What should be done about illegal immigration?

No dear we do not live in a democracy. The Founding Fathers were as fearful of democracy as a system of governing as they were fearful of a monarchy. That's why they took great pains to give us a Republic--representative government--as the best chance we had to protect the Constitutional, civil, legal, and unalienable rights. Those rights provide the very best chance for a people to remain free, prosperous, and unfettered in their desire and opportunity to achieve whatever they desired so long as they don't interfere with the rights of others.

The Founders were also wise enough to know that if those in positions of leadership were given unrestrained ability to use their positions to increase their own power, prestige, influence, and wealth, they would no longer represent the people and we would lose the Republic along with our freedoms.

I pray that we are not in that position at this time.

Obama's election was not a signal that the American public agreed with his view regarding amnesty of people who entered this nation illegally. He was not elected dictator and still has to be concerned with the will of the people.
If the question was put to the people amnesty would go down in flames.

Agreed and the overwhelming evidence is that the American people do not want open borders and they do want a sensible, orderly, controlled, and effective immigration policy that does not encourage millions more to come here illegally. But with the minority having no power to oppose or stop anything, and a Congress and President who are not responsive to the people, all we have to do to is lose one conservative Supreme Court Justice and I fear that we are done.

Yes, sweetheart, you are of course correct about us living in a representative democracy.

Immigration policy will be decided, as it should be, by elected representatives chosen by the American public. If the American public agreed with the anti-amnesty candidates, we had the chance to elect more of them to office. Clearly we chose a majority candidates with a point of view that is different than yours-- but don't you agree that this is our right?

It is in this way that we the people choose the direction that our country takes. This was the wisdom of our Founding Fathers setting up a government "of the people, by the people and for the people".

Are you really saying that the we, the American People, risk such a dire fate simply because we disagree with you? This seems like arrogance taken to new level.

We will see what Congress does this time.

No, I am saying that we, the American people, are in danger of losing all that we have when our representative government no longer represents us but instead seeks to increase its own power, prestige, influence, wealth and there is nothing left to keep that in check. I would be as nervous about that if I did agree with the proposed immigration policy.

The "Check", that our Founding Fathers in their wisdom gave us was the election in November. Republicans ran against amnesty and largely lost. Candidates who openly supported a path to citizenship won more often than not. It is the congress we elected, not the Supreme court as you suggest, who will decide how to resolve the immigration question.

It is extremely arrogant of you to suggest that we, the American people, or the representatives we elected risk anything by disagreeing with you-- more so to suggest we risk losing our country.

We have every right to reject your argument by electing whatever representatives we choose-- that is how democracy works.

I think it is arrogant to try to make the argument about who does or does not agree with me rather than on what I said. But that's just me.

I would also like you to explain how having more Hispanic citizens is such a threat that it "may very well end America as we have known it"?

I would like to know how you drew such an incorrect conclusion from anything I said.

That was the Reagan plan. But would-be illegals figure that there will be another amnesty and will pour into the country.

You used the very words "may very well end America as we have known it." I assume you were referring to us having new American citizens (correct me if I am wrong).

Why did you make such a dire threat?

Advocate,

I find it ironic (if not inappropriate) that you would use a Ghandi quote for your signature. Ghandi's first act of civil disobedience was to break immigration laws in support of illegals. That you want to pit one race against another goes against everything that Ghandi stood for.

You are wrong about what you assume and I said absolutely nothing to justify such an assumption.

I made such a dire threat because I believe it due to the reasons that I stated and not because of the non sequitur or straw man that you chose to build.

Congress may give immigrants a way to become citizens (what you are calling amnesty).

I reread it, you weren't very clear as to what you were referring that you claim "may very well end America as we have known it". This type of dire warning deserves some clarification-- does it not?

Maybe you could answer this simple "yes" or "no" question.

Do you, or do you not think that people of Hispanic descent becoming American citizens (and voting) constitutes this kind of threat to America as a nation?

If it is not that-- what dire threat to our very way of life are you referring to?

ebrown, to the best of my recollection, you have yet to indicate that you have understood anything I've said, nor have you fairly or honestly represented my opinion/position on anything. I still recall on numerous cases that I am nothing but a racist bigot in your eyes.

If I felt like you honestly wanted to have a discussion about this, I would be happy to accommodate you. Since I don't believe that you want that, I will just say again that what you assume I said/meant/intended/thought/believed or whatever in the discussion today is not correct as usual and I will let it go at that.

LOL

ebrown, She does that to "everybody." All of us are not smart enough to understand what she writes; we misinterpret what she means or the spin we put on it is wrong.

You gave the "best" response with you LOL.

Do you really expect an answer?

You still dont understand that we are talking about ILLEGAL immigrants.
You are constantly ignoring that word ILLEGAL.

If they are here ILLEGALLY, they have no right to become citizens ahead of those that are trying to do so LEGALLY.

Until you get over your blindness towards the word ILLEGAL, then trying to have a conversation is ridiculous.
(And I say that after many conversations with you regarding this same issue.)

Yes, I expect an answer... but not from you.

The question was to Foxfyre who raised the issue by saying (in the context of this debate on immigration) that Congress "may very well end America as we have known it. " She made the statement... I was just asking her to explain it.

There is a big difference between the argument you make, and the argument being made by Foxfyre and Advocate.

I respect you because as long as I remember, this issue has always been about the law (and only the law) to you. I don't see you as bigoted and I don't see you as hypocritical (even though we fall on opposite sides of the issue). You haven't played the fear card; you haven't made wild accusations and you don't play to racial stereotypes.

As I have always said-- it is bigotry that makes someone bigoted not the fact that they are against a path to citizenship.

I don't see you as bigoted at all.

If you would like to have a rational discussion about what the best path forward I would enjoy it. I will even agree that reasonable immigration policy should be enforced and that people breaking the law is a problem, but I will argue that penalties should be reasonable and that there is room for compassion while we are getting the immigration policy right.

I am afraid we will have to have this discussion away from Foxfyre and Advocate.