Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: PapaNew
Here's the deal. I maintain that a large part of the argument against amnesty is socialist-based ("we can't afford them").

You have an odd idea of what constitutes socialism.

You brought up other reasons like they're Democrats who Obama's purposely bringing in to bolster his party. Fair enough.

Those reasons are sufficient, to a reasonable man who is conservative, to virulently oppose Amnesty.

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.

I addressed both issues to satisfaction: One million easily becomes two, four, or six million with the force-multiplier of modern technology and assistance at the State level, and while Obama is heinous, he is incompetently so -- further, it would never happen under Obama, since he is staunchly opposed to deportation. The point becomes moot under Obama. It will have to occur under a Conservative (not a Republican) President.

If we ever see one in our lifetimes, that is.

Work for that.

Don't work for Amnesty, which will guarentee we will never see a Republican or a Conservative President ever again.

165 posted on 07/04/2013 4:08:49 PM PDT by Lazamataz (If illegal aliens voted (R), then the Dems would create the tightest border security in the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies ]


To: Lazamataz

Great arguments and citations for your statements, Mr. Mataz.

You’re right as rain, as usual. Thank you for the ping.


172 posted on 07/04/2013 7:05:11 PM PDT by TheOldLady
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies ]

To: Lazamataz
You have an odd idea of what constitutes socialism.

In case you didn't see this post...

Socialism is force cloaked in "compassion." It's a wolf in sheep's clothing. It's A saying he wants to "help" (entitle) B but only by using C's money which A must take by force and only after A skims off the top for himself (B may never actually see any of that money). If you're blind, all you see is A entitling B. If you have your head screwed on straight, you see A is actually living off of C's money while making B dependent on A (like a drug dealer).

So when people scream about "we can't afford" these immigrants, they are arguing that the government entitlements are being spread too thin. "We can't afford them" is certainly not a free-market capitalist argument. In a free society, the more the merrier, only it's up to you what you make of yourself - no one else is responsible for you except you - and that's the way it should be. We are a nation of immigrants and we have been a strong and good nation, not because of government or entitlements but because people have been free to live their own lives.

But socialism pits person against person, as here, because they've become dependent on a government whose only resources are your own money - so the more people that come in, the more money you lose. That is NOT how a free society operates.

198 posted on 07/09/2013 6:26:54 AM PDT by PapaNew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson