False Identification, False Security

110 people used false identification to obtain security clearances to work at Chicago's O'Hare airport. A raid there netted 23 illegal immigrants from Mexico.

The airport raid, which netted 23 undocumented workers from Mexico, showed that rigid new security protocols implemented in the six years since the terrorist attacks of September 11 are still not working.

The city's department of aviation is supposed to rigorously screen all employees granted access to secure areas like the tarmac and cargo areas.

That process is supposed to include fingerprinting, an FBI criminal check, and a security threat assessment.

But 110 employees of one contractor on site used social security numbers which either did not exist or belonged to other people, some of whom were dead, according to a criminal complaint.

One undocumented worker looking for work at the airport, who was actually a government informer, was told to look through a box with about 20 airport security badges and "pick one with a picture that most closely resembled his own likeness" the complaint said.

Feeling secure yet? This is why border security is a big deal. This is why illegal immigration is a big deal. The current euphemism being used for illegal immigrants is "undocumented workers". Only they aren't, are they? They are carrying stolen identities. The 23 illegals arrested in the raid (and the story actually calls them undocumented workers) face up to three years in jail and deportation. The People who hired them face up to 15.

Neither sentence is long enough.

The 77% Problem

Rasmussen Reports has conducted a poll asking Americans what they thought of giving driver's licenses to illegal immigrants. The result, a super majority of 77% of Americans are against it outright. Only a paltry 16% favor it.

Seventy-seven percent (77%) of American adults are opposed to making drivers licenses available to people who are in the country illegally. A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that just 16% take the opposite view and believe that undocumented immigrants should be allowed to get a license.

State surveys in Virginia and Kentucky show similar results.

Eighty-eight percent (88%) of Republicans oppose giving drivers’ licenses to undocumented immigrants. So do 68% of Democrats and 75% of those not affiliated with either major political party. There is little difference along gender, age, or income levels.

New York Governor Elliot Spitzer recently proposed making licenses available to people undocumented immigrants living in New York State. Spitzer’s plan attracted national attention at a Democratic Presidential debate last week when New York Senator Hillary Clinton was asked about the policy and stumbled through an unclear response.

Spitzer's Licenses for Lawbreakers® scheme is very likely going to be the wound that bleeds support away from Hillary Clinton. As James Pinkerton pointed out in his column today, the blood is in the water and the vein was opened by fellow Democrats.

The New Dukakis?

James Pinkerton, writing at Newsday, points out the almost eerie similarities between what happened to Michael Dukakis in 1988 and what just happened to Hillary Clinton. In both cases, it was a fellow Democrat who opened the vein and started leaking blood into the water.

The Democratic presidential front-runner is charging ahead, blowing past weak opposition. A lagging Democratic rival raises a critical issue in a candidates' debate, but does so in a halfhearted manner that gets little traction among Democrats. So the front-runner stays out front, as the others falter and fall out.

But damage has been done to the front-runner. A wound has been opened, a slow hemorrhaging has commenced, even if Democrats don't notice.

Over on the other side of the aisle, Republicans see the crimson trail - and smell blood. So they sit back and wait, until the general election.

That's the story of the 1988 presidential campaign. I know, because I was there. And that's also looking to be the story of the 2008 campaign.

It was none other than Al Gore who unleashed the prison furlough problem on Dukakis. A vastly unpopular program in his home state, it became a massive problem for the candidate during the general election. So it is with the Eliot Spitzer licenses for lawbreakers scheme in New York. Clinton has a real problem. Having backed the program, she will now begin to suffer at the hands of an enraged populace of voters who are overwhelmingly in favor of securing the border and stopping the flood of illegals into this country.

Illegal Immigration Turning Ugly

Cal Thomas has a roundup of items from all over the country that show how confused the issue of illegal immigration is. In one Federal court, a planned crackdown on the hiring of illegals by the Bush administration is blocked. In a different court, tough state laws against illegals are allowed to go into effect. In still another local rules are passed unanimously. On and on, a confused and confusing mish-mosh of rules upheld, struck down, passed or rejected. All because the Federal government will not enforce laws that are already on the books. American citizens are becoming angry - and Thomas points to at least part of the reason why:

Much of the anger is caused by the federal government's refusal to adequately enforce existing immigration laws. Most citizens know that if they break laws, they will pay a penalty. They know their driver's license is a privilege and that the state that issues them can take them away when certain laws are broken. They see New York Governor Eliot Spitzer ordering special classes of driver's licenses for illegal immigrants and regard it as a double standard. Countries to which Americans travel prohibit us from working in those countries, but we are told we must accept law-breaking foreign workers.

Illegal immigration is one of several contributing factors to the growing anger of many citizens who are told by courts, editorial writers, some columnists, activists and other rabble that whatever they believe in, fight for, pay for and worship must always take second place to what others believe, especially if it opposes their beliefs. The law-abiding, "traditional value" crowd is never asked for their opinion on anything. Those with traditional values are having what they regard as illegalities and immoralities imposed upon them with all of the gusto they are so often accused of wishing to impose on others. They see the country being transformed without their permission and they are rightly disturbed about it.

The rhetoric is growing increasingly harsh. But a huge majority of citizens and immigrants who played by the rules to get here are rightfully furious that schemes to provide driver's licenses for lawbreakers are endorsed by Democrats. They are enraged enough to light up Senate switchboards whenever a sneaky attempt at amnesty is pending before that body - yet again. There is an unholy alliance of open border advocates, unions and short-sighted agricultural interests that are busy right now trying to pass an "AgJobs" bill that will essentially tie illegal immigrants to the agricultural sector for a number of years, creating nothing more than a class of disposable serfs; tied not to the land but to the businesses that occupy the land.

If a citizen or a legal immigrant to this country dares to object, they are instantly called racist. That is the chosen smear tactic that is rolled out at the drop of a hat. But demanding that illegal immigrants follow laws - as citizens are required to do - is not racist. Those advocating serfdom might want to examine their real motives, however. 

A secure border with a liberalized immigration policy is possible. Enforcement of laws that make it unprofitable for businesses to hire illegal workers will increase opportunity and wages for Americans on the lowest economic rungs. All it takes is political will.

The Big Democrat Mystery

Mickey Kaus notes the same EJ Dionne article that I did and asks a question: Where is the Democratic split over illegal immigration?

What's changed? Well, President Bush–the main politician doing the GOP-splitting–is leaving the scene. The Republican electorate seems to have decisively turned against his illegal-immigrant semi-amnesty. Result: No more split! But the powerful GOP anti-legalization sentiment was obviously latent even in 2006. The MSM just chose not to notice.

Anti-legalization sentiment has also been manifestly latent among Democratic voters–including, but not limited to, unskilled workers whose wages have been suppressed by immigrant competition. What's odd, then, is that the Dems now aren't split. They're only terrified! The Dem presidential candidates who might appeal to anti-legalization opinion–and thereby split the party–all seem paralyzed by their desire not to offend Latinos.

Hmm. The last successful Democratic presidential candidate defied his party's dogma on a central issue (welfare) at the risk, it was thought, of offending key interest groups (blacks, liberals). Is there no current candidate willing to do the same on immigration? You'd think someone in the 2008 field would make the move, just for strategic reasons. … John Edwards may be edging there: On ABC's This Week he came out against N.Y. Gov. Spitzer's illegal-immigrant driver's-license plan. But he only did it sotto voce, after prompting, and after emphasizing his support for "comprehensive" reform (i.e. legalization). …

He's right, but the Democrats have hemmed themselves in on this issue. A properly tuned message on immigration should include language that draws the low wage workers on board. They know that their wages and chances are being suppressed by the flood of cheap labor. Immigrants who came to this country legally should be (and by all indications are) furious at those who broke the rules. There are natural fractures in the voting bloc that Democrats believe they own.

High fence. Wide Gate. Hearty welcome for those who play by the rules. It'll work - but the Dems can't use it.

The Center Of Our Discontent

Over at Real Clear Politics, Michael Barone points out what should be obvious to politicians by now: immigration reform is a central issue defining voter discontent with the direction the country is moving in. Barone didn't say that, incidentally. Democratic strategists James Carville and Stanley Greenberg did. Open border advocates routinely smear opponents and call them racist. Barone points out that this is simply not true.

But if you listened to the opponents, you heard something else. They want the current law to be enforced. It bothers them that we have something like 12 million illegal immigrants in our country. It bothers them that most of the southern border is unfenced and unpatrolled. It bothers them that illegal immigrants routinely use forged documents to get jobs — or are given jobs with no documents at all.

You don't have to be a racist to be bothered by such things. You just have to be a citizen who thinks that massive failure to enforce the law is corrosive to society.

That was apparent to me as I listened to a focus group of Republican voters in suburban Richmond, Va., conducted by Peter Hart for the Annenberg School of Communications. One voter after another complained that the immigration laws were not being enforced. None of them made any derogatory remarks about Latino immigrants — two said they admired how hard they work. They don't want to see Latinos banished from this country. They want the immigrants here to be legally here.

Which leaves Democratic politicians and political candidates out on a pretty flimsy limb. Most of them reflexively back a comprehensive bill, and some of them (like Bush and a number of Republicans backing such a bill) have dismissed opponents as racists.

Most Democrats have also been backing bills extending various benefits to illegal immigrants, like the Dream Act for college education for illegals brought over as children. There are appealing arguments for such bills. But most voters reject them. And most voters certainly reject driver's licenses for illegal immigrants. That was one of the issues that led to the recall of Gov. Gray Davis in California in 2003.

The Republican presidential candidates have taken note. Only John McCain, a longtime backer of a comprehensive bill, stands apart, and he concedes that voters are demanding tougher enforcement. In the special congressional election in Massachusetts on Oct. 5, the Republican was able to hold the Democrat to 51 percent by stressing immigration as one of his two top issues.

Immigration reform is taking center stage. Carville and Greenberg, quoted by Barone say: "The centrality of illegal immigration to the current discontent about the direction of the country may be taking us back again to a welfare moment." That is going to hurt candidates, like Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama who back Eliot Spitzer's licenses for lawbreakers initiative. The Washington Post may gleefully point out that voters want change, but they may - in fact are, I suspect - missing the change the voters really want.

The vast majority of Americans - regardless of political affiliation - welcome immigrants to this country. So long as they come here legally. The vast majority of Americans - regardless of their position on other political issues - want secure borders. Politicians are ignoring that at their own risk. There may indeed be a vast discontent among voters that demands a change in direction for the country. But it may not be the change the Washington Post and the media expect.

A high fence, a wide gate and a hearty welcome for people who play by the rules. That simple. That powerful. That American.

Italy, Romanians And Xenophobia

Yesterday I posted about a crackdown in Italy aimed at ejecting Romanians with criminal backgrounds. I pointed out:

Italy has long allowed foreign workers and has toed the European line on tolerance and political correctness. But they are only a few crimes away from outright xenophobia and mass thuggery against an ethnic group. That must not be allowed to happen in the United States.

The situation has deteriorated in the past 24 hours and things in Italy are getting considerably worse:

ROME - Opposition leader Silvio Berlusconi urged Italy to close its borders to Romanian workers and a conservative ally called Sunday for the expulsion of tens of thousands of immigrants amid public outrage over a wave of violent crimes blamed on foreigners.

Pope Benedict XVI added his voice to the debate over the balance between citizen safety and treatment of foreigners, reminding authorities that immigrants have both obligations and rights.

The pope weighed in as lawmakers prepared to debate the government's response to recent crime, including fast-track expulsions of Romanians and other EU citizens deemed dangerous and bulldozing shantytowns housing immigrants.

"In Rome alone, 20,000 expulsions should be carried out right away," right-wing leader Gianfranco Fini, a key Berlusconi ally, said on a TV talk show Sunday.

Romanians have been detained as suspects in several recent high-profile crimes, including the rape of a woman on church steps in northern Italy, a mugging that left a Rome cyclist in a coma for weeks before he died, and the robbery of a Milan coffee bar in which the elderly owner was beaten and her daughter raped.

Other recent crimes in which foreigners are suspected include the mugging of Oscar-winning director Giuseppe Tornatore, which sent him to the hospital; the holdup of a prominent TV anchorman and the mugging of a Rome municipal commissioner.

Berlusconi told La Stampa newspaper that Italy should enact a moratorium against Romanian workers.

We must get control of our own borders in this country, unless we want a situation like this to develop. People with criminal records - and criminal intent - flooding across a border to find new pickings is a real concern. The vast majority of Romanians going into Italy are intent only on getting work - not finding victims. But the few bad actors are causing real problems for the majority. Those bad actors are, in turn, provoking a vicious backlash against all Romanians.

That must not happen here. High fence, wide gate, hearty welcome for those who play by the rules. No entry for criminals. It protects the people who live here legally; it protects the people who come here with good intentions; it is a sound policy and just good common sense.

About That High Fence

"I can be persuaded to have sympathy for people. I can't have sympathy for anyone who breaks the law."

Those are the words of John D. Jenkins, a Democrat, who sits on the Board of Supervisors for Prince William County, Virginia about his vote - along with every, single other member - to deny some services to illegal immigrants and ramp up police enforcement of immigration laws. The Washington Post article looks at the difference in organizational styles of the pro-illegal immigration advocates and those opposed to the lawbreaking. But there is more, I think, to this article.

Opponents of Prince William County's plan to target illegal immigrants tried marches, a boycott and a one-day strike. They organized protest caravans with hundreds of cars and turned out ever-larger crowds for county board meetings. When the plan went before supervisors for a final vote Oct. 16, scores of mostly Hispanic residents lined up to deliver tearful, urgent testimony during a 12-hour public comment period.

The result?

All the supervisors — six Republicans and two Democrats — voted to push ahead with the measures anyway.

The clash over illegal immigration in Prince William has placed several cultural differences on display in recent months. But perhaps none was as stark as the two competing political strategies that drove the debate and shaped public perception, one rooted in a tradition of street protests, the other largely invisible and electronic.

The strategies were deployed by the two organizations that channeled the fears and frustrations of divided county residents to emerge with the loudest voices: Help Save Manassas, which helped draft the county's anti-illegal immigrant policy and applied steady pressure for its adoption, and Mexicans Without Borders, an immigrant advocacy group that deemed the measures racist and took to the streets to say so.

Later in the article there is this, unintended, irony:

Following the defeat, Mexicans Without Borders coordinator Ricardo Juarez stood by his group's tactics, saying they were chosen democratically through community assemblies held after plans for the crackdown were announced. He rejected the idea that marches, protests and other measures were ill-suited for Prince William politics, even though the group's boycott and the one-day strike had scant effect on the local economy.

"The American people express themselves by marching," he said in Spanish. "I've seen a lot of marches in Washington, D.C., that have had nothing to do with immigrants."

"He said in Spanish." He and his group also routinely charge racism is at work. Which is the smear attempted on anyone who opposes illegal immigration these days. That's why I made it quite clear in my post yesterday where I stand. The outcome in Prince William County proves, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that a belief in a high fence, a wide gate and a hearty welcome for people who play by the rules is a political winner.

We do not need a permanent, unassimilated underclass in this nation. We need Americans. It does not matter where they or their ancestors came from originally. It does not matter what their physical attributes are. If they come here, legally, to be Americans then they are welcome. If they are here illegally, they do not belong here. As simple as that.

The Help Save Manassas website is here.

Scratch A Politically Correct Government…..

….Find a deeply xenophobic one. I have long suspected that the most vociferous advocates of "diversity" and political correctness are overcompensating for what they , in fact, see in themselves. They routinely project those internal biases onto others and pretend that they are tolerant. In fact, it only takes a small push for the supposedly tolerant to show their true feelings. Don't believe it? Look how champions of tolerance in this country routinely refer to black conservatives. Some of the most vile, racist language and imagery is used. Or take a look at what is happening in Italy right now. Because of a rash of crimes committed by Romanian workers in Italy, full-fledged xenophobia has erupted.

ROME - Italy began deporting Romanians with criminal records in response to a streak of violent crime blamed on immigrants, authorities said Saturday. A knife-wielding mob attacked a group of Romanians in Rome.

Romanian Prime Minister Calin Popescu Tariceanu warned of rising xenophobia in Italy. Earlier this week, he backed the crackdown and came under criticism at home for apologizing for violence blamed on Romanian immigrants.

"We should fight against the wave of xenophobia that is manifesting itself in Italy and we must fight against the bad image that Romanians who are working in Italy have," Tariceanu said Saturday.

Up to 10 people wearing motorcycle helmets attacked a group of Romanians with knives, metal bars and sticks Friday night in the parking lot of a Rome supermarket, police said. Three Romanians were injured, one with serious head wounds. Police said they were looking for the attackers.

Authorities in Milan said that four Romanians with criminal records were put on a flight to Bucharest on Friday night, and that deportations for 12 other Romanians had been authorized.

They were the first reported expulsions since Premier Romano Prodi's center-left government approved a decree Wednesday night allowing the deportation of European Union citizens deemed dangerous.

The head of the Association of Romanians in Italy, Eugen Terteleac, said he welcomed the expulsions as long as government power "isn't abused. But he denounced the mob attack and accused the media of creating a "climate of uncertainty and alarm."

"The Romanian community is living through a nightmare," he said in a telephone interview.

Italy has long allowed foreign workers and has toed the European line on tolerance and political correctness. But they are only a few crimes away from outright xenophobia and mass thuggery against an ethnic group. That must not be allowed to happen in the United States. As Quilly Mammoth points out today, there are some pretty vile people over in Europe who are anti-immigrant.

Europe is faced with a compound problem. Not only do they have an illegal immigration problem, it is also one in the same as the spread of Radical Islam. On a continent where the communal ties that bind…religion, culture and nationhood…have been altered or abandoned in the post World War year’s Pan-Europe movement once despised neo-nazi groups are transformed and made over. Desperately people come to them as the last vestiges of what made Europe the birthplace of Western Civilization is seemingly being washed away.

As we here in America face some tough decisions about immigration reform and the growing influence of Radical Islam we have to make sure that we do so without playing into the hands of racists. They are out there hiding amongst legitimate groups where sometimes the rhetoric comes very close to intolerance.

I make a very clear distinction here at Blue Crab Boulevard on where I stand. I am very much pro-immigrant, regardless of where they are from or any physical characteristics they may possess. So long as they come here legally and want to become Americans. I am utterly opposed to illegal immigrants, regardless of where they are from or any physical characteristics they may possess. Because they should not be here taking the place of people who follow the rules. Anyone who tries to brand that as racism should examine their own soul.

A high fence, a wide gate and a hearty welcome for those who follow the rules. That simple, that powerful.

The Illegal Elephant In The Room

EJ Dionne brushes aside all the fun and games over Hillary Clinton's debate gaffe and all the subsequent foofraw to get to the real, underlying issue. It is one that the Democrats are trying to avoid at all costs. I suspect he's quite right about this.

More significant than Hillary Clinton's supposed gaffe at the end of Tuesday's Democratic presidential debate is the subject around which she tiptoed so delicately: immigration. Democrats fear the issue because it could leave them with a set of no-win political choices……..

………The issue is especially problematic because efforts to appease voters upset about immigration — including a share of the African American community — threaten to undercut the Democrats' large and growing advantage among Latino voters. For Republicans, the issue is both a way of changing the political subject from Iraq, the economy and the failures of the Bush presidency and a means of sowing discord in the Democratic coalition.

One poll finding this week that shook Democrats came in a survey conducted by Democracy Corps, a consortium organized by party consultants Stan Greenberg, Al Quinlan and James Carville. It asked voters to pick two from a list of seven problems that explain "why the country is going in the wrong direction."

The survey found that among independent voters, 40 percent — by far the largest group — picked this option: "Our borders have been left unprotected and illegal immigration is growing."

By contrast, a lack of action on health care was named by only 24 percent of independents as a core problem, and Iraq by 23 percent.

I have said - since before the 2006 elections - that there is no reason this country cannot have secure borders and a welcoming immigration policy. This is not, as Dionne portrays it, a desperation theme the Republicans can use. It is a common sense idea that will gain enormous traction with the voters. A high fence, a wide gate and a hearty welcome for people who play by the rules is a winning campaign slogan. The Democrats are dancing around that, the Republicans are fools not to embrace it. Look at the way the people rose up and torpedoed the "immigration reforms" from the Senate. Look at the way the people rose up and hammered the DREAM act. Look at the way the polls read in New York where a vast majority oppose Eliot Spitzer's "Licenses for Lawbreakers™" scheme.

Pay attention here, folks. This is an issue that can be solved and is a winner at the polls.

Securing The Illegal Vote?

John Fund has a troubling column up about the ease with which people who are in this country illegally will be able to vote if Eliot Spitzer's licenses for lawbreakers scheme goes through. Some other moves by the Spitzer administration already appear to be paving the way for widespread voter fraud already. Giving driver's licenses to people who have no right to be in this country in the first place is just the icing on the cake.

The background here is the National Voter Registration Act, commonly known as "Motor Voter," that President Bill Clinton signed into law in 1993. It required all states to offer voter registration to anyone getting a driver's license. One simply fills out a form and checks a box stating he is a citizen; he is then registered and in most states does not have to show any ID to vote.

But no one checks if the person registering to vote is indeed a citizen. That greatly concerns New York election officials, who processed 245,000 voter registrations at DMV offices last year. "It would be [tough to catch] if someone wanted to . . . get a number of people registered who aren't citizens and went ahead and got them drivers' licenses," says Lee Daghlian, spokesman for New York's Board of Elections. Assemblywoman Ginny Fields, a Long Island Democrat, warns that the state's "Board of Elections has no voter police" and that the state probably has upwards of 500,000 illegal immigrants old enough to drive……….

…………Gov. Spitzer is treading perilously close to that. Despite a tactical retreat this week–he says he will only give illegal immigrants a license that isn't valid for airplane travel and entering federal buildings–Mr. Spitzer has taken active steps to obliterate any distinctions between licenses given to citizens and non-citizens.

In a memo last Sept. 24, he ordered county clerks to remove the visa expiration date and "temporary visitor" stamp on licenses issued to non-citizens who are legally in the country. A Spitzer spokeswoman explained the change was made because the "temporary" label was "pejorative," given that some visitors might eventually stay in the U.S. Under fire, Mr. Spitzer backed down this week, delaying the cancellation of the "temporary visitor" stamps through the end of next year.

But he has not retreated from another new bizarre policy. It used to be that county clerks who process driver's licenses were banned from giving out voter registration forms to anyone without a Social Security number. No longer. Lou Dobbs of CNN reported that an Oct. 19 memo from the state DMV informed the clerks they don't "have any statutory discretion to withhold a motor voter form." What's more, the computer block preventing a DMV clerk from transmitting a motor voter registration without a Social Security number was removed.

Gov. Spitzer's office told me the courts have upheld their position on Social Security numbers. Sandy DePerno, the Democratic clerk of Oneida County, says that makes no sense. "This makes voter fraud easier," she told me.

Fund points out - as I have in the past - that none other than Jimmy Carter has strongly endorsed a requirement that voters be required to show proper identification before voting. This is common sense. In the society we live in it is virtually impossible to function with no identification. My 15-year old daughter has legal identification, for heaven's sake. It is not unreasonable to ask that every person voting in an election be legally entitled to vote. It is not unreasonable to keep people who are not citizens from voting. But Eliot Spitzer appears to be determined to secure the illegal vote.

Coming Debate

James Pinkerton, writing in Newsday, distorts a few things in a column today. Well, either he did or an editor did. Regardless of who did what, it changes the entire tone of the debate.

More than anyone else, Tancredo has put immigration on the front burner. In the course of tirelessly stumping across the country - most recently as a no-hope presidential candidate - he has riled up citizens on the need for better border security, English only, federal standards for driver's-license documents, and preserving and perpetuating the "American identity." He has been called every name in the book, but he has persevered. Today his ideas are winning, even if he himself has been marginalized.

That's the fate of many polarizing figures, those who carry an issue from the fringe to the mainstream. In that sense, Tancredo resembles Jean-Marie Le Pen, the Frenchman who campaigned against immigration in France for decades - until finally, in the last few years, after the immigrant riots, Le Pen's platform became the conventional wisdom.

Now the new president of France, Nicolas Sarkozy, elected on a tough law-and-order platform - he famously referred to the mostly Muslim rioters as "scum" - has sought to implement Le Pen's restrictionist agenda. On Tuesday, for example, the national legislature adopted a bill that would mandate DNA tests to prevent fraudulent "family reunification."

This measure outraged the left, of course. The International Herald Tribune denounced it as "pseudoscientific bigotry." But, as cops know, there's nothing unscientific, or bigoted, about DNA testing.

Meanwhile, here at home, nobody calls Spitzer a racist. He is so politically correct, it kills you - or, more precisely, it will kill him politically. Spitzer has put forth a plan for issuing driver's licenses to illegal immigrants that is opposed by 72 percent of New Yorkers. Earlier this week, the State Senate, including nearly a third of its Democrats, voted by a ratio of more than 2-1 to reject the Spitzer plan.

But one might ask: How is Spitzer's view different from that of most national Democrats? Answer: It's not.

Notice the slight difference? Tancredo, Pinkerton alleges, is anti-immigrant. Spitzer is pro-illegal immigrant. This is, as far as I know, not Tancredo's beef. His problem is first and foremost the illegals. The rest is a position that ensures that legal immigrants become American.

The left is trying to paint any anti-illegal immigrant beliefs as "racist." While some people who don't like the flood of immigrants are probably racist or biased, that does not describe the vast majority of people who oppose illegal immigration. A high fence with a wide gate and a hearty welcome for legal immigrants is something this country can and should be doing. What we do not need is a permanent underclass of unassimilated people who broke multiple laws to get here. Nor do we need a free pass for people who might not be coming here just for work.

There is a huge majority of legal citizens in this country who want the borders controlled. They do not want a flood of people sneaking in in violation of this nation's sovereignty or of the nation's laws. They do not want a permanent underclass who cannot even speak the language. They do not want children who should not be here in the first place receiving preferential treatment that our own native-born children do not get. They do not want a Federal insurance program that hands taxpayer-funded health insurance to people who are here illegally.

So yeah, the debate going forward into 2008 is going to focus more and more on this issue. But the issue is illegal immigration - straight up. If done properly, this is a boon to all people in this country legally. Including legal immigrants. Because it keeps new, illegal arrivals from jumping ahead of those who played by the rules. High fence, wide gate, hearty welcome for those who choose to be Americans legally.

Its a good platform.

Another Leftourette Moment

My friend Jim Lynch calls it Leftourette Syndrome. That's the propensity of the Democrats to , for the children, shout out at odd moments, for the children, on whatever matter may be under discussion, for the children, the phrase "for the children'. So it was today when Harry Reid and his lead flak, Dick "Useless" Durbin tried to ram the DREAM Act through the Senate - for the children. Albeit for the children who should not have been here in the first place. The effort failed - and for good reason. Senate Democrats up for reelection helped vote it down, knowing it was pure poison back home. Tom Curry at MSNBC points out that there are lessons in the defeat. If the Republicans are smart enough to listen.

The vote was a significant leading indicator for 2008 of the potency of illegal immigration as an election issue.

Illegal immigration remains at a legislative impasse — and that may be a good thing for GOP chances since the party’s base in the South and West tends to be vehemently opposed to any accommodation with illegal immigrants.

In his post-vote assessment, the Dream Act’s chief sponsor, Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin of Illinois said, “In a campaign year, it is a very difficult issue. If it’s tough this year, it’s tougher next year.”

Some senators, he said, “are running scared” on the illegal immigrant issue.

“Switchboards light up, the hates starts spewing, and people get concerned, to say the least,” Durbin told reporters.

Twelve Republicans joined most Democrats in voting to proceed.

Two of the Republican senators in competitive races next year, Sen. Norm Coleman of Minnesota and Susan Collins of Maine, voted to push ahead with the bill.

But two other GOP senators in tight races, John Sununu of New Hampshire and Gordon Smith of Oregon, voted against it.

Curry points to a real problem for politicians up for reelection in 2008. The voters are angry about illegal immigration. Very angry. Why? Because, quite simply, the Senate was trying to give people who came here illegally better benefits than people who were born here.

The bill would have allowed illegal immigrants, if they passed background checks and became permanent legal residents, to qualify for lower in-state tuition rates at state colleges and universities, a point cited by Sen. Kent Conrad, D- N.D, who voted “no.”

Conrad explained that from his constituents in North Dakota, “I was hearing, ‘wait a minute, this is more generous than what we’re doing for people who were born in this country.’ And it’s certainly commendable to want to give this kind of educational assistance to people. But how can you justify that when we don’t do it for people who were raised in our country?”

I said last year that the first party to get control of illegal immigration would win. The Republicans did not do it in 2006 - if they get their act together, they can have a winner of an issue in 2008. If they are smart about it, they can present it as a high fence with a wide gate that helps protect legal immigrants from the undermining efforts of illegal immigrants.

There is no reason at all that we cannot have a secure border and a welcoming legal immigration system. All it takes is political will - and votes. The message from today's DREAM Act rejection is that the votes are there. For a party smart enough to collect them.

DREAM A Little Nightmare For Me….

UPDATE: Cloture fails 52-44. DREAM is dead again.

Harry Reid and his pals, especially Dick Durbin (who was once my Senator and who was the most useless elected official I ever dealt with) are pushing to invoke cloture on the DREAM Act. DREAM, which stands for Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors, is nothing more than an amnesty for people who are here illegally. Estimates on how many people would get a green card out of this range from 1 to over 2 million. That is only the direct ones - there would be additional ones as well.

the Migration Policy Institute has estimated that 360,000 illegals would get amnesty right away, with another 715,000 benefiting in the future, for a total of over 1 million amnestied. Using a different data source, we looked at the same question and estimated that the total number of potential beneficiaries of the amnesty is 2.1 million. What's more, there are another 1.4 million parents and young siblings of the under-18 amnesty recipients who do not themselves qualify for the amnesty, but whom the government is likely to let stay once their family members get legalized. (Ed. Note: CIS study is here.)

The people pushing for DREAM are trying to target the following list of Senators. I have already called my Senators - both of them - and registered my objections to this sneak amnesty. Have you called you Senators?

Why not?

Hutchison, Kay Bailey- (R - TX) (202) 224-5922
Thad Cochran (202) 224- 5054
Norm Coleman(202) 224-5641
John Sununu (202) 224-2841
Olympia Snowe (202) 224-5344
Jon Tester (202) 224-2644
Richard Burr (202) 224-3154
John Warner (202) 224-2023
Lindsey Graham (202) 224-5972
Judd Gregg (202) 224-3324
Chuck Grassley (202) 224-3744
Tim Johnson (202) 224-5842
Robert Byrd (202) 224-3954
Byron Dorgan (202) 224-2551
Pete Domenici (202) 224-6621
Max Baucus (202) 224-2651
Larry Craig (202) 224-2752
Ted Stevens (202) 224-3004
George Voinovich (202) 224-3353
Lisa Murkowski (202) 224-6665
Claire McCaskill (202) 224-6154
Benjamin Nelson (202) 224-6551
John Barrasso (202) - 224-6441
Susan Collins (202) 224-2523
Crapo (202) 224-6142
Bennet (202) 224-5444
Martinez (202) 224-3041
Sen Brownback, Sam [KS] - (202) 224-6521
Sen Landrieu, Mary L. [LA] - (202) 224-5824
Sen Ensign (202) 224-6244

(List courtesy of Michelle Malkin)

No Reason At All

I have said for a long time that there is no reason at all why this nation cannot have both good border security and a liberal immigration policy. I have also said that if the border is secured, a lot of other things can be worked out. Apparently, Fred Thompson feels the same way.

Thompson’s two-pronged plan, which can be found in its entirety at www.fred08.com, is based on two principles: Securing the Border and Enforcing the Law, and Improving the Legal Immigration Process.

Here's the bullet points on enforcement:

• No Amnesty. Amnesty undermines U.S. law and policy, rewards bad behavior, and is unfair to the millions of immigrants who follow the law and are awaiting legal entry into the United States.
• Attrition through Enforcement. Adding “at least 25,000 agents” to the Border Patrol and doubling the number of ICE agents.
• Enforce Existing Federal Laws. Rejecting sanctuary cities by cutting federal discretionary funds to states and local governments that ignore existing immigration laws.
• Reduce the Jobs Incentive. Require U.S. employers to use the E-Verify system to determine if a person can legally work here.
• Bolster Border Security. Finish building the wall along our border.
• Increased Prosecution. Go after coyotes, alien gang members, and criminals.
• Rigorous Entry/Exit Tracking.

What's important here is that Thompson also has plans to make it easier for legal immigrants to get here and become Americans. The entire plan is here. This is a realistic platform that could be a real winner for the Republicans. 70% or so of all Americans want the borders secured. This kind of a sensible plan could draw a lot of votes.