Replies

OK, well, good research. It's still 30 million. Maybe. That would be quite an operation. Of course I would trust Eisenhower over Obama by an order of magnitude. The states - great let them go for it, even though it should be up to them how of if they do it. The only wild card in your scenario, then, would be Obama, total demagogue that he is, to exploit this, as he is the quintessential expert in doing, as an opportunity to enlarge a massive federal police force which he's ITCHING to do.

My entire presence on this thread has consisted of knocking down false assertion after false assertion, as I am armed with facts, not conjecture. Almost every post I have sent up on this thread backs my conclusions with citations.

Because of that, you are now resorting to assumptions and conjecture. Nowhere did I say this needs to occur AT THIS MOMENT, while Obama is President, nor, should it occur, would it necessarily result in the outcome you postulate. Remember, this dude cannot even run a Muslim Brotherhood takeover of Egypt. He's one of the least competent Presidents I have seen in my lifetime, falling to the worse side of Jimmy Carter.

But I do detect a softening of your position, and a change in your demeanor. It appears you may not favor Amnesty as much as you did; I would hope not, the facts are not on your side. It would be the final death-knell for America, and I have demonstrated why.

At least, it is *my* assumption you have been given some important facts and have changed your opinion. If you have, bravo, it speaks of open-mindedness. If you have not, I will continue to refute you, for the benefit of others who read the thread.

Here's the deal. I maintain that a large part of the argument against amnesty is socialist-based ("we can't afford them"). You brought up other reasons like they're Democrats who Obama's purposely bringing in to bolster his party. Fair enough.

I never said I was FOR illegal immigration even though I see where a portion of these people are actually helping us (you might even construe that as a socialist argument except this is breaking unjust laws in favor of free-market volunteerism which is always beneficial).

My point is, let's call at least the socialist-based whine what it is. I guess my other point is the potential mammoth problems with what you propose. Eisenhower got rid of a million plus, but Eisenhower's not Obama and one million plus is not 30 million. You credentials being what they may, don't answer these tough and real issues.