Hundreds of thousands of protestors took to the streets of Los Angeles this weekend. Denver, Phoenix, and other cities hosted, on a smaller scale, similar events. What do they want? Open borders. When do they want it? Now.

Nine out of ten Americans view illegal immigration as a problem, but nine out of ten politicians won't do anything to solve it. Why? Illegal immigration benefits two groups: illegal immigrants and the businessmen who employ them. The former constitute an interest group within the Democratic Party; the latter are a substantial portion of the donor base for the Republican Party. Both parties have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo of porous borders and lawless hiring practices.

A second reason helps explain why the popular will has been thwarted: voters who feel most passionately about illegal immigration, legal immigrants and the businessmen who employ them, generally support lax enforcement of immigration laws. Huge majorities support restricting immigration (both legal and illegal), but those huge majorities aren't so affected by the issue as to vote solely on it. The hundreds of thousands of protestors who showed up in Los Angeles, on the other hand, are personally affected by immigration laws and do--to the extent that they can vote--cast ballots solely on the immigration issue.

What a shame. The grass is greener on our side and we should keep it that way.

Dan, perhaps politicians plan to fight immigration by allowing so many immigrants in that our country begins to look like the sort of country that no one would want to immigrate to.

There are parts of the bill which could get Bush the 2006 supermajority that he needs, in order to be able to fix the tax code, reduce the deficit, and deal with the insolvency of Social Security since most Americans believe that their government officials have been dragging their feet here, Democrats slightly more than Republicans. I imagine.

The Senate should strike the language in H.R. 4437 which makes illegal immigration a felony, because that is a ludicrous idea. What does tying ones name to such extremism achieve?

Other than that, legislation that mandates that "Not later than 18 months after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall take all actions the Secretary determines necessary and appropriate to achieve and maintain operational control over the entire international land and maritime borders of the United States..." sounds reasonable.

"Why? Illegal immigration benefits two groups: illegal immigrants and the businessmen who employ them."

This says it all. But, as you allude to, there is a third group: pandering big business politicians who don't mind if the tax payers pick up the cost for benefits, social services etc. for the previous two groups.

Not to mention the crime that this demographic brings.

I find the biggest impediment to discussion on this issue is the blithe acceptance by everyone that we are a "nation of immigrants." Whenever anyone starts to question immigration, legal or illegal, the retort is always that we are a "nation of immigrants" therefore limiting legal or illegal immigration is wrong.

Sirc-- why is making illegal immigration a felony "extremism"? (I was surprised it's not a felony already.)

Vicente Fox must be smiling ear to ear. He’s got a willing dupe in the White House and he can taste the eventual success of this land grab of the Southwest U.S. by Mexico.

So, these are how one of many banners at the rally read:

If you think I’m “illegal” because I’m a Mexican, learn the true history because I’m in my HOMELAND.

For the Mexicans who have crossed illegally, it’s simple. They think that the Southwest is part of their country anyway and that it is their right to re-populate it.

Where is the Wilson and Pershing that will fix this mess? Or have we already lost out sovereignty in this part of the country?

You failed to mention that illegal aliens from Mexico vote both countries.

Knowing how we do things in the U.S. in recent years, that would go without saying, wouldn't it?

Our pols will allow anything so that certain people can make more of a buck.

Just found out the illegals are rallying in Boston starting at 5. I checked freerepublic.com and it doesn't look like anyone put together a counter protest. Too bad, the freepers are usually good about things like that. Anyways, I plan to grab a disposable camera after work and take a few shots of the more outrageous signs.

How much fun would it be to show up and yell "¡inmigra!"?

That means INS or something right? Probably no fun since the chance of me being locked up for impersonating INS is greater than the chance of them being locked them up for impersonating citizens.

I agree with your general sentiment Flynn, but I think there is another group your forgetting that is even more powerful that big business lobbies.

The Hispanic vote.

The Hispanic vote is getting larger by the year, and if either major party can really latch onto it, it will spell doom for the other.

So, neither party is in ANY RUSH to do anything that might anger hispanic voters.

I agree with your general sentiment Mr. Flynn, but I think there is another group your forgetting that is even more powerful that big business lobbies.

The Hispanic vote.

The Hispanic vote is getting larger by the year, and if either major party can really latch onto it, it will spell doom for the other.

So, neither party is in ANY RUSH to do anything that might anger hispanic voters.

I think the threat of the hispanic vote concern can be overdone though. Steve Sailer showed rather definitively that the Rove-Bush attempts to get the hispanic vote for the GOP went nowhere and that raw numbers of hispanics hasn't made near the impact in actual voters who turnout as would be expected.

See OB, you'll be grabbing a disposable camera and heading down there "after work". Key word there is "work". Which, the majority of these drains on the system who have plenty o' time to protest their illegal status don't worry about because most of them don't "work"! And if they do, they typically don't pay "taxes". And their law breaking employers don't have to worry about "benefits" because, unlike you and I who have to pay for them, when one of these sponges needs medical assistance or the like, it's free. On us.

It's also nice to see these government tolerated scoflaws get to protest without impunity and, in the process, tie up traffic for those of us who are coming home from "work".

The point is Ben, that the Hispanic vote would not be the factor that the pols want it to be if we weren't allowing an unlimited steady stream of illegals to flood into this country while our good for nothing government gives them the right to vote.

It's illegal all the way around and completely upside down.

The real problem vis-a-vis immigration is the consensus liberalism of our political class and elites. It takes the form of both one-world corporate globalism ala the GOP (and really the Davos Democrats as well like Kerry and Clinton) and the pseudo-cosmopolitan multi-culti politics of the Democratic party. But in both cases, the consensus of the political class is built on a liberal ideological read of American history which twists the logic of what used to be called American exceptionalism.

This consensus liberal read of our history is of the "Freedom is on the March!" variety and emphasizes the U.S. as a "proposition" nation realizing the innate human desire for "freedom" (always defined liberally). This has the effect of treating the world like that horrendous ride at Disney World, implying that since it really is, after all, a "small world" then everyone everywhere is a potential American even if they don't know it yet! One result of this view is to look down on closed borders as rather vulgar, uncouth, at the least uncharitable, and at worst downright bigoted.

I think the demise of republicanism here and the consequent rise of empire goes hand in hand with this liberal cosmopolitanism. Porous borders at home while we operate well over 700 military bases in over 130 countries (we are building new permanent bases in Iraq even now) is quite typical of the policies of empires throughout history. It will end the same for us as for all our precursors.

Sorry for the apocalyptic tone, but I am a thoroughgoing pessimist these days . . .

Don't look now but the latest news from DC is that the Senate has moved out of committee a "guest worker" bill that will amnesty 11 million illegals. Let's see how this goes.

Of course the CNN reporter explains this as just the Senate recognizing the "reality" that there are simply jobs "Americans won't do." What a crock.

I think our economy could save a lot of money if we would offshore CNN reporters to India who would gladly do the same caliber work for 25% less pay. With satellite feeds the cut in overhead would be tremendous. Frankly, they would be better looking as well rather than all these homogenous dyed blondes.

"Both parties have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo of porous borders and lawless hiring practices."

And both parties SHOULD and hiring practices SHOULD be lawless. If you believe in the right of property, then the property which is a business' job should be just as important as any other type. Government regulations on hiring practices should be abolished - entirely. No minimum wage, no equal opportunity laws, and definitely no laws restricting who the businesses can hire.

The border ought to be opened up. Not for the ridiculous reason that we are a nation of immigrants - this is an appeal to emotion, and meaningless rhetoric. The reason the borders ought to be opened up is because everyone ought to have the right of freedom of action, as a necessary requirement of their lives. This is a requirement of HUMAN life, not American life.

The argument that we should protect American jobs is also ridiculous. No one has a right to a job. They have a right to pursue a job - not to own it. If a Mexican can underbid an American in any job and do it just as well, it is immoral for a businessman to sacrifice his business in favor of collectivist ideology such as American patriotism. Patriotism has a place - in the defense of our nation. It does not have a place in economics. It is even more immoral for the government to forbid a business from doing that which is in its best interests. Government does NOT know best.

As for the argument about terrorism, if a country threatens us, we ought to bomb them. If we bombed everyone as soon as they threatened us, they would stop threatening us. Since terrorists are not countries, the same logic applies. As soon as anyone threatens us, we should kill them. We have more than enough bullets and bombs. That would take care of most of our threats. The rest is a matter of effective law enforcement.

I burned a Mexican flag today! Right after I wiped my ass with it!

Hey Jerk , thats the best post i've seen on this subject.

skeptic,

Sorry about the delay. Several reasons. First the fundamentals: it is mean spirited legislation, though the anger that it expresses is understandable. One is not as likely to make rational decisions under emotional stress as they are after they cool down.

I speak for people who have inherited the broken border problem: it is water under the bridge. Other generations of Americans failed to deal with this issue before it got to this point. We are just not going to deport upwards of 12 million people, much less imprison them with felons. That's why I believe that the language making illegal immigration a felony should be striken. Yes it is a crime, a violation of American law, but most people coming to this country illegally, mostly Mexicans, do it to give their family a better opportunity in life. Of course this is not to say that people who call themselves humanitarians should act as if there are not better ways to deal with the lack of progress and good governance in other nations, but that problem is related to another issue, the widespread academic corruption which undermines and attacks the values and ideals which make a nation such as the United States possible.

Other than I support the idea of a huge wall or fence and alot of the language that would force the government to get serious about tackling the problem, finally.

As Jed Babbin pointed out, enforcing such draconian measures would wind up "clogging our already-overburdened federal courts, costing enormous sums.. During 2004, according to the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, federal courts disposed of over 90,000 criminal cases and still had that number pending at the end of the year. At that rate, if the courts dealt with the eleven million felonious illegal immigrants -- assuming that we let every other crime go unpunished, and are 100 percent successful in stopping more illegals from coming in -- it will take only 122 years to take the illegals to trial. In short, it's a fool's errand (also known as a politician's election-year ploy) even to talk about this."

The borders are already broken. It is better to just fix them than to pound tables and aggravate ourselves about it.

asdf, you are partially right. After work (which was after the 5pm start time of the march) I dropped into CVS to get a disposable camera. However, I thought twice about buying a $10 camera before I saw what was what. So, I ran to Park Street to see what was what, and what was what was not all that. Also, the march had just then started and had blocked off my path to the CVS (and other disposable camera selling stores). I could have made a dash for it, and maybe got a camera, but I just wimped out. There was no support structure there at all. People were yelling in spanish, I had no idea what they were saying, and I just left to meet a friend for beers (which I had planned earlier).

To be fair, the signs I saw in English were not bad in any way. And there were not too many foreign flags, not at all like other marches that I have seen pictures of. But, the chants were all in Spanish and I had zero idea what they were saying except for a few "La Raza" shouts which I understand means "The Race."

"See OB, you'll be grabbing a disposable camera and heading down there 'after work'. Key word there is "work". Which, the majority of these drains on the system who have plenty o' time to protest their illegal status don't worry about because most of them don't 'work'! And if they do, they typically don't pay 'taxes'. And their law breaking employers don't have to worry about 'benefits' because, unlike you and I who have to pay for them, when one of these sponges needs medical assistance or the like, it's free. On us."

At that rate, if the courts dealt with the eleven million felonious illegal immigrants...

I'm not quite sure I understand the structure of the court system, but I think that "immigration judges" are not actually a part of the judicial branch, but rather some odd creation of the executive. I may be totally wrong on this, but here may be the one thing (rather than unitary exuctive wiretap etc theory) that the executive actually has control over.

Thanks for the update. From what I've heard second hand and now first hand, wasn't much of anything.

Understandably, it's a lot different in Boston than L.A. where here we have more South or Central American types spinkled with some Mexicans. And they don't pretend to claim any part of Massachusetts as their own where their California counterparts believe that it belongs to them.

Anyone know of any legit scholarship on Ike's (funny but inaptly named for today's sensibilities) "Operation Wetback"? From what I have gathered Ike had over one million illegals deported within a space of about 6 months, but that the program sort of petered out due to lack of sustained will. The point is it is actually quite easy to deport 11 million people if our government simply cares to do it.

Btw, this issue pretty clearly reveals the lack of majority rule (i.e. democracy) in this country right? We are certainly ruled NOT the rulers.

"The point is Ben, that the Hispanic vote would not be the factor that the pols want it to be if we weren't allowing an unlimited steady stream of illegals to flood into this country while our good for nothing government gives them the right to vote.

It's illegal all the way around and completely upside down." -asdf

I know. I wasn't defending it.

"I think the threat of the hispanic vote concern can be overdone though. Steve Sailer showed rather definitively that the Rove-Bush attempts to get the hispanic vote for the GOP went nowhere and that raw numbers of hispanics hasn't made near the impact in actual voters who turnout as would be expected." -Brian

Right, but what if they drove the hispanic vote into the arms of the democrats? Rove would have a heart attack.

In general the Hispanic vote tends to fluctuate about 15-20 percent more democratic than the white vote. i.e. if 60 percent of whites vote Republican, then around 40 percent of Hispanics will vote republican. If 40 percent of whites vote Repuiblican, then 20 percent of Hispanics vote Republican etc.

According to a recent poll, 30% of hispanic immigrants support the minutemen, want to build a fence on the border etc. About that same level also voted for proposition 187 in California.

Pandering to hispanics only alienates the GOP base, while the Hispanics who are going to vote Republican aren't going to be turned off by "xenophobia," "isolationism," or "nativism."

Okay, but we aren't discussing whether pandering to the hispanic vote is a good policy. I agree that it is not.

We are arguing about whether the GOP is doing it or not. I think they are.

I agree. They definately are and there are those who consider it an excellent idea to maintain the status quo as a lot of their wealthiest constituents and strongest supporters like the cheap labor.

It amazes me that so many of our elected officials who have taken an oath to uphold the law, starting with our President, don't seem to have a problem with it being broken with regularity.