Notice Regarding Immigration Related Threads

[Lead Moderator]

Hello everyone.

I've been talking to some long time Freepers via email for several weeks (one in particular). His concern was over the immigration threads and how they turn out on Free Republic.

Many times these threads turn into flame wars. There appears to be a lot of pent up hostility that various factions have developed for each other which ends up coming out, over and over, and the result is that the threads turn into a lot of crap. The moderators get hit with dozens of abuse reports over personal attacks and other silliness. Eventually, it becomes more work than is really worthwhile, and the threads get moved to the backroom so we don't have to deal with it.

This is an OK status quo when it occurs just occasionally. But when it happens frequently, it is not OK. That means that there is a problem.

So we are going to try to fix the problem.

There are sincere people on both sides of the debate who have gotten too into the battle that they are no longer being constructive. The goal will be to help them get back on track.

But we have two groups of people who are completely not sincere.

One group is those who really have no other goal other than to try to fracture conservatives and turn them on each other. One group is those who think that those most concerned with immigration are really just bigots and want to shout them down.

The good news is that both of these groups are very, very small. The bad news is that lots of people are firmly convinced that many of those who are just riled up sincere Freepers are actually part of one of these small groups. In other words, a lot of suspicion of motives has come about.

We're going to have to overcome that.

One of us tried something with a topic which had developed a similar problem, the Creation/Evolution threads. We'll give that type of approach a try for the immigration threads.

So here is what is going to happen. Starting tomorrow, when I see an immigration related thread go up, I am going to post immediately a warning that this would be a very bad thread to engage in insulting or flame baiting. When I see someone ignoring the warning, I'll address them personally telling them to knock it off.

What we need those who are serious about the issue to do is to act responsibly during this time. Engage in debate, without the insults. Post arguments, not ad hominems. Post facts, not innuendos. If you don't like someone, figure out a way to not have it get in the way of your postings. If you want to be disagreeable, do so without being needlessly disrespectful and instigative.

What will happen is, over time with this approach, those who are just trying to stir up crap, and those who are unable to help themselves, will stick out like sore thumbs and will get the axe.

And once that happens, then more direct involvement will not be needed, which I think everyone will agree is the preferred way.

So ping those who you know are interested in debating the topic to this thread, so they can see what is coming.

Thanks

[Lando Lincoln]

Thanks MnM...I totally agree with the approach.

Lando

[Rebelbase]

It would be a smoother transistion for each disruptor banned on these threads if you'd go ahead and provide them with the link to the registration page at LP.

[Lead Moderator]

"Can you explain how one can be pro-criminal, pro-illegal alien, and be sincere at the same time?"

I doubt highly that anyone you debate with here on Free Republic considers themselves to be pro-criminal. I doubt very many consider themselves to be pro-illegal alien.

You may consider those to be the natural result of their positions, but that doesn't change the fact that they are coming at the problem from a different angle. They can (and most are) just as sincere and conservative as you.

Yes, I said just as conservative as you. The reason that this is such a hot debate within conservatism is that it involves many different and sometimes competing aspects of conservative thought. It is conservative to want to protect America's culture from rapid change and destability. It is conservative to want to keep the nation secure and to have the law respected. It is also conservative to not believe that a perfect solution can be found. It is also conservative to understand that their are limited resources and be concerned with cost. It is also conservative to be concerned with the impact on civil liberties. And wrapped around all of this are electoral politics concerns- which many different people think are impacted in many different ways by many different approaches. And most of these people are sincere.

You could probably help keep these threads on the right track by not baiting people by calling them pro-criminal. Instead, make arguments that point out how in your eyes the stance they take rewards criminal behavior. It is a subtle difference, but less instigative. And as a benefit to you, it is more likely to convince the person you are debating. I doubt highly that you are winning any converts with insults.

[Lead Moderator]

It won't be a color bar, but it will be shown which threads I am watching closely. That doesn't mean that other threads aren't being watched though.

And the answer is not for people to behave when the mods are watching and then be like they are now on other threads. The answer is for people to cool it a bit so that those who are causing the problems stand out and can be dealt with.

[Sabertooth]

Here's a repeat: "One group is those who really have no other goal other than to try to fracture conservatives and turn them on each other."

Here's the context:

"One group is those who really have no other goal other than to try to fracture conservatives and turn them on each other. One group is those who think that those most concerned with immigration are really just bigots and want to shout them down."

There are sincere people who support the breaking of laws, whether it be drugs laws or gun ordinances. On the other hand, those who want to humanely find a solution to undocumented immigration are not advocating lawlessness but rather accepting the geographic, political, cultural, demographic, and socio-economic reality which is our common southern border, and look for a workable solution from Washington.

Well, there's a fair and balanced summary.

What does your first sentence have to do with your second?
What does your first sentence have to do with Illegal Aliens, at all?

The RKBA and the WoD threads are distinct from the Illegal Alien threads, so it's probably best not to confuse them.

Those who advocate against illegal immigration have an extra responsibility to ensure no one uses FreeRepublic to foist their calls for violence (as in "shoot shovel and shutup") or bigotry or dehumanization against any race, nationality, culture, or language. That self-policing has been sorely lacking in the past.

No, there is no one group that has any "extra responsibility;" civil, factual debate is everyone's burden, though it's understandable that some might prefer otherwise.

I would not, for example, suggest that those whose habit it is to troll on immigration-related threads hoping to move them to the backroom have any "extra responsibility" not to use Democrat talking points in constructing their ad hominems, regardless of the false impression their conduct and accusations leave with the uninformed that FR or the GOP are full of dehumanizing bigots, and regardless of how sorely lacking their own self-policing has been in the past.

[Sabertooth]

It would be a smoother transistion for each disruptor banned on these threads if you'd go ahead and provide them with the link to the registration page at LP.

I imagine that would depend on how selective your view of disruption is.

[nicmarlo]

yw; meek.

[Lead Moderator]

"No, there is no one group that has any "extra responsibility;""

On this, I disagree, and this goes beyond Free Republic.

Any movement has the added responsibility of being somewhat self-policing. Those who make illegal immigration a top priority do need to call out those who either hold the same position (or pretend to hold the same position) who start advocating violence or racism. It may not be fair, but it is reality. Tolerance of unacceptable views within a particular political faction injures that faction. That is just the way the world works.

[Sabertooth]

I am against illegal immigration. I do not think amnesty works. I also do not think we have the resources to find and deport all of the illegals we have right now. I also think that if we did allocate the resources to find and deport all illegals, the effort would cause such an uproar amongst civil libertarians (since it would invariably involve investigating many more people than just illegals) would fracture the political right.

Dealing with Illegals doesn't have to be the enormous burden on resources many imagine, not would it have to infringe on civil liberties.

I've posted this on a few threads, but I keep getting requests:

This problem is no harder to solve than wanting to solve it. We can get rid of Illegals rather effectively, by rolling up our sleeves and getting the Illegals to get rid of themselves.

The first order of business, of course, is to enforce existing laws on the books against Illegals and those who employ them. Also, politicians must be held to account when they pander otherwise.

Then...

• 1: Eliminate all mention of Section 245(i), even if expired, from the US Immigration and Naturalization Code. No more Amnesty, ever.
  
  
• 2: Get legislation through Congress that would enable States to deny goodies to Illegals, a la Prop #187.
  
  
• 3: Outlaw Mexican matricula consular IDs, and kick banks accepting them out of the FDIC. Legal depositors will withdraw from recalcitrant banks.
  
  
• 4: Beef up Border Security with manpower, resources, and a Volunteer Reserve, if necessary. No troops, and no messing with posse comitatus, this should be a civilian effort.
  
  
• 5: Beef up the immigration courts and set deportation hearings for two weeks after apprehension, with no bail.
  
  
• 6: Run sting operations at day laborer sites.
  
  
• 7: Establish two-way communication between the IRS and Border Security, and start apprehending and deporting Illegals using false SS numbers (no, the current overhyped voluntary program doesn't count).
  
  
• 8: Seize the assets of businesses knowingly hiring Illegals under the RICO Act, as they are ongoing criminal enterprises. Prosecute executives who knowingly hire Illegals.
  
  
• 9: Compile biometric information on Illegals, and declare that they will be permanently ineligible for immigration and citizenship.
  
  
• 10: If the United States declares that the above proposals against Illegals will be diligently enforced after a certain date, many Illegals will leave beforehand, and a relatively small number of well-publicized cases of enforcement throughout the Lower 48 will result in millions of Illegals deporting themselves.
  
  
• 11: End the busting of immigration caps by limiting family reunification to spouses and dependent children, and counting them against the caps when they are brought in. Require all future immigrants to declare their future intent to bring in family upon arrival. This way, families can immigrate in a controlled, orderly fashion without the current deceptions being used against the American public. We must have truth in immigration.
  
  
• 12: Outlaw anchor babies, and give the option to the Illegal parent of taking the child with them upon deportation, or putting them up for adoption.
  
  
• 13: Outlaw bilingual ballots, and resume the English-speaking requirements for citizenship.
  
  
• 14: Establish English skills as a prerequisite for future immigrants. Let's start admitting folks who will hit the ground running toward assimilation.
  
  
• 15: Shut off new immigration to nations that offer dual citizenship. Disqualify current immigrants from those nations from future American citizenship.
  
  
• 16: Make Mexico and Central America our cheap import sources of choice with tariffs on manufacturing from other sources, especially China.
  
  
• 17: In return, Mexico must open up to American investment by allowing the sale of real estate to us and guaranteeing property our rights. Getting Mexico to fix its economy is crucial.
  
  
• 18: Establish a guest worker program where an initial bond is posted by the Illegal and his employer, say $500 each, with more withheld from the Illegal's earning, as security for his departure from the US by the specified date. Guest worker visas must be applied for in the workers' countries of origin, and participants are only eligible to be employed by their sponsoring employer. Violation of these terms will render the worker ineligible for any future visas or residence in the US. Any guest worker program can only come after anti-Illegal measures are in place. Handshake promises of future diligence will not be trusted from any politician of either party, including President Bush.

The list above is by no means comprehensive, and can be adopted piecemeal or in a single package. That said, incrementalism is probably going to be the way to go, especially politically.

These measures would provide a little carrot and lots of stick for Illegals already here to get themselves out. Some of them will need to be tested in the courts, which is another reason to adopt them piecemeal, so that an injunction against omnibus legislation can't stall the whole effort.

We ought to be looking initially at easy, politically safe legislation, like the new accounting for family reunification, Border Security/IRS cooperation, English speaking citizenship requirements, and a few others. Our politicians are a trembling, timid bunch, and need to gain a little self-confidence before they'll tackle more difficult issues.

Note a few things that aren't on my list: troops or walls on the border. I think they are a futile diversion from cost effective solutions. The best possible wall at the border is to let foreigners know that we respect our sovereignty, and they had best do the same.

Note that their are no house to house searches.

Note also that I don't call for an immigration moratorium, though others may. I think their position is within the respectable mainstream of a dialogue about immigration, and while it's possible that I might change my mind later, but I am not currently persuaded that an outright moratorium is or will be necessary.

The main problem is multimillion-strong mass of Illegals, and the secondary problem is how we currently select legal immigrants for rapid assimilation into American society. I believe my proposals adequately address both situations, but there is certainly room for debate on the back end.

Note also that I have a guest worker program that is actually honest and responsible, and not an Amnesty by another name. My program would ensure that law-abiding foreigners are background-checked before entry, rather than rewarding lawbreaking Illegals after the fact.

All of the above could be adopted while allowing politicians so-inclined to chant the "compassionate conservatism" mantra.

A few final thoughts...

My proposals will cost money and require an expansion of the federal government in certain areas. However, this expense and expansion is all well within the legitimate, Constitutional responsibilities of the federal government. There will be a greater expense initially, as we ramp up to deal with the backlog of Illegals, but a number of my proposals are at least partially self-funding. Also, success in these endeavors will eventually reduce the need for them, and as many Illegals would leave on their own.

In contrast, there would be also be an increased expense and expansion of the government if there is an Amnesty, as checking backgrounds and processing 8 to 12 million Illegals wouldn't be cheap. However, such increases and expansions would only serve to reward the lawlessness of Illegals and the cowardice of politicians, thereby encouraging more of the same in both, unless there were also enforcement proposals like mine in effect for the American Interior.

But, if we strengthened and enforced our laws consistently within our borders, then we don't need the phantom solution of Amnesty anyway.

[JustPiper]

Okey dokie...feel like monitoring our ongoing terror thread for the same reasons or are we cool on no abuse reports?

[Sabertooth]

On this, I disagree, and this goes beyond Free Republic.

Any movement has the added responsibility of being somewhat self-policing. Those who make illegal immigration a top priority do need to call out those who either hold the same position (or pretend to hold the same position) who start advocating violence or racism. It may not be fair, but it is reality. Tolerance of unacceptable views within a particular political faction injures that faction. That is just the way the world works.

There are more than one faction, and both factions have a burden for self-policing.

The "movement" you describe is not radical, it's supposed to be the status quo: the rule of law. We have immigration laws that are not currently enforced. There is another movement which defends the de facto status quo of non-enforcement.

One faction, which encompasses the majority of Americans, would like to see our laws upheld. The other faction would like to see our laws diluted. Both have responsibilities for self-policing.

[JustPiper]

Be wary, wary nice!

[Lead Moderator]

That is true as far as it goes.

So I'll distill it down. Both sides have a responsibility to call out the unacceptable coming from supposed allies.

Especially when it comes in the form of calls for violence and racism.

[dirtboy]

As one who has moved from a neutral stance to an anti-illegal stance, I think this is a worthwhile experiment. I think the anti-illegal side does a fair job of policing its own ranks. I think there are just a few folks on both sides who try to goad others into a flame war, and this hopefully will be a means to deal with them.

[Sabertooth]

Especially when it comes in the form of calls for violence and racism.

How are false accusations of calls for violence or racism any less objectionable?

Frankly, the moderators do a pretty good job of keeping calls for violence and racism off the boards. The false accusations are another story.

Yet the false accusations, if allowed to stand, are also injurious to public perceptions of FR, the GOP, and conservatism. If one of us falsely brands another as a racist, is that not just fodder for the Left to confirm their broader smears against all of us?

I fail to see why a level playing field on these threads should be controversial.

[JustPiper]

Zipping my lips list and me own ;)
{{unintelligble mumbling}}
Hey SarasMom, you got the key ?!

[JustPiper]

One group is those who really have no other goal other than to try to fracture conservatives and turn them on each other. One group is those who think that those most concerned with immigration are really just bigots and want to shout them down. The good news is that both of these groups are very, very small. The bad news is that lots of people are firmly convinced that many of those who are just riled up sincere Freepers are actually part of one of these small groups. In other words, a lot of suspicion of motives has come about. Intervention can be a blessing ;)

[rdb3]

4: Beef up Border Security with manpower, resources, and a Volunteer Reserve, if necessary. No troops, and no messing with posse comitatus, this should be a civilian effort.

Bingo! But the devil will be in the details here. For example, if there is a Volunteer Reserve (which is much needed IMHO), under whose control will that Reserve be?

In my mind, I'd like to see this fall to the several States instead of the federal government.

Besides that, I'd like to see a severe pimp-hand put down on any and all businesses which employ illegal aliens, from the States and the feds penalizing the offending companies.

[KantianBurke]

excellent post on #89. If only Bush was championing it instead of amnesty. The biometric tracking making one ineligible for fututre citizenship is pure genius.

[Lead Moderator]

Perhaps if you clarify what you mean by "false accusations of calls for violence" I would heartily agree.

If by that you mean poster X says one thing, and poster Y totally distorts what poster X said and screams "you're a violent racist" then yes, I agree with you, and no that should not be controversial.