The failure to enforce the law in the past is not an argument against creating good legislation that helps provide needed labor, reduces border stress, and treats humanely millions of people who simply want to work for their families.
Over the past several months, as the immigration debate has raged, I have waited for a thoughtful article by a conservative explaining why President Bush is wrong to support a guest worker's program.
I have heard — instead of thoughtful discussion — such arguments as these:
– That some immigrants commit horrific crimes, a true comment but then Jeffrey Dahmer was not a recent immigrant as best I recall.
– That in 1986, Reagan granted amnesty to 3 million illegals and millions more entered the country in the ensuing years. How this is relevant to a guest worker program I do not know.
– That it can't work — but no one explains why.
– That it might depress wages for Americans, but then if the jobs being filled by these immigrants were being filled by American workers, there would be no incentive for illegal immigrants to come here as there would be no work.
We are seeing a great deal of political posturing on both sides of the aisle. I am sorry to say that conservative ideologues are whipping themselves into a horrible frenzy by focusing on their fears rather than a rational way to resolve the issue. Even the Wall Street Journal editorial page, on May 16, observed how right-wing conservatives have twisted Reagan's legacy in arguing for fences, punitive measures and restrictionist measures. Reagan historically fought for a liberal policy with respect to people trying to work and he supported a guest worker program similar to the one Bush has proposed.
Let me be clear on a few points.
– We will not cede California or Texas back to Mexico. While there are Latinos who harbor such fantasies, they might want to consider the state of their own government before pushing too hard. Self-interest would dictate that they work in the United States fruitfully or reform their own government and economy.
– A guest worker's program is not a form of amnesty, unless amnesty is defined as allowing illegals to become legal. The logic of pursuing self-destructive and punitive approaches escapes me. Require that illegal workers legally register to work in this country or risk deportation. Problem solved.
– Ralk radio hosts, who played a part in turning up the heat on this issue, cited national security as major concerns. While those who want to crack down on illegal immigrants are quite correct to want tougher border policies, this is hardly the national security disaster they have sought to portray. I am not aware of a single act of terrorism by a Mexican immigrant legal or illegal. And as best I recall, most of the 9/11 hijackers entered through the Canadian border and had documentation that enabled them to enter. By all means, increase security on the border — but a guest worker program that allows people to safely and legally enter and leave the United States at our southern border would go a long way toward ending the crisis at the border.
– Politics has emerged as the key issue, which is unfortunate. It would be idealistic, I suppose, to pray for the day when our politicians did what was best for our nation's long-term interests rather than calculating political wins or losses. But at the risk of being idealistic, I would argue that doing what is right — a guest worker's program toughly regulated — will in the long run help Republicans. Hispanics are naturally cultural conservatives.
– The economics of the issue have also been subjected to review. But a guest worker program properly regulated and implemented would solve this as well. It would allow people to enter and leave the country legally. They would be asked to pay taxes on their wages and should be asked to leave the country annually or legally renew their guest worker status. If they pay taxes, they should qualify for the services normally reserved for citizens. If they are illegal, they should be deported or forced to comply with regulatory requirements. As to illegals who seek to abuse welfare programs, I would not be adverse to some kind of limit on public support (welfare, etc.). For several months, a worker who falls on hard times and is looking for work should be allowed to draw unemployment or welfare — if they have been a tax-payer. But the time frame should be three months. If they don't find work, they go home.
The president, in supporting such a policy, should simply state the following: "the United States is a humane nation that supports free enterprise and the desire of honest, hard working people to survive and thrive. For that reason, we will provide a means for people each year to enter our nation and work. However, those who fail to participate legally will be turned back. The only exception will be for those who are seeking political asylum. We want to encourage the legal participation in our economy. But we will deal swiftly and decisively with those who choose to come here illegally. This is the most generous policy in the world, but we can no longer tolerate abuse of our laws. We have created a safe, legal remedy. Those who would work here must avail themselves of it."
The failure to enforce the law in the past is not an argument against creating good legislation that helps provide needed labor, reduces border stress, and treats humanely millions of people who simply want to work for their families. The demogoguery on all sides has been shameful.
shadroui@yahoo.com
Read more articles by George Shadroui
Obviously you haven't been looking very hard.
For instance, very many people have pointed out that Reagan's amnesty encouraged millions of illegal aliens to come here in expectation of receiving future amnesties. And, there are several news reports pointing out that whenever politicians talk about amnesty (or "guest" worker schemes), it encourages people to cross the border. In fact, the BP started to conduct a poll asking detainees why they crossed shortly after Bush's 2004 proposal. That was quickly stopped by higher-ups. Bottom line: example after example shows that any immigration weakness encourages people to come here, legally or illegally.
As for ceding California, if a majority of this state's residents want to secede in some way, what exactly could the rest of the U.S. do? Invade?
Many people are unaware that they're currently living in what will become history, and that includes all those people who thought the then-current structure of their their countries would always stay the same. Perhaps an animation showing the political boundaries in Europe would be helpful in such cases.
Comment by IllegalImmigrationIntroduction | June 10, 2006
Simply put, the Reagan amnesty gave the hope to all
succeeding illegal aliens that they too could be amnestied.
You don’t stop illegal behavior by encouraging it, do you?
The current president’s guest worker program offers a path
to citizenship to all the illegals, except those too
incompetent to prove they have been in the country
for more than two years. The rest of those twenty million
illegal aliens will, after a few years, be put on a path to citizenship.
That’s de facto amnesty isn’t it?
The Senate version of Mr. Bush’s plan grants those
same illegals social security benefits
that were contributed by using false documents.
American citizens go to jail for that sort of thing don’t they?
Why should illegal aliens be rewarded?
The Wall Street Journal has pronounced,
"There shall be open borders." on numerous
occasions since 1984. They are still energetic proponents
of that destructive policy today, when the country is at war.
We are at war correct?
Mr. Bush never fails to mention that whenever his poll
numbers sag, so it must be true.
Your statement referring to the hijackers being here legally
is true, but the Saudis reaped the benefits of the State
Department’s insane “Visa Express” program that never
required a face to face meeting before the issuance of any
visas awarded to Saudi residents. Not Saudi citizens, Saudi residents.
I guess the State Department, like Mr. Shadroui regarding
his Mexican immigrants, just assumed that because no Saudi
residents had committed acts of terror on American soil before
was proof that it wouldn’t happen.
The idea that because a thing hasn’t happened means it never
will is disconcerting. Particularly when applied to millions of
foreign nationals of whom we know absolutely nothing.
”… The failure to enforce the law in the past is not an argument
against creating good legislation that helps provide needed labor…”
According to a recent labor department study on wages,
agricultural wages are going down.
If those poor, beleaguered owners in the agri-business world
are so strapped for labor, why are wages going down?
It seems to me there would be no need for new legislation at
all if the laws were enforced.
This thought has never occurred to President Bush, the Wall
Street Journal or the American Chamber of Congress.
Therein lies the problem.
You can’t claim to be a nation of laws if the laws unjustly favor
foreign nationals illegally on our soil over the American Citizens
can you?
Particularly if the misapplication of those laws puts your own
citizens at risk, by refusing to control the borders, during war time.
We are at war, right?
David Tatosian
Comment by David Tatosian | June 11, 2006
First, what is amnesty but the process of making the illegal legal? Any process that allows people who have broken our laws, for whatever reason, to be forgiven or even rewarded is an amnesty. A blanket amnesty for one set of law breakers will naturally raise the hopes of a similar set of lawbreakers, or future lawbreakers. A blanket amnesty only serves to weaken the power of law to keep order in our society.
Second, the Dahmer reference is irrelevant. Human beings commit horrific crimes and both Dahmer and immigrants are subsets of the universe of human beings. The difference is that we have the ability to apply filters to the immigrants that enter our country. Those filters could reduce the number of immigransts that are also members of the subset of humans who commit horrific crimes to be denied access to our country. A good start on applying these filters would be to revisit our political asylum standards. I fail to see how a criminal worthy of punishment under any regime is an asset to our society and that we are somehow better off by allowing that criminal an asylum so as to avoid punishment by a regime we do not like.
We have a very sad recent history of making laws that are so convoluted that they become difficult to enforce and impossible to prosecute. Any law that applies different standards for different people of the same class, such as for people who have been breaking the law longer than others, is doomed for failure. The current laws being considered by congress cannot work. The only thing that will work is to aggressively and consistently enforce the laws that we have and to give our law enforcement officers and courts the tools and mandate to do their respective jobs.
Economics provides the incentive for illegals to come here as long as the laws are not being enforced. The employers who hire illegals are committing felony without paying a penalty. Yet, the cost of labor is a signicant expense in any business. Illegals provide a lower cost of labor as long as there is no enforcement to discouage the hiring of illegals. Illegals may insist on the legal minimum wage, but are seldom concerned with employee benefits or the auxillary costs of employment. Yes, illegals do displace American workers and at the expense of the American taxpayer.
You will not have to cede Texas, or New Mexico, or Arizona, or California, or Oregon. Simply allow those states to bear the burden of a growing foreign population in their midst and bending to the wishes of that populations, and eventually they will develop into foreign states. Even if that foreign population is providing a labor force to relieve the existing population and pay into the system that supports our social welfare services, there is a danger to our sovereignty. Ask a Roman.
A better argument is that failure to enforce our laws in the past is not an argument for failure to enforce our laws in the present and the future.
Comment by Jon Lambie | June 11, 2006
I have not yet commented on immigration, on any forum or even my own blog that no one reads. Suffice it to say that I believe America is a land of great opportunity, and I believe all people deserve a fair shot at a better life.
Border security is no doubt important. No one is seriously contemplating opening everything to everyone. No country wants that. But citizenship is a high value, and we need to set a high example. Illegal immigration is a problem, but it does not warrant hysteria.
Comment by Alex Cacioppo | June 11, 2006
Enforcing the law does not equal hysteria!
Comment by Jim | June 11, 2006
"– That some immigrants commit horrific crimes, a true comment but then Jeffrey Dahmer was not a recent immigrant as best I recall."
Is the author arguing that we need more serial killers? What else could be his point?
"– That in 1986, Reagan granted amnesty to 3 million illegals and millions more entered the country in the ensuing years. How this is relevant to a guest worker program I do not know."
The author seems to be using the same logic here he slammed with the Dahmer comment. Confusing.
"– That it can't work — but no one explains why."
Because it would need to be government regulated and the government has a poor record of regulating anything. Because it hinges on the idea that illegal immigrants would act lawfully to comply when their track record in acting lawfully isn't very good.
You know, I give up. This article is so filled with bad logic that I'd have to write a whole other article to explain it. You have to put away your common sense to swallow his arguments and I was never very good at putting it away.
Comment by Ron S. | June 11, 2006
"– A guest worker's program is not a form of amnesty, unless amnesty is defined as allowing illegals to become legal."
Okay, I stopped reading your article right there and skipped the ensuing comments. Yes, amnesty IS defined as pardoning past offenses of people who have broken the law. Since your argument is based on the assumption that allowing people who broke the law to be pardoned for that crime is not amnesty, obviously you've got a small flaw in your logic, so the rest of your commentary is completely irrelevant. I already suspected as much based on your comment above that one:
"if the jobs being filled by these immigrants were being filled by American workers, there would be no incentive for illegal immigrants to come here as there would be no work. "
So let me get this straight, before illegal aliens came across the border and did that work, it wasn't being done? I'm only 19 years old, but as far as I can tell, the construction, service, and agricultural industries not only existed, but thrived, prior to there being 12 million illegals doing the jobs. So what happened then? It must have been that the lazy Americans quit those jobs because they all go so rich, and illegals had to come and take them up again, right? Or could it be that illegal aliens will perform the same labor for less money (often less than the legally established wages), so companies interested in reducing costs laid off the legal Americans holding those jobs and filled them with aliens who will work for nothing? Hmmm. And the ironic thing is, that despite the cheap labor of these illegals that we just can't live without, Senator McCain's price of lettuce has actually risen drastically since the 1986 mass-legalization, all through the 90's, right up to today. While we could blame this paradox on farm subsidies, and greedy companies hiring dirt cheap illegal labor all while showing record profits, I'm sure it's probably got something to do with lazy white people who won't wash their own windows. GIVE ME A BREAK!
Comment by Patrick Mulligan | June 11, 2006
This is such a volatile issue that I feel obliged to respond to at least a couple of the comments.
First, if you define amnesty as allowing illegal workers to become legal workers, I don't see the harm in it. Ifyou mean by amnesty allowing illegals to fast forward to citizenship, I would agree and oppose it.
Ron s. took my point about crimes by immigrants and misunderstood it, or perhaps I did not articulate it well. My only point is that you don't govern an entire issue or nation based on the rare problem or exception. We have criminals of all sorts — but I would not decide the immigration issue based on that rare recent immigrant who violates our laws. In short, the two are barely connected. that was my only point.
I support enforcing the law. I just think we should change the law to solve the problem more effectively and permanently by allowing the free flow of labor. That is not the same as granting instant citizenship. IN fact, I would enforce citizenship laws firmly.
Comment by shadroui | June 12, 2006
Okay, then who is saying that the guest worker program is the amnesty? I've never heard anyone say that. It's the citizenship part that is the amnesty.
I will say that every time that the path to citizenship is brought up, the guest worker stuff is not far behind so I can see how it might be confusing.
The illegal criminals is a side issue used to inflame people. There are alot of side issues with this issue, but there are really only two parts to this whole thing.
1) Secure the border. This should be done before any legislation is passed. If this requires a fence (the best option), then so be it.
2) After securing the border, THEN and only then do we start deciding what to do with the illegals here and the guest worker program.
This isn't hysteria, it's common sense. At least the House seems to get it (for the moment, anyway).
As an aside, I'm wondering what law I get to break and not only get let off, but the longer I don't get caught the more rewarded I get? This is what really ticks us off.
Oh, and Reagan was a GREAT president, but he was far from perfect. He flubbed the illegal immigration issue.
Comment by Ron S. | June 12, 2006
Reagan said that his amnesty deal was the worst mistake of his presidency. Oh, and amnesty is the forgiving of past crimes. Not only will amnesty go through, but illegals will be at the front of the line…their place is assured. Citizenship will be cheapened, and the lives sacrificed for our country will be in vain.
As far as criminals go, point taken. We have enough here without importing them. I don't see any benefit to importing a Third World mentality. It hasn't helped Europe, in fact it is destroying Europe.
One more thing, so long as you look to the WSJ for a rational debate on the issue, you'll continue to be dissappointed. My hope is that every open-border advocate at the WSJ gets to have a Third Worlder live next to him. Unfortunately the only experience the WSJ editorialists have with illegals is as gardeners and nannies. They don't have to work beside them, live beside them, or compete against them. That honor is reserved for blue-collar schlubs like me.
Comment by The Plumber | June 12, 2006
Mr. Shadroui's column is so full of nonsense! We have more laws, rules and regulations, restrictions, asylum provisions, etc. now it makes your head swim so what difference would legislating more make? As useless as most of his approaches are, one flaw in his method stands out to illustrate the fallacies in his "solutions." the part about requiring illegal aliens to register or leave the country. You can't ask them if they are illegal; you would be profiling. So exactly how is that going to be accomplished. Mr. Bush says the illegals will "have to go to the back of the line." The trouble with that is the line would still be here in the US where they are already enjoying all the bennies of our genereous social programs. Why would they even want to bother to become citizens?
Comment by Howard F. Russ | June 12, 2006
Just like typical politicians. When the people catch them not enforcing our present laws they proclaim that they will make new ones and boy this time……! Remember McCain /Feingold? Ole John got caught with his hand in the cookie jar so he has to pass another nonsensical law.
Comment by gene | June 12, 2006
We have possibly 11 million illegal immigrants in our country. Why did they come illegally. Because they are desperate to work. If they had a legal avenue to enter and exist - what incentive would there be for future illegals to risk life and safety to come? I believe they would avail themselves of the legal and safe alternative and come and go as needed, fully documented and their incomes taxable.
I am not an expert on every piece of legislation that has been proposed. I agree with those who content that to reward illegals by expediting their citizenship would be a mistake. I am simply saying there is way to alter behavior and resolve a problem without creating a humanitarian and political crisis on our southern border.
Comment by shadroui | June 13, 2006
shadroui, you make a big assumption in your first sentence. "Because they are desperate to work." We don't know that. They may come here just to make MORE money than they do in Mexico.
But, that's beside the point. You're not thinking this through. These people come here illegally NOW because they want to work or make more than they currently do. Not later. No waiting in line for INS for them. They want it now. Maybe they need it NOW. Who knows? I'm not hearing any stories of how these people were starving in Mexico before they came here. If that was the majority of the cases, we would be inundated with these stories by the MSM.
Now, once you start processing the illegals to get them citizenship, there will be a line. Remember, the government will be carrying this policy out and they aren't fast at anything. Now, you have a line of 11 - 20 million people trying to get citizenship. The folks at the back of the line will have to wait a long time to get their papers, but they're okay with it because they get to stay in this country while they wait. Of course it isn't one line, it will be many, but there will still be a long wait. And don't forget those who haven't been here long enough to qualify. Are they just going to say "Darn, I haven't been here long enough" and then go home? I didn't think so.
Let's take a hypothetical Juan who lives in Mexico but, like those 11 or so million others, would rather not wait to get here. He wants to come in NOW. He will have to stand in line like the others. Unlike the others, however, Juan will have to wait in Mexico. Possibly for years. Is Juan going to wait, or is he just going to cross the border NOW? All he has to do is stay low for 5 years or so, then he can step forward and claim his citizenship. Will he be able to get work as an illegal while we have a guest worker program? Of course he will. Because he will work cheaper, just like the current batch of illegals. Except when the current illegals become guest workers, everything changes (see the part about unions below). You can multiply one Juan by some thousands to get the idea of the scope of the problem.
You could contend that we let Juan in on the guest program. This gives him the benefits of working in America without being a citizen. He will make alot more money. Will he find work as a guest worker? Maybe. Maybe not. The reason I say this is because once you institute the guest worker program, guess who sticks their noses in? Unions. They would be stupid not to, and unions are not noted for being stupid. Once the unions show up, they demand higher wages for their guest workers. Say goodbye to your "cheap labor".
WE aren't creating a humanitarian crisis at our border. WE are not forcing anyone to come here illegally. The illegals had a choice. Come here against our laws and make a living, or stay in Mexico and try to change a corrupt government. They took the easy way. WE didn't force them. Please don't tell me they couldn't change anything back home. Look at how they got organized and started marching here. They couldn't do that in Mexico? Why not, do you suppose?
You aren't thinking through the points you make. It isn't just a matter of setting up a guest worker program and the problem goes away. You aren't asking yourself what the consequences of your ideas would be. They just sound good and if you don't dig too deep, it looks peachy. Real life doesn't work like that, especially when the government is involved.
If I have insulted or disparaged you in any way, I apologize in advance. It was not intentional.
Comment by Ron_S | June 13, 2006
#
shadroui, you make a big assumption in your first sentence. “Because they are desperate to work.” We don’t know that. They may come here just to make MORE money than they do in Mexico.
But, that’s beside the point. You’re not thinking this through. These people come here illegally NOW because they want to work or make more than they currently do. Not later. No waiting in line for INS for them. They want it now. Maybe they need it NOW. Who knows? I’m not hearing any stories of how these people were starving in Mexico before they came here. If that was the majority of the cases, we would be inundated with these stories by the MSM.
Now, once you start processing the illegals to get them citizenship, there will be a line. Remember, the government will be carrying this policy out and they aren’t fast at anything. Now, you have a line of 11 - 20 million people trying to get citizenship. The folks at the back of the line will have to wait a long time to get their papers, but they’re okay with it because they get to stay in this country while they wait. Of course it isn’t one line, it will be many, but there will still be a long wait. And don’t forget those who haven’t been here long enough to qualify. Are they just going to say “Darn, I haven’t been here long enough” and then go home? I didn’t think so.
Let’s take a hypothetical Juan who lives in Mexico but, like those 11 or so million others, would rather not wait to get here. He wants to come in NOW. He will have to stand in line like the others. Unlike the others, however, Juan will have to wait in Mexico. Possibly for years. Is Juan going to wait, or is he just going to cross the border NOW? All he has to do is stay low for 5 years or so, then he can step forward and claim his citizenship. Will he be able to get work as an illegal while we have a guest worker program? Of course he will. Because he will work cheaper, just like the current batch of illegals. Except when the current illegals become guest workers, everything changes (see the part about unions below). You can multiply one Juan by some thousands to get the idea of the scope of the problem.
You could contend that we let Juan in on the guest program. This gives him the benefits of working in America without being a citizen. He will make alot more money. Will he find work as a guest worker? Maybe. Maybe not. The reason I say this is because once you institute the guest worker program, guess who sticks their noses in? Unions. They would be stupid not to, and unions are not noted for being stupid. Once the unions show up, they demand higher wages for their guest workers. Say goodbye to your “cheap labor”.
WE aren’t creating a humanitarian crisis at our border. WE are not forcing anyone to come here illegally. The illegals had a choice. Come here against our laws and make a living, or stay in Mexico and try to change a corrupt government. They took the easy way. WE didn’t force them. Please don’t tell me they couldn’t change anything back home. Look at how they got organized and started marching here. They couldn’t do that in Mexico? Why not, do you suppose?
You aren’t thinking through the points you make. It isn’t just a matter of setting up a guest worker program and the problem goes away. You aren’t asking yourself what the consequences of your ideas would be. They just sound good and if you don’t dig too deep, it looks peachy. Real life doesn’t work like that, especially when the government is involved.
If I have insulted or disparaged you in any way, I apologize in advance. It was not intentional.
Comment by Ron S. | June 14, 2006
ron, no need to apologize. Your points are fairly stated.
I still think guest worker would resolve a lot of this, but I could be wrong.
in any case, it looks like your view is prevailing at least for now. Thanks for weighing in. Read some of my other stuff. Maybe it won't bug you as much….
Comment by shadroui | June 14, 2006
" Thanks for weighing in. Read some of my other stuff. Maybe it won’t bug you as much…."
LOL. Fair enough, shadroui, fair enough. Always glad to get into a polite debate.
Comment by Ron S. | June 14, 2006
Shadroui:
I guess you are to be commended on your nice feelings towards the immigrants, however, I must clarify a couple of myths and misperceptions your obvious passion has fallen for. First, one of your main points seems to be that failure of past legislation is no reason to fail to produce more statutes. The great majority of proposed legislation will have very little effect to stem the flow of people from south of our borders. Who was it that said "if we don't understand history, we are doomed to repeat it?" (Editor's Note: George Santayana) More useless statutes, masquerading as rule of law will do more to "pull" these poor amnesty seeking masses to our utopia.
We citizens have lost our sovereignity as demonstrated by the legislative and executive branches of our federal and state governments. Who are they working for? Obviously not the people that elected them but instead the voiciferous illegal mobs in the streets. We should be neither shocked nor indignant as we have rarely held our public servants accountable, so we will now have to pay the consequences. We had better learn to speak Spanish. Since our officials don't ask anyone to learn English; we will be assimilated.
One misperception is that merely strengthing our border along with guest worker and an amnesty program will stem the flow. Lets get this straight, we will control the border but still give millions a very strong incentive to come here. Senseless, as no matter how strong the border, your suggestion creates too great an incentive.
No one paying attention thinks for one minute that forgiving Mexicans for all but 3 years of back taxes is just. No one paying attention thinks it is fair to allow a person here illegally lower university fees than a citizen.
A major myth is tthat immigrants are doing jobs no one else is willing to do. The great majority do no work in back breaking agriculture, but in the service and building trades. In the border states , most contractors cannot be competitive without illegal labor. Illegals hold jobs as stone masons, dry wall installers, teamsters, roofers and framers. All are good jobs. I live in Montana, and agriculture state where the trash gets emptied, the dishes get washed and the lawns get mowed, harvest gets done and we have a tremendous economy with lower than average unemployment. We have no illegals of any consequence and none in the building trades.
Mexico has very little rule of law, little justice, few property rights and a class system with no middle calss, similar to our Southern Democrat States in the 18th, 19th and early 20th centuries;complete with the racism where those not of European stock have no economic opportunity and no justice. This corrupt economy combined with our welcome matt creates the push-pull choice for the indegenous Latino who will continue to come to utopia by the millions.
Shadroui, I think you may be right, creating a safe, legal remedy in the ideal of humane altruistic fashion to help our brotherly neighbor (50 million in the next 10 yrs); no, maybe not such a great idea after all. Instead, why not really close the border, no offering of citizenship to those here illegally and do what we can to help the Mexican citizens improve their economy? Ronald Reagan was right. We are the beacon, the "city on a hill," so let's promote good government south of the border instead of rescuing the corruption with loans to Mexico and feel good symbolic converences between Presidents.
This is not rocket science, but we citizens have already allowed our sovereignity to be usurped, so resistance is today futile; we will be assimilated. We have neither the will, nor the rationale to keep it. We are all too fat, dumb and happy with watching DVD's and TV, Final Four and NASCAR and playing and coaching T-Ball to pay any real attention or care about the state of affairs in either country. There is not much rational dialogue anywhere.
So, we had better get with the program and teach our children Spanish. Habla Espanol? Viva la Mexico!
Comment by Lorne Doty | July 1, 2006