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

Skip to comments.

GOP Nativists Tarnish Reagan's 'Shining City'
The Wall Street Journal ^ | Monday, March 15, 2004 | JASON L. RILEY

Posted on 03/15/2004 8:41:52 AM PST by presidio9

Edited on 04/22/2004 11:51:16 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]

Just what is it about immigration that makes so many conservatives lose their bearings?

Broach the subject, as President Bush did in January with his guest-worker initiative for illegal aliens, and free-market advocates start forgetting principles. (Flexible labor markets? What use are those?) Self-styled realists start fantasizing. (Let's just deport all 10 million of 'em, Elian-style!) And colorblind sensibilities are suspended. (White hegemony, where have you gone?) Suggest that immigration, legal or otherwise, not only is in the American tradition but a net benefit to our economy besides, and watch the editors at National Review and the pseudo-populists at Fox News come unhinged.


(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; Foreign Affairs; Government; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: aliens; immigration
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-103 next last

1 posted on 03/15/2004 8:41:52 AM PST by presidio9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: presidio9
Shh, don't confuse Hannity with reasoned intelligent thought.
2 posted on 03/15/2004 8:47:31 AM PST by OldFriend (Always understand, even if you remain among the few)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
To borrow a phrase, "Its the illegality, stupid!"
3 posted on 03/15/2004 8:48:25 AM PST by waverna (I shall do neither. I have killed my captain...and my friend.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #4 Removed by Moderator

To: presidio9
So the "ReConquest" continues with the help of this useful idiot. Personally I don't enjoy seeing our culture submerged by Mexico.
5 posted on 03/15/2004 8:50:34 AM PST by Monterrosa-24 (France kicked Germany's teeth out at Verdun among other places.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
Imigration would work if it was done is a systematic way and not the chaotic illegal process which endangers national security. It would work if we had a frontier for them to go to if they initially fail in the cities. It would work if we did not favor nonEuropeans over Europeans in an affirmative action approach in determining who would come. Immigration would work if we had job offers coming out of our ears and our bank accounts are overflowing and we do not know what to do with the excess cash. The WSJ and many of its supporters are too focused on the quarterly earnings that they forget in the end the benificiaries of their global utopia must find a way to live securely amongst their citizens. If taken to its extreme, they would end up living in gated communities, and in the day time ride armored limos with armed guard escorts so they can get to a secured mall for shopping and disco for playing and must leave before nightfall to get back home to their fortress like enclaves, otherwise the security company providing the escort home cannot gurantee their safety in the darkness. Is that what they are willing to accept in order to get the largest profit at the lowest cost disregarding the social and economical dislocation they cause in their own country?
6 posted on 03/15/2004 8:54:01 AM PST by Fee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
"....millions of hard-working illegals already here and making a contribution."

8-12 million Illegaliens costing taxpayers some $40 billion a year, making their "contribution".

7 posted on 03/15/2004 8:54:34 AM PST by azhenfud ("He who is always looking up seldom finds others' lost change...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
One of the little known facts about earlier waves of immigration is approximately 40% of the immigrants went back to their former home lands once they found out the streets weren't paved with gold.

Of course, we have now paved the streets with gold, and they just stay.

I have often wondered why history is no longer taught in schools, and i can come up with only one word demo rats.

8 posted on 03/15/2004 8:55:04 AM PST by dts32041 ( "If Bill Shakespeare lived today, would he have written a sequel call "Egglet"?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
Interesting information, thanks.
9 posted on 03/15/2004 8:55:22 AM PST by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fee
" ... Is that what they are willing to accept in order to get the largest profit at the lowest cost disregarding the social and economical dislocation they cause in their own country?"


Sadly, I do not doubt for a minute that the answer is "YES".

10 posted on 03/15/2004 8:56:49 AM PST by LN2Campy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
"Foreigners have always served to enrich our culture"

Not anymore!
11 posted on 03/15/2004 8:57:02 AM PST by international american (DU trolls outsourced for free!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dts32041
"Of course, we have now paved the streets with gold, and they just stay.

I have often wondered why history is no longer taught in schools, and i can come up with only one word demo rats."



Two good points!
12 posted on 03/15/2004 8:59:27 AM PST by international american (DU trolls outsourced for free!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Monterrosa-24
Personally I don't enjoy seeing our culture submerged by Mexico.

The entire population of Mexico is 2/5 of our own. Exactly who would they manage to "submerge" our culture?

13 posted on 03/15/2004 8:59:44 AM PST by presidio9 (the left is turning antisemitism into the new homophobia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
Our current illegal immigration problems result from a policy at war with the law of supply and demand, a war that pro-growth conservatives understand is as unwise as it is unnecessary. Short of mass alien deportations at gunpoint, which would damage the economy and aren't likely to fly well with the public, any transition to a more sensible system will involve some sort of decriminalization.

What a damned, scaremongering liar. Self-deportation is the answer.

Figures the "market uber alles" WSJ would prefer an extremeist, border-dissolving law of supply and demand over the actual law of the land.

In addition to raising immigration quotas, President Bush wants to normalize the status of millions of hard-working illegals already here and making a contribution. The law-and-order tub-thumpers on the right denounce any such talk as amounting to an "amnesty" that ultimately rewards lawbreakers. That's a fair point, and their only legitimate one, but it doesn't suffice as an argument that advances the debate.

There's unintended the glimmer of truth: tub-thumping law and order trumps the Bush Amnesty and appeasement on Illegals that the Wall Street Journal desires, therefore "it doesn't suffice as an argument that advances the debate."

No fair using winning arguments against President Bush's sell-out to Illegal Aliens.


14 posted on 03/15/2004 9:01:44 AM PST by Sabertooth (Malcontent for Bush - 2004!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
Mass Immigration Cost American Taxpayers $69 Billion Net and 2 Million Jobs in 1997

Study by Dr. Donald Huddle Reports Legal Immigration of over 1 Million Per Year Accounts for over 62% of Costs
State Costs to Taxpayers are Also Soaring (1996 Net Costs % up from 1992):

California: $28 billion up 35%

New York: $14 billion up 29%

Texas: $7 billion up 37%

Florida: $6 billion up 77%

The first study of the net cost of immigration to American taxpayers in 1997 conducted by Dr. Donald Huddle, Professor Emeritus of Economics at Rice University, found that:

The nearly 26 million legal and illegal immigrants settling in the United States since 1970 cost taxpayers a net $69 billion in 1997 alone, in excess of taxes those immigrants paid. This represents a cost of $260 in additional taxes paid by each U.S. resident or $1,030 in additional taxes paid by each family of four. This cost is a substantial increase over the net immigration costs of $65 billion ins 1996, $51 billion ins 1994, $44 billion in 1993, and $43 billion in 1992.

Over 62% of the net national cost of immigration in 1996, $40.6 billion, was attributable to legal and legalized (amnesty) immigrants. Illegal immigration generates about 38%, $24 billion of the total net cost. Legal immigration levels are over one million per year, and rising.

During 1996, approximately 2.3 million predominantly low-skill American workers were displaced from their jobs due to the continued heavy influx of immigrant workers since 1970. Taxpayers paid more than $15.2 billion in public assistance for those displaced workers in 1996, including Medicaid, Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), unemployment compensation, and food stamps.

A net deficit of $8.5 billion dollars to the Social Security system in 1996 is attributable to the economic impact of the foreign-born population. Continued mass immigration threatens the solvency of the Social Security system.

Net cumulative costs for the 1998-2007 decade are projected to reach $932 billion, an average of $93.2 billion per year, even with recent changes in welfare and immigration policies and a prosperous economy, if current mass immigration trends are allowed to continue.

Breakdown for 1997 Costs of Legal Immigration
Public Schools (Primary, Secondary, Higher, etc) $22.5 billion

Bilingual Education, ESOL, ESL Education $ 3.3 billion

Medicaid $12.8 billion

AFDC (for legal and illegal immigrant's offspring) $ 2.4 billion

Social Security $24.8 billion

Supplemental Security Income $ 2.9 billion

Housing Assistance $ 2.6 billion

Criminal Justice $ 2.6 billion

Jobs Lost by Americans $10.8 billion

Other Programs $51.4 billion

1997 Total Costs for LEGAL Immigration: $136 billion

Add 1997 total costs for illegal immigration of $41 billion and subtract an estimated $108 billion in taxes paid by all immigrants (legal and illegal) in 1997 to obtain the overall net figure of $69 billion charged to you, and other American taxpayers.

Other key facts regarding immigration are:

1.) If current immigration trends continue, the current U.S. population of

274 million will nearly double to over 500,000,000 by 2050. (The U.S. was 135 million at the end of WWII.)

2.) Harvard Professor George Borjas demonstrated that mass immigration costs American workers $133 billion per year in wage depression and job loss.

3.) The prestigious National Research Council found at the state and local levels (which bear most of the burden for K-12 education) the net fiscal burden of the average immigrant-headed household (i.e., after subtracting state and local taxes the household paid) was:

$1,484 per immigrant-headed household in New Jersey (in the 1989-1990 fiscal year); and $3,463 in California (in 1994-1995)(p. 276-277)

15 posted on 03/15/2004 9:05:43 AM PST by kellynla (U.S.M.C. "C" 1/5 1st Mar Div. Viet Nam 69&70 Semper Fi "KERRY IS A LYING TRAITOR!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kellynla
".) Harvard Professor George Borjas demonstrated that mass immigration costs American workers $133 billion per year in wage depression and job loss."

Good for the economy:)
16 posted on 03/15/2004 9:19:08 AM PST by international american (DU trolls outsourced for free!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: OldFriend
Shh, don't confuse Hannity with reasoned intelligent thought.

This op-ed doesn't seem any more "reasoned" or "intelligent" that things written on the other side. Indeed, it starts out with mere ridicule, abuse, and smear, and never gets above shallowness or seriously engages the criticisms of mass immigration. The writer does make a valid point about Social Security, but that's about it.

Time and time again, people characterize stale rehashes of the same arguments as "home runs" or "decisive refutations" when they're nothing of the kind. It would be better to just say, "I agree" and leave it at that.

The Wall Street Journal has long supported "open borders" for economic reasons. Most Americans would disagree strongly. Most Americans are right about this. The WSJ's commitment is more to a global economic system than to the United States or its traditions and institutions.

17 posted on 03/15/2004 9:20:51 AM PST by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
Mexico can hold to a steady population and a high birthrate by sending the fruits of its excess birthrate here. Mexico is a huge country both geographically and by its population. Add to that the immigration from the OTMs (other than Mexican) like Guatemala, El Salvador, and Colombia and the numbers become ever more staggering. The truth is that in many towns here in Alabama, the culture has already been submerged by non-English speaking peoples. It is already too late. I love Latins but not by the ocean-load.
18 posted on 03/15/2004 9:22:57 AM PST by Monterrosa-24 (France kicked Germany's teeth out at Verdun among other places.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
Notice how this elitist POS uses Reagan's "shining city on a hill" to back unfettered third-world immigration to this country. I don't think that's what Ronnie had in mind when he made that statement.
19 posted on 03/15/2004 9:27:59 AM PST by Penner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
Bump
20 posted on 03/15/2004 9:30:03 AM PST by PRND21
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Monterrosa-24
I had no idea that you had a problem in Alabama. I live in California, and it is real bad here. I heard No. Carolina is getting hit hard, though.
21 posted on 03/15/2004 9:31:39 AM PST by international american (DU trolls outsourced for free!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
Ping for later.
22 posted on 03/15/2004 10:52:56 AM PST by BlackElk (Dean of Discipline of the Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Club)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
bookmarking for response later. Overall, he has way too many cheap shots. An hominems etc. The real question is - would our public policy be better if we went after ilegal immigration and stopped it more effectively?

For a comprehensive answer, see:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1059957/posts
23 posted on 03/15/2004 11:27:03 AM PST by WOSG (http://freedomstruth.blogspot.com - Disturb, manipulate, demonstrate for the right thing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
What is it about ILLEGAL Immigration that this writer doesn't grasp?! ILLEGAL Immigrants are breaking the laws of this Country as their Initial Act of "citizenship." Who could possibly in favor of that?!

SHEEEESH...MUD

24 posted on 03/15/2004 11:28:59 AM PST by Mudboy Slim (RE-IMPEACH Osama bil Clinton!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #25 Removed by Moderator

To: presidio9
"Alan Simpson's 1986 employee sanctions bill made it a crime to "knowingly" hire an undocumented worker. This unenforceable law hasn't stopped illegal immigration, but it has created a thriving black market for false identification papers."

This law is NOT "unenforceable"...we've simply refused to enforce it!! Every employer who hires an employee must either withhold taxes and make payments directly to a Social Security Number or else it must issue 1099's that include a S.S.#...if these are fraudulent, somebody in the IRS knows and can tell the employer, who should fire the employee on the spot (and report him to the immigration authorities).

FReegards...MUD

26 posted on 03/15/2004 11:34:59 AM PST by Mudboy Slim (RE-IMPEACH Osama bil Clinton!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
The sooner Republicans settle this intraparty spat and start listening to their inner-Reagan, the better off they'll be.

The self-serving bottom line uber alles types crack me up. This guy is trying to redefine Reagan's "Shining City on a Hill" imagery in the same manner the Statue of Liberty as a symbol has been misappropriated.

27 posted on 03/15/2004 11:37:03 AM PST by skeeter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
Nativist, eh? White hegemony? Funny how the pejoratives change over the years. Time was that people, the Czechs and Poles for instance, who struggled to preserve their national sovereignty and culture were considered to be heroes, while those who wanted to erase them, Hitler for example, were villains. But now people who want merely to exist are evil and those advocating genocide and the erasure of borders (Jason Riley, for example) are now considered to be respectable. I suppose everything comes back in fashion given enough time.

Immigration is driven by only two things: race and power. The sole goal of post '65 immigration policies is to physically eliminate the former majority in this country. The main motivations for supporting this policy come down to basically four. The minorities and certain hard-core leftists in this coalition are simply genocidal racists. They seethe with hatred for the majority and a desire to degrade and destroy it that simply cannot be propitiated. They don't care what happens afterwards, the genocidal elimination of "whiteness" is the end goal in itself. They are Nazis and immigration is their Zyklon B. The second are the air-headed idealists who believe that making America into the colony of the world, bringing about "one-worldism in one country" will somehow cause the world to follow suit and usher in some sort of utopia. This, of course, will never happen and countries like China that maintain thier nationalism will simply take over from the decandent and decayed nations that adopt this foolish belief. Thirdly, and this is where most Repulican politicians and public conservatives come in, you have the political collaborators. Most don't really believe that massive third-world immigration is a good thing, but they are afraid to say what they really believe for fear of being called racist and losing their job, position, or status (negative economic motives). Support for immigration is a shield from the charge of racism. Finally there are the (positive) economic collaborators, the Tysons who, like the slave owners of the past, don't care what immigration does to the country as long as their pockets get lined.

Its hard to argue with editorials like this because they are so out of touch with reality and history. In Riley's world there are no humans, only interchangeable work units. Non-white immigrants must alway be spoken of in positive ways (hard-working! strong family values! enrihing! minty breath!) It's not really an argument, it is an exercise in totalitarian political correctness. The only purpose of articles like this is to label anyone who favors any sort of immigration control a Nazi. The author understands that the the victims (whites) are so beaten down (rewarding illegality their ONLY legitimate point) by decades of psychological warfare and propaganda that they dare not argue strenuously out of fear of the leftist bully-boy. I just finished reading A P.O.W.s Story by Larry Guarino, about prisoners in North Vietnam. It mentions episodes where the prisoners were trotted out in front of "visitors" like Wilfred Burchette and Tom Hayden to answer questions knowing full well that wrong answers and attitudes would earn them a beating back in prison. Political correctness is basically the same program. Brainwashing combined with punishment until the victim spits out the correct rote answers.

As I said, this article isn't really an argument, just ritual vituperation and cant. To deal with just a few points in the article:

And California Republicans learned the hard way in the mid-1990s, courtesy of the anti-immigrant Proposition 187

No, it wasn't 187 it was the immigration itself. But we can't say anything negative about the impact of immigrants, can we? So let's turm on the Party and its voters. Bashing them is always safe.

President Reagan -- who used to receive a third of the Latino vote

Ooh, a third! Since landslide starts at 45% this isn't very good. And it brings up the question of why people like Republicans, conservatives, and libertarians favor massive immigration when that immigration, beyond any argument, lessens the chance that their beliefs will be put into action. Why do the country-club business pimps at the WSJ support it when they know that in the long run it will throw the government into the hands of socialists (unless it's just pure short term greed)? When you see grownups advocating positions that are suicidal to their beliefs you are no longer dealing with the world of rational thought but of Pavlovian conditioning.

Seventy-seven million Baby Boomers will start dipping into our pay-as-you-go Social Security system . . .

The greed appeal. Aging populations are an inevitable effect of modern science. Immigrants will also get old and die. The most that could be accomplished by trying to counter this fact with immigration is to push back the inevitable a couple of deacades, thereby generously tossing the now worse problem onto the laps of your children. Not a very noble picture, is it?

Foreigners have always served to enrich our culture, replenish our work force, keep us competitive globally and save us from heading where stagnant, immigrant-averse Europeans and Asians

So many lies in so little space. Foreigners haven't always enriched out culture, that is racial correctness, sometimes they hurt. America grew to economic greatness during the period of immigration restrictions that this individual would label "nativist". Europe isn't immigrant-averse, most European countries have (too) generous immigration policies. I read a Euro piece the other day that mentioned a country which had "only" 6% of its population as foreign born. 6% in a period of a couple of decades isn't "only" it's incredibly high, from a historical perspective (but advocates of mass third-world immigration know or care little about history). It's "only" only in the divorced-from-reality world of totalitarian ideology, in the real world it's incredibly generous. Most Asian countries have had a population explosion over the last few decades, they don't need immigrants, far from it.

28 posted on 03/15/2004 11:55:13 AM PST by jordan8
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jordan8
So many lies in so little space.

This one sentence, right here, is by far the best description of the WSJ's position on immigration.

I read a Euro piece the other day that mentioned a country which had "only" 6% of its population as foreign born. 6% in a period of a couple of decades isn't "only" it's incredibly high, from a historical perspective (but advocates of mass third-world immigration know or care little about history).

Another thing our elites ought to keep in mind is that the allowance of ridiculous levels of immigration is causing a political backlash in Europe. Do you think it's a coincidence that far-right political parties have been making headway as of late?

29 posted on 03/15/2004 12:06:56 PM PST by MegaSilver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Sabertooth
Self-deportation is the answer.

Don't be modest. Post a link to this when discussing immigration. It certainly advances the debate.

30 posted on 03/15/2004 12:16:09 PM PST by Tares
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: gubamyster; HiJinx
ping
31 posted on 03/15/2004 12:19:34 PM PST by Libertarianize the GOP (Ideas have consequences)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Mudboy Slim; Luis Gonzalez; Poohbah; PRND21; daviddennis; Howlin; PhiKapMom; wirestripper; ...
FAIR's founder and former president is John Tanton, an eye doctor who opened the first Planned Parenthood chapter in northern Michigan. By Dr. Tanton's own reckoning, FAIR has received more than $1.5 million from the Pioneer Fund, a white-supremacist outfit devoted to racial purity through eugenics.

Board members of FAIR actively promote the sterilization of Third World women for the purposes of reducing U.S. immigration prospects. And if anything disturbs the good doctor more than those Latin American hordes crossing the Rio Grande, it's the likelihood that most of them are Catholic, or so he once told a Reuters reporter.

CIS, an equally repugnant FAIR offshoot, is a big fan of China's one-child policy and publishes books advocating looser limits on abortion and wider use of RU-486. CIS considers the Sierra Club, which cites "stabilizing world population" fourth on its 21st century to-do list, as too moderate. And like FAIR, CIS has called for a target U.S. population of 150 million, about half of what it is today.

Well, John Tarton's background is quite interesting. Opened a Planned Parenthood abortion mill, of all things. And how exactly do these groups propose we GET to a population of 150 million?

I also note that there is an attempt by some of these folks to take over the Sierra Club. These folks are bad news, and I, for one, feel quite comfortable with the Wall Street Journal's position on this matter, particularly with this information about Tarton. Particularly the $1.5 million from the Pioneer Fund.

I don't like white supremacists, and eugenics (which was also advocated by Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger) is just as reprehensible. Quite frankly, if they were involved in starting up these groups, then I want no part of those groups.

32 posted on 03/15/2004 12:31:22 PM PST by hchutch (Why did the Nazgul bother running from Arwen's flash flood? They only managed to die tired.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: hchutch
Correction - Mr. Tanton opened a chapter, not an abortion mill. But it speaks volumes about Mr. Tanton.
33 posted on 03/15/2004 12:40:14 PM PST by hchutch (Why did the Nazgul bother running from Arwen's flash flood? They only managed to die tired.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Mudboy Slim; BlackElk
What is it about ILLEGAL Immigration that this writer doesn't grasp?! ILLEGAL Immigrants are breaking the laws of this Country as their Initial Act of "citizenship." Who could possibly in favor of that?!

Why don't you ask Black Elk?

34 posted on 03/15/2004 12:50:18 PM PST by WRhine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: kellynla
Excellent info.....wonder what it's ballooned to now?....and what source could we use to find out the actual numbers?
35 posted on 03/15/2004 12:55:26 PM PST by american spirit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk
BlackElk...you've not made yer opinion known yet on this thread, but I get the impression it differs from my own. IMHO, the problem with this writer is that he tries to blur the difference between ILLEGAL Immigration and LEGAL Immigration. I hope you will agree that they are as different as Black and White. Sensible LEGAL immigration is a great boon to this Nation, and we could even increase the numbers of new LEGAL Immigrants once we got the ILLEGAL Immigration problem under control.

However, ILLEGAL Immigration is a danger to this Country and must be brought to a halt!! Dubyuh's "Non-Amnesty" Amnesty program doesn't properly address this problem, imho.

FReegards...MUD

36 posted on 03/15/2004 1:00:36 PM PST by Mudboy Slim (RE-IMPEACH Osama bil Clinton!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: hchutch
"I don't like white supremacists, and eugenics (which was also advocated by Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger) is just as reprehensible. Quite frankly, if they were involved in starting up these groups, then I want no part of those groups."

I believe it is patently unfair to imply that Anti-ILLEGAL Immigration folks want anything to do with white supremacists, either, my FRiend. We simply need to get our borders under control, and to make it unprofitable to break the immigration laws of this Country. It can be accomplished, if only we demonstrate the Will to do it.

FReegards...MUD

37 posted on 03/15/2004 1:05:33 PM PST by Mudboy Slim (RE-IMPEACH Osama bil Clinton!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Mudboy Slim
I support the President's plan to resolve this issue. It's the best shot, I think, particularly given that we didn't have this problem until 1965, when we terminated the guest worker program we had in place.

Additionally, the stuff about Dr. Tanton in this article raises too many questions about the groups that Tancredo has associated himself with to make me comfortable with supporting their agenda. The money from the Pioneer Fund, given their agenda, speaks volumes.

These are two of the "heavyweights" opposing the President's plan. There may be an issue as to whether or not his plan "rewards" lawbreakers - I'll admit to that. Look at who folks at FAIR, VDARE, and CIS are making common cause with: radical environmentalists and zero-population growth types.

Those who oppose the President's plan tro deal with this issue and who do not support such things as white supremacy and eugenics need to speak out pretty firmly about this. But that does not seem to be happening. What else can I conclude but that at a minimum, people who appear with these folks don't see a problem with those links?
38 posted on 03/15/2004 1:20:18 PM PST by hchutch (Why did the Nazgul bother running from Arwen's flash flood? They only managed to die tired.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: hchutch
"There may be an issue as to whether or not his plan "rewards" lawbreakers - I'll admit to that."

That's my biggest problem with the whole thing...that and what I see as being insufficient attention being given to actually defending our borders against future ILLEGAL entry. I have a major issue with rewarding these "claim-jumpers" while law-abiding foreigners have been trying fer years to gain citizenship the legal and proper way, and they're still out in the cold.

"Look at who folks at FAIR, VDARE, and CIS are making common cause with: radical environmentalists and zero-population growth types."

I disagree with both groups on almost all the issues I can think of, but they are correct if they believe in defending our borders. It sucks their background can be used to discredit the perfectly-defensible position of being Anti-ILLEGAL Immigration, but that doesn't discount the validity of my position.

"Those who oppose the President's plan to deal with this issue and who do not support such things as white supremacy and eugenics need to speak out pretty firmly about this. But that does not seem to be happening. What else can I conclude but that at a minimum, people who appear with these folks don't see a problem with those links?"

Well I, for one, hereby reject White Supremicism and Zero Growth Advocacy...I think America's got plenty of room fer more folks, but they need to access the bounty of this Country in a way that respects the Laws and Customs of this Nation!!

FReegards...MUD

39 posted on 03/15/2004 1:38:25 PM PST by Mudboy Slim (RE-IMPEACH Osama bil Clinton!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: azhenfud
And of course, there are no benefits, only costs.

So damned transparent.
40 posted on 03/15/2004 1:41:43 PM PST by Luis Gonzalez (Unless the world is made safe for Democracy, Democracy won't be safe in the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: hchutch
You might want to re-read post #15 a little closer and do an estimate what those numbers will look like in 2004....then combine those figures with the plans to extend Soc. Security benefits to illegals and I'll be curious to see how "comfortable" you are with the WSJ's position on this matter at that point.
41 posted on 03/15/2004 2:04:51 PM PST by american spirit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: international american; Monterrosa-24
Georgia is beiing innundated as well.
42 posted on 03/15/2004 2:09:07 PM PST by 4CJ (||) OUR sins put Him on that cross - HIS love for us kept Him there. (||)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: american spirit
No comment on Dr. Tanton's connections with Planned Parenthood or the money from the Pioneer Fund?

Or do you not have a problem with the fatc that FAIR and CIS have taken money from a white supremacist group that endorses "racial purity" vie eugenics?
43 posted on 03/15/2004 2:10:02 PM PST by hchutch (Why did the Nazgul bother running from Arwen's flash flood? They only managed to die tired.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: 4ConservativeJustices
PS. I have no problem with LEGAL immigrants ...
44 posted on 03/15/2004 2:10:24 PM PST by 4CJ (||) OUR sins put Him on that cross - HIS love for us kept Him there. (||)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
....and pretty damn accurate I would add.
45 posted on 03/15/2004 2:10:45 PM PST by american spirit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: hchutch
Since I don't support either group it's immaterial.....still estimating those costs on what illegals are costing us and aren't you just gonna love sharing Soc. Sec. $ with these people?
46 posted on 03/15/2004 2:14:24 PM PST by american spirit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: american spirit
still estimating those costs on what illegals are costing us and aren't you just gonna love sharing Soc. Sec. $ with these people?

I'm wondering how long they'll feel like paying in until they decide they don't wanna share with "nativists" like me.

47 posted on 03/15/2004 2:19:27 PM PST by skeeter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: 4ConservativeJustices
This is a shame. I guess the south and the west are being hammered with illegals.
48 posted on 03/15/2004 2:21:31 PM PST by international american (DU trolls outsourced for free!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: american spirit
It's simply ridiculous for anyone to think "giving some sort of legalization status" would keep 8-12 million Illegaliens from mushrooming to 80-144 million in three years if "not an amnesty" is granted.
49 posted on 03/15/2004 2:24:04 PM PST by azhenfud ("He who is always looking up seldom finds others' lost change...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: 4ConservativeJustices
I don't either but why in the heck are we spending so much money on services for them? I would sure assume that if they've become naturalized I would think they could at least support themselves. I wouldn't even mind supporting them for a period of time if need be but I think the $ spent on them is outrageous.
50 posted on 03/15/2004 2:25:36 PM PST by american spirit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-103 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