Replies

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?

To everything you said...

TRUE DAT!

Great post, bourbon! I am very proud of your
"adjustment" to correct thinking. Of course,
I have the advantage, because I have "age" in
my favor. ;o)

"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."

IOW, legal means legal, and illegal means illegal.
Unless it concerns Islamofacist countries.
Other than those countries, it doesn't matter what
country, race, or color...legal is legal, and
illegal is illegal.

"Is that so wrong?"

It's not wrong.
In fact, it is essential.

Thanks for the ping.
Ya' done good. ;o)

You may have noticed but most of the pro-Bush immigration plan and we can all argue about whether that is amnesty or rewards illegals forever but that doesn't matter since it's dead politically in it's current form......anyhow many of that rather small crowd are also South Bashers that you should be familiar with. If not South bashers they are almost 100% part of the "What Culture War?" crowd.

Similar agenda actually. Kill any form of American culture they dislike, don't feel a part of, or feel morally superior to.

Your post may have been the best on the thread (there is a reason you are a lawyer..lol) but all of this is in vain. The course for discussion on immigration here has been set. It's a fait accompli. Those of us who don't agree ...which is around 80% from the polls I've seen, should just have ignored this thread and I would have but this is where I first learned of the purges. I lamented the purges and that turned the dogs loose. Essentially the same dogs that run any thread that has the slightest hint of race...whether real or imagined.

I'm not at all sure why this thread exists to be frank. Sort of a "bug light" lol. It's the most contentious one I've been on in all my time here but very few got zapped. I don't know anything about how mods work but I bet this one was numero uno priority for a couple of days.

My position on immigration and how I approach that will obviously have to take place away from this forum which is btw, the only political forum I have ever been a member of besides Trixie's briefly. I did look at LP once or twice when they gave me my own thread about me being a loathesome Bushbot when I refused to leave here after an incident 18 months ago...on this topic ironically....that's rich isn't it?. As for other political issues, hopefully we can still maintain a unified front of sorts...one that is in line with most conservatives in the country. If we can't then so be it.

But remember...and this goes for anyone here....and I do mean ANYONE.

What makes the power of this forum is not all this political chat nor the infighting nor purges nor the intrigue...which frankly I know very little about.

What has catapulted this forum into the big leagues is the simple facts of sheer numbers and that on several occasions some well placed or astute freepers have scored political hits that have made the world take notice.

Secondly is the forum in it's local chapter form has had a great ability to organize political protest in the past even though always outnumbered by the opposition.

And you might note that most of this forum's best at those two things.....are not the most prolific chatters and do not usually belong to any roving dingo pack.

The strength of this forum is not exemplified by this thread. That's what I've learned anyhow....and I include myself in that negative. I think this has been damaging.

There are some good people on the other side...a few anyhow but mostly at least amongst the loudest, it's the same race baiters as usual.

On the bright side I met some FReepers I never really knew and found kindred spirit and that is always refreshing....hell, aside from steady news gleaning and activism....that's why we're here mostly.

I got 36 freepmails and about that many e-mails over the course of this thread...all positive except one which was conflicted understandably.

Helluvaride....the loud but tiny opposition are unified and strident...they can be proud of that even if they are about as wrong as tits on a boar..

"I would love for somebody to explain to me how wanting to see Filipinos and Mexicans treated equally smacks of "white racism." "

"I would love for somebody to explain to me how ~~wanting to see Filipinos and Mexicans treated equally~~ supporting the principle of states'-rights smacks of "white racism."; said the segregationist in 1960.

A person motivated by racial prejudices (and you are not) doesn't acquit himself just because he finds another justification to hide his prejudices behind.

""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?" "

That situation provides a good example to illustrate why President Bush's Guest Worker program is not an amnesty. First under Bush's plan the Philippine applicants would have the same opportunity to become guest workers as any illegal alien already in the U.S., including illegal Philippians. No preferences to Mexicans.

But secondly, illegal aliens here now will not automatically be granted the right to stay here. Illegal aliens here now, including Philippine ones will have to apply to become guest workers. Some applications will be granted and some will not. An illegal alien from Mexico may lose his job to a guest worker applicant from Philippine and be forced to return to Mexico.

If it were an amnesty, every illegal alien would be granted permission to stay simply be virtue of being here. "Being here" doesn't gain anyone any advantage.

Thirdly, there is a difference between a guest worker and an immigrant. That Philippine family in Manila may prefer to wait a few more years to immigrate here as permanent residents instead of coming immediately as temporary guest workers.

Bush's plan is no more unfair to non-Mexicans than school integration was a violation of states' rights.