I'm 100% certain that if the internet had been around in 1940, lots of "Norwegians" (sic) would have been writing posts stating that their countrymen (sic) should welcome their German brothers with open arms.
Posted on 12/03/2005 9:06:48 AM PST by ncountylee
Your premise is the wrong premise. You see, a leftist says that when you bring a free system in contact with a non-free system, or a system that has prospered to a system that has not prospered, that the LOWER SYSTEM PULLS DOWN THE HIGHER. It is a basic premise of leftist thought, predicated on limited resources and a number of other ideas.
One who believes in free markets says that the overall picture is that BOTH economies prosper, and that a vibrant dynamic FREE system of markets lifts up, rather than being pulled down.
The leftist looks and says "fear." The freedom advocate says "opportunity"
The leftist says "their problems will overwhelm us. close the door quick!" Free market advocates say "LOOK at all that untapped potential, and those future millionaires."
The leftist says "protect what you have!" Freedom says "we can all have more, no matter who has what now."
It is really just a matter of how you look at it, and your basic beliefs about the transforming nature of freedom.
Would "intellectually obtuse, ideologically straitjacket, misguided and cranially deficient zealots" sound nicer?
Thinking like that, you'll also get NO spending discipline...which is exactly what we've gotten.
They're supposed to be CO-EQUAL branches, regardless of party.
This President, unfortunately, has side-stepped that duty...spending being the most glaring example of his refusal to reign in a Congress that is spending like drunken sailors.
And on CFR, he deferred to both the Congress AND the Supreme Court!
Sorry, but that was dereliction of his Executive duty.
We may not agree on immigration, but it is sure hard to argue with you on that particular post. Does anyone know whatever happened to that line item veto stuff they were supposed to be bringing back up? Reagan really went to bat for that. It would require a constitutional amendment, but it is sorely needed.
Liked Alan Cranston, and Hayakawa did you? That kind of claptrap is just silly. California is and has been a haven for liberal goobs for years. Mexicans have not changed that.
Obviously you agree that the Republican plan is to turn the country back over to the Democrat party in 2006 and 2008. Yeah, I know that is not what you meant to imply, but it stands to reason.
The self-anointed elites in both parties have the same ultimate goals -- they simply use slightly different campaigns to win political support toward their common goal.
The ultimate goal of both the globalist liberal Democrats and the globalist neo-cons is global communism, wherein a small cadre of self-anointed elites reap the financial and political benefits of a massive underclass of peons with no political or economic means to resist the tyranny. The party that gets us there first obviously gets the choice cuts, but both groups expect to be sitting pretty, relative to the unwashed masses.
The differences in their methods keep the voting population at each others' throats while the plan moves forward without a hitch. The Democrat plan is to disarm the domestic population and expand control outward through management-by-crisis. The neo-con plan is to economically destroy the middle class with a massive influx of third-world worker-bees and the outsourcing of jobs and productive capacity.
The Democrats talk up taxes, gun control, health care, social security, public education, environmentalism, with massive police state powers to enforce their vision. The outward push of their utopian vision necessitates international policing under the auspices of UN peace-keeping.
The neo-cons talk up tax deflection, free trade, nation building, open borders, corporatism, with external military police actions to enforce their vision. The influx of third-world culture and crime into the domestic scene necessitates more militarized domestic police forces.
Either push leads to a globalist two-tiered Hell-on-Earth existence for the majority of the population.
Both are anti-American, anti-Constitution at their core.
Spoken like a true populist.
How is life in your well stocked bunker?
ping
I'm 100% certain that if the internet had been around in 1940, lots of "Norwegians" (sic) would have been writing posts stating that their countrymen (sic) should welcome their German brothers with open arms.
How does one obtain citizenship? Either by birth or naturalization. So a child born in the USA of an illegal or guest worker is at birth a US citizen, thus putting them at the head of the line in front or those who waited patiently outside the country to be admitted
How does one naturalize? By being admitted for permanent residence first. How does one get admitted for permanent residence? By having immediate relatives legally in the USA (including spouse sons & daughters)or adjusting status from another classification such as guest worker, or by winning the green card lottery or waiting long enough to be included in a quota. Another method whereby illegals are on a fast track to citizenship ahead of those who waited to be admited legally.
Protect our borders and coastlines from all foreign invaders!
Support our Minutemen Patriots!
Be Ever Vigilant ~ Bump!
Just say what you really mean. Anybody that doesn't agree with your grand scheme is dumb as dirt. Oh, and a Marxist.
I would support a limited guest worker program ONLY if the illegal aliens here go home first, and then reapply to enter the country for a limited time. That said, everyone knows if you leave the illegals already in the country here, then when the six years is up they will not be returning, and THAT IS THE PROBLEM.
They will if we voters pile on enough pressure to give them the cover they'll need.
At the time interior repatriation was originally agreed upon between Mexico and us the deal was the "undocumented" immigrant had to agree to being repatriated to the interior and the Mexican government had to verify the "undocumented" immigrant's decision.
So is the President's claim a mite misleading? Or will we do it without asking? Fat chance IMO.
Does expanding the program mean that the "undocumented" immigrants will get round trip tickets? :>)
This is nonsense...It's not a leftist thought...It's the thought of about 80% of Americans whether they be liberal or conservative...
Bush's plan is wide open borders...And when that happens, we'll be flooded with foreigners...Americans won't be able to buy a job...
And as you say in this piece, that's great for some (the illegal mexicans) since it will raise their wages and it's great for others (the people hiring the cheap labor)...Your pipedream will put the screws to the average American...
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.