Illegal entry is as dangerous as speeding.

Go check the statistics for illegals in jail for violent crimes , and tell me what you find.

Second , the milions of illegals now was a hypothetical back when , so dont tell me to stop dealing in hypotheticals.

I’ll worry about future problems caused by current actions NOW , before it’s too late.

You wont “worry about hypotheticals” , AND simply blame me later for the result based on who can even imagine what , but you’ll find something.

As far as what I am doing to make legal immigration, at least from Mexico, easier, so that people won’t have to brave the desert and cross illegally , the answer is -

Nothing. No my yob , Mon.

Diff in perspective – You assume we OWE immigrants entry -

I assume it is a choice on our part and not a right.

“Seems to me that if you are pro-immigrant, and only against the idea of crossing the border illegally, the easiest, most efficient way to solve that problem is by advocating an easier method of immigration for people from Latin America. Are you doing that?”

Once again – NO . Dont forget people all over the world want to come here. Latin America is just one facet of them.

You want special rules for them?

Realistically , now that I’ve made my point that immigration decisions is an internal choice , and not an external right , of course it makes sense to devise ways to expedite desirable applicants from everywhere , as well as back and forth legal border crosing for vetted Mexican workers .

But the bottom line remains – and I sense the philosophical difference here -

We decide who comes here , and when – not the other way around.

That is not hate and it is not discrimination – it is sovereignty.

1. Should other laws, such as the speed limit, be just as rigidly enforced?

2. What are you doing to make legal immigration, at least from Mexico, easier, so that people won’t have to brave the desert and cross illegally?

Seems to me that if you are pro-immigrant, and only against the idea of crossing the border illegally, the easiest, most efficient way to solve that problem is by advocating an easier method of immigration for people from Latin America. Are you doing that?

Also, I noticed you didn’t answer my previous question.

“What part of “over the speed limit” do you conservatives not understand. Would you like the police to crack down on ALL lawbreakers just as hard as you want them to on illegal immigration- which apparenlty is at best a misdemeanor? Why stop there- why not jaywalking too?”

What if 50 million people entered the country illegally? Would that be ok with you too?

How about 100million?

Once again , what about the people waiting for years to enter legally? Why bother if sneaking in is immediate and acceptable?

Because the laws are not felonies and we dont put you up against a wall and shoot you as a deterrent is because we are the country that we are , and not an excuse to enter illegally because our benevolence mitigates retribution.

Once again – this discussion DOES NOT BELONG ON A SITE CALLED HATEWATCH.

It is not hate to be against ILLEGAL immigration.

I am FOR immigration of all people – LEGALLY.

We need immigration and it is what has made our country great.

BUT – We get to choose who enters the country , how many , and when – and not the other way around.

Breaking which of the following laws kills more Americans every year?

A. Entering the US illegally.
B. Breaking the speed limit.

News Flash!!! I know, I know… you have studiously ignored the part of the “nativist” movement that wants to go after and fine the employers. There has even been legislation to that effect that has been gutted by the left. Instead you have focused on the most strident of the “deport’em all, let god sort them out” patriots on the right.

Guess what?!?! We are NOT anti-immigrant… we are anti-ILLEGAL immigrant. This is a simple fact that you choose to ignore. None of this would be happening if they came here LEGALLY as millions of LEGAL IMMIGRANTS have done. Amnesty is not a realistic solution. An amnesty simply encourages more law breaking until you either have to surrender to the flood and dissolve borders, or you have to resolve yourself to get tough… tough on those who encourage illegal immigration: [a]foreign governments that provide assistance to breaking our laws, [b]organizations and individuals that conspire to aide and abet illegal immigration here, and [c]employers that recruit and employ illegals. Organizations like SLPC generally fall into category [b].

Finally, the law affecting illegals:
United States Code, Title 8, Chapter 12, Subchapter II, Part VIII, Section 1325, states: “Any alien who enters the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers shall be fined or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.”

What a joke.

I dont view this as an issue to be included in “Hatewatch” -

I dont hate anyone , and am pro immigration as good for the country.

But what is not understood about the word ILLEGAL?

Why should one guy sneak in and be accepted , and another go through the legal process and wait?

Again folks, “illegal” immigration isn’t actually illegal, at least as a first offense. This is why using the word as a noun to dehumanize them is not only mean-spirited and immoral, but technically and legally innacurate. Unauthorized immigration is not in the criminal code which is why they use separate immigration (civil) courts with their own judges and have separate detention centers that are not a part of the criminal prison system.

I’ve offered a deal to the nativist extremists and not one has taken me up on it: As soon as they start calling the mostly white, citizen, English-speaking people who hire them “illegals”, I’ll call unauthorized immigrants “illegals”. The nativists won’t do it because it takes cahones to face the people with power and money. It’s much easier (and funner) to target the poor, the helpless and the brown.

By the way, I believe hiring them is a criminal offense, if not a felony. So why aren’t executives who run factories that hire unauthorized immigrants called “illegal employers,” or simply “illegals”?

Mark get off the Meth Redneck!

But, I would advise Ruslan Amirkhanov that one doesn’t have to resort to ugly, discredited Marxist rhetoric to attack Tom the Terrible. Simple words, such as racist, stupid, and mean-spirited will work more effectively. Dragging hoary old socialist trash words into the fray will only serve to encourage the idiot’s paranoid supporters. Additionally, there are alternatives to Tancretinism that are far superior to Marxism, such as common decency, compassion, and progressive Christianity, among others.

Laws have to be moral and respectable to be respected. To blindly enforce immoral, dysfunctional and obsolete laws is a fool’s errand and invariably leads to social and economic ills. Rarely do I hear those that want our broken immigration laws enforced take their ire out on the employers.

This is why people like Tancredo come off as extremist, racist and xenophobic. It’s the misplaced anger and scapegoating of the wrong people, who happen to be brown and speak another language, that makes the Tancredos suspect. It’s the lack of acknowledgement that we need more than blind enforcement as a holistic solution, in the face of clear evidence that enforcement-only can/will never work.

Half the GOP is following him too.