Posted on 01/23/2004 4:37:58 PM PST by Beck_isright
Securing the border is not a "police state solution" or an "affront to Freedom and decency" Every nation on the face of the Earth with any kind of sense controls it's boarders. I have lived and worked in Japan, Singapore, Malaysia, Taiwan, Russia, the Ukraine, the Crimea, Hong Kong... and have traveled to England, France (yuck), Amsterdam, and throughout the former Soviet Union. Every one of the above uses ARMED troops to guard and secure their borders and with the possible exception of Hong Kong (which was under British control when I was there) none of the above could remotely be considered a "police state". But they have one thing that we in America do not have and that is SECURE BORDERS!
Even in 1986 I was opposed to amnesty after living in Arizona, but it had some strong enforcement provisions attached to the bill so that's what got people to buy into it.
Instead of learning from its failure we're hearing the same, tired arguments with Bush's proposal. It's deja vu all over again.
I for one REFUSE to pay for the president’s re-election on the backs of my children so that he can pander to an illegal minority for 4 more years in power.
The time to stand up against this proposal is NOW. If it passes, it will be too late.
Some will say... "but if you don't vote for him, the democrats will regain power". That is true, but I just have one question:
How is what he is proposing any different than what they would do? The answer is: there is no difference, in both scenarios the illegals are given a pass and hard working, law abiding American taxpayers will invariably pick up the tab.
Hector and Jose may become paragons of virtue by the time they reach Milwaukee, but as they pass through my home county they are as destructive as any of the Biblical plagues. Locusts come to mind immediately.
Mash here for the very least of their offenses.
Do you routinely carry a gun? Is your property floodlit at night like a WalMart parking lot? Do you spend thousands of dollars every year making good on vandalism or theft of your property? How many of your friends and neighbors have been assaulted, robbed, or car-jacked by illegal aliens? Are your hospitals going bankrupt providing federally mandated care for illegal aliens? How about your schools? Are your national parks nothing but a glorified stash and staging area for drug smugglers and illegal aliens?
And then OUT comes the tin foil! There must be a grand plan (no... scheme) in effect that we menial citizend need not be aware of, or worry about, since this *could* happen without majority approval.
There's no fallacy, because I gave you the reasons conditions, perceptions and action would drastically change.
"Luke intended to dictate to believers what should be their personal policy towards the poor & less fortunate.
That's correct. Now your personal policy should be reflected on your lips and in your vote. Bush's proposal is to protect the right of opportunity and at the same time protect the nation from the disaster of uncontrolled criminals. It doesn't have to contain any giveaways of other people's money and it allows for many of the present giveaways to be ended. Charity is a voluntary thing. It is not charity when it's forced. Freedom of opportunity simply recognizes an individual right. The jobs are not unlimited. That limits the opportunity.
You are so right. If this policy is successful he will have checkmated the whole of the USA.
Folks are who they are. They don't change like that.
" Do you...How many...Are your"
Ponder the proposal and note how it addresses these things.
Just one question; if the previous INS mandates were ineffective and unable to be enforced, how is legalizing 12 million more going to make the situation better?
Answer: it will not because the government is unwilling to enforce the laws already existing on the books. Adding a new layer of INS laws and another program will not deal with the problem of enforcement.
But what do I know, I just have a Ph.D.. Sadly, it is going to take another terrorist attack that kills and maims 10,000, 100,000 to perhaps a million or more before the powers that be stop playing PC politics, finally get the message and enforce the law, deport the illegals and secure the borders.
Japan's always been closed, but they do allow guest workers. The rest are not really Free, they're socialist states. Overall the demand for entry isn't that great. If you stuck any of them where MX is, save JP, you'd see the same thing that exists now.
" they have one thing that we in America do not have and that is SECURE BORDERS!
Islands, socialist countries and tyranical cultures, no Freedom...Those kind of borders aren't hard to secure.
JM, where does the figure 12 million come from?. Do all these workers not have a families, or relatives.? Regards
Words are cheap and Dubya has taken no action to date. I live here and I follow developments very closely. Occasionally some official makes a grand pronouncement followed by absolutely no action. Once in a blue moon, the feddies mount an operation that results in a few extra apprehensions. A lot of camera time and sound bites, followed by the usual neglect. I have personally caught their official spokesmen lying like dogs and publically called them out.
I don't have the figures for 2003 yet (still stuck in the political spin-cycle, no doubt), but I do have the 2002 figures. The total catch for 2002 by the Border Patrol and INS along the southern border was 1,062,279. The working agents (not their political bosses) claim they only got maybe 1 in 5. The 8 to 12 million figure being put forth by our political parasites is bogus.
Jack, I know it is late at night, but I am not sure what you are saying.
If the Govt. report shows 1 million and change apprehended, and that is a 1 to 5 ratio, wouldn't the number that got thru be about 5 million? Regards
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.