. . a thread restricted to practical, positive. pro-active things that this huge forum filled with good people who love this country can actually DO . .
then betrayed your purpose in starting the thread with this:
....but we ALL want to end this invasion, and help our brothers and sisters in the Southwest to have their safe and normal lives return, and prevent the invasion from moving further.
Maybe you'd like to have a civil discussion (we all would) rather than a flame war for a change. If so, I suggest you begin the next thread on a more civil note, and on a higher level than that sunk to by some popular columnists and commentators.
In formulating public policy, it is always best to start by establishing broad goals, then discussing methods, winnowing out the impossible and unfeasible until you've narrowed the choices to a few which meet the objectives while at the same time having the least negative impact on the population in terms of tax burden, regulations, etc.
This methodology is almost totally absent in the ongoing debate, such as it is, on talk radio and forums such as Free Republic. It has been all about methods, assuming -- incorrectly, in my opinion -- that the goal has already been settled on. It's called getting your cart before the horse, and nothing good can come of it.
For that reason, I intend this to be my only contribution to your noble venture, ohioWfan.
Good luck.
ADIOS
I'm not sure what you mean. Is it the word "invasion" that bothers you? Other than that, do you disagree with the proposition?
I don't think anyone else believes that my comments are anything less than civil.
Thanks for stating that so clearly. I don't know how I got so foggy headed as to miss that point, but I did. I have pointed out that our immigration laws don't suit our needs, but I never posted what I thought our goals should be. And, no, construction of a fence is not a worthy goal. :-)