Comments on: WSJ laments “Immigrant Scapegoats”

By: b4lucy

b4lucy — Tue, 27 May 2008 19:34:02 +0000

Google “Operation Wetback” Several good articles about the same problem in the 50’s and early 60’s

By: simcoe

simcoe — Sun, 27 Apr 2008 01:34:10 +0000

Hell, why don’t we just annex freak’en Mexico and be done with it!!

By: nuss

nuss — Sat, 26 Apr 2008 16:31:20 +0000

Hell yes!!! Tear down them prison walls!!! Disband all law enforcement!!!Drop all pending court cases!!! No more illegal anything!!!

By: IndependentTom

IndependentTom — Sat, 26 Apr 2008 15:11:03 +0000

Ok…let’s make this simple. The WSJ is pro-business and and pro-corporate. This makes them against a crackdown on businesses that employ illegal aliens.

By: DannoJyd

DannoJyd — Sat, 26 Apr 2008 14:14:39 +0000

There it is in a nutshell. Crackdowns on businesses will force illegal aliens to self-deport. Why people disown the easy solution to this problem is beyond my meager comprehension. The main problem with an open border policy is it allows people in who wish to harm America and its' citizens. That seems to be another concept that people like Jason Riley’s cannot comprehend. I guess he might have a pubic skool edumacation.

By: unaffiliated

unaffiliated — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 23:03:26 +0000

I sometimes wonder if the sinking of our economy – the displacement of our workers – the jumping on board of the climate change fiasco – is all part of a larger plan to make us want – to make us need – a North American Union. To make us go to our knees and then offer a ’solution’ to give us hope again. Cynical I know…..but………
My fear is that the illegal immigration problem is only one small part of a larger ‘plan’.
While I am a capitalist, I am also an American and the short-term bottom line and globalization is killing us. Our infrastructure and innovation is being destroyed by those who have given up America for quick money in their pockets and a sense of elitism.

By: dan708

dan708 — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 19:06:12 +0000

I would just like to know when “Protectionism” became a dirty word. We have given away so many of our jobs and high-tech innovations to other countries (many of which are openly hostile to us) that our economy can’t help but sink like a stone under the weight of it all. Giving our borders away is even worse, yet; open the borders and the terrorists will come!

By: Weary Citizen

Weary Citizen — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 16:50:14 +0000

On April 25th, 2008 at 12:32 pm, flenser said:
“I support legal immigration which benefits Americans. But that is a much lower number than we have today.”

Amen to that. I find it hard to beleive that we even have to discuss illegal immigration. To do so is insanity. There is only one solution. STOP it all. The real issue is what is an appropriate level of LEGAL immigration? A level that is sustainable, benefits all Americans (not one group or ethnicity), and is steeped in numbers and facts, not emotion. I too beleive it is well below the 1M+ per year under current levels but i am open to any proposed level that is backed by facts and looks out further than the next fiscal year. But until we recognize the importance of this issue/debate on legal immigraiton, and allow the libs to focus us all on the non issue of illegal immigration, we will continue to plod along into the future with no plan.

By: flenser

flenser — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 16:32:21 +0000

Most everyone I know who disagrees with Riley supports legal immigration.

That depends on the numbers involved. I’m pretty sure that you don’t support the legal immigration of a hundred million people per year into America. I support legal immigration which benefits Americans. But that is a much lower number than we have today.

By: flenser

flenser — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 16:29:06 +0000

The AFL-CIO might complain, but most conservatives support some degree of free trade, and that includes a free market in labor.

Well, no. I agree with Milton Friedman – a free market in goods makes a free market in labor unneccessary.

By: flenser

flenser — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 16:26:17 +0000

Technology makes the economy grow, cheap labor makes it stagnate.

If we can understand that, you have to wonder why these supposed economic geniuses at the WSJ are so completely clueless. If I was to be cynical I’d suspect that they were not clueless, but bribed.

By: flenser

flenser — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 16:22:36 +0000

Legal immigration has been primarily directed against domestic techs by cheapo businessmen and their lackeys in Congress, and they’re too dumb to realize they screwed themselves in the process.

Businessman care about short term profit. They expect to be retired and enjoying the good iife ten years down the line.

By: flenser

flenser — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 16:20:22 +0000

no one I know has ever disputed that open borders will give us cheaper lettuce and lawn care

I dispute it. Free market theory and common sense say that it is cheaper to grow lettuce in Mexico and import it into America than it is to import Mexican labor and grow it here.

The question of why it is so vital that America have a thriving lettuce industry when this sort of protectionism was rejected with respect to the steel industry remains a mystery.

By: Right Wing News

Right Wing News — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 16:09:08 +0000

An Open Borders Policy? You Must Be Out Of Your Ever-Loving Mind!…

Via Michelle Malkin, I learned that there is actually a guy at the Wall Street Journal named Jason Riley, who is writing a book called, Let Them In:The Case for Open Borders. Believe it or not, the book has Max……

By: geb4000

geb4000 — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 15:31:49 +0000

Riley’s working title for his book was “Let Them In: I need somebody to do my gardening for cheap”.