Print Columns   |   Web Chats   |   Blog Archives   |  

Pretend Primary: Illegal Immigration

As the countdown continues to our Dec. 13 Pretend Primary, let's take a look at an issue that is among the big talkers in the Washington area, but gets very little attention from some presidential candidates: illegal immigration.

If the presidential sweepstakes were ever to reach this part of the country, there's no question that the candidates would have to address the subject, opine on local efforts to crack down on illegal immigrants in places such as Prince William County, and even issue some concrete proposals on what the federal government ought to do about border security, enforcement of immigration laws, and the status and education of children of illegal immigrants. Illegal immigration is not at the very top of voters' concerns in either Maryland or Virginia, but Washington Post Polls in the last couple of weeks show that the issue ranks fifth in Virginia (seven percent of those polled put the issue in the #1 slot) and eighth in Maryland (three percent say it's their top issue.)

But scouting around for such details makes it clear that while some Republican candidates are taking on the issue and even embracing it as a vote-getter in places such as Iowa and California, most of the Democrats would rather stick to other issues.

Here's a quick look at how some of the most popular candidates are handling the issue on their web sites:

Rudy Giuliani mentions immigration on the front page of his site but doesn't include the issue among the ten top subjects on which he spells out his views. The only remotely detailed talk about the topic on his site is a video in which radio talk show host Mike Gallagher opines on Fox News Channel that Giuliani "hits it out of the park on illegal immigration." Gallagher praises the ex-mayor's talk about creating Borderstat, a computerized enforcement project that would go after border security the way his Crimestat cracked down on criminals in New York City.

Fred Thompson makes immigration one of his top issues on his site, with numerous references to the issue and a detailed plan that rejects amnesty for illegal immigrants, embraces tighter enforcement of existing laws, and encourages greater federal cooperation with local law enforcement. His appears to be the toughest approach of any of these candidates.

Mitt Romney makes immigration one of twelve main issues on his site and offers up video of his take on the issue; he wants to put in force a mandatory, "biometrically enabled" verification system covering employers and employees, while tightening borders and easing restrictions on legal immigration.

John McCain, who lists immigration as one of his top ten issues, leaves aside any talk of a crackdown, concentrating instead on border security and on a more sweeping plan to make it less attractive for foreigners to want to come here illegally, focusing on building democracy in Latin America, training U.S. workers, and focusing on helping immigrants who are here to assimilate into American society.

Among the Democrats, immigration seems a far less burning concern:

You'll search in vain for immigration among the ten issues Hillary Clinton highlights on her site. Only in some comments she made about the DREAM Act, a bill assuring access to higher education for immigrant children that died in Congress last week, do you get a sense of Clinton's approach, which is to "expand opportunities for immigrant children."

On his site, John Edwards has perhaps the most extensive menu of issues discussions of any candidate, but nowhere in the 32 separate categories of issues is there any mention of illegal immigration.

Barack Obama is the only leading Democratic candidate to spell out a policy agenda on immigration and the border on his site. Obama argues that politicians have exploited the immigration issue while failing to address the genuine issue of an insufficiently regulated border. He proposes to tighten border controls, crack down on employers who hire illegal workers, make it easier for immigrants to come here legally, and create a path toward citizenship for those who are here illegally and otherwise play by the rules.

Would any of these messages change if the candidates had to make an appearance in, say, Manassas or, conversely, Takoma Park or Alexandria? How would Thompson finesse it if he were campaigning with, for example, a moderate Republican state legislator such as Jeannemarie Devolites Davis, who considers much of the illegal immigration rhetoric we've heard in recent months to be demagoguery?

What do you make of the candidates' approaches to illegal immigration and would you expect any of them to make the issue a priority if they were elected? Would you expect any of them to break the gridlock at the federal level on this issue?

(And please come ahead with other issues you'd like to see taken up here in coming weeks as we move toward our Pretend Primary on Dec. 13.)

(Appearance Update: Sen. Barack Obama actually set foot in Virginia this week, holding a fundraiser/rally in Charlottesville, where he drew a crowd of about 4,000--his largest audience yet, according to his campaign. Students paid $15 and others donated at levels from $29 to $100 to hear Obama talk about the war, the deterioration of constitutional protections under the Bush government, and income inequality. If you hear of any other candidates appearing in Virginia or Maryland, please let us know.)

By Marc Fisher |  November 1, 2007; 7:30 AM ET
Previous: Twix vs. Jolly Rancher: Halloween's Best & Worst | Next: Va. Election Follies: The Final Weekend

Comments

Please email us to report offensive comments.



I suspect that folks will discover that polls like those sponsored by the Post VASTLY under-rate and obfuscate this issue. Democrats are on the wrong side of this logically, legally, and politically... and are going to lose a lot of Independents (AND plenty of Democrats) over it.

Thompson has it right, is consistent, and is not afraid to say where he stands.

Hillary's already getting hammered for trying to straddle it.
.

Posted by: gitarre | November 1, 2007 8:39 AM

I agree, the democrats are fools to support legalization of a vast underclass of uneducated, unskilled workers. This undermines the labor movement in this country, which is supposed to be a grass roots supporter of democrats. Immigration is the ONLY issue which has the potential to cost democrats the presidential election next year. Dems will not be able to evade forever, once the issue does come out they better align themselves with what constituents want (a crackdown) and not some dreamy, short term idealism to get them a few hispanic votes at the polls.

Posted by: Wassabi Cracker | November 1, 2007 8:55 AM

Immigration will become a very important issue in the next presidential election. When citizens really understand:
(1) the amount of money being spent on illegal aliens
(2) the potential increase in the number of low skilled immigrants that will be the result of amnesty for illegal aliens and the subsequent chain migration that will follow.

Posted by: Rick | November 1, 2007 9:01 AM

Mr Fisher, the DREAM Act was *not* a bill assuring access to higher education for immigrant children. Immigrant children have access to higher education. Illegal immigrants' children might not, that is what the DREAM act addressed. And Clinton is being disingenuous if she or her campaign actually said she wishes to "expand opportunities for immigrant children." Again, immigrant children have opportunities. The conflation of persons who have entered the country illegally or overstayed, with immigrants who followed the rules, is dishonest, but we've come to expect it of the Post and the other supporters of amnesty for illegals.

Posted by: Rickabilly | November 1, 2007 9:02 AM

"How would Thompson finesse it if he were campaigning with, for example, a moderate Republican state legislator such as Jeannemarie Devolites Davis, who considers much of the illegal immigration rhetoric we've heard in recent months to be demagoguery?"

Hmmm, and how would Clinton/Obama/Edwards finesse it if she/he were campaigning with, for example, a moderate Democratic Senator such as Jim Webb who recognized the Amnesty bill (and the name-calling of its supporters) for what it was?

Posted by: qaz1231 | November 1, 2007 9:13 AM

Although I agree that the Democratic Party has generally sidestepped the issue of illegal immigration, the Republicans have done nothing but demagogue the issue. Immigration is a federal matter, we've had a Republican president for nearly seven years and a Republican Congress for much of that time. What did the Republicans accomplish on immigration when they controlled the presidency AND the Congress? Nothing, that's what. And which party blocked the most recent attempt at federal immigration reform? Republican. The Republicans now talk tough but did nothing about it when they had the chance.

Posted by: Bob22003 | November 1, 2007 9:54 AM

How to control immigration is a legitimate issue for Presidential candidates to address. It is shameful, however, for candidates for state office to pander on this issue. I am 100% against the Cheney/bush policy in Iraq, but I would laugh if a candidate for the State Assembly announced that he/she everything he/she could to bring the troops home.

Posted by: Paul | November 1, 2007 10:06 AM

When voices get raised over immigration I am always amused over claims of zero immigration zealots that "my ancestors came to the country legally." IMHO, most of us descendants of immigrants have no idea in hell of the circumstances in which the first O'Reilly, Ruzzi, or Kowalski made it to these shores. I wonder how many of us would be willing to take a pledge that if it could be shown your first ancestor who came to the US was "illegal," i.e., violated US immigration laws of that time, that you will renounce your US citizenship and repatriate yourself to the Old Country.

Posted by: $0.02 | November 1, 2007 10:12 AM

Republican Presidents do not write the law. They enforce the law. Republican Congresses do write laws, but they also have to rely upon the Democratic minority in most cases. Thats how our system balances out each other.

The majority of us are glad that the Republicans and a few Democrats blocked the most recent immigration "reforms". Is all it takes is going back and looking at the votes, along with a little understanding of how the process works. Its not hard to figure out how either the candidates or their party stands on this issue. Actually reading the bill, amendments and the Congressional Record is also informative. What you hear a bill says is just marketing pro and con, usually a PR piece.


I suggest that Congress needs to commit to carrying out the reccommendations of the "Commission on Immigration Reform". Those recommendations need to be carried out without the input of "stakeholders" and in the interest of this country and its people alone. In every instance past immigration bills have considered these same "stakeholders", rather then carrying out the spirit of the commissions recommendations.


Posted by: wmb | November 1, 2007 10:18 AM

I have voted for 34 years and have always voted for the Democrats, but I will not vote for anyone that is in favor of any form of amnesty or any thing close to it. It is wrong to reward anyone with legal residency or citizenship that enters illegally or overstays a visa. It encourages disrespect of other laws and encourages more illegal immigration. A strong message needs to be given that illegal immigration is wrong and will not be accepted.

Posted by: BrianSDCA | November 1, 2007 10:43 AM

The real question for Marc is, how do the candidates feel about the zone/meter debate?

Posted by: Janice | November 1, 2007 10:56 AM

Thanks, Gerry Connolly, I appreciate the tax payer dollars you spend to support me.

Posted by: I'mhereillegally | November 1, 2007 11:11 AM

"Certain basic principles underlie the Commission's work. The Commission
decries hostility and discrimination against immigrants as
antithetical to the traditions and interests of the country. At the
same time, we disagree with those who would label efforts to control
immigration as being inherently anti-immigrant. Rather, it is
both a right and a responsibility of a democratic society to manage
immigration so that it serves the national interest."
U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform
1994 Executive Summary "U.S. IMMIGRATION POLICY: RESTORING CREDIBILITY"

Posted by: wmb | November 1, 2007 11:44 AM

I am surprised the "polls" show Illegal immigration farther down than number 2 or 3. Whose polls? When people realize that the numbers of legally admitted immigrants are extremely problematic and are far higher than numbers admitted here in the 60's and 70's and 80's they will jump on those getting in legally as well as illegally. The issue will gain further prominance. Most think of this as a problem caused by illegal hispanic, low wage,low education level immigrants.Dig deeper and you will find Indian and Chinese who are overstaying education visas illegally and H1b workers taking very high paying tech jobs from American citizens. "Offshore" and "outsourcing" are catch phrases for typical examples of such. Say NO to F1 education and H1b workers.

Posted by: s5 | November 1, 2007 11:52 AM

If you know exactly what H1bs and F1's are, then you probably care about immigration much more than most Americans.

If it doesn't rank at the top of the list, that doesn't mean it isn't important to people. It just doesn't trump all the other issues out there (Iraq, health care, the economy, energy, etc., etc.)

Posted by: MHK919 | November 1, 2007 12:40 PM

Both parties had a chance to clean house on this disgrace of not enforcing our immigration laws. Do not vote along party lines as neither party will not represent you. They have become a scam on the tax paying US citizens they are elected to represent. The ones that raise the most cash are the ones NOT the ones to vote for.

Posted by: AM | November 1, 2007 12:57 PM

The Democrats are in bed with La Raza, and the Republicans are in bed with the Chamber of Commerce.
The result is a country rushing headlong towards one billion people here by 2090 according to the U.S. Census 2000 projections.
And the education level is dropping concomitantly.

Posted by: wandagb | November 1, 2007 1:09 PM

US IMMIGRATION HISTORY

Naturalization Act of 1790 Stipulated that "any alien, being a free white person, may be admitted to become a citizen of the United States"

1875 Supreme Court declared that regulation of US immigration is the responsibility of the Federal Government.

1882 The Chinese Exclusion Act prohibited certain laborers from immigrating to the United States.

1885 and 1887 Alien Contract Labor laws which prohibited certain laborers from immigrating to the United States.

1891 The Federal Government assumed the task of inspecting, admitting, rejecting, and processing all immigrants seeking admission to the U.S.

1892 On January 2, a new Federal US immigration station opened on Ellis Island in New York Harbor.

1903 This Act restated the 1891 provisions concerning land borders and called for rules covering entry as well as inspection of aliens crossing the Mexican border.

1907 The US immigration Act of 1907 reorganized the states bordering Mexico (Arizona, New Mexico and a large part of Texas) into Mexican Border District to stem the flow of immigrants into the U.S.

1917 - 1924 A series of laws were enacted to further limit the number of new immigrants. These laws established the quota system and imposed passport requirements. They expanded the categories of excludable aliens and banned all Asians except Japanese.

1924 Act Reduced the number of US immigration visas and allocated them on the basis of national origin.

1940 The Alien Registration Act required all aliens (non-U.S. citizens) within the United States to register with the Government and receive an Alien Registration Receipt Card (the predecessor of the "green card").

1950 Passage of the Internal Security Act which rendered the Alien Registration Receipt Card even more valuable. Immigrants with legal status had their cards replaced with what generally became known as the "green card" (Form I-151).

1952 Act Established the modern day US immigration system. It created a quota system which imposes limits on a per-country basis. It also established the preference system that gave priority to family members and people with special skills.

1968 Act Eliminated US immigration discrimination based on race, place of birth, sex and residence. It also officially abolished restrictions on Oriental US immigration.

1976 Act Eliminated preferential treatment for residents of the Western Hemisphere.

1980 Act Established a general policy governing the admission of refugees.

1986 Act Focused on curtailing illegal US immigration. It legalized hundred of thousands of illegal immigrants. It also introduced the employer sanctions program which fines employers for hiring illegal workers. It also passed tough laws to prevent bogus marriage fraud.

1990 Act Established an annual limit for certain categories of immigrants. It was aimed at helping U.S. businesses attract skilled foreign workers; thus, it expanded the business class categories to favor persons who can make educational, professional or financial contributions. It created the Immigrant Investor Program.

USA Patriot Act 2001 : Uniting and Strengthening America by providing appropriate tools required to intercept and obstruct terrorism

Creation of the USCIS 2003 : As of March 1, 2003, the US immigration and Naturalization Service becomes part of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The department's new U.S. Citizenship and US immigration Services (USCIS) function is to handle US immigration services and benefits, including citizenship, applications for permanent residence, non-immigrant applications, asylum, and refugee services. US immigration enforcement functions are now under the Department's Border and Transportation Security Directorate, known as the Bureau of US immigration and Customs Enforcement (BICE)

**1907 is when the USA discovered it would be prudent to control the amount of immigration into the country. So, if your ancestors emigrated prior to that time, unless they were part of an excluded group, they were here legally. Over the years the USA has simultaneously tried to admit as many diverse individuals as possible while keeping the levels sustainable and manageable. And, interestingly, the USA has had an issue with illegal immigration from Mexico for about 100 years.**

Posted by: Zobe | November 1, 2007 1:11 PM

Posted by: Zobe | November 1, 2007 1:13 PM

Fact # 1: Illegal immigration is against the law. Hence the word "illegal".

Fact # 2: Anybody who tries to equate the current attempts to eliminate "Illegal immigration" with "racism" is an attempt by a racist to deflect people from the truth.

I am curious if Obama feels illegal immigrants who demand free education (all the way through college), free medical care, etc. are "playing by the rules".

And who does he expect to pick up the tab?

As a registered Democrat, I am really taking a second (a third) look at the Republican candidates. I can't afford to be a Democrat anymore. I have to pay for my own children to go to college because I am a US citizen.

Posted by: SoMD | November 1, 2007 1:18 PM

Just like the Democrat Presidential candidates, Council LaRaza, Mecha and President Calderon of "Mexico Has No Borders" who all want a Ted Kennedy amnesty mass chain migration reward for the illegal immigration invasion, the WAPO, Fisher, the VA Commonwealth Governor and local liberals continually try to diminish the anger of America about Illegal immigration and the continual legal suits and pro illegal liberal court rulings. But the time is near, very near, when Virginians will stand up and wipe the collective smirks off the faces of the open border, pro growth, pro amnesty Democrats. After next Tuesday, maybe Fisher will do us all a favor and resign his leftist pulpit to someone better attuned to the nations sentiment.

The WAPO will continue to manufacture all the liberal pro illegal propaganda it can over generalizing their statistics gathered from pro illegal, pro open border fans and special interest groups. But, the truth is that Over 75 % of the nation are against Idiot Eliot Spitzers move to provide licenses and register illegal aliens as voters in NY. Over 65% of Americans have vowed to stop all further amnesty deals. Over 60 % of Americans are fed up with Republican Guest worker programs. Over 85% of Americans despise the notion of Bush's grand Union with Mexico. But, Bush is now irrelevant. He's gone and cannot implement his Mexican conquest of the US.

And, in 08, the whole country will rise up to vote for someone who cares about America first and follows the rule of law in Immigration enforcement.

And that rule of law includes the eligibility prerequisites that all citizens must speak, read and write English!

Posted by: Tom Jesfferson | November 1, 2007 2:11 PM

Illegal immigration is a crime. Doesn't matter what state you are in. What is even more scary is the fact we have allowed our politicians to look the other way for a long time. The problem was increasing during the clinton years and none of the politicians brought it up. After 7 years of bush it has gotten out of hand. Still the rest of the politicians were silent, Why? They were being good little politicians towing their party line. The comprehensive immigration reform was the quick easy fix to releive the politicians burden of inaction. Now bush has taken his ball home because we won't play his game. It's up to the states and they can do it. We have to hold the politicians accountable or we will be stuck with a "rogue" government.
The priority of our government should be the citizens, not special interests, not big business, and surely not illegal immigrants.

Posted by: howard | November 1, 2007 2:21 PM

Recent polls (eg: http://abcnews.go.com/US/Story?id=3694870&page=2)
say that it's the Independents who are up in arms about illegal immigration. Cheap labor Republicans and illegal alien advocate Democrats support it.

Posted by: Joe | November 1, 2007 2:48 PM

Zobe:

That is about the worth immigration timeline I have ever seen. Its missing some major influences and laws. Beyond that it mistates what various laws were about along with the groups that influenced them.

"US immigration discrimination based on race" - laughable statement. Pray tell, according to the url you listed (which obviously makes money off the immigration they so strongly support - follow the money) what other countries do or don't practice this anti-globalization immigration policy that we in our infinine failing quest for equality gave up?
The "discrimination based on race" was on country of orgin. Further the big impact was the shift to family reunification (all the family extended) from nuclear family. This shift though great for immigration lawyers and etc, does not and never has served the interests of this country.

Are the Spanish only laws of El Cinzo, Texas discrimination and illegal according to the EEOC' statement?
"It is unlawful to discriminate against any employee or applicant because of the individual's national origin. No one can be denied equal employment opportunity because of birthplace, ancestry, culture, or linguistic characteristics common to a specific ethnic group. Equal employment opportunity cannot be denied because of marriage or association with persons of a national origin group; membership or association with specific ethnic promotion groups; attendance or participation in schools, churches, temples or mosques generally associated with a national origin group; or a surname associated with a national origin group."

Posted by: wmb | November 1, 2007 3:02 PM

Illegal Aliens and Immigration is NOT the same thing. 80% of the American people want an end to anarchy!

Illegal (aliens) workers are criminals, those who hire them are criminals and those who aid-and-abet them are criminals.

Illegal aliens in America have NO rights. We are required by law to arrest and prosecute, deport them. (Title 8 U.S. Code)

No, matter your political party affiliation, and setting aside your thoughts on issues. We all need to remember what it is to be an American Citizen. We need to make sure our elected representatives obey their Oath of Office and keep their Oath of Allegiance.

See http://tinyurl.com/2znnvl Know whom you are voting for.

Posted by: Dr Coles | November 1, 2007 3:08 PM

Joe, did you actually look at the poll?

The majority of all three say the impact of illegal immigration is harmful. One of the reasons the spread may be larger for independents is because many Republicans left the party and switched independent durning the summer immigration bill and Bush's support of it. I remember reading several headlines on that.

I'm not "bothered" by Spanish speakers, actually the question seems kind of goofy to me.

There are two cases I can think of off the top of my head when it matters to me. When I am trying to understand what someone is saying, then it matters. Having the same general language enhances communication.
All voters and citizens should be able to speak, read, and understand a common language to enhance communication on the issues they vote on and to enhance our democracy.
Along those lines, if ESL is available in schools or public adult education, there should also be the requirement of a matching second language for English speakers.

The EEOC and similar organizations should enforce all laws equally, including in the Spanish only town of El Cenizo, Texas.

for example on employement (education etc have simliar orgainizations/laws) EEOC:
It is unlawful to discriminate against any employee or applicant because of the individual's national origin. No one can be denied equal employment opportunity because of birthplace, ancestry, culture, or linguistic characteristics common to a specific ethnic group. Equal employment opportunity cannot be denied because of marriage or association with persons of a national origin group; membership or association with specific ethnic promotion groups; attendance or participation in schools, churches, temples or mosques generally associated with a national origin group; or a surname associated with a national origin group.

Recent polls (eg: http://abcnews.go.com/US/Story?id=3694870&page=2)
say that it's the Independents who are up in arms about illegal immigration. Cheap labor Republicans and illegal alien advocate Democrats support it.
Posted by: Joe | November 1, 2007 02:48 PM

Posted by: Anonymous | November 1, 2007 3:22 PM

Re the Court of Claims/Executive Office Buildings: They were designed by John Carl Warnecke (actually someone in his office) who allegedly designed President Kennedy's grave (which was actually designed by Isamu Noguchi and Mrs. Kennedy. The reason for the red mortar between the bricks was to preclude a "ham and cheese" look. The masonry workers union loved that project. The biggest brick project around.

Posted by: Margareta Cheney | November 1, 2007 4:15 PM

Mr. Fischer -- take a look at the new poll done for the Dulles Rail Corridor Association. Ranked number two as the biggest concern among NoVA residents is illegal immigration (22%). It is second only to transportation (38%). The issue will only get bigger and will bite candidates of both parties who don't address it. Most people want the immigration laws enforced period.

Posted by: NoVA Gal | November 1, 2007 4:29 PM

What is really a shame is that those that have given all the reasons to remove the undocumented from our country is so anti-American. This is what our country was built on and forget the cry "my ancestors
came the legal way so why can't they". Maybe you should read the history of immigration and you will find out that alot of our ancestors just had to get on a boat and as long as they were healthy they
were admitted. The reason was because we WERE a nation of opportunity. Another cry thing is they don't pay taxes. Well, that
is such a big myth and again, maybe those that believe this should look up the Earnings Suspense Files of the Social Security Administration. You will realize
that if these undocumented weren't paying
taxes and not getting anything back. The
Social Security System would be in big trouble.

Posted by: Sick&Tired | November 1, 2007 4:31 PM

Legalize every hardworking illegal aliens, with no criminal backgrounds. Instead of surpressing their rights as a human being to live in this free country.

Posted by: sun | November 1, 2007 4:54 PM

I think that Democrats and Republicans should compromise on passing a law that would help undocumented people get papers. It would be helpful for them because they cold get equal rights as residents and citizens.
If all undocumented immigrants are deported then who will be growing crops in the fields? Who will clean the streets when they are dirty? Who will do the landscaping on other people's house?
I think that they should really think about passing the law.

Posted by: Alex | November 1, 2007 6:32 PM

I think that they should pass this law and help these undocumented immigrants who help this country a lot. They help out by working in the fields and growing the crops that we eat. They are some immigrants who play by the rules and should be abel to fix papers. It's unfair for them not to fix papers because they contribute to society.

Posted by: Billy Bob | November 1, 2007 6:45 PM

This once again shows that we'll never learn, just look at the ignorance and incompetence of those people. A bunch of ultra right wing conservatives are stirring up the hatred again; feeding the public with false information as usual.
Wake up America or pretty soon the first Clan members will walk the streets at night again, burning crosses and killing innocent people.
Go and educate yourself before you open your mouths. Don't you see how history repeats itself? We are experiencing right now how Nazi Germany started their hatred propaganda against the Jewish community in the early 30's.
If, God forbid, Thompson should be elected, we'll probably see the first concentration camps on US grounds before 2010.

A German Immigrant

Posted by: Herb | November 1, 2007 7:30 PM

Herb, maybe you have it wrong and you should educate yourself and not imply that anyone that opposes illegal immigration is ignorant, incompetent or on a path to becoming a Nazi. For the record Herb, I work a case load of Spanish speaking Medi-Cal recipients, have a BA in Latin American Studies, am married to a foreign born Hispanic, speak Spanish, have traveled extensively in Latin America, but I still believe that illegal immigration is wrong and needs to be addressed in a firm manner without giving citizenship or residency to 20 million people of any race that have entered illegally or overstayed a visa.

Posted by: BrianSDCA | November 1, 2007 9:24 PM

As a black U.S. citizen and lifelong Democrat, I will not vote for any Democratic candidate who supports citizenship to an estimate 20 million illegal aliens. I am switching to become an Independent as most citizens are doing, because both parties suck!!!

Posted by: Blue Dog Democrat | November 2, 2007 2:39 AM

This country is out of track!
YOu are against illegals and some people from the government propose a special driver's licence for illegals.
Sorry, but here I am lost!
YOu want to deport the illegals and you want to give them a drivers licence. This is a complete non sense.

I am for the driver's licence for illegal and to make them legals

I do not want to have an accident with a persone who has no driver's licence and insurance.

I will not pay for the repair of my car nor for the bill hospital because you were not smart enough to understand the importance of a driver's licence and insurance.

If we track down the illegals, we will have more crime that we will not be able to resolve, because it will be like in Sicily "The law of silence"

They will never cooperate with the local police etc...

An Amnesty for people with a clear background is the only way to clear the situation.

All they ask is to work and eat!

It's a humanitarian situation.

And also, we need them to fight all the wars that we make.

One day, we will cry to have help.

If Bush attack Iran, it will be the end of our economy (It's already the end of it)and we will say bye bye America!

We are not in position to refuse any man. Because we need them to pay our debts.Thanks to our President and the smart voters.

We are loosing our country for a simple green card that we do not want to give.

When you are hungry and you cannot work to get food, you will steal it.

A weak (Almost dead dollar), a really bad economy , bad house market, lost of job , wars etc...This country has no future anymore..Or we have to do what I said.

Who do you want to attract in this country with a weak dollar?

Think about that!

This is the future of the US!

Thanks!

Posted by: Guy Danieli | November 2, 2007 8:25 AM

Self Deportation will happen as we continue to clamp down on benefits/employers. We need to militarize the border with Harier fighter jets and have sorties... Palastine is just over the Arizona Border. Expect this to become the U.S. Mexico issue to become like the Animalstinians vs. Isreal.... Expect the scum to try everything.. They work at circle k then rob at night.... BEWARE

Posted by: Mark S | November 2, 2007 9:36 AM

Guy Danieli: "When you are hungry and you cannot work to get food, you will steal it."

Go back to your own country and steal the food there.

FYI: We speak English here. Try and learn some.

Posted by: Anonymous | November 2, 2007 9:51 AM

wmb,

You are reading way too much into what I posted. I thought it was simply an interesting BRIEF overview of the history of US immigration laws. It was not meant to be all inclusive. So back off.

Quite frankly, I am FED up with ILLEGAL immigration. Why don't you go voice your opinion to the website that posted the timeline?

Posted by: Zobe | November 2, 2007 12:02 PM

To Guy:

"This country is out of track!
YOu are against illegals and some people from the government propose a special driver's licence for illegals.
Sorry, but here I am lost!
YOu want to deport the illegals and you want to give them a drivers licence. This is a complete non sense."

I take it you are not from the US. In your country, pray tell, do they give driver's licenses to people who are there illegally?

"I am for the driver's licence for illegal and to make them legals"

What? You assume by having a driver's license they will magically begin to OBEY traffic laws? If they are not doing it now, a driver's license will NOT help.

"I do not want to have an accident with a persone who has no driver's licence and insurance."

Did it occur to you the main reason they do not have insurance is because they cannot afford it?

"I will not pay for the repair of my car nor for the bill hospital because you were not smart enough to understand the importance of a driver's licence and insurance."

Citizens here drive without insurance. Your logic is fuzzy. And if you want your car driveable and the clown who hit you does not carry liability, you can sue them in court.

"If we track down the illegals, we will have more crime that we will not be able to resolve, because it will be like in Sicily "The law of silence""

If we track down the illegals, they will eventually self-deport because living here will not benefit them. Do you really think they go to the police now and report crimes?

"They will never cooperate with the local police etc..."

They rarely do now. They problem is not their status, but their view of the police as being corrupt, as they police are in their native countries.

"An Amnesty for people with a clear background is the only way to clear the situation."

There are other options. We tried amnesty in 1986 and it only amplified the problem. And since most illegal immigrants commit identity theft, you will be hard pressed to find one without some type of questionable background.

"All they ask is to work and eat!"

They can do that in their own countries. There are poor citizens here, and that's all they want to do.

"It's a humanitarian situation."

If we opened up our borders to anyone and everyone, how long do you think the US would be viable? But why do you care, you will probably return to your native land when there is nothing left for you here. In the meantime, those of us without dual citizenship will be forced to clean up the mess.

"And also, we need them to fight all the wars that we make."

What?

"One day, we will cry to have help."

We are already crying for relief from the burden of illegal immigration.

"If Bush attack Iran, it will be the end of our economy (It's already the end of it)and we will say bye bye America!"

It looks like corporate greed will be the first to down our economy. But we survived the Great Depression, we'll survive another.

"We are not in position to refuse any man. Because we need them to pay our debts.Thanks to our President and the smart voters."

Yes we are in a position to refuse anyone we choose to refuse. If a person has a questionable background (i.e. a known terrorist associate) we are not going to open our arms to them. And Vietnam cost us a crap load of money and we still survived.

"We are loosing our country for a simple green card that we do not want to give."

We are loosing our country to corporate greed. Not to the lack of green cards! We give out plenty of green cards.

"When you are hungry and you cannot work to get food, you will steal it."

Then you will be arrested for robbery.

"A weak (Almost dead dollar), a really bad economy , bad house market, lost of job , wars etc...This country has no future anymore..Or we have to do what I said."

You are not an authority. If there are NO jobs, why should we let more people enter the country? That makes NO sense.

"Who do you want to attract in this country with a weak dollar?"

The strength of currency is cyclical. A weak dollar attract tourism, which pumps money into our economy...along with other benefits. It also allows people to purchase US exports had cheaper prices. Sometimes, a weak dollar is desirable.

"Think about that! This is the future of the US! Thanks!"

No, thank you for talking smack.

Posted by: Anonymous | November 2, 2007 12:41 PM

Zobe,


As far as your personal attack, it legitimizes that the flaws in the timeline. I was pointing out some issues with the timeline. I did not critize you nor attempt to infringe upon your right or even choice in posting it. Rather I criticized the factuality of the timeline. Its odd that you take a criticism of the timeline as a reason for personal attacks.

BRIEF has nothing to do with MAJOR events missing. Your demand for me to back off is nothing but words. And if I don't? More personal attacks on a web forum? Somehow I think this isn't a major influence.


"You are reading way too much into what I posted. I thought it was simply an interesting BRIEF overview of the history of US immigration laws. It was not meant to be all inclusive. So back off.

Quite frankly, I am FED up with ILLEGAL immigration. Why don't you go voice your opinion to the website that posted the timeline?"

Posted by: wmb | November 3, 2007 5:18 PM

I am sure about what I said.
Looked us!
Do your eally think that we will have more tourists? I do not think so. Airline tickets from Europe are expensive.And tourists do not go in a country at war.

I travel a lot and I know that I am right.

And I do not see any European who want to come here to make no money.

Like it or not, the US is falling.

We will need more people to fight any type of aggression.

You will understand later

We will never get out of this recession. We are broke and at war.

About immigration, I do not believe that people will go back to their poor countries.

You do not see that the economy is bad in the US?

Posted by: Guy Danieli | November 5, 2007 9:30 AM

"most of the Democrats would rather stick to other issues."

What might be the reason for that? Can anyone venture to guess why the Dems try to ignore this issue as much as possible? What do they have to gain by sidestepping something that so many seem to be talking about?

Posted by: mn | November 7, 2007 5:48 PM

My Concerns (not necessarily in order):

1. The War
2. Poverty and its many multi-generation ramifications
3. Health Care
4. Education
5. Economy
6. Crime
7. Civil Rights & Discrimination (e.g., the Jena 6)
8. Housing
9. The Rich Getting Richer & the Poor Getting Poorer
10. The ridiculously low threshold for the alternative minimum tax.

While illegal immigrants impact or are impacted by at least some of these, my view on each is broader than the one group. I am firmly on the side of sending illegal criminals 'back home', but the rest of my list takes up too much of my thought to sweat illegal immigration as a big issue even though I live in an area with large immigrant communities (and only part of that community is illegal - not everyone with an accent is illegal). By the way, sending drug dealing gang members home instead of jailing them here in many ways caused the US more problems than keeping them here. At home, they organized and continued to sell drugs to us and corrupt their country's governments.

Posted by: pennyworth | November 8, 2007 1:35 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 

© 2010 The Washington Post Company