Arizona immigration law goes into effect......

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by molson

To sum up though, iI think it's very poorly written legislation. They could have accomplished the same thing with much less confusing language.

I have to figure that you've read enough legislation to know that the same could be said about 99% of the time.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

ITs going to overturned by the supreme court. Suggesting that this is about anything more than "pick on those brown people" is wishcasting of the highest order.

Mighty big brush you got there.

[molson]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I have to figure that you've read enough legislation to know that the same could be said about 99% of the time.

You should see what doesn't get through.

[Dutch]

People that work in the States while not legally allowed to be here open themselves up to all sorts of civil rights abuses. We simply cannot let this go on. I understand that Democrats right now believe they are scoring great political points, but it's bullshit that they are blocking progress at the federal level in order to allow States to make these laws.

Something has to be done. I don't blame Arizona for trying to curb the issue, but States should not be making laws like this, again, this is a federal issue. We really need to secure the border. Not because of simpleton political crap like "Republicans are racist" but to stop the flood of illegal aliens into the country. People that we can't protect because we don't see them but are ultimately America's responsibility.

Once the borders are locked down and the flow of illegal aliens into American slows to a trickle, then (and only then) we allow amnesty to those lucky enough to be here to become American citizens.

Ultimately, I would love nothing more than to have folks that, as far as I can tell, break their backs working for America the choice to become citizens.

[Greyroofoo]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Ultimately, I would love nothing more than to have folks that, as far as I can tell, break their backs working for America the choice to become citizens.

I would love to keep the hard-working immigrants and we'll send our welfare queens to Mexico.

[Arles]

I get the feeling most of the opponents of this law think that this is what most cops are like in Phoenix:

It's not practical for cops to pull over random people for no reason other than to check their papers. They actually have a job to due and most really don't enjoy hassling people for no reason.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Dutch

People that work in the States while not legally allowed to be here open themselves up to all sorts of civil rights abuses. We simply cannot let this go on. I understand that Democrats right now believe they are scoring great political points, but it's bullshit that they are blocking progress at the federal level in order to allow States to make these laws.

Something has to be done. I don't blame Arizona for trying to curb the issue, but States should not be making laws like this, again, this is a federal issue. We really need to secure the border. Not because of simpleton political crap like "Republicans are racist" but to stop the flood of illegal aliens into the country. People that we can't protect because we don't see them but are ultimately America's responsibility.

Once the borders are locked down and the flow of illegal aliens into American slows to a trickle, then (and only then) we allow amnesty to those lucky enough to be here to become American citizens.

Ultimately, I would love nothing more than to have folks that, as far as I can tell, break their backs working for America the choice to become citizens.

LMAO

Did you miss where it was Republicans who have been blocking progress at the federal level, and threatening to block progress on immigration reform if the financial reforms are passed?

[molson]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

An alternative view of the reasoning for this bill.

I think "show me your papers" is now officially the Obamacare equivalent of death panels.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Arles

I get the feeling most of the opponents of this law think that this is what most cops are like in Phoenix:

It's not practical for cops to pull over random people for no reason other than to check their papers. They actually have a job to due and most really don't enjoy hassling people for no reason.

I don't blame the cops, but when they are constantly under threat of lawsuits if they don't enforce federal laws to the maximum extent possible, I'm sure there are going to be abuses.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Ultimately, I would love nothing more than to have folks that, as far as I can tell, are nothing more than common criminals to have special pathways to becoming citizens.

Fixed that for you, because that's exactly what you just said.

They've always had "a choice", they made it when they entered illegally.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

It's easy to say that when the only thing stopping you from saving your entire family from extreme poverty is jumping a fence or "breaking a law" you don't understand. Short of doing the things that you'd like to do (that would ya' know, violate pretty much all human rights), as I said before, we're always going to have an illegal immigrant problem as long as Mexico is a Second/Third World Nation.

The only really easy way to stop illegal immigration for the most part. If you own a business and are caught with an illegal immigrant, $100,000 fine and six months in jail for each one. But, that might effect some donors (in both parties).

Can't stop it, so why try, eh? Got it. Where can I subscribe to your newsletter?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Dutch

People that work in the States while not legally allowed to be here open themselves up to all sorts of civil rights abuses. We simply cannot let this go on. I understand that Democrats right now believe they are scoring great political points, but it's bullshit that they are blocking progress at the federal level in order to allow States to make these laws.

Something has to be done. I don't blame Arizona for trying to curb the issue, but States should not be making laws like this, again, this is a federal issue. We really need to secure the border. Not because of simpleton political crap like "Republicans are racist" but to stop the flood of illegal aliens into the country. People that we can't protect because we don't see them but are ultimately America's responsibility.

Once the borders are locked down and the flow of illegal aliens into American slows to a trickle, then (and only then) we allow amnesty to those lucky enough to be here to become American citizens.

Ultimately, I would love nothing more than to have folks that, as far as I can tell, break their backs working for America the choice to become citizens.

I'm confused. Hasn't the rhetoric on the right been that the federal government is too big and has too much power? Now you want them to massively expand in this area. Tough to pinpoint what you guys want when it seems to change all the time.

[lungs]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

I mean, honestly, if we just invested a healthy chunk of money that we spend on border security into making Mexico a stable country, we'd get more bang for our buck.

So long as the culture of corruption exists in Mexico, spending loads of money on them would be foolish.

[molson]

Originally Posted by lungs

So long as the culture of corruption exists in Mexico, spending loads of money on them would be foolish.

You could just write in the memo section on the check, "not to be used for corruption".

[lungs]

Ahh, I'm just fondly recalling the 500 peso bribe we were asked to pay to drive down a certain street.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

Short of severely draconian law, not really. The border's been a problem since there was a reason to hop it. Again, people will do almost anything to help their family, especially under severe circumstances. I mean, honestly, if we just invested a healthy chunk of money that we spend on border security into making Mexico a stable country, we'd get more bang for our buck.

Also, decriminalizing drugs so there's not a rich and massive customer base for the cartels causing trouble at the moment.

Sorry, that's as unrealistic as the m,ethods JIMG is advocating for ending illegal immigration. It's going to take a lot more than some foreign spending outlays by the US to turn Mexico into a stable country, certainly a lot more than we can afford to spend.

As a fiscal Republican with Libertarian leanings, I am open to decriminalizing drugs, but that won't be enough either.

And, frankly, doing nothing is the least palatable of your answers above. A good chunk of my tax dollar currently goes to supporting members of the populace who contribute little to nothing to the government because they're not on the books. I would rather that money go to where the state needs it.

[larrymcg421]

I have less confidence than others because a very similar law was passed in Prince William, VA and not only were legal Hispanics driven away, but the police chief was publicly attacked for not being as zealous as the county commissioner wanted. I have no reason to think it will be any better in Arizona.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

I have less confidence than others because a very similar law was passed in Prince William, VA and not only were legal Hispanics driven away, but the police chief was publicly attacked for not being as zealous as the county commissioner wanted. I have no reason to think it will be any better in Arizona.

You're wrong. Now the police chief can be sued by every yahoo in AZ.

[Arles]

Maybe Obama's immigration plan is to make our economy so crappy that people no longer have an incentive to leave Mexico and come here. I think we need to think out of the box here, people.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

You're wrong. Now the police chief can be sued by every yahoo in AZ.

Which is why it won't be any better than in Virginia. Not sure how that makes my statement wrong, since that's exactly my point.

[JPhillips]

I'm saying it's even worse than the VA law.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I'm confused. Hasn't the rhetoric on the right been that the federal government is too big and has too much power? Now you want them to massively expand in this area. Tough to pinpoint what you guys want when it seems to change all the time.

I see you working the partisan angles hard. But this is a foreign policy issue and I don't think anybody has ever questioned that foreign policy should be determined (and strengthened wherever possible) by the federal government.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

They've always had "a choice", they made it when they entered illegally.

Oh, I don't condone it and understand it's illegal. But one look at that joke of a nation, Mexico...and I understand. Ultimately, I will always applaud level of effort to make things better for one's family, especially those that do not tread on other people trying to take care of their families.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Dutch

I see you working the partisan angles hard. But this is a foreign policy issue and I don't think anybody has ever questioned that foreign policy should be determined (and strengthened wherever possible) by the federal government.

Actually, it seems like an Arizona issue to me. Their issues with illegals really have no impact on me up in Illinois.

I said I agreed with it for the most part if it was more specific. I just thought it was funny how you guys went all "federal government is getting too big" and then cry that the federal government isn't big enough to handle an issue you want. But hypocrisy is the name of the game these days.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Actually, it seems like an Arizona issue to me. Their issues with illegals really have no impact on me up in Illinois.

I said I agreed with it for the most part if it was more specific. I just thought it was funny how you guys went all "federal government is getting too big" and then cry that the federal government isn't big enough to handle an issue you want. But hypocrisy is the name of the game these days.

To your first point, why are you even posting here then?

As to your "funny" point, you're the one labeling this as federal government needs to be bigger. They're seeing the feds need to do this better, not "bigger". Advocating that the feds do their job more efficiently and wisely with respect to immigration doesn't mean these posters have abdicated their right to believe that the federal government as a whole needs to be smaller.

It would only be hypocrisy/nonsensicle if they stated they wanted the government to do everything it's doing now, add new border responsibilities and expect to have smaller government.

Basically, to me, it looks like you're just going out of your way to take pointless and irrelevant partisan shots in a thread that doesn't really need that.

[King of New York]

Originally Posted by Arles

Maybe Obama's immigration plan is to make our economy so crappy that people no longer have an incentive to leave Mexico and come here. I think we need to think out of the box here, people.

Seriously, as long as you have a country as wealthy as the USA bordering a vastly less wealthy country such as Mexico, which is all that separates us from an even less wealthy region such Central America, you are going to have massive attempts at emigration from the poorer regions to the wealthier regions.

Unfortunately, only policies that tend toward extremity, whether of the left-wing or right-wing variety, have a realistic chance of trumping the natural pull of the USA. We could adopt a right-wing solution: enact federal laws far more Draconian than Arizona's, fortify the border with Mexico, and relentlessly patrol the Gulf of Mexico/Atlantic Coast/Pacific Coast. Or we could adopt a left-wing solution: make huge investments in the Mexican and Central American economies and raise standards of living there high enough so that people no longer felt the desire to emigrate.

The right-wing solution can only hope to limit massive illegal immigration, though, not end it, because it does not address the underlying push-pull factors that shape emigration; it would likely involve the infringement of civil liberties and thereby trash core American principles; and it would have to be continued in perpetuity. The left-wing solution runs a high risk of failure due to rampant corruption, but if it worked, it would provide a permanent solution, it would not involve a perpetual commitment of resources, and it would not involve any infringement of civil liberties. So I would have to incline toward the left-wing solution.

As important as the issue of illegal immigration is, I can't help but think that we'd be better off focusing on changing our drug laws first, and legalizing drugs. That is something that, unlike immigration reform, can be implemented relatively easily. By legalizing drugs, we would go a long way toward debilitating the drug cartels, which, it turn, would eliminate one of the major sources of corruption and destabilization in Mexico and Central America.

[SportsDino]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

Short of severely draconian law, not really. The border's been a problem since there was a reason to hop it. Again, people will do almost anything to help their family, especially under severe circumstances. I mean, honestly, if we just invested a healthy chunk of money that we spend on border security into making Mexico a stable country, we'd get more bang for our buck.

Also, decriminalizing drugs so there's not a rich and massive customer base for the cartels causing trouble at the moment.

It is not up to the United States to stabilize Mexico, you really are off the crazy ass end of the leftist spectrum.

Mexico is a tragedy in many respects, we don't make it better by allowing a flood of criminals into the country, many of which are in cahoots with the cartels that are destabilizing the hell out of Mexico. I'd rather not have martial law be a necessity in the southern US.

The border is a security issue, and its certainly not the way to go about being a humanitarian.

Legalizing drugs is a drop in the bucket, and mostly is self-serving to crackheads within the US more than a legitimate public policy to solve anything. (Although I'm generally for defunding the drug war so the money could be spent on something dangerous, like white collar crime!).

As for the whole 'emigration incentive', if you have a reasonable fear of being shot after you cross the border, it will make it a lot less likely people will risk it. The hard-right solution actually would have quite a major effect on the push-pull factors you describe... so I find that argument particularly weak. The reason to object to mass killings on the border is because it is morally repugnant, not because it would have zero effect on the incentives for crossing the border.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Actually, it seems like an Arizona issue to me. Their issues with illegals really have no impact on me up in Illinois.

Have you been to Carbondale, IL? It's full of non-english speaking people of mexican decent working manual labor jobs. Arizona isn't the only state that deals with this issue, it just happens to be a lot worse.

But, by your logic, why should Montana or Idaho have to deal with terrorism? There's a higher chance of a Moose standing up and talking than there is of a terrorist attack in Billings. Securing the border, military, federal highways, social security and other areas are all things that some people may not feel directly impact them but still fall into the umbrella of the federal government.

I said I agreed with it for the most part if it was more specific. I just thought it was funny how you guys went all "federal government is getting too big" and then cry that the federal government isn't big enough to handle an issue you want. But hypocrisy is the name of the game these days.

I don't see any issue with people thinking the federal government should try and do a few core things well (border, military, roads, ..) instead of a lot of things crappy (education, health care, ...).

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Dutch

especially those that do not tread on other people trying to take care of their families.

The minute they crossed that border illegally they trod upon every US citizen, violating the most basic of all national principals,the right to control your own border.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

The minute they crossed that border illegally they trod upon every US citizen, violating the most basic of all national principals,the right to control your own border.

And the disciple said, "Lord, should we not extend charity to those that enter Jerusalem from other lands?" Jesus' face turned red. He took the cigarette from his mouth and said, "Fuck them."

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Arles

Have you been to Carbondale, IL? It's full of non-english speaking people of mexican decent working manual labor jobs. Arizona isn't the only state that deals with this issue, it just happens to be a lot worse.

Interstate 35 is called the 'Mexican Pipeline' or 'Mexican Highway' by a lot of people in the Midwest for this very reason. It's a direct North/South route between Canada and Mexico that allows illegal immigrants to get away from the border as quickly as possible and settle in areas like Missouri, Iowa, and Minnesota.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

A NAFTA Superhighway, if you will?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Arles

Have you been to Carbondale, IL? It's full of non-english speaking people of mexican decent working manual labor jobs. Arizona isn't the only state that deals with this issue, it just happens to be a lot worse.

Yes I have. I don't concern myself with what language other people choose to speak with themselves. So I'm still lost at how having these Mexicans in their town is causing such a detriment to it.

Originally Posted by Arles

But, by your logic, why should Montana or Idaho have to deal with terrorism? There's a higher chance of a Moose standing up and talking than there is of a terrorist attack in Billings. Securing the border, military, federal highways, social security and other areas are all things that some people may not feel directly impact them but still fall into the umbrella of the federal government.

It's not my logic. I'm not the one who is opposed to the federal government performing duties on behalf of its citizens.

All I've seen for the last year on the right is talk of socialism and expanding federal government. How we are wasting all this money and the federal government is becoming way too big. Then they come in and say expand it to protect the borders.

What I'm saying is that if you're going to say expand it in some areas, don't run around with blanket statements about how the government is too big. It makes you look like hypocrites.

[molson]

Is the natural extension of the idea that it's OK for illegal immigrants to come here and work for pennies that perhaps we should just colonize Mexico, grant them citizenship after some number of years, and have seperate "Mexican" and "American" minimum wages? Wouldn't that be pretty close to the ridiculous situation we have now?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

A NAFTA Superhighway, if you will?

The tolls only take Ameros.

[johneh]

What is really sad about this is the government has it's head buried on one easy piece that can be fixed, all while saving tax dollars. It's well known that illegal immigrants from Mexico come here to give birth so their child is a US citizen, and thus eligible for welfare, govt assitance, etc.

So change the freaking law to read that if the parents are here illegally then the child is not a US citizen. I can't believe how this continues to be under the radar. Talk to hosiptal workers in Texas, CA and Arizona... it's a big problem that could easily be fixed.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by johneh

What is really sad about this is the government has it's head buried on one easy piece that can be fixed, all while saving tax dollars. It's well known that illegal immigrants from Mexico come here to give birth so their child is a US citizen, and thus eligible for welfare, govt assitance, etc.

So change the freaking law to read that if the parents are here illegally then the child is not a US citizen. I can't believe how this continues to be under the radar. Talk to hosiptal workers in Texas, CA and Arizona... it's a big problem that could easily be fixed.

I agree

[molson]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

It's not my logic. I'm not the one who is opposed to the federal government performing duties on behalf of its citizens.

All I've seen for the last year on the right is talk of socialism and expanding federal government. How we are wasting all this money and the federal government is becoming way too big. Then they come in and say expand it to protect the borders.

What I'm saying is that if you're going to say expand it in some areas, don't run around with blanket statements about how the government is too big. It makes you look like hypocrites.

Military is a federal government function. Clearly. Immigration is never mentioned in the constitution, but is regarded even by conservatives as a military or security function, and thus a proper federal government role. If someone's for smaller, or more efficient government, is doesn't mean that they're against the federal government performing duties that it is clearly authorized to do. If someone thinks the federal government has no business in education, or federalizing morality laws, that doesn't mean that they can't think it does have a business, and a duty, to protect the borders. That comparison is just ridiculous.

But, in the feds want to get completely out of the immigration business, I'm sure the states would be more than happy to take it over.

[molson]

Originally Posted by johneh

What is really sad about this is the government has it's head buried on one easy piece that can be fixed, all while saving tax dollars. It's well known that illegal immigrants from Mexico come here to give birth so their child is a US citizen, and thus eligible for welfare, govt assitance, etc.

So change the freaking law to read that if the parents are here illegally then the child is not a US citizen. I can't believe how this continues to be under the radar. Talk to hosiptal workers in Texas, CA and Arizona... it's a big problem that could easily be fixed.

That's definitely a huge factor. And even though the Constitution says that Congress has the power to establish nationalization laws, I'm sure the Supreme Court would find some crazy 14th amendment right to citizenship if you're born here.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

Military is a federal government function. Clearly. Immigration is never mentioned in the constitution, but is regarded even by conservatives as a military or security function, and thus a proper federal government role. If someone's for smaller, or more efficient government, is doesn't mean that they're against the federal government performing duties that it is clearly authorized to do. If someone thinks the federal government has no business in education, or federalizing morality laws, that doesn't mean that they can't think it does have a business, and a duty, to protect the borders. That comparison is just ridiculous.

But, in the feds want to get completely out of the immigration business, I'm sure the states would be more than happy to take it over.

I don't know what you are arguing with me about in your post. I have no problem with the feds taking a stronger approach to border security.

I'm saying that if you run around talking about how big the government has gotten, you shouldn't be wanting them to get bigger. What you want is smaller government in areas you don't like and bigger government in areas you do. That's fine, I'm the same way. Just saying all the anti-big government is bullshit because it's not how you guys truly feel.

[molson]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

IWhat you want is smaller government in areas you don't like and bigger government in areas you do. That's fine, I'm the same way. Just saying all the anti-big government is bullshit because it's not how you guys truly feel.

No, I want no federal government in areas they're not constitutionally authorized to be involved in, and efficient, strong federal government involvement in things they are authorized to be involved in. I'm able to make that distinction. There's plenty of laws I'd love to apply to everybody, but I don't believe it's the federal government's role to do so.

And who's claiming that the federal government should do nothing, ever, even the things that the constitution authorizes it to do? I still don't understand why that's inconsistent. When someone argues that the federal government is a bloated, corrupt, inefficient mess, that doesn't mean that they think it should disband the military and stop protecting the borders. I think even the most "anti-government" people are for a strong military, because that's a primary role of the federal government.

Edit: It's not always about small v. big government. I'm for a country where Massachusetts has a huge government, Montana has a tiny one, and the federal government protects everybody, and defends and protects and enforces what the constitution actually says.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by Arles

Maybe Obama's immigration plan is to make our economy so crappy that people no longer have an incentive to leave Mexico and come here. I think we need to think out of the box here, people.

I love revisionist history, even when it's thinly veiled as a joke.

It was in December, 2007 that the recession started and it was September 2008 that the financial markets almost completely melted down. Obama took office in January, 2009. This is Bush's recession, Obama's recovery.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

No, I want no federal government in areas they're not constitutionally authorized to be involved in, and efficient, strong federal government involvement in things they are authorized to be involved in. I'm able to make that distinction. There's plenty of laws I'd love to apply to everybody, but I don't believe it's the federal government's role to do so.

And who's claiming that the federal government should do nothing, ever, even the things that the constitution authorizes it to do? I still don't understand why that's inconsistent. When someone argues that the federal government is a bloated, corrupt, inefficient mess, that doesn't mean that they think it should disband the military and stop protecting the borders.

This isn't about protecting the borders. I guarantee you that if a wave of Mexican tanks rolled across the border, they'd be blown to bits by a fighter jet in minutes. Some uneducated, barefoot Mexicans sprinting across the border with nothing more than a jug of dirty water are not a threat to our national security.

If you want to argue the financial ramifications of supporting illegals, then fine. But when you start treating this like they're on the verge of storming our beaches like Normandy, you're stretching for a reason.

[molson]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

This isn't about protecting the borders. I guarantee you that if a wave of Mexican tanks rolled across the border, they'd be blown to bits by a fighter jet in minutes. Some uneducated, barefoot Mexicans sprinting across the border with nothing more than a jug of dirty water are not a threat to our national security.

If you want to argue the financial ramifications of supporting illegals, then fine. But when you start treating this like they're on the verge of storming our beaches like Normandy, you're stretching for a reason.

OK, so if it's not about protecting the borders, and thus not a federal role/duty - why can't states protect their economies? (If not with this statute, with some other kind of legislation).

Or is it nobody's role at all?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

OK, so if it's not about protecting the borders, and thus not a federal role/duty - why can't states protect their economies? (If not with this statute, with some other kind of legislation).

They can and they should. I have no problem with states or the federal government protecting the economic interests of the country. I'm not arguing any of this with you and agree with tougher enforcement. I'm just saying from a political perspective, it's gone against the talking points of the right from the last year.

[AENeuman]

I love the immigration debate. It's probably the oldest debate in American history. And to me it's like returning to your old, albeit stubborn, uncle sitting in the front porch. The one that sprays kids with his hose when they get on his yard, yet always remembers your birthday

This debate usually pops up when there are no other urgent matters. It's been a long long time since there has not been some urgent matter to attend to. But seeing it now, I know things are looking up

When we get to evolution I'll know it's morning in America again

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

A NAFTA Superhighway, if you will?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

A NAFTA Superhighway, if you will?

Although that refers to the flow of goods, not people crammed in the back of vans/trucks.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by molson

That's definitely a huge factor. And even though the Constitution says that Congress has the power to establish nationalization laws, I'm sure the Supreme Court would find some crazy 14th amendment right to citizenship if you're born here.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

To your first point, why are you even posting here then?

As to your "funny" point, you're the one labeling this as federal government needs to be bigger. They're seeing the feds need to do this better, not "bigger". Advocating that the feds do their job more efficiently and wisely with respect to immigration doesn't mean these posters have abdicated their right to believe that the federal government as a whole needs to be smaller.

It would only be hypocrisy/nonsensicle if they stated they wanted the government to do everything it's doing now, add new border responsibilities and expect to have smaller government.

Basically, to me, it looks like you're just going out of your way to take pointless and irrelevant partisan shots in a thread that doesn't really need that.

Rainmaker apparently msised this the first time, so I'll quote it so maybe now he'll get the point that a better immigration policy is not mutually exclusive with smaller government, and his continual railing about hypocrisy only makes him look like a partisan hack trying desperately to make the other side of the aisle look bad with his own poor logic.