Border Lipstick on Amnesty Pig

Human Events Online ^ | 16 May 2006 | James R Edwards, Jr.

[trubluolyguy]

You SURE it was a democrat?

[trubluolyguy]

The loaded term Amnesty in conservative parlance is a fraudulent usage designed to produce knee jerk action

---

Fine. But it IS shorter than "sellout of American sovereignty and all would be immigrants trying to do it right."

[Raycpa]

[soccer_maniac]

[Old_Mil]

And we are all to fall in line now because a CNN poll loves the President.

It's funny how conservatives on this website have endured being called Democrats (and worse) by the Bushbots over the past few weeks...and following the speech it is the Durbins, NY Times, LA Times, and CNN that seems to love the speech the most.

Why is that? Because the liberals can read between the lines and know that this is just lip service to the conservative movement.

Sorry, it's not going to be enough. Bush may want a guest worker amnesty, but I'm going to fight it tooth and nail.

[skeeter]

Support H.R. 3466 instead, Mr. President. Its the morally right thing to do.

[Jack Black]

I think this is turning into the proverbial "line in the sand" for many conservatives.

[Paul Ross]

Tammy Faye Baker don't own enough make-up for this pig!

Bingo!

[Reactionary]

"Because the liberals can read between the lines and know that this is just lip service to the conservative movement."

That's generally true, but the same can be said for a number of people here.

Bush hasn't done enything to enforce the security of the border, after all. It's a rather difficult move to convince the more intelligent among us that he's suddenly in favor of "comprehensive reform."

It's odd, though... The one time Bush decides to go into full idiot spin mode, he does it against conservatives.

[Reactionary]

Personally, I think we either have to allow the destruction of Western civilization or we need to completely change the way we view human sexuality.

The reason the West requires mass immigration is twofold: Lavish government spending on the one hand, coupled with individualism and egalitarianism that disparage tradition, the family, and traditional sex roles.

The fact is we need workers. The reasons we need them are evident. I suspect Bush doesn't want to seal the border because he knows it will be an economic disaster in the long run.

[trubluolyguy]

Bush may want a guest worker amnesty, but I'm going to fight it tooth and nail.

---

Well, I am with you there.

[skeeter]

The fact is we need workers. The reasons we need them are evident.

Lessee, our agrarian society is long behind us, and the industrial revolution is over. The continent has been tamed, the transcontinental railroad completed.

As far as I can see, the only argument for having alot of low cost foreign labor is their relative low cost - to their employers, that is. They cost the rest of us plenty.

If you have other reasons why we need them, please feel free to post.

[ottersnot]

Polls. Who cares. Results I can appreciate.

[Reactionary]

"If you have other reasons why we need them, please feel free to post."

I have stated the reasons why they are needed. Our population is in demographic decline. It is impossible to have an expanding economy with a shrinking workforce.

Those are the facts we have to deal with. Until women stay home and make babies, it isn't going away.

[skeeter]

I have stated the reasons why they are needed. Our population is in demographic decline. It is impossible to have an expanding economy with a shrinking workforce.

If what the president were proposing involved increasing the numbers of qualified, skilled and educated immigrants I would agree, but what he wants is to dramatically (and 'dramatic' ain't strong enough) increase the numbers of low-skilled, illiterate immigrants, mostly from a single or a very few near-socialist countries.

Sorry, I ain't buying it.