Posted on 06/17/2004 7:45:09 PM PDT by asmith92008
Paragraphs (< p >) are your friends.
COnsidering he's been at FR for over a year I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.
"The phenomenon has also manifested" in the loss of my vote, my time and my money. I'm now an Independent.
Good point. I just couldn't pass up the opportunity to be the first to post a "paragraphs are your friend" rebuke.
What the WSJ ignores is that immigration is occuring in an America given over to multiculturalism. We can no longer assimilate immigrants into American culture at the rate we once did. Rather, they keep their own culture and language and, with sufficient numbers, expect to assimilate us.
The problem with this is that immigrants come from dysfunctional political cultures and nations. They flee here for a reason. Why should we import their dysfunctional culture? Why should my grandchildren have to live in a country become like Mexico, where bribery is the grease that runs the government--to the extent that the government runs at all--and everyone accepts that as the natural order?
We have a reasonably functional political culture here and it is up to us to make good decisions to keep and enhance it. Those who suggest such decisions are labeled racist. Well, I think the Ukraine is completely dysfunctional too. And the folks there are completely white bread. It ain't race. It's culture and political culture. We are better in that regard than both the Ukraine and Mexico and we should not be ashamed to say so. We should not be ashamed to reject the wholesale importation of such cultures into our culture.
My attitude about immigration would change a LOT if we were to reverse the multicultural trends of the past 40 years.
But America cannot continue to exist with both unlimited immigration and multiculturalism--we will become just another dysfunctional third-world nation. That, of course, is the goal of the left because they think they would be in charge in such a nation.
---And one of the main reasons is the anti-immigrant groups on the political left that have been making inroads with Republicans. ---
?
I must have missed them when they came knocking.
There is a real problem with racists trying to use discredited studies, such as those by Donald Huddle to cloak their racism under the guise of opposing "ILLEGAL" immigrants. They claim they have no problem with legal immigrants, but only with ILLEGAL immigrants.
When you suggest that their objections can easily be cured simply by making them legal through amnesty, they drop back to the position that since they entered the country illegally they can never be made legal.
Sometimes it's difficult to tell which ones are simply racists and which ones really believe that ILLEGAL immigrants are responsible for them being unable to keep a job. Anyone who can't keep a job in today's tight labor market has serious personal issues. It eventually comes down to them blaming Bush for their personal problems.
Oh, so if you kill someone and we pass a law to make murder legal, then it's OK?
If there is a need to have all these advantages that large immigration offers, the law should be changed. Until then, it is illegal to enter the country without proper clearance and authorization and the law should be enforced.
The journal editors also espouse the view that the population of the United States should be about 1 billion people, and they don't care how they get here or if they do it legally.
So whatever they write you can bet its going to support a massive influx of population in the United States by any means.
Pretty odd that this is the first I heard of this. Mr. Tancredo spoke in my town a few months ago and said the WSJ "had issues with him". I guess he was too nice to say they're willing to stoop to such depths as this to demean him.
In my experience most Mexican immigrants already are good citizens regardless of their status with INS. They work hard to support their families. They have strong religious beliefs. They have served our country well in times of war. They don't have an anti-American attitude like many immigrant groups.
"Secondly, immigrants, legal or illegal, do drive down market wages and benefits."
And your point is?
The business interests, whose mouthpiece the WSJ is, want one thing: cheap labor. Swamp the U.S. with third world workers, labor costs go down, and profits go up commensurately. Its that simple. Paradise, to the WSJ, would be a U.S. in which labor earns, like China, 75 cents an hour. The cost of Government coddling these workers is huge, but, no problem, that check will be left in front the taxpayer (that sucker) to pay. The Journal hints at times that profitable cheap labor is what is behind their rah-rah position on immigration, but since that is such a crass rationale, they intermittently trot out, none too convincingly, other rationales.
But since no one actually believes that mass third world immigration is a benefit overall to the U.S., the Journal makes only halfhearted attempts to convince anyone of that. Instead, tts immigration editorials are usually smash mouth, with more than a whiff of the old time Pravda. Like Pravda, it adopts the "Everyone knows that [immigration is good]..." tact, and proceeds to bash, name call ("Xenophobic"), impute ignoble motives, and basically copy the liberal stance of dismissing your political opponent as nothing more than a bigot.
Is it OK to kill someone as long as it doesn't constitute "murder"? Is it OK for a woman's family in Saudi Arabia to kill her if she commits adultery? Is it OK for a soldier to kill an enemy in war? Is it OK for a man to kill another man who is raping his daughter? Is it still OK if the rapist has already finished? Is it OK for vigilantes to kill immigrants wading across the Rio Grande?
I don't need the law to tell me when killing is "OK" or not "OK"
But to answer your question, pardons by Governors and Presidents are common. A pardon is more than amnesty. A pardon says "you're forgiven"; an amnesty simply says we aren't going to put you in prison.
You probably didn't recognize them, but their presence has been quite strong lately on FR. They present the arguments they get from the liberal/racist websites but when you challenge them for sources they won't give them because their sources are radical liberals or white supremists.
I agree. Join me in supporting President Bush's immigration reform initiatives.
What's wrong with that? It would solve our social security crises for a few more decades. There's plenty of room.
Are you a follower of that radical ZPG advocate Donald Huddle? I remember having to read a book in college entitled "The Population Bomb" that expressed the prevailing opinion of most intellectuals.
Among other things it said that by the year 2000 we would be so crowded that single family residences would no longer exist; that there would be insufficient food to allow the inefficient consumption of meat (we'd all be eating soy beans), and that based upon studies of overcrowded rats we'd all be homosexual (didn't have gays back then).
When I fly over America, all I see are forests and farms. Last I checked the government was still spending billions on farm subsidies because overproduction of food is a big problem.
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.