Above: Protestors in front of television station KTLA.

Despite a notice of less than one day, a mixed crowd of about 100 persons, including traditional Democrats, community activists, and other concerned citizens converged in front of the offices of television station KTLA in Los Angeles for a quick rally and protest today from 5:30pm to about 7:30pm. Protestors demanded that KTLA adequately cover the hearings convened today in Washington by Rep. John Conyers to investigate Bush's illegal circumvention of Congress to launch an illegal war against Iraq. The hearings are inspired by the now-famous Downing Street Minutes, which indicate that Bush committed impeachable offenses by. usurping powers reserved for Congress in the Constitution .

Persons driving by the protest on Sunset Blvd. honked their horns enthusiastically (as you can see and hear in the short video at the end of this article), with only a very few visibly opposed.

error

error

error

error

error

error

error

error

error

error

Lying about the reasons to go into Iraq is like taking your nephew to Disneyland for his Birthday and then, once you're there, telling him it's all a lie; that you're taking him for Christmas.

Either way the kid's at Disneyland and happy.

A Frightening Analysis

We all know Dick Lamm as the former Governor of Colorado. In that context his thoughts are particularly poignant. Last week there was an immigration-overpopulation conference in Washington, DC, filled to capacity by many of American's finest minds and leaders. A brilliant college professor named Victor Hansen Davis talked about his latest book, "Mexifornia," explaining how immigration — both legal and illegal — was destroying the entire state of California. He said it would march across the country until it destroyed all vestiges of The American Dream.

Moments later, former Colorado Governor Richard D. Lamm stood up and gave a stunning speech on how to destroy America. The audience sat spellbound as he described eight methods for the destruction of the United States. He said, "If you believe that America is too smug, too self-satisfied, too rich, then let's destroy America. It is not that hard to do. No nation in history has survived the ravages of time. Arnold Toynbee observed that all great civilizations rise and fall and that 'An autopsy of history would show that all great nations commit suicide.'"

"Here is how they do it," Lamm said: First to destroy America, "Turn America into a bilingual or multi-lingual and bicultural country. History shows that no nation can survive the tension, conflict, and antagonism of two or more competing languages and cultures. It is a blessing for an individual to be bilingual; however, it is a curse for a society to be bilingual. The historical scholar Seymour Lipset put it this way: 'The histories of bilingual and bi-cultural societies that do not assimilate are histories of turmoil, tension, and tragedy. Canada, Belgium, Malaysia, Lebanon all face crises of national existence in which minorities press for autonomy, if not independence. Pakistan and Cyprus have divided. Nigeria suppressed an ethnic rebellion. France faces difficulties with Basques, Bretons, and Corsicans."

Lamm went on: Second, to destroy America, "Invent 'multiculturalism' and encourage immigrants to maintain their culture. I would make it an article of belief that all cultures are equal. That there are no cultural differences. I would make it an article of faith that the Black and Hispanic dropout rates are due to prejudice and discrimination by the majority. Every other explanation is out of bounds.

Third, "We could make the United States a 'Hispanic Quebec' without much effort. The key is to celebrate diversity rather than unity. As Benjamin Schwarz said in the Atlantic Monthly recently: 'The apparent success of our own multiethnic and multicultural experiment might have been achieved! Not by tolerance but by hegemony. Without the dominance that once dictated ethnocentrically and what it meant to be an American, we are left with only tolerance and pluralism to hold us together.'"

Lamm said, "I would encourage all immigrants to keep their own language and culture. I would replace the melting pot metaphor with the salad bowl metaphor. It is important to ensure that we have various cultural subgroups living in America reinforcing their differences rather than as Americans, emphasizing their similarities."

"Fourth, I would make our fastest growing demographic group the least educated. I would add a second underclass, unassimilated, undereducated, and antagonistic to our population. I would have this second underclass have a 50% dropout rate from high school."

"My fifth point for destroying America would be to get big foundations and business to give these efforts lots of money. I would invest in ethnic identity, and I would establish the cult of 'Victimology.' I would get all minorities to think their lack of success was the fault of the majority. I would start a grievance industry blaming all minority failure on the majority population."

"My sixth plan for America's downfall would include dual citizenship and promote divided loyalties. I would celebrate diversity over unity. I would stress differences rather than similarities. Diverse people worldwide are mostly engaged in hating each other - that is, when they are not killing each other. A diverse, peaceful, or stable society is against most historical precedent. People undervalue the unity! Unity is what it takes to keep a nation together. Look at the ancient Greeks. The Greeks believed that they belonged to the same race; they possessed a common language and literature; and they worshiped the same gods. All Greece took part in the Olympic Games.

A common enemy Persia threatened their liberty. Yet all these bonds were not strong enough to over come two factors: local patriotism and geographical conditions that nurtured political divisions. Greece fell.

"E. Pluribus Unum" — From many, one. In that historical reality, if we put the emphasis on the 'pluribus' instead of the 'Unum,' we can balkanize America as surely as Kosovo."

"Next to last, I would place all subjects off limits ~ make it taboo to talk about anything against the cult of 'diversity.' I would find a word similar to 'heretic' in the 16th century - that stopped discussion and paralyzed thinking. Words like 'racist' or 'x! xenophobes' halt discussion and debate."

"Having made America a bilingual/bicultural country, having established multi-culturism, having the large foundations fund the doctrine of 'Victimology,' I would next make it impossible to enforce our immigration laws. I would develop a mantra: That because immigration has been good for America, it must always be good. I would make every individual immigrant symmetric and ignore the cumulative impact of millions of them."

In the last minute of his speech, Governor Lamm wiped his brow. Profound silence followed. Finally he said, "Lastly, I would censor Victor Hanson Davis's book Mexifornia. His book is dangerous. It exposes the plan to destroy America. If you feel America deserves to be destroyed, don't read that book."

There was no applause.

A chilling fear quietly rose like an ominous cloud above every attendee at the conference. Every American in that room knew that everything Lamm enumerated was proceeding methodically, quietly, darkly, yet pervasively across the United States today. Every discussion is being suppressed. Over 100 languages are ripping the foundation of our educational system and national cohesiveness. Barbaric cultures that practice female genital mutilation are growing as we celebrate 'diversity.' American jobs are vanishing into the Third World as corporations create a Third World in America — take note of California and other states — to date, ten million illegal aliens and growing fast. It is reminiscent of George Orwell's book "1984." In that story, three slogans are engraved in the Ministry of Truth building: "War is peace," "Freedom is slavery," and "Ignorance is strength."

Governor Lamm walked back to his seat. It dawned on everyone at the conference that our nation and the future of this great democracy are deeply in trouble and worsening fast. If we don't get this immigration monster stopped within three years, it will rage like a California wildfire and destroy everything in its path, especially The American Dream.

First of all, the referenced post is in the wrong place; the demonstration covered by this article was to support and demand media coverage on the hearings around the Downing Street Minutes, which reveal that Bush violated the Constitutional separation of powers by conspiring to start a war, and actually starting one, without the knowledge, let alone approval, of the U.S. Congress. Anyone who believes in our Constitution should take these hearings seriously.

The best that I can say about most of the comments here is that they show a thoughtless disregard for the principles upon which our tri-partite government is founded, and for democracy in general. Because anyone who supports a Chief Executive who exercises power autonomously , like a king or a dictator, does not believe in this nation's principles and is certainly not a patriot.

Regarding immigration policy: The analysis presented in "The Coming Storm" is based upon the fantasy that assimilation is being offered to immigrants on a silver platter, but dark forces are conspiring to oppose such assimilation, thereby driiving Americans apart.

In reality, U.S. immigration policy is based upon a deliberate hypocrisy. On the one hand, influential employers, especially in California, depend utterly upon cheap immigrant labor, and would immediately resist any and all attempts to seriously limit immigration. However, these same businesses benefit greatly from a policy that keeps immigrants terrorized by sporadic INS raids and deportations, for this environment helps to prevent immigrants from organizing to receive a fair wage and benefits.

The deluded and often racist or crypto-racist right wing is pulled into this game, thinking that there is some chance to actually limit immigration, but they are only providing support and cover for a campaign of terror that suppresses not just the wages and rights of immigrants, but those of all citizens, through labor competition with oppressed immigrant labor on the one hand and repressive legislation limiting civil liberties on the other.

Thus, the right uses a supposed "failure to assimilate" to demonize immigrants and their supporters, when such assimilation was never on the table as a serious offer. This is sometimes called "blaming the victim" by those of us who are familiar with the technologies of subversion that now being used to level our democracy and deprive us all -- not just immigrants -- of our rights.

Such alligator tears for our threatened unity being used to justify attacks on "the other" are found throughout the entire Lamm speech as reported here. "They" are trying to turn the U.S. into a multi-lingual nation, etc. Does he therefore call for mandatory English as a Second Language programs? No, his obvious thrust is to attack immigrants as a group. They are the great evil polluting our pristine Aryan environment. Just read between the lines and you get racism and anti-democratic terror. Just as Hitler used Jews as an excuse for creating a mechanism of repression, these opportunistic politicians and their brownshirted dupes in groups like the Minutemen are using immigrants as their foil while they undermine our democracy and our freedoms.

So long as you follow your racist impulses, searching for someone to blame for America's ongoing decline other than Bush, Scwarzenegger, and the other architects of a new fascism in this once-great nation, you will be "only a pawn in their game."

Regarding immigration policy: The analysis presented in "The Coming Storm" is based upon the fantasy that assimilation is being offered to immigrants on a silver platter, but dark forces are conspiring to oppose such assimilation, thereby driiving Americans apart.

>>> No one anywhere is saying assimilation is “being offered on a silver platter.” Quite the opposite. Immigrants wishing to full reap the benefits of their new home country must often learn an entirely new language, monetary system and set of laws and customs. But in the days before “multiculturalism” was devised by leftists, there was no anti-assimilation forces urging immigrants to stay segregated by language and culture, and thus remain poor.

In reality, U.S. immigration policy is based upon a deliberate hypocrisy. On the tne hand, influential employers, especially in California, depend utterly upon cheap immigrant labor, and would immediately resist any and all attempts to seriously limit immigration. However, these same businesses benefit greatly from a policy that keeps immigrants terrorized by sporadic INS raids and deportations, for this environment helps to prevent immigrants from organizing to receive a fair wage and benefits.

>>> It would be nice if you could stay on target, CC, and not change the subject whenever it suits you. Employers depending on cheap immigrant labor presumably only care that the job gets done, whether the laborers are speaking English or Spanish. These employers, who will be punished in the coming years by enforcement of immigration laws, don’t cover even a tenth of the area of the social fabric being torn asunder by multiculturalists, who do their dirty work “under the radar” in America’s government schools.

>>> Despite peacock-posturing to the contrary, leftist doctrine depends on suspicion, distrust and hatred between the races. A united majority in favor of free markets is the communist’s ultimate nightmare.

The deluded and often racist or crypto-racist right wing is pulled into this game, thinking that there is some chance to actually limit immigration, but they are only providing support and cover for a campaign of terror that suppresses not just the wages and rights of immigrants, but those of all citizens, through labor competition with oppressed immigrant labor on the one hand and repressive legislation limiting civil liberties on the other.

>>> First, it’s hard to take anyone who uses terms like “crypto-racist” seriously. With apologies to Voltaire, “If racism did not exist, it would have been necessary for the left to invent it.” Overwrought phrases like “campaign of terror” don’t help the cause either, except perhaps in aiding the non-thinking of beret-wearing café sloths.

>>> It’s also painfully obvious that the immigration debate is just another angle for pushsers of the same old communist claptrap to try and gain a foothold.

Thus, the right uses a supposed "failure to assimilate" to demonize immigrants and their supporters, when such assimilation was never on the table as a serious offer. This is sometimes called "blaming the victim" by those of us who are familiar with the technologies of subversion that now being used to level our democracy and deprive us all -- not just immigrants -- of our rights.


>>> The left is more familiar with the technologies of self-delusion than subversion. The 1920s through the 1960s provides ample evidence that those immigrants who chose to assimilate fared the best, and that E Pluribus Unum is far superior to the “tossed salad” idiot multiculturalists hope to replace the melting pot with.

Such alligator tears for our threatened unity being used to justify attacks on "the other" are found throughout the entire Lamm speech as reported here. "They" are trying to turn the U.S. into a multi-lingual nation, etc. Does he therefore call for mandatory English as a Second Language programs? No, his obvious thrust is to attack immigrants as a group. They are the great evil polluting our pristine Aryan environment. Just read between the lines and you get racism and anti-democratic terror. Just as Hitler used Jews as an excuse for creating a mechanism of repression, these opportunistic politicians and their brownshirted dupes in groups like the Minutemen are using immigrants as their foil while they undermine our democracy and our freedoms.

>>> And now it’s time to abandon this most educational counter-thread. As is typical of today’s leftists, arguments are prone to relapse into ridiculous and false accusations of nazis hiding in the bushes at every turn. Granted, indymedia is the catchall asylum for society’s failed –isms (primarily communism & socialism) as well as a clearinghouse for “atzlan” racists, anarchists and kooky conspiracy theories about 9/11 and chemtrails.

>>> Richard Lamm has made some excellent, chilling points about the future of America as poisoned by multicult-ists. They are to be ignored at our own peril.

I wish the site could add posts to a "good posts" pile, because yours would get on it.

Lamm sounds like a replay of early 20th century (and late 19th century) nativism. All the stuff the say about the undocumented workers, they used to say against the Chinese coolies.

They said it before and during the time people went on rampages and lynched the coolies and terrorized Chinatowns.

They had all the same "save the American worker" rhetoric that SOS and other groups use. They had the same agenda: restricting immigration from specific countries. They made ways to divide people into different levels of "legality", and that way, created new classes of people.

SOS = Same Old Shit

I appreciate the opportunity to participate in this dialogue; hopefully, it will shed some light on the topic at hand. Responses to your comments appear below.

CC Original Post: Regarding immigration policy: The analysis presented in "The Coming Storm" is based upon the fantasy that assimilation is being offered to immigrants on a silver platter, but dark forces are conspiring to oppose such assimilation, thereby driiving Americans apart.

FRL: Comment: >>> No one anywhere is saying assimilation is “being offered on a silver platter.” Quite the opposite. Immigrants wishing to fully reap the benefits of their new home country must often learn an entirely new language, monetary system and set of laws and customs. But in the days before “multiculturalism” was devised by leftists, there were no anti-assimilation forces urging immigrants to stay segregated by language and culture, and thus remain poor.

CC Response: The relevant point, which you do not contest, is that opportunities to assimilate are severely restricted for those entering the country from the South (although not for many others, e.g., from Canada and Europe). And, as I have noted, politicians like Lamm who complain about a Babel of languages and cultures are not even talking about constructive approaches to assisting such immigrants in learning English and other skills intended to enhance their ability to function as fully-empowered members of the U.S. community. Therefore, as I stated, Lamm's real purpose is not to propose or provide remedies to the problems he cites, but to use fear of those problems to justify punitive measures against immigrants that maintain them as a permanently disenfranchised class within (not excluded from) this nation.

Consider the options available to an impoverished Central American peasant who is forced by economic and political conditions to seek entry to the U.S. Because of highly discriminatory U.S. immigration policies, legal immigration is a practical impossibility for most. Yet conditions in the person's home country conspire to make this a necessity for many Central Americans, which is why they risk and sometimes lose their lives in an attempt to reach the U.S. without documentation.

Clearly, there are two approaches available, one of which takes measures to prevent immigration despite these pressures, and the other of which attempts to facilitate assimilation. Either or both of these approaches could be pursued, but the present U.S. policy does neither. Instead, it makes immigration possible but risky and illicit, and an immigrant's stay in this country difficult and tenuous. The net effect is to create a resident group of disenfranchised persons who are second class in terms of their rights and opportunities. And because we have a competitive system here, this policy downgrades opportunities (and rights) for our own middle and lower economic classes, as they compete against these desperate and disenfranchised masses.

This makes Lamm's fourth point on "how to destroy America" especially hypocritical: "Fourth, I would make our fastest growing demographic group the least educated. I would add a second underclass, unassimilated, undereducated, and antagonistic to our population. I would have this second underclass have a 50% dropout rate from high school." While pretending to oppose that outcome, Lamm is promoting policies that will have exactly that effect.

It is your own fantasy that supporters of immigrant rights are, in general, urging separatism, either culturally or linguistically. That is in fact what *opponents* of immigrant rights are doing. Most supporters of immigrant rights, including myself, do oppose punitive and counterproductive measures such as the English only initiative, which disenfranchise immigrants by depriving them of resources (e.g., voting materials in their own languages), without providing any positive paths to learning English and other forms of empowerment, but we are *very* supportive of measures such as ESL courses, civics classes, job training, etc. that offer positive paths to assimilation that many immigrants readily avail themselves of when they are made available.

CC Original Post: In reality, U.S. immigration policy is based upon a deliberate hypocrisy. On the one hand, influential employers, especially in California, depend utterly upon cheap immigrant labor, and would immediately resist any and all attempts to seriously limit immigration. However, these same businesses benefit greatly from a policy that keeps immigrants terrorized by sporadic INS raids and deportations, for this environment helps to prevent immigrants from organizing to receive a fair wage and benefits.

FRL Comment: >>> It would be nice if you could stay on target, CC, and not change the subject whenever it suits you. Employers depending on cheap immigrant labor presumably only care that the job gets done, whether the laborers are speaking English or Spanish. These employers, who will be punished in the coming years by enforcement of immigration laws, don’t cover even a tenth of the area of the social fabric being torn asunder by multiculturalists, who do their dirty work “under the radar” in America’s government schools.

CC Response: I don't understand why you view this as off-topic. Consider this: Pete Wilson's largest campaign contributors were California agribusinesses. Wilson was full of posturing around shutting down immigration, which, if seriously pursued, would have shut down California agribusiness as we know it, but this did not discourage his big ag backers, because they knew that he had no intention of actually closing the border. These same backers have visibly benefited from Wilson's policies vs. immigrants, and show no signs of regretting their investment, which is why they are among the largest contributors to Schwarzenegger and his WIlsonian anti-immigrant posturing today. It is necessary to distinguish between politicians' public statements and their actual policies, which are quite different.

FRL Comment: >>> Despite peacock-posturing to the contrary, leftist doctrine depends on suspicion, distrust and hatred between the races. A united majority in favor of free markets is the communist’s ultimate nightmare.

CC Response: If you think carefully about this remark of yours, you may be able to recognize it as a classic case of what psychologists call "projection." Because, as I have pointed out above, the ones doing the posturing are politicians like Lamm, and a policy that permanently disenfranchises a group based upon its nationality and race can hardly fail to increase "suspicion, distrust and hatred between the races," as it has, in fact, done. And your last phrase, "A united majority in favor of free markets is the communist's ultimate nightmare" is so silly that I hardly need to deconstruct it, but I will:

1) A united majority does not exclude hatred between races if minorities are excluded from that union, as they are by present policies.

2) Free markets are a fantasy that has never existed in any real economic system. Have you noticed that in our "free market" system U.S. taxpayers have just taken on 8 billion dollars in debt thrust upon us by United Airlines' decision to disemburden itself of its contractual obligation to pay pensions to its workers? Have you noticed the billions of dollars in subsidies to industry through inflated defense contracts? Have you noticed that many corporations pay almost no taxes while using roads, research, and other resources (including the Internet) developed with the use of public funds? I could go on. To paraphrase your own remarks below, it is hard to take anyone who uses terms like "free markets" seriously. But, for the sake of this discussion, I will.

3) "The Communists' ultimate nightmare"? I think you may be fighting the last war here. Last time I checked, the majority of immigrant rights advocates did not self-identify as "communists." And this supposed "nightmare" is really a fantasy, as pointed out above. In any case, communism has nothing to do with the merits of the issues that we are discussing here. This seems to be an attempt to characterize hypothetical opponents in a way that allows you to demonize them. It may be that the impersonal environment of the Internet lends itself to such pathos.

CC Original Post: The deluded and often racist or crypto-racist right wing is pulled into this game, thinking that there is some chance to actually limit immigration, but they are only providing support and cover for a campaign of terror that suppresses not just the wages and rights of immigrants, but those of all citizens, through labor competition with oppressed immigrant labor on the one hand and repressive legislation limiting civil liberties on the other.

FRL Comment: >>> First, it’s hard to take anyone who uses terms like “crypto-racist” seriously. With apologies to Voltaire, “If racism did not exist, it would have been necessary for the left to invent it.” Overwrought phrases like “campaign of terror” don’t help the cause either, except perhaps in aiding the non-thinking of beret-wearing café sloths.

>>> It’s also painfully obvious that the immigration debate is just another angle for pushers of the same old communist claptrap to try and gain a foothold.

CC Response: You seem to be saying that the term "crypto-racist" is being used as an epithet, so let me define it: it means someone who harbors racist views but cloaks them in euphemisms. Racist views are views that generalize about people based upon their race rather than recognizing them as unique individuals who have foundational human qualities that are more fundamental than race. Crypto-racism is common today in the U.S., because overt racism has become unacceptable to most people.

For an example, consider Lamm when he says that if he wanted to destroy America, he "would make it an article of faith that the Black and Hispanic dropout rates are due to prejudice and discrimination by the majority. Every other explanation is out of bounds." What are the other explanations that he does not list? It seems clear to me that by identifying these dropouts by race, he has left only two possible explanations: racial discrimination by the majority, or an intrinsic lack of ability / initiative / etc. on the part of "Black and Hispanic" people. And, he has taken discrimination off the table, so what does that leave?

Clearly, the claim that "Black and Hispanic" people have higher dropout rates because, as racial groups, they have common failings, meets my definition of racism, and hopefully it meets yours, too, and that you will reject that view. And, since Lamm does not make this claim overtly, but only by implication, it is racism that is covert, and therefore, "crypto-racism."

I hope that the above convinces you that I do not mean this term as an epithet; that, on the contrary, it has a precise meaning, and that its use therefore ought to be taken seriously by you.

While taking exception to the term "crypto-racist," and adding a gratuitous smokescreen about hypothetical communists, you have not responded at all to the substance of my argument, which is that the policies you are supporting are having the effect of impairing civil liberties and decent wages for all Americans.

CC Original Post: Thus, the right uses a supposed "failure to assimilate" to demonize immigrants and their supporters, when such assimilation was never on the table as a serious offer. This is sometimes called "blaming the victim" by those of us who are familiar with the technologies of subversion now being used to level our democracy and deprive us all -- not just immigrants -- of our rights.

FRL Comment: >>> The left is more familiar with the technologies of self-delusion than subversion. The 1920s through the 1960s provides ample evidence that those immigrants who chose to assimilate fared the best, and that E Pluribus Unum is far superior to the “tossed salad” idiot multiculturalists hope to replace the melting pot with.

CC Response: As already noted, meaningful assimilation is not being offered or encouraged by Mr. Lamm, either in his remarks or elsewhere. Regarding delusion, then, see above remarks on projection. Regarding the "melting pot" of America, I would note that new waves of immigrants have *usually* been violently opposed by those who arrived here even slightly before them. Lamm, and, at the moment, you yourself, are actually part of this most recent wave of opposition to assimilating new immigrants into the community. This makes it especially ironic (and, in the case of Lamm, perhaps diabolical) that you couch your arguments in terms of defending the great U.S. "melting pot." See my earlier remarks below for a further elaboration on this hypocrisy.

CC Original Post: Such alligator tears for our threatened unity being used to justify attacks on "the other" are found throughout the entire Lamm speech as reported here. "They" are trying to turn the U.S. into a multi-lingual nation, etc. Does he therefore call for mandatory English as a Second Language programs? No, his obvious thrust is to attack immigrants as a group. They are the great evil polluting our pristine Aryan environment. Just read between the lines and you get racism and anti-democratic terror. Just as Hitler used Jews as an excuse for creating a mechanism of repression, these opportunistic politicians and their brownshirted dupes in groups like the Minutemen are using immigrants as their foil while they undermine our democracy and our freedoms.

FRL Comment: >>> And now it’s time to abandon this most educational counter-thread. As is typical of today’s leftists, arguments are prone to relapse into ridiculous and false accusations of nazis hiding in the bushes at every turn. Granted, indymedia is the catchall asylum for society’s failed –isms (primarily communism & socialism) as well as a clearinghouse for “atzlan” racists, anarchists and kooky conspiracy theories about 9/11 and chemtrails.

>>> Richard Lamm has made some excellent, chilling points about the future of America as poisoned by multicult-ists. They are to be ignored at our own peril.

CC Response: Has it entirely escaped your attention that the *explicitly* fascist groups in Europe have as their *primary* targets immigrants from other nations, with Jews coming in as a distant second as kind of a tip of the hat to their historical roots? "Fascist," as used here is not an epithet but a meaningful and well-grounded comparison. No, what we have in America is not presently the fascism of death camps, and neither was German fascism in its earlier phases. If it were necessary to *completely* repeat history before we could learn for it, then of what use would such learning be? In the case of incipient fascism, I think we need to look at some truly meaningful ways in which a policy of "pre-emption" might be applied.

And, speaking of epithets not to be taken seriously, I think that I have justified the term "crypto-racist," but I doubt that you can justify the litany of (apparently pejoratively intended) terms that you have selected as the ending to a post that in its best sections attained to the level of productive dialogue. Please leave such blather aside in subsequent postings and concentrate on succinctly expressing your views; we will all learn more, and hopefully will become more consistent and honest, with ourselves and with each other, by taking that approach.

CC Response: As already noted, meaningful assimilation is not being offered or encouraged by Mr. Lamm, either in his remarks or elsewhere. Regarding delusion, then, see above remarks on projection. Regarding the "melting pot" of America, I would note that new waves of immigrants have *usually* been violently opposed by those who arrived here even slightly before them. Lamm, and, at the moment, you yourself, are actually part of this most recent wave of opposition to assimilating new immigrants into the community. This makes it especially ironic (and, in the case of Lamm, perhaps diabolical) that you couch your arguments in terms of defending the great U.S. "melting pot." See my earlier remarks below for a further elaboration on this hypocrisy.

It is not the job of Lamm, Congress or anyone else in authority to see to it that assmilation of immigrants is made easy or encouraged. During the original melting pot era, 1920-1960, "benign neglect" was practiced by the government. Immigrants had to figure out how to survive in their new home, usually by moving to ethnic neighborhoods of those who had arrived ahead of them.

As noted earlier, even Ben Franklin worried that the wave of German immigrants might hurt the new nation, so resistance to the "new kid" is nothing new.

With limited information, you have surmised incorrectly that I personally oppose immigration, but you do so under the false pretense that illegal invaders from Mexico and China are no different than legal immigrants.

As it is impossible to make a point with those who refuse to agree on terms of what constitutes a legal newcomer, it's not useful to continue this thread.

You are also mistaken about just who opposes assimilation. It's leftists who hate that word, and FEEL that immigrants trying to learn English and live right by their new homeland are "sellouts" of their own culture. Ridiculous but true.

I can't help noticing that in your most recent post you have abandoned our detailed earlier discussion of a large number of points, without in any way addressing my comments on those issues.

To me it seems that it would be more honest on your part to acknowledge and concede those points for which you have no response, instead of hiding behind a flimsy smokescreen by saying that "As it is impossible to make a point with those who refuse to agree on terms of what constitutes a legal newcomer, it's not useful to continue this thread." Certainly you must realize how weak that response is. I suggest that you ought to place a higher value on reasoned argument, and be more willing to change your point of view if reason appears to lead away from your present beliefs.

The question of what presently constitutes a legal immigrant has never even been a part of our discussion. Every nation has the right to make laws regarding immigration; our discussion has been and is about what those laws ought to be.

In this and other statements, you are choosing to focus on the supposed character of those immigrants who are breaking present U.S. immigration laws to cross our borders, when the actual debate is about what those laws ought to be. That amounts to abadoning the debate over public policy that is at the heart of our discussion.

If you are attempting to argue our public policy questions based upon the fact that some immigrants are breaking U.S. laws to enter our country, then the only argument that you could possibly make would be a circular one, which would probably go something like this:

1. Many immigrants from the South are breaking U.S. laws in the course of entering this country. That makes these immigrants "bad" immigrants, while other immigrants who do not break U.S. laws (e.g., those from nations toward which the U.S.. has a more liberal immigration policy, and/or within which economic and political conditions are more favorable) are "good" immigrants.

2. Changing U.S. laws to make it possible for these "bad" immigrants to immigrate legally would be helping the "bad" immigrants, and by doing that we would be rewarding "bad" people who we ought to be keeping out.

The question of who we should be keeping out or letting in is at the heart of any discussion on immigration policy, and you are begging that question by calling immigrants for whom our laws make legal immigration all but impossible "bad" and then implying that the purpose of immigration policy ought to be to punish such "bad" people. Most of these immigrants would not *be* breaking our laws (and hence, would not be "bad" according to your definition) if our laws provided a practical means for them to work in this country legally.

Your argument expresses a general fallacy that has permeated your entire presentation., which is the implicit claim that all of the negative effects of present U.S. immigration policies are the fault of the immigrants affected by those policies, and none of the fault lies in the policies themselves.

One cannot devise a workable public policy without considering the conditions created by the policies themselves. To cite an (even more) extreme case, if we had laws prohibiting people from breathing, and found that most people broke those laws, would we argue (with our last breath) that the laws ought not to be changed, because it would benefit those scofflaws who insisted upon breaking them by filling up their lungs with air? Would we instead argue that the air ought to be poisoned to prevent such illicit activity, and to punish those who, despite the law, continue to engage in it? I suspect that this would not lead to a beneficial public policy on that issue.

We can see this same pattern in the focus by right-wing politicians on criminals and their crimes so that they can pass more and more punitive laws, such as three strikes, while ignoring the public policy issues (unemployment, wealth disparity, public education, recreational facilities, etc.) that are the most controllable factors in reducing the incidence of such criminal activity.

Once again, the name of the game is "blame the victim." To such finger pointers, growing up in a jobless, repressive environment is not the problem, but the criminals produced by such an environment *are*, and the "only thing to be done" is to build more and more prisons so that they can be punished. This is a vicious spiral, as demonstrated by the fact that there are now more prisons in the state of California than there are schools in the enire UC system.

What is so "benign" about such neglect? Those making public policy should not be allowed to use the demonization of a policy's present victims to run away from the responsibility that they have to craft constructive and beneficial policies that replace the old ones that have proven to be so defective.

You are presently caught up in a desttructive ideology that supports such irresponsible behavior on the part of our political institutions. I suggest that you ought to stop contributing to that morass and work instead toward constructive approaches to immigration and other issues..

Response to "Benign Neglect"

I can't help noticing that in your most recent post you have abandoned our detailed earlier discussion of a large number of points, without in any way addressing my comments on those issues.

>>>> "FRL" here. I've got other irons in the fire that demand more attention at the moment. In the meantime, addressing the post at hand, while the term "benign neglect" is apt (coined, I believe by Sen. Patrick Moynihan) it's probably too provocative-sounding for the leftist intelligensia.

>>>> Liberals generally believe that government is the answer to 5% of life's problems and EVEN MORE government is the answer to the other 95%.

You are presently caught up in a desttructive ideology that supports such irresponsible behavior on the part of our political institutions. I suggest that you ought to stop contributing to that morass and work instead toward constructive approaches to immigration and other issues..

>>>> When last I checked, it was liberal tax and spend policies that were promoting irresponsible behavior on behalf of California's budget. It's liberal doctrine that encourages teens to fuck by throwing up its hands in resignation, and so the teens do, with or without condoms, with a wink-wink guarantee that Uncle Sam will pay for any resulting babies.

>>>> It's liberals who are soft on crime ("DUKAKIS! DUKAKIS! Dukakis!" rang the echo) and have emboldened the worst criminals imaginable, ensuring that no punishments await the end of their crime sprees.

>>>> The party of irrespnsibility has a jackass for a symbol, with a hammer and sickle for a tail.

I am disappointed and even a little alarmed at this response, since most of it does not seem to be at all related to our discussion. It was never my intention to reduce you to such a condition.

It is not necessary to concede any of these points publicly (although, given that you are posting anonymously, I don't see why this would be emotionally difficult), but I hope that at least you will privately reconsider your views in the light of our discussion.

Respectfully,

CC

What is so "benign" about such neglect? Those making public policy should not be allowed to use the demonization of a policy's present victims to run away from the responsibility that they have to craft constructive and beneficial policies that replace the old ones that have proven to be so defective.

With statements like these you "seem" to be blaming America first for the world's problems, while at the same time accusing America of passing the buck. Isn't this the same foregone liberal conclusion as "crime is society's fault?"

You are presently caught up in a desttructive ideology that supports such irresponsible behavior on the part of our political institutions. I suggest that you ought to stop contributing to that morass and work instead toward constructive approaches to immigration and other issues..

The above statement was argued in the last post. There's nothing complicated about the two major parties' philosophies.

Presently a weak shadow of itself, the right still represents self-reliance, free markets and limited government.

The other party has fallen from grace by bowing down to extremists in order to keep its power base. The left is for government interference/intervention in every aspect of its people's lives under the guise of "protecction."

The circular logic of "Why do you think illegals want to come here?" has its place: I'm reminding you this isn't it. Both the conditions that make invading America so attractive, as well as the conditions that make America easy to invade, must be addressed. On those two points alone, both parties will have to change their thinking, as will Mexico's corrupt banana republic.

At its core, the immigration argument--like most politcal arguments--is really about who owes what to whom. Liberals believe that governments owe the people a living, and that on a larger scale, America owes the world a living, or enough of the world to make ithe supposition ludicrous.

You're stating your case adequately. It's whether history supports your views that is suspect. I believe you are flirting in sophistry when you challenge the concept of "benign neglect" as it is presented here. A father pushing his young daughter's bicycle down the sidewalk--with the training wheels removed for the first time--isn't practicing "neglect" the way you see it, but seeing to it his offpsring has the skills to survive.

I haven't seen any cogent argument from the left on why America should be the only country with "open" borders, which neither Mexico nor Canada has, and also be forced to take care of the basic needs of an entire other county (Mexico).

CC, you dismissal of any thoughts of fixing a system as "blaming America" demonstrates that you are not at all concerned with fixing anything.

If my roof leaks, I do not scream at the water to get out. I do not put out more buckets to catch it, and I do not believe that fixing the roof means that I hate my house or that am blaming the house for anything.

I just fix the fuckin' roof.

Also, your claim that those opposing SOS/MM want open borders is bullshit. You can be against the tactics and poorly defined goals of these groups without throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Maybe that is why you are hearing no cogent arguments against your strawman.

You have mistakenly attributed comments made by an author calling himself "It Works" to me. The views of "It Works" are opposed to my own.

Civic Conscience (aka, CC)

My apologies....I am sure that piece of work knows who it was directed at, though...

KPC comments were for me, /B>Jose Gutierrez, not CC, as clarified above.

CC, you dismissal of any thoughts of fixing a system as "blaming America" demonstrates that you are not at all concerned with fixing anything.

I'm JG, the same fellow who answered all of your questions yesterday.

Answering KPCs reasonable questions Jose Gutierrez 2005-06-21 10:52 PM

http://la.indymedia.org/news/2005/06/129845_comment.php#130185

I AM very concerned with '"fixing the roof." In a more suitable analogy, it's a building's handyman (Congress) who is reponsible for keeping the roof in good repair. Well, the handyman failed and refuses to do any more work. And leftists are inexplicably screaming at the tenants for hiring a new handyman or fixing the roof themselves.

If my roof leaks, I do not scream at the water to get out. I do not put out more buckets to catch it, and I do not believe that fixing the roof means that I hate my house or that am blaming the house for anything.

I get your point, which is: poor Mexicans have "little choice" but to flee to America and therefore should not be blamed.

While the harm they cause may not be deliberate, they are still draining American resources meant for Americans.

There is dire poverty all over the world. Why doesn't the left blame a great deal of it on what causes it the most: despots and socialist/communist-type governments that stifle human nature and squander natural resources, a la Mexico. Come to think of it, when was the last time a leftist denounced Mexico's corrupt government?

Also, your claim that those opposing SOS/MM want open borders is bullshit. You can be against the tactics and poorly defined goals of these groups without throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

You're right that not 'everyone' on the left wants "open borders." But for crying out loud, enough on the left oppose enforcement of the border laws we have NOW, and many more approve of illegals already here staying, illegals that could be terrorists or working for same. Without proper enforcement the borders are already "open," hence the problem. As for opposing SOS's platform or "tactics" (which consist of peaceable, legal protests), the left faces the same problem it does at the national level: no better ideas or solutions, only hysteria and criticism

Maybe that is why you are hearing no cogent arguments against your strawman.

I've made my case well enough. This whole "circus" wouldn't even be happening if SOS/MM hadn't rocked the status quo.

Secure borders are a keystone to keeping America safe.

"It works" wrote:
With statements like these you "seem" to be blaming America first for the world's problems, while at the same time accusing America of passing the buck. Isn't this the same foregone liberal conclusion as "crime is society's fault?"

Response from CC:
When one is debating public policy one must focus on that topic. Public policy is something that is made by governments. It is not a matter of placing blame, but rather of discussing what government ought to be doing.

For example, one policy that government can take toward crime is to focus on punishing and imprisoning those who commit crimes, while another policy is to provide more support for non-criminal lifestyles, by providing easy access to quality education, guided recreational activities for youth, high quality, highly-compensated jobs, and so on.

Similarly, one policy that government can take toward immigration is to create conditions that allow immigrant labor to be exploited, while another is to provide structured avenues for assimilation that allow more respect for immigrant rights.

The question is therefore not "who is to blame" but rather, "what course should government take." If you believe that government should simply step back and do nothing, then doing "nothing" (which is itself a policy) would also preclude hiring more police, building more prisons, assigning more officers to the INS, etc. If you think that government ought to do "something," then that something might well be providing the positive kinds of assistance that I have listed above. What we should be discussing is: what outcomes would be desirable, and what policies would be most likely to lead to them? The primary question, then, is not "less government" or "more government," but "what government."

So, you cannot avoid a debate on the merits of the various approaches by claiming that I am assigning fault to "society" for crime or "blaming America" for our immigration crisis, simply because I argue for a particular set of policies on the part of government. Such a claim simply represents an attempt on your part to avoid debating the various possible governmental policies on their merits. I am no more "blaming America" by calling for more positive approaches to assimilating immigrants than you are "blaming America" by calling for more repression, repulsion and expulsion than exists in present U.S. policies.

"It works" wrote:

Presently a weak shadow of itself, the right still represents self-reliance, free markets and limited government.

Response from CC:
See remarks in my posts above regarding the fantasy of "free markets," which have never existed and which have never been truly supported by any political faction, and certainly not by those conservative groups that give them so much lip service.

Regarding the related canard of "limited government," I am not aware of any significant group in this country that is truly working toward less government, and those who provide the most lip service to that cause are the ones who actually support it the least. Is it "limited government" to start a war based upon a deception, and to spend billions of tax dollars on exorbitant weapons systems whose purchase is mainly of benefit to defense companies? Is it "limited government" to provide massive assistance to failed corporations such as Chrysler and United Airlines and others when they face financial difficulties? Is it "limited government" to run up nearly eight trillion dollars in debt by such policies, as the present administration has done? And yet, the present Administration professes to be a great defender of "limited govenment." This is a pure and obvious hypocrisy.

To summarize: you have accused those who support positive governmental policies of supporting "big government" while not making that charge against those supporting repressive governmental policies, even though one is just as "big" as the other. And, you have accused those who criticize present government policies from a perspective that differs from your own as "blaming America" or "blaming society," but do not make that same criticism of yourself even though you are also calling for changes to present governmental policies, albeit from a different perspective (i.e., you believe that present poliicies are not repressive enough).

The rest of your post consists of random slogans and accusations aimed at straw men such as "Liberals," the Democratic Party, etc., which are not obviously connected to our discussion.

By the way, I have not argued for open borders, as you claim, but rather have explicitly stated that: "Every nation has the right to make laws regarding immigration; our discussion has been and is about what those laws ought to be."

Ideology is very interesting to me. Having a logical debate with those embracing a certain ideology can help to reveal illogical aspects of their views. Although I am not so naive as to think that those holding to a certain set of views will necessarily alter them based upon logical arguments alone, I would nonetheless challenge and encourage those holding such illogical views to re-consider them in the light of these discussions.

Regarding the analogy of hiring a new handyman: I suppose you mean electing new representation. That is fine. But if the new "handyman" come in and starts shouting at the water to get out, I doubt the new handyman would have any more luck than the old. What is need if representatives who will address the root cause of the problem...or fix the roof...and not be distracted by the symptioms. But I doubt without serious reform that you can achieve the 80% reduction you seek. Enforcing the laws against illegal immigration is as unlikely to eliminate the problem as enforcing the laws against burglary are unlikely to eliminate that problem.

Regarding your interpretation of my point: You missed the point entirely. It has nothing to do with poor Mexicans having little choice or whether thay should be blamed, it is that blaming them does nothing to address the problem. Each individual can bare his individual responsibility, but there is no collective responsibilitiy, and to try to force it into collective responsibility is exactly the kind of rhetoric that make people question the motives of SOS/MM.

Regarding poverty source: Blaming poverty on socialism or communism is ridiculous. Poverty has been around millenia before Marx or Engels ever drew a breath. There is plenty of poverty to go around for all ideologies.

Regarding the left's denunciation of Mexico's government: I am not exactly certain what huge monolithic picture you paint in your mind when you say "the left", but I can assure you there are plenty of people, both left and right, that have criticized Mexico's PAN and PRI parties...and have whole-heartedly supported independent parties and indigenous groups throughout Mexico. You should pay closer attention.

Regarding Open borders: I don't know about that monolithic menace you call "the left", but just because someone does not agree with your tactics does not mean they do not they do not support enforcement of existing border laws.

Regarding illegal immigrants as terrorists: All I have to say is that before 9-11, the worst terrorist act on American soil was carried out by an American. The argument you present is simply an attempt to make it a hot button issue and barely worth discussion.

Regarding SOS/MM rockin ' the boat: About all they have accomplished is what you have stated, they have formed a traveling circus ...unfocused and unlikely to affect the 80% reduction you would like to see.

I have posted some other points that I encourage you to address, as it gets to the heart of the effectiveness of the movement you support. Here they are again:

Do you support lobbying any governent officials involved in immigration policy in order to understand current and influence future policy? Who have SOS/MM lobbied?

Do you know the US Senate and or House Committees dealing with immigration reform? Has SOS/MM contacted these committees?

Do you support teaming with potential immigrants on the opposite side of the border to hold teach-ins on how to enter the country legally? If so, what is SOS/MM doing about this?

Do you support working with immigrants (illegal or undocumented, by your definition) that are currently in the US in order to assist those who may obtain legal status? If so, what is SOS/MM doing about this?

There is dire poverty all over the world. Why doesn't the left blame a great deal of it on what causes it the most: despots and socialist/communist-type governments(1) that stifle human nature and squander natural resources, a la Mexico. Come to think of it, when was the last time a leftist denounced Mexico's corrupt government?(2)

1. And the CIA with its jackels who come in to ravage any type of socialist government that attempts to pull itself out of poverty like Chile or Nicaragua, has nothing to do with this as well as the exploitation of THEIR client despots, huh?
2. Apparently you know little about the 'leftists' who have been criticizing these CIA installed governments for years as the corporations best friends.
( Can't stand this side of the mouth lieing while decrying the effects brought about by the 'rightists' complacency as profits soar. Geez.)

Regarding the analogy of hiring a new handyman: I suppose you mean electing new representation. That is fine. But if the new "handyman" come in and starts shouting at the water to get out, I doubt the new handyman would have any more luck than the old. What is need if representatives who will address the root cause of the problem...or fix the roof...and not be distracted by the symptioms. But I doubt without serious reform that you can achieve the 80% reduction you seek. Enforcing the laws against illegal immigration is as unlikely to eliminate the problem as enforcing the laws against burglary are unlikely to eliminate that problem.

It’s possible a few indymedians listen to Bill O’Reilly. I mention him because he’s the only voice in the wilderness proclaiming that Americans should demand honest government, something I think both the right and left can agree upon. The Civil Rights Movement is an example of no one in Congress initially “planning” for a certain event. They REacted to it with Civil Rights legislation. I bring this example up to remind that once enough Americans want something to happen, for better or worse, it usually does. Public opinion on a roll can’t be stopped. Ever since the 2000 census, more and more Americans are waking up to the real problems caused by illegal immigration.

Massive reform is less a problem than simply enforcing the laws we have now. I have to disagree about this enforcement not being able to seriously curtail illegal immigration. If even a third of the monies wasted fighting the “War on Drugs” were spent on beefing up the border, we’d see drastic results.

The illegals are the most visible (and expensive) part of the problem. I think a lot of people concerned about their presence here would be put at ease if they made a serious attempt to learn English and assimilate, which does not ‘erase’ immigrant’s culture but gives all of us a common ancestry in addition to their own unique cultural contributions. The other problems are American ‘sanctuary’ cities, Mexico’s corrupt government and our federal government refusing to do its #!@ job.

. Since neither SOS or the Minutemen have encouraged violence or lawlessness in any way, I don’t fear them or see any reason for others to fear them. It’s an unfair to label SOS/MM members as nazis as it is for “my” side to label all leftists as communists, but people aren’t always rational (or more rational, ha ha). SaveOurState is an organization dedicated to stopping the ridiculous yet dangerous idea of “reclaiming” California for Mexico. There is a real war of cultures, language and values, fueled by a small minority of Mecha/racist Aztlan types who are in turn encouraged by certain factions of America-bashing leftists. On the other side are defenders of generic American values including assimilation and speaking English. The SOS side is weakened by the reduction in shared American heritage since the 60s.

The Minutemen simply put a face (and video camera) on the problem at the border as it’s happening. In our visual society, footage of people literally running at our borders is a lot more visceral than some dry government report.

Regarding poverty source: Blaming poverty on socialism or communism is ridiculous. Poverty has been around millenia before Marx or Engels ever drew a breath. There is plenty of poverty to go around for all ideologies.

In the 20th century, the big four were capitalism, socialism, communism and variations of monarchy. Of those four, capitalism has provided the most wealth (including meeting basic needs) to the greatest number of peeps. The Soviet Union had far more natural wealth than the USA, yet communism destroyed them, so I’m assured the evils of a few can and do destroy the sprit and ingeniousness of the many. Although an anomaly of sorts, post -WW2 Japan is proof that even a lack of natural resources doesn’t mean automatic failure. I don’t blame “all poverty” on any one idealogy (though a great many comrades do blame capitalism for all the evils in the world) but in the case of Mexico, with its mix of corrupt government, nationalized resources and crony capitalism, there is no middle class, and no chance for one until the Mexican people set their government straight.

Regarding the left's denunciation of Mexico's government: I am not exactly certain what huge monolithic picture you paint in your mind when you say "the left", but I can assure you there are plenty of people, both left and right, that have criticized Mexico's PAN and PRI parties...and have whole-heartedly supported independent parties and indigenous groups throughout Mexico. You should pay closer attention.

Remember, this forum is a catchall not just for Democrats of all kinds, plus radicals, anarchists, communists, etc. I could be more precise with my definitions than blanketing all with “the left” but overall I think the points are understood. The refusal of mainstream media to denounce Castro and instead sometimes honor him is an example of liberal bias that just pisses me off. I’d like to hear from some moderate leftists who hate Castro and the crimes he’s inflicted on his people, but I don’t have the inclination to find them any more than for “moderate” Muslims, who exist but are verwy, vewy, quiet about it.

Regarding Open borders: I don't know about that monolithic menace you call "the left", but just because someone does not agree with your tactics does not mean they do not they do not support enforcement of existing border laws.

Fair enough. Regarding illegal immigrants as terrorists: All I have to say is that before 9-11, the worst terrorist act on American soil was carried out by an American.

What about incinerating children at Waco and murdering a woman holding a baby at Ruby Ridge? That was OUR government sponsoring terrorism of a kind.

The argument you present is simply an attempt to make it a hot button issue and barely worth discussion.

Well, I think it’s clear that I don’t mean all illegals are terrorists. The next major attack by terrorists will probably be either by illegals with expired visas or illegals who snuck in through Mexico. For now, there’s an illusion it’s ‘safe’ to dismiss domestic terrorism and put it on the back burner, but only because our enemies are patient.

Regarding SOS/MM rockin ' the boat: About all they have accomplished is what you have stated, they have formed a traveling circus ...unfocused and unlikely to affect the 80% reduction you would like to see.

There is a long road ahead. This is only my opinion (you’ve been warned) SOS and MM have contributed positively to the anti-illegal immigration movement:
1) They’ve made immigration an issue too large for either big party to sweep under the rug.

2) They’ve put a human face on the issue, theirs AND illegals 3) They’ve demonstrated that there are very real and serious consequences and costs of not stopping illegal immigration.

I have posted some other points that I encourage you to address, as it gets to the heart of the effectiveness of the movement you support. Here they are again:

All right. Do you support lobbying any governent officials involved in immigration policy in order to understand current and influence future policy? Who have SOS/MM lobbied?

I don’t speak for either group but I’ll give you my interpretation of events.

If you’re really interested in having these questions answered by them, respectfully ASK those groups. I’m sure they will happily respond to serious queries. Heck, you may even suggest something they hadn’t thought to try yet.

Do you know (how) the US Senate and or House Committees (are) dealing with immigration reform?

No. Even now, I don’t hear anything about what either intends to do about the problem. Do you support teaming with potential immigrants on the opposite side of the border to hold teach-ins on how to enter the country legally?

Whatever proposal is created won’t work without the support of the Mexican government, and they’re already not cooperating by sending illegals our way with desert survival kits. This to me is small potatoes.

Do you support working with immigrants (illegal or undocumented, by your definition) that are currently in the US in order to assist those who may obtain legal status?

I don’t support amnesty for illegals…that will simply encourage another wave of them, even if we “promise” ourselves securer borders. The multiple sources of the flood must be stopped before dealing with the flooded areas. Illegal aliens have committed crimes, if only the major one of coming here in the first place without permission. Solutions are out there and the present non-working system will have to be changed.