All the 9/11 terrorist were here legally.

Obviously, that doesn't mean that all future terrorists will try to enter legally.

As detailed in the 9/11 Com. staff report, terrorists are quite informed on our immigration system and have used it to their advantage.

The 9/11 hijackers had strange visa apps which were pushed through due to our policies with Saudi Arabia. I believe the person who headed that dep't has been promoted.

The hijackers also fraudulently obtained VA driver's licenses. There's a long article detailing exactly how they did that.

http://www.nsm88radio.com

I guess it must be news to the natives in the 1600s that they could actually have deported all those illegal aliens.

Then, you'd face the prospect of "informal" family reunification from all those millions upon millions of legal immigrants who want to bring in their relatives.

The problem with most guest worker programs is that couples come and they have children. Those children are then U.S. citizens, and the Sally Struthers side of things would swing into action to try to keep them here instead of going home after three years or whatever.

Then, there's that little matter of Mexico and their "Lost Territories", what we call the U.S. southwest. 58% of Mexicans think the U.S. southwest rightfully belongs to Mexico.

Now, our corrupt, traitorous politicians are allowing those Lost Territories to be resettled.

Mexico also has more consulates in the U.S. than any other country and they have about as much control over our immigration policies as the American public.

Mexican consuls visit small towns in the U.S. passing out Matricula Consular cards to their citizens who are in our country illegally.

The FBI said those cards are a security risk.

The Bush administration fought to allow banks to accept those cards.

Under the Bush administration, the FDIC is working with the Mexican consulate in Chicago to give home loans to illegal aliens.

Like they say in the movies, the calls are coming from inside your house.

Gawd, DCL, did you get up on the stupid side of bed this morning, or what?

Anyway, you could rewrite this as: "Make deportation of [people of a particular immigration status] illegal unless they make a valid claim for asylum."

No double negative there. Double negatives refer to a negated negation, such as "not not happy", though actual usage is generally more subtle than that. This is semantically different from "not unhappy". The first means "happy", and the second means "not unhappy".

Actually, that's almost but not quite true. If every illegal immigrant suddenly became legal, it would mean that most of them would now have legal recourse to correct the less-than-minimum wages that they make. They'd also have to pay their share of taxes, which are often unpaid. So the net economic effect would be substantially different than zero, but I'm not prepared with numbers to argue how dramatic it would be. Somehow, I don't think it would be particularly horrible.

Huh? Is there a double negative in there or something?