Free Republic is not, must not, and will not turn into Dummyland

LOL

Unfortunately, "Sleazy", "Underhanded", "Lying", "Cowardly"and "Anti-American" won't all fit into the tagline.

"I also have a problem with rewarding those who break the law."

That's my major beef, too...there are many thousands of folks attempting to gain American citizenship via legal means, and they'll be pushed to the end of the line by the lawbreakers.

FReegards...MUD

He seems to be in Massachucetts, that may not be hell but it's close.

You need to read the thread again. I am not saying at all that you cannot disagree with the President on the immigration issue or over any other issue, and I am not advocating to ban anyone. However if the Buchaninites and 3rd party voters are going after President Bush as if he is the worse enemy to America, then yes they will have huge problem being on FR because they will lose the grace of the majority including the moderators.

Example: Look at post # 221 from dagnabit.

It is too late.

FR is pretty much the Republican (note that I did NOT say C/conservative) version of DU.

It wasn't always that way.

It wasn't always party first.

And those most guilty don't even realize that they are the first to use the same very detested techniques that the liberals used.

At least it is still a good place to read a lot of news in a single source.

There are many many conservatives that are more than perplexed with the President's position on the Latin American invasion. He deserves all that he gets and more.

Funny that I can only write to my elected reps, write letters to the editor and call in to talk radio. The only other power that I have left is to vote for a rat.

By not putting the military on the border and deporting the peasants back to their homeland, we are finished. The Presidents words have increased the flow of these unskilled serfs into MY country.

As far as I am concerned he gets what he deserves here on the F.R.

I am glad I got the opportunity to grow up in America when I did.

Lou Dobbs, CNN, aired Dec. 28, 2004.

*******
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0412/28/ldt.01.html
Well, my next guest is concerned about a guest worker program that would legalize millions of illegal immigrants working in the country. He says the current proposals are not practical and pose a security risk. Michael Cutler is a retired 30-year veteran with the Immigration and National Service. He spent most of his career as a criminal investigator and intelligence specialist. And thanks very much for being with us, Michael.

MICHAEL CUTLER, CENTER FOR IMMIGRATION STUDIES: Thank you, once again, for having me.

PILGRIM: Why is this proposal not practical? Many think it is practical, get everyone registered, know who's here. It seems very practical.

CUTLER: You won't know who's here because of the crush of humanity showing up at immigration we're going to wind up having to process millions of applications and basically the people at that desk are going to have to take the person's words for who they claim to be. My concern is they are going to wind up giving false names and possibly even circumvent no-fly lists and watch lists at borders so they can enter the United States even though if their real identities were known, they'd be barred from entry and be barred from taking airplane flights.

PILGRIM: So what's your suggestion? We shouldn't register them at all, just let them stay, or register them back in their own countries? What's a more practical solution to this?

CUTLER: In a matter of speaking, we should register them back in their own countries. And this would discourage illegal immigration. If ultimately decide we need guest workers, and I don't know that we do, then we should have them file the applications from back home where we could more properly screen them and discourage people from running the border in the hopes that if they get here, they'll be able to stay.

The other problem we have is right now we're not able to prevent employers from hiring illegal aliens because you've only got 2,000 agents to lend integrity to this process. How do we plan to lend integrity to a guest worker program where these folks are supposed to leave after three years? We don't have the manpower to go out and attempt to make them leave. And we won't even know for certain that they're showing up on the jobs that they claim they're coming to go to work at.

PILGRIM: Michael, we don't have the manpower to actually supervise what's going on now. And you've been in this so long, for so many years. Do you have a solution that you can come up with?

CUTLER: Well, I think, again, that if we do a guest worker program, we need to have these folks apply from their home countries. You know, when the president gave a speech back in January, he talked about a guest worker program, and that translated the next day, according to the border patrol, in a surge of illegal aliens running the border. So the reality is all this does is to encourage more illegal immigration.

And the bureau that's charged with adjudicating these applications have massive problems right now. Mr. Aguirre, who runs the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services, that's an arm of the Homeland Security Department, has said that each day, his people have to adjudicate 30,000 applications and issue 20,000 green cards. And right now they have a backlog of over 4 million applications. How do they plan to deal with this tidal wave of applications that are sure to hit the immigration offices around the country?

PILGRIM: Here's what President Bush said recently. We want our border patrol agents chasing crooks and thieves and terrorists not good-hearted people coming here to work. He seems to say, we should focus on people who are trying to come into this country illegally who are terrorists. Do you not think that's a good approach?

CUTLER: I think in principle, it's a great idea. But the problem is, what does a terrorist or bad guy look like? You know, I often like to ask people, what do you think a terrorist does two days before an attack? More than likely he goes to the job he's been holding down for the past five years or attending the school that he's been going to for the past three or four years in an effort to hide in plain sight. We don't know what someone's intentions are when they show up claiming that they're here looking for work.

You know, I wish we had a crystal ball or some kind of a machine that would enable us to see into somebody's heart. And it's all well and good to talk about wanting good-hearted people. But making it reality is something entirely different, then I would challenge anyone that thinks we can do that to show me by what process we can know what somebody intends to do.

PILGRIM: With all your years of experience, we certainly take what you say to heart. Thanks for joining us this evening, Michael Cutler.

As I said earlier if the Bucahnanite and 3rd party voters keep spewing their hate toward President Bush they are going to lose their grace on FR with the majority of voters and the moderators, and this what I meant it will end up badly for them.

I did not say anything about the Buchananites and 3rd party voters being banned before, someone else mentioned it on the thread. This is good to know because it supports what I am saying in the paragraph above.

"Aren't you the one who told me to submit all of my posts to you first for approval? as you said, "to prevent FR from being hijacked by a fringe of Bush basher and insanely delusional conspiracy theorists."

Tell us you aren't serious! We could have had the FR authority screening our posts!! ??? Who knew??

"There are no real conservatives outside the REPUBLICAN party."

And very darn few in it.

It's odd that debating issues within the Republican Party becomes a matter of life and death for the Party nowadays.

Is it the end of the Party if the President fails to get "guest worker" and perhaps Congressman Tancredo's ideas prevail on this isssue?

I ask it that way because the President gets well deserved almost 100-percent backing on virtually all other issues.

Yes, the discourse could be a little more respectful from both sides. But, hey! we got a Ronald Reagan out of it the last time.

Let me aks you a question.

What if the President has never addressed the issue of illegal immigration, and let the statu-quo as it is now, will this be O.K.?

RE: What if the President has never addressed the issue of illegal immigration, and let the statu-quo as it is now, will this be O.K.?

I am glad you asked!

The short answer is, yes (with qualifications).

I've outlined why I say yes and I've named the qualifiers on recent immigration threads. Thanks!

You have been honest and that is good to know.

"The reason so many CONSERVATIVES are offering theories about Bush and the illegal immigration issue is because they don't understand how the President can lead us to war, lock down the airports, spend billions of dollars on the war on terror yet allow 4,000 foreign nationals walk across our borders tonight."

This is the disconnect which is apparently part of Bush's Homeland Security policy that we don't understand. Entire terrorist armies could be crossing our borders, fully armed, and we would have little knowledge of it. And no control over such an incursion. Are they? There is more than a few clues to the veracity of this possibility. Shall we just wait and find out?

If our government's security policy track-recond is any measure, we can expect a frantic, reflexive, and tectonic shift in policy once a long feared cross border terrorist attack becomes reality. After some bloody horror of a Beslan-like or Suicide bomber incident that kills untold numbers of innocent American citizens in their own hometown explodes in screaming headlines across the nation, you can expect that the sudden realization of our vulnerability will become very painfully obvious. What was considered unthinkable before, will become issue #1, driving a hysterical wave of voter demand "to do something... NOW!" Suddenly, Congress will be screaming for something they have quietly resisted and prevented for decades- real attempts at providing border security for our nation.

The history of why this has become the status quo is long, complex, controversial, and unfortunately, more focused on political expediency than national security. And now, we begin to reap the "rewards" of the many years of myopic neglect of our immigration and security problems. With one terrorist act, that can be traced from south of the border, all this current controversy will be swept away, and previous concerns over finer points of civil liberties and extending constitutional protection to "undocumented immigrants" will seem trivial. Instead of facing a threat, doing the hard work that must be done, and preventing a national security and humanitarian crisis, we will simply follow the well worn tracks of how policy is done in the modern U.S., and wait until it is too late to prevent disaster. But certainly not too late to appoint a Congressional committee to point fingers of blame and obfuscate the failings of those with the real authority and responsibility, mainly Congress itself.

I blame the man I voted for, for President, and I still support, ... for being too conditioned to compromise and accommodation. He simply does not see the dire consequences that would come with the worst case scenario. I understand the position of political vulnerability Bush estimated a hard-line anti-illegal border security policy would have put him in, even to the point of realistic concern of losing the election if this issue had become focused on. Oh, how Kerry would have demagogued this to the Hispanic voters... "Bush is a racist!", "Bush would tear down the Statue of Liberty!" etc. I can imagine that and worse, as I would never expect anything better from the Democrat Party of today.

But... the election is over. Bush has his "political capital", and I wish he would realize how much of it he will lose IF we experience a hometown atrocity by terrorists that have crossed the Mexican border. How many "OTMs" crossing that border have been detected so far? Hundreds? I am not sure, but it is high time some dots get connected, and we alter the old "wait till its too late" policy of lurch and reaction. Once a major cross border terrorist attack happens, the issue of preventing the influx of Illegal will be settled, instantly... and forever. But I fear the terrible consequences this turn of events will bring to all of us. Mr. Bush... think and listen to your citizens!

Without the Republican party conservatism is dead.

The Republican Party has been shifting leftward for quite sometime now.

Conservatism within the Republican Party IS dead.

Neo-conservatism is the trend now.

Just go ahead and change your handle, to "jilluminati", already?

huh?

BTTT!