Posted on 05/05/2010 1:31:39 PM PDT by Welshman007
Introducing a proposal that would purport to solve America's growing immigration problem, columnist and political pundit Charles Krauthammer stated on Bill O'Reilly's Fox News program last night that amnesty for illegal aliens is acceptable, but only after the borders are sufficiently secured.
Before considering where Krauthammer goes wrong it is important to affirm where he is right.
America's immigration program is in complete disarray. Nearly 100 years ago the U.S. established reasonable limits on the number of immigrants accepted into citizenship, based upon the ability of the country to successfully accommodate and assimilate newcomers into the culture.
For a number of years that plan worked.
Then, beginning in the late 1960s under LBJ and a Congress heavily dominated by liberal Democrats, the nation threw to the wind those reasonable limits. While the restrictions remain on the books, they were ignored, allowing millions of illegal aliens to cross the border without any attempt to address the lawlessness.
Thus, periodically, rather than addressing the problem of those who break the law by attempting to get in front of the line of those who wish to immigrate legally, Congress would simply grant blanket amnesty, thus rewarding and enabling illegal behavior.
(Excerpt) Read more at examiner.com ...
WTF IS WRONG WITH THESE MORONS!?
They no what’s coming, out and out cival war and total breakdown of society and want to stave it off as long as they can ...
He's not alone in having this problem.
It's closely allied with the problem some people have in understanding that HALF the American population is not black. In fact, it's barely more than 1 in 10 people (13%). Still, the believers in HALF talk, think and act as if it's really HALF. It's not possible to reason with them.
I wonder how the author defines “amnesty?”
Personally, I find Krauthammer to be an astute analyst.
The first problem is that guys like you always yell "AMNESTY" about any idea other than yours. I'm rather certain that Krauthammer didn't make a simplistic call for amnesty, and I'm quite certain that he didn't shout while doing so.
Krauthammer is one of those guys who would rather think before he speaks; and he's also one of those guys who know that shouting makes you look like an idiot.
You could maybe look to him as an example.
Maybe you should look inward?
Just saying.....
I saw the interview and Krauthammer was very reasonable (in that he agreed with me.)
He said that we had to first control the borders with no preconditions. After that we can talk about what to do with those already here. There are illegals here that we will not be able (willing) to deport. People with citizen children, houses, jobs, savings, etc. Illegal children brought here as babies and residents here for 20 years or more. Etc.
Forget them for now and lets solve the problem of the open borders.
Pretty much as usual, I think: "doesn't agree with the author."
"Amnesty" is the border-bot equivalent of "RINO" -- an epithet of convenience rather than fixed definition.
Since the borders aren’t going to be effectively closed any time soon, does that mean he’s really not for amnesty?
Actually, to an extent, I understand the term, RINO. If “Republican” defines one as having conservative principles and a Republican politician fails to practice conservative principles, that politician is Republican in name only.
“Amnesty” needs to be a more concise term as understood by conservatives.
Let’s also solve the problem of LEGAL immigration. After years on student and employment visas (goodness only knows why...he appears to have been a temp who worked at the Elizabeth Arden offices in CT), the NYC bomber got citizenship by marrying a Pakistani woman who had already gotten American citizenship out of some kind of family reunification thing. In addition, he benefitted from the fact that in 2009, Obama made some kind of regulatory change that made country quotas equal and permitted a surge in Muslim immigration, which was his stated purpose at that time.
What I’m afraid of is that our immigration policy is going to be so skewed towards the Muslim Third World (Africa and SE Asia particularly) that we will end up like Britain.
The problem with that is the tendency to look south, at the people coming across, rather than at the Americans who are paying them to come here.
Seriously: illegals come here for the jobs, or the welfare, or both.
Deal with the demand side, both among employers and government agencies, and the illegal immigration problem will pretty much end itself for economic reasons.
Krauthammer made me so mad last night....
He forgot to mention how unfair to the AMERICAN people all of this is...
The problem with "RINO" is that it seems to have no meaning beyond "doesn't agree with me about X."
Nobody seems to be able to provide a working definition of a "True Republican," and indeed that's a general and significant problem -- one of the reasons why R's in general, and conservatives in particular, have gotten into such deep political trouble over the past 25 years or so.
That’s exactly what I was trying to convey the other day.
The term “amnesty” seems to mean more than one thing to certain Conservatives.
Some think it means ‘instant citizenship’....some think it means no fines or punishment for being here illegally.
Perhaps it's not really unfair, Freddd.
After all, the AMERICAN people are paying them to come here in the first place. The illegals wouldn't be flocking here otherwise.
Most people, including LBJ, did not see the future consequences of Kennedy's immigration bill, which was supposedly about "fairness" and "against racism." However, near the end of his life, Ted Kennedy said that he was PROUD of the consequences of his bill--turning the United States of America into a Third World country!!!!
Ping!
He is a definitely a hawk and a very bright and articulate individual.
Krathammer is a Beltway insider and definitely an elitist. he is a neocon, rather than a conservative, and he isn't necessarily on our - the conservative - side on many issues.
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.