Is Paul Hackett too intelligent for the Democratic Party?

The candidate for U.S. Senate from Ohio - a Democrat - recently caused the pro-illegal immigration Victorians in his party to have the vapors:
U.S. Senate candidate Paul Hackett told a Toledo crowd this week that he'd deport all illegal immigrants if the national budget permitted, stirring another controversy over his candor — this time among Democrats.

Several local Democrats said they disagreed sharply with Mr. Hackett's statements, made Wednesday night to a group at the University of Toledo...

Mr. Hackett said in a telephone interview yesterday that many immigrants are "exploited" by American corporations, and laws must be changed to help them. He did not elaborate, except to say he opposes amnesty for immigrants in the country illegally.

Asked if he stood by his statements, Mr. Hackett said: "Illegal immigration is illegal. It's that simple."
Yes, that's right: the Toledo Blade is trying to get him to apologize for opposing illegal immigration. The blog report here provides the background that that newspaper does not. See also this. And, many DUmmies are on the right side.
...Asked about illegal immigration, Mr. Hackett said the Bush Administration "is willing to let illegals come in and take the jobs of Americans." When an audience member asked Mr. Hackett if he would deport illegal immigrants, the candidate replied, "If we can afford to, yeah."

Several Democrats in attendance said the comments surprised or disappointed them.

Frank Szollosi, a Toledo city councilman, said Mr. Hackett appeared "to the right of Pete Wilson" — a conservative Republican and former California governor — on immigration...
One wonders if the Dems will try to undercat Hackett's pro-American views and drum him out of the party. After all, supporting illegal immigration is practically a requirement for being a Democratic politician.

As for Szollosi, he's an idiot. Comments at his site are only for "team members", so I'll have to put my comment on his post here:
Help me understand this. Won't a "sensible amnesty program" just lead to more illegal immigration, just as all those other amnesties have?

After all, if you start looking "easy", people come to take advantage of your offers, right?

Word spreads quickly: "the U.S. is giving an amnesty!", "the U.S. will give you an amnesty if you just wait long enough!", etc. etc.

So, millions more illegal aliens will come here to take advantage of future "sensible amnesty programs".

That will result in more of those border deaths that you decry. And, it will result in more worker abuse, more corruption, more corrosion of our laws, more power for the Mexican government inside our country, etc. etc.

OTOH, if you start enforcing the laws the word about that will spread, resulting in less illegal immigration.

That will result in no need to future "sensible amnesty programs", fewer deaths on the border, and less worker abuse.

It would also be Hackett's job as an elected representative to support the laws of the land rather than try to undermine them.


On amnesty, one of the most infuriating aspects of this issue is that we already know what will happen: We tried it in 1986! We were told amnesty first and BTW it's only about 2 million; enforcement later. What we got was amnesty now for well over 2 million and we are still waiting for enforcement. We now have 11-20+ million illegal aliens in the country waiting for the NEXT amnesty. I have seen estimates of over 36 million to be added legally to the US if this amnesty passes and they are allowed to bring in their families. Nobody is addressing what this will do to schools, affordable housing, health care, etc


Not to mention more of other things as well.