When I first saw this title I was already gritting my teeth, especially as it was being led by a Republican. Why the heck wouldn't he/they want permanent checkpoints on the Arizona Mexico border?


I'm still biting down pretty hard while I see mental pictures of large groups of undocumented immigrants flowing like the wind across the Arizona Mexico border. Then as I read, I get to some of the reasoning behind opposition to check points.


Doh! Of course, let me pause a second while I slap my forehead... "Mobile checkpoints" — of corse they would work better. Especially with the Mexican government supplying border crossers with maps.

Lets see — checkpoint here and here — yep either one would be a great place to cross. [Sarcasm off]

Randy Pullen read through the John McCain - Ted Kennedy "Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act (SAOIA)," to give McCain the benefit of the doubt. Both sponsors of the bill were trying to convince reporters last week that it is not amnesty.

Here is what he found:


If this isn't amnesty then what the heck is it? Of course some but not all will actually apply for permanent status. They would then have to pay taxes (including back taxes), application fees and fines. More likely they will just use the temporary visa, and renew it after 6 years, and keep sending tax free money back to Mexico (almost $17 billion last year).

One out of three is better than none I suppose.


Seems to me that any state or local agency is free to enforce federal laws anyway, but what do I know. The governor claims that the veto is because there wasn't any additional money to take on the new duty. What I want to know is this. Is anyone free to break federal laws in Arizona, or just illegal aliens?

Republicans are finally beginning to stir on immigration, but if they don't wake up Hillary Clinton is going to run straight to 2008 with the issue and beat them like a rented mule with it.


While Republicans are beginning to wake up to immigration reform, most Democrats, the most liberal especially are strongly against it in any way meaningful when they should be more for it than Republicans.


Our immigration policy is out of control. While it is hurting our economy every year, it is a constant serious national security threat, and a matter of when not if we have another 9/11, if we do not secure our borders. Kennedy and McCain have their bill, a worker program that is little more than amnesty for those that are here and only encourages more illegal entry.

Mexico's President Vicente Fox is upset with the bill recently unanimously passed in the Senate to tighten border security, tougher rules to get drivers licenses and extension of the fence on the border between California and Mexico.

By the way, Mexico has zero tollerance for illegal immigrants.

Just what kind of example is sent to young people when law enforcers are told not to enforce our laws? Worse yet it sends a warm welcome to encourage potential illegal immigrants.


Maybe they should follow them around the countrry afterwards too, but not arrest them if any are caught robbing or raping.

Also on The Immigration Blog.

Hispanic immigrants Wednesday pleaded against denying Wisconsin drivers licenses to those who cannot prove they are citizens, or are in the country illegally.


Good point, but for most of us, what we have we came by legally. There are other immigrants that also want to have everything we have, but they are standing in line going through the process legally to making that dream come true.

Angel Porras and Jorge Islas-Martinez on the other hand have no respect for our laws, yet they want us to respect their right to be here. If they want a "chance to work hard and get ahead," the first step is obeying our laws. Come here legally and I will support not only their right to have a drivers license but every other privilege that the country has to offer.


Either bill would be a big improvement, but I like Pettis' much better because Wisconsin driver's licenses are good for eight years, and would likely be good longer than most visas.

Update: Heh, you'll like Nicks take on it.

H/T Michelle Malkin. Immage from Americans for Legal Immigration: Forums



Now thats much better. Some Patriots draped old glory over the Mexifornia bilboard over the weekend. Thats much better!

Michelle Malkin has a two decade timeline of the attitude on the immigration debate.

1986--I think we should protect our borders and enforce immigration laws.

Response: Racist!

1996--I think we should do a better job of protecting our borders and enforcing immigration laws.

Response: Racist!

9/12/2001--I think we should really, finally get serious about protecting our
borders and enforcing immigration laws.

Response: Good idea! Never forget! Whatever it takes!

Spring 2005--Hey, um, what happened to protecting our borders and enforcing immigration laws?

Response: Racist!

Don't miss reading Malkin's synopsis of her correspondence with Professor Steve Bainbridge, who tars the Minuteman Project and its pro-immigration enforcement supporters as "nuts" guilty of "nativism" and racism."