From: Ellen K. 

Yes, the problem is that the POLICY and the PRACTICE don't match at all.
Supposedly we control immigration but in fact it's very easy to get in
without going through the procedural channels, with the result that anybody
can get in.

On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 00:31:22 -0400, "Mark"
 wrote in message :

>I agree wholeheartedly that the border issue is way more complicated than
>the position of any one group or faction of either side of the political
>spectrum. That said, I still believe the borders need to be closed up tight,
>and now. We can sort out the quotas for legal immigrants from various
>countries later.
>
>Perhaps we'll end up with an equal number of legal immigrants coming in from
>Mexico as we do illegals today, that's fine, the numbers are mere details to
>be worked out -- in the meantime the open border policy (not policy
>actually, but may as well be) is not acceptable times, it will not be fixed until we suffer another catastrophic loss as a
>result of the laxity in enforcement>
>
>"Ellen K."  wrote in message
>news:p1h8m1hvag45v36sgf6r5igbl7hn95kpc9{at}4ax.com...
>> The border issue has a built-in divisiveness in that generally
>> libertarian types favor open immigration while the other flavor of
>> Republicans (some call them "authoritarian" but I bet
they don't like
>> that label) would like to even reduce legal immigration and also go back
>> to giving preference to certain countries' nationals (which definitely
>> would not include any from the Western Hemisphere other than Canada).
>>
>> Personally I am very concerned about the security issues of lax border
>> control (I'm sure plenty of Islamist militants are coming in from Mexico
>> because it's so easy to get in that way), but assuming that could be
>> separated (yes, I know, huge assumption), regarding immigration per se I
>> would like to be able to wave a magic wand and say anybody can come in
>> but they can't get any public benefits and (except for public school)
>> neither can their children below the age of majority.   IOW let in the
>> ones that want to work, BUT couple this with extensive security vetting.
>>
>> Unfortunately it would really take a magic wand to accomplish that.
>> :(
>>
>> On Fri, 28 Oct 2005 23:24:27 -0400, "Mark"
 wrote in
>> message :
>>
>>>
>>>"John Cuccia"  wrote in message
>>>news:asp5m1l753qsstbceo4lafn6mf5i9h4h40{at}4ax.com...
>>>> Mr. "I'm a uniter, not a divider" is even
dividing his own party now.
>>>
>>>Hmm, Lott stands on his own two feet, you blame Bush for what he said and
>>>where he ended up? Sounds like "Bushdementia" to me.
>>>
>>>Too, I wouldn't risk too much money on that division bet John. Sure, some
>>>are pissed off at his lack of seriousness about the border (me for one),
>>>some others didn't like Miers (me too again), yet others have issues with
>>>him on this policy or that (me yet again, on a variety of issues), but
>>>never, *ever* confuse those disagreements by any of those groups with a
>>>fantasy that any of them would ever support a Democrat in an
election >>I
>>>agree that Bush thinking he could unite people like Kennedy, Durbin,
>>>Schumer, Daschle (whoops Reid) with anyone, anywhere, anytime was a
>>>foolish
>>>thought, they're not interested>
>>>
>>
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5