Hannity calls any immigration policy change "asinine"

Hannity Radio Show ^ | self

[Itzlzha]

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.

Unless you are of the DemonRAT persuasion...then you're an "IMPERIALIST" if you believe that!

That's why we have limits on immigration.

Again, unless you are of the DemonRAT persuasion, and live in these border States...then you are looking for that "Voter Base" so you can rob the rest of the US in apportionment and elections!

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.

Can I get an AMEN?!

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.

No, it is the Castro "Boatlift" all over again! Why should Fox do anything different than the PRI has done before? Better to steal as much Dinero as you can, and Let "Uncle Gringo" to the Norte deal with all those pesky issues like "quality of Life", and "healthcare"!

Unfortunately, it seems GWB is more infatuated with his old friend Vincente than he is interested in sealing our sieve of a border to Preserve and Protect this Nation!

I just hope the next attack doesn't originate in Canada or Mexico...I'm not sure the President could withstand the heat from his policies apparent failure.

BTW, I am honored to be able to reply to the great F. Lee! Kudos and Dittos, sir!

[Aetius]

Both welfare and mass legal and illegal immigration are problems.

You seem sympathetic to the view of many libertarians like at Cato, that is akin to 'unending mass immigration-yes, welfare-no.'

That is simply unrealistic. If you import people who have a good chance of using some form of welfare, you are increasing the customer base for welfare. In doing so you are increasing the political power of those who support welfare.

In other words, mass immigration makes is that much harder to get rid of welfare because you have increased the political clout of those using it.

Same logic applies to affirmative action (i.e. racial preferences)and immigration. Most immigrants are non-white, and thus eligible for racial preferences where they exist. To expect people to look a gift horse in the mouth is unlikely. And the whole Sandra Day O'Connor idea that in 20 yrs or so we will no longer need racial preferences to achieve wonderful 'diversity' is absurd.

[Aetius]

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. To answer you question; most polls show that the majority of Americans are emphatically opposed to increases in any form of immigration. So increased legal limits are not desired by the people. However, they are desired by other, usually 'elite' groups such as; immigration lawyers, ethnic interest groups, the Democratic Party, the GOP leadership, some Churches, academics, and businesses that use alot of unskilled labor.

[Aetius]

And you are right about Fox and his agenda, but the argument can be made that the mass emigration of people out of his country is also not good for Mexico in the long-run. It serves to reduce pressure on that failed country. It allows the leaders to avoid the necessary reforms that could lift the resource-rich Mexico out of third world status.

[Aetius]

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. Also, a real guest worker program would be made up of actual 'guests.' In other words they will go home eventually. The problem with most proposed guest worker programs is that they are acually trojan horses for massive increases in legal immigration. How? Because they allow the guest to gain permanent residency, and then they will of course be able to import their extended family. These phony proposals would also grant amnesty; but their sponsors deny it by pointing out that current illegals would have to pay a fine. Big deal. I just wish the pro-mass immigration crowd would be honest about their agenda; which is to grant amnesty to illegals and massively increase already mass levels of legal immigration. Since they know both of those ideas are unpopular, they instead rely on deceptively titled bills that play on what 99% of people think of when they hear the word 'guest.'

[Graymatter]

When something's really asinine, you'd be remiss to refrain from calling it that.

[nutmeg]

FoxFan ping! (Hannity)

Please FReepmail me if you want on or off my FoxFan list. *Warning: This can be a high-volume ping list at times.

[Huck]

Today he hears Rush bash Bush for the immigration plan and he's playing me too me too.

Sean's career in a nutshell. But hey, there's a market for it.

[hchutch]

I prefer the Wall Street Journal's positions on most issues of the day. But that aside, I'm going to be a little blunt:

The message you seem to be sending to immigrants in general (and non-white immigrants in particular) from past posts on this issue is, "We don't want you here." I don't have any recent immgirants in my family, and *I* do NOT like that sort of message being sent to immigrants. How do you think they feel about such a message I'd be insulted - and nobody will vote for a political candidate who insults them or people they know in the manner some of your past posts have.

Furthermore, the Wall Street Journal's position is doubly attractive when I look at some of the comments coming from restrictionists like Sam Francis or which are posted at sites like VDARE. Quite frankly, I can understand why VDARE is not allowed on Free Republic. I think you grossly underestimate those who choose to come to the United States, and your low expectations of them are counterproductive, both in solving the problems we currently face and in reaching out to them and gaining their support.

[OldFriend]

I always get a chuckle when Rush says he program is show prep for all the shows that follow. Wonder if Sean 'gets it'.

He just parrots every topic that Rush covers and always has the same opinion. He'll go so far as to change his own previous position to coincide with Rush's position on an issue.

[Principled]

Interesting correlation. Could it be that the problem isn't immigration, but the welfare state instead?

To me it seems clear that this is the case. What would illegal immigration be if there were no opportunity for freebies here - only a job?

Seems we'd want those folks - willing to work for themselves without promises of free school, health care, food stamps, WIC, etc.

Seems we want to avoid those who come because of the freebies.

But what we're getting is both.

So yes, IMO you're right. The problem is not only contempt for the law, but the welfare state itself is largely to blame.

[lainie]

I don't understand exactly what, specifically, he said was asinine.

[Huck]

He'll go so far as to change his own previous position to coincide with Rush's position on an issue.

Sounds like you think he's done that on this issue. I thought he was a big Michelle Malkin fan from way back, I seem to recall. Anyway, Hannity's my last resort.

[hchutch]

Part of the problem was killing the bracero program. Reinstating that will solve that part of the problem. The otehr part will be finding the will to start paring bacvk the welfare state, and that takes time.

However, the problem will not be solved by going along with paleo-con rhetoric. Not only does it fail to address the real problems, it turns folks who we ought to be reaching out to AGAINST us. I wonder if a lot of the restrictionists are really serious about this or if there might be something else that they wish to foment.

[Aetius]

Well you've done a good job of distorting what I've said, without actually addressing what I specifically said. I'll try to clarify. I want immigration levels into the United States REDUCED. I've never called for a permanent ban on immigration. I've never said we should close the doors forevermore. Likewise, that is exactly the same message being sent by the majority of Americans when they consistently tell pollsters that they want legal immigration levels reduced. Reduced. Not cut off completely forever. There is a difference, you know. So I'm not worried about sending a message of 'we don't want you here' because that's not what I've said. But to put in such terms, you could say that 'I(We) don't want continued annual arrivals of about one million legal immigrants in addition to hundreds of thousands of illegal ones.' But to the more general area of sensitivies, I'll admit that I'm more concerned with the feelings of American citizens than that of potential ones.

As to race: I would be oppossed to mass immigration no matter where it came from. You can believe that or not. But the fact is that most immigrants are non-white, and whether you like it or not that has serious implications. (It reminds of the frenzy some got into when Patrick Buchanan made the common sense observation that the US could more easily assimilate a million British than a million Zulus). Specifically we have to consider the matter of racial preferences (or aff action if you prefer that euphemism). Fact - Racial preferences exist over much of the country. Fact - Most immigrants are non-white, and as such are eligible for racial preferences, though they were never intended for them.

Just think about this. When aff action began it was to redress past institutional discrimination against black Americans and American Indians. Now, I would still oppose them, seeing as how they would still be wrong on principle because they penalize white Americans--the overwhelming majority of which come from poor, working, or middle class backgrounds. But if they were solely for black Americans and American Indians then it would at least be limited to no more than about 14 or 15 percent of the country. But as you probably know, immigration has made the country much more mixed. Hispanics now account for about 15% of our population,and that share is growing fast. And most of them now and in the future will be eligible for racial preferences. And you'll probably notice that the justification for aff actions has changed too. It used to be that the whole 'redress past wrongs' argument was used. But the left knew that was unlikely to stand up in the courts, and they knew that it simply didn't apply to all the new minorities who have no history of institutional discrimination in this country. So what did they do? They invented this whole idea that diversity is such a good thing, such a strengthening thing that achieving it justifies racial preferences. It justifies discrimination against white Americans. That is the inescapable conclusion from the recent Sup Court decision.

Now did immigrants create aff action? No they didn't. But they will benefit from it. And continued mass immigration from 3rd world countries will only make us more 'diverse', thus making the aff action lobby stronger, and thus making it highly unlikely that there will ever be a time when some sort of preference is not needed to achieve diversity. Now maybe you think that is a good thing. Mabye you believe in the empty platitude about 'diversity being our greatest strength.' Personally I don't think that platitudes are something on which to base policy. And I make no apologies for caring about white people. I don't think that the presence of a white student on a college campus is less valuable than that of a non-white student of lesser merit. I don't think achieving diversity justifies discriminating against white people who, again, mostly hail from poor to modest back grounds. In other words they don't have life handed to them on a silver platter. That's why I have no problem with economic preferences; because they can help poor blacks, poor hispanics, poor asians, poor Indians, and yes, even poor white people.

And another thing that makes race relevant is the triumph of multiculturalism, which of course preaches everything but assimilation. Again, immigrants did not create multiculturalism, but their presence strenghthens it by enlarging the pool of people that the preachers of it have to preach to. And while the idea of Mexican nationalism may be some fringe, loony movement right now, whose to say what will happen 50 yrs from now when the Southwest is mostly MEXICAN american. Maybe they will assimilate just as succesffuly as the Irish, Italians, and Germans did. I hope so. But the fact that those white immigrants were coming into an already mostly white nation certainly helped. Wishing that race doens't matter won't make it so. And I don't think it is conservative whites who are making it matter these days.

As to the electability of someone proposing reduction: Again, immigration reduction the mainstream, majority view according to most polls. Various polls have also shown that the percentage of Hispanincs in favor of reduction to equal or exceed the share of them that the GOP usually gets; so it would be unlikely to drive them away. Needless to say, the percentage of blacks in favor of reduction is much greater than the share that vote Republican. So it could be a huge political winner, even if it only increased the GOP share of the white vote. Now no matter how nicely one would put such a position, no matter what lengths they went to establish their non-racist motives; they will still be called racists, and xenophobes by the left and radical ethnic interest groups like La Raza. So what? Must debate be suppressed by these charlatans? Must the majority will be held captive to bogus charges like these? Personally I believe that a candidate who articulately put for a call for reduction and who responded to these inevitable, but bogus charges with a mixture of indifference and aggressiveness would be a welcome breath of fresh air to most voters.


As to VDARE and Sam Francis: Yes, I'm familiar with both. Weren't they banned for pointing out the obvious; that most GOP voters are white, and that the GOP should try and increase their share of the white vote? But anyway, forget VDARE and Francis. You don't need them to see that there is strong case to be made for immigration reduction, and you don't need them to see that there are racial implications to current immigration policy.

As to my expectations of immigrants: I don't doubt that most immigrants are good people. I don't doubt that most come here to work hard and better their lives. But who is going to turn down a free meal? They may not come for welfare and racial preferences, but do you really think they will say no to them when offered? I think not? And again it should be obvious that the more customers of a policy that exists, the harder it will be to eliminate the program(s). So really, why would they be interested in helping solve such problems when they are not problems to them at all, but are in fact bonuses of life in America? Immigration policy should be set based on the desires and interests of Americans first and foremost. Whether or not its beneficial to others is irrelevant.

As to reaching out and gaining immigrants support: I wholeheartedly agree that the GOP should actively reach out to Hispanics, Asians, Blacks, and yes, even disillusioned Whites. But they should do it with conservative principles. That would probably result in about 25 to 35% of the Hispanic community as a base. I don't think that conservative positions that enjoy mainstream, majority support (like imm reduction and abolishing preferences) should be abandoned in order to get the vote of people not inclined to vote for you in the first place. I think the idea that Hispanics are 'natural conservives' is bogus. The reasons cited for it are less than convincing; such as the fact that they are hard working and are Catholics. Many people are hard working on any level of the political spectrum, and it took the GOP decades to win a majority of the white Catholic vote.

So yes, I believe the mass immigration induced demographic changes are bad for the GOP, and good the Dems. I think the best bet is to reduce immigration, thus lessening this trend, and making assimilation more possible, in addition to all the other reasons for reduction. Remember, their was a reduction in the early 1920s that lasted for over 40 yrs. Do you doubt that contributed significantly to assimilating all those Germans, Irish, and Italians? I think its common sense fact.

I like the WSJ too, when it comes to tax cuts. But on the issue of immigration they are hopeless, not because I disagree with them, but rather because they will not allow any dissent on this issue on their pages, and because they will take left-wing style pot shots at supporters of reduction, and because they will print obvious whoppers like George Melloan recently did when he stated that current immigrants are more likely to be skilled professionals than not. That today's immigrants are mostly unskilled and come mostly through family reunification is undeniable.

[Edit35]

"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"

What a load of hooey.

We allow a certain amount of LEGAL immigrants into this country each year, WAY MORE than enough to absorb all those low paying jobs.

We certainly don't need an additional 12 million illegal immigrants clogging up our courts and jail, and believe me, a large percentage of them do exactly that.

Each and every day, I travel through cities on the East Coast where thousands of ILLEGAL immigrants live in ghetto housing, and I am certain that less than 1 percent of them have work picking strawberries, or any type of fruit or vegetable.

I feel empathy for police in most every mid to large city where they spend countless hours doing additional paperwork each and every time they arrest some illegal, many of whom are too busy stabbing each other and/or selling drugs to even fill out the necessary paperwork to become citizens.

[The_Eaglet]

The problem is not only contempt for the law, but the welfare state itself is largely to blame.

Good point.

---

McCain-Feingold(from the blogasphere -Daily Campaign Finance Reform thread-day 27

[faithincowboys]

As if coming here and taking a domestic flight or poisoning a municipal water supply isn't a possibility. Let's face it, what we know of this plan is a major sell out. I have never bought into the Rat propoganda that Bush is out fo his well-heeled buddies in business, but stuff like this makes it look accurate. I hate to say it, but this is a major breach of trust on his part.

We haven't gotten meaningful consultation, it is presented as a fait accompli. What in the world is going on?

[Kevin Curry]

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

Can he do that?

[oreolady]

I really like your idea of a halt to immigration now, a break until some of these problems can be addressed, instead of making hasty decisions that cause our GW to lose this election.
Unfortunately any "good ideas" won't be heard or acknowledged, but kudos to you anyway.