The racist lies of the Leftist elites

The racist lies of the Leftist elites

I am tired of the latest concerted attempts by the leftist elitists attempts to discredit the TEA Party. The tired old tactics are starting to lose their effectiveness as evidenced in the latest Rasmussen poll that shows that

69% Say Photo ID Voting Laws Are Not Discriminatory.

Attorney General Eric Holder signaled last week that the Justice Department will be closely examining new state laws that require showing a photo ID before voting for potential racial bias, but voters nationwide overwhelmingly favor such a requirement and reject the idea that it is discriminatory.

Seventy percent (70%) of Likely U.S. Voters believe voters should be required to show photo identification such as a driver’s license before being allowed to cast their ballot. A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 22% oppose this kind of requirement. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

"If you want to make a Conservative angry, tell him a lie. If you want to make a Liberal angry, tell him the truth." - Rush Limbaugh

In reality it is the left that truly oppress the poor thru the very programs they put forth. 

This article from the Dennis Prager Show website explains it quite well.

 Ten Ways Progressive Policies Harm Society's Moral Character

Tuesday, July 19, 2011

While liberals are certain about the moral superiority of liberal policies, the truth is that those policies actually diminish a society's moral character. Many individual liberals are fine people, but the policies they advocate tend to make a people worse. Here are 10 reasons: 1. The bigger the government, the less the citizens do for one another. If the state will take care of me and my neighbors, why should I? This is why Western Europeans, people who have lived in welfare states far longer than Americans have, give less to charity and volunteer less time to others than do Americans of the same socioeconomic status.
The greatest description of American civilization was written in the early 19th century by the Frenchman Alexis de Tocqueville. One of the differences distinguishing Americans from Europeans that he most marveled at was how much Americans -- through myriad associations -- took care of one another. Until President Franklin Roosevelt began the seemingly inexorable movement of America toward the European welfare state -- vastly expanded later by other Democratic presidents -- Americans took responsibility for one another and for themselves far more than they do today. Churches, Rotary Clubs, free-loan societies and other voluntary associations were ubiquitous. As the state grew, however, all these associations declined. In Western Europe, they have virtually all disappeared.
2. The welfare state, though often well intended, is nevertheless a Ponzi scheme. Conservatives have known this for generations. But now, any honest person must acknowledge it. The welfare state is predicated on collecting money from today's workers in order to pay for those who paid in before them. But today's workers don't have enough money to sustain the scheme, and there are too few of them to do so. As a result, virtually every welfare state in Europe, and many American states, like California, are going broke.
3. Citizens of liberal welfare states become increasingly narcissistic. The great preoccupations of vast numbers of Brits, Frenchmen, Germans and other Western Europeans are how much vacation time they will have and how early they can retire and be supported by the state.
4. The liberal welfare state makes people disdain work. Americans work considerably harder than Western Europeans, and contrary to liberal thought since Karl Marx, work builds character.
5. Nothing more guarantees the erosion of character than getting something for nothing. In the liberal welfare state, one develops an entitlement mentality -- another expression of narcissism. And the rhetoric of liberalism -- labeling each new entitlement a "right" -- reinforces this sense of entitlement.
6. The bigger the government, the more the corruption. As the famous truism goes, "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Of course, big businesses are also often corrupt. But they are eventually caught or go out of business. The government cannot go out of business. And unlike corrupt governments, corrupt businesses cannot print money and thereby devalue a nation's currency, and they cannot arrest you.
7. The welfare state corrupts family life. Even many Democrats have acknowledged the destructive consequences of the welfare state on the underclass. It has rendered vast numbers of males unnecessary to females, who have looked to the state to support them and their children (and the more children, the more state support) rather than to husbands. In effect, these women took the state as their husband.
8. The welfare state inhibits the maturation of its young citizens into responsible adults. As regards men specifically, I was raised, as were all generations of American men before me, to aspire to work hard in order to marry and support a wife and children. No more. One of the reasons many single women lament the prevalence of boy-men -- men who have not grown up -- is that the liberal state has told men they don't have to support anybody. They are free to remain boys for as long as they want.
And here is an example regarding both sexes. The loudest and most sustained applause I ever heard was that of college students responding to a speech by President Barack Obama informing them that they would now be covered by their parents' health insurance policies until age 26.
9. As a result of the left's sympathetic views of pacifism and because almost no welfare state can afford a strong military, European countries rely on America to fight the world's evils and even to defend them.
10. The leftist (SET ITAL) weltanschauung (END ITAL) sees society's and the world's great battle as between rich and poor rather than between good and evil. Equality therefore trumps morality. This is what produces the morally confused liberal elites that can venerate a Cuban tyranny with its egalitarian society over a free and decent America that has greater inequality.
None of this matters to progressives. Against all this destructiveness, they will respond not with arguments to refute these consequences of the liberal welfare state, but by citing the terms "social justice" and "compassion," and by labeling their opponents "selfish" and worse.
If you want to feel good, liberalism is awesome. If you want to do good, it is largely awful.

I look at Detroit as a glaring example of the failures of the left as they have controlled this area of the country uncontested for close to a century. It is failing miserably due to their policies. If we do not oppose them the rest of the country will all share in a similar misery. This has been proven time and time again and can not be disputed an any honest debate!

Here is an excellent opinion piece below written by Paul Kersey

Opinion: Instead of Occupying Detroit, Will Lefties Take Responsibility For It?

October 14, 2011 12:05 PM

Occupy Detroit

By Paul Kersey, Mackinac Center For Public Policy
Occupy Detroit? How About Accepting Responsibility for Detroit?
 Inspired by protests that started in New York and proliferated around the country, activists are preparing to “occupy Detroit,” with a downtown rally set for this afternoon.
 Aside from the tragicomic imagery of activists occupying an increasingly unoccupied city, there’s the question of just what the “Occupation” movement, a vague grouping to begin with, would want to change about governance in the city. Over the last 40 years, the city has been governed by a political machine that is Democratic in all but name.

Union membership is well above average and organized labor is overwhelmingly powerful in city politics. If corporations are the occupiers’ main adversary, then Detroit is admirably free of corporate influence: According to Crain’s Detroit Business, the city’s seven largest employers are government agencies or nonprofits, rather than profit-making corporations.
Even Dave Bing, for all his business experience, is inclined to dabble in the sort of governmental planning — witness his ideas for consolidating neighborhoods — that progressives are fond of.
 And somehow, in spite of all that, the city’s population has plummeted to less than half it was during its heyday.
And now left-of-center groups plan on “occupying” Detroit.  Is it possible they’ll start accepting some of the responsibility for it?


Paul Kersey is the director of Labor Policy for The Mackinac Center for Public Policy. He blogs from a conservative perspective for CBS Detroit.

Check this article below out.

Detroit Population Fell 25% In Ten Years

Doug Mataconis   ·   Wednesday, March 23, 2011

A sad testament to what has become of what was once the capital city of America’s Rust Belt:

Laying bare the country’s most startling example of modern urban collapse, census data on Tuesday showed that Detroit’s population had plunged by 25 percent over the last decade. It was dramatic testimony to the crumbling industrial base of the Midwest, black flight to the suburbs and the tenuous future of what was once a thriving metropolis.
It was the largest percentage drop in history for any American city with more than 100,000 residents, apart from the unique situation of New Orleans, where the population dropped by 29 percent after Hurricane Katrina in 2005, said Andrew A. Beveridge, a sociologist at Queens College.
The number of people who vanished from Detroit — 237,500 — was bigger than the 140,000 who left New Orleans.
The loss in Detroit seemed to further demoralize some residents who said they already had little hope for the city’s future.
“Even if we had depressing issues before, the decline makes it so much harder to deal with,” said Samantha Howell, 32, who was getting gas on Tuesday on the city’s blighted East Side. “Yes, the city feels empty physically, empty of people, empty of ambition, drive. It feels empty.”
Detroit’s population fell to 713,777 in 2010, the lowest since 1910, when it was 466,000. In a shift that was unthinkable 20 years ago, Detroit is now smaller than Austin, Tex., Charlotte, N.C., and Jacksonville, Fla.
“It’s a major city in free-fall,” said L. Brooks Patterson, the county executive of neighboring Oakland County, which was also hit by the implosion of the automobile industry but whose population rose by almost 1 percent, thanks to an influx of black residents. “Detroit’s tax base is eroding, its citizens are fleeing and its school system is in the hands of a financial manager.”
Nearly a century ago, the expansion of the auto industry fueled a growth spurt that made Detroit the fourth-largest city in the country by 1920, a place it held until 1950, when the population peaked at almost two million. By 2000, Detroit had fallen to 10th place.
Depending on final numbers from all cities, Detroit now may have dropped to 18th place, said William Frey, a demographer at the Brookings Institution.

Realistically, it seems unlikely that Detroit will ever really recover from this decline.

Yes, Virginia, There Really Is Voter Fraud

 

True the Vote is an initiative developed by citizens for citizens, meant to inspire and equip volunteers for involvement at every stage of our electoral process. We promote ideas that actively protect the rights of legitimate voters, regardless of their political party affiliation.

 This article is from the Wall Street Journal appeared in the opinion section  on DECEMBER 23, 2011. It shows endemic coordinated efforts from the Leftists supported by sympathetic members of the media that voter fraud is no big deal. Voter fraud as a tool of the left for the purpose of shifting elections has been used for years. Leftists believe in the Alinsky methods that the ends justify any means necessary. How can any one seriously argue that presenting reasonable evidence as to ones identity is racist is such a transparent argument to hide the real intention of purely political motives that even a blind man can see the obvious truth!

Holder's Voter ID Fraud

The AG invents fears of ballot suppression.

The Obama Administration's re-election mobilization continues: Witness Eric Holder's attempt to play the race card and perhaps twist the law in a campaign against voter identification laws.
In the Attorney General's telling, the movement in the states to require voters to show some ID is a revival of minority disenfranchisement a la Jim Crow. A growing number of minorities, he said in a speech last week, are now worried about "the same disparities, divisions and problems" that beset the country in 1965 and "many Americans, for the first time in their lives . . . now have reason to believe that we are failing to live up" to the promise of democracy for all.
If you haven't heard about this national crisis, perhaps that's because you don't travel in Mr. Holder's political circles. He is merely repeating the howls of groups like the NAACP and the George Soros-funded Brennan Center, which claim without evidence that voter ID laws hurt minorities.
The NAACP even petitioned the United Nations this month for a human-rights ruling on what President Benjamin Jealous called a "tidal wave of assaults on the right to vote." He meant in America, not Cuba or North Korea. The American Civil Liberties Union has sued to challenge a voter ID law in Wisconsin.

Getty Images

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder

Mr. Holder's remarks are especially notable because they come as the Justice Department is reviewing voter ID laws in Texas and South Carolina for "preclearance" under the Voting Rights Act. The states' plans require voters to present photo ID like a driver's license or passport to vote, a measure endorsed by the Commission on Federal Election Reform headed by President Jimmy Carter and former Secretary of State James Baker in 2005 to protect the integrity of the ballot.
Mr. Holder says the Civil Rights Division led by Thomas Perez will review the policies and impartially "apply the law." If that's true, Mr. Perez's job should be easy: In 2005, Justice approved a nearly identical law in Georgia. In 2008's Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, the Supreme Court likewise ruled 6-3 that an Indiana law requiring photo ID at the ballot box was constitutional.
The court's liberal lion, then-Justice John Paul Stevens, wrote for the majority that Indiana's law "is unquestionably relevant to the State's interest in protecting the integrity and reliability of the electoral process." Indiana offered free voter ID cards to all citizens, so the inconvenience of picking up an ID at the Department of Motor Vehicles wasn't an undue burden and was reasonably balanced by the state's interest in reducing fraud, Justice Stevens wrote.
That isn't good enough for Mr. Holder, who says his department's priority is to "expand the franchise." But expand it for whom, exactly? The vast majority of voters already have the necessary photo ID, which they need to get through airport security or register for a grocery-store savings card.
Plaintiffs put up by liberal lawsuit shops routinely claim that ID laws endanger the rights of hundreds of thousands, but lawsuits in Indiana and Georgia were dismissed because they couldn't produce a single eligible voter who'd been turned away due to the ID requirement. Turnout has risen in states that have passed the voter ID laws, with no adverse impact on minorities.
In his speech, Mr. Holder highlighted historical attempts to keep voters away from the polls to "gain partisan advantage." But in a case of more recent history, in 2009, Mr. Holder's department dropped a voter intimidation case against the Black Panther Party, in which members stood outside a polling place brandishing nightsticks and threatening voters. Civil-rights lawyer Bartle Bull saw the Panthers in action and called it "the most blatant form of voter intimidation I've ever seen."
Thirty states now require some form of ID at the polls, and one goal of Mr. Holder's attack is to intimidate other states that want to toughen their laws. He's probably also signaling that Justice will strike down the Texas and South Carolina statutes. This would please the Democratic Party's left while not-so-subtly inventing a threat of Republican racism to drive minority turnout in 2012. Mr. Holder's voter ID alarums are one more reason he's earning a reputation for politicized, partial justice.

Yes, Virginia, There Really Is Voter Fraud

By Hans A. von Spakovsky

Posted on December 22, 2011 1:18 PM

The latest voter-fraud convictions in Troy, N.Y., must be very inconvenient to the public-affairs propagandists over at the DNC and the NAACP, as well as liberal media outlets like the New York Times. It just ruins their constant refrain that there is no voter fraud in the United States. 

Eric Shawn at FOX News reports that two Troy city officials, the city clerk and a councilman, along with two Democratic political operatives, have pled guilty to forging absentee-ballot signatures and casting fraudulent ballots in the 2009 Working Families Party primary. The WFP is the political party associated with ACORN.

One of the citizens whose votes were stolen was stunned at what happened. She said that she was “sure this goes on a lot in politics, but it’s very rare that they do get caught.” This voter was right on the money with that observation — fraud is so easy to commit in our election system that it is rare that fraudsters get caught and even rarer that they get prosecuted.

As for the constant liberal claims that voter fraud does not occur, one of the Democratic operatives who pled guilty, Anthony DeFiglio, told New York State police investigators “that faking absentee ballots was a commonplace and accepted practice in political circles, all intended to swing an election.” And whose votes do they steal? DeFiglio was very plain about that: “The people who are targeted live in low-income housing, and there is a sense that they are a lot less likely to ask any questions.”

That is exactly what former Alabama congressman Artur Davis said recently when he admitted that he was wrong to oppose voter-ID requirements. Davis says the “most aggressive” voter suppression “is the wholesale manufacture of ballots, at the polls and absentee, in parts of the Black Belt” of Alabama, which is an area of very poor black communities. These are the very areas where the NAACP claims voter fraud does not happen. The NAACP opposes all reasonable measures to safeguard the voting process for its own constituents, even going to the extent of defending vote stealers, as the NAACP did in Greene County, Ala., in the mid-1990s. Small wonder one of its local officials was recently sentenced to five years in prison for voter fraud in Tunica County, Mississippi.

In the Troy case, the ease with which voter signatures were forged without detection shows that signature comparison by election officials does not work and poses no deterrent to this type of voter fraud. That is why Kansas combined a voter-ID requirement in its new election law with a change to its absentee-ballot procedures. If you want to vote in person in Kansas, you now have to show a photo ID, and if you request an absentee ballot, you have to provide either a copy of your photo ID or the driver’s license number from the ID. That helps confirm that the registered voter — not some political operative like Anthony DeFiglio — actually requested the absentee ballot.

Socialism’s Losing Bet

Humans are at their very basic nature, capitalists. I just had to post this great article written by Danial Greenfield on September 1st 2009 in the Canadian Free Press. This article hits the nail on the head regarding the inherent unsustainability of the Socialist system. Socialism’s Losing Bet

By Daniel Greenfield  Tuesday, September 1, 2009 Humans are at their very basic nature, capitalists. We buy and we sell, and when we do that we try to sell at the highest price and buy at the lowest price. Underlying every economic system, from laissez faire capitalism to communism is the reality that the underlying human nature of the people within that system will not change, they will only adapt those same tactics to function within that system. Economic systems may come and go, but people do not change. When socialism is applied, it does not transform human nature, it is overlaid over human nature. When a socialist system attempts to artificially control the price of a commodity or access to a resource, a black market in that commodity or resource is created. With medical care it can take the form of Canada’s illegal health care clinics at one end of the spectrum or the “bribe economy” that is common throughout Communist countries in which people are expected to bribe doctors, nurses and just about everyone within the system to receive even basics such as a change of sheets. In Israel it can take the form of doctors who work in both the public system and see patients privately, doing their best to push patients into paying to see them privately. There are numerous examples throughout the world, but what matters is that all of them represent profiteering behaviors that have adapted to a government health care system. Because once again, people don’t change. The Soviet Union took away land and private businesses. It drastically limited employee salaries and collective workers’ access to produce. It drastically centralized the economy and removed individual freedom. What it created as a result was a “Black” economic system in which most of the production and even office resources such as pens and paper, were stolen and sold or bartered on the black market. Soviet diplomats and Olympic athletes returned home with massive amounts of items bought in the West, to be resold on the black market. Decades of executions and gulags, campaigns that worked to convince schoolchildren to inform on their parents, made no dent at all in the problem. Everyone stole, and the reason they stole was that it was the only form of individual economic initiative that was available to them. Communism is the most extreme example of government nationalization and centralization, and yet it could not control the free market operating within itself. Having made legitimate economic transactions illegal, its entire economy became illegal. The promoters of Communism boasted that it would insure that everyone would have equal access to the same goods and services. Instead goods and services still went to those who could pay for them, through bribes and black market activities, only those activities were no longer taxable. What happens to a government whose economy that is mostly illegal and untaxable? Within two generations the Soviet Union had become dependent on imports for everything down to food and clothing. By contrast China revised Communist dogma to legalize profit seeking behavior, resulting in a massive economic boom. Socialsim: Government controls actually drive spending into an untaxable and uncontrollable black market Socialism is commonly implemented with promises that it will be fairer and make resources available to more people. Yet the two-fold problem with socialism, is that socialist systems actually consume resources inefficiently, thereby limiting the resources that are available, and that government controls actually drive spending into an untaxable and uncontrollable black market. Setting a price ceiling results in shortages, as numerous socialist systems have demonstrated for us, most recently Chavez’s Venezuela. Price controls decrease production incentive and push more goods into the black market, while sharply decreasing the quality of goods available on the legal market. Attempting to cut costs routinely bypasses the actual “fat” within the system, namely unions, bureaucrats and over regulation, all of which are key parts of a socialist machine, instead targeting producers and consumers. Targeting producers reduces quality and availability. Targeting consumers results in rationing. Either way the end results lead to shortages of vital goods and services. Socialist solutions promise to extend services, but they can only do so at the cost of cutting quality and creating shortages. Rather than addressing the reality of this, they instead trot out propaganda blaming producers for the high cost of services, resulting in crackdowns that worsen shortages and the quality of the services being provided. The follow-up “Soak the Rich” arguments push for higher taxes, but government spending on social problems will sooner or later outpace even the most aggressive punitive tax revenues, because unlike legitimate income, government spending has natural stopping point except absolute insolvency, and because raising taxes drives out the very people and businesses who are supposed to pay for the programs, killing the golden goose of capitalism, only to find that its socialist parasite can’t live without it. Who actually needs socialism And at the bottom of the whole pile of problems, is the question of who actually needs socialism. Its proponents are usually upper class or upper middle class, who want it to be available for the poor. They want public housing they wouldn’t live in. They want health programs they wouldn’t use themselves. Public schools they don’t want to send their own kids to. And free food they wouldn’t eat themselves. Naturally they don’t want to pay for the whole thing either. They want the “other rich” people to do it. The bad rich who don’t care about poor people, the way they themselves do. For the upper classes, economic or ecological morality hold the same role that sexual morality does for hypocritical clergy, it’s very well and good, and they’re happy to sign on to it… for other people. So you’ll find the same entertainers demanding higher taxes to feed the poor and clothe the hungry, have their money tied up in complex ways overseas and out of reach. Because they mean for someone else’s money to do all those things. Not their own wealth. This makes them hypocrites, but it’s also a reminder that human nature doesn’t change. Scratch the long-haired musician calling for everyone to give up their money for Africa, and you’ll still find a capitalist inside. On the other hand what the people socialism is meant to serve want is a social safety net, but without compromising social mobility. Because while the upper classes may toss down a few crumbs, what most people on the lower part of the ladder want is to climb up. Because after all they’re capitalists too. They want their children to be better off than they were, not simply through social safety nets, but through hard work and effort. And those who don’t want to climb up, have been severely damaged by living under a socialist system, to the point that the only thing they want is to live in a box and be taken care of by the government, generating a self-perpetuating social problem for government bureaucracies to gleefully cackle over. The more government centralization there is, the less opportunities for social mobility remain. Climbing the ladder only has meaning, if there is a ladder. The more small businesses become unfeasible, the less room for social mobility there is. The sons and daughters of hardworking fathers and mothers are instead directed to take exams and climb into the echoing steel womb of the government bureaucracy, where they can look forward to pushing paper around a desk for most of their lives, and possibly earn a little extra on the side, if the situation has become extreme enough for a bribe economy to develop. Each step toward greater government control creates a culture of greater illegality opposing it Because human nature does not change. Even within a system that bars people from pursuing their own goals, people will find ways to pursue those goals. If the system does not provide legal and socially positive ways to pursue those goals, they will pursue those goals, illegally and with socially negative consequences. Every attempt to control how people behave, creates an equal and opposite reaction. Each step toward greater government control creates a culture of greater illegality opposing it. Not out of some rebellious political statement, but as an inevitable human consequence.  Philosophers and courtiers have spent a long time dreaming of the perfect state, only to generally conclude that it cannot exist. Because people are not perfect. The great socialist dream of a state that will care for everyone and do everything only functions on paper. When it is implemented in real life, the realities of running a large system ripe with bribery, corruption and inefficiency quickly make a mockery of all the paper plans. And the more the system squeezes people, the more it begins working against the people, putting in motion the very social and economic forces that will finally destroy it. There are few inevitable things in life, but human nature is one of them. And if you bet against human nature, you will lose. And socialism, which insists on betting on human nature, will continue to lose.

Daniel Greenfield  Bio

Daniel Greenfield Most recent columns Daniel Greenfield is a New York City based writer and freelance commentator. “Daniel comments on political affairs with a special focus on the War on Terror and the rising threat to Western Civilization. He maintains a blog at Sultanknish.blogspot.com.
Daniel can be reached at: sultanknish@yahoo.com

The Inherent Discrimination of our Current Immigration Policies

The Inherent Discrimination of our Current Immigration Policies

Our current immigration polities are discriminating against Asians, Europeans, Africans, South Americans, Canadian, Australia, New Zealand, Pacific Islanders and Middle Easterners. The lack of enforcement of existing laws already on the books is favoring the Mexicans as they are the vast majority of illegal aliens are from that country. It is not fair that the law abiding immigrants from all the other countries are not allowed in to this country while the illegal aliens are allowed in vast numbers.

With over 10 million undocumented immigrants in the US (as of 2009), the issue of illegal immigration is unsustainable and must be addressed. Let's not make the amnesty mistake again! The correct terminology for the nearly 20 million persons illegally in the U.S. is illegal aliens,the term illegal alien, being broader in scope, is the accurate term to use. In that immigrant connotes legality, the term illegal immigrant is really an oxymoron. 
 

"Do not grant amnesty to illegal aliens. Regardless of the penalties imposed, any program that grants individuals who are unlawfully present the legal permission to remain here rewards illegal behavior and is unfair to those who obey the law and go through the regula­tory and administrative requirements to enter the country legally. Those who enter the United States illegally should not be rewarded with permanent legal status or other such benefits, and they should be penalized in any road to citizenship. Those who enter and remain in the country illegally are violating the law, and condoning or encouraging such violations increases the likelihood of further illegal conduct."

Quote from the Heritage Foundation

"I'm pleased that you all are here to witness the signature of the Secure Fence Act of 2006... This bill will make our borders more secure. It is an important step toward immigration reform... The bill authorizes the construction of hundreds of miles of additional fencing along our southern border...We're modernizing the southern border of the United States so we can assure the American people we're doing our job of securing the border. By making wise use of physical barriers and deploying 21st century technology we're helping our Border Patrol agents do their job."

Quote from George W. Bush

The solution is obvious and simple allow more legal immigrants balanced diversely from all over the world while at the same time actually enforcing the laws we already have on the books. We need diversity in our immigrants as this is the only fair way to do it. Why should Mexico be favored over all the other countries? The status quo that career politicians have for different reasons either for cheap labor on the right or votes on the left as either reason is immoral and must be stopped now.

1. Step one - We need to focus heavily enforcement on areas where border crossing actually happen and monitor the entire border with a sufficient force of Border Patrol agents and troops. Allow the illegal aliens currently in the country to get work visas but not citizenship as that would be unfair to all the law abiding immigrants waiting.
2.  Step two - let the illegal aliens get in line with rest of the prospective immigrants waiting to get in this country. Raise the immigration levels as we concurrently enforce our existing laws at the same time. This is a simple, logical, fair and balanced approach.

 "The economic and social consequences of illegal immigration... are staggering... Illegal aliens have cost billions of taxpayer-funded dollars for medical services... Immigration is a net drain on the economy; corporate interests reap the benefits of cheap labor, while taxpayers pay the infrastructural cost... $60 billion dollars are earned by illegal aliens in the U.S. each year. One of Mexico's largest revenue streams (after exports and oil sales) consists of money sent home by legal immigrants and illegal aliens working in the U.S... This is a massive transfer of wealth from America - essentially from America's displaced working poor - to Mexico."

Colorado Alliance for Immigration Reform (CAIR)