Posted on 09/11/2012 11:16:54 AM PDT by Bratch
Latinos are religious, morally conservative and tend disproportionately to join the military. They also tend to be hard working and entrepreneurial. Do we really have too many of them?
Do we really want to pack them up, forcibly, by the millions in the greatest forced migration in human history? How many are there, 15, maybe 20 million? No one has ever moved 15 million people against their will. No one has ever moved half that many without concentration camps, forced marches of one form or another and mass death through plague.
If there’s another way to do it, please tell me what it is. But I haven’t heard one. What I hear is slogans like ‘what part of illegal don’t you understand’ and attacks on ‘amnesty.’ Slogans move callers to dial in to talk radio, but they don’t move 20 million people voluntarily back into poverty and squalor. Soldiers do that (unhappy ones); box cars full of people do that. Camps surrounded by barbed wire do that. In the end you either let them stay or you herd them out. If you want to call it amnesty, go ahead.
After all, what’s wrong with amnesty? The idea has a well-worn legal tradition, one strongly associated with the Christian faith. It means forgiveness. After the Civil War, Lincoln offered amnesty to rebel soldiers. Was he wrong to do so? They had taken up arms against their own government; they had killed hundreds of thousands. But Lincoln (as opposed to the radical republicans) had the wisdom to offer forgiveness. What about runaway slaves after emancipation? They had broken the law, shouldn’t they have had to pay the price even after the laws were changed? Of course not. Why should immigration laws be any different?
(Excerpt) Read more at finance.townhall.com ...
In the early 1990s, Bowyer was the executive director of the National Reform Association, an organization with close ties to the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America.
He called for creation of a “theocracy” in America: “Christocracy, the rule of Christ over the nation,” he called it once, according to a 1999 Washington Post article.
Bowyer changed his position on religion and state in the mid 90s and frequently asserted his disagreements with the religious right and agreements with the position of the founding fathers on his radio program
Amnesty has been tried before, and it made the situation worse. Look up Simpson-Mazzoli, people.
Rewarding line-jumpers and law breakers is not a “conservative” policy.
Creating a new underclass is not a “conservative” policy.
Bankrupting our hospitals, social services and taxpayers to take care of these invaders is not a “conservative” policy.
What the heck is wrong with this guy? Mr. Bowyer needs to return his conservative badge with the googly eyes and go off to work for the Left.
Great Plan!
So destitute people from third world countries should be free to walk across open borders and ‘share’ the wealth. And this is conservative, free market capitalism, right? No education, no experience with self rule, accustomed to ‘working’ a corrupt system run by an hereditary elite - but they will fit right in and make an immediate contribution, right?
What Friedman said was that we HAD open borders in the nineteenth century, but it didn’t matter because we had NO social welfare system, so the immigrants either took the dirty jobs that no one else wanted, or they starved. Friedman’s position was NOT that the immigrants should not be eligible for welfare, but that governments should not engage in social welfare.
As far as the Levitical law somehow stipulating share and share alike for unwanted immigrants, each family had a portion of the land allotted by tribe, and the land could not be permanently sold/traded/given to a foreigner. In Israel’s bronze/iron age agrarian economy, land was the source of all wealth.
Its amazing how we can twist any dataset to agree with our predetermined view though, isn’t it?
1. E-Verify
2. Random sweeps
3. Secure the boarder
4. No welfare
5. Punish sanctuary cities/states
6. No public services
7. Work hand-in-hand with the states
8. No welfare
9. No welfare
10. No welfare
...
1,000 No welfare
Not that the other items aren't good, but when being here illegally doesn't 'pay' as well as it does now, that's pretty much all it takes to solve the problem.
He called for creation of a “theocracy” in America: “Christocracy, the rule of Christ over the nation,” he called it once, according to a 1999 Washington Post article.
Bowyer changed his position on religion and state in the mid 90s and frequently asserted his disagreements with the religious right and agreements with the position of the founding fathers on his radio program
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
He was wrong then. He is wrong now.
Bowyer is a moron committing an oxymoron. There is no difference between the beliefs of the Religous Right and those of the Founding Fathers.
Both groups acknowledge God as the Creator and author of all our inalienable rights.
When what they came here for, work and benefits, are no longer made available to them - they will leave.
It is as simple as that.
As to those who decry ‘making things so miserable, so oppressive, so mean!’ that people self deport - are we actually responsible for providing jobs and benefits to illegal aliens?
If you don't offer food and drinks to someone you INVITED into your home you are a bad host - but are you a bad host if you decline to offer food and drink to someone who illegal BROKE IN to your home?
I don't think so.
Hah!
(See tagline for my thoughts on Libertarians.)
Did they also - while welcoming illegals - ask them to bring plenty of dope across also?
The problem is that the article ascribes the merits of legal immigrants to the criminals in an apparent attempt to whitewash them. They are not the same. That initial criminal act leads to a criminal’s view of the US, just as that initial decision to follow the rules colors how the legal immigrants view their new country.
100 Passengers per train car in a 100 car train = 10,000 people
5 trains a day = 50,000
run the trains 300 days (6 days a week, no Sundays or holidays) and you have moved 15 million passengers in one year.
no forced marches, no death camps, no plague.
lets not forget, most of them walked here, I think we can bus, ship, train, fly them back with no trouble.
I have reached the boiling point with self-appointed experts who constantly tell us all the things we CAN’T do. Have any one of them offered a solution, other than breaking the law that is virtually ignored? No, the “experts” are too busy pushing for “comprehensive immigration reform”.
Everytime I hear a politician say “comprehensive”, it’s BOHICA time, again. How’s this for a solution:
1. Make E-verify a condition of employment; and
2. Fine for non-compliance is $1 million dollars a day for each illegal employee.
No jobs = no illegal immigrants = no problem.
Mitt Romney is very libertarian when it comes to illegals.
In December of 2006, the republican Governor was exposed, and suffered national embarrassment for using Guatemalan illegals for 10 years.
In December of 2007, in a national debate, Rudy Giuliani referred to the decade long illegal connection, accusing Mitt Romney of having run a “Sanctuary Mansion”. On national TV, Mitt Romney indignantly denied the claim.
A few days after the debate, the Boston Globe decided to look again at Mitt’s house, and guess what, they found Guatemalan illegals, they were working for the same Colombian, MITT HAD NEVER FIRED THEM!
Ten years and a national scandal, turned into 11 years, and a second national scandal, with all the same players, the same “contractor”, Guatemalan illegals, and the same Mitt Romney and his wife interacting with them at their home during the week.
I DO know something about some American children I know.
They are “into” drugs, tattoos, body piercings and computer-gaming. Sometimes they are “into” sports. What a lot of them are not “into” is working. Their mommies and Daddies work hard to buy them everything they want - cars, college educations, you name it. Also, a lot of them are not found anywhere near a church on Sundays.
In many cases their parents are successful small business people or tradesmen. But their offspring feel they are too good for such a vocation and have no interest in succeeding their parents or do so so poorly they don't succeed.
I am not speaking about MOST American kids - just TOO DAMN MANY of them. Especially around the urban areas and in the northeast and LEFT Coast.
When I was growing up NOTHING was too hard or too menial for me to do to make a buck. I washed and polished cars, collected and washed soda bottles for $ .05 deposits apiece, shoveled snow, worked in fast-food joints - ANYTHING for a buck. Not them.
Now let me tell you about some Hispanics I know. They are working here legally (I think). I know they are strong family-oriented people who are very often devout Christians. Many of them work two or more jobs - hard jobs that many native born American children of the present generation turn their noses up at. They work at these jobs to survive and put THEIR kids through college, colleges where very many of them perform very well. Just like a lot of the Asian kids who come here legally (I think) or are first generation.
Somebody here said the FIRST thing to do is seal up the borders. THAT is CORRECT. STOP letting illegals here in the FIRST place.
You want to get rid of illegals who are here? Pass legislation with TEETH that will allow the government to effectively PUT OUT OF BUSINESS any company which KNOWLINGLY hires FRESH illegals.
THEN, look at the ones who are here already. If they are CURRENTLY employed somewhere and have a good work history and have no criminal backgrounds, give them a choice - get into a line to become a citizen while continuing to work under a guest worker program or leave.
But Guest Worker Programs should be restricted to people who are ALREADY here and NOT to new recruits from overseas. A PREMANANT Guest worker program would establish a permanent underclass of disenfranchised, exploited, ghettoized, unassimilated non-citizens with no real connection to the nation who are ripe for revolution.
If they had kids while they are here or brought them here illegally at a very young age and they have grown up here thinking they are Americans, you have another problem.
It flies in the face of what most Americans would feel about deporting people who speak our language, consider themselves Americans and are culturally part of America. Allowances will HAVE to be made to expedite their citizenship.
Western society has a demographic problem. We marry late and have small families. Our reproduction can't replace retiring workers leaving the workplace. The children we produce, in too many cases, leave a lot to be desired.
Latinos ARE hardworking, they ARE family oriented, and they ARE Christians.
Like it or not, economics drive immigration. We just have so much control over the groundrules and failed to exercize that control we do have. Just be THANKFUL that the people who are our most ready suppliers of new citizens are Christian Latinos, and NOT, as in the case of our LESS FORTUNATE European counterparts, MUSLIMS.
“Latinos are religious, morally conservative and tend disproportionately to join the military. They also tend to be hard working and entrepreneurial. Do we really have too many of them?”
No, genius, we don’t have too many, do we? Let’s go ahead and import another 30 million of them. That’ll help conservatives win more elections just like in California, right?
Yes, and I don't care if every single one of them is as conservative as Ronald Reagan, they broke the law coming here and I have no problem at all with mass forced expulsions.
“Latinos are religious, morally conservative and tend disproportionately to join the military. They also tend to be hard working and entrepreneurial. Do we really have too many of them?”
In spite of those nostrums, they vote Democratic, and would vote Democrat - the majority - if some GOP Congress granted them “amnesty” today.
Secondly, in spite of the meme “they also tend to be hardworking and entrepreneurial” is the fact that is no more true of “Hispanics” than it is any other group.
Also, why cannot the author separate the facts of legal immigration and illegal immigration and admit that it is the later, more so than “Hispanic immigration” that is the issue.
And, why cannot the author admit that even in that the issue is largely not “Hispanic” illegal immigration - it’s not illegal Cuban immigration, not illegqal Puerto Rican immigration, and in the main also not illegal Carribean immigration or illegal South American immigration. Yet, the author sticks to the Dim’s talking point that it’s “Hispanic” immigration.
The bare facts are that the vast substance of illegal immigration is not a “Hispanic” issue, it’s a Mexican issue. It’s a Mexican issue, and not a Hispanic issue, because the Mexican government and a large portion of the Mexican population believes that being Mexican gives them a natural right to move themselves to the United States - invited or not. Amnesty would simply reward that idea and cause it to be encouraged; convincing Mexicans it will be repeated again and again, and again. Thats’ the issue and that is not a “Hispanic” issue.
Lastly, the author refuses to accept that Amnesty is a moral affront to the millions of legal immigrants now and in the last twenty years. It says to the legal immigrants that their moral investment in legally immigrating here, their moral investment in their childrens’ future can be simply given away by a nation who refuses to honor their moral committment to their new nation - just to get a few “Hispanic” votes. It says to the legal immigrants, “screw you”; you wasted your time, your money, your patience, your moral fortitude; you didn’t need to come here legally; all you needed to do was find your way to Mexico and cross the border and then wait; all would have been forgiven. It’s immoral - amnesty - that’s what it is.
The author uses the straw man of “sending them all home” as if only that or Amnesty are the only options; when simple denial of work and benefits will cause illegal immigrants to leave - on their own.
And, as they do (leave on their own) their corrupt employers will pay American wages to the least skilled and semi-skilled American citizens who can’t compete in the job market with illegal immigrants. That’s been the case every time mass raids on illegal immigrants at job sites are done.
Yes, Conservatives too can believe that certain kinds of immigraton are good for the country - illegal immigration and rewarding it with amnesty are not good for the country.
This is getting at what sensible people many times think or feel but can’t quite put their finger on the differences between today and the past.
Government debt today is over 100% of GDP.
When Reagan took office it was comfortably under 40% of GDP.
GDP is nice way of putting the limits of taxation into perspective.
If the government taxes 100% of GDP, there is no private property and everyone works as a government employee.
Of course, taxes must be far less than GDP in order to have a decent standard of living.
Right now, taxes are somewhere between 15% and 20% of GDP, which is outrageous, but we’re living with it.
So if debt is more than one year’s GDP, it’s getting to the point where it would realistically take decades to get back to that 40% number. Certainly we never will if we continue in the same direction we are headed now, and in that case, the debt continues to mount, relative to GDP, until buyers of government debt can’t be found, and the government shifts into pure money-creation mode to fuel it’s spending. This can and did happen on a gold standard; this was basically what brought down the Spanish Empire, as the King, desperate to have money to spend while prices (for some “crazy”reason) spiraled upward, put less gold into minted coins to generate more money from the gold that poured in from the Americas.
At 40% government debt to GDP, allowing immigrants in to have some of them work and others be economic dead weight was very ill-advised; at 100% government debt to GDP, it will be a significant factor that causes quicker collapse of Congress’s Treasury bonds-for votes ponzi scheme.
No conservative would support amnesty. It harms this country and give special privileges to those who break the laws.
If they are all such rock-ribbed free-market conservatives. Then why are most Latin American countries socialist s@hitholes, where the local "Generalisimo" is reelected in a landslide.
LLS
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.