Iran Poses No Threat

Why should anyone care if Iran enriches uranium?

Iran's Secret Plan if Attacked by US Codenamed "Judgement Day"

According to Iran, the latest military plan includes:

1- A missile strike directly targeting the US bases in the Persian Gulf and Iraq, as soon as nuclear installations are hit.

2- Suicide operations in a number of Arab and Muslim countries against US embassies and missions and US military bases and economic and oil installations related to US and British companies. The campaign might also target the economic and military installations of countries allied with the United States .

3- Launch attacks by the Basij and the Revolutionary Guards and Iraqi fighters loyal to Iran against US and British forces in Iraq , from border regions in central and southern Iraq .

4- Hezbollah to launch hundreds of rockets against military and economic targets in Israel .

According to the source, in case the US military attacks continue, more than 50 Shehab-3 missiles will be targeted against Israel and the al Quads Brigades will give the go-ahead for more than 50 terrorists cells in Canada, the US and Europe to attack civil and industrial targets in these countries.

What about the last stage in the plan?

Here, the Iranian source hesitated before saying with worry; this stage might represent the beginning of a world war, given that extremists will seek to maximize civilian casualties by exploding germ and chemical bombs as well as dirty nuclear bombs across western and Arab cities.

Via LGF.

Pacifists Concerned About Sudan

Celebrities, Activists to Rally for Darfur

WASHINGTON Apr 30, 2006 (AP)— Actors, athletes and activists concerned about the atrocities in Sudan's Darfur region are joining politicians and religious leaders in urging a greater U.S. role in ending what the United Nations says is the world's worst humanitarian disaster.

After years of urging Bush to end the war in Iraq by withdrawing troops, peaceniks now urge him to end the war in Sudan...by sending troops. How long before some brilliant observer suggests there is no contradiction, we can kill two birds with one stone by simply "redeploying". Murtha was right all along!

The fact that Sudan has oil and a UN resolution against it does not matter to the pacifists. The fact that Sudan had nothing to do with 9/11, has not used WMDs, and is not building nuclear weapons does not matter to them either. They say we should send troops to stop the horrible human suffering. How do they square this with their positions on Iraq or Iran? Nobody's asking and they're not saying.

That the violence and killing going on in Sudan is the inevitable result of ongoing jihad aided and abetted by the government, that it is a haven for Islamist terrorists, and that bin Laden recently warned away meddling Crusaders doesn't matter to the pacifists either. For them it would normally be wrong to do anything bin Laden might displease. That would make more terrorists!

So why is Darfur an exception?

Maybe the pacifists don't fear angering the jihadis because they don't recognize the jihad. Maybe because they think the violence in Sudan is "Muslim on Muslim", "Arab on Black", "North vs South", or the ever popular catch-all "it's just too complicated" to pass blame. Maybe they're not aware that the violence has raged on for years and is no longer mostly Muslim on Christian because the Christians have been mostly killed or scared away. What do they imagine causes genocide? Could it be the expected outcome of a war against infidels and polytheists?

Nah.

Not long before we hear "Bush lied about genocide in Darfur!" and "We're losing the quagmire in Darfur!"

Consensus and Tolerance

Chinese president Hu Jintao gets a warm welcome in Nigeria:

Analysts said Hu's offer of an alternative to the United States' prescriptive foreign policy and "War on Terror" would be welcomed by African leaders.

"China is saying it wants to build a new world order based on consensus and tolerance, not the clash of civilizations," said former foreign minister Bola Akinyemi.

Would that be the same consensus China seeks when it stands with North Korea and Iran, against most of the rest of the world? And the same tolerance they've shown Tibetans, or their native Christians and Muslims? China doesn't clash with other civilizations, oh no, it brutally represses them. How long will the "consensus and tolerance" canard fly as their thirst for oil grows and they are forced to interact more and more with the rest of the world? Will they ever fly to the aid of disaster victims, or is that just something bullies like the US do?

"It is bound to resonate in Africa, where we have 900 years of coexistence between Christianity, Islam and traditional religions."

Oh yes, everything is just peachy in Africa and has been since the dawn of Man. If by peachy you mean violence bordering on barbarism. Odd that Akinyemi draws the line at 900 years. Christianity in Africa goes back as much as 2000 years, and "traditional" African religions must go back further. Is he unaware of the role Islam has played in Africa?

Black Africans were transported to the Islamic empire across the Sahara to Morocco and Tunisia from West Africa, from Chad to Libya, along the Nile from East Africa, and up the coast of East Africa to the Persian Gulf. This trade had been well entrenched for over 600 years before Europeans arrived, and had driven the rapid expansion of Islam across North Africa.

Oh, I see. He said "coexistence", not "peaceful coexistence".

Mayday! Mayday!

Pro-immigrant forces plan to flex their muscles with a gringo boycott on May 1st, "A Day Without Immigrants".

Wonderful. The poorest, most under-employed, least educated portion of the population is going to demonstrate just how insignificant their contribution is. We'll see whether our industries crumble if nobody empties our trash, sweeps our floors, or buses our tables. Yes please illegals, stay home from school too. Let's see how uncrowded our schools could be. Could you do us a favor and stay out of our hospitals and jails while you're at it? And if you'd stay off the roads and free up some housing that would be great. Thanks!

I think I liked it better when the illegals were "invisible". The mass demonstrations opened everyone's eyes to just how many there are. It showed the illegals there are many who support them, and that the US government has no intention of enforcing its current immigration laws much less passing new more strict laws. Now they know it's safe to operate freely and openly in our society and so they're everywhere, all the time.

On the other hand some good has come of this. Obviously if they're carrying signs and shouting slogans in the streets they're not getting much work or shopping done. So the demonstrations demonstrated to gringos that the illegals could disappear tomorrow and the impact on our businesses would be next to nil.

Our schools have suffered only from self-inflicted backward rules that withhold funding when students who haven't paid a dime for their education decide to go truant. Yeah, that makes sense. The other problems that flared were racial and gang violence, which would of course evaporate if the next time the illegal immigrant students walk out of school they just kept walking. Preferably south.

Make sure you wear anything but white on May 1st:

On May 1, we are calling No Work, No School, No Sales, and No Buying, and also to have rallies around symbols of economic trade in your areas (stock exchanges, anti-immigrant corporations, etc.) to protest the anti-immigrant movements across the country.

On May 1, we will wear "white" a T-Shirt and/or white arm bands, we can paint and write our political demands (and creative arts) at the T-shirt go to rally, protest, strike, vigil, work or school--we will have a ocean of white T-shirts with our political demands from east coast to west coast, at the street, work place, school, bus station & store... and our voice will be LOUD AND CLEAR AND CANNOT BE SILENT FOR EVER!

We will settle for nothing less than full amnesty and dignity for the millions of undocumented workers presently in the U.S. We believe that increased enforcement is a step in the wrong direction and will only serve to facilitate more tragedies along the Mexican-U.S. border in terms of deaths and family separation.

Of course without illegal immigration there wouldn't be any tragedies on the border to facilitate. Amnesty incentivizes more people to break the law, which is why law-abiding citizens oppose it. You want to keep your dignity? Respect your adoptive country's laws and customs. Don't cut the line. Get the proper documents, pay your taxes, learn English, and wave the American flag. You'll be greeted with open arms.

So what's a gringo against illegal immigration to do? Contact your Senate, House, and local elected representatives to express your opinion.

California State Senator Gloria Romero, a Los Angeles Democrat, supports the boycott and the holiday idea, saying:

"As a senator, I represent citizens and non-citizens alike."

Some will obviously need to be reminded what their job is and who it is they are supposed to represent.

Patriotic Whistle Blower Fired

Time again for another compare and contrast exercise. The CIA fired Mary McCarthy on Friday and since then right-wing bloggers have been busily digging up and sharing many interesting bits of information about the leaker. See for example Flopping Aces.

Meanwhile from the mainstream media we hear only whitewash and crickets. Do these MSM guys work weekends, or are they just too pooped from reporting leaks all week? The "amateurs" are once again providing more thorough information and analysis while the "professionals" seem to be saving their energy for the next vice presidential hunting accident.

Covering his newspaper's role in publishing McCarthy's leaks Washington Post Executive Editor Leonard Downie Jr. said:

...people who provide citizens the information they need to hold their government accountable should not "come to harm for that."

"The reporting that Dana did was very important accountability reporting about how the CIA and the rest of the U.S. government have been conducting the war on terror," Downie said. "Whether or not the actions of the CIA or other agencies have interfered with anyone's civil liberties is important information for Americans to know and is an important part of our jobs."

This of course makes perfect sense if you see yourself as a political activist rather than as an observer and journaler of events. Thanks for your honesty Leonard.

Leftist bloggers are still stewing on the proper spin for this story, but it will surely center on just how awful it is that the poor misunderstood patriots who are only blowing the whistle in an effort to protect the country they love so dearly are persecuted mercilessly while the Execrable Executive (AKA The World's Biggest Terrorist) goes unpunished for outing Valerie Plame for purely selfish political reasons. In fact it's already started:

I am struck by the irony that Mary McCarthy may have been fired for blowing the whistle and ensuring that the truth about an abuse was told to the American people. There is something potentially honorable in that action; particularly when you consider that George Bush authorized Scooter Libby to leak misleading information for the purpose of deceiving the American people about the grounds for going to war in Iraq.

That leftist fever swamp dead-enders get worked into a lather about the damage caused by the compromise of a single CIA desk jockey even while they yawn at the damage caused by the compromise of whole CIA projects reveals something of their political bias and intellectual dishonesty. Likewise the mainstream media.

We Need Cheap Labor

We need cheap labor? Our economy will collapse without it? Hmmm. Now where have we heard this argument before? Oh, that's right...

"These slaves do the jobs white folk just won't do."

And, hmmm, once the "slaves" get put on the path to becoming "white folk" doesn't that just mean we're going to need more slaves?

Iran: Bad, Getting Worse

Mark Steyn and Victor Davis Hanson consider Iran and offer the same observation: We face a choice between bad and worse.

On this point I disagree. Dean Barnett has it right. The West doesn't face a choice between going to war with Iran or not. Iran has been waging a not-so-covert war against us since 1979. Once they build nukes they will use them. We could afford to bide our time and hope moderates would come to power before. We no longer have that luxury.

That some continue to assume there is a choice is testimony to the corrosive effect the forces of self-doubt and self-loathing have had on the West. We are the most powerful most righteous force on this planet and yet we stand by impotently as the most nefarious most untrustworthy state alternatively skulks and blusters its way toward nuclear weapons. If we can't gather the strength or clarity of purpose to stop such an obvious travesty then what hope is there left? The umma and ulema are already trying to impose their irrational demands and killing infidels around the world with impunity. Does anyone seriously think once these spoiled psychopaths have nukes they're going to turn happy and peaceful?

On 9/11 the passengers of flight 93 were faced with a similar non-choice. They could sit and hope against all reason that their deranged hijackers would not fly them into some building. Or they could rise up and take charge of their destiny. We may hide behind the excuse that our situation is more murky, our doom less certain, but we have had a wealth of time to contemplate history and plan actions far more thoroughly than the passengers of flight 93. It is worse than useless to negotiate the unnegotiable with prevaricators. We waste precious time. We gain nothing.

UPDATE: Two related links via LGF.

Robert Tracinski says:

There is no need to invoke the doctrine of pre-emption against Iran. Iran is already fighting a war against the United States. We just haven't been fighting back. We have held our fire as if Iran were protected by a shield of nuclear weapons. How much more aggressive will the Iranians become when they are actually protected by such a nuclear shield?

Thomas McInerney says:

Iran's leaders have threatened to unleash a firestorm of terrorism in the event military action is taken against them. Any country involved in the attack would be subject to retaliation by Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and al Qaeda, the Iranians have claimed. If nothing else, this threat demonstrates how closely tied Iran is to terrorist groups.

It is also a hollow threat. These groups already attack us from the shadows. Let them "retaliate" and bring themselves out in the open.

Turn Off the Faucet

An anonymous commenter on the previous post says:

TV and newspaper reports on this story focus on citizenship for those who are here illegally rather than on tightening our borders. When you leave the faucet on and the sink over flows, don't you turn the water off first and then worry about cleaning up the mess? We're watching congress try to mop up the water while the faucet continues to run full blast.

Mop it up? They're on vacation hoping everyone will forget.

Meanwhile the proposals for amnesty are producing predictable consequences. More illegal immigrants are rushing to start their residency clock running. Amnesty this year, next year, the dirty little secret is that US politicians have been selling out their citizens and legal immigrants for years.

Given the popularity of the euphemism "undocumented worker" isn't it odd that amnesty proposals depend on documents? The longer you can prove to have lived here illegally the more deference you're granted. But remember, we're not supposed to call it amnesty, because all these sub-minimum-wage aliens will be forced to pay a fine. And if they don't we'll deport them. Riiiight. In civil law somebody with no money is "judgement proof" because there's no point suing them. The illegals invading this country are judgement proof in their own way, and anybody who promises to require documents or levy fines is either a liar or a fool.

Anyway all the euphemisms and wishful thinking concerning the illegals already here is just a distraction from what should be the first priority: turning off the faucet. We need the National Guard to shut down our borders to all illegal traffic. Then we need to begin construction of a barrier that will ultimately make border security cheap and permanent.

In the meantime our politicians must stop inciting even more illegal immigration with their amnesty carrots. The temptation to pander to large voting blocks of former illegal immigrants is a conflict of interest. They should recognize and remove this problem by passing laws that permanently diminish the voting rights of any recipient of amnesty. I won't be holding my breath while I wait.

See Mickey Kaus and Michelle Malkin for the latest immigration-related developments.

Senate Undecided On Betrayal

Senate immigration overhaul in doubt
By Donna Smith
Thu Apr 6, 2006 11:18 PM ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A U.S. Senate compromise on an overhaul of immigration law appeared to get bogged down late on Thursday in the face of opposition by some Republicans who say it would give amnesty to lawbreakers.

It appeared unlikely the Senate would approve before a two-week congressional break on Friday the radical immigration reform that would give millions of illegal immigrants a chance to earn U.S. citizenship.

The bill's backers expressed fear that failure to enact the legislation before lawmakers leave for their spring break could hurt its chances in a congressional election year.

Senate Republican Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee and Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid of Nevada earlier hailed a "breakthrough" on the compromise bill that would include a guest worker program sought by President George W. Bush.

But the two leaders were unable to agree on how many amendments to the bill would be allowed.

I was honestly ambivalent about the Dubai Ports World deal. It didn't seem to matter much either way, and it's fine with me that the deal got queered in the end.

The illegal immigration issue cuts deeper. Citizens appear to take it even more seriously than the ports deal, but are offset by business money and the huge number of future votes the illegals represent. Will our elected officials preserve our country, or will they sell us out?

When immigration came to a head 20 years ago we let the politicians and businesses have their way and give 1+ million illegals amnesty "just this once." What did it get us? Empty promises that they'd improve border enforcement and streamline legal immigration. Fast forward 20 years and we've got 10+ million illegals. They want another amnesty but refuse to acknowledge that that's what it is.

"They have to pay a fine, they go to the end of the line." "We just can't have strict enforcement without a guest worker program." "It's not practical to deport them." "They're doing jobs Americans won't do." "They're hard workers." "They pay taxes." "They built this country."

Enough of this bullshit. It's clear where this is going. We're either going to get some watered down compromise that is basically amnesty along with some hollow promises to do more on enforcement (riiiight), or we're going to get a lotta hot air and no action, which is to say the status quo of the last 20 years.

That's not good enough. We are literally suffering an invasion. People, drugs, the Mexican army itself flow across our border and our government acts like it's impossible to stop it. We can afford to send troops half a world away to conquer and police other countries, but we can't stop the Mexican army, their drug smugglers, and their peasants?

It is absofreakinlutely absurd that in a post-9/11 world it's still possible for unscrupulous business folks to influence unprincipled politicians to let dirt poor uneducated "workers" flood into the US. It's too expensive to enforce our border with Mexico? It's too expensive not to. Americans won't do those jobs? Not for 3rd world wages they won't. Stop the flow and the money we save on not subsidizing illegals will more than pay for the increase in wages to actual citizens.

Build a wall. Deny illegals participation in and the benefits of our society. No automatic citizenship for their children. Fine businesses who employ them. We won't have to deport them. They will go home. If the economy takes a dive we can always fling open the border again. Right?

Let our politicians prove that they answer to the desires of their current citizen-voters by actually taking such steps, then we can talk about what kind of guest worker program we'll create so they can ingratiate themselves to the future voters they seem so willing to sell us out in favor of.

This time if they get away with another "compromise" there's not going to be a next time.

Civilization's Nightmare

This brief history of Islamic expansion explains why they hate us. Mandatory reading for all infidels. Those of you already familiar with the subject may find this excerpt sufficient:

Islam's Imperial Dreams
BY EFRAIM KARSH
Tuesday, April 4, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT

Whether in its militant or its more benign version, this world-conquering agenda continues to meet with condescension and denial on the part of many educated Westerners. To intellectuals, foreign-policy experts, and politicians alike, "empire" and "imperialism" are categories that apply exclusively to the European powers and, more recently, to the United States. In this view of things, Muslims, whether in the Middle East or elsewhere, are merely objects--the long-suffering victims of the aggressive encroachments of others. Lacking an internal, autonomous dynamic of its own, their history is rather a function of their unhappy interaction with the West, whose obligation it is to make amends. This perspective dominated the widespread explanation of the 9/11 attacks as only a response to America's (allegedly) arrogant and self-serving foreign policy, particularly with respect to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

As we have seen, however, Islamic history has been anything but reactive. From Muhammad to the Ottomans, the story of Islam has been the story of the rise and fall of an often astonishing imperial aggressiveness and, no less important, of never quiescent imperial dreams. Even as these dreams have repeatedly frustrated any possibility for the peaceful social and political development of the Arab-Muslim world, they have given rise to no less repeated fantasies of revenge and restoration and to murderous efforts to transform fantasy into fact. If, today, America is reviled in the Muslim world, it is not because of its specific policies but because, as the preeminent world power, it blocks the final realization of this same age-old dream of regaining, in Zawahiri's words, the "lost glory" of the caliphate.

Nor is the vision confined to a tiny extremist fringe. This we saw in the overwhelming support for the 9/11 attacks throughout the Arab and Islamic worlds, in the admiring evocations of bin Laden's murderous acts during the crisis over the Danish cartoons, and in such recent findings as the poll indicating significant reservoirs of sympathy among Muslims in Britain for the "feelings and motives" of the suicide bombers who attacked London last July. In the historical imagination of many Muslims and Arabs, bin Laden represents nothing short of the new incarnation of Saladin, defeater of the Crusaders and conqueror of Jerusalem. In this sense, the House of Islam's war for world mastery is a traditional, indeed venerable, quest that is far from over.

To the contrary, now that this war has itself met with a so far determined counterattack by the United States and others, and with a Western intervention in the heart of the House of Islam, it has escalated to a new stage of virulence. In many Middle Eastern countries, Islamist movements, and movements appealing to traditionalist Muslims, are now jockeying fiercely for positions of power, both against the Americans and against secular parties. For the Islamists, the stakes are very high indeed, for if the political elites of the Middle East and elsewhere were ever to reconcile themselves to the reality that there is no Arab or Islamic "nation," but only modern Muslim states with destinies and domestic responsibilities of their own, the imperialist dream would die.

Not Ready For Reality

How often do you think Newsweek says these kinds of things about a film (emphasis mine):

A Dark Day Revisited
By Sean Smith and Jac Chebatoris, Newsweek

"One lady was crying," says one of the theater's managers, Kevin Adjodha. "She was saying we shouldn't have [played the trailer]. That this was wrong ... I don't think people are ready for this."

We're about to find out. "United 93" is the first feature film to deal explicitly with the events of September 11, 2001, and is certain to ignite an emotional debate before and after it opens on April 28. Is it too soon? Should the film have been made at all? More to the point, will anyone want to see it?

What kind of ridiculous questions are these? My response to the trailer is: about time. My response to the people who can't handle it: get a grip.

The families of the passengers who suffered this nightmare cooperated with and approve of the film, so please spare us the faux overwrought horror. You can't get enough of films like Syriana and Fahrenheit 9/11 that feed the fantasy of America as the world's villain, but you're not ready for this? It's easy to guess the real reason why. You don't want to face the reality of the cold-blooded evil that could plan and carry out such attacks. They don't exist. George Bush is the world's biggest terrorist. That's what you're comfortable with, and you don't know why anyone else might feel differently. So in your denial you ask imbecilic questions like: "Why would anyone want to watch this?" Go ahead and skip the movie but don't project your ennui on me.

Universal, which is releasing the film, plans to donate 10 percent of its opening weekend gross to the Flight 93 National Memorial Fund. That hasn't stopped criticism that the studio is exploiting a national tragedy. O'Hare thinks that's unfair. "This story has to be told to honor the passengers and crew for what they did," she says. "But more than that, it raises awareness. Our ports aren't secure. Our borders aren't secure. Our airlines still aren't secure, and this is what happens when you're not secure. That's the message I want people to hear."

It's unclear whether Americans will pay $9.50 to hear it. The A&E cable movie "Flight 93" drew 5.9 million viewers in January, the highest-rated show in the channel's history. But movies are different.

Exploiting a national tragedy? You mean like the endless demagoguing of Hurricane Katrina? And since when does Hollywood care whether people pay to see their movies? They make films about important issues, like gay cowboys, because their consciences demand it not because it sells tickets. Besides, TV has already demonstrated the story's popularity, so why would anyone think a movie would be different? More denial?

Not everyone screaming "too soon" is deluding themselves. Some do so with quite conscious disgust because they know the film will remind people what happened and cause many to reflect, to become angry, to want to defend their country and countrymen. Fresh images of 9/11 tend to evoke support for offensive action against the jihadis, and tend to deflate the conspiracy theories about our military and The Joooos. No, not "too soon", more like "just in time".

Couric to File Rather's Memos

Katie Couric is apparently very close to leaving her morning show to take Dan Rather's old job anchoring the CBS evening news.

I have never been a regular viewer but I do remember hearing that her show's ratings were suffering around election time 2004, supposedly because her regular audience was put off by her rather biased (pun intended) political views. I'd catch a segment occasionally and that sure is the way it seemed to me.

Well I'll never forget the look on Katie's face the morning after the election. She literally looked like she was choking on a shit sandwich when she had to report four more years of George Bush. Either that or her dog had just died.

Anyway, whoever's in charge over at CBS apparently hasn't learned anything from the disgrace they suffered in the wake of Memogate. Like Dan Rather I'm sure they don't see any bias whatsoever in their worldview. Everybody they went to an Ivy League school with and chat with at social events in the penthouses overlooking Central Park sees the world just like they do. Katie's going to fit in so well.

Awakening to the Truth

Some people are taking a radical racist position on illegal immigration. Don't take my word for it, go see them incriminate themselves. Via LGF.

A PHOTO SUMMARY OF THE GREAT MARCH
March 25, 2006
Los Angeles, California
Occupied Anahuac (Ah-nah-wahc)

THE PEOPLE OF ANAHUAC
AWAKENING TO THE TRUTH!

WE ARE NOT HISPANIC OR LATINO!

Not only are they overly concerned with their own race, they hurl Nazi slurs with abandon:

FINAL NOTE:
Racist Congressman Dana Rohrabacher (R of California 4th district) of red-neck Orange County said that he didn't care how long people had been in "this country" illegally, if they were here illegally for 5 or 50 years that they should be deported. Fine! Europeans have been here illegally since 1492, START THE DEPORTATIONS NOW! First one to go should be this Nazi Rohrabacher!

Sensenbrenner, Schwarzenegger, Rohrabacher, funny how they all have Germanic names! .....No, it's not funny at all!

No, racist slurs aren't funny. And if we're going to ignore the difference between those who came here illegally themselves and the descendents illegal immigrants then why stop at 1492? The "indigenous" people of America are the descendents of invaders who walked illegally across the Bering land bridge. Not only are they the original stealers of the land, they hunted to extinction virtually every large mammal that lived here at the time. Learn your history indeed.

One of the more negative parts of the march was when American flags were passed out to make sure the marchers were looked on as part of "America".

One of the more negative parts of the major media coverage is that they do their best to avoid revealing the extent of the poisonous extremist rhetoric amongst the demonstrators, but they don't hesitate to report charges of xenophobia and racism against anyone expressing opposition to illegal immigration, a position reporters themselves casually label "extreme right". As if anyone who isn't an anarchist must be a Nazi. We have in our midst a leftist revolutionary movement as virulent as it has ever been but you never see them or their agenda mentioned in our media. They are "activists" who "care" about their "cause". We do however hear all the time about the grave threat from the "extreme right". You know, the people too concerned about their education or their job to do the right thing and go monkeywrench society with demonstrations.

The next time you have a pleasant discussion on this subject with someone who won't call this an illegal immigration problem, who will only talk about "migrants" and "undocumented workers", tell them this: we love your workers, they can all migrate here if they like, but their babies will not automatically be US citizens, and they can't bring their dependents, and they must pay taxes, and their healthcare will not be free, and if they commit a crime they will be deported as soon as they get out of prison, and we're going to build a wall to ensure that only people with the proper documents get into our country. That will be the end of the conversation, except maybe for a few choice slurs thrown your way.

UPDATE: Leftist butcher worshippers. And Aztlan.