This was the entrance to the fair.
Posted on 11/22/2011 9:03:03 PM PST by South40
If the INS did its job we wouldn’t need a new department. I don’t see the sense in uprooting people who contribute to the general well being and business of our country. May I ask what means you propose to immediately expel all illegal aliens who reside in our midst?
Because what NO candidate mentioned during the debates was... AND every democrat knows "IS"..
ALL illegal and most illegal aliens will be democrats..
even though ANY ALIEN should not be able to VOTE...
Because they are NOT A CITIZEN..
Democrats sign them up to vote... WHICH IS VOTER FRAUD..
AND Republicans........ could CARE LESS..
My proposal to dealing with the problem was laid out in the post you replied to, but I'll post it again:
Cut illegals off from all welfare and social programs.
One year minimum in federal prison for anyone employing an illegal.
Give the SEEBEES the job of physically securing the border and tell them that we know it can't be done.
Deport any illegal caught violating any law no matter how small.
Cut off all federal funds to any state that allows any sanctuary for illegals.
That ought to clear things up.
Retroactive 25 years? Applicable to people who otherwise contribute in good ways to our economy? Good luck with that one. Are you ready to pay taxes for twice as many prisons and guards as we have today? Good luck with that one, too.
You can wish me all the luck in the world, but it doesn't change the fact that Newt's proposal is amnesty. Lots of people support amnesty, it's not a dirty word, many people oppose amnesty, even if it is called something else.
If this is Newt's plan, than he should come out and say "yes, amnesty is part of my plan, but I think it is still the best plan because...". Trying to parse words, a la Clinton, should be beneath the "smartest man in the room".
I'm sure we all know a time will come when a pragmatic plan will need to be put into effect to deal with the hold-outs. But newt and his Krieble policy ain't the way to go.
Personally, I like what Cain said about letting the states enforce the laws.
I like that too but it's not enough. We currently have sanctuary cities. A plan like Cain's would create sanctuary states. That's hardly fair to those living within a state who don't want it.
We need to enforce the laws on the books, federal laws. That way it will be universal across all 50 states.
....”We need to enforce the laws on the books, federal laws”......
He (Cain) says that too.
And I agree with you about state enforcement not going far enough. But it’s a fantastic start. And it’s showing results in states that are getting tough.
Anecdotal evidence: I moved from Glendale AZ in 97. Crime from Illegals and the general mexicanization where english was becoming a second language played a a major part in the decision. I was back there a few weeks ago on family business and I did not hear spanish the whole week I was there. Not so much as an accent. Except for one time, and it wasn’t in the several Mexican restaurants I visited, but in a hospital waiting room.
This was the entrance to the fair.
In view of the fact we’ve aborted so many future taxpayers it may be to our advantage to incorporate and educate a robust influx of immigrants instead of taking the route of niggardly fear and brute force.
I lived in SD in the late 70’s. Loved it. Hated my girlfriend though so had to leave. Back then it was as though all mexicans jumped over San Diego and went straight to LA. What I mean is, I can’t recall seeing workers hanging around home depots etc back then in SD.
The U.S. naturalizes more than one million new citizens each year. One million! Far more than any other country in the world. Do you really believe that one million a year is not enough?
Fifty million aborted since 1972. What do you think?
We have the natural resources and potential to welcome both more immigrants and more newborns. But . . . they need to get with the program called “Constitutional Republic.” Those who do not understand and practice according to that standard (which includes Judeo-Christian ethics) are not fit to live within our borders, no matter what country they are from; even if they were born here. Professors who praise and encourage communism in our midst ought be expunged as “illegal citizens.”
Let’s just say I put Newt’s conservative credentials a shade higher than Mitt’s. Call it a gut feeling. Newt has definitely expressed a higher respect for unborn citizens. In general, however, as stated at the outset, I consider him to be a political opportunist. His stance on immigration does not have me worried.
Sarah left herself a hell of a lot more wiggle room than Newt did.
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.