The latest is that Congress has now passed restrictive immigration legislation that would prevent illegal Mexican migrants from obtaining US drivers' licenses and authorize the construction of a wall on the US-Mexican border.

It's about effing time. Why should we be letting illegal immigrants have driver's licenses? Why not build a wall to try to keep people from breaking the law?

Are Nicaraguans illegally in Mexico allowed to get drivers licenses? Is not Mexico's army stationed on their southern border? Who cares what they think.

...and why would Democrats oppose Cafta before they have a better option? Ideology?

I copied this from your homework assignment:

" 2. Trade. We’ve begun to discuss here and here, and we all seem to agree that policy is stalled. Tom Friedman’s new book describes what we are up against, essentially tens of thousands of Indian programmers and call center entrepreneurs who are a lot hungrier than we are. The new issue of Foreign Affairs reports that we’ve slipped to 13th in the global ranking for Internet Development, an area that helped us survive the last big economic dislocation a decade ago. The direction needed (new engines for job growth, much broader and better supported retraining and restructuring initiatives, realistic labor and environmetnal standards, etc.) is obvious though the details will be devilish. Unions will need to get involved or their fears of irrelevancy will become reality. I read this short piece by Gene Sperling on the topic a while ago and still like it."

Perhaps you should add to the assignment: "Say something good about trade." No mainstream political party can have an economic platform based on the concept that trade is no more than a drain on jobs. Democrats could go back to Clinton for inspiration here.

The "upcoming Mexican election" link is slightly bad; it should point to http://news.ncmonline.com/news/view_article.html?article_id=9ea3bb77289415ff707f22f4defd8606 .

in your piece at Democracy Arsenal you argue for an overarcing umbrella strategy. How bout Thomas PM Barnett's strategy? He's a Democrat, author of The Pentagon's New Map. He argues in favor of democracy and free trade and the joining together of global democracies to fight disconnectedness. You know his work? Plus we could have him campaign for us, giving his briefing at VFW halls and college campuses in different states and districts. Read his web log at www.thomaspmbarnett.com/weblog

So we are supposed to void the laws of the US to make the President of Mexico happy? Not!

Bush had better be careful; his bootlicking of the Mexican President isn't playing well among working Americans.

If the Democrats were not braindead political correctness freaks they could take major advantage of the immigration issue.

I'm about as left wing as they come, but even I don't object to denying drivers licenses to illegal immigrants, and building a war to secure out border. I only wish that Congress would attack the real cause of illegal immigration --- the willingness of employers to hire undocumented people to save a buck. Make the penalties stiffer for employing illegals, and put an effort into finding those who employ illegals and prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law!

Illegal Alien Ambushes Two Denver Cops - 1 Dead

Leaves Widow and Two Young Children

May 10, 2005

see http://www.denverpost.com for updates

"Illegal" means "illegal" - period

Have to agree with Lukasiak. There might have been an argument in the 1950s and 1960s that the United States had a duty to help Mexico with its economic problems, and turning a blind eye to illegal (note well the "illegal" part) immigration was a way to do that.

That was before the government of Mexico pissed away about 1/2 trillion dollars in oil money, and the citizens of Mexico allowed that to happen. Why exactly is that the problem of the citizens of the United States?

If you think there should be no border enforcement and no wall, the solution is simple: pass a law that says so. In the US Congress, with full debate. Oh - you don't want to do that? Why not?

Cranky

I'm a bit surprised by this post. I get the feeling the author hasn't really been following along with the "immigration debate." Nossel also seems to think that Bush has the best interests of the U.S. at heart, that somehow Vicente "jobs that not even blacks want to do" Fox is someone we should do anything other than try to deal with at arm's length, etc. etc.

See my eight immigration categories for mucho mas.

One thing that I notice is that we could do something big that would satisfy everyone (or no one):

1. Big penalties for employer of illegal immigrants. 2. Tripling immigration enforcement ability, deporting as fast as we can, etc. 3. Big wall 4. Financial incentives for Mexico for modernize.

I think the reason why Canadians don't illegally immigrate but Mexicans (and others in Latin America) do is the differential in quality of life, wages, etc. If we were to both increase our ICE abilities and help their economies modernize, we may be able to raise their living standards.

Passing it through Congress and finding money for this program is left as an exercise for the reader. ;-)

How is Chinese outrage at our failure to build a bridge across the Pacific fairing?

How dare Congress try to enforce our laws!

New Page 1

The truth is, I think everyone is right.

All of you, who think this rocks, should think what the National ID infrastructure means when Democrats control it.

Don't say it won't happen.

Want a job? Swipe the card. Mr. government says.

Wow, and I thought that all the DD devotees were 'invade the world, invite the world' (Steve Sailor) types, like the 'conservatives' at National Review Online. Glad to see you all breaking with neo-con/neolib doctrine.

Bush had better be careful; his bootlicking of the Mexican President isn't playing well among working Americans.

...or middle-class Americans, either. My mom is a NPR-listening, Emily's-list voting, habitually leftie child of the 60s... and on this one issue, she is to the right of Pat Buchanan.

Most Republicans support Bush despite his position on this issue, not because of it. Once those other issues are resolved, well...

If the Democrats were not braindead political correctness freaks they could take major advantage of the immigration issue.
-save_the_rustbelt

Never going to happen. Democratic strategists think the children of illegal immigrants grow up to vote Democrat.

I'm about as left wing as they come, but even I don't object to denying drivers licenses to illegal immigrants, and building a war to secure out border....
-p.lukasiak

Freudian slip? ;-)

(emphasis added, of course)

When we allowed the Social Security number to become a universal identifier the whole debate on a national identification card became sort of moot.

Different times, different circumstances, we might as well take the next step and get on with it.

I can think of about 12 million reasons.

Tom

When Cranky, Lukasiak, Buehner, and me agree on something... that's saying something.

Enforce our laws.

dsafd