We don't have a free rein in Near-Eastern affairs because of the Israeli lobby. We don't have a free rein in Cuban relations because of the Cuban lobby.
We don't have a free rein in immigration policies because of Latino lobbies.
Pretty soon, the State Department will need to form a committee of political lobbies to advise it.
What I am decrying is the lack of autonomy of the government, of any political shade, to decide what is best for the country, not what its policies would eventually be on these matters.
@steve - or... and this is crazy, but please consider it - the US could enforce its immigration laws.
There is voter fraud. Just ask Ron Paul supporters [I expect you don't care, but I do].
Nowhere in the Constitution is there a right to a "free education" - I do not think, in fact, that the SC has said otherwise, but if they have, it would appear to be contrary to the Constitution irtsel.
Actually, if the US didn't subsidize illegal immigraton, it would end. People risk their lives because they feel they will never be deported, get free medical care, etc.
Free of any more electoral constraints, President Obama can now move boldly on immigration and the middle east. It could be a stormy two years. He should make the most of it.
What is even more not right is that employers who illegally hire foreigners ineligible to work in the US are getting a free pass. I haven't read of any major cases of these criminals being prosecuted. Once again the burden of law enforcement falls on the little guy, and the fat cats go free.
A great deal of the illegal immigration problem exists because there is a demand for it, from unscrupulous employers who want cheap labor that will not complain when they are treated shabbily. Tackle the demand side and the supply will be that much smaller.
Exactly. In this day and age, you cannot be an environmentalist and look the other way on illegal immigration at the same time. Not with numbers like this. You just can't.
The U.S. has the third-largest population in the world. The two nations ahead of us, China and India (who had an instructive election recently), have problems we do not want.
I contend that most immigrants don't want to leave their home countries or native cultures, and learn another language on the fly just for the privilege of cleaning your toilet. Immigrants are not bad people. But "immigration" is a clue that something isn't working someplace else.
I think by being a better neighbor, and by helping poorer nations solve their own problems, we can do much more to reduce the suffering of huddled masses yearning to breathe free than we can by destroying the environment through reckless overpopulation.
I don't think we in the UK are generally opposed to the kind of immigration O'Keefe is discussing; of course we should welcome skilled, qualified people who can bring something to the party. What we're less keen on is the concept that as an EU member state we have no say over admitting the many thousands of citizens flooding in from other EU countries who are able to clam benefits and free healthcare whilst making contributions of dubious - if any - value. I think it's also fair to say there is a groundswell against non-EU immigrants who - particularly among south Asian communities - make little or no effort to assimilate, learn to speak English, or adopt the values of their host country. It's certainly not the case that we're xenophobic; we've in fact proved ourselves to be a welcoming, generous, and tolerant nation. But there really does need to be effort from both sides if immigration is to work.
Meaning anti-free trade and anti-hog wild immigration?
