55 Senators Oppose Rule of Law

"The vote was 55-40 against a proposal by Sen. Johnny Isakson, R-Ga, who said that anything less than a border security-first approach amounted to "a wink and a nod one more time to those who would come here" unlawfully."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/05/16/national/main1620758.shtml
An element of choosing to vote to legalize crime and approve of illegal entry to the United States as a legitimate course to citizenship may be caused by the investment in Mexican oil, and lobbyist’s contributions to/of the 55 Senators.

http://www.bushwatch.com/bushmoney.htm
http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/randy/swas5a.htm
http://www.moles.org/ProjectUnderground/drillbits/6_05/vs.html

It is interesting that Senate Democrats lead the way on opposition to border control before negotiating with border bounders. Having sovereignty is a prerequisite for making sound law, simple following after lawbreakers and providing support is the function of a crock congress.
The Democratic Senators are acting in support of elements gutting the minimum wage in the United States and the value of U.S. labor. It isn't really surprising though. Senators are wealthy and wealth tends to accumulate globally in the rule of the 80-20 principle. That is in Pareto's law twenty percent or less of the people have 80% or more of the wealth simply because of preferred attachment, the ability of people with excess wealth to invest or gamble more, and other flow dynamic factors having nothing 80-20 principle is suitable for communist nations too, in which 20% or less of the communist party rule 80% or more of the national wealth. Global corporatism also follows those wealth flow phenomena and adroitly unifies communist and corporate governance and management through a number of interties from boardrooms to global media ownership, pseudo conflicts and state surveillance of citizens etc.

The Senators being quite wealthy investment in non Chinese or non-India political directions would be difficult, as that is the region in which wealth is currently finding the easiest pickings. A vast flood of cheap Mexican labor is as well beneficial to the wealthy in the United States in accord with the 80-20 principle. I should point out that this fits in quite well with the small worlds networks theories that explain a.i.d.s. distribution social and a number of other network transmission phenomena. It isn't necessary that someone have a political theory to get it started.

In the United States decent social philosophical theory just doesn't make it into politics as far as helping to elect enlightened Senators. With the historical debate between Adam Smithianites and Marxists and the social psychological trait of people choosing sides, stopping to think and dogmatically following 'leaders' theories convincing the U.S. public that their could be more to economics than the 'invisible hand' of Adam Smith or the state authoritarianism of Marxism is very difficult.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad using Smith's principle of personal greed being the best way to develop a society rightly rejected EU offers of a light water nuclear reactor if he would stop building a heavy water reactor saying (I paraphrase)'It would be like giving up gold for smoke and mirrors’. Page 188 'Nexus' Buchanan explained that many economists believe the market isn't rational entirely, and greed won't get it done. Behavioral economists have modeled market economics based on herd behavior with success.

Mexican Presidential candidate Andrés Manuel López Obrador of the Welfare for All Party is the only Mexican candidate that has rightly comprehended the ill-effect on Mexico's economy by the loss of migrant workers north. The wealthy candidates support the principle of 80-20 unknowingly, which in a limited global environment will lead to technological and enterprise stagnation within a vice of plutocratic deadbeats.