Posted on 05/18/2006 5:29:51 PM PDT by RWR8189
What the president's immigration speech and "The DaVinci Code" have in common.
What was missing in the president's approach the other night was the expression, or suggestion, of context. The context was a crisis that had gone unanswered as it has built, the perceived detachment of the political elite from people on the ground, and a new distance between the president and his traditional supporters. The president would have done well to signal that he knew he was coming late to the party, as it were; that he'd come to rethink his previous stand, or lack of a stand, and had begun to consider whether there was not some justice in the views, and alarm, of others.
Without an established context the speech seemed free-floating: a statement issued into the ether, unanchored to any particular principle and eager to use, as opposed to appreciate, whatever human sentiment flows around the issue of immigration. It was a speech driven by an air of crisis, but not a public crisis, only a personal and political one.
To acknowledge what he apparently thinks are the biases of the base, he used loaded words like "sneak"--illegal immigrants "sneak across the border"--as if to establish his populist bona fides. This was, not to put too fancy a rhetorical term on it, creepy, and managed to be offensive to everyone.
What was needed was a definitive statement: As of this moment we will control our borders, I'm sending in the men, I'm giving this the attention I've given to the Mideast.
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
has = had
Maybe the problem isn't with Peggy at all but you? Maybe you only get half of what she writes?
Crap, sorry about that; it's 3 million, not billion. I was thinking on McDonalds, I guess.
Okay... We can't deport them, but we can get them to stand in line to pay a fine somehow.
If you think illegals are going to come out to pony up 2,000$ of their money instead of staying under the radar...
Ugh.
APf
So, what degree of punishment would you recommend in order for this to be acceptable to you?
Many illegal immigrants are paying into the social safety net programs, with fraudulent SSNs.
Most are not ! They simply claim enough dependents that they rarely pay taxes.and what they pay in SS is more than offset buy what they cosume in welfare benefits. Also most of what they make goes back to Mexico, not spent here.
Reply to the first link, if you would please.
Since the Guest Worker program would be comprised almost exclusively of non High School graduates, the lifetime net fiscal cost for a "typical [illegal] newcomer" is, as shown in the Table, a negative $89,000. Only those immigrants with more than High School education have any positive lifetime net fiscal impact, and Mr. Gillespie knows that no significant numbers of such immigrants would ever be enrolled in a Guest Worker program.
Your own post contradicts what you're saying!1 This Post is about legal aliens, my friend!!
That's quite the assumption on your part that all of the illegal immigrants are the ones with less than a high school education. But it does say one thing that contradicts what you're arguing against; amnesty! Give these immigrants a way to come here legally -- maybe even charge them a fee that is considerably less then paying a human trafficker (coyote). Document and then monitor their earnings to see which one are productive, and allow the ones whom benefit America to stay and then send the others a letter stating that their guest-worker status is terminated on such and such a date with an opportunity to come back, if they so desired, without paying the fee, and after acquiring some new skills.
Have you seen the upstairs maid. AIIIeee! Ta Bueno! Mucho grande casabas, Y huela caliente.
Even with that, I am looking forward to an expansion of "a Day Without a Mexican." How about, "A year without a Mexican this time?"
Secondly, under current law most illegals are supposed to get a hearing with an immigration court. The reason for catch and release is because we didn't have enough room to hold them.
Third, employers are prohibited from questioning an immigrant's legal status, as it is discriminatory. This is a law passed during the Clinton era.
Fourth, it is very difficult for the SS administration or the IRS to do anything, as they are prohibited from giving information to employers about legal status.
Fifth, employers cannot be prosecuted if they can demonstrate that they believed the employee to be legal.
Now, would you care to discuss "enforcing the law" again? The law is currently so screwed up its a wonder that anyone at all is ever deported.
This is why the President wanted comprehensive reform. Shouting "enforce the law" is really asking for the government to continue in its present ineffective course.
That's not my assumption Joe that's the assumption from YOUR article.
Peggy's right on this one too...
Wouldn't it be simpler to just sell them citizenship papers as they cross the border. Why waste time pretending someone in power here actually wants secure borders?
Oh! and has anyone seen a line? I mean besides the one being handed us.
noona, rush, coulter, malkin, boortz...all trolls. Sleepers with fake credentials waiting for this moment. LOL
That wasn't MY article, that was a reply from a FReeper on your side of the debate...that was his assumption and you are making the same assumption. I really used that post to dupe you into actually reading the table from the study to show you that there actually are net benefits to allowing immigrants; factoring immigrants over generations. And remember, those benefits would never accrue had there been no immigration to begin with.
I agree, that was a bad one, all right.
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.