Posted on 02/16/2010 8:10:38 AM PST by rabscuttle385
Oklahoma passed strict immigration laws a few years ago and many illegals left the state voluntarily knowing their fate if they remained.Many left, and many went to other states.The federal government will not have to physically remove millions of illegals as they to will leave the country of their own accord if the federal government strictly enforced federal laws.
If all states (and the feds) enforced current laws we would see a massive change in the amount of illegal insurgent criminal invading aliens here.
It's one thing to screw up and miss one of the many laws in our overly litigious society, a natural byproduct of Big Government and its attempt to micro-manage everything.
It's another thing to advocate that the U.S. government simply give up on enforcing valid law en masse.
Trying to stretch my position to the extreme in an attempt to make me appear as a kook...now that's sad, but not totally unexpected from the Squatter Support Squad.
No. You’re just a plain old garden variety RINO.
“Yes, we must immediately imprison 11 million illegals in camps, then drive them on a Bataan march across the Rio.”
Why not?
They marched their asses over here, they can march back.
It was good enough for my ancestors (and they didn’t break in illegally!), it’s good enough for them. Except with the squatter law breakers, we send them on planes with food!
Where is Andrew Jackson when we need him!
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2401786/posts?page=12#12
So Defense is just over half of the 1/3 that is considered "discretionary". They also lump in money needed to maintain our embassys around the world as defense.
There is nothing disingenuous about making a distinction between an amnesty that puts people who entered the country illegal onto a track toward citizenship, thereby rewarding their contempt for law, and an amnesty that regularizes their status by ‘grandfathering’ them into a guest-worker program as part of a reform of immigration policy that simultaneously secures the borders and addresses the reliance of some industries on economic migrants.
I have long been absolutely opposed to the former, which is what everyone from G.W. Bush left seem to mean (in Orwellian fashion) by “comprehensive immigration reform” and supportive of the latter, which is what the phrase should mean. It sounds to me like Palin is spot on on the issue.
She did make anti amnesty comments back in Nov. and Dec. I'm surprised you don't know about them being how " so objective about Palin" you seem to be.
Obama and the Democrat Congress are decimating our defense companies all the while we fight two wars against Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan and what was Al Qaeda in Iraq.
As an up close and personal observation, I can tell you our best engineers are leaving (or being laid off from) our defense companies.
Yet you're "so concerned" about defense spending. Very sad, really.
Ergo, anyone who exceeds the speed limit while driving has no respect for the law and will violate other laws as they do the traffic laws.
I am in fact a strong proponent of increased enforcement of the immigration laws. I am also smart enough to know that the laws were not written with any intent to enforce them, so collectively they are not enforceable. A single minded devotion to enforcing the existing laws will result in a massive waste of resources and only limited progress in creating immigration control.
It is, however, posssible to modify the laws to identify qualified individual who would be a benefit to the country, value the opportunity presented to them and are willing to make an enforceable commitment to be law abiding, tax paying, English speaking residents of the United States. Isn't that really the end goal?
They should rename it the southern national convention.
A movement for liberty should not be a centralized movement, but rather one that advocates each individual people’s of the united States desire for more liberty.
That means in liberal pro-drug states they should be nullying drug laws. In Conservative pro-gun and pro-life states they should be nulling gun laws and nullying the Federal Roe v. wade. And everything in between!
The Very idea of Liberty is not a uniform homogeneous consent, it is different to each of us, and it speaks in the very simple language of decentralized power.
We need not agree on how to uses that power, indeed that is the whole point! we don’t and will never fully agree on that.
We should not even try, for trying is to compromise where we do not need to compromise!
In truth only “compromise” we need make is to leave each other alone so that we can each best pursue our own happiness. That should be our one and only Federal policy, as any other policy forces us to compromise more then necessary.
To this same end we need not a signal political party, but rather we should utilizes BOTH political party’s where they are willing to help us. We are a movement of people pursue our own happiness, not a political party.
Liberty is not something that has an identical image for every man,woman and child. Indeed the very nature of liberty defy that cookie cutter image because the very nature of individuals are different form each other.
Liberty is that which WE define and choose for ourselves, and our own communities. We should not and need not agree on theses things because we are not all the same person!
Ergo we shouldn't charge anyone who commits murder since laws addressing murder weren't really written to prevent such a crime
I based my statements on your exact words. Now please provide where I indicated either of the above concepts. You can't because they could not be farther from the truth. You have assigned those positions to me without any basis.
Why bother modifying laws that aren't meant to be enforced in the first place as you claim? Just ignore them.
I would think that answer is rather self evident. To establish a set of laws that are coherent one to the next; that have specific intent and enforceable outcomes. Apparently you have never taken a close look at the existing laws. If you apprehend an illegal alien and establish, without violating their civil rights, that they are in fact illegal, what can be done? Deport them. So, they simply reenter the country. You catch them again and what can you do. Deport them. So they simply reenter the country... Get the picture? It costs more to apprehend, investigate and deport them than it does for them to get back in. The laws are not coherent. Among other things, the consequences do not adequately escalate with recidivism. At any given point, the laws might be clear on the actions to be taken at that time. However, those actions are not part of a comprehensive package to incentivise correct behavior and dis-incentivise bad behavior.
Why do you post this crap?
Maybe because he is an antiwar Paultard nutbar himself?
“What exactly about Rabs post was a lie? If Palin wants to come out against ANY kind of amnesty than she has every opportunity to do so with all her speeches, interviews and Fox News gig. But she doesn’t. She waffles, obfuscates, misdirects and in effect refuses to answer the question she’s asked.”
Palin has had 6 major interviews, where she was asked about amnesty, from Hannity to Lars Larson, and every time she “waffled, obfuscated, and misdirected”. To me, she is as phony as a 6 dollar bill. Her campaigning for McCain against Hayworth sealed it for me.
Those terms seem to always go together don't they?
One thing about the TEA party that can not be understated is that it must be open to all, including the “crasys”. because, at some basic level theses people too desire liberty. their reasons for that desiring of liberty are not important anymore then our own reasons.
Also their other believes beyond that desire of liberty are not important, we need not agree on them things, we need only agree on the need to leave each other alone to pursue our own happiness.
Whatever else you might believe is not my concern, as it nether breaks my leg nor picks my pocket, so long as you agree to leave me alone.
It REALLY doesn’t matter in the context of the TEA party movement if your a truther or whatever else!
“She did make anti amnesty comments back in Nov. and Dec. I’m surprised you don’t know about them being how “ so objective about Palin” you seem to be. “
Post it!
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.