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.
It was part of the mostly unsettled territory claimed by Spain. After Mexico became independent from Spain, it was so incompetently ruled, it could not hang onto it's northern territory for more than 25 years. Arizona was part of Mexico for a very short time. Less time than Mexico was part of France I believe.
Here, I'll give you an even better reply, and then maybe you can understand why I get angry, and question the motives of those people who constantly claim that I support illegal immigration.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/822665/posts
I posted the history of the State of Arizona as posted on a State of Arizona website.
It belonged to Mexico, now all you guys are busy excusing off people taking land that doesn't belong to them.
Those are mighty bold words for a one-eyed fat man.
Unfortunately, a guest worker program will do no such thing.
He no Capisci!
And your qualification are????
I love Free Republic forum and think you have done a great job keeping it going all these years.
The posting rules do not apply to some.
They seem quit immune to the mods.
It belonged to Spain --- and then it belonged to Mexico a very short time. Spain never was able to settle the northern territories very successfully because it could not convince the Mexicans to move to the areas where the Indians of what is now the SW USA would attack and kill them. The northern territories were very sparsely populated up until recent times --- well after they belonged to the USA.
whatever
That would make you a big fan of Hillary Clinton...right?
"Whether you approve of open borders or not, intellectual honesty would have you admit that we have not done nearly all we can to control who enters our country and what they do once they are here."
Absolutely, and in order to understand why, we must understand the underlying reasons behind the government's lackadaisical attitude toward illegal immigration.
It's easy to scream "traitors"...that's a purely emotional reaction. It's quite difficult to find the truth, because very often, it points right back at us.
For example, had we not murdered thirty million babies since 1970, perhaps we wouldn't need ten million illegal aliens in the country covering the Social Security payments of the generation who murdered those babies.
And Spain stole the land from the Indians. Try putting a Don Onate statue somewhere in the SW USA --- and you'll quickly find out the problems the Indians and even Chicanos had with Spanish rule of these territories. And amazingly --- the descendents of the Spaniards in the SW --- many Spanish-American Indian descendents have never objected to becoming part of the USA. In fact Tejanos helped fight off the Mexicans in the war of Texas independence. And what might be more amazing to you yet --- if Mexico tries to annex the SW --- you will see Spanish named people gladly going to war against Mexico. You have no clue how it is here --- long time Spanish/Indian Americans of the SW do not want to be part of Mexico, most are very patriotic Americans --- and many are opposed to massive immigration from Mexico for the same reasons as everyone else.
In fact --- as unbelievable as it might seem to you -- 40% of hispanics voted for Proposistion 200 in Arizona.
I AM AGAINST OPEN BORDERS AND ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION.
ASSuming again FITZ?
I supported Prop 200.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/822665/posts
It appears that the problem with credibility is yours, not mine.
Am I logged in?
And then he post's information proving his statement false.
In 1882, Congress began to pass legislation limiting immigration.
How funny.
But there is also a problem with open borders in that someone can murder in the USA and escape back into the loving arms of Mexico where they will be protected. And they can assume a new identity and return as they please. Many use the border itself as a way to commit crimes and avoid law.
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.