Posted on 12/24/2003 7:50:09 AM PST by presidio9
Edited on 04/22/2004 11:50:42 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge recently committed the political sin of telling the truth. His helpful candor has reopened a much-needed debate over immigration and exposed some of the specious arguments used by those who want to close U.S. borders.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
Unfortunately cultural attitudes and problems don't get left at the Rio Grande, they bring the same situations they had back home that led to their poverty in the first place. We don't need to import millions of welfare types --- but that's what we're doing.
They pay social security taxes if they commit felony document fraud and present stolen or fraudulent identification papers. Those paid in cash ---- who are the more honest hard working types tend not to file a form with the IRS or pay into Social Security.
"safty net" = Democratic Party.
This trend explains what has happened in Califronia. Only one time between 1952 and 1988 did California vote Democratic in the presidential election. It was solidly Republican. Then came the big flood of immigrants both legal and illegal into the state in the 1990's into the 2000's. Now its solidly left/democratic.
1) We have no Mexican/American terrorist problem.
2) Isolationism doesn't work.
The crime here is committed by the employer.
And the employees as well. But the result is that the illegals didnt pay taxes did they?
The criminal habits of the minority are not reflective on the majority; this holds true for illegal immigrant or natural born citizens.
illegal hmmmm what does that mean again.
Good point about New Mexico.
I guess this will be happening in more states as immigrants, both legal and illegal flood in.
Look at Florida. In 2000, the whole South went comfortably for Bush except Florida which has a high immigration level. Bush should have won New Mexico and should have carried Florida by a higher margin than he did.
It seems that we are importing more democratic voters than republican voters.
Where I live, its mostly black and white folks. We don't see to many hispanics. We seem to keep the grass cut, the dishes clean, houses wired, and factories opened without help of illegals.
HUGE drain on our conomy and the greatest reason why I pay out the A@@ in healthcare!
Alot of the sheeple have not caught on to this.
The Wall Street Journal is at the forefront of this process. In Bartley's own words: "I think the nation-state is finished." This is not the anti-Americanism of the non-patriotic Left, but rather the post-Americanism of the non-patriotic Right. Post-Americans, like the leadership of the Journal, are not enemies of America; they have just "grown" beyond it.
A tent panel too far. If the late, loathesome Mr. Bartley and the editors of the WSJ are "conservatives" then the word and movement have lost all meaning.
I've said this before on this forum, the reason the WSJ and other conservatives support the present invasion is not because they think it is good for the economy, but because it shields them from the charge of "racism". Every wave of immigrants that floods our shores makes it that much less likely that Republicans, conservatives, or Libertarians will win elections or have their ideas put into action. That is the bottom line. Yet all these groups have strong levels of support for policies that are not merely antagonistic to their alleged goals and beliefs but are in fact suicidal. In other words, they choose to value multiculturalism over ALL other values. Why? When you answer that question you will have the key to modern politics. (The WSJ might think that having millions of Central Americans and others are good for the economy today, but what will the economic benefit be when we have the sort of society and government that Venezuela has? The grown-beyond-it editors of the WSJ simply don't care about such things as long as the seegars and brandy flows for them and as long as they believe their children and grandchildren will inhabit the same ether. They live in a different country and don't care about their colonial subjects (who after all are failures and inferior according to the new "conservative" social darwinism), or who those subjects are, just as long as they continue to shut-up and pay)
What the secretary deserves is a raise. Mr. Ridge was making the eminently practical point that the best way to reduce illegal immigration and thwart genuine terrorists is to come up with a better way of identifying foreigners who are already in the country. This means formulating a policy that allows for more people to arrive in the U.S. and work legally. But it also means devising a process to normalize the status of illegals who are already here.
"[S]ome kind of legal status" is code-phrase for, if not blanket, then massive legalization and everybody knows it. There is no plan to fundamentally change immigration policy and if there were it could just as easily be implemented without legalization. The level of rococo dishonesty in American discourse is astounding, and a Japanese-like ability to read between the lines has become essential. All this paragraph is calling for is a large expansion on legal immigration while doing nothing substantial to stop illegal immigration, a bit like arguing that a the cure for cancer is to inject more cancer cells into the patient in the hope that it starves the original cancer cells. Eventually it will.
While the Bush Administration opposes a blanket "amnesty," it is open to giving illegal aliens an opportunity to work toward a green card. "I'm not saying make them citizens, because they violated the law to get here," said Mr. Ridge. "You don't reward that type of conduct by turning over a citizen certificate. You determine how you can legalize their presence."
Isn't "legalizing" the law-breakers rewarding them? The only thing the legalized aliens may (or may not) do is vote. They'll never leave, that's for sure, and will eventually become citizens. Spin and weasle words from people who have nothing but contempt for their constituents.
The White House says it's considering several legislative options that would address these concerns while allowing undocumented U.S. residents a way to earn legal status, which is essential in a political environment where "amnesty" is used as a pejorative to try to end discussions.
The truth is a "perjorative" amongst the elite, and the White House is doing its best in this particular case to eliminate that perjorative.
A guest-worker program alone won't do the trick (and is unlikely to sell politically) any more than simply handing out greencards will solve the problem. The key to eliminating this huge underground labor market is some combination of both.
So the answer is a larger "guest worker" program combined with a hand out of green cards, that's what's going to solve the immigration problem.
The U.S. Border Patrol counts 1,379 such deaths since 2000
How many Americans have been murdered or raped by these aliens? If we're going to have a body count, let's count both sides. Oh that's right, helots don't count. (Speaking of racist rape, I read a newspaper article recently about American women who are now coming forward with stories about being raped by the Mexican police. You'd think that the media might be interested in such a story, particularly with its strong suggestion of racism by authority figures. You'd think the U.S. government would lodge strong protests over the victimization of its citizens and issue travel alerts warning about the problem. You'd think these things if you weren't aware of the institutionalized racism that controls the press and governments in this country, the same racism that drives our immigration policies.)
One final thing, nowhere in the immigration debate is there any real suggestion that what the American people want, in this so-called democracy, has any bearing on the policies. That's why the White House has to find a lie to cover the coming amnesty. It's grossly unpopular with the people but supported by the establishment. Guess who's opinion takes precedent. To the other charges against the supporters of mass-immigration you can add anti-democratic authoritarianism.
You want to extend that to every illegal?
If you do, then you also need to explain away the fact that there are billions of dollars in untraceable collected taxes in the government's coffers traced right back to illegals paying into the tax system.
SOME illegals may have not paid, but then again, a whole lot of natural-born citizens don't pay either.
You don't understand the difference in salary between a dishwasher and a telephone company field tech?
That's a truly, abysmally ignorant statement.
How about the continued viability of our Social Security system?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.