Klein's Quips

Please!!!!! RINO Rudy the answer to the southern border criminals? The real answer comes from mexico it'self. Read http://www2.privatei.com/~attila/mexlaw.htm

Your praise of Rudy, whom I admire for other reasons, fails to mention that 29% of federal prisoners are illegal, the high cost of medical, etc. we must pay to have these "guests" here and presumably would continue to pay even if they were legal. Then there are education, in spanish, and other costs. Then there are the social costs of having people here who do not want to be American, only to take Americans money. Despite what the liberals say, we can get along without them and we need candidates who will say so. Rudy can't win.

I wish people would stop equating anti-immigration with anti-illegal immigration.

I too wish they would stop; I'm anti-illegal, not anti-come legally, be an American with us.

No, did I say NO, to Rudy. He's anti-second amendment; not having that, not now, not ever.

I'm not positive but I think he declared New York City a safe-haven for illegals. Or was that Bloomberg? Or maybe it was just the oh, let the Feds do it policy.

Re: Keith's comment above.....I thought that was the point of Phil's article--legal immigration good, illegal immigration bad. But to respond to Keith's point, legal immigration is such a tiny percentage of total immigration into this country that being anti-immigration and anti-illegal immigration are essentially the same. (If someone has stats on the number of legal vs. illegal I'd love to see them.)

Re: Phil's comment in the article about people crying "racism" anytime someone is anti-immigration, the reason it seems like racism is because so many of the arguments against illegal immigration sound like Franklin's above. Few people are anti-illegal immigration for national security reasons alone.

Re: Phil's article itself, I think it needs more explanation. How does having a name and ID number for everyone in the country help us fight terror? Or are you saying that being able to vet who enters first (by researching their potential terror connections before allowing them entry) protects us? That makes sense, but seems administratively impossible, especially if we were to have legal immigration in the same numbers that we currently have illegal immigration.

Is anyone doing a cost-benefit analysis here? Weigh the benefit of illegal immigration against the expected cost of a terror attack that results from someone sneaking in through mexico. (You can avoid being in a plane crash by never flying, but is it worth it?) And weigh the opportunity cost of the resources we would expend through some reformed legal immigration system against the other tools against terror we could devote those same resources too.