Americans Have a Right to Know About the Council on Foreign Relations

The New American ^ | September, 1994 | John F. McManus

[Economist_MA]

Ok name me someone on the CFR who advocates deporting illegal?

This is your pet subject, most other people don't get that excited about it. My guesstimate is that a fair percentage of the people in the above list don't have a problem with deporting illegals (neither do I), but that most of them would be against the drastic measures necessary to find all illegals already inside the US.

[Economist_MA]

Thanks for the compliments, I am just having fun :-).

[martian_22]

The democratic party history and function sound just as impressive as this description. The democrats are also considered mainstream and quite reasonable.

Any organization can use good PR. The proof is in the actions of the vision.

[t-shirt]

Had we enforced all our immigration and deportation laws, the September 11th attacks would not have occured!
--t-shirt

This is your view, and I respectfully disagree, mainly on operational grounds. Unless you want to turn the US into a locked-up isolationist police state there will always be a way for terrorists to infiltrate if they really want to. It's part of the price of freedom. You may be willing to pay the price necessary for total security, I am not, and I think we should just leave it at that.

Like the over-educated psychobabblers at the CFR you like to offer false solutions that would turn America in a police state. And you attribute to me a wanting for a police state of "total security" at the expense of the citizens giving up all their rights to achieve this false security. However this false argument doesn't work in fooling people, as I have openly advocated on numerous threads of mine and others that the American people not give up any of their freedoms or rights to stop terrorism. I have only advocated that illegals and terror linked individuals be arrested and/or deported (as applicable) through existing Constitutional laws on immigration(not any new ones). And I certainly have never advocated any disgrace so-called anti-terrorism (rights usurping) laws as was recently passed. To the contrary I firmly opposed it, as I did the last so-called anti-terrorism law that was achieved & passed after the Oklahoma bombing. Also to the contrary I propose expanding the American people's (defacto) rights by repealing the evil 1968 Gun Control Act which disarmed our pilots so terrorism could easily occur. The evil 1968 Gun control Act also caused the general population in most states to be publicly disarmed to a large extent and greatly increased crime.

And you pretend that enforcing our immigration and deportation laws would some ghow created a police state, when you know in reality that our government is porposefully not enforcing the law and deporting millions of illegal aliens!

Do you deny that our government is not enforcing the deportation of illegals even though it is required by law?

[t-shirt]

Ok name me someone on the CFR who advocates deporting illegal[s]?
-- t-shirt

This is your pet subject, most other people don't get that excited about it. My guesstimate is that a fair percentage of the people in the above list don't have a problem with deporting illegals (neither do I), but that most of them would be against the drastic measures necessary to find all illegals already inside the US.

122 posted on 11/11/01 7:06 PM Pacific by Economist_MA

To the contrary most Americans do approve of deporting illegals aliens, but none of your weirdo, fringe,socialists/globalists at the CFR advocate such common sense.

----

Can you name me a few members of the CFR who are prolife?

Or will you use the same dialectic technique and tell me is that prolife is just another of my pet subjects?

[Economist_MA]

I apologize if I read too much into your above statements.

I have only advocated that illegals and terror linked individuals be arrested and/or deported (as applicable) through existing Constitutional laws on immigration(not any new ones).

Nobody in his right mind would disagree with this statement. And I also advocate that we should all be really good-looking starting tomorrow, that there should be no more overweight people, and that the sun should always shine. Don't get me wrong, I am not trying to make fun of you. All I am asking is how are you going to achieve this? You seem to pretending that the enforcement of the immigration laws would be costless. It is definitely not, and the costs depend very much on what is enforced in which way.

And you pretend that enforcing our immigration and deportation laws would some ghow created a police state,

Right back at ya - total control is by definition equal to a police state. Clearly getting all the illegals of the street requires all of us to carry a computerized national ID. Correct? How else are you going to identify them? What other measures would be necessary?

Do you deny that our government is not enforcing the deportation of illegals even though it is required by law?

Let's see - there are still robbers walking around in the US even though their arrest is required by law. No, I don't deny that there are illegals around, and I think that the government should do more to reduce their numbers. But that's where the discussion needs to start!

[Republican Wildcat]

I also don't see Tony Snow's name mentioned here. Is he one of these liberals too? LOL.

[t-shirt]

I am not trying to make fun of you. All I am asking is how are you going to achieve this? You seem to pretending that the enforcement of the immigration laws would be costless.
-- Economist_MA

You aren't making fun of me when you continue to make up argument and attributes them to me, perhaps making yourself look bad, but not me.

I never said any such thing as "the enforcement of the immigration laws would be costless" as you falsely attribute to me.

It certainly might be costly monetarily, but far less costly than the high cost of arresting millions of illegal aliens for the tens of thousands of crimes they commit per year. In California, Texas and several other states illegal aliens make a large portion of the prison population. I would far rather pay the price of defending our border and for deporting millions of illegals than to allow the victimization of tens of thousands of Americans that many of the illegals commit crimes against. Is that even a cost in your way of reasoning?

Do you think that the billions of dollars that American citizens have to have to pay for "free" medical care for millions of illegals is costless?
Do you?

Do you think that the thousands per year for each of the illegals' children that Californians have to pay each year is costless?
Do you?

How many of your psychobabbler friends at the CFR advocate no multibillion dollar costing free education for illegal aliens?

[Economist_MA]

Pro-life? Ok, don't hit me on the head if one of these fellows isn't pro-life, but here's a quick try off my head:

George Bush

Donald Rumsfield

Newt Gingrich

Martin Feldstein (whom I have the pleasure to know and who's definitely pro-life)

And advance apologies again if one of these fellas ain't pro-life.

[The Kitten]

I'm a member. This essay is BS.

[t-shirt]

So if these aliens had not been allowed into the country, they still would have been able to hijack four airplanes in our country?

129 posted on 11/11/01 7:41 PM Pacific by AdamWeisshaupt

Ofcourse not, and he knows so!

This clown Atta repeatly violated USA laws and could have been deported at any time under existing laws.

[The Kitten]

I am a CFR member and I am pro-life.

[Economist_MA]

This is getting tiring - I keep pointing out that you only look at one side of the equation and that deportation isn't costless, in particular in terms of our freedom. You come back at me telling me that I attribute things to you (which I don't) and then keep on listing costs of illegal immigration.

I am out of here for today, so I'll just repeat it one more time: Come up with a decent plan to reduce the number of illegals in the country. Then let's discuss the costs and benefits of it. So far you have only pointed out a problem, which is the easiest part.

[Hillary's Lovely Legs]

One of the members, Daniel Piper, was on C Span this morning talking all about it. Gee, such a big secret.

[B4Ranch]

I am not positive but I believe I recall when the news abouts President Reagans dealings in Costa Rica first started coming out, weren't they labeled conspiracies?

Later when the truth was known the word conspiracy seemed to fade away.

[Economist_MA]

So if these aliens had not been allowed into the country, they still would have been able to hijack four airplanes in our country?

129 posted on 11/11/01 7:41 PM Pacific by AdamWeisshaupt

Ofcourse not, and he knows so!

It appears that 15 of the 19 hijackers had valid visas. But this completely misses the point: With stricter immigration laws and a stricter enforcement of the existing laws, any would-be terrorist will simply be a lot more careful to not have run-ins with the INS. Atta was careless because he could be given the lax enforcement of the current laws.

Try to think a little bit more strategically if you guys want to be heard, and try to take the reaction of the enemy into account. Just mho, and good night.

[t-shirt]

It appears that 15 of the 19 hijackers had valid visas. But this completely misses the point.
--Economist_MA

No you completely miss--- the point is an alien or tourist or student is no longer here legally once he violates his visa restrictions or overstays his time specifically allowed.

Most of these men were in violation and thus were illegal aliens, even though many of them came here legally.