Replies

Because you don't want benefits to be cut off if you are stating that you want more immigration, whether its legal or otherwise. That is just patently contradictory.

Take off the tin foil. I believe an earlier poster cited Jim Robinson's quote regarding immigration I have on my homepage. I agree with Jim. Do away with the benefits and you'll find that the immigrants who do come here will be composed more of the type you CLAIM you want. So if you would actually work to see that benefits are reduced for ALL, then you'll get what you tell others you want. However, I suspect your hate for Mexicans runs quite a bit deeper and you'll never be satisfied unless we round up anyone not like you and put them in concentration camps.

Free Republic Opinion Poll: Do you approve of the plan to let some of the eight million illegal aliens in the United States move toward legal status without penalty -- but with social security benefits?
Composite Opinion
No 85.2% 1,400
Yes 8.8% 145
Undecided 6.0% 98
100.0% 1,643

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1269654/posts?page=128#128

New FR Poll: Conservative Mandate Means We Hold Their Feet to the Fire!
November 3, 2004 | Jim Robinson

Does the Bush victory and the Republican gains in the House, Senate, and State Houses signal a clear mandate for a more conservative governance? In other words, should we hold their feet to the fire for strong national defense, smaller government, reduced taxes, conservative judges and defense of traditional American values?

http://www.freerepublic.com/perl/poll?poll=70

Yes. 95.0% 7,408
No. 3.2% 250
Pass. 0.9% 74
Undecided. 0.9% 67

If you feel as strongly about this as I do, then you will agree that there's no time like the present to get started. I believe that GWB will continue doing a great job on national defense and the war, but, as we all know, we also need to start shifting some resources to beefing up our border security. How do we do this?

November 3, 2004 | Jim Robinson

Wow, you sure are off on some tangents, perhaps that is how you can make statements that simply don't jive, unless of your you are like the Clinton your handle claims to dislike and simply like to pander to both sides. Lets review;

YOU:I must share with you that I happen to favor increasing immigration

YOUR PAGE: Now that's what I've been saying all along. Some people are fighting the wrong battle here. Eliminate the welfare state and a huge percentage of your illegal alien problem goes away. -- Jim Robinson

Now rectify that. You claim there is no reason to differentiate between the breaking the law and being cleared to come here; I assume you mean "Legal" immigration?
Call it what you will. I think immigration is a healthy thing for this country.

Then you have the laughably inappropriate stab at me to Take off the tin foil. Take your own advice and try to think before you post things like that.

Do away with the benefits and you'll find that the immigrants who do come here will be composed more of the type you CLAIM you want.

When did I ever CLAIM anything? I want people who break the law, get the free benefits, as well as steal jobs from American workers to be prosecuted. I am not a Cheap Labor Republican who wants to Privatize profits and Socialize costs, sorry.

However, I suspect your hate for Mexicans runs quite a bit deeper and you'll never be satisfied unless we round up anyone not like you and put them in concentration camps.

Back to this old saw again. Either you are confusing me with an earlier poster, you are confused by what I said, or you are flat out lying to paint yourself as some holier than though defender against the Nazis, but in any case I will assure you I have no hate for the illegals. They have a horrible socialistic country, I'd probably leave it too, however that doesn't mean its in the best interest of America for all these people used to a socialist style government to come into my nation, and I am loyal to America, not to Republican campaign contributors.