ShareThis Page
News

Voters & illegals

| Thursday, Jan. 11, 2007

Aeschylus, a playwright in ancient Greece, wrote, "In war, truth is the first casualty." So, too, in the raging battle over illegal aliens as political pundits in the chattering class cherry-pick election results to claim Americans don't want an unforgiving policy.

Yes, more than a few losing candidates in November opposed granting amnesty to make millions of illegals legal. But maybe they lost because of overriding issues such as the war in Iraq, bloated budgets and unethical behavior inside the Beltway.

And many lost to opponents who want to enforce immigration laws, according to the Federation for American Immigration Reform. FAIR is an organization of 250,000 members and supporters that focuses on immigration policy. Go online to Fairus.org to learn the immigration stance of the new members of Congress.

In a post-election analysis, FAIR President Dan Stein also cites the overwhelming voter support of measures on the Arizona ballot in November that limit the "rights" of illegals. They face being denied bail, punitive damages in civil suits and access to social services. Voters also said English should be the official state language.

A principled and passionate stand opposing amnesty for foreign invaders is the best cure-all for spin-doctor malpractice.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.

click me