Rudy is responding to the will of the Party, and the will of the wider electorate. But for a narrow milieu of elitists, who deride cultural concerns, nobody wants an open border. Common sense is being overridden by economic fetishists. And when the dictates of commonsense are ignored, it usually doesn't end well.

VDH has called for a moratorium on immigration, legal and illegal, of about 5 to 10 years. He's called for getting complete control of the border, by REAL measures, not gimmicks such as "virtual fencing."

If Rudy waffles on border enforcement, his chances for the nomination become slim and none.

Good point, Professor Knippenberg. Brooks' column is disturbing. Dan, "economic fetishists" is a fine term. While I wouldn't support Hanson's call for a COMPLETE moratorium on immigration (if that's what he said), I certainly would prefer it to the current situation, and would support something close to a moratorium.

A temporary moratorium is desirable. It asserts FUNDAMENTAL, non-negotiable control of OUR border. The fact that Washington tailors immigration policy to outside concerns is troubling. America needs to close off the border and stop immigration just to assert that it's AMERICA'S SOVEREIGN prerogative to do so, regardless of foreign opinion. That alone would be reason enough for a moratorium.

But when we look at our open borders policy, and consider how our traditional "melting pot" is an idea that many deem passé, we need that moratorium more than ever.
Simply to provide some time for those recently arrived to become truly acclimated to America.

VDH spells out the beneficial results available from such a moratorium. VDH suggested a decade. That's about right. For during that decade Americans will be able to more closely observe Europe's nightmare, and that nightmare is DIRECTLY attributable to an insane immigration policy. If we succeed in gaining a moratorium, we might save ourselves God only knows how much turmoil and unrest.

"America needs to close off the border and stop immigration just to assert that it's AMERICA'S SOVEREIGN prerogative to do so, regardless of foreign opinion." What nonsense. Do you really believe that even if not a single immigrant entered the country for a decade then all those here would "become truly acclimated to America"? I don't think the issue is really numbers coming in but the asinine notions of citizenship shared by many Americans. I'm not American but I would wager I'm more American than a good portion of Americans.

Wow. So Dan thinks that a "temporary moratorium is desirable."

And also cheerleads constantly for the worst open borders fetishist running in either party!!

Rudy is not an open border fetishist. He hasn't some mystical attachment to an open border, as our current President has. Rudy has publicly declared he would control the border, and he isn't such a hammerhead that he would rebel against the will of the American people. He wouldn't go out there and proclaim with some smirk, that he would see us all "at the signing ceremony."

But as for John's point, during the Cold War, the United States Navy would send ships frequently into the Black Sea, and through the straits of Formosa. Now why did we do that? We did that to merely assert legal right to do so. We didn't want a situation to develop where others thought that such freedom of navigation didn't obtain for the Dardanelles, and the straits of Formosa, as well as other waterways. The Soviets did the same for other locales, by the way. We didn't want a situation to arise where because we allowed that right {freedom of navigation} to fall into disuse, we lost that right. We were determined that no doubts arise over such right.

Today, in Europe, Ireland lacks control of their immigration policy. They can't stop muslims from entering. Because that authority no longer exists in Dublin, that authority exists elsewhere. Ireland isn't the only country in that disastrous situation.

What we're seeing in Western countries is a trend of thought that any attempt to control the border is de facto, de jure, racism. Mexico has ALREADY threatened to take us to the Hague if we merely begin to curtail the flow of illegals across our border. Just curtailing the flow of illegals is enough for Mexico to threaten litigation in various international forums. And the Mexican President has made comments about the American Southwest that in another day, in another age, would have meant American troops moving rapidly to the border.

In the law, use of right, and lapse of such use, can entail LEGAL consequences.

So when I say we need to assert SOVEREIGN control of our border, I know exactly of what I speak.

If you would like to see this issue, and others, explored more fully, from a legal perspective, I suggest you consult Robert Bork's recent tome, which deals with the encroachment of foreign law, thus foreign forums, over traditional sovereign prerogatives. The problem isn't confined to the United States, you see it much more pronounced in Europe

You know, there are reasons that Justice Stephen Breyer and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg want to be able to source to controlling foreign law, and foreign precedent.

Why do you think Justice Scalia has opened up in public on the subject? He knows which way the wind is blowing, and rest assured, it blows to no good end.

As for the "asinine notions of citizenship" that you suggest most Americans possess, I'm not sure what you mean. If you would expand a bit on that for purposes of clarification I'd appreciate it.

Remember, as in Europe, nobody asked the American people for permission to stop applying existing law, stop rounding up foreign interlopers and throwing them out. No one told the American people that they were going to introduce an open border policy, no one told them they were going to start bringing in muslims by the hundreds of thousands. No one told them any such thing. And if they had, the American people would have raised holy hell.

Time works wonders for purposes of acclimation, so long as that person or community isn't hostile to Western norms, isn't hostile to Judea-Christian values. The melting pot worked wonders. But then again, no one thought of the population transfers we're seeing now. No previous American suggested we take in 50 to 100 million people within a few decades, most of whom were marinated in anti-Americanism, and think the American Southwest and West were stolen from their rightful owners. It took a Bush and this Congress, led by freakshow Edward Kennedy, to conjure up that nightmare.

The American people are much more aware, and much more riled up about their border, than Washington is. And it was the American people that put a stop to that nightmarish "Comprehensive Immigration Reform." So give them a little bit more credit than you would extend to American elitists.

Rudy is not an open border fetishist. He hasn't some mystical attachment to an open border, as our current President has.

You really need to do a little research on the man you are backing. Giuliani has a much longer and more extensive open borders record than Bush had prior to his election. Or even has today.

Rudy has publicly declared he would control the border

As has John McCain and Hillary Clinton. So?

he isn't such a hammerhead that he would rebel against the will of the American people

Giuliani's current position on immigration is IDENTICAL to that of George W Bush. Here is a recent quote.

The focus on immigration should be to know everyone who's in the US. We should have a tamper-proof ID card; we should have a database in which we can identify the people who are in this country. We've got to be sensible about immigration. If we do the kinds of things that some of the [other GOP candidates] are talking about, this country's going to be in greater danger; it is going to be more insecure; we're going to face a situation in which terrorists can find a big underground to hide in. So we need a fence--a technological fence--we need a tamper-proof ID card. And we need a way that people who are working in this country can come forward, sign up for the tamper-proof ID card, get in the database and start paying their way.

A virtual fence, and an amnesty for the current twenty million illegals. It sure looks like he is being pretty hammerheaded here. Mind you, the MSM and the "right wing" blogs are doing a good job of covering for him.

The American people are much more aware, and much more riled up about their border, than Washington is. And it was the American people that put a stop to that nightmarish "Comprehensive Immigration Reform."

And Rudy Giuliani supported, and still supports, CIR.

Giuliani DID NOT have the legal authority to start throwing out illegals.

The Federal government PREEMPTED the issue. And that stripped power from him.

The only thing left for him was to make the best of a bad hand.

No, Giuliani did not support the comprehensive solution. He opposed it, and as the American people got more worked up about it, he tacked along with the American people, neither getting ahead on the issue, not lagging behind.

And that's EXACTLY where the GOP should be on this issue. If they get too far ahead of the electorate, they open themselves up to racism charges. If they lag too far behind, they allow an opening for the Democrats. BUT by tacking precisely along with the electorate, THEY PUT THE DEMOCRATS between a rock and a hard place. Giuliani isn't being unprincipled on the issue, he's being savvy. And that's exactly what I expected from him.

David Brooks just lamented Giuliani severing any final attachments to the position of McCain, and Bush. Now why would he do that if he thought Giuliani were privately in his corner.

Giuliani is slow to the issue, to be sure. But that's more attributable to his regional attachment. For a New Yorker, it simply isn't as burning hot as in Colorado. But he's picking up on it, and the furor over immigration reform brought him up to speed, and where is he now.............. secure the border.