Quote:

unrestrained id said:
But the larger question isn't 'why CAN'T the Government secure the border' but 'why WON'T the Government secure our border'?

It's because for all the talk about border enforcement and it being out of control and what not, no one is prepared to pay $6.00 at the supermarket for a box of strawberries. Which is what they'd cost if it went to someone not as easily exploited, such as an American citizen who demands at the very least, minimum wage if not a wage that reflects the toil involved in the work.

It's all about the money to be made on exploitation, I think.



Probably true.

Amnesty by any other name


    By some estimates, there were 75,000 "other-than-Mexican" illegals among those who sneaked into the United States last year. A growing number are from the Middle East and may well be Islamists using well-established alien-smuggling routes as the first step to perpetrating new acts of terror in this country.

    Lest there be any lingering doubt, however, that politicians need the sort of pointed reminder the Minutemen are offering that, as they say in the movies, the American people are "mad as hell and not going to take it any more," consider the likely scenario on the floor of the U.S. Senate this week.

    In exchange for passing last year a bill intended to carry out the recommendations of the September 11 Commission, but that failed to address several of the most important ones -- in particular, those dealing with the need to enhance the authenticity and security of driver's licenses, the "REAL ID" bill fixing the latter will be given expedited consideration.

    The REAL ID legislation is aimed at denying future terrorists the ability exploited by the September 11, 2001, hijackers (even those in this country illegally) -- namely, to hold numerous valid driver's licenses, which they used to gain murderous access to airports and their targeted aircraft.

    It is no small irony, therefore, that the presence of the REAL ID provisions on the military's supplemental funding bill is being cited by the Senate parliamentarian as grounds for Sen. Larry Craig, Idaho Republican, to try to attach to it legislation that would help eviscerate what passes for restrictions on illegal immigration.

    Mr. Craig has an idee fixe he shares with, his co-sponsor, Sen. Teddy Kennedy: The agricultural sector of the U.S. economy needs cheap labor. So, let's legalize the presence in this country of anyone who can claim to have once worked for a little more than three months in that sector.

    If that were not bad enough, their families would be allowed to become legal residents, too, even if they are not now in the United States. The same would apply for illegals who had ostensibly been agricultural workers here in the past, but who have gone home. They can all become "temporarily" legit, a status the notoriously left-wing, yet federally funded, Legal Services Corp. will be happy to help them subsequently adjust to permanent resident status.

    Though it requires the illegal alien's 100 days of agricultural work in the U.S. to have occurred during any 12-month period between February 2002 and August 2003 -- and, therefore, is not something new "invaders" could cash in on -- this legislation further reinforces the expectation that, if you can get into this country by whatever means, you will at some point likely be allowed to stay legally.