Americans Favor Tighter Borders but Divide on Entrants' Fate

[papau]

========================================================
"You've got business groups and unions very often joined together on one side on this and movement conservatives and rank-and-file working class voters on the other side, with all of this playing out against the backdrop of the ongoing political battle for the Hispanic vote between Democrats and Republicans," said Democratic pollster Geoffrey Garin. "The politics and the unusual coalitions make all the political choices much more difficult."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/02/AR2006010201376_pf.html

Political Splits on Immigration Reflect Voters' Ambivalence
Americans Favor Tighter Borders but Divide on Entrants' Fate

By Dan Balz Washington Post Staff Writer Tuesday, January 3, 2006; A07

When Congress returns to the unfinished business of immigration early in the new year, lawmakers will be trying to reconcile sometimes conflicting public attitudes on an issue that has become a crusade to some conservative Republicans but has defied effective solutions over the past three decades.

A Washington Post-ABC News poll taken in mid-December found Americans alarmed by the federal government's failure to do more to block the flow of illegal immigration and critical of the impact of illegal immigration on the country but receptive to the aspirations of undocumented immigrants living and working in the United States.

"You wonder why politicians are not always consistent," said Republican pollster Glen Bolger. "It's because public opinion's not always consistent."

Immigration still ranks below the war in Iraq, terrorism, health care and the economy on the public's list of priorities, but in many parts of the country -- not just those areas near the Mexican border -- it has become an issue of pressing significance because of its economic, racial and, more recently, national security implications.<snip>

[mac2]

1. Border States

RE: Mexican ownership of Border States. 

 Mexican amnesty groups say we have illegally taken Mexican
areas for ourselves and not paid for it. Them coming here is
fair payment.   

Our media and representatives have failed to get the history
and law of our country out to those who believe they belong
here. That's why they are so arrogantly demanding citizenship
and jobs.  

No world court would agree with the illegal Mexican
immigrant’s idea of ownership. Why?  These Border States all
joined the United States Union by a vote. They did not vote to
become part of Mexico. 

The Mexican land owners and other people (American Indians,
etc.) living in the territories became citizens of the United
States at that time.  

Ref:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_date_of_statehood


Arizona: Joined the US Union February 14, 1912

California: Joined the US Union September 09, 1850

Florida: Joined the US Union March 3, 1845

New Mexico: Joined the US Union January 06, 1912

Texas: Joined the US Union December 29, 1845


So for about a century and a half, the Border States were part
of the United States Union and its Constitution and laws. 

New Mexican immigrants became citizens as required by law and
the previous amnesty. 

We citizens have been more than understanding and accepting of
them up to this point. When they refuse to become one of us
and wanting  their own language and culture...our jobs and
benefits we say NO MORE.  

I don't think the American people are inconsistent at all
about the issue. Polls say they are united in wanting them
returned to their country of origin. 

We citizens who live in or near sanctuary cities did not vote
to allow a change in our Constitution or immigration laws. It
was not on anyone's ballot. We pay for them in many ways. It
is taxation without representation.  

It is certainly lawlessness and violates our law.  The
sanctuary cities are harboring illegals. They should be jailed
for refusal to enforce our laws (and the churches lose their
tax exempt status plus the clergy jailed).  

I'd like to ask the Mayor of Chicago, Richard Daley (and other
cities not in the Border States) and the illegals if Chicago
was once Mexican owned?  Daley’s sanctuary agenda was not on
the ballot in the recent election. Would his father who was
the long time Mayor of Chicago approve of his sons and their
globalization agenda (Bill Daley helped Clinton write NAFTA). 
The late Mayor of Chicago who ruled many years was very
pro-labor and a Democrat. 

Take it to the Justice Department and the Supreme Court. I
don't care which party supports what...we did not vote for it.
The 2006 election said, we opposed it and wanted the borders
closed.