🚀 go-pugleaf

BJ in Texas wrote:
> |||
> ||| According to the Houston Chronicle, the fliers read: "We
> ||| gots 2 stay together and protest against the new law that
> ||| wants 2 be passed
> ||| against all immigrants. We gots 2 show the U.S. that they
> ||| aint (four-letter expletive) with out us (sic)."
> |||
> 
> What I don't understand is where this idea that an immigration
> law the grants citizenship to some illegal aliens, offers guest
> working status to others can be taken as being against all
> immigrants.  I seems to me that the people most protected by
> a new law would be those people here legally and those that
> are naturalized or by brith US citizens. I believe that any
> comprehensive immigration policy must allow for temporary
> worker visas, punishment of employers hiring illegal aliens,
> and tighten border security. Border security appears to be
> the fueling issue behind this current round of immigration
> debate, so it must be addressed.
> 
> Has anyone else noticed that the issue of immigration seems to
> come up about every 20 years and has near been really addressed
> by our clowns in Washington.
> 
> BJ
> 

I'm convinced that the right approach to immigration is to 
simultaneously make it easier to immigrate to the country LEGALLY;  AND 
MORE DIFFICULT to immigrate ILLEGALLY.

It'd seem simple enough to do.  Make legal immigration a simple, cheap 
process that can be done at a legal border checkpoint (without 
compromising safety).  THEN build a fence along the border - complete 
with razor wire and surveillance - to funnel people to the legal 
checkpoints.

It -looks- like something like this could be a result if both the House 
of Reps and the President get their ways.  But I fear that would be 
expecting too much of the clowns in Washington.