Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Hannity calls any immigration policy change "asinine"
Hannity Radio Show ^ | self

Posted on 01/06/2004 12:25:21 PM PST by putupon

Edited on 01/06/2004 12:28:29 PM PST by Lead Moderator. [history]

[Moderator's note: threads regarding immigration issues and border issues have been spiralling out of control for some time on Free Republic. This is going to change. Fair warning: this would be a very poor thread to engage in flame warring, flame baiting, or otherwise being needlessly instigative. If you have not yet read this thread, you may want to before engaging in the debate on this or other similar threads. If there are any questions regarding the new scrutiny of these threads, please take them to that thread rather than cluttering up these threads.

Up until last night, people had been very cooperative with this effort, and for that I was grateful. Last night, I think there must have been a full moon or something, but we'll get that straightened out.

Thanks, and happy Freeping.]

Sean Hannity just used the word "asinine" in regards to any immigration change until we gain control of the current immigration situation.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: aliens; biggovernment; borders; criminals; foreignoccupation; illegalaliens; illegalmexiacans; illegalmexicans; immigrantillegal; immigrantlist; invasion; mexico; nationalsuicide; openborders; thenannystate; welfarestate; wetbacks
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-113 next last

1 posted on 01/06/2004 12:25:22 PM PST by putupon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: putupon
He must be a Bush-hater.
2 posted on 01/06/2004 12:26:28 PM PST by FirstPrinciple
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: putupon
I'm sure Hannity's a real expert on the subject.
3 posted on 01/06/2004 12:26:40 PM PST by Huck (This space available--monthly rates---great exposure)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: *immigrant_list; A Navy Vet; Lion Den Dan; Free the USA; Libertarianize the GOP; madfly; B4Ranch; ..
ping
4 posted on 01/06/2004 12:26:44 PM PST by gubamyster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Huck
Expert enough. He's right.
5 posted on 01/06/2004 12:27:47 PM PST by holdonnow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: All
Rank Location Receipts Donors/Avg Freepers/Avg Monthlies
49 Panama 25.00
1
25.00
5
5.00


Thanks for donating to Free Republic!

Move your locale up the leaderboard!

6 posted on 01/06/2004 12:28:12 PM PST by Support Free Republic (I'd rather be sleeping. Let's get this over with so I can go back to sleep!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: putupon
Sean is right...Well done...He said the they are rewarding lawlessness.
7 posted on 01/06/2004 12:29:58 PM PST by Lady Eileen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: holdonnow
Really? You wouldn't change current immigration policy? You think it should stay as is?
8 posted on 01/06/2004 12:31:50 PM PST by Huck (This space available--monthly rates---great exposure)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: putupon
I see the warning at the top of this thread, and I understand that this is a hot topic here, albeit one in which I've not had occasion to participate.

That said, I question the value of posting 'he said/he said' threads on this topic.

There's a Limbaugh thread, posted a little earlier, that begs the same question.

Does this further the debate?

it amounts to forum pollution, IMHO.
9 posted on 01/06/2004 12:32:53 PM PST by IncPen ( Remember: Make your comments worthy of a repost at DU!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: putupon
Why would a terrorist need to get on a plane to come into this country? Why not goto South America or Canada and just cross the border like so many illegals already have.
10 posted on 01/06/2004 12:34:41 PM PST by sickofthehandouts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IncPen
That's a fair point. I also haven't been on many immigration threads. I like the zero tolerance approach though ;-)
11 posted on 01/06/2004 12:34:59 PM PST by Huck (This space available--monthly rates---great exposure)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: sickofthehandouts
Why not goto South America or Canada and just cross the border like so many illegals already have.

If you had your pick, which would you rather?

12 posted on 01/06/2004 12:35:44 PM PST by Huck (This space available--monthly rates---great exposure)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Huck
Depends what you mean by change. If they want to increase legal limits, ok by me. But the entire notion that we pass laws and then embrace the lawbreakers is foreign to me, no pun intended. A sovereign nation has a right and duty to protect its borders. That's why we have limits on immigration. We are unable to assimilate 10-12 million illegal aliens every decade or so, on top of legal immigration. We need to tighten the borders, and if additional immigration beyond current legal limits are desired, then Congress can do that. But right now, we have chaos and anarchy on our borders. I also don't think Vicente Fox's desire to export his poor is beneficial to our nation, either.
13 posted on 01/06/2004 12:37:37 PM PST by holdonnow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Huck
I would pick South America. Lots of weapons available and from the appearance of the strict security at airports vs. the border it would be far easier to take a walk through the desert.
14 posted on 01/06/2004 12:38:22 PM PST by sickofthehandouts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: holdonnow
I think the assenine thing is to say that any change is assenine, when I think some change appears to be in order. If we want a more lenient policy, laws should reflect that. If we want tighter policy, ditto. The law should match the desired policy. Whatever that is. Anyway, I just don't have much respect at all for Hannity as a thinker. Come to think of it, I have none. I was just making a snide comment. Goofing off on the job.
15 posted on 01/06/2004 12:42:06 PM PST by Huck (This space available--monthly rates---great exposure)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: sickofthehandouts
I think we'd rather have em coming in on foot than hopping international flights. So this is a good thing. We can't seal off the country. It ain't possible. But we can force them out of their favored strategies.
16 posted on 01/06/2004 12:43:33 PM PST by Huck (This space available--monthly rates---great exposure)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Huck
Well, maybe you shouldn't be so judgemental about another's intelligence. I see in a comment above you say that we shouldn't seal off our borders. Did someone talk about sealing off our borders on this thread? No. So, that's a false characterization of the issue. Endorsing the enforcement of current immigration laws, which provide for fairly liberal immigration and are updated virtually every year, is a perfectly legitimate position which in no way suggests that its proponent isn't smart. Why don't you stick to the subject, rather than disparaging Sean and twisting the issues? I have to go now. Take care.
17 posted on 01/06/2004 12:48:55 PM PST by holdonnow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: sickofthehandouts
Long Walk. Colombia is not exactly next door!
18 posted on 01/06/2004 12:50:20 PM PST by You Dirty Rats
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: holdonnow
I am sure I shouldn't be so judgemental. You are right. Hannity is not exactly off topic though, you must admit. He's in the title of the thread. The topic is what he said. So I responded to that. As for the sealing of borders, I am simply saying we can't seal them--it isn't possible, therefore, even if tightened, they will not be impeneterable. Which means the terror threat presented by border crossing--which the other poster brought up--will remain. Sorry for the confusion. I can see on these hot button issue threads, people come to them with a lot of baggage, which makes it that much harder to communicate effectively. To much reading into things that aren't there. Oh well. Comes with the territory. Remember the Elian threads? Holy cats!
19 posted on 01/06/2004 12:52:54 PM PST by Huck (This space available--monthly rates---great exposure)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: holdonnow
Depends what you mean by change.

Precisely. And from where I'm sitting the only change that makes sense is to put the kabosh on ALL immigration - both illegal and legal - for at least a decade. (This would obviously involve placing the National Guard on our borders). We just can't sustain the current rate and number of 3rd-worlders entering our nation, and we need time (and a lot of it) to Americanize the ones that are already here. If we don't, we're begging for a dilution of our unique American culture that we'll never be able to recover from.

20 posted on 01/06/2004 12:56:46 PM PST by Mr. Mojo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: putupon
Does Sean's use of the word "asinine" constitute flame-speech?

At the very least, his comment is not part of any constructive discussion of the issue.

The existence of millions of illegal aliens who work for very little money and are part of our economy is a cold hard fact. It's all very well to bleat about "getting control of our borders" or "enforcing the law", but it is unrealistic to believe that we are just going to eject every illegal alien -- even if we could.

They are here is such large numbers because:

- They want to earn dollars
- There are jobs for them (mostly low-pay) that others can't or won't fill
- American like eating strawberries and enjoying other fruits (pun intended) of the illegal immigrant labor pool.

In other words, we want them here. We've voted with the almighty buck.

Since they are going to be here anyway, reform of the immigration laws to regulate guest workers and improve security is a perfectly valid solution. I would say that it's asinine to assume that enforcing the current laws (which are not enforceable anyway) is the ONLY solution.

21 posted on 01/06/2004 12:59:48 PM PST by You Dirty Rats
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: holdonnow
"If they want to increase legal limits, ok by me. But the entire notion that we pass laws and then embrace the lawbreakers is foreign to me..."

Exactly...although the way 50% of the population continues to embrace Bill Clinton and his co-conspirators makes it easier to understand how warped our culture has become.

FReegards...MUD

22 posted on 01/06/2004 1:03:14 PM PST by Mudboy Slim (RE-IMPEACH Osama bil Clinton!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Huck
therefore, even if tightened, they will not be impeneterable.

Impenetrable, no. But a helluva lot harder to penetrate, yes.

23 posted on 01/06/2004 1:03:45 PM PST by Mr. Mojo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: You Dirty Rats
"The existence of millions of illegal aliens who work for very little money and are part of our economy is a cold hard fact. It's all very well to bleat about "getting control of our borders" or "enforcing the law", but it is unrealistic to believe that we are just going to eject every illegal alien -- even if we could."

The way to get a handle on the problem is to de-incentivize the law-breaking by punishing--via hefty fines--the employers who hire these illegals at the cut rate. This would dry up the income potential for the illegals and induce them to join the guest-worker program. Those who refused to do so would be assumed to be criminals and rounded up to the best of our ability.

FReegards...MUD

24 posted on 01/06/2004 1:08:39 PM PST by Mudboy Slim (RE-IMPEACH Osama bil Clinton!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Huck
Hilarious......he remarked on HIS PLAN........LOLOL.....

Starts out saying he was FOR this new plan BUT he's against this new plan.........

Ah yes, the hubris is overflowing. Had to turn him off.

25 posted on 01/06/2004 1:13:07 PM PST by OldFriend (Always understand, even if you remain among the few)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Mudboy Slim
The guest-worker program was largely ended years ago. This was a mistake.

Sanctions on employers were part of the 1980's immigration law. Nice theory; in practice, there is no incentive for California, for example, to put most of their agricultural sector out of business.

If there was a real guest-worker program, then we would be able to monitor and regulate these workers and they would be more likely to go home when seasonal needs aren't there. "Tightening the borders" means that illegals, once they get here, don't leave for the season -- they risk not getting back in.
26 posted on 01/06/2004 1:15:07 PM PST by You Dirty Rats
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: OldFriend
Hubris indeed. I can't take that guy. Glad Bob Grant's back from vacation though. I don't necessarily agree with BG all the time, but that's not what his show is about. It's just entertaining talk radio.
27 posted on 01/06/2004 1:17:26 PM PST by Huck (This space available--monthly rates---great exposure)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: holdonnow
Agree, his comment was right. We dont even follow the current laws in place. Same ole different subject.
28 posted on 01/06/2004 1:18:01 PM PST by alisasny (Thankyou to all who made 12/28 party so wonderful in NYC)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Huck
You wouldn't change current immigration policy? You think it should stay as is?

I don't want to change our immigration policy. It works fine.

I just want it enforced.

29 posted on 01/06/2004 1:18:35 PM PST by Amerigomag
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: You Dirty Rats
I would say that it's asinine to assume that enforcing the current laws (which are not enforceable anyway) is the ONLY solution.

Hannity's point was to not change the law untill you can enforce the current ones.

We don't know the laws aren't enforceable, no one has ever tried.

The law against murder isn't enforcebale before the fact either, but we have no problem bringing consequences down after the fact on those who commit it.

Maybe we can't keep them from coming across the border, but we should reduce, not increase, the incentives that draw them here and als we should round them up and ship them back after they do come.

As for strawberries, we have a farm near where I live that you can pick your own. If I want some bad enough, I'd rather do that than reward law breakers.

30 posted on 01/06/2004 1:19:11 PM PST by putupon (CENSORED by AM because it was a smart aleck comment regarding the POTUS's illegal immigrant policy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: You Dirty Rats
Many of the jobs they're taking aren't "seasonal", anymore.
31 posted on 01/06/2004 1:20:52 PM PST by monkeywrench
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: You Dirty Rats
"They are here is such large numbers because: They want to earn dollars. There are jobs for them (mostly low-pay) that others can't or won't fill. American like eating strawberries and enjoying other fruits (pun intended) of the illegal immigrant labor pool. In other words, we want them here. We've voted with the almighty buck."

That's spin. The money we save on cheap strawberries is no match compared to what we spend on welfare, higher insurance rates for us, and special programs for them to maintain their existence in our country. And who cares if "they want to earn dollars"? I want a lot of stuff that I'm never going to get.
32 posted on 01/06/2004 1:22:53 PM PST by MayflowerMadam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: You Dirty Rats; Poohbah; Cultural Jihad; JohnHuang2; PhiKapMom; Dave S; PRND21
I agree. Allow me to point to two other issues pretty close to conservatives:

1. Gun control. I don't think the laws work, and a number of the ones the gun-controllers want cannot be enforced without serious infringements upon civil liberties (search and seziure, self-incrimination, etc.). They should not be passed, and a fair number of the laws (like the AW ban) should be repealed, with the rest simplified and made to apply uniformly.

2. Environmental laws. Remember all the horror stories from the Clean Water Act (specifically, the wetlands nonsense) and the Endangered Species Act/Marine Mammal Protection Act (which went so far as to cause severe restrictions on military training and the testing of a sonar system)? Congress made changes to the law to end the military's problems, and in effect gave them an exemption.

We are a nation of laws, but if there are bad laws, or misapplications of the law that are causing problems, then they need to be changed, and if necessary, people need to be cut some slack. Respect for the law goes downhill unless bad laws and misapplied laws are dealt with in an expedient fashion, and I've come to the conclusion that immigration law is one place where that needs to be done.

That said, some things need to get tougher. Cities that prohibit local cops from reporting illegal immigrants to the federal government need to be told to change the policy or lose federal funds. No objection to that - heck, why hasn't that been done? We need to tighten control of the borders more so as to prevent future illegal immigration. And we need to kget rid of the welfare programs except for those who are here legally.

I want this issue dealt with, but at this point, I'm more inclined to follow the Wall Street Journal's proposals on this as long as they are coupled with increased security at the border. It's not a perfect solution, but I think it should be good enough.
33 posted on 01/06/2004 1:23:48 PM PST by hchutch (Why did the Nazgul run from Arwen's flash flood? All they managed to do was to end up dying tired.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: putupon
Hannity is correct. Every night an army of illegals, including criminals and possible Islamofascists cross our Mexican borders.

Immigration has always been the lifeblood of America but the laws governing it should be enforced. Illegal invaders should be apprehended and deported. Illegal alien "runners" should be incarcerate for life. Companies which hire ilegals should be put out of business - permanently.

The only immigrants allowed in America should be those who follow our laws and comply with our entry requirements.

Karl Rove is the Republican face of James Carville and Tom Ridge is a meathead.
34 posted on 01/06/2004 1:25:10 PM PST by ZULU (Remember the Alamo!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sickofthehandouts
Why would a terrorist need to get on a plane to come into this country? Why not goto South America or Canada and just cross the border like so many illegals already have.

We're to believe these folks can hop back and forth across the Hindu Kush mountains like fleas, but they couldn't handle a trek through the woods from Canada to the U.S. The idea that we could institute a Berlin Wall border policy is ridiculous upon just a moment of reflection. We're inconviencing millions of people, at a cost of billions of dollars, in the hope of inconviencing a handful of terrorists? Resources are finite and precious, and this seems like a giant waste...

35 posted on 01/06/2004 1:26:43 PM PST by Gunslingr3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: hchutch
Respect for the law requires laws that are actually worthy of respect. We have some almightily stupid ones here in America that need to be pruned back and weeded out, and replaced with sensible, simple (I cannot stress that word enough) laws that can be enforced and obeyed easily by persons with common sense.
36 posted on 01/06/2004 1:27:38 PM PST by Poohbah ("Beware the fury of a patient man" -- John Dryden)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: holdonnow
Yep, he is right. It is asinine. Especially after 9/11.
37 posted on 01/06/2004 1:28:32 PM PST by b4its2late (Men are from earth. Women are from earth. Hillary's from hell. Deal with it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: holdonnow
Endorsing the enforcement of current immigration laws... in no way suggests that its proponent isn't smart."

You are correct. The fact that Hannity is not smart is in coincidental. :-P

38 posted on 01/06/2004 1:32:00 PM PST by Huck (This space available--monthly rates---great exposure)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Huck
is in =is
39 posted on 01/06/2004 1:32:44 PM PST by Huck (This space available--monthly rates---great exposure)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
The problem is, for every BS law, or when laws are misapplied, there are potent factions that want to perpetuate it for whatever reason. Then there are those who either like the status quo, or who will oppose any solution that does not achieve *their* desired end result.
40 posted on 01/06/2004 1:33:59 PM PST by hchutch (Why did the Nazgul run from Arwen's flash flood? All they managed to do was to end up dying tired.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Gunslingr3
"We're to believe these folks can hop back and forth across the Hindu Kush mountains like fleas, but they couldn't handle a trek through the woods from Canada to the U.S."

What woods? There are lots of places in Washington State where roads parallel each other within FEET of each other with the border in between and not so much as a fence.
It's a simple matter of look around to see if anyone's watching and take a few steps. Done deal.
SM
41 posted on 01/06/2004 1:34:21 PM PST by Senormechanico
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: putupon
Hannity's point makes no sense to me.

If we followed his logic, then it was wrong to repeal Phohibition until we stopped all of the illegal drinking.

"Enforcing" the law by "rounding them up" is not possible in this country unless we are ready to accept Federales asking to see OUR badges!

I do think that illegal aliens should NOT receive government benefits (except for emergency health care); it is ridiculous to provide welfare for everyone on the planet who makes it here.

But there is plenty of room for people who are ready, willing and able to work. Not in unlimited numbers, of course -- but we are nowhere near immigration levels (as a % of current population) of earlier times (say, 1850-1920).
42 posted on 01/06/2004 1:36:58 PM PST by You Dirty Rats
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: You Dirty Rats
"If there was a real guest-worker program, then we would be able to monitor and regulate these workers and they would be more likely to go home when seasonal needs aren't there."

Exactly...the status quo rewards law-breaking by both the immigrant and the employer and must be changed. To allow folks to break the laws while we wink at the problem is ridiculous, and giving amnesty to these law-breakers would simply encourage more of this activity in the future.

FReegards...MUD

43 posted on 01/06/2004 1:41:13 PM PST by Mudboy Slim (RE-IMPEACH Osama bil Clinton!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: You Dirty Rats
In other words, we want them here. We've voted with the almighty buck.

The federal government is taking a lot of our "almighty bucks" away from us in the form of taxes in order to pay for services to illegal aliens including free public school education for their children, free unlimited medical care for the whole family, welfare, food stamps, WIC, etc. That's some deal us Americans are getting. We pay 79 cents for a head of lettuce at the grocery store while at the same time paying thousands of dollars in taxes to subsidize the "cheap" illegal alien labor used to pick the lettuce.

44 posted on 01/06/2004 1:41:25 PM PST by usadave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: MayflowerMadam
I agree. The illegal immigrants are mostly good hard working people BUT the large numbers of them are destroying local economies and putting an incredible burden on local municipalities. We pay many times over in services, the amount we save by cheap labor.

The illegals (at least here in New Jersey) don't work cheap either. They are not imbeciles, many of them know exactly how much they can get from employers. The people who hire these guys should be put in jail because more than often, they KNOW they are illegal and only hire them because they can pay them under the table. The employers are just as crooked. They can pay illegals just under what they would pay a legal and still clean up by saving on taxes and unemployment benefits.

Secondly, the illegals up here don't leave during slow times. They have it very good and bring their families here to take advantage of "free" schooling and other programs. If I were in their shoes, I'd probably do the same thing but the unfortunate fact remains, they are bankrupting many communities.

You want to stop illegal immigration here in the Northeast ? You find a way to yank the liscenses/permits or make any property owner or contractor liable for using a company who uses illegal immigrant labor on site. 99% of the construction and landscaping companies using illegals, know damned well that they are illegal and it usually doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure out that the guys working on your property or job site, who can't speak a word of English, are probably not here on the up and up.
45 posted on 01/06/2004 1:45:35 PM PST by XRdsRev
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: holdonnow
What you said, except I would reduce legal immigration for about 3-5 years to expedite the assimilation.
46 posted on 01/06/2004 1:46:33 PM PST by A Navy Vet (The Nanny State: from cradle to grave...for your protection...freedom be damned.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: usadave
bttt
47 posted on 01/06/2004 1:46:37 PM PST by Lady Eileen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: sickofthehandouts
would pick South America. Lots of weapons available and from the appearance of the strict security at airports vs. the border it would be far easier to take a walk through the desert.

If you were a terrorist, your best bet would be to fly to Canada and then cross the border at a spot of convenience. No problem crossing from Canada. No treck through the dessert. No fence. Few guards. If you can pass as a tourist you got it made. You have to work and pay out cash to cross the Mexican border. With the Canadian border you just walk a few feet.

48 posted on 01/06/2004 1:50:14 PM PST by Dave S
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: MayflowerMadam
That's spin. The money we save on cheap strawberries is no match compared to what we spend on welfare, higher insurance rates for us, and special programs for them to maintain their existence in our country

Proof it spinmeister.

49 posted on 01/06/2004 1:55:04 PM PST by Dave S
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: usadave
The Federal Government does not provide free public school education or free unlimited medical care. If these services are provided, it's by State and Local Governments.

I don't agree with any level of government providing free social services to Legal immigrants and Americans, much less illegals -- certainly not on the current level. Some minimum benefits for the truly needy I can live with, but we need more workers and producers in this country -- not more leeches.

It has been pointed out in the past that Texas has less of a problem with illegal aliens than California, and it's also been pointed out that Texas is less generous with free social services and free $$$$ than California. That is not a coincidence, any more than it is a coincidence that San
Francisco is overrun with "homeless" (i.e. BUMS) collecting $400 a month from the City.
50 posted on 01/06/2004 1:55:44 PM PST by You Dirty Rats
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-113 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson