O.K., Brad, here's one of those issues where I gasp a bit. Besides the political advantage to Bush, there is mainly the tension between the needs in the huge basement of the economy represented by illegal employment and staving off the population crisis faced by Europe. The growing competition with Europe may also behoove Bush to push for this, since population growth solves some problems and creates others.

Where population growth creates other problems through illegal immigration is, of course, the swell in taxation and burden carried by the dwindling middle class re: medical care. Many of the illegals in this country, especially of Hispanic origin, already have naturalized children here, but that would only increase with these new laws. And then there's the issue of voting and whether this would outrace the inculturation of illegals.

The primary concern for me, however, is the challenge of assimulating immigrants, which is kind of a non sequitur, since Hispanics are in many places already the majority. But culturally speaking, it is their resistance to individualism I'm afraid of. The neighborhood I live in is already a "Little Mexico," with increases in crime of all sorts: domestic violence, drunk driving, crack houses, teenage truancy etc . . . all of this mainly an outcome of the Hispanic community insulating itself, not learning the english language, and remaining at low paying jobs without contributing to the middle class.

As I've alluded to before, the tribal, family kinship ties that preserve some of these behaviors is what must be broken through over generations in order for people to reach a level of individual accountability over these issues.

There are a lot of touchy areas concerning this issue. I guess I wouldn't have too much a problem with "illegal aliens" if they were, on the whole, respectful of America's laws and customs. I don't know if the economic issue is a "wash" -- their cheap labor in return for certain social services and much of their paycheck leaving the country -- but the lack of cultural assimilation is a concern to me. Would it help if they viewed themselves as more "first-class citizens"? That's a possible benefit to Bush's approach.

Mark Krikorian has a good article on some of the long-term consequences of Bush's policy on the NRO site.

quote:

If the supply of foreign workers were to dry up (say, through actually enforcing the immigration law, for starters), employers would respond to this new, tighter, labor market in two ways. One, they would offer higher wages, increased benefits, and improved working conditions, so as to recruit and retain people from the remaining pool of workers. At the same time, the same employers would look for ways to eliminate some of the jobs they now are having trouble filling. The result would be a new equilibrium, with blue-collar workers making somewhat better money, but each one of those workers being more productive.

Many people fear the first part of such a response, claiming that prices for fruits and vegetables would skyrocket, fueling inflation. But since all unskilled labor � from Americans and foreigners, in all industries � accounts for such a small part of our economy, perhaps four percent of GDP, we can tighten the labor market without any fear of sparking meaningful inflation. Agricultural economist Philip Martin has pointed out that labor accounts for only about ten percent of the retail price of a head of lettuce, for instance, so even doubling the wages of pickers would have little noticeable effect on consumers.

In the long-run, what is needed is a tougher, better-enforced immigration policy, imo. If it means guarding our borders more diligently, then so be it.

Phil, W.C., I don�t know what to think about Bush�s proposal. And I think it is a proposal (a request) for legislation rather than an Executive Order or something like that.

On the surface it seems like a naked play for the Hispanic vote. Well, that�s politics. They are, after all, now the #1 minority in America � or will soon be so if not already. I understand all of your concerns about people integrating into America so that we have a common culture � or at least have the important things in common. One of those things is the English language. Another is the Constitution and the whole idea of a representative republic. Within the bounds of this representative republic is plenty of room for minor sub-cultures. In fact, that�s the strength and purpose of this form of government; to have the kind of diversity that really counts; where States and local communities are free to experiment (kind of in a Darwin fashion) with ideas and concepts of government and community. The worst form of tyranny (as it is becoming now) is the homogenous and all-powerful rule of a single Federal government. But that issue, for now, I think is a separate one. I don�t think dime one of Federal or State money should be spent on making this a bi- or tri-lingual country. I think we need to encourage the English language and thus encourage communication and economic advantage for all our citizens. If would be a shame, once again, if, under the false umbrella of diversity and cultural sensitivity, we inadvertently bring a disadvantage to the welfare of a whole segment of our society.

So the question becomes, do we give some kind of amnesty or special treatment to law-breakers? I think the gist of Bush�s thoughts on the matter is that we should reward those who wish to work and add something to our society. That seems to be how he�s framing the question. I think he may be framing the question in this way � and correctly so (both ethically and politically) � IF he is then planning to actually bring air-tight enforcement to our borders. You can clearly see that if we were to take back control of our borders that this issue could be demagogued as a racial one. That is, that the cold-hearted racist conservatives would be said to have it in for the Mexicans. But by first granting some sort of amnesty to existing illegal aliens, the issue could be more easily defined as taking prudent steps against terrorism without regard to race � which is certainly what we should be doing now and are not. We shall see if this is the way it plays out.

As usual, all of your contributions are right on the mark in identifying the pertinent issues and in a well-balanced way, too. I think Bush's proposal is win-win insofar as it it both a good moral path and a good economic path. It needn't be characterized as a type of amnesty, necessarily, but if it is an amnesty outreach, then let's consider it an amnesty not just for the laborers but also for the growers and consumers, for we all have played our part in contributing to the social injustices associated with this situation, however directly or indirectly? Some of the social isolation is foisted on these people even as some isolation may be self-chosen in some situations.

From the USCCB:

quote:

WASHINGTON (August 22, 2003) -- Despite the diminished attention given to the plight of farm workers in recent years, they "still have a claim on our conscience," according to the chairman of the bishops' domestic policy committee in his annual Labor Day statement.

Farm workers "often find themselves linguistically and culturally isolated and vulnerable to exploitation and discrimination because of their legal status and language barriers," said Washington Cardinal Theodore E. McCarrick.. While some farmers treat their workers well and deserve commendation, he said, "too many do not, often relying on labor contractors, some of whom essentially traffic in human labor and suffering for economic profit."

"When farm workers do come, they too often find meager jobs, decrepit housing, and unsafe conditions," Cardinal McCarrick said. "Some end up living under bridges or even in caves. Those who do find housing in labor camps sometimes live without decent sanitation, despite state and federal health laws. Violations of wage and hour laws are commonplace. Their children often must join them in the fields because without their help, the family may not survive. They can face death and injuries on the job from dangerous farm equipment and the threat of poisoning from the pesticides used to protect the crops."

Cardinal McCarrick called on the United States to remedy the situation with policies which recognize the basic dignity and rights of farm workers. Specifically, he said the government must ensure that farm workers receive a decent wage and living conditions that are safe and humane.

In addition, he called for "comprehensive immigration reform which features legalization" so that undocumented farm workers can obtain legal status which will allow them to assert their basic labor rights more freely.

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops plans to address the concerns of farm workers and the agricultural sector during their semi-annual assembly in November. In their first major statement on the topic in a number of years, the bishops will raise several concerns that have arisen in recent years, including increasing concentration and globalization, trade, and genetically modified foods.

In the meantime, as the nation prepares to celebrate Labor Day, Cardinal McCarrick called on Americans to renew their commitment to "stand in solidarity with farm workers and other agricultural workers in defending their life and dignity and helping them to secure decent wages, safe working conditions, and better labor protections."

He said that while the plight of agricultural workers "may not be on the evening news or in the headlines, it should be at the heart of our thoughts, reflections, and priorities as we celebrate Labor Day this year."

in solidarity, pax
jb

As usual, all of your contributions are right on the mark in identifying the pertinent issues and in a well-balanced way, too.

If that's the case then I'm going to have to go back and edit my post...add some more punch to it.

Fox News also claims to be fair and balanced

Fox News also claims to be fair and balanced

Yes. If you immerse your hand in cold water for a while and then plunge it into tepid or even slightly warm water, the water will feel much warmer than it actually is.

Indeed, it may take increasingly large doses after a habit is formed in order to fully experience a Rush

I should know better that to get into a battle of wits with you, JB.

There's actually a whole lot more to this issue of immigration than meets the eye. Whatever we do, I'm sure there will be some short-term unfairness. Right now there is unfairness because a business that wishes to be honest in their hiring practices is at a disadvantage to those who hire illegals. It's unfair to make legal residents of the U.S. pay for benefits of illegal aliens.

Although we might adopt some short-term policies (which are the equivalent of shutting the barn gate after the horses have already bolted) to try and take care of de facto (kinda/sorta) Americans-by-habit, we have to enforce existing laws at some point because they are laws and not simply because it is inconvenient or politically risky (because of PC notions) to do so.

If we were to round up and deport all the illegal aliens now, I'm quite sure you'd hear comparisons to the Nazis rounding up the Jews. But we have every right to do so. Just because we've turned a blind eye to something doesn't mean the law has changed. It doesn't mean it's not the right thing to do. Possibly because, in practice, it does seem we've officially turned a blind eye to illegal immigration, it might be the moral thing to treat some of this as a special circumstance. But only this. And even in this notion I'm not quite sure it's the right or fair thing to do.

When in doubt, check out Bill O'Reilly.

quote:

The question is: Will the new program help America? The answer is no. That's because Mr. Bush has proposed a situation that is all carrot cake and no stick. Once the poor of the world realize that anyone who sneaks into America illegally can get the benefits of living in this country, the flood gates, which are already open, will crack completely.

Remember, the immigration mess we have now started after Ronald Reagan granted amnesty to illegals in 1986. Since that time, tens of millions of undocumented people have found a way to the USA, hoping for exactly what Mr. Bush has now given them. Why wouldn't millions more follow that lead?

Dang soft-hearted Republicans!

Dang soft-hearted Republicans!

It really is an odd reversal, Phil. For the Democrats, the more illegals the better because, apparently, the Hispanics (or is the proper term "latino"�I forget) vote overwhelmingly Democratic � as do younger voters. It's the motive for making voter registration as easy (and in regards to verification�sloppy) as possible. Didn't they wish to hand out driver's licenses to illegal aliens in California which lead to The Gubernator?

My hand to God, I have no problem whatsoever with legal Mexicans coming to this country and, through the processes already established, becoming workers and/or citizens. As I understand it, these people are overwhelmingly family-oriented, hard-working and honest (except for the illegal alien part, of course). These people are also overwhelmingly Christian (and probably Catholic to boot). But for goodness sakes we just have to stop this nonsense of turning away from the enforcement of our immigration laws � particularly at a time when not doing so could be disastrous.

I think you're 100% correct, Phil, that we tend to make the problem worse with our intermittent amnesties. In addition to the one motivation for all this that I previously stated, the only other thing that I can think of is that we need as many new workers in this country as we can get to help support the coming retirement of the baby boomers.

I watched Bill O. debate some libertarian, who is a National Review columnist - forget his name, on this issue, the other night. Such fellows are not often at odds?

A key component will be beefed up enforcement of existing laws and borders. A healthy debate on this issue, as it heads into legislation, will certainly strengthen the ultimate effectiveness of this Bush policy, which is not pandering, imo, but a true compassionate conservatism in action.

pax,
jb

�of this Bush policy, which is not pandering, imo, but a true compassionate conservatism in action.

Well, I hope you're right, JB. I don't think it's necessarily cynical to do things (or suspect that people do things) in order to gain votes. This is what politics is about to a large extent. I do realize that President Bush is, from what I can tell at a distance and with a due amount of skepticism, a compassionate and decent man. But I'm also of the mind that this new proposal is also a means to broaden his personal resume. It makes him appear as if he's more than a one-issue man and is not just fixated on the war with terror.

It makes him appear as if he's more than a one-issue man

Truly, all he's trying to say is: Yo soy un hombre sincero

to broaden his personal resume

Nah. He oughta relax. His competition will be chosen from such job applicants as have come down to us in the fine tradition of McCarthy, Mondale, Dukakis, McGovern ... ...

Remember the Clinton campaign theme song: Don't Stop Thinking About Tomorrow by Fleetwood Mac? Howard Dean is similarly turning to Fleetwood Mac in 2004 and has, in fact, chosen my favorite Stevie Nicks song: Landslide ... very apropos for Vermont: and I saw my reflection in the snow-covered hills ... ... 'til the Landslide brought me down

George Will said it best. You've gotta have a constituency, a regional constituency ... and America's faculty clubs don't meet that criterion. Repeatedly, the Democratic Party panders to these very vocal ivory tower radicals, who represent the margins of a radical liberalism, turning away from their more moderate core constituency (such as Clinton was in touch with), such as represented by John Breaux and the Southern Leadership Council of yesteryear and ... ... they give us a Molly Ivinsesque clone of a nominee. Not to say Clark might not turn up a Dark Horse to watch.

pax,
jb

Brad:

I hope Bush's plan meets with some serious legislative resistance, but in a voting year, few can afford to campaign on negatives, especially the already blithering democrats. Perhaps you guys have already put this out there . . .

Almost defacto amnesty for illegals, who are mostly poor, would collapse an already weakened state hospital system (hospitals on the California-Mexico border are already shutting down). Employers will do more of what they are already doing with laws against illegals not even enforced: lower wages and drop medical coverage, further burdening the demands for better medical care, and driving insurance premiums through the roof (for those who still have one). Why continue paying even 8-9.00 hr for work you can now pay less for with the pool of desperates even larger; it is the opposite of what Phil's post describes as the temporary adjustment employers would make if illegals were treated as such!!

Another huge downfall is the effect on public education. English as a second language enrollment would jump by the millions in each state as these intruding workers naturalized their children. The system is already bankrupt!!

All of this spells the steady, even faster demise of the middle class worker/family in this country. Most industry-related, truly middle class jobs are being exported anyway. Swelling the lower socioeconomic class like Bush would do has no benefits I can see. He doesn't need the votes, unless he is worried about another 911 or total collapse in Iraq. But the democrats just don't have a head to show for themselves (that's clever use of vulgarity here on Shalom Place . . . .). Besides, most of the lower socioeconomic class doesn't vote anyway . . . and now, why bother when you can feast off the land without making any substantial contributions(obviously I don't buy the explanation that poor illegals are crucial for our working class infrastructures).

By creating a swelling lower socioeconomic class with little left of the middle class wage earner, opportunity for inculturation goes out the window. PERIOD. Most ethnic family systems are strongly inclined to insularity. Without a middle class to grow into, property values will plunge, crime rates will get even worse, etc . . . You can't create a middle class out of the poor who won't actively pursue mastering the english language or higher education. Some will. But most won't. The entire invitation Bush is making is for the backwater to remain backwater, and to become the majority. What percentage of the poor hispanic population seeking the slow process of U.S. citizenship do you think will continue to wait it out? Count the numbers much higher than just the illegals currently in this country!!

I live in the middle of it in my own neighborhood. Why pursue a higher education that threatens the fabric of ethnic family ties when you can live a dozen in a house and pull in combined wages enough to afford amenities and travel back and forth to Mexico like your on vacation? I'm telling you guys: prove me wrong! This thing simply stinks. Look at Mexico. Nice resorts built for the gringos, but the economy and social climates are dead and dying. You really want to transplant that here?????? Well, it's already here, especially in the south and the western United States. There's nothing good emerging from it, except when it is slowly transformed out of its purely ethnic tendencies into a true pluralism. Without a substantial middle class, this simply will not happen anymore.

I know: we'll just have to wait and see on the exact effects, presuming Bush gets his way. But it will be too late by then. There's no turning back once we open the floodgates, or it will look like a political crime. You wanna breath fresh air into the ACLU? O.K. here we go . . .

Bush has lost my vote just by this alone.

quote:

Nah. He oughta relax. His competition will be chosen from such job applicants as have come down to us in the fine tradition of McCarthy, Mondale, Dukakis, McGovern ... ...

I watched a bit of the Democratic debate last night on PBS. Or maybe it was a roundtable discussion. I didn't stay long. But I heard Carol Moseley Braun say that, instead of going after Saddam, we should have gone after bin Laden. We should have gone after Al Quida. We should have spent our time hunting down the terrorists. Now I realize that it may not be widely known just how zealously we have been hunting down, disrupting and destroying Al Quida, but the fact is that we have been. We have been doing so with an almost no-holds-barred zeal. I suppose that someone running for President of the United States isn't stupid. And I suppose that they have at least as many sources of good information as I do. And if they're serving in public office, or aspiring to do so, they should certainly know a heck of a lot more. So do I chalk this up as an outrageous lie? Can I really chalk it up as ignorance? It would be scary to do so for that would mean that there are important and powerful people out there who a living in a dream world. I would be much more comfortable with the idea of a politician cynically lying for the purpose of gaining power. That I can understand.

quote:

Remember the Clinton campaign theme song: Don't Stop Thinking About Tomorrow by Fleetwood Mac? Howard Dean is similarly turning to Fleetwood Mac in 2004 and has, in fact, chosen my favorite Stevie Nicks song: Landslide ... very apropos for Vermont: and I saw my reflection in the snow-covered hills ... ... 'til the Landslide brought me down

How about "Over My Head"?

quote:

George Will said it best. You've gotta have a constituency, a regional constituency ... and America's faculty clubs don't meet that criterion. Repeatedly, the Democratic Party panders to these very vocal ivory tower radicals, who represent the margins of a radical liberalism, turning away from their more moderate core constituency (such as Clinton was in touch with), such as represented by John Breaux and the Southern Leadership Council of yesteryear and ... ... they give us a Molly Ivinsesque clone of a nominee.

It's quite normal, I'm told, to play to one's core constituency during the nominating process. That means a veer to the left or right. But this surely shows, in the case of the Democrats, just how far left you have to go to get even within shouting distance of that core. But it does lay bare, for those who wish to see, just how whacky that constituency is. If one is a Democrat in the traditional sense, you certainly have to do a whole lot of wishful thinking to assume that this little dance between the ultra-left and the candidates is just a for-show dance and does not represent the direction that the candidate will eventual go. It would be a heck of a lot easier (and a lot less trauma emotionally) just to become a Reagan Democrat.

I hope Bush's plan meets with some serious legislative resistance�

I wouldn't worry too much about that, W.C. I think it will. At best you'll see, I think, a less radical form of this proposal written into law.

Bush has lost my vote just by this alone.

That will make for an interesting discussion as you are forced to defend the policy ideas of the Democratic nominee.

I feel you have your pulse on the potential problems to a much greater extent than I do. All I can say is that America has absorbed tons of immigrants before and can do so again. But it won't be without problems, of course. It never is. But I can't help but feel that many of the problems you outlined are the result of the overly entitlement-oriented socialistic state that we've morphed into. I'll hold out the possibility, however remote, that any problems that are encountered will be the straw that helps break the back of this unsustainable state of affairs; much like pie-in-the-sky social spending (and related issues) did in California.

But I heard Carol Moseley Braun say that, instead of going after Saddam, we should have gone after bin Laden. We should have gone after Al Quida. We should have spent our time hunting down the terrorists. . .

You made a good point in reply, Brad, but I've heard this before, too. What a dumb point--as though to pursue Saddam precludes everything else in the world. My guess is the military can chew gum and walk at the same time.

Back to immigration: I heard a good discussion between Sam Donaldson and Sean Hannity on this. Donaldson's point was that something has to be done about the immigrants who are ALREADY HERE; sending them back is just not a viable or even enforceable option. The present proposal provides some kind of status without the full benefits of citizenship and helps to identify better who's here and what they're up to. Along with this proposal is supposedly provision for better monitoring of the borders. IOW, there is a movement to "stem the tide," as it were. Even Hannity was acknowledging that all was not bleak after this discussion.

w.c., your concern about how immigration affects the middle class and economy is one I also share and for many of the same reasons. There's only so much that this "melting pot" of a country can take without being dragged into stagnancy and mediocrity. I see the trend in that direction, but don't feel quite so hopeless about it as you do. Having lived in the deep South where there were huge segments of the population that were "stagnant" (in terms of education, economics, family life, and motivation to do better), we lived side-by-side and harmoniously so, for the most part. Of course, a huge portion of federal and state budgets is already going to provide assistance to some of these groups, and that's a big problem.

Here's some hope brewing regarding limits, or an overturn, on Bush's immigrant plan:

http://washtimes.com/national/...128-124755-2167r.htm

Interestingly, Bush may have more support from Democrats than Republicans on this one. Should be interesting to see how the discussion unfolds . . .

Brad:

One of my fears of Bush's proposed change in immigration laws is how the massive swelling of the lower class economy will respond as middle class opportunities shrink. This lack of upward mobility might encourage the kind of pessimism you're referring to among young people who are already disposed to see authority figures as holding out on them.

Now, it seems that NAFTA is an endemic part of the global market place, and so some other means of regenerating the middle class economy must be found. But crushing the public health care system and increasing ten fold the number of tribal-oriented families without available incentives for deliberate assimulation is not something that bodes well for the message of prosperity which capatilism brings us, and which protects us from more retrograde forms of sociology.

W.C. said: One of my fears of Bush's proposed change in immigration laws�

Which reminds me�could someone do the legwork and explain the proposed law? I really have very little idea.

One of my fears of Bush's proposed change in immigration laws is how the massive swelling of the lower class economy will respond as middle class opportunities shrink.

I'm trying to get a handle on this. Let's see�the illegal workers are already here populating part of the lower-income working class. What would swell? Is Bush proposing an even laxer control on our borders?

This lack of upward mobility might encourage the kind of pessimism you're referring to among young people who are already disposed to see authority figures as holding out on them.

I'm not sure how Bush's proposed law changes anything. Don't illegals already fill these low-wage, supposedly stepping-stone jobs? Giving them amnesty might mean that some employers would have to start paying legal (higher) wages � right? I suppose this could mean that some of these jobs are lost and some illegals then have to look elsewhere or go on welfare or something.

One thing I do not like is an overly burdensome (as in Washington State) minimum wage. It sounds good in theory until you realize that the theory runs completely counter to capitalism. I think the effect is to squeeze out a lot of these "starter" jobs where young people first get their experience and make a few bucks for personal needs or school (or the kind of part-time jobs for people who can't or don't need to work full time). You can't ask business to pay a large wage for short-term recruits that they have to train from scratch, particularly since any training they receive is a valuable part of the economy to begin with. The side effect (I think) is that it gives businesses, in terms of cost/benefits, the incentive to scramble hard and fast to find ways of replacing people with machines and thus the gap widens even more between the haves and have nots. There is no steady progression from low-end jobs to higher paying ones.

Ironically, the illegal workers might have been a useful damper in some places for simply maintaining viable economies across a broad spectrum. Where we're heading now is toward Wall-Marts everywhere and even the medium-sized Mom and Pops heading for extinction. I tend to think an economy that is not friendly to small business is not friendly to capitalism and thus is just not friendly at all.

"I'm trying to get a handle on this. Let's see�the illegal workers are already here populating part of the lower-income working class. What would swell? Is Bush proposing an even laxer control on our borders?"

Yes, but there will be an increase in the percentage of those who access the state hospital and educational systems, since fear of deportation will be eliminated. I'm most concerned, since the greatest percentage of these illegals is from Mexico. The current arrangement is to swap a free ride for trade incentives, giving Mexico yet another reason not to put its own house in order. The burden on the welfare system will be massive, since single parenting dilemma will only increase (the more children, the more money!, which plays right into the tribal mentality of most native Hispanics).

" . . . Giving them amnesty might mean that some employers would have to start paying legal (higher) wages � right? I suppose this could mean that some of these jobs are lost and some illegals then have to look elsewhere or go on welfare or something."

More than likely, employers will be able to continue paying the low wages they currently do, since illegals have no skill-training to do otherwise. Getting a free education, even if it means a percentage will move into the dwindling middle class worker position, won't do anything for the lower class crisis. I don't see why employers, who would hedge on raising income, would offer health care benefits, leaving the state hospital system with an even greater flood from those who can now freely exploit it.

Here's some commentary from Bill O'Reilly:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,107729,00.html

Yes, but there will be an increase in the percentage of those who access the state hospital and educational systems, since fear of deportation will be eliminated.

Okay, costs absorbed by the rest of the taxpayers. Again. I'm a little embarrassed to tell you how much I'm paying for health insurance. The good news is that we can still � barely � just afford it. The bad news is that every year we have to limit some of the coverage and/or raise the deductibles. This system is nearing collapse � or at least my ability to pay for it. But (in an Elmer Fudd voice) "I'm a vewwy vewwy bad person" for even thinking of this when there are others not covered (well�they don't pay premiums, they just check into the emergency room where they law requires they be treated). I'm white so therefore it's my privilege to pay for services for "people of color". Really � I'm not without prejudice (whose heart is completely free?) but harbor no ill will toward Mexicans. I can understand them wanting to escape Mexico and bettering their lives here in the good ol' U. S. of A. But why do I have to pay for illegal behavior? At what point am I a victim who is due a break?

The burden on the welfare system will be massive, since single parenting dilemma will only increase (the more children, the more money!, which plays right into the tribal mentality of most native Hispanics).

Did I every link you to this Rich Lowry article on poverty?

quote:

Poverty in America is primarily a cultural phenomenon, driven by a shattered work ethic and sexual irresponsibility. Child poverty would be nearly obliterated if every household had one adult working full time and married parents. Unfortunately, only President Bush has a program that works to make these social conditions a reality, and it is resisted by the party of Edwards.

According to the Heritage Foundation's welfare expert, Robert Rector, the typical poor family with children is supported by only 800 hours of work annually, or about 16 hours a week. This number holds in good economic times and bad, because it is a factor of attitudes toward work rather than the availability of jobs. If the amount of work in these households were equivalent to one adult working 40 hours a week, roughly 75 percent of poor children would be lifted out of poverty.

The burden on our welfare system can be reduced if we stop making it easy for people to be lazy and irresponsible. There's just no kind way to say this. I would have thought a "compassionate" conservative would understand this and not knuckle under to political correctness pressures.

O'Reilly said: But the program is all carrot cake and no stick. Those who have broken the law obviously get a break, but little will be done to stop future illegal aliens. This is the huge flaw.

The big winner here is Mexico. President Fox must be dancing around the clock. He gets rid of millions of poor people, gets millions of dollars sent back to Mexico, and does absolutely nothing in return. If Bush and Fox worked together to stop the border chaos, it would be stopped. But they don't.

Bill makes some good points. I'm trying to figure out what the self-correcting mechanism (short of violent revolution or catastrophic depression) is for democracies that groan under the weight of their own burdensome bloat? Probably nothing internal � in the long run. Competition with other countries is probably all that can right this ship. If businesses begin moving � in a big way - production off-shore or simply begin moving en masse entirely to other countries in order to escape heavy operating costs (ala California) then maybe things will change.