[Timber Rattler]

Rich Lowry points out that “Lincoln was broadly pro-immigration…

...because he needed more recruits and conscripts for the Union Army.

[The Working Man]

Rich Lowry points out that “Lincoln was broadly pro-immigration…

---

Lincoln was also Pro-EMMIGRATION, he wanted to send the freed Blacks back to Africa and I believe the Country of Liberia was to be the destination for them.

[EQAndyBuzz]

I remember with Fox, the networks said a 4th network wouldn’t survive.

Perrault got 19% of the vote in 92. I believe a Freedom Party ticket would get more votes.

However in saying that, the new moderate party (Republicrat) would get more than the Communist Party vote.

Only question becomes, would the moderates vote republican or democrat now that those evil neocons left the party?

[ProudFossil]

Rich Lowry points out that “Lincoln was broadly pro-immigration… ...because he needed more recruits and conscripts for the Union Army.

Wrong, the Civil War had not started when Lincoln promoted immigration. Rather there was tons of land available and Lincoln saw the need to put people there to "civilize" the wilderness. He did not want to remove the Native Americans, he just wanted people filling the land.

And the big difference between then and now (which Gov. Palin recognizes) is Lincoln's immigrants were European, mostly English and German. Today's immigrants are Mexican and South American. They are not looking for land, they are looking for jobs and free benefits. That removes those from the US citizens.

[Ohioan]

Being "pro-imigration," when the population was only a very small fraction of the present; when we still had an open fronteir, and the bulk of the immigrants were coming from countries far more similar to the original origins of the Americans, is no argument for the present bill--none whatsoever. Lowry is engaged in a dishonest rationalization that discredits him. It is sad how far National Review has fallen. But his comment cannot stand the light of analysis.

For its part, Reagan's amnesty was intended to be a one shot resolution of a far less extreme problem.

That these people are so dishonest is a sobering reality. The field of those worthy of the public trust keeps imploding. We have to answer these people in ways that expose their ethical malfunctioning. If their behavior be not treasonous, it is at least the "kissing cousin."

If they want to debate this, fine! Let them address the real issues, not offer absurd rationalization.

See Immigration & The American Future.

William Flax

[GOPJ]

...since Reagan was an advocate of amnesty and as president granted it to millions of illegal immigrants (“I believe in the idea of amnesty for those who have put down roots and have lived here even though sometime back they may have entered illegally,” Reagan said in his 1984 debate with Walter Mondale).

And Reagan thought this was fair to the people who had been here for years but the idea was to STOP NEW ILLEGALS FROM COMING ACROSS THE BORDER. I doubt Ronald Reagan would have done this if he thought it would set up an excuse to let illegals in year after year after year. Reagan WAS NOT IN FAVOR of destroying our borders. He was NOT in favor of illegals. Why don't people go back and read the history of what Reagan was doing? I remember... for those too young they should read some old newspaper stories ...