Posted on 01/05/2008 7:01:12 PM PST by Tekgeek
Raisinet Theory on Immigration
The political obfuscation of the phrase "back of the line"....
Consider hundreds of people waiting in line for a new hit movie. They've been waiting outside the theater for hours in the cold pouring rain.
Along come a bunch of people who sneak in the back door of the movie theater and sit down in front of the big screen.
The manager of the theater knows that it's unfair, but instead of kicking them out and making them get in the back of the line outside in the rain, he stipulates that as punishment for cutting everyone, they have to pay $6 for a box of raisinets instead of $3 and get in the back of the refreshment line IF they happen to get hungry. He explains that he isn't providing amnesty for the line cutters since they have to wait longer for their raisinets and have to pay more for them in the form of a "line cutting tax".
The raisinets represent citizenship, and the seat in the theater represents being allowed to live legally in the United States.
If you were to ask the people who waited outside in line for the movie which they would prefer - the ability to watch their movie immediately and have to pay a little more for raisinets if they get hungry, or would they prefer to stay in the rain for an undetermined number of hours but get their raisinets more cheaply if and when they finally get inside, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to determine those people would grab the seat in the theater in a heartbeat.
It's not a question about getting to the back of the line... It's a question about WHICH line you're forced to get to the back of, and politicians trying to "pass off" the refreshment line as being the same thing as the line outside in the rain are being disingenuous beyond comprehension.
Good analogy. Maybe denser politicians can understand...
Nah ...they only understand pandering.
Nice analogy.
Bad analogy: Who in the hell goes to movie theaters anymore?
However, if you replace the movie theater with truly coveted seats at the Super Bowl, now you’re talkin’!
The current data tends to disprove the Krackle bar theory (not enough mass, rice is light you know).The ice cream bon-bon theory contrarily leads to infinite mass. The buttered popcorn theory has always intrigued me. I think a grant is in order...
You’re right. That “back of the line” stuff is pure bull. If illegals get to wait in our country - and work their normal “under the table” job - who cares if it’s called “being at the back of the line” or if it’s called “giving the finger” to all of us? Either way, they’re in - and the legal immigrants are out. And the crap about making them “pay a fine” - it’s no different than selling citizenship. And selling it cheap. Hell, the folks sneaking them into our country charge more. Our guys need to get real.
But, but ... but the $6.00 Raisinets are provided free, along with a super large tub of popcorn and delivery of your first six kids if you can show a it would be a hardship to pay the original $3.00 cost of the Raisinets. There is always a loophole ... politicians specialize in those.
Do you know Obama pimps the illegal aliens- even with the fact that they bring in more violent crime into the U.S, as well as cost us billions in tax dollars to care for them and their offspring?
Obama said the recent Senate immigration debate “was both ugly and racist in a way we haven’t see since poststhe struggle for civil rights.”...
Obama told La Raza that the mass protests lately of for immigration rights of Mexicans is equal in greatness to the civil rights protest of the past.
[www.freerepublic.com] [www.washingtontimes.com]
[cbs4.com] [www.worldnetdaily.com]
[www.freedomsenemies.com]
Omama supports La Raza’s, the “DREAM Act,” which would mandate states to offer in-state tuition rates to illegal aliens — thus providing them with benefits not available to U.S. citizens from other states.
Listen to that SOB! When we’re paying billions to support illegals!! He’s got ‘em yelling, ‘Obama! Obama! (La Raza is a militant Mexican illegal alien rights group)
[www.youtube.com]
[www.youtube.com]
“I will stand with the Muslims and protect them..” Obama. [www.freedomsenemies.com]
McCain had to answer questions on amnesty in the Jan. 5 debate. Even though, after the failure of the amnesty bill in 2007, he said he got the message that the people want us to “secure the border first” (actually, a secure border is just one thing we need — we also need lots more ICE agents and much more aggressive workplace enforcement, need better documents, need a system which tracks exiting the country for visa holders, etc. etc. etc,) and the “secure border” would have to be “certified” by the border governors before illegals would get to stay here (he assures us that’s not “amnesty,” but Fred questioned that assertion).
Now think about those governors: Perry, Richardson, Napolitano, Schwartzenegger. Are any of them trustworthy?
save
bttt
Excellent analogy. Speaking of disingenuous....I would add this....If a ruckus were to ensue over ‘illegal line cutters’ and the Theater Manager announced that he was going to begin to enforce the ‘end of the line’ theater rules...would he do so BEFORE or AFTER the CURRENT illegal line jumpers have paid for their high priced refreshments and have been seated for the movie?
The specifics of timing are purposefully not being addressed by those same ‘end of the line’ touting Candidates, who are also promising to “enforce our immigration laws” or use “attrition through enforcement” and denial of Federal benefits, jobs, punishment of employers, etc.
I HIGHLY suspect that ALL of the top tier candidates will use the economy as an excuse to grant a revolving door/touch back amnesty to both illegal aliens and their employers PRIOR TO any future application of the denial of bennies or the attrition through enforcement of our immigration laws.
I also suspect that most ‘border security first’ Candidates are NOT considering completion of the Hunter double fence, but will depend on technology regardless of it’s effectiveness. I don’t trust that any of them are truly in favor of border security, but rather are Bush-type CFR/open borders/’free’ trade globalists...knowlingly being supported by the same here.
Not to mention that simply getting into that line is a difficult thing in the first place.
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.