Posted on 05/17/2006 12:53:23 PM PDT by petertare
"But it always seemed that the immigration issue would get the genuine bigots fulminating with red faces from the back of the room, to the extent you just didn't want to even associate with 'em."
Mywife is a legal immigrant born in Korea.
She is adamantly opposed to illegal immigration and to amnesty and the kinds of unfair leg up for illegal immigrants. I think legal immigrants know more than anyone that immigration is a privilege that shouldnt be abused by lawbreakers.
On May 1st, 2006, as a result of the Mexican boycott promoted across our country, national retailers reported 4.2% lower sales for the day and a whopping 67.8% reduction in shoplifting.
Forgot the /S.
"She is adamantly opposed to illegal immigration and to amnesty and the kinds of unfair leg up for illegal immigrants. I think legal immigrants know more than anyone that immigration is a privilege that shouldnt be abused by lawbreakers."
I would certainly not dispute that. I was trying to point out that the tendency of some unsavory characters to be attracted to this has made it difficult to deal with the policy issues in a rational way. IOW, one reason that the left has been able to tar the real immigration reform movement as racist is that there are some actual racists who (loudly) demand some of the same policies that we do.
But, that's largely water under the bridge, at least for now. The issue, for a lot of reasons, has broken out from its niche or regional base, and has generated a broad mainstream consensus: "Enforcment first. No amnesty. We'll talk about "guest workers" after we settle the first two." This is not necessarily how I would want to approach things in an ideal world, but rather is my read as to what seems to be a rapidly building centrist consensus position, at least for folks outside of the beltway.
"I would certainly not dispute that. I was trying to point out that the tendency of some unsavory characters to be attracted to this has made it difficult to deal with the policy issues in a rational way. "
I'd point out that underneath that's an ad hominem argument.
Further, majorities of Americans support the House bill approach (HR 4437). Let's go that way.
Conservative demands?
No one except those evil conservatives wants national security?
"Further, majorities of Americans support the House bill approach (HR 4437)."
Agreed. This would have the great advantage of comporting with political reality vs. the "all at once" approach advocated by the party leadership.
"underneath that's an ad hominem argument."
No, I think it's more correctly termed guilt by association.
Yeah but they call for citizenship for illegals here now. The only thing they're going to accomplish is keep the illegals who should be thrown out in the country. Thanks a bunch you bunch of sellouts.
The Senate bill will let in 100-190 million aliens in the next twenty years, legally, with papers, at border entry points.
With this massive (five fold) increase in legal migration, even a pefect 2000 mile wall would be nonsense, a "Maginot line" that third-world migrants outflank by entering legally though the hugely expanded legal numbers.
The result: We become a crowded, non-Western country, but with a really nice fence.
Here's the new link (for as long as IT lasts): thomas.gov
And cortina wire. . .
The bill authorizes appropriation of funds to pay for it.
I'll bet it could be built with taxpayer donations and wouldn't cost a cent beyond voluntary contributions.
I just hope the construction process doesn't become a boondoggle.
The correct order of action is:
Build the fence and enforce the border. Deport the illegals (with priority for the violent criminals). Adjust foreign policy so as to NOT prop up corrupt regimes such as Mexico. Then think about policies to MAYBE increase immigration.
Would Hastert allow a joint bill on the floor of the house that includes an amnesty provision? I doubt it...it'd get most dem votes and probably enough Rep votes to pass, but I don't think the House GOP leadership will even let it hit the floor...much less agree to the provision in conference.
Sounds like the Maginot Line. They'll just go around it.
I look for the president to veto this one.
We should build 370 miles of fence around the Senate, to prevent them from making things worse....
Israel has almost a pure terrorism issue with their fence - we don't have that with mexico.
forgive me regarding the landmine comment - I got carried away after reading the boiling oil moat and machine gun ideas - which of course, I understand are facetious. But still, that general approach is not the way to go.
I can live with the anti-vehicle barrier, the fence, the sensors, the surveillance. the barbed wire concerns me, because the first time ABC can get a video of someone being cut to ribbons caught in it, public support for the security fence will drop 20%.
and let me also add - the barbed wire doesn't concern me only because of the "spin" issue I noted - I don't generally see that we want to physically injure anyone with this security fence.
>>>> .... the first time ABC can get a video of someone being cut to ribbons caught in it, public support for the security fence will drop 20%.
And the next terrorist attack on the US could be with WMD. Time to wise up.
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.