Clearly, if that’s the ticket, the GOP doesn’t want or need me anymore.

I will vote for Obama before I vote for McCain/Huckabee.

Regardless of what you think of the ticket, it might as well be a Lenin Mao ticket because it is not going to happen. I don’t know why Bill is repeated baseless garbage from NRO.

If it were not for the USSC appointments, I swear I WOULD vote for a Democrat this time, if we are going to have big government, central control for 8 more years, I want to be able to say it was the Demos, not MY party.

Fred came in fourth in S.C. either he was a lousy candidate (I liked him) or his message ain’t resonating.

I’m rooting for Mitt, but if McCain gets the nod I’ll support him. Yes even if Huck is his VP. I know you guys hate Huck but he’s a decent guy who won’t be running the country. BTW, Huck campaigns against Mitt because Mitt campaigns against Huck. It’s mutual. McCain has left Huck alone so Huck returns the favor. I think McCain just isn’t worried about him, that’s all.

John, I’m not a Republican. I’m a libertarian conservative, and a registered Libertarian (though I almost never vote the party ticket).

I’m one of those people who, in theory, you machine GOPers are trying to get. But you aren’t, really. You’re still playing the same damned old “where else do you have to go?” card, as if principled conservatives were some sort of ideological GOP plantation akin to the Dem’s ethnic plantations. And y’all will keep on losing elections until you figure out that you don’t get our votes by default. You’re about to learn the 2006 election again, and unless you figure out that lesson, you’ll keep right on having it taught to you.

Dave Justus: My “vote for Fred” post says to write him in if you can’t find a candidate or nominee you do want to vote for. I’ve already described the parameters of my vote: I’d grudgingly vote for Romney, and maybe for Giuliani (with him I probably wouldn’t make up my mind until the last minute). I won’t vote for either McCain or Huckabee as a nominee, and I probably won’t vote for any ticket that includes the Huck - including Giuliani/Huckabee and Romney/Huckabee. In these times, the risk is too great he might become president by emergency succession. The one change in my overall approach is that I said I would vote the Democrat candidate in the event of a Huckabee nomination. I’ve modified that to a vote for Fred instead.

As I’ve said repeatedly: If the GOP wants my vote, give me candidates I want to vote for. The candidate I wanted to vote for is gone. The hold-your nose candidates for me are Romney and maybe Giuliani, and the best shot is a combo of those two.

But no - under no conditions do you get my vote by default, because I “have no place to go.”

But at least be honest about why you don’t like McCain.

I have been. Repeatedly. For several years now.

I know a lot of people who are a political or are lifelong Democrats who will vote for McCain over Hillary or Obama. For whatever reason, a lot of people outside of the extremes of both parties like the guy. Even though it is snake oil, a lot of people buy into the campaign finance garbage. McCain is a very formidible candidate in the general election, especially against Hillary Clinton with her perminent 50+% negative ratings.

Has it ever occurred to “conservatives” that they might sit out and McCain might still win? What happens then? If there is a surer path to irrelevancy I can’t think of one. I will tell you what, if Hillary slimes her way past Obama and it is McCain versus Clinton, I am not sure McCain will need the conservatives. Something for the right wing punditocracy to chew on as they declare jihad against McCain.

Bill you sound like the woman who said famously after McGovern’s loss to Nixon, “I don’t know how Nixon won, no one I know voted for him.” Most people don’t read blogs and most people don’t read conservative magazines. The “movement” conservatives are like maybe 10% of the population. Further some of them are one issue voters on things like guns and abortion where McCain is fine. Further, for every one of them, there are like 10 people like my inlaws who think McCain is a great American. Right wing blogs are starting to sound like KOS with their inflated sense of importance. Yeah people are mad at McCain over immigration, but if you honestly think Romney much less the Democrats are going to do anything about immigration I have a bridge to sell you. For whatever reason McCain appeals to the great middle. Him and Obama are the only two candidates that do that. Put him up against Clinton and her 50+% negatives, and he will kill her with or without movement conservatives.

I absolutely believe McCain would choose Huckabee for his running mate. It makes sense.

McCain has never been a governor, or any sort of real manager. Being a squadron commander 40 years ago doesn’t mean squat compared to running a large government. He needs a governor on the ticket.

McCain does not have majority support in the South, which he needs to win without a single loss, if he wants to beat a democrat. Huckabee shores up his Southern cred.

McCain may have a good pro-family values record, but he doesn’t inspire any courage there with values voters. Huckabee can rally support from voters who care about abortion and gay marriage, but no other issues. McCain can’t win without that support. McCain can bring in secular moderates and independents. Huckabee can bring in evangelicals. It makes sense.

McCain is old and crotchety. He needs someone younger and more dynamic on his ticket - ESPECIALLY if he faces Obama.

On many other issues, McCain and Huckabee seem like policy clones. They won’t quibble about immigration, for instance. That means they will be able to work together on things that many other Republicans want to work AGAINST McCain on.

McCain would like someone young enough to run for President in 2016. He wants to build a legacy and ensure “his” politics carry on without him. Huckabee is one of the youngest candidates in either party. He could easily serve 8 years as VP then 8 more as President. And, McCain could “groom” Huckabee on the areas where Huckabee is most deficient: defense, intelligence, and foreign policy. McCain could mold and shape Huckabee into his own image on these issues, and ensure 16 years of the McCain agenda.

So if McCain is the nominee, expect Huckabee on the ticket.

or Joe Lieberman…

“Yes, I correctly predicted that the GOP would lose both houses when almost nobody else was saying that. I’m further predicting a crushing defeat for the GOP in the elections this fall. John McCain will not be the next President of the United States. ”

I don’t want to brag but I think anyone who was paying attention knew the Republicans were going to get killed. I certainly thought they would. I think McCain is probably going to be President. He will edge out Romeney and choose Fred or some other conservative as a running mate and beat Hillary in November after she emerges from the dirtiest Democratic Primary in history. You can hold me to those words all you like.

I don’t want to brag but I think anyone who was paying attention knew the Republicans were going to get killed.

Don’t brag, then, because they didn’t. Nobody thought they’d lose both houses. And if they did, they weren’t publicly publishing their predictions for everybody to see.

I think McCain is probably going to be President.

I think you’re delusional. But we’ll see.

You can hold me to those words all you like.

We have your permission to do so? Oh, frabjous joy, thank you so much.

I think the entrenched republican base takes the conservative vote for granted. John thinks McCain will win because the MSM polls say he can beat the hillbilly.

Consider wisely republicans. I have not voted for a democrat since 1972. I will not vote republican if McCain or Huckster is on the ticket. Period.

Call it whatever you want. I will not vote for the “lesser” of two evils when the “lesser” is so damn close to the real thing. Like it or not, I am not the only one. The dems will win in a landslide if you put McHuckster on the ticket.

Bill,
People are calling McCain-Huckabee speculation a “smear”, but I’m afraid it’s all too plausible.
Mac-Huck would represent an effort to nail down 2/3 of the conservative “tripod”: strong defense types who are perhaps too willing to overlook Mac’s serious policy flaws because of his [real] POW heroics, and social conservatives so tickled by Huck’s preacher persona they don’t look too closely at his policies either.

Ugh.

Federalists/small govt/libertarian-ish and fiscal conservatives would be out in the cold.

McCain I could stomach over a Dem (at least Obama) but a Mac-Huck combo would give me serious pause. Not to mention Mac’s age puts a VP Huck’s position in more serious light whether as possible successor or heir.

If we could get some principled opposition from the R’s in Congress like ‘94 ( I know, fat chance), I could possibly tolerate Hillary, believe it or not, because she’s ultimately a pragmatist and does apparently have some spine. Obama OTOH, aside form the empty, slick rhetoric, is deeply troubling with his string of strategic “present” votes/abstentions to deprive critics of ammo against him. I don’t think he’s mushy or undecided on big issues –I think he’s dissembling. Clintonian triangulation at least offers the prospect of arm twisting and deal making.

If it’s McCain-Huckabee, I wouldn’t just decline to vote Republican. I’d vote Democratic.

I just want to remind everyone that, just as in sports, there are no guarantees in politics. (My Packers team lost to the Giants, and the Patriots could also lose to the Giants. But 7 times out of 10 the Packers will win, and 9 times out of 10 the Patriots will win, so in the absence of hindsight that’s how you have to figure the odds.)

I don’t think McCain is going to win the Republican nomination, but if Huckabee stays in the race I give McCain about a 30% chance. If Huckabee drops out, I give McCain about a 10% chance. If McCain gets the nomination, I estimate that a McCain/Thompson ticket would have a 45% chance of beating Hillary and a 35% chance of beating Obama. Whereas a McCain/Huckabee ticket would have a 35% chance of beating Hillary and a 20% chance of beating Obama. Those are my guesses; your mileage may vary.

But ANY Presidential candidate of a major political party has a significant chance of winning. There are too many unknowns which can shake things up. Perhaps Bloomberg will jump in and end up sucking votes from the Democrat. Perhaps a really serious Democratic scandal will erupt that the Mainstream Media can’t ignore. Or a candidate could say something really, really stupid, or be caught in a really, really serious lie, that can’t be ignored. No matter what things look like now, the odds could shift dramatically by November.

Similarly, ANY Vice-Presidential has a significant chance (I forget the exact number, but I think it’s about 25%) of eventually becoming President, one way or another. By my above estimates, a McCain/Huckabee ticket gives Huckabee a 5% to 8% chance of someday being President. Only a handful of people in the world have odds that good, so Huckabee would jump at the opportunity. For the same reason, John Edwards is going to stay in the race and hope for another VP nomination.

Huckabee and Edwards are not on quixotic ventures. They are highly ambitious politicians who are playing for big stakes, and they’ll do whatever it takes to win the prize.

McCain/Thompson then we impeach or otherwise remove McCain from office. Only drawback would be Pelosi as VP.

I’m a registered Republican. I support McCain. He’s the best candidate in my opinion. He’s the only candidate that will stand up against runaway government spending. He also has the best chance of winning the general election. I can’t really understand why a few minor issues are enough to make you guys hate him so much. If you keep up the illegal immigrant bashing, you will just look like the modern NSDAP. Or maybe that isn’t the main issue. Maybe you all really like pork barrel projects and the campaign contributions that come with them.

Whatever your reasons, just keep in mind a few guiding principles when you vote: The government isn’t the most important thing, individuals are. All men are created equal. Freedom is better than paternalistic protectionism. We have a huge debt and we need to balance our budget.

a few minor issues

Minor issues to someone who values power over principle perhaps. If you believe McCain is going to protect our freedom, I have a limits to free speech bill to sale you.

By the way, putting a stop to illegal immigration is not bashing. Rewarding lawbreakers is bashing those who stand in line and wait their legal turn.

John McCain will not win, precisely because a large group of conservatives will not vote for him. Ever.

By the way, putting a stop to illegal immigration is not bashing. Rewarding lawbreakers is bashing those who stand in line and wait their legal turn.

McCain’s plan does reduce illegal immigration. If we open up a viable means to legal entry (and labor), there will be less illegal entry. And for the people already here, a fine isn’t amnesty. I don’t feel like I’ve been given amnesty when I speed and get a ticket for it.

Besides, legalizing the status of the illegal aliens already here instead of breaking up families is good (and supporting families is a conservative value). Preventing someone from working based on where they were born is bad (and goes against our founding principles, and goes against conservative principles).

As far as the people already in line, we should let them in instead of making them wait in line. Problem solved.

This isn’t a matter of speeding tickets - illegals shouldn’t even be here, let alone be allowed to stay. […]

Supporting legally constituted families is a conservative principle

Technically we shouldn’t be here either (other than the “Native Americans”). But we are. Likewise, they are here and we should deal with it in a normalizing non-persecuting way. Out of the shadows and all that. And when has the freedom lover’s position ever been to declare some families illegal and some legal? A true conservative believes in freedom above all. The false conservative wants to diminish the freedom of those who are not like themselves for various reasons.

Just the opposite is true - a true conservative should be against employing illegals - such employment is not only unlawful, it tends to depress wages for legal workers.

Spoken like a true left wing protectionist. Everyone is guaranteed a minimum wage. If you can not compete with someone who doesn’t even know the language, you don’t deserve anything more.

Nelson, I find your trolling to be below the level of entertainment. Please see if you can step it up a bit. As it is now, it’s just boring. Plz learn 2 flame.

Spoken like a true left wing protectionist.

Give it up, Nelson. You’re about as conservative as the boils on McCain’s ass.

Everyone is guaranteed a minimum wage.

Oh, really? How so? Because the law requires it? Well, Slick, while you were waxing poetic on how immigration law is such a terrible thing, guess what? Other people decided that if one set of laws wasn’t going to be enforced, why not another set? Minimum wage guarantees? Out in the Cali strawberry fields? Manolo the dishwasher in some fancy eatery in DC? Why the hell do you think they’re here, you moron? Because they can get hired for less than the minimum wage, which actual citizens and legal residents won’t put with, seeing as they’re guaranteed a minimum wage by law. It’s really pretty simple, Nelson. The breaking of one law leads to the breaking of other laws, and the next thing you know idiots like you are trying to inadequately intellectualize this sorry state of affairs on the comment sections of blogs that you have no business visiting in the first place, except as a troll.

Only those who claim people are illegal and can’t legally work are establishing a slave class.

Sigh.

Who is saying “people” are illegal? People are people. However, they have status under the law that governs whether they are legally in this country. Because their status, under the law, mind you, is not lawful, then their ability work here is not lawful. It’s really simple.

You must agree with me that we are a nation of laws, right? Whether we agree those laws is beside the point; because we choose to receive the blessings of liberty in this fine Republic - and a Republic it is; no blathering about “democracy,” toad - we agree to abide by those laws. Or suffer the consequences.

When I got busted way back when for a film canister with ten cannabis seeds rattling around inside, I could have bemoaned the injustice of The Man and the oppression of his laws. Instead, I said, “You’re kidding, right? No? Ok.” I paid the fine and the lab costs to confirm that those were, indeed, cannabis seeds and went on my merry way. I had broken the law and paid the penalty for doing so. And I despise the drug laws in this country. If I’d been fool enough to be carrying some serious weight, the same would apply, only to a much higher degree.

On immigration, McCain and his cronies are positing that breaking the law has no consequences, beyond a fine that may or may not be paid in the end. All the rest will be rewarded, which offsets the severity of the fine. Here illegally, no problem! Jump to the front of the line! Meanwhile, Kitibe from Nigeria, who has gone through all the hassles of just getting a legal place in that line in the first place is going, “What the fuck? I obeyed your laws, crossed my “t”s and dotted my “i”s. learned your weird language and befuddling history, and Paco from Chihuahua gets to jump in front of me because he paid a fine for running across a broken fence in the desert? Gee, thanks, Uncle Sugar!”

Coming here legally is what separates you from being a free man or a slave.

So I’m guessing you McCainiacs are okay with your boy’s embrace of radical Juan “I want ‘em all to think Mexico first” Hernandez as his Hispanic outreach director, right? Which, by extension, would mean you guys are just fine with this too, right?

It’ll be a mighty cold day in Hell indeed before I’ll ever vote for a supposed conservative who would even momentarily consider tolerating this sort of thing, much less supporting and/or enabling it. That would be your boy Juan “open borders” McCain I’m referring to there, in case the subtlety is too much for you.

Might as well let Hillary or Obama get credit for destroying the country, as far as I’m concerned. McCain has no intention of securing the borders. He never has. If you buy the elect-me horseshit he’s shoveling, you’re a plain fool.

O.k., one more time, from the top -

The only reason I’m bothering with this, Nelson, is that, since you seem to be able to put words together into comprehensible (though totally bullshit) sentences, you appear to have something less than solid bone between your ears - let’s see if I can penetrate the thickness of skull that you do exhibit with some clear-cut reason (since you haven’t, as yet, shown an ability to muster any useful reason or logic of your own).

Technically we shouldn’t be here either (other than the “Native Americans”). But we are.

I don’t know about you, dude, but none of my forebears appear to have slid across the border contrary to the Law Of The Land. I’ve seen my family tree, all the way back to the “Old Country(ies)”, and there aren’t any “undocumenteds” - so there’s no “technically” about it; I am legally in this nation, back about six generations or so.

Also - once this became a country and no longer a loose collection of colonies tied to various of the “Old Countries”, they passed laws hereabouts - you’ve heard of laws, right? - which, though amended and added to over almost two-and-a-half centuries, are still there, defining who is and is not supposed to be here legally.

Citizens, resident aliens and visitors on a visa or on official business - that’s who’s legally allowed to be here, inside the borders of the U.S. of A. All other are illegals - not “undocumenteds”, nor “those without papers”, nor “migrant workers”, nor any other of the cool euphemisms some folks like to use to try to paper-over the unlawful status that’s due to the laws we are all supposed to respect, obey and help defend.

…they are here and we should deal with it in a normalizing non-persecuting way…

They should not be here - they wouldn’t be, if the laws had been properly enforced all along. Also, I’m not into persecution - it’s not “persecution” to require someone to obey the law, although it may be “prosecution” if they don’t.

The way to “deal with it in a normalizing way” is to “normalize” their illegal asses back over the border - and to make it as painful for them to try to come back illegally as needed.

…Out of the shadows and all that…

I didn’t put them “in the shadows” - they did that to themselves when they came here, willfully and unlawfully - I have no obligation to get them “out of the shadows” - they can do that on their own, all they have to do is go home. I’ll even buy them a one-way bus ticket - provided they promise not to come back, and mean it !

…And when has the freedom lover’s position ever been to declare some families illegal and some legal?…

As a true lover of freedom, I’ve never made such a declaration - I don’t have to do so (even if I were so inclined, which I’m not), the law makes that declaration ! (I know, there’s that pesky “law” thing again.)

…A true conservative believes in freedom above all…

No, that’s a libertarian principle (I know, I am one, in general terms). A true conservative believes in A Nation Of Laws, Rather Than One Of Men, above all. (That’s from the Jaycees’ Creed, BTW - a fine, upstanding true-conservative national organization - I used to be a member, years ago.)

…The false conservative wants to diminish the freedom of those who are not like themselves for various reasons…

Well, it appears to me that you would know better about what a false conservative would want rather than I would know, since that is obviously what you are (That is, if you are any sort of conservative at all - there would appear to be considerable room for doubt on that.).

As for me - I have no desire to diminish anyone’s freedom, provided, of course, that they do not desire to diminish mine. A glut of illegals in this country, though, can be shown to have a seriously deleterious effect on my freedom and that of every legal, legitimate resident of this Nation of ours.

…Actually I would let in all the workers,

Well, now see, that’s kinda tricky, guy - how, ‘zactly, do we tell the workers from the nonworkers? Do they all have some sort of union i.d. that says “WORKER” or “NON_WORKER” on it?

…prostitutes (it’s legal in Nevada after all),

Nelson, ol’ buddy, I gotta tell ya, I don’t think the “legal sex-industry workers” in Nevada are going to be with you on that one - and I can just about guarantee there’s a bunch of chuch-going folks who are going to fight you on that, as well.

…tourists,

They’re already allowed - see, they can get in on a passport, they’re allowed in legally already.

…business persons and their respective families.

Here, again, we’re going to have an identification problem - see, drug-runners and coyotes consider themselve to be business persons, know what I mean?

…Legalize the individuals and families already here.

But that’s that amnesty stuff again - that’s supposed to be against the law; all that will do is to increase illegal immigration, not decrease it, you can see that, don’t you?

You’re rewarding illegal behavior, and are yourself violating that Law Of The Land thing. That’s definitely not conservative behavior

…Keep out all the rest.

That would seem to indicate that you’re not really an “open borders” devotee after all - except, given all the exceptions you’ve stated above, there wouldn’t be any “rest” to keep out!

…Everyone is guaranteed a minimum wage.

If they’re here legally - true. If they’re here illegally - they wish!!

C’mon, dude - those people are here because they’re willing to work “below the line” - they don’t get hired unless they work below the minimum.

Wake up, and get into the real world out there.

…Only those who claim people are illegal and can’t legally work are establishing a slave class. When we withhold legitimacy we use the law as a tool to persecute. When we grant legitimacy we use the law as a tool to protect…

Man, that is just so much simple-minded drivel - such total, unredeemable bullshit.

People who cross the line illegally - knowingly - and sell their labor cheaper than the laws should allow, make slaves of themselves. Anyone who hires them is automatically a slave-holder, and anyone who assists them in this in any way - whether it’s the coyote who steals them blind while taking them across, the friend/relative who hides them and feeds them and helps them get hired somewhere, the companeros who sell the goods and services - often enough, at inflated prices - that keep them in the country unlawfully while shipping money back home - all these people are complicit in this slavery.

Even people like you, who try to cling to the notion that somehow, it’ll all be o.k., if we just let them stay, somehow make them legal - even you, by giving them false hope that it’ll all be o.k. in the end - you make it worse for everyone, both legal and illegal alike.

The law is not intended as a tool to persecute - it’s supposed to be used to protect. It’s supposed to protect our Nation from harm that can come from outside our borders - and it’s also supposed to protect those outside the country from making the mistake of thinking that because they can walk across a stretch of scrubby open country and evade the Border Patrol - and hide successfully from for months or years - that they have somehow “earned” the right to be citizens.

Just being here - and not committing other, more overt criminal acts - doesn’t make it o.k. Illegals are illegal by definition, and they have committed a crime just by coming here. Mking an “exception” to the law - giving them amnesty - only serves to further denigrate the laws of our country, and to spur further violations of those laws. It damages all of us, to one degree or another.

I cannot really understand why you can’t get past the point of being hung up on “the plight of the poor undocumenteds”, and see that.

If you’re truly that dense, it must really, really suck to be you.

It’s getting late - gotta go. Ciao.

[Edited by SteveF to close italics.]

I will say that McCain knows all about accepting bribes.

C’mon, Genes. Harry Reid was part of that too, so it was bipartisan corruption. Besides, the investigators decided to settle for Keating and a few lesser figures, so both got off scot-free. In the beltway, that’s practically exoneration.

Nelson

You can’t change the law and make their illegal entry into the US “legal”. It was illegal. That’s a fact. That is why here at DP we have been calling this for what it is, Amnesty. A pardon to the criminal for the crimes they committed with no penalty.

Do you think that not penalizing criminals will encourage further trespass against said laws? I think so.

Do you think ignoring the fact that there are people and organizations in the US that are knowingly hiring illegal aliens, against the law, just so they can pay them less than minimum wage, also against the law, would encourage further trespass of those laws? I think so.

Do you think constant pardoning of transgressions of our laws eventually will undermine the rule of law in this country? I think so.

Just ask BJ Clinton. He didn’t feel he needed to obey the perjury laws either. But then again, he’s one of the elite and is exempt from pesky things like “laws” when it is inconvenient for him. Even though his behavior would have subjected him to serious sexual harrassment charges had he been working for a US corporation instead of being the chief of the top law enforcement arm of the Federal Government as set up by the Constitution, which he swore to uphold and defend.

But what the hell, it’s just a Constitution. It lives, it breathes, it can be changed at the whim of a judge or a President. Why should laws promulgated under the republican government set up by the constitution be any less malleable when convenience suits.

Lorenzo, half Nelson was trying to make McCain sound good, I was trying to show him the clay feet. BTW 4 out of the Keating 5 are dems.

When people are free to make their own choices they tend to find the optimal equilibrium. If we had had a viable guest worker program (viable meaning it was legal for foreigners to come over and look for work, and legal for our employers to hire them, without waiting years in line), we wouldn’t have huge chunks coming over illegally (they would come legally instead). We could also keep track of them and have them live by the same rules everyone else lives by.

And what about the Americans already over here? They’d already have an advantage. They know the culture, they know the language, and most of the time they have a better education. They would also be on a level playing field because if foreigners are here legally they can’t be threatened with deportation (and they’d have to pay taxes, etc…).

The optimal path for a Mexican laborer would be to work here a few years, travel back to Mexico a couple of times a year to keep relationships with friends and family members up, save as much as possible, then after a few years of saving move back home to Mexico where everything is cheaper and buy property or start a small business (a risk worth taking because if it fails they would have the freedom to come back to America and try again).

But the way it is now, there is a huge incentive to bring over the whole family (or start one here) because they can’t freely go back and forth. If they go back to keep up family ties, theres a significant chance they won’t be able to enter the US a second time because it’s illegal.

In summary, most of the problems associated with illegal immigration can be fixed if we just allowed people to legally live and work where they choose and to come and go as they please.

Who do you think illegal aliens are taking jobs from?

The notion that there are only a finite number of jobs in this world (or this country) is protectionist propaganda. If you look at the data, you will notice the number of jobs increases over time as the population increases.

Folks, I just noticed what sort of bloated hunk ‘o junk Nelson has trolled this thread into.

He’s pretty good at trolling, but he violates the cardinal rule here: He’s boring.

So I’m pulling the plug on him.

Sorry, Nelson, find somewhere else to play.

Oh, me…

Poor ol’ Nelson - all you know is a few selected “facts”, none of which pertains to the issues at hand.

The notion that there are only a finite number of jobs in this world (or this country) is protectionist propaganda. If you look at the data, you will notice the number of jobs increases over time as the population increases.

The job-number increases you see in the U.S. Bureau Of Labor Statistics (which are likely the only ones you can trust in any serious measure, if you can even trust them) have no correlation, direct or indirect to the ebb and flow (mostly flow) of illegal aliens in this country - the jobs the illegals take are subterranean from the labor statistics; such jobs would have to be “legitimized” (and therefore be visible within the statistics) if there were no illegals to fill them. This would also make those jobs viable for legal workers, since they would then be enforceably under the minimum wage, OSHA and other work-standards rules, both Federal and State.

As it is now, however, the illegal campesinos who get those jobs get shit for wages and working/living conditions, and simultaneously take potential (minimum or above) wages out of the pockets of the legal workers who would otherwise have to be hired. For everyone except the “businessman” (read: criminal and thief) who hires the illegals, this is truly a lose/lose deal.

…If the legal means to entry and labor were opened up we could regulate it a lot better than we are currently doing… If we had had a viable guest worker program (viable meaning it was legal for foreigners to come over and look for work, and legal for our employers to hire them, without waiting years in line), we wouldn’t have huge chunks coming over illegally (they would come legally instead)…

Such a program has been in existence in this country for decades (and your pal McStain has done his very best to hugely augment it, BTW) - it’s called the H1-b Visa program, and it brings thousands of foreign workers here legally every year, to work and to live.

Only problem is, no one (including, apparently, the U.S. Government) has any interest in issuing H1-b’s to tomato pickers and car washers - I guess they figure we already have enough of those low-end, semi- and un-skilled workers already; employers just need to pay them and employ them according to the law, that’s all.

When people are free to make their own choices they tend to find the optimal equilibrium… most of the problems associated with illegal immigration can be fixed if we just allowed people to legally live and work where they choose and to come and go as they please.

Sorry, but that’s just another load of fatuous, wrong-headed bullshit. First off, we as a nation have no obligation (and never have had) to be the location of choice for the rest of the world - and there are a whole lot of really bad things that can come from allowing that kind of thing. Second, while that sort of “One-World, Open-Border” shit may play well in certain deeply Lefty segments of this country’s population, there is no chance you will convince the vast majority of the U.S. populace that we should just let folks come and go as they please, where our national borders are involved.

Sorry, wrong again - the way to solve illegal-alien problems is not to simply declare that there is no such thing, which is apparently what you’d really like us to do.

The optimal path for a Mexican laborer would be to work here a few years, travel back to Mexico a couple of times a year to keep relationships with friends and family members up, save as much as possible, then after a few years of saving move back home to Mexico where everything is cheaper and buy property or start a small business (a risk worth taking because if it fails they would have the freedom to come back to America and try again).

That’s a pretty nice little scenario you’ve laid out, there - only problem is, almost none of the illegals want to play the game that way. Nelson, most of these people show no interest whatsoever in going back “home” - damn few have any reason to want to do so; all they would face there is the same sort of hardscrabble countryside and poor infrastructure and corrupt government they already fled from.

In addition - where is it written into our national mores or imprinted upon our national character that we have some sort of obligation to be a source of opportunity for people who, at this point, have not demonstrated the moral fiber necessary to follow the law in pursuing that opportunity? What makes you believe that if we change (or temporarily ignore) our own immigration laws, that will produce a sea-change in their attitude towards following the rules?

What, for instance, would you propose that we do if we somehow put your little plan in place and, at the end of his tenure here, the Mexican worker decides that, no, he’s not interested in going back to Sonora or Ensenada, thanks all the same, he’d much rather just stay here in good ol’ Iowa or Illinois?? Drop-kick his peone ass back across the border (assuming, of course, we could actually find him)??

…the way it is now, there is a huge incentive to bring over the whole family (or start one here) because they can’t freely go back and forth. If they go back to keep up family ties, theres a significant chance they won’t be able to enter the US a second time because it’s illegal.

The way it is now, there is no significant chance an illegal won’t be able to come back a second - or third, or fourth or even tenth - time, because there are too many dingle-berries (like you??) doing everything they possibly can to keep the laws from being currently enforced. Biggest problem is, there’s not enough “incentive” (read: punishment, prosecution, proscription, etc…) to keep Jose Campesino, Juana Campesino and all the little Campesinos below the border, and way too much “incentive” (read: under-the-table jobs, buddy/relative support, sanctuary cities, etc.) to andale North - with no intention whatsoever to “go back home”, ever again.

Then, as soon as possible, get Tio y Tia Campesino up here, too…oh, and there’re a few other amigos that would come along, as well…

We already have solutions available for the illegal-immigration problems, Nelson - reach down between your knees, way, way back and pull your pointy skull out of your butt, wipe the shit out of your squinty little peepers, and take a look. They’re called “control the borders” and “enforce the laws”.

Typical. You’re boring, stupid, and impervious to fact or reason, and you’re demonstrating all of that continuously on my dime. So if I choose not to permit you to do so, I’m restricting your freedom of speech.

But then, that’s exactly the same logic you employ to justify permitting millions of illegal aliens to cross our front door and break our laws - if we try to stop that, we are abridging the “rights” of criminals.

I expect if I decided to invade your home and take all your stuff, you’d find that similarly okay.

BTW, which “classical liberals” told you it was okay to pick and choose which laws you would obey? I know it wasn’t Milton Friedman. As for Bastiat, you obviously don’t understand him, either. Consider the Parable of the Broken Window in the context of millions of illegal aliens sweeping across US borders in search of below-market-wage (because that’s all they get) jobs. And no, simply calling them “legal” - (retroactive amnesty) doesn’t unbreak that window, either. Further, even Bastiat ceded to the state the ability to establish and protect its borders.

You’re an idiot.

Goodbye.