The AP on the "divided GOP" and their "immigration debate"

The AP offers a helpful "summary box" of the "debate" so far. It consists of just three short bullet points:

MAKING A MOVE: President Bush is considering allowing illegal immigrants who came to the U.S. before February 2004 to qualify for guest-worker visas. Those who arrived later would be deported.

Of course, almost 2/3 of Americans - from across the spectrum - oppose those visas, but what matters their opinion?

And, the idea that Bush would have the will to deport anyone who arrived here since 2/04 is ludicrous at best. If he had that will, why don't we set the cutoff date a year or five years earlier? What will actually happen is those who came here after that date will just become part of the first wave of the new group of illegal aliens who'll come here because of his amnesty.

WARRING FACTIONS: In crafting a proposal, Bush is caught between conservatives who want to stem the tide of illegal immigrants and supporters in the business sector who think the economy needs the workers.

Obviously, the AP needs to start reading some of these polls. It's not just conservatives who are opposed to Bush's plan. Those who support his or the similar plans are actually a small but powerful minority consisting of not just businesses but the racial lobby, the media, and the far left.

CRISIS POINT: Arizona and New Mexico have declared immigration emergencies, and the Senate is set to consider competing plans — one would allow workers to stay in the U.S. while applying for visas, and the other would not.

Once again, the AP seems unable to present a choice that would actually work: enforcing the laws we currently have. This appears to be a stock tactic employed by the cheap labor lobby: just ignore that workable idea and concentrate instead on offering a false choice.


Aid and comfort to foreign enemies, as so many of the recipients of any amnesty would certainly be, is treasonable in itself. Benes, under foreign pressure, ceded the Sudetenland, and a former illegal alien then proceeded to take over the entire country.

The " frontier surrender" character of the Bush policy is awful enough. But whether its the 86 amnesty,the possible 05-06 amnesty or a 2012? amnesty, the Mexican illegals, many of whom can't even read are not going to stop pouring across the border because of any new laws or regulation. Liek a great migrating herd, they will only be stopped by unpassable physical barriers, which has to be both a fence and an army. Isn't the defense of our land what the military was once for?

We are being invaded and displaced as a people in a land, as if we did not even have the right to be a nation. Now our leader blesses the already succesfull invaders and ignores those yet to come. This is not a strategy. It is simple surrender, with W writing the surrender acknowledgement as if it were a policy.
If only this land had a leader that would defend it, instead of presiding over it's deconstruction.

Robert in Nashville

Look, I'm well left of center and certainly no GOPer but here are the stone cold facts:
The Immigration and Refugee Control Act (IRCA), which passed in 1986, was touted as a