If the Soviets had launched an invasion across the border, would they be met by traffic cops trying to write citations for no seatbelts? At the Pearl Harbor attack, would a proper response have been to get the tail number of the torpedo bombers so that the FAA could send a notification of revocation of pilot license for being in a restricted airspace? Of course not, the very idea is ludicrous. The United States is being invaded at the behest of at least one hostile foreign power, primarily Mexico. Pretending that the Border Patrol is equivalent to small-town constables, empowered to treat the invasion no more seriously than speeding is also ludicrous. In reality, the more accurate model of the BP is as a front-line element of the military. Invasions of a nation's territory, particularly at the behest of a foreign power, are traditionally regarded as Acts of War. And are traditionally met with deadly force with no recriminations. Examples are not hard to find. Invaders should expect nothing more than to be shot down without warning. And, so far as I am concerned, the United States is in a state of active hostilities with the Republic of Mexico and should be acting accordingly. Dropping 155mm rounds on the Presidential Palace might be thought excessive, but I am not so sure. And shooting the first five is worth trying. Perhaps it would clarify matters.

We don't have to go so far as to shoot the first five. We can start with shooting those drug smugglers who are trying to run down border patrolmen with their vehicles. We can return gunfire towards those who throw rocks at B.P. officers. Imagine what would happen if you throw rocks at a policeman in your town.

The "fascist" slur ("those people") works for the same reason the "racist" slur works. Because we let it. Whether or not Tancredo or some bedwetting journalist will say it out loud we have _every right to use lethal force to defend our border_. We are not facing a choice between death or no death. One way or another people are going to die regardless of how humane and tolerant we are on our border. In fact the more humane and tolerant we are the more we invite invasion and its consequences. If in the course of securing our border a few invaders were shot of course it would deter many more from coming. But it would also _save_ the lives of invaders who so deterred wouldn't die of exposure, and more important it would prevent the suffering of the many perfectly innocent US citizens killed as a consequence of the fact that we haven't secured our border. Anyone who thinks it's crazy to shoot people at the border should explain how it's any less crazy to allow them in to rob and kill Americans.

Jorge Bush just doesn't get it. If certain groups of businesses can't survive without illegal workers, and he doesn't really want to do anything about it but give amnesty. Then they will either have to pay a decent wage to hire legal citizens to get the job done, or go out of business. Sound cruel? It may be but the loss of our national sovereignty sound a darn sight more cruel. Jorge has a one track mind,and that track is the Bush Way or the highway. There is an alternative to amnesty and business shutdown. Enforce the current immigration laws, stop kissing Mexico's ass, and create a guest worker program that is really a GUEST WORKER program. Institute an identification program that makes sense. Stop using the excuse that you can't deport 12 million illegals. Yes you can if that is what it takes. How? One at a time. Any effective immigration program that works could very well initiate a large migration of illegals back to the home land. I know their is an element of compassion that should be considered in all this and I am not without that understanding. However, this should not dictate that we get so compassionate that we just give up on what needs to be done. http://thumbsnap.com/v/mr3ux32X.jpg

ed, we already have several guest worker programs. They're called H1 visa, H2 visa, etc. The problem is our govt doesn't ever make anyone leave, so when they say "guest" they should really say "permanent resident". Would you vote in favor of a "permanent resident worker program"? Thus the word games.

Tanstaafl, that was my point. I said a real GUEST WORKER program. No, I would not vote for a "permanent resident worker program". I do not have a problem with legitimate immigrant workers coming to this country to work. You are correct the problem is the government will not see that they go back. We are on the same page just different lingo. Or is that Gringo.

The 'guest worker' issue clearly is critical, and frequently glossed over. Look at Europe. The ''guest workers'' in Germany are, I believe, Turks, and are now into 2nd generations of being 'guest workers'', and neither they nor the German people regard them as German. The ''guest workers'' in France have become the rioting ''youths'' that we dare not name, who have turned large parts of the nation into Algeria North, French in neither language, culture, religion, nor expectation. Is that REALLY what we want? Well, it's what we're getting. Americans normally have a different model of guest workers. Think of a plumbing contractor. He comes in, does the job, and then LEAVES. You don't expect to see the truck and construction boss office parked on your lawn forever. Or inviting his in-laws over, so that they too can park on your lawn and talk about whatever. And that's a big difference. Someone who intended such a thing would be called, to use the technical term, ''a fool''. And someone who, uninvited at all, set up shop on your front lawn, or mine at least, would be invited to remove himself and right now, and there might be a side-by-side 12 gauge in my hand during the conversation. If you are uninvited you are also unwelcome. Go home. Is that so hard to understand?

'and create a guest worker program that is really a GUEST WORKER program.' No thanks. History proves there's nothing more permanent than 'temporary' workers.