Can someone explain to me why the Republicans seem to be so rabid about the immigration issue? It seems to be the #1 issue on republican voters' list (even above Iraq, terrorism, the economy). So much so, that the crowd was booing a national hero (McCain, one of the few who actually tried to attack the problem with something other than rhetoric), because he suggested that deporting every illegal immigrant might not be a workable solution.

What percentage of this issue is just racism, do you think? (I heard the words "assimilate" and "be a part our culture" a lot from the candidates, which sounds a heck of a lot like code to me.) What percentage is purely an economic issue? How much is fear of crime or terrorism?

The part from the debate that bugs me most is when the candidates try to use the phony argument that there are a bunch of "legal" immigrants lined up at the border, who can't get in because all the "illegals" sneaked in and "took their spots". As if the USA has some sort of Fire Dept. max occupancy sign on the wall. The USA can still let in all the legal immigrants it chooses to. So this idea that they really just want to deport the illegals so they can let all those poor legal immigrants in, is the worst kind of pandering political BS IMO.

I think a lot of it is fear. It seems like every other story on Fox news is a story about some crime or another that was commited by an illegal immigrant. Racism/ignorance is probably a decent part as well as fear of terrorism.

There are 3 issues that will decide the general election. Iraq, taxes and immigration, everything else is just noise.

There are no major differences between the major candidates, and little in their historical records to differentiate them on Iraq and taxes. They have all been all over the place on immigration, however, and they need to solidify their message before the general.

The reasons it is a major issue should be obvious. It is a combination of national security, economics and rule of law. Are their racists? Sure, on both sides of the issue. Cries of racism are mostly dodges for those who don't want to or can't carry a discussion of the real issues.

Sure, Copernicus. But watching their answers makes it clear that the politicians don't have any gumption to address the "real issues" - rather, they propose policies that would address the rhetorical strategies that MAY APPEAL because real issues make them attractive.

I don't think, a border fence for example, is whatsoever a logical response to the economic incentives that attract illegal immigrants here. But it sure psychologically feels good as a proposal with "racist" underpinnings. It says "keep the brown people out!" far better than an appropriate guest-worker program. I'm sure alot of that outward talk stems from real economic uncertainty amongst working folks who are affected by immigrant competition. Just another feature of politics, and the human mind.

Why is talking about assimilation code word for racism? If you truly were a racist and wanted to keep brown people down, the best way would be to keep them from learning English and hope they stay in barrios. Not speaking English greatly limits opportunities in the US.

Candidate Ratings (http://www.betterimmigration.com)

A Tom Tancredo
A- Duncan Hunter
A- Al Gore
B+ Ron Paul
C Fred Thompson
D John Edwards
D John McCain
D- Hillary Clinton
D- Dennis Kucinich
D- Barack Obama
F- Bill Richardson

The grades are based on their voting records, so only those who have served in the House or Senate are graded. I was shocked to see Al Gore up there too.

I didnt watch the debate, so I don't know what issues were addressed (other than the embarassing RG/MR exchange at the beginning.

Of course a border fence isnt a "logical response to the economic incentives", it isnt a response to that at all. Its border control, plain and simple. You will never eliminate the economic incentives as long as South American governments destroy their economies and attempt to export their poverty to the US to avoid revolution and maintain power. That isnt going to change in our lifetimes, but border security is a necessary beginning to keep the economic erosion from worsening.

I thought conservatives generally believed in "free to choose"? There is value in preserving one's culture, for its own damn sake. There is a trade-off one chooses between personal values and outward success!

But anyway, it strikes me that behind any popular idea on whatever spectrum there is some bit of evidence that a rational person could interpret and come away with that view. I used to be more idealistic and advocate completely open borders. But look at the empirical evidence in France and the European countries and the situation they face with increasing Islamization - it's clear to me now that allowing too many immigrants at once could be very well counterproductive to libertarian beliefs. Here all we do is bitch, grumble and groan when we try to roll back the welfare state, and in France they cripple the economy and violently riot. So there are good, practical reasons to support assimilation, especially in America where I really admire our individualistic mindset. We shouldn't be so blithely sure that immigrants immediately adopt that, because I think its so vital to our many successes.

But then again, most popular ideas didn't become popular on their merits. They become popular because they appeal to deeply held biases, correct or not, to maintain political identity. I doubt many people at all could even come up witha basic philosophical basis for why they support the issues they do, and argue issues like immigration from a pro-Western and chauvinist, perspective.

Doesn't Dubai have a functioning guest-worker system of sorts? And what exactly do you mean by "border control"? Like what's the motivation behind it. I find the Tancredo suggestion that we do a better job of locating terrorists with better border control pretty much laughable.

The philosophical basis is pro-Western and chauvinistic, why should arguments be framed in that perspective?

Certainly. I don't think anybody has to actually choose between some assimilation and honoring their own culture, but if they decided to err on the side of cultural heritage, great. However, I don't want to then hear complaints about lack of opportunities and poverty from those who choose not to assimilate.

All I'm saying is that people generally have a few good reasons for believing the things they do, but they express it in ways that appeals to our inner xenophobia, and thus the policies they implement are not satisfactory because they don't address the real underlying issues. Any major political revolution has to actually communicate well, which eliminates a good percentage of actually good ideas.

I think 90% of the issue is culture, not racism. Have you been to a fast food restaurant or retail store lately? No one working in those places speaks English anymore. As long as the majority of the workforce that people interact with on a daily basis have 0 language skills, people will be pissed of about illegal immigration, regardless of whether those people are illegal immigrants. That and its nice to be able to go to Home Depot without being swarmed by illegal immigrants asking you if you need help.

What percent of notable accomplishments have been made by non-Western females?

Are you talking about people currently in America or what? I'm confused. Is it ok if they all come here just as long as they dont complain? Because if thats what you are saying it sounds awesome to me, seriously.

Good thing the [censored] morons who you are talking about here get to decide how much my goods and services cost because they are bigoted morons. And when I say bigot I am referring to the stipulated fact that they get angry about illegal immigration just because their Gap cashier speaks broken English.

In return, stuff is cheaper.

McCain is a national hero?

Oh wait, I forgot that for some reason people consider bad things happening to you to be heroic. Nevermind, carry on.

*goes and heroicly jumps into the Grand Canyon*

Uggh, these "what % of questions" are tiresome... But here's one if you like this game:

What percent of notable atrocities have been made by non-Western females?

At the top of my list is rule of law. I want the US to decide on who becomes new immigrants, not criminal economic motivations from a failed state.

If you hang drywall in CA then your objection is simple economics. Your pay has gone backwards due to serious competitive pressure.

Much of the less informed cohort's objection is cultural. Non-english speakers are in your face and impossible to ignore. Press 1 for English? F that, they think.

(or by any females). Bingo. Proof positive that that there ARE group differences, and that the "everyone is the same" credo is pure BS.

Yeah, McCain as a National hero is a joke. The guy has always been a complete baffoon.

From what I understood, there are a few reasons why Republicans are very anti-immigration.

1) The cost. A welfare state and open immigration cannot coexist. When you get free health care, free schooling of your kids, and other handouts, this gets extremely expensive. Immigrants (at least the illegal ones) rarely make enough money to cover these benefits.

2) Security. If anyone can come into your country, maybe the turrirsts can come in too!

3) Direction of the country. This one particularly worries Republicans. Countries where immigrants come from typically have the attitude that government's role is to provide for its people. When 10 million people come across the border, the next step is to become a citizen. When they become citizens, they can vote. When they can vote, you will have 10 million new Democrats to vote them out.

At least these are their concerns, not necessarily all of them are valid.

this doesnt really make sense imo. if enough ppl felt like this, there would be tons of restaurants and retail stores run by regular americans. also, if u dont like the staff at a place you do actually have a choice to not buy anything from them..

Wait; is the French transit worker strike some kind of immigrant-led movement? Are the riots in France's ethnic suburbs due to the rolling back of the welfare state?

I mean, this looks like a crude and subtle attempt to say "look, bad things are happening in France, and the immigrants are at fault!"...and yet you make absolutely no attempt to actually draw a causative link between these bad things and immigration -- I mean, are we to believe France's unsustainable pension system for transit workers, Sarkozzy's attempt to roll the benefits back, and the resultant strikes which have crippled the country are somehow the fault of immigrants?

I don't think your arguing that; so what's your point in the context of the immigration debate? The French shouldn't let immigrants assimilate into their culture, because 'native' French are lazy and whiny, or Americans should try to assimilate recent immigrants into theirs, because we're chest-thumping cowboy individualists?

And what does any of this have to do with public policy, anyway? "Don't let immigrants in, because they might not assimilate"? Surprising that libertarians are going to allow the government to determine which people are fit for assimilation and which aren't. I guess state power is terrible and threatening and worthy of our ever-watchful suspicion, in all cases... except when judging the attitudes of brown people and their fitness for assimilation in our wonderful culture? If you *don't* actually think the American government should be making these kinds of determinations -- then what exactly are we debating here? I like getting on my high-horse soapbox to laud our wonderfully hard-working, industrial, individualist culture in America too; it gives me a huge hard-on. But are we really comfortable with anointing the state the power to protect that culture?

I realize you're probably not arguing for that. But I'll be candid and admit I'm not sure what you are advocating here. You "used to be for open borders", until you saw all the problems France and Europe are having, and they have immigrants too; so now you...support immigration controls?

I suppose I support 'assimilation' too. It would probably make immigrants lives easier and more prosperous if they learned English and watched baseball and ate cheeseburgers. I can get on board with that. But, assuming they're not inclined to do such things, who exactly should be enforcing those norms?

Compared to less illegal immigration, a broken legal immigration system and a broken welfare system, yes.

Compared to less illegal immmigration, an effective legal immigration/guest worker program and a welfare system that puts people to work instead of feeding them life support, no.