I think Obama has made it very clear that deportations will be at a minimum and immigration enforcement will be only a token gesture in order to bide time until he feels an amnesty can be passed.

By appointing Napolitano, Obama took a stand against Americans. He can't defend the lawless invasion of this country by millions, then try to reward them with privileges that would be denied to legal residents in some cases, instate tuition for one.

The sudden interest at the border and concern about the "drug war" strikes me as being nothing as a smokescreen to cover the fact that immigration raids and enforcement of the laws within this country has been effectively ended by Napaolitano---who is merely the puppet of Obama.

Thomas of IN

While there are a number of telecom companies that can initiate a call to Mexico from here only one receives them for the people being called: Carlos Slim's TelMex. The more Mexicans in the United States the richer he gets. It is not a matter of giving something back; instead, passing amnesty here would enable him to beat Bill Gates.

To Richard of TX,
You are not the only one to notice the absence of the Sierra Club to comment on the damaging effects of illegal aliens on the environment, especially in fragile desert areas.
A possible explanation: Years ago I read that the Sierra Club was RUMORED to have accepted a very large donation with the stipulation that the Club never address illegal immigration or overpopulation issues.

Just a shot in the dark here, but I can imagine Mr. Obama instructing some of the Dems he has in his pocket to prepare and attach his Amnesty bill to some other important budget or military spending bill, so he can say this must be approved or we will be hurting the economy or not supporting our soldiers. Or even get McCain to initiate since it is basically his plan from last year.
I have been rather depressed with the feeling that we were losing the illegal ***** battle(need to come up with a better word than immigrants - it diminishes legal immigrants), but I think there would be some hope in defeating an Amnesty bill if it stands on its own, and is not attached. We need to watch out for this.

NumbersUSA Moderator: The legal and technical term you are looking for is "illegal alien." Yes, we do need to watch out for amnesties -- particularly small amnesties -- being attached to larger bills.

Yes they are hearing our protest but,they sure are hard of listening!As far as I can tell Pelosi still sits on the advisory board of the immigrant legal resource center,ILRC.

We have a government that can't talk or write any bill without using the word comprehensive multiple times.Obama said "our expectation is to have a comprehensive policy in place in the next few months.Our President was quoted as saying he doesn't have a particular tipping point in mind concerning deployment of the National Guard to our Southern border.But he did say "I think it's unacceptable if you've got drug gangs crossing our borders and killing U.S.citizens. Rep.Sanchez said "It should be noted that over 200 U.S.citizens have been killed in this drug war,either because they were involved in the cartel or were innocent bystanders.

Well Mr.President the majority of American Citizens have reached their tipping point a long time ago.Some in government like to use numbers when it's convenient, what about the 68,800 Americans that have been killed by illegal immigrants since 9/11.Do their lives not count the same as those killed by the illegal drug cartels.

It's worth taking note Mr.President and Rep.Sanchez that the word that ties all these deaths together is "illegal". Our government is complicit in all of this because of their failure to enforce our immigration laws and secure our borders.

Why does the New York Times consistently adopt positions on immigration that are inimical to the welfare of our country and its people? For the second time in 100 years New York City has become a city of immigrants, and this time many of them are illegal. It is admittedly an exciting mix if you have lots of money, and perhaps the elite of New York City, including sophisticated, social climbing journalists, see themselves as footloose citizens of the World, not of the boring United States, with small towns and ordinary people they have gladly forgotten and ceased to care about. But why six editorials or op-eds in one month? Follow the money.

In January, Carlos Slim, a Mexican, and probably the first or second richest man in the World, saved the New York Times from default with a $250 million investment. Over the next six years he can convert his very high yield notes to voting shares to increase his stake from 6.9% to 17%. Carlos Slim can control Mexico by owning more than 200 companies and the politicians. He can exert influence much more cheaply in the U.S. through the NYT. We don't know what Senor Slim told the owners of the NYT he expected, beyond money and power, but we can start to guess. Perhaps in his old age he wants to do something for his fellow Mexicans. Doing it in Mexico might cut into his bloated assets, but using the NYT to do it in the U.S. will stick ordinary Americans with the tab for his Mexican nationalism.

What are we to make of an American president, who is sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution and our laws, meeting with certain members of Congress who have taken the same oath to discuss how best to reward foreigners who have broken said laws?