posted on 03/15/2004 8:41:52 AM PST
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-24 next last
Shh, don't confuse Hannity with reasoned intelligent thought.
posted on 03/15/2004 8:47:31 AM PST
(Always understand, even if you remain among the few)
To borrow a phrase, "Its the illegality, stupid!"
posted on 03/15/2004 8:48:25 AM PST
(I shall do neither. I have killed my captain...and my friend.)
So the "ReConquest" continues with the help of this useful idiot. Personally I don't enjoy seeing our culture submerged by Mexico.
posted on 03/15/2004 8:50:34 AM PST
(France kicked Germany's teeth out at Verdun among other places.)
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?
posted on 03/15/2004 8:54:01 AM PST
"....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".
posted on 03/15/2004 8:54:34 AM PST
("He who is always looking up seldom finds others' lost change...")
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.
posted on 03/15/2004 8:55:04 AM PST
( "If Bill Shakespeare lived today, would he have written a sequel call "Egglet"?")
Interesting information, thanks.
posted on 03/15/2004 8:55:22 AM PST
"Foreigners have always served to enrich our culture"
|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.
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.
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.
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.
posted on 03/15/2004 9:01:44 AM PST
(Malcontent for Bush - 2004!)
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)
posted on 03/15/2004 9:05:43 AM PST
(U.S.M.C. "C" 1/5 1st Mar Div. Viet Nam 69&70 Semper Fi "KERRY IS A LYING TRAITOR!")
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.
posted on 03/15/2004 9:27:59 AM PST
posted on 03/15/2004 9:30:03 AM PST
Ping for later.
posted on 03/15/2004 10:52:56 AM PST
(Dean of Discipline of the Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Club)
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
posted on 03/15/2004 11:27:03 AM PST
(http://freedomstruth.blogspot.com - Disturb, manipulate, demonstrate for the right thing)
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?!
posted on 03/15/2004 11:28:59 AM PST
by Mudboy Slim
(RE-IMPEACH Osama bil Clinton!!)
"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).
posted on 03/15/2004 11:34:59 AM PST
by Mudboy Slim
(RE-IMPEACH Osama bil Clinton!!)
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.
posted on 03/15/2004 11:37:03 AM PST
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.
posted on 03/15/2004 11:55:13 AM PST
Get rid of all entitlements, and I'll be happy to support broad legal immigration.
posted on 03/15/2004 2:29:42 PM PST
(We cannot defeat foreign enemies of the Constitution if we yield to the domestic ones.)
And California Republicans learned the hard way in the mid-1990s, courtesy of the anti-immigrant Proposition 187, that denying education and health benefits to eight-year-old aliens is a political loser in the long run.
It wasn't 187 that marginalized the GOP in CA. 187 was passed by a healthy margin in California--well beyond anything Republicans could've mustered without appealing to a broad voter base. So called "Son of 187" is on the agenda for November's CA election.
And as was said above, "It's the illegality, stupid."
posted on 03/15/2004 3:57:18 PM PST
(Send Dick Murphy packing; Ron Roberts for Mayor.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-24 next last
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson