Posted on 02/11/2005 10:55:36 AM PST by Jim Robinson
The shot heard around the Internet has been fired on FreeRepublic.com The owner Jim Robinson and his moderators have launched a sniper style purge against members that disagree with the President’s ‘guest worker’ amnesty or support more control of illegal immigration. Free Republic is an amazing tool for those looking for a good debate and news from around the country.
The problem for the administration of the site is that their creation is allowing the participants to learn that the Bush immigration record and plans are shockingly out of line with the views of most conservatives. The management’s answer to this conflict between the majority of conservatives and the influence of the White House on their Web site has become electronic executions and censorship.
Members and readers of Free Republic would be surprised to know that many members of their community have fallen silent on the discussions about illegal immigration lately because free speech is an illusion on FR.com. They are silent because they have been banned from the Web site without warning, cause, or explanation in most cases. For weeks the moderators have been suspending and banning new members that chimed in quickly on the immigration debates.
Now this trend has broadened as the first groups of long-term users were suspended or banned this past week. Although Robinson and his staff removed many members of the Free Republic community in the first few days of the purge, those that religiously support President Bush’s immigration plan, open borders and approve of public benefits for illegal aliens remain on the forum. Those that were banned were the members that wanted more done to control illegal immigration and a strict observance to the President’s Oath of Office.
We don't have much control over that, unless we go with your plan of annexation. It's a bit of an extreme idea. I think we should at least explore the possibility of a fence first. It seems to be working pretty well for the Israelis.
No open borders ??? LOL, the *only* ones held at our borders are illegals who have previously committed a crime in the USA, or ones that are on *our known* list of terrorists.
Any mexican laborer is given MULTIPLE chances to SUCCEED finally sneak in, even tho a first time offense calls for 6 months in jail.
Texas (only) has RELEASED some 30K 'OTM's' this year.......after only securing a *promise to appear*. However only 30 % will ever appear. (keep in mind these are only the ones we caught).
Do you have the *list* of federal laws that citizens can break, without fear of prosecution ???
No. But I recognize that it is an unavoidable reality. I recognize that it is impossible to seal the land sea and air borders of the U.S. against laborers as long as there is a demand for them and they need to come here to work to feed their children.
I Recognize that our present immigration laws don't reflect the economic reality that exist.
Our aging work force isn't being replaced by the younger generation that has been aborted or never conceived because of life style choices.
That's a consumer's choice. Buyer beware. At least consumers aren't being forced to pay exorbitant union wages against their will.
OK. You say illegal immigration is not OK, please tell me the reason(s) you believe this.
This author is soooo out of step with the mainstream. I mean, I thought everyone knew this is Bush's fault. Who does he think he is blaming you for something?
The present immigration laws don't reflect economic reality. We aren't allowing enough legal laborers to enter. The results is an unmanageable illegal workforce that isn't good for anyone involved.
There is nothing good about the entire system. Employers suffer, employees suffer, the CBP is obstructed from performing its priority mission of preventing terrorists from entering.
We can't stop the laborers and no one wants to shut down the businesses that pay the taxes and also employ citizens.
No solution is without its faults, but the present system must be reformed.
Hi bayourod,I don't understand what this means."I Recognize that our present immigration laws don't reflect the economic reality that exist".
"How dare you purge people from your own site! What gall! I don't know how you sleep at night. Your ancestors must be spinning in their graves. Don't you know that there are little children in China that can't go online? And yet you purge away as if you own the ... wait, you do own it. Sorry, my bad :>)"
LOL. Thanks.
I understand your concerns. Everything you said is fine, but you did not respond to what I would like to know.
You say illegal immigration is not OK, please tell me the reason(s) you believe this.
Good luck and I'll be waiting to hear his response also.
This is a letter to the editor filled with distortions of truth and gross generalizations. A legitimate news source couldn't get away with publishing this tripe.
Seems to me the folks at ALIPAC are taking everything way too personally.
If they don't make some radical changes, ALIPAC will fail.
Thank you for the link.
Sorta like the laws in Cuba and North Korea and the former Soviet Union that didn't recognize the reality of economic behavior.
However unlike America where market forces overwhelmed the laws and produced prosperity, in the totalitarian nations the states' use of brutality and force prevailed over market forces and their economies collapsed.
Although there are some who want to impose military marshal law in America and use our troops to guard the border, establish a national ID card, and conduct door-to-door searches for illegal laborers, the American people will never agree to it, despite the hysterical rantings of the xenophobes about our culture and sovereignty being destroyed.
I don't think being pro-amnesty or pro-open borders or whatever you'd like to call it is conservative.
Absolutely. It's just foolish pandering to special interests of some ilk.
BTT, wardaddy!
I'm with you, bro. I get tired of hearing people say that all efforts to control immigration are motivated by white racism and white racism ONLY. That is just garbage. Sure, there are some Neo-Nazi Stormfront crackpots out there who would love nothing more than to shut the doors to this country and keep minorities in a permanent state of dhimmitude, but they do not represent the millions of Americans who feel threatened by illegal immigration and who desire a more orderly system for immigration.
There are a gazillion non-discriminatory reasons to desire stricter immigration controls. Furthermore, if white racism is to blame then how did America or Canada or England for that matter ever become so receptive to immigrants in the first place? After all, we (meaning these originally Anglo-Saxon nations and cultures) were a lot whiter and undeniably more racist in the past than we are today.
Like you, this is an issue that is close to my heart. I used to be an full-on 'melting pot' idealist about immigration. I used to be a fervent believer in the libertarian/WSJ editorial board theory of immigration. I saw it as a practically unlimited good, economically and culturally.
But then two things happened...
One was 9/11, and the other was taking immigration law in law school (which incidentally, I took prior to 9/11). The first event speaks for itself, but the other requires some explanation.
By taking immigration law, I learned what our laws are really like and how the system really works...not some pie-in-the sky idealistic fantasy or some splinter-thin view of immigration like the WSJ editorial board takes (considering it only from the point of view of chicken-plant operators and hoteliers). My professor was an ALJ inside the INS, now USCIS, who believed strongly in immigrants' rights, but unlike many "enlightened" Americans who whine about the smallest attempts to restraint illegal immigration, he believed _all_ immigrants should be treated equally under the law (that's not a bad attribute for a judge, mind you).
Because of his commitment to this fundamental principle of justice, he didn't support "amnesties" or "guest worker programs" b/c he felt they benefitted only ONE group of aliens--Mexicans--to the exclusion of all others. One of the best comments he ever made in class was, "Imagine you were the family member of a U.S. Citizen who had been waiting for a family preference immigrant visa in Manila for the past 12 years. How would you feel if 1 million Mexican illegals were granted amnesty tomorrow?" Of course, the answer is you'd feel like the U.S. vaunted committment to abstract ideals like equality before the law was only so much window dressing.
That is something most people either do not understand or refuse to understand (hell, for 26 years of my life, I didn't get it!), but rewarding illegal aliens punishes the immigrants who obey the law. And, truth be told most people who wish to immigrate to the U.S. and many who hail from countries a 1000x worse off than Mexico are forced to follow the rules in order to get here and stay here. BTW, as an aside, I would love for somebody to explain to me how wanting to see Filipinos and Mexicans treated equally smacks of "white racism."
Just a note for anyone who wants to brand me some sort of extremist, I have done pro bono work for (gasp!) illegal aliens mainly through the Catholic Church, and I am certain I will do more in the future. I have helped illegals and others whose visas have expired apply for stateside adjustment of status. I speak Spanish, and I am working on an H1B1 visa renewal for (gasp again, protectionists and nativists!) an Indian engineer right now.
Just for the record, I still consider myself to be pro-immigration, with the provisos that the immigration to the U.S ought to be accomplished by legal means rather than subterfuge and that it should be managed with an eye towards our collective security. Is that so wrong?
Putatively "anti-arson" FReeper:
I am adamantly opposed to arson. I oppose it with every fiber of my being.
Actual "anti-arson" FReeper:
I'm glad to hear it! Let's call the fire marshal, then.
FReeper #1:
No, no, no! We mustn't. It's simply impossible!
FReeper #2:
Hunh? I thought that you were opposed to arson?
Freeper #1:
Yes, yes. I am strenuously opposed to arson. Aren't we all? But we must not impose our moral perspective on someone who does not adhere to our strict moral compunctions, as far as burning down things is concerned. Instead, I propose an alternative tack. We give the arsonist a case of nitroglycerin, a functional blowtorch, and an oxygen tank.
FReeper #2:
Hunh?
(Utterly baffled stare.)
-good times, G.J.P.(Jr.)
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.