Bush's address last night

[MODU]

Since I'm surprised no one has started a thread on this yet, I will.

I was listening to the news/talk show on the way into work this morning, and there was this flaming conservative griping about what Bush said in regards to what is amnesty and what isn't.  He said something to the effect of "If Bush can deport 6 Mill illegal immigrants over the past six years, then he's lying if he says we can't deport the 12 Million living in our nation, therefore we don't need his amnesty program." 

I'm sorry Mr., but the 6 Mill in question were the ones captured at the border and not ones that had already established themselves within the country.  What Bush (and the rest of the sane people) means when he says we can't deport the 12 Mill already living within the country is that it would be an incredible national expense in order to round-up all 12 Mill in any short period of time, process them, and send them home.  Additionally, it would become a witch hunt, worse than the hunt for Commies by MacCarthy or the roundup of Jews by the Nazi's.  And this isn't even discussing the economical impact of pulling all those people out of our work force or the law suits by the ACLU and international human rights groups.

[CARLHAYDEN]

This Bush/Modul pseudoarguments is one of the most illogical ever made.

First, it sugests that if total perfection cannot be achieve, then no attempt to improve the situation should be attempted (the perfect being the enemy of the better). Under this argument, since we are unable to apprehend ALL murderers, we should give up on trying to apprehend any murderers.

Second, the argument distorts reality by focusing soley on apprehension as a mechanism for achieving the removal of illegal aliens.  Please note that the current law provides for penalties for employers of illegal aliens, but this law has largely be unenforced under George W.Bush (less than under Clinton).  If illegal aliens should find themselves unemployed, many would return home.

Third, the cost effectiveness argument is quite phony since if focuses exclusively on (and exagerates) the costs, and neglects to include the economic benefits.  Let me just mention (in passing) two: (a) emergency rooms would not be overburdened with illegal aliens, and (b) the balance of payments would significantly improve as illegal aliens use Western Union to send money home to Mexico.

[MODU]

Suggesting that since we can't achieve "perfection" means we do nothing is a terribly gross exaggeration of what has been discussed in the past (in the last thread).  Even when the process of integration of the illegals into our system begins, not all of them will step forward to be recognized.  Those individuals, once identified, will be subject to the punishments outlined in the immigration laws.  The same was true in the 80s following the true amnesty program which occurred.  Many illegals thought it was a ploy to bring them out into the public for persecution, and therefore hid until the second round of amnesty that year was initiated.

It is also a fallacy to think that if the illegals in the US could not find jobs that they would merely go home.  Yes, many come here in the search for a more profitable job, but they are also searching for a better, freer life in comparison to their overpowering and corrupt governments.  American's weren't fleeing the US during the Great Depression since there were no jobs here.  Why?  Because they'd rather be unemployed, starving, cold yet free in the US, than working and oppressed elsewhere.  Why would it be different now for a new group of unemployed people?

In the long-term welfare expenses should drop over time, however, in the first five years of trying to round up all 12+ Mill (some project up to 30 Mill to include the entire family), we would have to shoulder both expenses at the same time.  You think people get their panties in a bunch now when they see an $80 Bill spending bill for Iraq?  Just imagine their responses when they see $100+ Bill spending bill to turn the US into a police state trying to roundup millions of people from their homes. 

The point is, no one that supports full deportation of illegals have come up with a practical method to achieve their goals.  It's great to believe in an ideology (hell, I do all the time, even on this issue), but reality has to prevail. 

(BTW . . . is it just me, or does anyone else have an issue with the word "freer?"  Personally, I like the sound of "more free" myself.  hehehe)

[MissCatholic]

Bush is a car salesman. The republicans fall for it because they want to.

Bushs message was i love amnesty and the senate bill

[agcatter]

No one has been a more loyal Republican than me over the years.

However, the speech last night was a piece of crap.

Just more talk.  To suggest that Bush has any intention of securing the border would be insulting.  Illegals are killing my state.  We have tens of thousands in our public schools (at $6500 per head).  Our emergency rooms are closing down because they use them for primary care and pay nothing.  One of 5 babies born in Texas are born to illegals.  The don't pay for that either and then we get to support them.

Bush can screw off as far as I'm concerned.  That goes for the Republicans in the Senate as well.  Screw em all.  Oh, and BTW, hello Speaker Pelosi.  It's all yours. 

[Republican Michigander]

Bush's plan was unacceptable.

I hope Tancredo kicks his arse on this.

[Sam Spade]

It is rather amusing to see the Republican right cutting off their nose to spite their face on this whole immigration issue.  Because if the Democrats do come to power in the House, you will probably get a much more liberal immigration bill that the one presently being argued about.  But at least then, you can blame the Democrats for it, so maybe you'll be happy.

What is really funny is that the continued growth in the power of the Hispanic voting bloc is pretty much the only way the Republicans can hold onto a socially conservative political coalition for the long haul.  With the continued rise of Evangelical Protestantism in the Latin world (and in America too) among Hispanics, these voters are ripe for this philosophy, whereas the white WASPs continue to gravitate away from these coalition and show no sign of coming back.

That is, unless the Republican party wants to move to a more socially liberal platform.  Then these voters can possibly be rescued.

It's your choose.

[Nym90]

I'm not so sure the Democrats would be more open to immigration than the Republicans. The Democrats have their own internal conflict on the issue, as well; organized labor and the poor and lower-middle class certainly don't want open immigration at all.

It's kind of an odd issue, in that economic conservatives and social liberals both tend to favor open immigration, while economic liberals and social conservatives oppose it. Actually more of a populist/libertarian issue than a liberal/conservative one.

[agcatter]

I think they absolutely ARE more open to more illegal imigrants.  It's called importing votes.  It insures that in 20 years there will be no Republican Party.  I'm ok with that.  Any party which is stupid enough to go along with a plan that ensures its future minority status deserves to go the way of the dinosaur.  Every child born in this country to an illegal has at least a 4 in 5 chance of growing up to be a Democrat.  Imagine the welfare state that can be built then.  Haha, and the Senate Republicans like Hagal helped them do it.  Brilliant.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Comparing what you want to do to the Holocaust is a great nove!

[Gustaf]

If I may ask a dumb question...how is it possible for ILLEGAL immigrants to use the public sector like that? I guess I get emergency care and that kind of stuff, but schools? Don't you check people out before you let them into your schools? What about contact with parents? And so on. I would have thought it difficult to reside as an illegal. In Sweden, most illegal immigrants go under-ground in order to stay.

[NewFederalist]

Gustaf- you have hit the real issue right on the mark.

[agcatter]

Gustaf, you are talking logic and there is no logic in the current circumstance.  Our courts have ruled that we are REQUIRED to educate the illegals.  School districts are not even allowed to ask whether new enrollees are documented.  Hard to believe I know, but it is true.

With regard to medical care, emergency rooms and clinics aren't able to turn away patients.  Illegals use the emergency rooms as primary care.  Many clinics in the Houston area have folded and hospitals charge paying patients and insurance companies more to make up the difference.  Of course, that results in higher premiums for the rest of us.  I had to take my wife to the emergency room last summer.  She was bleeding badly and we couldn't get the bleeding stopped.  We got to the emergency room and there were around 10 ahead of us and we were one of two couples that didn't speak Spanish.  A couple of those ahead of us had the flu.  Want to guess how many of the Spanish speakers ahead of us were legal?  We had to wait for over an hour to be treated by a physician.  Welcome to the new Texas.

[Rin-chan]

I say we should deport them all and allow a REALLY restricted number back in if, and only if, they pass a special test IN ENGLISH in which they will be able to get on the path to becoming a citizen.

Unfortunately, I'm not an evil dictator or the current president, so that's not going to happen any time soon.

As all of you may know, I did, in fact, support Bush inthe 2004 election.  I still stand by my decision, but Bush's actions with illegal immigration disappoint me greatly.

If he wasn't such a weeny sometimes...

Rin-chan

[J. J.]

I agree with policy.  He's talking about keeping people that are working, obeying the law, learning to speak English, paying penalties for coming here illegally, and willing to become citizens, after going to back of the line, I don't have a problem with it.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Suggesting that since we can't achieve "perfection" means we do nothing is a terribly gross exaggeration of what has been discussed in the past (in the last thread).  Even when the process of integration of the illegals into our system begins, not all of them will step forward to be recognized.  Those individuals, once identified, will be subject to the punishments outlined in the immigration laws.  The same was true in the 80s following the true amnesty program which occurred.  Many illegals thought it was a ploy to bring them out into the public for persecution, and therefore hid until the second round of amnesty that year was initiated.

It is also a fallacy to think that if the illegals in the US could not find jobs that they would merely go home.  Yes, many come here in the search for a more profitable job, but they are also searching for a better, freer life in comparison to their overpowering and corrupt governments.  American's weren't fleeing the US during the Great Depression since there were no jobs here.  Why?  Because they'd rather be unemployed, starving, cold yet free in the US, than working and oppressed elsewhere.  Why would it be different now for a new group of unemployed people?

In the long-term welfare expenses should drop over time, however, in the first five years of trying to round up all 12+ Mill (some project up to 30 Mill to include the entire family), we would have to shoulder both expenses at the same time.  You think people get their panties in a bunch now when they see an $80 Bill spending bill for Iraq?  Just imagine their responses when they see $100+ Bill spending bill to turn the US into a police state trying to roundup millions of people from their homes. 

The point is, no one that supports full deportation of illegals have come up with a practical method to achieve their goals.  It's great to believe in an ideology (hell, I do all the time, even on this issue), but reality has to prevail. 

(BTW . . . is it just me, or does anyone else have an issue with the word "freer?"  Personally, I like the sound of "more free" myself.  hehehe)

Well, lets examine the assertions.

First, yes many of the illegals won't bother to comply with even minimal requirements (they won't pay two cents in fine, they won't learn a word of english, etc,) BUT they won't be subjected to the laws currently on the books.  You see, I remember what we were promised in 1986, and there has been essentially NO enforcement since then and I have NO confindence that Bush would enforce laws against illegal immigration as he has ignored them for the past five plus years!

Second, there is a major difference between legal and illegal aliens.  Legal aliens do largely seek the freedom which still largely prevails in the United States while most illegal aliens are in it for the money. 

Third, I don't know what drugs you are taking, but there is absolutely NO foundation for your assertion that if amnesty is granted to illegals, welfare costs would somehow go down. 

Fourth, I see you like to make things up.   Did the hundred billion dollar cost of enforcing our laws on illegal immigration come from the same drugs as the assertion that if amnesty is granted. welfare costs will decrease?

Fifth, oh and of course, enforcement of laws on illegal immigration would require a police state.  LOL.

Sixth, now I know you have difficulty in dealing with reality on this matter, but let me suggest a rather simple procedure that would result in the overwhelming majority of illegal aliens leaving.

a. Punish employers who hire them.
b. No government benefits (welfare, school, etc.) for them
c. Publish notice that from this date forward anyone deported will forever more be ineligible for legal immigration.
d. Require all law enforcement agencies receiving federal funds to enforce laws against illegal immigration.
e. Build a wall (don't just send a few national guardsmen to the border until the amnesty bill is passed).

Now, not long ago you tried to tell me that Bush didn't favor amnesty.  Will you admit that you were wrong?

[Nym90]

I say we should deport them all and allow a REALLY restricted number back in if, and only if, they pass a special test IN ENGLISH in which they will be able to get on the path to becoming a citizen.

Unfortunately, I'm not an evil dictator or the current president, so that's not going to happen any time soon.

As all of you may know, I did, in fact, support Bush inthe 2004 election.  I still stand by my decision, but Bush's actions with illegal immigration disappoint me greatly.

If he wasn't such a weeny sometimes...

Rin-chan

I don't think it has anything to do with being a weenie, he's just a blind follower of the best interests of big business, which has no desire whatsoever to decrease the supply of cheap labor available to them.

[MODU]

Carl, there are days where I don't know how to take you.  I know you are passionate about the issue, but you are not being very realistic.  We agree on most points except for how to actually handle the illegals already in the country.

1)  No, laws in the past were not enforced, and there are many people to blame (both state and federal).  However, with the attention placed on it, you can be fairly sure that they will be enforced.  That is only for time to tell.

2)  Legal and illegal aliens seek both freedom and financial gain equally.  The difference is the level of dispair, causing otherwise honest people to break the law since our immigration process is beyond outdated and terrible slow.

3)  No drugs here.  If amnesty (defined as the 1980s program) goes into effect, the newly recognized will be more able to engage in the economy as well as pay their taxes.  As they start paying taxes and work their way up from being paid under the table, they will start to off-set their welfare costs.

4)  The $100+ Bill figure is based on my own personal assessment when you consider the mass of personnel and resources that would be required to conduct a massive city by city sweep of the US in a short amount of time in order to meet the radicals demand for instant deportation.  Our current police, border agents, and FBI staff levels are too low for such a raid to occur, so many more would have to be hired, trained, and located throughout the US.  That's not including the number of staffers required to support these agents, travel expenses for the illegals out of the country, benefits, etc...

5)  A police state in the sense that there will be armed personnel sweeping offices, homes, stores, etc searching for illegals.  Envision Nazi Germany.  I don't think even you would want to live through that.

6)  a.  No problem with that.  I've already provided my 1st, 2nd, and 3rd strike penatly as well as fee scale based on company sizes on this point in the other threads.
b. That is unrealistic since we are a compassionate country and you would cause both domestic and international strife over human rights.
c.  No problem with that.  We'll just have to develope a large biometric database to consolidate all of that information.
d.  No problem with that either.  That could easily be resolved today by doubling the funding and providing facilities to store these people while streamlining the deportation process in order to get them out of the country quicker.
e.  Build a wall, dig a moat, setup landmines . . . that won't stop it.  Didn't work in Berlin, and that was just one city with guards standing on the walls with a shoot-on-site directive.  Only updating our immigration process and building up Mexico's and other nations economy/freedoms will resolve that.

And no, Bush's plan is not Amnesty in the sense of the 1980s program.  These are not free tickets to citizenship since it is not garanteed.  Like with many criminal punishments in the US, a steep fine and time served might be all that's required.  We cannot practically deport 12+ Mill people quickly and easily from our nation.  For those that have been here for a decade, I don't see anything wrong with putting them at the end of the visa process, fining them, and make them wait many more years to find out if they are eligible for a green card. 

(And I'm not sure if you saw my post in the other forum, but I received on response letter so far regarding my friends status.  3 weeks to go until visa expires, and yet her green card application from 2 years ago still has yet to be reviewed.)

[The Duke]

If I may ask a dumb question...how is it possible for ILLEGAL immigrants to use the public sector like that? I guess I get emergency care and that kind of stuff, but schools? Don't you check people out before you let them into your schools? What about contact with parents? And so on. I would have thought it difficult to reside as an illegal. In Sweden, most illegal immigrants go under-ground in order to stay.

The public schools absolutely do not check for citizenship.  Neither do hospitals.  In 1994, California passed an initative called Prop 187 which denied public services of all kinds to illegals.  Courts ruled that law unconstitutional, essentially inventing a constitutional right for illegals to use public benefits without interference.  So not only don't we check for citizenship, we are barred by court order from checking citizenship.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Carl, there are days where I don't know how to take you.  I know you are passionate about the issue, but you are not being very realistic.  We agree on most points except for how to actually handle the illegals already in the country.

1)  No, laws in the past were not enforced, and there are many people to blame (both state and federal).  However, with the attention placed on it, you can be fairly sure that they will be enforced.  That is only for time to tell.

2)  Legal and illegal aliens seek both freedom and financial gain equally.  The difference is the level of dispair, causing otherwise honest people to break the law since our immigration process is beyond outdated and terrible slow.

3)  No drugs here.  If amnesty (defined as the 1980s program) goes into effect, the newly recognized will be more able to engage in the economy as well as pay their taxes.  As they start paying taxes and work their way up from being paid under the table, they will start to off-set their welfare costs.

4)  The $100+ Bill figure is based on my own personal assessment when you consider the mass of personnel and resources that would be required to conduct a massive city by city sweep of the US in a short amount of time in order to meet the radicals demand for instant deportation.  Our current police, border agents, and FBI staff levels are too low for such a raid to occur, so many more would have to be hired, trained, and located throughout the US.  That's not including the number of staffers required to support these agents, travel expenses for the illegals out of the country, benefits, etc...

5)  A police state in the sense that there will be armed personnel sweeping offices, homes, stores, etc searching for illegals.  Envision Nazi Germany.  I don't think even you would want to live through that.

6)  a.  No problem with that.  I've already provided my 1st, 2nd, and 3rd strike penatly as well as fee scale based on company sizes on this point in the other threads.
b. That is unrealistic since we are a compassionate country and you would cause both domestic and international strife over human rights.
c.  No problem with that.  We'll just have to develope a large biometric database to consolidate all of that information.
d.  No problem with that either.  That could easily be resolved today by doubling the funding and providing facilities to store these people while streamlining the deportation process in order to get them out of the country quicker.
e.  Build a wall, dig a moat, setup landmines . . . that won't stop it.  Didn't work in Berlin, and that was just one city with guards standing on the walls with a shoot-on-site directive.  Only updating our immigration process and building up Mexico's and other nations economy/freedoms will resolve that.

And no, Bush's plan is not Amnesty in the sense of the 1980s program.  These are not free tickets to citizenship since it is not garanteed.  Like with many criminal punishments in the US, a steep fine and time served might be all that's required.  We cannot practically deport 12+ Mill people quickly and easily from our nation.  For those that have been here for a decade, I don't see anything wrong with putting them at the end of the visa process, fining them, and make them wait many more years to find out if they are eligible for a green card. 

(And I'm not sure if you saw my post in the other forum, but I received on response letter so far regarding my friends status.  3 weeks to go until visa expires, and yet her green card application from 2 years ago still has yet to be reviewed.)

1.) I'm storry, but facts are facts.  You agree that the laws on teh books have NOT been enforced but somehow we are to expect that the people who haven't enforced existing laws will enforce new ones!  Sorry Lucy, but even Charlie Brown wouldn't buy this one.

2.) Now, you make bold assertions without a factual basis.  Let me cite a couple of differences between legal and illegal aliens.  During demonstrations how many flags of Mexico, Honduras, Costa Rica, etc to you see legal aliens waving.  How about illegal aliens?  Also, are you aware that Mexico not only permits but encourages naturalized American citizens from Mexico to vote in their elections on the basis of dual citizenship?  Have you ever heard of divided loyalties?  Have you ever read the oath of citizenship?  Oh, and btw, do you know about AZTLAN?

3.) So, if we are to believe your third assertion, the illegals presently in this country do NOT pay taxes, but are on welfare.  Hmm.  You'd better talk with Bush et al about this as they are claiming the opposite.

4.) As to your 'personal assessment,' let me note that is simply a bunch of garbage.  There is no need to go to extraordinary lengths to take care of the process.  When a few employers are given jail time for hiring illegal aliens and other employers are put on notice that they will face similiar punishment for hiring illegal aliens, you'll see a mass exodus.  Minimal cost for this program.

5.) I know how you like to spin and spin and spin, but, I previously (on another thread) quoted you the definition of amnesty. Bush is for amnesty.  Few people bother to deny it.

Now, experience shows that a fence (better yet a wall) is effective in reducing illegal immigration.  That is precisely why those who support illegal immigration are opposed to such a barrier. 

6.) Now, the primary source of illegal aliens in this country is Mexico, which has massive poverty because of the corruprition and ineffiency in their economy.  If you truly want to be a humanitarian, try telling Mexico to stop the corruption and stop exporting Mexicans to subsidize the corruption.

[agcatter]

MODU,

Come walk in our shoes in Texas or Arizona.  You'd be singing a different toon.  You have no idea the financial burden our states are under.

Never mind the pure audacity of someone who sneaks into the country illegally, openly waves a Mexican flag in one hand, and has their other hand out demanding American taxpayers pay the costs of educating their children and providing medical care.  I won't even go into the costs in crime and what it cost to incarcerate illegals who have added significantly to our prison populations.

And yes, no one down here believes for a second new border security measures will be enforced by the same government that never enforced the old ones.  What other country on earth won't enforce their own borders and then provides taxpayer benefits to millions who violate those borders?  We're absolutely screwed.  God help us.

[MODU]

At least were getting closer to the issue here:

1)  You see the glass as half empty; I see it as half full.  I view that with the amount of attention and national angst on this issue (which is by far more vocal than it was in the 80s) that the state and federal governments will have no choice but to enforce the laws.

2)  I have, but that still does not negate that the individual, both legal and illegal, come here for both reasons.  

3)  What's wrong with that?  They do not pay taxes, yet receive free primary and secondary education, free healthcare (since hospitals cannot turn them away), etc.  Sorry, but that clearly meets the definition of welfare.

4)  If it were only that simple...  (This is the one point which most people who support a wall-only and zero-tolerance for illegal immigrants cannot defend logically.  They assume that people will magically leave.)

5)  Again, back to point four.  You think people will just get up and leave, which is highly unrealistic.  The only way that the zero-tolerance group can achieve their goal is to do a nationwide sweep.  That isn't spin, no matter how much you want to deny it.

6)  Yes, you are absolutely correct (see?  Told you we agree on most of the issue).  Fox is the first non PRI-national elected to President in Mexico in almost 100 years.  His congress is still over 60% PRI commies (Congress sucks on both sides of the border), so most of his economic efforts have been stymied, and as such, the leftist candidate will probably win next year, putting the nation back in the hands of the PRI.  The US needs to do more to bolster Mexico's economy (so it isn't solely dependent upon oil and US dollars being sent home by Mexican immigrants) and break the back of the PRI.  That is why I have stated in the past we should hold an "economic invasion" of Northern Mexico, so we can create a buffer zone where the honest Mexicans will stay in their country and less will be trying to sneak into the US.  I think if we could sign agreements to turn Chihuahua and Sonora into a Joint US/Mexican economic zone, we can turn the tide on the flow of immigrants into our country, and might get some to return back home if we can guarantee their protection from the local police and gangs.

[MODU]

MODU,

Come walk in our shoes in Texas or Arizona.  You'd be singing a different toon.  You have no idea the financial burden our states are under.

Never mind the pure audacity of someone who sneaks into the country illegally, openly waves a Mexican flag in one hand, and has their other hand out demanding American taxpayers pay the costs of educating their children and providing medical care.  I won't even go into the costs in crime and what it cost to incarcerate illegals who have added significantly to our prison populations.

And yes, no one down here believes for a second new border security measures will be enforced by the same government that never enforced the old ones.  What other country on earth won't enforce their own borders and then provides taxpayer benefits to millions who violate those borders?  We're absolutely screwed.  God help us.

Believe me, I do understand the issue (both legally and economically).  I have friends and relatives throughout Texas, ranging from Big Sandy to Galveston to Sonora.  Something needs to be done, and our policies need to be brought up to date.  However, just building a wall will not resolve this issue.  It will take a full policy change.  So while Congress updates the laws, our current ones should be enforced and added personnel put on the front line to help keep the number of illegals from crossing our borders as low as possible. 

(And yes, despite the debate between Carl and I, we are all on the same page . . . we just have different opinions on how to reach the common goal.)

[agcatter]

OK, I hear ya.

[CARLHAYDEN]

At least were getting closer to the issue here:

1)  You see the glass as half empty; I see it as half full.  I view that with the amount of attention and national angst on this issue (which is by far more vocal than it was in the 80s) that the state and federal governments will have no choice but to enforce the laws.

2)  I have, but that still does not negate that the individual, both legal and illegal, come here for both reasons.  

3)  What's wrong with that?  They do not pay taxes, yet receive free primary and secondary education, free healthcare (since hospitals cannot turn them away), etc.  Sorry, but that clearly meets the definition of welfare.

4)  If it were only that simple...  (This is the one point which most people who support a wall-only and zero-tolerance for illegal immigrants cannot defend logically.  They assume that people will magically leave.)

5)  Again, back to point four.  You think people will just get up and leave, which is highly unrealistic.  The only way that the zero-tolerance group can achieve their goal is to do a nationwide sweep.  That isn't spin, no matter how much you want to deny it.

6)  Yes, you are absolutely correct (see?  Told you we agree on most of the issue).  Fox is the first non PRI-national elected to President in Mexico in almost 100 years.  His congress is still over 60% PRI commies (Congress sucks on both sides of the border), so most of his economic efforts have been stymied, and as such, the leftist candidate will probably win next year, putting the nation back in the hands of the PRI.  The US needs to do more to bolster Mexico's economy (so it isn't solely dependent upon oil and US dollars being sent home by Mexican immigrants) and break the back of the PRI.  That is why I have stated in the past we should hold an "economic invasion" of Northern Mexico, so we can create a buffer zone where the honest Mexicans will stay in their country and less will be trying to sneak into the US.  I think if we could sign agreements to turn Chihuahua and Sonora into a Joint US/Mexican economic zone, we can turn the tide on the flow of immigrants into our country, and might get some to return back home if we can guarantee their protection from the local police and gangs.

Well, again lets take this one by one.

First, Bush has made it clear that he has absolutely NO intention whatsoever of truly enforcing laws against illegal immigration. The public is outraged by Bush's support for amnesty and opposition to enforcing the laws, but he doesn't give a damn.

Second, I cited specific examples of how the legals and illegals have acted differently because they have drastically different mindsets.  The legal immigrants pay by the rules and the illegal immigrants lie, cheat and steal.  Clinton had a real good line in 1992 about how people who play by the rules should be treated better than those who do not. 

Third, yes illegals do use government services, and pay little in taxes (McCain and company lie about this).  However, studies have been made (not hysterical guesses) and when the amnestied bring in more relatives, the cost burden will break the bank.

Fourth, tell you what.  Lets try enforcing laws against employers of illegal aliens and see how many leave.  I don't pretend that it will be ALL, but I do contend that most would leave.  Lets try it.

Fifth, Mexcio's economy is now largely dependent upon money sent to the country by Western Union, etc.  I would suggest that all international money transfers be subject to strict scrutiny.  If the remittances from Mexicans in the United States significantly decreased, there would be an economic collapse in Mexico.