Hannity calls any immigration policy change "asinine"

Hannity Radio Show ^ | self

[putupon]

[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.

[You Dirty Rats]

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.

[Mudboy Slim]

"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

[Mr. Mojo]

therefore, even if tightened, they will not be impeneterable.

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

[Mudboy Slim]

"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

[OldFriend]

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.

[You Dirty Rats]

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.

[Huck]

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.

[alisasny]

Agree, his comment was right. We dont even follow the current laws in place. Same ole different subject.

[Amerigomag]

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.

[putupon]

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.

[monkeywrench]

Many of the jobs they're taking aren't "seasonal", anymore.

[MayflowerMadam]

"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.

[hchutch]

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.

[ZULU]

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.

[Gunslingr3]

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...

[Poohbah]

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.

[b4its2late]

Yep, he is right. It is asinine. Especially after 9/11.

[Huck]

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

[Huck]

is in =is

[hchutch]

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.