I think the dwarf king's treason remark should be quote of the day.

You might say all those Nazis look alike. But in this case one was big and fat and a drug addict while the other was a slimy little rat who had a string of actresses at his beck and call on pain of deportation to a concentration camp.

I suspect Dobbs wanted to use the name of another German, but things always get messy when his name comes up.

With deference to Godwin's Law and in full recognition that this is probably precisely the wrong thread in which to re-ask a couple of questions...

Is there a distinction between illegal aliens and legal immigrants? If so, should our laws treat with them differently? If not, why not?

I admit to being confused by by what can, at times, appear to be an intentional and systematic conflation of people who are in this country legally with people who are in this country illegally. If there is truly no difference, then why bother with immigration policies, immigration laws?

The motives of corporations in the immigration debate are not difficult to understand. Absent the desire to reduce labor costs, it is hard to imagine why corporations would much care about immigration policy.

Many intelligent and caring individuals appear to be motivated by humanitarian concerns due to the abysmal living conditions from which many who are here illegally are escaping.

From the viewpoint of global economic development, some intellectuals may believe that remittances from foreign workers, regardless of their legal status in the host country, will help to equalize global living standards and lessen international rivalries in the long term.

But I do not understand the motivation for eliding the differences in the legal status between those who comply with our immigration laws and come here legally, and those who do not. How can we have an honest conversation about immigration reform if we cannot speak honestly about these differences?

There is a lot of political pressure to permit illegal immigration into the United States today, mainly driven by pro-Mexico advocates, who have seen an ally in our current administration, whose lax enforcement policy has effectively permitted probably a couple million or so people to kind of just waltz right on in unannounced. Immigration is a money deal. If you listen to Bill Gates, he wants unlimited work visas and so forth, it's all about the economy, and growth, and that general agenda is what's more or less being forced down the public's throat. So, get used to the idea of seeing pointless rhetorical battles about the issue in the news, as long as someone is profiting by lax enforcement and illegal immigration, the practice will continue. Not until or unless
employers face much harsher sanctions will you see any change in general practices. Since most of what we've seen in terms of deterrent or enforcement has kind of amounted to tokenism, well, you can kind of deduce the eventual outcome of all of this for yourself, here. Ya just gotta love 'invasion of the body snatchers' immigration policy...don't forget the massive industry that ID theft has become in Mexico, either. YOU could be next...
Bush and company have generally put the country up for sale, by one means or another, and he was all extra-bestest buddychums with Fox, and likely there will be some new sick and incestuous relationship involving patronage and bribery between the United States and Mexico in the future, because that's kind of how the whole sad story has evolved. But, the problem is, in one way the pro-Mexico advocates are sort of cutting their own throats in terms of ever having an independent Mexico, because a lot of their able-bodied workers have hit the fence in search of SOMEthing they couldn't find in their own impoverished home country, and won't ever be moving home, and then you get around to the whole drug trade thing, and you can see where 2-3 decades of just glossing over the issue have gotten both countries. Illegal immigration is a pretty divisive issue, and for that matter, it's not just about Mexico anymore, now you have to consider one additional factor, namely global population growth. People will move to find or make new opportunities, and will tend to congregate where they deem that to be
possible, and nature hates a vacuum. 6.6 billion people out there, 300 million in america... It just so happens that our country seems to be the go-to place for that opportunity stuff, these days,(at least on paper),and you always read about this or that trade agreement thing, and the globalization people have really kind of had a field day with a lot of aspects of our countrys' governance, which is why there's now foreign-based banks trying to sell you a home equity loan(piecemeal land grab), and so forth. Be sure to thank all the great people in this administration for their steadfast loyalty and service to our country by visiting www.impeachbush.org

Also, be sure to become a more active participant in your state and local government,
because that's part of the problem, here.

I suspect that is going to be one of the Republicans' "attack their strength" points in 2008 - and just as you don't have answers to your own questions, I don't think the major Democratic candidates have them either.

sPh

Dobbs wasn't "comparing immigration advocates to Nazis". He was comparing their propaganda-related activities to the propaganda-related activities of the Nazis. He wasn't accusing "immigration advocates" of other Nazi behavior. As for the phrase "immigration advocates", the people he's complaining about are more accurately "advocates for massive legal and illegal immigration", not simply "advocates for immigration".

Since I've got hundreds of entries with examples of the MSM trying to confuse the debate or otherwise lying or trying to mislead, I don't think anyone's going to have any success trying to claim that the MSM's coverage of immigration matters is anything other than from a propagandistic standpoint.