the shaft and are encouraged to move to "El Norte."

So Tom snarking aside you oppose the wall? An open borders/libertarian sort of guy or just a Progressive Bleeding heart?
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Joe I do not deny that Mexico is a striatified society. I believe that a guest workers program would do just the same here. We would encourage others to build retirement homes in Florida or Arizona, and hire the cheapest labor available to build the home and clean it. I do not think a wall would work either — when people want to come, they will — a truth Castro, East Germany, and ancient China have all been forced to learn.
 
Written By: Tom in Texas
URL: http://
As for my political leanings, I am very libertarian Joe. I live in Texas and vote for Ron Paul, if that tells you anything. I think NAFTA and globalization, while it has had an undeniable deterious effect on blue collar workers in the midwest, has been a huge benefit to the average worker in Mexico, and that properly applied, globalization could actually cut down on immigration here.
 
Written By: Tom in Texas
URL: http://
Unless we want a repeat of that failed program it is imperative that we first control the borders and then, once we have the virtual flood of illegals turned down to a trickle, talk about ’guest worker programs’ (or as some have labled it "defacto amnesty").
Good Lord.

So before we can talk about a new way to control the borders we have to first succeed at controlling it using mroe of the same old methods that until now haven’t worked?

"There will be no talk of pulling the plug on this toaster until I’m able to jam this butter knife inside it and it DOESN’T shock me.

Yeow! Dammit!

Yeow! Dammit!

Yeow! Dammit!

..."
 
Written By: Peter Jackson
URL: http://www.liberalcapitalist.com
Well Tom it could, but in the interim I think more effective border control might be in order. To include fences and walls. Unlike the Berlin Wall we’re fencing them OUT! It’s an important difference. AND it might lead to more of that vaunted globalization in Mexico. After all Mexico doesn’t need to change much if the surplus workers and malcontents can be sent over into the US. Once that becomes LESS appealing, note I didn’t say IMPOSSIBLE, then Mexico might consider some internal reform that might crop up as necessary from increased internal pressures. After all, if you don’t like it HERE you can try the US. Unless of course you can’t, and then mayhap the local government will try to be a better government.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Yes we are fencing them out — much as ancient China tried to keep out the Mongol hordes, or Hadrian tried to keep out the Picts. Now I will concede these were military defenses, different than what our fence would serve, but contremporary examples of the inability of states to prevent immigration abound — from Germany to France to the aforementioned attempts by Fox to prevent crossing of his own southern border. To prevent mass immigration, we should attempt to raise the immigrants standard of living on their own native soil. The measures debated recently would do nothing to address the cause of immigratiuoin, and I believe that if they want to come, they will.
 
Written By: Tom in Texas
URL: http://
If you start out believing that there is no physical method that can ’stop’ them, then obviously for you there isn’t one.
The old Soviet eastern border was pretty damn effective at stemming a flood. Certainly there weren’t 10-12 MILLION Soviet Bloc civilians who were able to flee to the west after it was built.

Minefields, dogs and machine gun guard towers are a bit much for me though, but
to say it cannot be done, well, that’s certainly not the philosophy that built the Panama canal.
And I certainly have no intention of paying to build Mexico’s economy and they certainly are going to view our dabbling in their political policy and social structures as rather (correctly so) imperialistic. Or is there some other way you intend to make staying home a more attractive alternative for them.

Finally, if you feel you can’t stop self-funded, low-tech Juan and Juanita from getting over the border, I submit you cannot stop well-funded Abdul and Achmed either, especially if they come through a country where bribing people to look the other way over is SOP.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Other country’s cries of imperialistic designs has hardly stopped us before — I’ll just point out your own Panama Canal as a prime example. If our government were to effectively and forcefully explain that Mexico would be better off with a higher standard of living, wnd then work with Mexico’s leaders to raise it, any opposition could be easily disdcredited.
And if we were to build a better and more effective relationship with our southern neighbor, and reduce the flow of Mexican immigrants in the process, we could work with them to identify and stop the remaining tresspassers, be they Arab or Mexican.
 
Written By: Tom in Texas
URL: http://
And Tom one of the tools or sticks would be, sending back a portion of the several million in the US and making it more difficult to leave Mexico for the US, illegally. Why does Mexico need to change if the folks that are doin’ all right can keep on doin’ all right and they can send the folks that might kick up a fuss to another country. I mean if the status quo were so obviously bad, they would be changing NOW. So OBVIOUSLY the opposition to change will not easily be discredited.

 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
The only way to get Republican senators to vote for tight border security (i.e. fence and whatever McQ proposed) is to NOT vote for them in the next election. If ZERO Republican senators got (re-)elected in November, that would send a message to the Republican Party that they can understand b/c now they are drunk with power. Then we would see them sober up, talk tough, promise border security in the next election, and actually do it. The only thing is I don’t know if I want the Democrats to have a majority in the Senate for 6 years.
 
Written By: Nuclear
URL: http://
Well Nuclear they WOULDN’T have a majority for 6 years, only TWO years...1/3 of the Senate is up for re-election every two years. Of course, I don’t believe in turning out EVERY Republican... plus would this really teach Republicans? Or if it did, THEN the NEW Republican Senate would have to change the NOW-EXISTING law in the face of the media and the newly emboldened Mexicano lobby. I’m afraid that after they’ve learned their lesson, whatever lesson they learn they will not be able to change the new status quo.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Apparently the lesson was learned about waving Mexican flags since there were scant few in evidence.
Indeed. This I found interesting. It seems as though the organizers instructed the demonstrators to “leave the Eagle and Snake at home and pick up some Stars and Bars on your way here.”
To which the demonstrators replied, “Sure thing, jefe. We want to convince the American people that we love this country and we want to stay.”
Cool.

Something anti-war protesters should learn from. I’ve tried telling them to, “leave the cartoonish effigies at home and don’t show up with your face painted.”
To which they would reply, “but that ruins the party.”
“Exactly. It’s not a party, Moonbeam.”

They never learn.
I have a great idea for reducing the flow at our borders: we could just follow the guest worker approach and tell all immigrants that they are not welcome to become American citizens, and then feign outrage that they fly the flag of the only country that allows them citizenship. We could be as inhospitable as possible and insist that their language, culture, flag, and customs are inferior and second class. That should keep em from coming.
Well stated, Tom.
More than likely, as Tom lives in Houston, Tom has discovered that there is no “cultural threat” from Hispanics wanting to live here and work here. If you ask me, it’s a cultural plus, hombre.
Indeed it is fairly amazing. But then with the weak-kneed crew (on both sides of the isle) in Congress is it really any surprise?
I don’t know if “weak-kneed crew” is accurate…, Okay, Okay. It is.
But regarding this issue, it’s more like “opportunistic crew”. Isn’t it?

It made me ill to see Teddy’s White Irish Ass up there courting the Hispanic vote. It also makes me ill to see Big Business Republicans ignoring the people for the bottom line.
Per usual, I have no faith in Washington.
 
Written By: PogueMahone
URL: http://
The only way to get Republican senators to vote for tight border security (i.e. fence and whatever McQ proposed) is to NOT vote for them in the next election.
Don’t worry dude, if the Republicans keep up with all this mindless hostility towards Mexican migrant labor, they’ll manage to offend enough of the MILLIONS of hispanic American voters to keep themselves out of office until Chelsea Clinton’s second term.
 
Written By: Peter Jackson
URL: http://www.liberalcapitalist.com
Peter Jackson, you mean the hostility of ILLEGAL Hispanic voters, kind of a non sequitur don’t you think? Plus you assume that legal Hispanics support the Illegals...that isn’t true anecdotally and in some poll data. So, the cost of P.O.’ing folks that can’t vote really ought to be minimal and as to the rest, don’t bet that Jose is screamining "Let’em, grant’em amnesty!" He might well be saying, "Hey I followed the law. I got here with some effort. Don’t make ME a sucker. And Manuel is a threat to MY job, ’cuz he will work under the table for a LOT less than me."
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Yep, it’s all about votes and money.
The two frequently are tightly coupled.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Plus you assume that legal Hispanics support the Illegals...that isn’t true anecdotally and in some poll data.
Assume? Who do you think is marching in all of these demonstrations? Those weren’t illegals—mostly. They were the legal children, husbands, wives, brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, and friends of illegals. And they love their family and friends just like you. The illegals themselves were too busy working to march. And as someone who has cleaned toilets on oil rigs for minimum wage, let me say that if Mexican migrant workers threaten your job, you need to up your game.
 
Written By: Peter Jackson
URL: http://www.liberalcapitalist.com
Peter, a lot of folks marched against the War, but they represented by no means a majority. Further poll data shows 75% of the populace in favour of enhanced enforcement... so even IF a majority of Hispanics favour it, a majority of US citizens are opposed, something that DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS might note. At least one Pew study shows tht Hispanics do NOT favour amnesty.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Joe, I’m not really talking about amnesty, I’m talking about Republicans being perceived by tens of millions of hispanic Americans as attacking them and theirs. This is why "the party of Lincoln" barely gets a black vote. Nor a gay vote. And now, I believe, they’re endangering their carefully cultivated hispanic votes. The Democrats have been dead inside since the ’80s, yet the Republicans have them barely edged out. If the Republicans can’t beat a corpse, what good are they?
 
Written By: Peter Jackson
URL: http://www.liberalcapitalist.com
Because Peter MOST FOLKS DON’T SIDE WITH THE DEMOCRATS. Plus examine what you’ve just said and tell me, if all you say is true, how come the Republicans control 1600 Pa Ave., Congress and the USSC? Obviously they ahve been doing something right....and so your plan is to give ILLEGAL aliens amnesty and put them on the fast track to citizenship? THAT’LL HELP the Republicans, angering the base and Hispanics who did it the right way?

From what little poll data I have seen YOUR position is the one that will hurt the Republicans. You are living in fear of large CROWDS, you ought to be looking at VOTERS. It’s late they may come over as more harsh than I mean it to.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
I caught part of the Washington branch of the demonstration on C-SPAN. John Sweeney, head of the AFL-CIO was addressing the crowd, supporting their cause. His remarks included gems like "we are one nation" and "we speak with one voice" which were, naturally, translated into Spanish for the benefit of those in the crowd who weren’t of one nation and didn’t speak with one voice. I wonder what the rank and file think about that.


 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
Indeed. This I found interesting. It seems as though the organizers instructed the demonstrators to “leave the Eagle and Snake at home and pick up some Stars and Bars on your way here.”
To which the demonstrators replied, “Sure thing, jefe. We want to convince the American people that we love this country and we want to stay.”


And for crying out loud, don’t burn it. Some of the kids at the high school where I work joined the demonstrations last week and one of them caught a kid from another HS about to burn the flag. He took the match away, stomped it out, and informed the idiot ’that’s not what we’re trying to say.’ I don’t agree with the demonstrators, but I’m glad to see some of them have some sense. (On the other hand, there did seem to be quite a lot of top-of-the-lungs ranting in spanish, so not everyone’s clued in yet).
 
Written By: Achillea
URL: http://quantum-sky.net
Feh. So much for . Back to italics I go.
 
Written By: Achillea
URL: http://quantum-sky.net

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider