Either you have a particularly warped, leftist view of reality

What do you mean "who draws them?"

Are you saying that borders are drawn by governments

that governments are elites; and that therefore, borders limit
freedom?

If so, then how do you figure that governments
are elites, seeing as how they're generally elected by the citizenry?

People can generally cross borders without restriction, so long as
they do so under conditions that are approved by the country in
question

-- and indeed, are recognized by most nations.

Is that an abridgment of their freedom? I wouldn't say so.

Can we stay indefinitely and reap the fruits of that country's
economy without its permission, however?

What about the freedom of any country -- and by extension, its
citizens -- to say who comes in and who doesn't?

How do you figure that the freedom of would-be gate crashers trumps
the freedom of the people who actually live there?

I'll be watching.

"Xenophobic." If you're going to use a liberal buzzword, at least
learn to spell it correctly.

What is it with you liberals and this assumption that fear ("phobia")

You ought to be ashamed of yourselves.

How about crime? How about an unnecessary burden on public resources
(medical care, schools, law enforcement)?

Another objection that many people dance delicately around, but that
I won't, is the cultural aspect. Many of us don't want a
_reconquista_.

We don't *want* to press 1 for English. We're sick of seeing multi-
lingual signs and of paying for multilingual ballots. We don't want
our established Anglo culture displaced. The resistance to the en-
croachment of another culture has nothing to do with fear and a
everything to do with resentment (AKA "principle").

It's interesting how on the one hand liberals are so fond of the idea
of immigrants clinging to their native cultures (multiculturalism),
but on the other hand, are so quick to denounce Americans who want to
preserve *their* culture, *in their own ***** country,* as racists
and "xenophobes."

What do the Minutmen have to do with the idea that any country has
the right to control who gets to come in and who doesn't?

Even if we accept for the purpose of argument that they have no right
to exist and don't represent anybody other than themselves, does
their existence somehow negate the aforementioned principle? No, it
certainly doesn't.

It's commonly used at the end of logical proofs, political and other-
wise.

When the government won't do its job, the people will step in and do
it for them.

One of any government's core functions is seeing to the sec- urity of
the people, and one of the most fundamental ways of doing that is to
ensure the integrity of the national borders to the extent that it's
possible.

And one of the common and legitimate complaints against the current
administration is that it's not doing its job on that score. Why not?
Because Dubya is pandering to the Latino vote.

As an aside, I don't understand how any Latino who's an American
citizen could be against preventing illegal immigration from Mexico.
You'd think they'd be all for preventing it for the same reasons that
any other Amer- ican citizen would be.

The fact that so many of them _are_ against doing asnything to make
it tougher to sneak across the border into the U.S. causes a body to
wonder where their loyalties actually lie.

Welcome to the Marketplace Of Ideas. Paper or plastic?

What you want or don't want to hear has no bearing on the validity of
the ideas in question. I don't particularly care to hear whiny,
neur- otic liberal ***** such as yours

but I recognize its place in the arena of public discourse. I even
value it, in a fashion, because of the opportunity it gives me to
throw its proponents' foolishness into sharp relief. (ObFark:
hilarity ensues)

So tell me: is anyone who disagrees with you on Usenet a "blowhard,"

or just those who disagree with you on Usenet about matters of
national sovereignty? Help me out, here.

Most fundamentally, why can't liberals engage in political debate
without becoming nasty and insulting and stooping to namecalling?

What's up with that? You people really should try to get over that.
It makes you come across like a bunch of petulant adolescents.

and national security has already been sufficiently compromised by
populist hardliners like George W. Bush.

How, exactly? If I remember correctly, we hadn't invaded either Iraq
or Afghanistan prior to 9/11.

Enforcing the integrity of our own borders would lead to violence
similar to that in Iraq? How?

I'll put this as simply as I can. If people are coming across the
border, and we don't *want* them to come across the border, the
obvious solution is to put up a physical barrier to prevent them from
getting in.

It worked for the Israelis: homicide bombings have dropped sharply
ever since they put up their wall.

Bush and Cheney don't want to spy on my phone calls and watch my
every move.

There's a Tom Clancy novel wherein some quasi-al Qaida types get into
the U.S. across the Mexican border and ultimately gun down a lot of
people in an American shopping mall.

What do priests or evangelists have to do with this?

Yeah, that's no doubt what you would've said six years ago this
month, about the idea of people flying hijacked airplanes into
buildings.

Clancy wrote another novel wherein somebody with a grudge flew a 747
into the Capitol. It was a novel

The idea is that conceivably, terrorists could enter the country in
the same manner that the farmworkers do, and across the same remote,
unsecure border.

As far as I know, all suspected terrorists *ever* apprehended in
the U.S. in recent times were either citizens or were here by legal
means.

Therefore no acts of terrorism will ever be committed by people who
aren't either citizens or here legally?

Do you have some other info? Or maybe you'd rather just continue
bashing impoverished people from other lands for no good reason?

Does their being impoverished people from other lands somehow make
them exempt from criticism? Or from the laws of the United States,
for that matter?

You can take that crap and stick it where the sun doesn't shine.