Andrew: thanks for standing up for the poor, albeit crooked, growers.

However, you don't seem to understand the word "anti-immigration". Nor do you seem to understand that mechanization means that jobs will have to be created to design, produce, market, and tend the machines, and that those jobs will be more in line with a modern economy (vs something from the age of feudalism). Those machines could even be sold to Mexico and other countries to help them out.

As for alleviating the pressure northward, shine a light for us all. Instead of allowing the Mexican government to avoid their responsibilities to their own people, oppose illegal immigration.

That snowman asked such a tough question, that I hope it gets shown during the debate! How could anyone ask such a tough question, much less a poor politician? Hillary would have to be at the top of her game to be able to respond to that!

And, of course, if the snowman is shown it's not like it would be an attempt by CNN to discredit the internet as the home of loons in contrast to the real "journalists" at CNN.

No, not at all.

P.S. If you want an example of a real question, try this: youtube.com/watch?v=Q_l4Lawj14A

Malkin wrote a book called Unhinged; perhaps those comments are just more "liberals" trying to give her material. And, perhaps she also has more knowledge of legal matters and doesn't want to get involved in moderating comments, and thus possibly being responsible for those that aren't deleted. And, perhaps she doesn't want to be like, say, Kevin Drum's Washington Monthly and delete on-topic, legitimate comments. WM has even edited comments without noting that they were edited.

Also, I'm sure most people missed it, but I'm pretty sure Malkin's other book didn't defend internment simply because someone was of a specific ethnicity but because they may have been sympathizers of a country with which we were at war. Perhaps lawyer/NYT best-selling author Glenn Greenwald might spend more time thinking these things through.

It's always good to look for the bottom line, and in this case Salon is supporting massive illegal activity and sweatshops.

After the raid, the former sweatshop was forced to hire legal workers and they worked under better conditions; if Salon and the "immigrant rights" groups had their way, the sweatshop would have continued.

Note also that the author is unable to understand another political side to the raids, one that Chertoff has twice implied he's going to do: the raids are also designed to provoke an emotional response on the left. And, that's worked: Salon and other "liberals" complain about the raids, making future raids less possible, making employing illegal aliens more possible, and that's what the Bush administration wants.

Just look at the bottom line, and everything will become much clearer.

There's no good reason for these cities to have such policies, and the given reasons are just so much BS. The reason local leaders push such policies is to gain race-based power or to help crooked businesses make money. In the case of L.A. for instance, the residents - including me - would be forced to choose between helping racial demagogues like Tony Villar maintain racial power and getting anti-terrorism funding. Hopefully they'll choose the latter.

Perhaps this site could point out that King is correct about SCHIP being open to abuse by foreign citizens who are here illegally:

http://lonewacko.com/blog/archives/007135.html

"Racist shinola" = "discussing difficult issues and telling the truth about them".

"talk of mass deportation" = "something that no national figure supports, and something that Tancredo has specifically rejected, even if Leonard is trying to fool you into thinking otherwise".

"share their heritage" = "we're allowing millions of people to come here who oppose enforcement of our immigration laws out of racial solidarity, something that the corrupt, near-traitors in the Democratic Party and some in the GOP support".

"the demonization of an entire ethnicity" = "something that no national figure does, but which is falsely claimed by corrupt supporters of illegal activity like Leonard, et al".

Translating the rest is left as an exercise, because Leonard's blatherings aren't worth more time.

Alex Koppelman: on the other end of the spectrum, perhaps you'd like to imagine someone who's a) familiar with this issue and b) isn't afraid to ask pointed questions going to an appearance by Obama and making these points, and then uploading Obama's response back to Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0zfEXqND_s

I guess there'd be a lot of "obsessives" after that.

McCain's Hispanic outreach director is a dual-citizen who's a former cabinet-level official with the Mexican government.

Click my name's link for the details. Why didn't Conason mention that? Isn't that a big story? Can we assume Conason doesn't see a problem with a former top official with a foreign government doing outreach to U.S. voters?

Which of these is more patriotic?

1. Marching in support of illegal activity at an event organized by foreign political parties and those linked to a foreign government. That foreign government profits from that illegal activity, and the march was a show of force designed to change our laws which would have the impact of enabling that country to make even more money.

2. Investigating the involvement of that foreign government in that march, trying to find out whether they used proxies to agitate their citizens to take to our streets in a show of force.

It shouldn't come as much of a surprise which one Obama chose. Details at my name's link.