What should be done about illegal immigration?

I'd point out that this is how it worked before 1923 -- and it worked well for America.

that IS question evasion, you failed to answer it and instead tried to make your question seem like an answer, which it wasnt.

If you were a pooor mexican and you wouldnt cross the border illegally you could have just said so, i dont see why it was so hard to answer.

And perfect analogy? not true.

a poor guy lives in a poor corrupt country.
his country is next to a rich country.
he crosses the border illegally so he can work and have a chance of escaping poverty.

HERES A BETTER ANALOGY.

Guy is born in a ghetto, and begins selling drugs to a guy who lives in a mansion

i think you will find that is a more suitable analogy for 2 key reasons.
ill list them for you.

1. person is breaking no moral or ethic rules, only laws.

2.the rich person is in on the action

Im sure everyone can agree that is a more apt analogy.

Thomas
After several wars where the objective of the surrounding nations was the annihilation of the state of Israel why should they retreat to the indefensible pre 67 borders. After all they are not playing monopoly. Game over, let's start again. As to giving up land for peace that only works when both sides want it and not when one wants the destruction of the other. The Israeli's forcibly removed the settlers from Gaza and walked away from it. Did that bring peace or another staging place for the Palestinians to send rockets and suicide bombers into Israel? Before any meaningfull bargain can be struck the right for Israel to exist must be affirmed. Otherwise they are just blowing smoke.
Thomas, I know this won't satisfy you however you asked. Now back to the discussion at hand. Which I believe is Illegal aliens flooding the US.

OGIONIK
What a freaking copout. Is that the rational for selling dope in the Ghetto.

Oh yes ... that thing I don't really care about.

PS: I have only now seen your apology to me. I appreciate your gesture, but as I see it, you never painted me as a Nazi in your post in the first place. Hence, you had nothing to apologize for.

The copout is you STILL not honestly addressing his initial question. You're fooling no one.

Bill

The question was would I cross the border illegally. Truthfully, I can not say what I would do in that situation. I might decide to become a dope dealer of a second story man. Using OGIONIK's rational.

Have any other questions or pots to stir before you bless us with your pearls of wisdom, or find some one to call bigot or idiot. Try looking in the mirror sometime.

You deserved that apology, Thomas.

You might decide to be a second story man; but you vilify people for trespassing to accept the jobs that are waiting for them?

Idiot! You will go to any length no matter how absurd to make your point.

Do you for a moment think I looked up the word in the dictionary before I wrote it. Still intent on stirring the pot?

Actually; I assumed you were familiar with the definition before you chose to use it in your post. I don't see anything absurd about it. I don't wish to stir the pot; but I thought the man should know your sincere apology was indeed appropriate.

And yours would be the first place I would hit because I know you would not bring charges against a poor illegal immigrant. Right? Of course right.

Come on, brethren. I appreciate you defending me, Bill, but now that au and I are cool again, there is no need to continue this part of the conversation.

You set your sights too low. A first story man could hit me. :wink: (though I wouldn't advise it while I'm home).

That was then and this is now, however. Now, we have governors of border states declaring states of emergency due to illegal immigration.

OH! Your tough as well as as smart . Tell us all have any other outstanding attributes.

Are you referring to my giant schlong?

BILL

You mean tongue don't you. If not try f---ing yourself.

RNC faces donor falloff, fires solicitors
By Ralph Z. Hallow
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
June 1, 2007




The Republican National Committee, hit by a grass-roots donors' rebellion over President Bush's immigration policy, has fired all 65 of its telephone solicitors, The Washington Times has learned.
Faced with an estimated 40 percent falloff in small-donor contributions and aging phone-bank equipment that the RNC said would cost too much to update, Anne Hathaway, the committee's chief of staff, summoned the solicitations staff and told them they were out of work, effective immediately, fired staff members told The Times.
Several of the solicitors fired at the May 24 meeting reported declining contributions and a donor backlash against the immigration proposals now being pushed by Mr. Bush and Senate Republicans.
"Every donor in 50 states we reached has been angry, especially in the last month and a half, and for 99 percent of them immigration is the No. 1 issue," said a fired phone bank employee who said the severance pay the RNC agreed to pay him was contingent on his not criticizing the national committee.
A spokeswoman for the committee denied any drop-off in fundraising.
"Any assertion that overall donations have gone down is patently false," RNC spokeswoman Tracey Schmitt wrote by e-mail yesterday in response to questions sent by The Times. "We continue to out-raise our Democrat counterpart by a substantive amount (nearly double)."
Miss Schmitt said terminating the phone solicitation staff "was not an easy decision. The first and primary motivating factor was the state of the phone bank technology, which was outdated and difficult to maintain. The RNC was advised that we would soon need an entire new system to remain viable."
She also said that "the changing ways in which people choose to contribute" meant that the RNC's in-house phone bank "was simply no longer cost effective, although unfortunate."
The fired staffers said the equipment was aging and it was probably more cost effective to farm out the phone-bank operations to the eight or more private firms also handling similar solicitations for donations to the RNC. But the ex-employees said the sharp drop-off in donations "probably" hastened the end of the in-house operation.
"Last year, my solicitations totaled $164,000, and this year the way they were running for the first four months, they would total $100,000 by the end of 2007," said another fired phone-bank employee who asked not to be identified.
Previous Republican donors have given RNC solicitors an earful about the proposed immigration measure.
"We have not heard anyone in our donor calls who supported the president on immigration," said a fired phone solicitor, who described himself as a Republican activist.



"We write these comments up from each call, and give them to a supervisor who passes them on to the finance director or the national chairman," he said. "But when I talked with the White House, the people there told me they got nothing but positive comments on the president's immigration stand."
The National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) and the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) both report having trouble raising money from the small donors who are the backbone of all the fundraising committees for both major parties.
The RNC has been more successful than the two Republican congressional committees because the RNC has completed its major annual donor gala, gathering money from corporate and business donors who either care little about the immigration issue or side with Mr. Bush in support of the Senate bill that would allow almost all the estimated 12 million to 20 million or more illegal aliens in the United States to gain legal status.
Yet there has been a definite downward trend in Republican fundraising, said Massie Ritsch, spokesman for the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks money in elections.
"The GOP's overall haul from its three national fundraising committees [the RNC, NRSC and NRCC] is down 25 percent from the equivalent period in 2005," Mr. Ritsch said. "The Republicans still have more money than the Democrats but fundraising is down for Republicans and up for Democrats. That has to be a cause of concern for Republicans."
The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee collected $4.6 million in April, more than double the NRSC's $2.1 million in April contributions. What's more, the Republican group spent about $60,000 more than it had received in donations, while using only $260,000 to pay its debt.
Overall, the NRSC's total receipts of $9.1 million trails its Democratic counterpart's total of $18.3 million since January.
The Republican Senate committee's total is less than one-twelfth of the $118 million goal that its chairman, Nevada Sen. John Ensign, had set for the committee.
One of the fired RNC staffers estimated that two-thirds of the phone-bank solicitors employed by the committee were black, with a smattering of Hispanics and Asians. Miss Schmitt said that in order "to smooth their transition, all employees will remain on the payroll for 60 days."
One of the fired staffers quoted a letter from Miss Hathaway saying that maintaining the RNC's current phone system "is cost prohibitive and given changes in the fundraising environment, the difficult decision has been made to end phone-bank operations at RNC headquarters."