Posted on 12/03/2005 9:06:48 AM PST by ncountylee
What does he care about "losing our republican form of government" ? He figures whatever happens to America and its people he will be el jefe in cheap labor heaven. The world will be his brothel/slave quarters.
The President will sign and implement the legislation that Congress enacts.
The President will spend the money that Congress appropriates.
Just another example of something you think you know that you are clueless about. Please refrain from posting this kind of shit. I want a free America that WELCOMES immigrants and believes the principles of freedom are a blessing to all and will work for all. I think you people who are frightened of the people coming in are responding to the same kind of fears that have always launched arguments against free markets when they perceived them as a threat. It is leftist thinking. You want to argue about THAT, and I am ready to rock. You want to talk about my perceived hatred of my own culture, or wanting feudalism or any other yawlp about my psyche, then it would be better to find a bitchy little clique of teenage girls to argue with about why so and so gets the best dates.
I had no idea that bureau of labor statistics hard data on mean wages was a globalist biased immigration impact study. Thanks for the tip off.
(REMEMBER: "THEY" are everywhere!)
I thought that was what Bush was proposing.... "changing the law." Or is it only certain parts of the law? Or is there some sort of sacred order of statute change?
It was you advocating for selective enforcement based upon "social reasons" in your post.
The President will spend the money that Congress appropriates.
Of course he will. He doesn't know what a veto pen is...
Your desire to reduce the American standard of living to a third world mean level (how dare some American peon challenge the "free market" ?), your argument that the American people have no right to the fruits of their labor (how dare Americans demand such socialistic things as public health service ! Bring back typhus, tuberculosis, and diphteria ! In fact, thanks to your precious illegals diseases are now appearing in this country that only existed in history books.) clearly shows that behind your claptrap about "freedom" is a desire for a society with feudal levels of privilege and inequality. And as I have pointed out feudalism is the logical consequence of libertarianism.
Yes also remember: They can't keep the trains running on time and they can't keep the public toilets unclogged but they are balls to the wall at being "everywhere".
Yeah, yeah. We still have enough areas doing well to counter the negatives, for now. But you need to look at areas where Illegals are a major portion of the population to see the damage to social services. Kern County Ca. is such a place. Ranks among the worst in health care, schools, crime, unemployment as high as 20% in some areas.
" Tne next lie is that "they are not assimilating..."
Not a lie, only a fool would claim otherwise. The proof is everywhere , if you look and listen.
" The next lie is "they don't pay taxes..."
Of course they pay some. The point is, what they consume in services is MANY times what they put in. Also false, the notion the IRS does nothing in regards to false SS#s used by Illegals. Business are routinely notified of these discrepancies. When confronted the Illegals just move to the next business.
"The next lie is that illegals have a higher crime rate than US citizens..."
Please. Now you have lost all credibility. You are actually claiming that Illegals do not commit crime. LOL!!!
Let's see: The people of this country elect their congressmen and the congressmen vote for ultimately what winds up on the president's desk.
Then you blame the president for not vetoing what the congress voted for and for not vetoing what the people voted for.
Why should a politician president veto what the people want?
I was merely commenting on his failure to veto even one bill.
There are plenty that he should have vetoed.
Don't you think?
Or do you like so-called CFR, which gutted the First Amendment?
Not even one spending bill you think he should have axed?
Hey, the people elected him, too.
And they expect him to act as a brake on a spendthrift Congress...that's his constitutional duty.
The republicans best get what they can before 2006 and 2008.
The bold was my attempt to be honest in ascribing the original quote (as above) to which I was repsonding by putting it in boldface. Wasn't trying to dodge what you were saying by ascribing it to myself.
I can't see where I have ever argued for "selective enforcement." If we change laws for social reasons (which we do all the time), that is not "selective enforcement." It is simply an acknowledgement of the social reality we have allowed to transpire and/or brought on ourselves.
It is clear that you and a number of freepers do not LIKE that approach. It is not clear as to why you don't like it. It is clear that some here are absolutely mesmerized by the pipe dream of expelling 10 million plus people and building a wall, and won't hear of anything else. No other way to put it but that they are simple dumbasses. Some of them are racist dumbasses. Some are xenophobe (kind of a cultural racism) dumbasses. Some are populist dumbasses (a populist is a blue collar worker with an American flag, a union card, and an economic system of thought that contains varying degrees of Marxism. Most of 'em loved Ross Perot and they all think Pat Buchanan is really cool), but they are all absolutists, and braying dyspeptics ready to fire up the torches and storm the castle on every issue that the RINOs have sold them out on, because idelological purity must be maintained at all costs, and it is better to sink the ship with flags flying than.... blah blah blah.
I have no idea if you are a part of that crowd, but they all seem drawn to the immigrant threads.
I was merely commenting on his failure to veto even one bill.
When the president and congress are of the same party, you'll see few if any vetoes.
There are plenty that he should have vetoed. Don't you think?
You, myself and most here at FR think that. But unfortunately we're still not a majority.
If it truly is a TEMPORARY guestworker plan that Bush is proposing, and it is enforced, then I will be behind it. My fear is that we will end up with some version of McKennedy, which is by no means temporary.
I hope you are correct, and that this truly is TEMPORARY and not amnesty.
Name calling on FR is never called for. IMHO
Yes. The plan puts the guest workers at the back of the citizenship line.
But enforcement? Problema grande.
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.