You may have heard, way back in grade school, that The People of America were supposed to elect people to represent them in government. Heck, if you're under the age of 10, you might actually believe that happens. But, as Jake Jacobson points out, that's not even close to true.
How about a couple clips:
60 percent of the public regards the present level of immigration to be a "critical threat to the vital interests of the United States," compared to only 14 percent of the nation's leadership
When asked a specific question about whether legal immigration should be reduced, kept the same, or increased, 55 percent of the public said it should be reduced, and 27 percent said it should remain the same. In contrast, only 18 percent of opinion leaders said it should be reduced and 60 percent said it should remain the same.
70 percent of the public said that reducing illegal immigration should be a "very important" foreign-policy goal of the United States, compared to only 22 percent of elites.
Go read the rest.
You can see that we, the un-annointed, are too stupid to run our own country -- at least according to those in royal "elected" office.
It is a shame they feel that way. However, I guess I also disagree with most people. I think the best way to reduce illegal immigration is to allow viable channels to legal immigration.
If, prior to 1776, you'd have asked most "folks" if we should declare independence from the Crown, you'd get a resounding "NO!" So, government by proxy isn't ideal.
I think that most people who have a problem with immigration have issues with people of a certain cultural/ethnic background - so it makes me happy that the "elites" are leading the country in a different direction.
I can only speak from experience, Justin, but I've not seen a single person who is as you suggest -- that anyone who opposes people breaking the law is a racist.
Yeah, well, the comments about "those Mexicans" in my neighborhood would have me challenge your observation. In fact, I find it amazing that our byzantine immigration code is to you sacrosant "law". A "law" that will make it difficult for hard-working, entrepreneural types to get in (I'd bet for every "drunk-driving illegal", there are dozens of business owners who were outside of INS policy at some time in their life); but rather easy for terrorists to arrive on our shores. Most of the 9/11 terrorist were inside the immigration law at the time: . You seem to have no problem challenging policy out of Raliegh and Charlotte (incidentally, I agree with most of the time); but seem to view anyone outside of the Yellow pages-thick immigration code as a dangerous criminal because they aren't following "the law". Would you have thought that Rosa Parks was disturbing the peace and endangering the law-abiding passengers on that bus because she was outside the policy when she chose her seat? That was a policy that most "folks" in her community agreed with and followed. Was it unfortunate that those leaders gave in even when it was probably against the will of the majority at the time?
The commenting program didn't allow me to include the URL reference to how the 9/11 terrorists entered this country: http://cfrterrorism.org/security/borders.html#Q4
I support laws that are just and right.
In this case, those who are breaking the law are stealing from me, personally. When them come to this country and steal my money to pay for their medical care, that's wrong. When they come to this country and steal my money to pay for their education, that's wrong.
I support fixing the immigration laws, because they stink right now -- but fixing them will do absolutely nothing now, because the weak ones we have aren't even being enforced.