Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:

The rush for immigration reform never made any sense to me and the motive ascribed to proponents (want to import Mexicans who will vote Democrat) is silly because they’re already doing that.

If we wanted immigration amnesty, a simple bill would work: “Anybody present within the borders of the continental United States on July 1, 2013, shall automatically be a citizen with all rights and privileges thereof.”  Except, as Glenn Reynolds constantly points out, that solution would provide  insufficient opportunities for graft so no politician would think of it.

The reason we need immigration reform is we need is an excuse to dole out more money to our Leftistbuddies who will run the immigrant integration centers to help newly-legal immigrants get their full share of welfare (and vote Democrat).

Ahhhh, now it makes sense.

Joe Doakes

Don’t just follow the money; listen for the sound of backs being scratched.

The GOP has been schizphrenic on immigration for as long as I can remember.

Which is understandable – because I think most of us Republicans, as individuals, are schizophrenic about it.  Or, to pick a less loaded term, we believe things that seem, on their surface, to be contradictory; we support immigration – we just want people to follow the rules and come to this country legally.

So I’m going to try to state the case, contradictions and all.

1. I think it was Fred Thompson who really stated the true conservative case; we support a high, impermeable fence, but a wide, well-lit gate.
2. As to that “wide, well-lit gate” bit – when I was at Dan Severson’s campaign launch, I heard a Latino minister talk about one of the dynamics behind illegal immigration; it takes someone 10-15 years for a Mexican citizen to legally come to this country.  Of course, there’s a chicken and egg dynamic here; we have plenty of Central American immigrants in this country – it’s just that many of them are here illegally.  It’s time to revamp how we handle legal immigration.  Indeed…
3. ….we have to have a rational legal immigration policy.  Immigration – the legal variety – has always been one of this nation’s big strengths.  It’s more important than ever, as Europe’s demographics stagnate, China deals with the long term demographic fallout of the “one child policy”, and the developing world remains vastly younger than the Western world.  The US has been lucky – both Europe’s and America’s populations are ageing, as birth rates drop.  It’s immigration that’s prevented our society from ageing into obsolescence.  We’ll need more of that.
4. OK, now to the high wall – when not only immigrants seeking jobs, but every zeta and narcotraficante that wants to drive a Hummer full of firearms across the border can do it with relative impunity, then talk about “do we need a border fence”, or at least something that forces people to come to this country via the legal route, is simply ridiculous.  This nation not only has a right to to protect its sovereignty – it is one of its few genuine obligations.  If the government can’t secure our borders, there is truly no reason for it to exist.
5. Perhaps the real high wall we need is to keep out liberals and the media (pardon the redundancy) out of the US.  They both adopted a meme years ago – whenever conservatives refer to wanting to crack down on illegal immigration, painstakingly leave out the”illegal” bit.  The media and left (ptr) have been enaged in a decades-long effort to misrepresent the mainstream right’s approach to immigration.
6. That being said – misrepresentation aside, what is the conservative approach to immigration reform and curbing illegal immigration?  Rounding ‘em up and sending ‘em back is certainly not practical, even if there were the political will to do it, which there is not.  OK – so what is a realistic approach?  You don’t want amnesty, fine – what is your answer?

Remember the great struggle to end discrimination against shoplifters?  And all the parallels that struggle had with the civil rights movement?

No?

How about the long battle to make domestic abuse a form of free speech before the law, equal in legal stature to the fight to bring women the right to vote?

Not that, either?

Of course not.  They’re both completely absurd.

Equating a crime - shoplifting, domestic abuse – with bringing the rights in our Constitution to people who, as law-abiding citizens, deserve them profanes logic and, worse, devalues the rights.

Any rational person knows this.

Which is why the media seem to be trying to make the irrational seem rational.  As in this AP piece, carried on MPR, on Alabama’s new immigraiton law, titled “Alabama immigration battle recalls past civil rights turbulence”.

Alabama was well-suited to be the nation’s civil rights battleground because of its harsh segregation laws, large black population, and the presence of a charismatic young minister named Martin Luther King Jr., who led a boycott of segregated buses in 1955.

Opponents say the new law’s schools provision conjures images of Gov. George Wallace’s stand in the schoolhouse door to block integration.

But only if you’re an idiot.

Because black children – and their parents – were American citizens, endowed by their creator with the same rights as their white neighbors, notwithstanding George Wallace.

But illegal aliens are violating the law by being here.  And to treat their presence in this country as a right devalues that right, and undercuts our sovereignty as a nation.

And stating it any other way – like, comparing a crime to a right – is no better than lumping domestic abuse in with women’s suffrage.

A neighbor emailed me:

How to solve illegal immigration with the least amount of government intrusion.

From Conor Friedersdorf, an idea that will never be implemented:  grant amnesty to any illegal immigrant who came forward to show that he’d been hired sans documents, fine his employer, and give him a green card.

It’d spark compliance – and build a whole new reality TV genre, with thousands of new jobs!

Mexican cops cross border, shoot and pilf American hunters:

An ABC-7 viewer contacted the station early Thursday, saying her son, husband and friends were hunting on the Rio Grande levy on the U.S. side when men on the Mexico side fired shots, narrowly missing them. She said more men on the Mexico side drove up with automatic weapons and into to U.S. side. She said the armed men fired weapons and stole hunters’ chairs and drove back into Mexico.

Mosier said Border Patrol agents and Texas Parks and Wildlife officers were sent to the area immediately.

“Upon approach, our agents observed those subjects (Mexican officers) who committed the incursion return back to Mexico,” Mosier said.

Forget “high tech fences”;  We need to close our border with minefields, F16s flying with bombs, and machine guns.

We are no longer served as a nation by our open – no, porous – border policy.

Having the most interesting – read “depressing” – discussion with a couple of DFLers.

Bobby Jindal is coming to the Twin Cities to raise money for Tim Pawlenty.

Lefties:  ”So was Bobby Jindal an “Anchor Baby?”  The GOP wants him sent home when they repeal the 14th Amendment!”

Er, geniuses?  Jindal was born in Baton Rouge; his “home” is here.  His parents, Amal and Raj Jindal, were *legal* immigrants.  They followed the rules.  Jindal is not an “anchor”, since his parents intended to stay here all along.

Idiots.  I’m surrounded by idiots.

¡Arizona es i occupado!

The federal government has posted signs along a major interstate highway in Arizona, more than 100 miles north of the U.S.-Mexico border, warning travelers the area is unsafe because of drug and alien smugglers, and a local sheriff says Mexican drug cartels now control some parts of the state.

But by all means, Left – keep blurring the distinction between legal and illegal immigration.  It’s done us so much good so far.

Would it kill you to observe the fact that there’s a difference between an “immigrant” and an “illegal immigrant”?

You really just want to abolish the border, don’t you?

Why won’t liberals ever, ever, ever answer questions on the subject?

Minnesotans support immigration reform:

8* Suppose the new Arizona immigration law was being considered for your state. Would you favor or oppose passage of that law in your state?
53% Favor

34% Oppose

14% Not sure

9* Suppose a police officer stops someone for a traffic violation or a violation of some other law. If the police officer suspects that the person they stopped might be an illegal immigrant, should the officer be required to check their immigration status?

62% Yes

27% No

11% Not sure

Like most people, Republicans have always supported letting people into this country the same way most of our anscestors, from all countries, came here; through the door.  Legally.  With the full expectation that they would assimilate into American culture – learning the language, the history, and what made this country important.

Like most Americans, Republicans believe that immigrating to America is an opportunity, not an entitlement.

So yes,