Jun 27 2006
Immigration Test
A Republican primary in Utah is going to be the real first test of the immigration issue on the right, and I plan to see how things fair for the far right who left this country’s borders undefended due to a fear some immigrants may become US Citizens in 2016 or later. We have the two candidates who reflect the schism on the right. And tonight will tell which side has the upper hand (my guess is neither – which is why the far right cannot win the day in the end):
Five-term incumbent Rep. Chris Cannon, a conservative Mormon from outside Provo, is facing a stiff challenge from businessman John Jacob, also a Mormon and a conservative. The race is dominated by the debate over how to handle the millions of illegal immigrants living and working in the United States.
…
Both Cannon and Jacob want better border security, but they differ on what to do with undocumented workers already in the United States.
Jacob said Cannon’s support for letting illegal immigrants pay a fine and legally exit and re-enter the country amounts to a nod for amnesty. Cannon vehemently denies the accusation and argues Jacob’s desire to deport all illegal immigrants is impractical and would undermine the economy.
I am obviously 100% behind Cannon. Election results are here with polls closing at 10:30 PM Eastern (10 minutes from this initial post). At this time very early results show Cannon ahead 56.5% to 43.6% for Jacob with basically less than 1% reporting in. Bring it on baby!
Update:At 11:09 PM Eastern with few precincts reporting (<1%) the numbers still show Cannon leading 56.7% to 43.3%
Update:At 11:45 PM the latest, and still very early, results show a Cannon lead of 57.9 to 42.1%.
Update:At 11:48 we see results starting to come in and Cannon’s lead is now 56%-44%.
Update:Looks like the “Deport them now” and “Leave things as is if we cannot get what we want” far right is taking a drubbing. At 12:12 Eastern with a lot of precincts reporting in the vote is 77.3% Cannon to Jacob’s 22.7%. Will this be another 80-20 mandate?
Update:12:30 update: with still very early returns we are back to a 55.7% to 44.3% race. This is at 40% of the vote in (if I am reading the site right) but some counties are done and, if they are indicators, show a hufe win for the comprehensive immigration candidate
Update:12:40 Eastern and we have 55.5% lead for Cannon against a 44.5% for Jacobs with a fair percentage reporting in (48%). Salt Lake is the big hold out. If I see a large number of returns I will be able to call this since every other county has reported in 100% or a large percentage.
Update:Final Report. At 1:05 PM it is still a 55% to 45% lead for Cannon with 74% precincts reporting some returns (if these are finals I have no idea). Looks like a Cannon win. Good night!
So much for that “enforcement only majority.”
PierreLegrand and Retire05, I’ve discovered, after reading some info that was posted from the Rush Limbaugh show, that it is called the Beltway view.
Most of those of us that live in the real world don’t see it that way.
It would be interesting to see what the vote was when Cannon ran two years ago and see if he got more or less this time. Yes, I know it’s probably available on the internet, but I’ll let somebody else look it up, but I’ll bet Cannon got a higher percentage then.
You had GOP listed as one of the winners and far right as a loser. Explain that as I’m moderate GOP and I consider myself a loser in that vote. I personally don’t think that vote indicates anything. I’m like everybody else on this site. If it goes my way, it’s an indicator, if it went against me, it wasn’t an accurate measure and didn’t mean a thing. So I’m consistent just like everyone else
Will this be another 80-20 mandate?
I have asked many times for somebody to link to a poll that shows these numbers.
None so far.
I don’t believe they exist.
you do? provide a link and prove it.
I heard that Specter has said the Senate will consider a border first compromise
In practice even the Senate bill would have been a “border first” compromise because work on the border can start immediately. The other programs take time.
For example, I was watching an ICE director or something on a news show. She said that what they got funding over a year ago for more enforcement teams, the first of those teams are just now getting through their training and coming on line. The bulk of them won’t come on line until next year. That is with funding already provided … it takes up to two years to get a large number of people hired, background checks done, get them trained and get them deployed. They can only train so many at a time so it takes several training cycles to get stuff staffed up.
She also made a good point in that people have not been taking into consideration this additional enforcement capability that is in the pipeline and on the way. They have only recently started, with the initially deployed teams, to perform raids and roundups. She said much more was coming as they get more teams deployed in more areas. Basically she was talking about rounding up people that had already had a deportation hearing and told to leave but hadn’t, people that have been deported in the past and have returned, and aliens that have been convicted of felonies and have returned or are otherwise still in the country. She said since the enforcement has started (some short period of time ago that I don’t recall, I seem to remember it described in weeks rather than months), they have rounded up and deported over 2,000 of these people.
So the points are A: there is already a lot of enforcement in the pipeline that hasn’t had a chance to bear fruit and B: work on border security can begin immediately. You don’t need to train a fence, you just start building it. Other actions can take years to get fully operational.
What isn’t happening for some reason is people are not looking at the Senate bill that was proposed in context with other enforcement measures that have already been approved but are still in the process of being built. Another example is increases in Border Patrol agents. Many have been authorized and are still in the process of being hired. When President Bush authorized the National Guard to go to the border, it was a temporary measure until those additional agents *already approved* can get through the hiring/training pipeline and be effective in the field.
as predicted the fence first will be the big winner……..all the rest of the senate clap trap will be dismissed except for a path to citizenship and job place enforcement after a fence is put up. folks against citizenship will come around to the idea once they see the border sealed and that the problem is not getting larger.
arlen specter yesterday, john mccain today and soon a majority in the senate. the house will be dropping its felon status and it will put “no amnesty” off the table for now to get a fence.
the senate starts to come around
http://tinyurl.com/lronz
and finally the document that brought sanity to the process
First Things First on Immigration
By Center for American Common Culture
An Open Letter to President Bush, Senate Majority Leader Frist, and Speaker of the House, Hastert.
Recently, columnist Thomas Sowell wrote: “It will take time to see how various new border control methods work out in practice and there is no reason to rush ahead to deal with people already illegally in this country before the facts are in on how well the borders have been secured.”
We the undersigned agree with this statement. In 1986, Congress passed “comprehensive” immigration reform that included amnesty for around 3 million illegal immigrants, border enforcement, and interior enforcement (employer sanctions). Amnesty came, but enforcement was never seriously implemented either at the border or in the interior.
Let us not make this mistake again. We favor what Newt Gingrich has described as “sequencing.” First border and interior enforcement must be funded, operational, implemented, and proven successful¾and only then can we debate the status of current illegal immigrants, or the need for new guest worker programs. We are in the middle of a global war on terror. 2006 is not 1986. Today, we need proof that enforcement (both at the border and in the interior) is successful before anything else happens. As Ronald Reagan used to say “trust, but verify.”
The majority of Republicans in the Senate opposed the recently passed Hagel-Martinez bill. Senator Vitter (R-LA) said that because border enforcement will not be in place, “this [bill] will in fact make the illegal immigration problem much bigger.” The No. 3 Republican in the Senate, Senator Rick Santorum (PA) said, “We need a border-security bill first.” Senator Vitter, Senator Santorum, the majority of Senate Republicans, and the majority of House Republicans are right¾we need proven enforcement before we do anything else. Adopting cosmetic legislation to appear to be “doing something” about enforcement, but which actually makes the situation worse, is not statesmanship, it is demagogy.
We thank the majority of the Senate Republicans (33 in all) and the seven Democrats who supported the Isakson amendment, which insists upon verifiable benchmarks for border security before considering other issues. Moreover, we say “Thank You” to Jim Sensenbrenner, Peter King, and the bi-partisan House majority including 36 Democrats, that passed HR 4437. We may quibble with a clause here and there, but you in the House and the majority of Senate Republicans are right to emphasize that the Congress and the President must deal with enforcement first and other issues later. Stand fast; the American people are overwhelmingly with you.
Signed,
William B. Allen, Professor of Political Science at Michigan State University
William J. Bennett, former Secretary of Education under President Reagan, former Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy under former President George H.W. Bush
Thomas L. Bock, National Commander of the American Legion
Robert H. Bork, Senior Fellow at the Hudson Institute, former Solicitor General, acting Attorney General, Supreme Court nominee, U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge
William F. Buckley, Jr., founder and Editor-at-Large of National Review
Peter Collier, founding Publisher of Encounter Books, cofounder of Center for the Study of Popular Culture
Ward Connerly, former Regent at the University of California, founder and Chairman of the American Civil Rights Institute (ACRI), winner of the 2005 Bradley Prize for Outstanding Intellectual Achievement
T. Kenneth Cribb, former domestic policy advisor for President Ronald Reagan
Glynn Custred, Professor of Anthropology at California State University, Hayward, and coauthor of the California Civil Rights Initiative, Proposition 209
John C. Eastman, Professor of Law at Chapman University School of Law, Director of the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence
John Fonte, Senior Fellow and Director of the Center of American Common Culture at the Hudson Institute
David Frum, former speechwriter for George W. Bush, Resident Fellow at American Enterprise Institute
Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., founder and President of the Center for Security Policy
Newt Gingrich, former Speaker of the House of Representatives, Chairman of the Gingrich Group, Senior Fellow at American Enterprise Institute
Jonah Goldberg, Editor-at-Large of the National Review Online, national syndicated columnist
Victor Davis Hanson, Martin and Illie Anderson Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, recipient of the 1991 American Philological Association Excellence in Teaching Award
David Horowitz, cofounder of the Center for the Study of Popular Culture, Editor of FrontPageMag.com
Fred C. Iklé, former Undersecretary of Defense under Reagan, former Director of U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency
David Keene, Chairman of the American Conservative Union
Brian Kennedy, President of the Claremont Institute, Publisher of the Claremont Review of Books
Roger Kimball, Managing Editor of The New Criterion
Alan Charles Kors, Professor of History at the University of Pennsylvania
Mark Krikorian, Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies
Bevery LaHaye, Founder and Chairman of the Concerned Women for America
Michael A. Ledeen, Resident Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute
Seth Leibsohn, Fellow at the Claremont Institute
John Leo, columnist and Contributing Editor to U.S. News and World Report
Herbert London, President of the Hudson Institute
Kathryn Jean Lopez, Editor of National Review Online
Rich Lowry, Editor of National Review
Heather Mac Donald, John M. Olin Fellow at the Manhattan Institute, winner of the 2005 Bradley Prize for Outstanding Intellectual Achievement
John O’Sullivan, Senior Fellow at the Hudson Institute, Editor-at-Large of National Review
Juliana Pilon, Research Professor at the Institute for World Politics
Daniel Pipes, founder and Director of the Middle East Forum and Campus Watch, former member of the board of the U.S. Institute of Peace
Andrew “Andy” Ramirez, Chairman of the Friends of Border Patrol
Phyllis Schlafly, founder and President of Eagle Forum
Thomas Sowell, Rose and Milton Friedman Senior Fellow on Public Policy at the Hoover Institution, winner of the 2003 Bradley Prize for Outstanding Intellectual Achievement
Shelby Steele, Research Fellow at the Hoover Institution, winner of the 2006 Bradley Prize for Outstanding Intellectual Achievement
Stephen Steinlight, Fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies, former National Affairs Director of the American Jewish Committee, and Vice President of the National Conference of Christians and Jews
Thomas G. West, Director and Senior Fellow of the Claremont Institute, Professor of Politics at the University of Dallas
Wendy Wright, President, Concerned Women for America
Terry: Repub legislature has passed several, but are continually vetoed by Dem governor.
Maricopa County sheriff has said ‘damn the torpedos’ and started to arrest illegals for trespass and conspiracy with coyotes. Currently in court.
Gov began Nat’l Guard-to-border campaign, but only if feds would
reimburse.
You are aware of the Minuteman program.
These all add to the frustration of which I speak. Everywhere you turn, both fed and state officials say their hands are tied. It’s hard for a property owner to accept that answer when their ranches and communities are being trashed daily to the point of looking like a 3rd world country, when their hospital emergency rooms are clogged by non-paying immigrants (because they have no insurance), our schools are under constant court orders to throw money at the problem of non-English speakers, our jails are overloaded, etc.
A few tips of the iceberg of public frustration.
That’s the common cry: let’s see some enforcement of current laws and protection of our rights before we expand immigrant rights. We don’t trust you (authorities) any more.
With Specter’s proposal, with support from McCain, Graham and Kennedy (Lord, what a group to have to depend on!), let’s hope than we can see similar compromise movement from the House.
Final word–remember that our terrorist problems have not been caused from the southern border. They have come from our inability to screen AND TRACK people who have entered our country by other means. The sheer number of entries from the south, however, exacerbates the fed’s problems of keeping track of those most likely to harm us.
U.S. House — Utah District 3
Updated 11/24/04 1:59 AM ET
Precincts:100% Incumbent* declared winner
Candidates Votes %
Christopher B. Cannon * (R) 139,635 61
Beau Babka (D) 79,214 35
Other 10,182 4
Couldn’t wait had to go see for myself.
Hmmm
Let me whip out my old interpretor here…….
Ahhhhh yessssss old Chris Baby there lost 5% of the
support he had back then.
Wellll nowww maybe the vote was significant after all
he is an incumbant , that normally is a shoo in and he
lost support. Probably wasn’t anything to do with
immigration though, probably his position on terrorism or something that was really important.
I’ll bet somebody won’t think his loss in support was significant at all.
Actually, Cannon’s primary race in 2004 was won by a 58-42 margin.
Jacob gained maybe 2 points after spending six times as much as the 2004 challenger did.
Big loss. There is no “enforcement only” majority.
Patrick Neid
We thank the majority of the Senate Republicans (33 in all)
And all that long list of people that signed that letter.
Must be all them “far right” guys.
Closing the border doesn’t address the problem at all, it just slows down the rate at which it worsens by 50%. Seal off the border, fine, we will STILL have 10 million illegals and the numbers of them will STILL be growing.
Another thing people don’t seem to be considering is that enforcement can only operate at the speed of processing. Everyone is entitled to due process. You can’t deport someone without a hearing unless they waive it (many do but just let some ACLU lawyers show up and that might stop). So you can’t take more people into custody than you can process, feed, and shelter. If you have no place left to put them, there is no sense picking any more up. That is why we see enforcement sweeps in waves. Once they figure they have room for a couple hundred, they go out a pick a couple hundred up.
In Utah, for example, some law enforcement jurisdictions can have contact with over 100 illegals a day from normal traffic stops on the main routes of travel. You stop a truck at 3am with a burned out taillight, and it has 15 illegals in it. But they don’t have anywhere to put them and don’t have the infrastructure to feed and clothe, and shelter hundreds of people in these small towns.
People get all “gee it would be great if the government would just …” but they don’t think through what it actually takes to do that. Old saying … amateurs talk tactics, professionals think logistics.
AZ:
I understand the frustration but this problem has been a long time coming. And it is not just the authorities that are to blame, people don’t really want a lot of government, until they need it and then they want it right now.
But I don’t think the wall will solve as many problems as some people think it will. This will require resources and time, lots of time.
But whatever their frustration might be refusing to compromise now will not help them, it will only leave them more isolated.
Closing the border does address one of the critical problems; it reduces the possibility of Al Qaeda slipping terrorists into this country over our land borders. There are other security measures that must be taken in addition. But, that is the place to start. Again it should be security first, then the fancy stuff about how much social security retirement money should be given to people who have been here illegally.
“securing the border” does one thing, by definition, it stops illegal traffic across the border. otherwise, it is not secure.
If we did that, 80% of the right, 90% of the far right, about 60% of the moderates and about 20% of the Beltway crowd would be happy.
That cures about 90%of the illegal immigrant problem. Enough that nobody is gonna care much about it anymore one way or the other.
The problem: the people that can do something about actually securing the border(President Bush and the beltway RINO’s and the Demolibs), doesn’t want it secure. So, is it gonna happen? No. If the border is not secure, will we go ahead and grant unconditional amnesty and citizenship as proposed in the Senate bill?
No. the ones I mentioned above that would be happy, don’t want that either. Net result.. nothing.
crosspatch, terrye et al
does your cognitive sense work when you read something?
i’m going to type this real slow so you may pick up on this:
closing the border prevents the number of illegal aliens increasing by the millions every year while you and the politicians decide the stupidest way to screw something up as has been done with immigration for the last 40 years. nothing, and i mean nothing can be enforced, granted, temporized without a fence first being erected……….thank god for what you call the “hard right”.
this is the fence we are getting.
http://www.weneedafence.com/images/Fence_Idea.jpg
if the cost is 20 billion dollars, it’s cheap!
patrick:
I am going to type this real slow so that you can understand it. I never said that I did not think the borders should be closed.
Never…. not once.
But like most hardliners you do not listen to anyone else. You just assume that there are two kinds of people, people who are right…that would be you and people who are wrong, have no respect for the law and want open borders and that would be everyone who fails to agree with everything you say.
This is a big country, that border down there is just one way into it. In fact there are dozens of ways to enter legally and then people just get lost in the system. My only point is that just putting up a fence won’t be enough to deal with the problem.
BTW, I really don’t care what a bunch of conservative pundits and radio talk show people say on this issue. They are not the ones who have to carry out the policy or make the logistics work or anything else.. In the last few months between the Harriet Miers fiasco, the Dubai tantrum and this nonsense I have lost patience with a lot of these people. They make a living off constroversy and to a certain extent that is what they are after. They just like to stir things up. It is good for business.
I know that George Bush has been consistent about his policy on immigration for years. He did not change in midstream or decieve people but that did not keep Tancredo from raising money to go after Cannon attacking him for supporting any part of Bush’s plan. Now what is the point in ragging on Demcorats all the time when you have a Republican going after another Republican for supporting a Republican president who helped give Republicans the majority they seem bound and determined to squander? With friends like that….
Which just goes to show you that there are conservatives who are just as capable of stabbing a man in the back or using him when his numbers are up and then abandoning him when they are down as any liberal might be.
sorry terrye save for it the choir. you have only said enforce the borders, on extremely rare occassions, as your default position to appear open minded. the last thing you want is a sealed border.
i and many others have said it from the begining–close the border and then we’ll listen to your violin. you continue to hurl personal attacks with your “hardliner” label that you have been spewing out the last several weeks. your convoluted ten step democractic talking points are getting boring.
i told a long time ago how i feel. i’m much more liberal on this matter than your ilk. here it is again. read it very slowly so it sinks in. in the letter i address all your useless remedies. when one of my predictions doesn’t come true we’ll have something to discuss.
i sent this letter to all the leading repub senators and other leading columnists and editorial pages april 2nd…….
dear senator,
i commend you for taking the immigration issue head on. however, i must say, i think politicians complicate the issue by trying to cover too many constituent agendas. sometimes simplicity is actually the real solution. occam’s razor. in fact, the “rant†below that i left on a web site on march 17th is, i believe, the only remedy to a perplexing problem. in fact, if you analyze every provision of the house and senate bills they have no chance of enforcement without tearing this country apart. actually, they have no chance, whatever the penalties. from lyndon johson in 1965 to reagan’s 1986 amnesty to senator reid’s 1993 joke to Barbara Jordan’s 1990-1995 immigration report these are our lessons of failure. please remember that at the time this was written it was directed at other comment posters, not you sir. it follows below:
—– go after the companies that employ the illegals? send the illegals back? penalize the ones that stay?
we are all dreaming. i have lived in california for 30 years. thousands, and i mean thousands, of small businesses hire and use millions of illegals everyday. trust me, short of a new black booted gestapo they are staying employed. any law passed to enforce some sort of penalty will probably never make it out of the court system. think prop 187 etc. so stop pulling your own chain thinking some legislation out of washington is going to change anything on the ground. send them back? assuming we could get the authority to do it (this too will sit in the courts until we are the new, new mexico) the police, national guard or military etc will not do it short of becoming some new SS. even the criminals that we should be deporting will just walk back in, led by their favorite coyote for $3,000, unless we have a fence from san diego to brownsville. 10-15 million well organized people-and they are very organized, are staying. so get over it. part of the solution is to stop adding to the size of the group. we have to build a fence before we contemplate any other measures. don’t listen to anyone who says fences do not work. they have other agendas they are not willing to discuss. ie vincente fox, among others, is against the fence
.
15 million illegals are easy to assimilate over twenty years–and guess what, despite the headlines, they want to be assimilated. but it can only work if no more are added to the mix. the folks that think the 15 million illegals are going anywhere are simply delusional. we let them in and now they are here for good. there are no laws, past , current or in the future that are going to change that. no doubt, there will be folks who get on soapboxes and pretend to write new legislation to solve the problem. the sooner we all act like adults and realists the sooner this divisive issue can be put behind us. do any of you actually think that the illegals are going to be rounded up and sent back to mexico etc? do you think funding is going to be cut to cities who harbor them? you have to be kidding. the bong smoke is clouding your vision.
the absolute best that we can accomplish within current law is to build a fence so the problem doesn’t get any bigger. a fence is cheaper and more efficient than salaried border patrols in the long run. this fence will work.
http://www.weneedafence.com/images/Fence_Idea.jpg
after that, then we can deport the bad guys during a 10-year green card period on the way to their citizenship. that’s right, their citizenship. 15 million people are not going to continue to live here as second class illegals forever without bringing the whole country down. why? because as certain as the sun comes up in the morning, 15 million will be 30 million in 25 years without a fence. we need to get our arms around these kinds of numbers. when barbara jordon put her immigration committee together in 1990 there were two million illegals. we need to seal the border and make them citizens just like the irish, italians, germans, jews etc who came before them. the fact that they got here illegally is irrelevant. they are here, get over it. they are not going to sign up for any two step convoluted green card, maybe you will- maybe you won’t, get at the end of the line samba dance. we are not going to collect any back taxes based on real/imaginary cash transactions from folks who have barely two nickels to rub together. it will cost more to collect it. the hatred and resentment it will engender will be long lasting –not to mention the crime and violence. we might be able to get a very small citizenship fee. that will pay for the fence.
i’ll make a prediction. if a secure fence is not erected at this time we will have this cicrle jerk again in twenty years and the number then will be 30 million along with their 25 million children who will be citizens. then the problem will be this
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/4786/105/1600/Aztlan.jpg
not because of some dark conspiracy but because of differing birthrates. we need to start seeing the world as it is, not as we hope it would be.
riddle me this……… you folks who hide behind the thin veneer of “but its illegalâ€â€¦..
who broke the bigger law? the folks who risked life and limb to get here or the politicians/bureaucrats who failed to enforce the state and federal laws to protect and seal the borders? conference after conference, committee after committee since the 70’s recommended closing the border with a fence. it was left open. we need to get past this “illegal†designation. they are here and they are staying. no amount of convoluted gestapo, stalinist, nativist jib jab from the left or the right is going to change that. remember, 15 million are really over 40 million when you throw in their supporters and the larger hispanic community in general. start getting serious. the idea that the newly unemployed “illegals†you would create, with these new ridiculous remedies, are going to go home in numbers is absurd. the part we are not getting is this– it’s their country now. millions of them already have their own small businesses, families, homes etc.
crack down on the people that hire them? again we are just not getting it. we are cutting our nose off to spite our face.
just remember this at all times–if you were them–young, poor and starving for a life– you would have crossed the border if it was left open. we caused this problem. we left the border wide open with a huge 2000-mile long honey-pot on the other side. i’m honest enough to admit it, i would have pushed you out of the way as i scrambled across!
here’s the real pathetic reality—virtually every congressman/woman and the president are against sealing the border. they are more worried about our image with the world, mexico and imaginary votes they may or may not get. they fudge the debate with economic/impact studies that look good but mean nothing. it is all props. read the fine print in the bills being considered.
so, you still think we are going to start solving the illegal immigrant problem inside the US while we can’t rally the consensus to close the border where the illegals enter? put down the bong, you’ve had one hit too many.
and finally to the race baiters……
the “fence†sole purpose for existence is to secure the border from illegal immigration from primarily latin america. the fact that latin america is hispanic is strictly a coincidence. if canada was a third world country i would propose the same fence. for two hundred years we controlled immigration with quotas per immigrant group. i believe jimmy carter was the moron who changed this. the chief reason for quotas was for assimilation purposes–language, culture etc…. mexico encourages illegal immigration as an outlet so as to avoid the hard choices that it should be making to rectify a pathetic economic model it inherited from the spanish. there is a reason that english speaking colonies/nations have done better than spanish or french. every time you seduce a young hispanic to flee his country you further enslave the tens of millions they leave behind.
we have to frame this discussion within the bounds of what we can do, not what you would like to do. modern america is a very complicated legal system etc…. using existing ‘green card’ laws that have already been vetted combined with our existing right to build the fence, will put an immediate end to most of the problem. the fact that it may aid and abet the war on terror is a bonus. after that we can go through the psychic trauma and emotional healing of all the why’s, wherefore’s and finger pointing that always comes when we recognize WE PERSONALLY CREATED THIS PROBLEM — the “illegals†are only the symptom!!!!!!!
enjoy your salad tonight and while you are eating think about these last several weeks–130,000 more illegals have come to say hello…..