Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

I used to be pro-immigration, and I am still, to an extent, but I think the US ought to be highly selective in choosing who gets to enter - the problem is not so much that the US is allowing immigration, but that it's letting in all the wrong people.

Of course, the career bureaucrats at the INS will always be politically correct socialists, so changing matters won't be easy.

1 posted on 06/09/2003 8:07:43 AM PDT by SlickWillard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: KayEyeDoubleDee
Bump
2 posted on 06/09/2003 8:08:01 AM PDT by SlickWillard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: SlickWillard
"Lest we forget: prior to September 11, who among the Establishment Left would believe there was the tiniest possibility that Islamist theocratic fascists would use innocent people as munitions and targets?"

Um....Islamofascists using innocent people as targets and munitiona began decades before 9/11. The PC left apparently prefers to keep it's collective head inserted where the sun don't shine, lest guaranteed Deomcrat votes be lost. Their approach to Islamofascism is the same as their method of perpetuating class and race warfare as a means to keep black Americans convinced they can succeed at anything in life only with special government dispensation, and blacks who succeed on their own merits are somehow 'Uncle Toms'.

A return to classical liberalism isn't the answer. Common sense actions regarding the potential enemy is.

As a second generation American, I'm pro-immigration...to a point. I believe that immigration should be strictly limited, and each applicant thoroughly screened. Especially Arab Muslim immigrants, no matter what their claimed country of origin.

If they don't like it, they should simply stop killing us infidels. It may eventially reform their collective image among us.

3 posted on 06/09/2003 8:36:43 AM PDT by cake_crumb (UN Resolutions=Very Expensive, Very SCRATCHY Toilet Paper)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: SlickWillard
The PC left still refuses to acknowledge the forty year terroist history ( current) of these terroists. When American soldiers are killed they ignore it ( think Beirut onward). When ONLY 6 are killed at WTC in 1993 they ignore it. When Iraq is tied to OKC they ignore it. When the WTC is actually brought down, tey cry for two days and then ignore it. What makes anyone think they will pay attention to the dangers within now? Not me. If we don't get real hardnosed about immigration policy the greatness of Western Civilization is doomed
4 posted on 06/09/2003 9:06:18 AM PDT by jnarcus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: SlickWillard
I don't think it's a matter of the PC-left havng their head in the sand about Islamofascists. The PC-left (or the Waffen-PC, as I like to call them) share a common goal with Islamofascists: to destroy what remains of the traditional Judeo-Christian culture. This goal is basically already a done deal in England and Europe, where an unaccountable Tranzi elite rules over a stupefied, shrinking native populace with an ever-expanding Islamic minority. The only serious target left is the US. Once the US is disposed of or neutralized with vast numbers of unassimilated, unskilled immigrants who will vote the Dems into power permanently, Israel can be destroyed and an expanded Cailphate (encompassing Europe) can be established. The Islamofascists are quite able to look at the long-term, unlike the majority of our leaders in the West.
5 posted on 06/09/2003 9:06:43 AM PDT by Bogolyubski
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: SlickWillard
Many people cannot see the difference between allowing Mexican and Central American immigration and immigration from the Middle East. Hostility to Catholicism is traditional among liberals, but they have no history of hostile encounter with Muslims. Indeed, the Crusades are held up as typical outrages by (Catholic) Christians against peaceful Muslims. Likewise, colonizing activities of the Western powers in Muslims countries, which involved Protestant and Catholic missions, are deplored as cultural imperialism. The liberal view of Israel as a kind of European colony in a Muslim world has served to erode support for that regime.

About Islam itself,ignorance and romanticism characterize liberal ideas about Islam. Certain aspects of Muslim life, such as the treatment of women and fanatical pronouncements by Muslim clerics caused negative comment, but its strict monotheism has always made it more attractive to liberals , at least in outline, than Christianity. Even now, after 9/11, liberalism has been slow to come to terms with the raw fact that Islam is far more alien to their world view than, say, Catholicism or Mormonism, ever was in their wildest imaginings.

7 posted on 06/09/2003 10:38:24 AM PDT by RobbyS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: SlickWillard
keeper
9 posted on 06/09/2003 11:24:02 AM PDT by CGVet58 (I still miss my ex-wife... but my aim is improving!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: SlickWillard
Sentimentalist pro-immigration arguments assume that the melting pot washes away cultural divisions, and in the past, that argument often held true.

That only happens to the extent that the various ethnic groups inter-marry. When a kid is 1/4 English, 1/4 German, 1/4 Irish, and 1/4 Italian, and is married to a similar combo, it's hard to get him strongly on the side of one of his component ethnic groups against another.

Strong religious difference is another story. A Muslim woman CANNOT marry a non-Muslim man (and live).

10 posted on 06/09/2003 12:20:13 PM PDT by SauronOfMordor (Java/C++/Unix/Web Developer looking for next gig)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson