The Spectacle Blog

Re: What Would Reagan Do?

By on 5.17.06 | 5:55AM

Jed and Wlady:

If Bush had said, "First, we need to get control of our Southern border," and then had put forth a program that would do it, the American people would have forgiven him everything else. And it's a reasonable thing for even a semi-dove on immigration to do. Reasonably: You can't develop any kind of domestic immigration policy until the flow is legal, and under control.

Little Man Hate

By on 5.16.06 | 9:16PM

U Penn selects Jodie Foster to deliver commencement address. She attempts inspiration by quoting Eminem.

Too late for graduates to receive full tuition refund?

Re: What Would Reagan Do?

By on 5.16.06 | 7:53PM

Wlady: I agree. We can't just write them off, and they won't go away. That's not my desire or my idea. We have to assimilate most of them and toss back those who are guilty of crimes other than crossing the border. But - and this is one heckuva big but - I still say we have to close the border to more before we can do anything else.

Re: What Would Reagan Do?

By on 5.16.06 | 6:15PM

Jed: I don't believe I said the choice comes down to either shipping all illegals home or doing nothing. My basic point, again, is that our expanding economy will continue to create demand (and opportunity) for cheap labor. Who will fill those jobs if our borders are "closed" -- a condition certain to stymie economic growth as well. Immigration can be controlled, but it can't be shut off. And I think we'll have to do better than simply dismiss countries from which illegals come as "ratholes." The point is that most are in our neighborhood, our sphere of influence, and as such we share a certain history with them -- which is one huge reason we have this illegal problem in the first place. They're not going to go away just because we try to write them off.

Re: What Would Reagan Do?

By on 5.16.06 | 4:16PM

Wlady: Tancredo isn't a leader. He is, as you say, a single-issue obsessive. We need the president to take a harder stand. The pool of illegals will increase. But don't we want to limit it? We are a nation of over 300 million. One estimate says that the Hagel bill will allow immigration by as many as 100 million. Neither our economy nor our security can withstand that. I'm not for deporting them all, as I've said and written many times. But the choice you pose isn't real. The choice isn't between shipping them all home and doing nothing. I insist that there is another choice, which begins with taking whatever action is needed to close the borders. Unless we do, we may as well just let everyone and anyone in. There's no way to solve any problem without going to the source. We can't solve the internal problems of every rathole nation that people want to flee. But we can make it much harder - almost impossible - for them to come here. And we must.

Unabashed Liberals

By on 5.16.06 | 3:39PM

Some liberal Democrats are tired of hearing that their party has no ideas, no agenda. So they're stepping out with their own.

Our Values:
• quality public education
• universal healthcare coverage
• fair taxes and responsible social policy
• corporate accountability
• good jobs, living wages and secure pensions
• civil and human rights
• a clean and sustainable environment
• clean elections laws

The 21st Century Democrats' agenda is not innovative -- it's a return to all the issues liberals have long known and loved.

But what is markedly absent from their website's sections on "vision" or "issues" is some sort of overarching philosophy. The whole project belies its stated intent: they say they're presenting "bold ideas and a vision to lead America forward in quantum leaps" (press release), but only offer the typical amalgam of liberal issues.

Re: What Would Reagan Do?

By on 5.16.06 | 2:15PM

But, Jed, we do have a leader ready to take up the charge -- Rep. Tom Tancredo. But as so often happens, a single-issue obsessive is not likely to gather broad support. Bush did what a consensus leader had to -- he tried to square the circle. The fit may not be there, but at least he's working with the pieces he has no choice but to deal with. Veep Cheney was just on Rush Limbaugh and mentioned that in recent years we've turned back some 6 million illegals at the border. Now for all we know these might include illegals who regrouped and got through on the second or third or tenth try. But the fact remains that some border enforcement is being attempted, and is likely to intensify still. This won't change the fact that our labor market continues to create ever new demands for cheap workers. One way or another the illegal pool is likely to expand, so long as our economy continues to expand. Would we settle for an economy in free fall if it meant ridding ourselves of illegals?

Re: What Would Reagan Do?

By on 5.16.06 | 1:54PM

Wlady: I agree. The ten or twelve million already here are an internal problem. But two things: first, I'm worried more about the next ten or twenty million that will soon be here if we don't close things down; and second, no matter what we do, the libs will want to repopulate the welfare state with illegals and re-enfranchised felons. We need to deal with the external problem first, and find a leader to head up the charge. Unfortunately, it's pretty apparent W doesn't want to.