You are drawing the proverbial line in the sand and waiting for a reaction that you know full well that you will get.
Your line will get crossed.
Those on my side of this can't see the logic in what your espousing. This may be why some will question your motives.
Do you understand what I am saying?
This forum has had loads of purists that have been banned or quit, on many subjects, not just immigration.
Purists draw the line, refuse to listen to alternative or compromise.
It is inconceivable that something of substance is causing the lack of any acceptance to any other alternatives and they refuse to discuss same.
Inconceivable that their is no other motive, and then someone will play the race card or lash out.
I have studied this and looked at possible explanations for some time now.
What is your explanation?
This is the crux of this immigration debate problem. There is no debate between us, because you automatically reject anything that crossed your line.
Basically you are saying that the only acceptable reform is to deport all the illegals to the last and seal the border.
And what you have done, if this idea were to prevail is to guarantee that nothing will be done. Because what you suggest is not possible. Your in a debate, not a pissin contest.
Crevo ping! This is a decent thread to read in its entirety (as are all crevo threads that go to the 1000 mark at least). Since this thread went twice as far as the best crevo thread, it must be doubly as good as the bestest of the best of all crevo threads...
Alrighty, then, it must be at least as good as the best of the bestests of all Mary Mother of God threads, eh?
I state my position entirely that nobody has been either Zotted or banned.
And you don't reject anything that crosses your line?
Basically you are saying that the only acceptable reform is to deport all the illegals to the last and seal the border.
"The only acceptable reform"? If you scroll my posts I have said no such thing.
Yes, I think all illegals should be deported--they broke the law after all!--and it doesn't have to be done in a day. But this will require commitment, determination, and perseverance on the part of our elected officials, and I'm not sure we have that yet.
Re. "sealing the border", earlier on this thread I asked someone how exactly would it be done? When people use the term "close the border", what do they mean--a wall, electric fence, border agents every 100 feet, land mines?
I think the key to solving the problem is to start at the source: Remove illegals' access to jobs. Smash employers of illegals with heavy fines and jail time. Make loud and clear examples of them. At the same time, all taxpayer-funded welfare to illegals must end. If the illegals can't get jobs and can't get welfare, fewer of them will want to come or stay.
The disconnect here is that the pro-amnesty camp would rather give up on the issue, complaining about the "impossibility" of certain options, whereas those against illegal immigration believe it is such an important issue for the health and safety of our nation that it's worth pursuing *real* solutions.
I have been called all sorts of names on FR because I am against illegal immigrants. I don't care what color they are.
I have been called a Bush basher, (I am critical of him on TWO issues.)I have been called a racist, been told I can't be a conservative or a Rebublican, and must be a Buchanan voter. It is really annoying.
I think applying for worker permits from their homes is a great compromise. It must be joined by removal of all welfare benefits and free medical care, abolishing anchor babies, and severe punishment of employers who hire illegals. Employers must be able to verify documents somehow, as it is unfair to disallow questions about documentation and then punish those who accept fraudulent documents.
That is a proposal I would support, not rewarding lawbreakers with amnesty, which is what allowing them to apply here would be.