I do agree that we have to have control over our borders. I don’t agree that a fence or a wall is the way to do it. In fact, in my view, putting up a fence or a wall is a clear admission that we have *failed* to get control of our borders.

Why are you concerned only, or so much more, about nukes coming from the direction of Mexico and Central America?

If the possibility of a nuke coming across the border is a compelling concern, then we have to close all our borders. Close them, not control them. As long as we let anyone who doesn’t already live here into the U.S., then we are risking a nuclear device being smuggled into the country.

And btw, although I know that a nuclear weapon is a mortal danger no matter where in the country one lives, since I live right outside New York City, if I’m going to be afraid that someone will smuggle in a nuclear weapon, I’m going to be much more concerned about all the ways it could be smuggled in through the access points in my area — or from Canada, which is much closer to where I live than is Mexico — than I am going to be about the ways it could be smuggled in from Mexico.

Your thoughts?

Let’s suppose someone comes across that border with a nuclear weapon. This is no longer a theoretical exercise at that point, can we agree on that?

So, if an American city ceases to exist because someone got a nuke across an open border can we agree that would be a bad thing?

Still in favor of an unprotected border and unregulated illegal immigration? Think really hard before you answer this one. Because it may well be the city you live in that could be the target.

I have nothing against immigrants who do it the right way. In happier times, I could not have frankly cared less about a few people crossing illegally.

This is not a happy time and we have a real, serious enemy out there who will kill us if we let them.

That is why we have to get control of the border. Not stop immigration. Get control. See the difference?

I talk to people whose views are radically different from mine because it’s more stimulating and enjoyable than talking only to people who share my views. Talking to the latter is comforting, and there’s a place for that; but talking to the former is challenging.

If I could persuade you of nothing else, I wish I could persuade you of that.

Now ask yourself who benefits from those low labor costs in places like Mexico. How do stores like Wal-Mart and K-Mart and Target keep their prices so low? Why do clothes and toys all say “Made in Mexico, Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, the Philippines, Taiwan, Singapore, Hong Kong, China,” etc., etc.

If it weren’t for those third-world countries, Americans would have to pay a lot more for their clothing and toys and electronic devices.

I just find it illogical to condemn Mexicans et al. for coming to the U.S. illegally in search of better wages while ignoring the fact that American companies seek out those countries and export their jobs to those countries precisely *because* of those low wages. Perhaps WE are part of the problem of illegal immigration.

That is what being realistic means.

And by the way, if you are not “based in idealism,” then you are not based in one of the most fundamental outlooks associated with being American. The founders of this country were both idealistic AND realistic. What could be more idealistic than “liberty and justice for all”?

The story you reference above, by the way, smells a bit like feel-good (or bad, as you will) storytelling. How much was she willing to pay that people would not take the work? Sub-sub-minimum? Here’s what actually happens when someone won’t “take the work”:

http://bluecrabboulevard.com/2006/09/15/cry-me-a-river/

I am far more worried about my country being transformed from a constitutional democracy into a xenophobic oligarchy than I am about it being “dragged down to the level of” destitute immigrants. I don’t fear immigrants at all. I don’t feel the need to scapegoat or demonize immigrants. Immigrants are not my enemy, and they are not what is destroying this country. I don’t view immigrants the same way you do. I think immigrants helped make this country the economic giant it is today. I think that immigrants do important and vital jobs that more economically fortunate Americans won’t do. I think that immigrants are still at the heart of this country’s success, and that they have an enormous amount to contribute.

Immigrants deserve our gratitude, not our contempt.

All very idealistic, Kathy. But your ideals are a nice recipe for national suicide. When this torrent of people drags this country down to the level of the third world will you be happy then?

The purpose of the Berlin Wall was to keep East Germans from crossing over into West Germany, which over two million of them had done by the time the war was built. The purpose of a fence along the Mexican border is to keep Mexicans and other Latin Americans from crossing over into the United States. East Germans fled to West Germany because they wanted better lives for themselves. Mexicans and others in Central America come into the U.S. for similar reasons.

The difference is that Germany never had a tradition of welcoming the poor and oppressed from other nations. For the United States, that tradition is at the heart of our identity and self-image as a people. It’s what America IS.

Building a fence around our borders is a betrayal of everything this country has meant for millions of immigrants from all over the world. If Bill Frist and the Bush administration want to end that tradition, then when we build that fence, we should also tear down the Statue of Liberty, because the words, “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free” will be hollow and empty.

Gee, you don’t suppose that might be because people who make these sorts of statements are stupid, do you?

So be a doll and unlock the front door, okay? I’ll bring a tractor trailer full of my friends and we can all sing “Kumbaya” in multi-lingual harmonies! Whee!

Yours,
El Loco Rojo