Posted on 11/19/2006 3:30:50 PM PST by A. Pole
Ok I will put you down as a two then. Now leave me alone, of course if you are a one, you probably won't.
"I think a lot of these Freepers who refuse to even peek without their R Party blinders on are going to get the crap shocked out of them when the NAU and the comprehensive amnesty plan actually come together.
There will be a lot of 'How could I have been so stupid' utterings going on."
The final slap in the face happens when Bush and the Democratic majority work together to bring about amnesty for illegals - cast as "comprehensive immigration reform plan" -yet still the Bots will find some reason to justify it. Funny how those like Tancredo find the connection between illegal immigration and NAFTA, courageously vote aginst CAFTA, courageously speak out against the North American Union - and as usual he's labeled as an archaic nutcase by both the new age liberals and so-called conservatives. This isn't hard to figure out.
Typical of a socialist to ignore 2/3's of the definition. Which of the two parts of that definition in bold DON'T apply to the illegals? They are a cancer (hence the arguments, fights, marches by foreigners on our soil) on our society. And, they are clearly an encroachment and an intrusion.
They are not armed forces. They are not intending to conqur. It is not, on a large scale, harmful.
Twelve million or more is not a large scale? You have clearly shown your stripes and your purposeful ignorance. You are for illegals.
So you are thus incapable of demeaing blue collar workers? No, actually, you can still do that, regardless. Ever heard of the concept of self-lothing? You could be an outhouse cleaner for all I care, I know demeaning language when I see it.
Don't quit you day job. Your attempt at analysis is pathetic.
That said, we aren't discussing what to do with immigrants that are already here, that's a totally separate issue from guest workers, which need not be immigrants that have already come here illegally. If we are throwing around insults, anybody who graduated from the 4th grade would understand that.
Wait, I thought you were talking about a guest worker plan. Now you are not?
Pure socialist thinking again. Calling them immigrants when they are illegal aliens.
Immigrants who come and work cheaply create greater efficiency, which leads to greater output, which leads to greater wealth, etc. Don't believe me, believe Alan Greenspan who said this repeatedly.
Again. They are not immigrants they are illegal aliens.
I am not against legal immigration. Saying so is a blatant lie on your part. I offered you a proprosal here and you completely ignored it. Why? Does it not fit your demographic?
Twelve million or more is not a large scale? You have clearly shown your stripes and your purposeful ignorance. You are for illegals.
You obviously aren't interested in real discussion. You are purposefully taking my sentences out of context to try to 'win' the arguement.
I didn't say it wasn't large scale. Read the sentence. What I SAID was, by and large, it wasn't HARMFUL, which gets rid of #2 as well as corrects your reading comprehention problem that lead to your second paragraph. Yes, there are harms, but the economic benefits of immigration and the demographic benefits of immigration, illegal or legal, are greater then the costs.
That said, we would have a lot fewer unnecessary costs, which would be better for us as well as Mexico, if we could make sure the immigrants coming weren't criminals, if we made sure they had jobs, and it wouldn't threaten our rule of law, as I admit, having unenforcable laws does threaten our rule of law, if we allowed them to come here legally.
Wait, I thought you were talking about a guest worker plan. Now you are not?
For someone who attacks his opponent's reading comprehention, you sure seem to have a problem with it yourself. I was responding to YOU trying to change the topic from guest worker programs to 'Amnesty', which are separate issues. YOU did that, not me.
Pure socialist thinking again. Calling them immigrants when they are illegal aliens.
Even if they are illegal aliens, which again, YOU, not I, are changing the subject, AGAIN, they are still immigrants. That is why it's called illegal IMMIGRATION.
You continue to ignore my arguements and change the topic at every point. If it makes you feel good, great. It makes you look like a fool to everyone else.
If you are only against illegal immigrants, there is no reason for you to oppose a guest worker program, as that is allowing for more LEGAL immigrants. LEGAL immigrants. LEGAL immigrants. Will it help you understand this incredibly simple concept if I repeat it 10 more times?
If you want to oppose a guest worker program, which is what this conversation started out to be about before you changed the topic, you can oppose it for a variety of reasons. What you cannot do, is oppose it because you oppose illegal immigration, because it would not be illegal immigration, but legal immigration.
I don't know how to make it simpler then that. I'm guessing you'll ignore what I'm saying and take my words out of context and continue rattling off something about illegal immigration or Amnesty. Which has nothing to do with the subject at hand. But that won't stop you. You've got your mind made up, and you aren't letting facts get in your way.
Actually, I'm joined by most Republicans. Not the most vocal, I'll grant you that, but most Republicans favor guest worker programs. Poll after poll shows that. The only way the anti-immigration side can get a poll to say something different is if they use the word 'Amnesty', which has nothing to do with it, as a guest worker program is a separate issue, but they don't let that get in the way, because they don't want it and they know 'Amnesty' polls poorly while 'Guest workers' don't.
I'm also joined by such folks as George W. Bush, Sam Brownback, and the CATO institute.
Excuse me if I don't feel bad about it.
A very liberal way of thinking. That is a misuse of the term. Under the law they are illegal aliens. I know it's impossible for you to consider them illegals but that is the fact.
This is what you posted:
in·va·sion (n-vzhn) Pronunciation Key Audio pronunciation of "invasion" [P] n. 1. The act of invading, especially the entrance of an armed force into a territory to conquer. 2. A large-scale onset of something injurious or harmful, such as a disease. 3. An intrusion or encroachment.
You only wanted to use one part of the definition and then you say "I didn't say it wasn't large scale. Read the sentence. What I SAID was, by and large, it wasn't HARMFUL, which gets rid of #2 as well as corrects your reading comprehention problem that lead to your second paragraph. Yes, there are harms, but the economic benefits of immigration and the demographic benefits of immigration, illegal or legal, are greater then the costs."
Talk about twisting words.
Not only that but there have been several studies which shows they are harmful. You just don't want to admit it.
Listen, you clearly are a socialist who doesn't believe in borders and you are not willing to speak honestly. Unless you call them illegal alien and not immigrants there is no point in continuing this. Your whole arguement is bases on a lie. And, if you are willing to lie to make your point it's a waste time.
Will you be confessing your sin of lying this Saturday when you go to confession?
Either Tancredo's too crazy to be anything but an incompetent ward of the state, or he lied to the draft board.
Pick one.
How did that work for us last election? Oh! Never Mind......................
Again I refer you to the Luntz report, and you do not answer questions, only pontificate, about how correct you are, sort of Bob Dole like.
Amazing how many people with a 4-F medical problem were miraculously "over it" when the draft ended.
"Amazing how many people with a 4-F medical problem were miraculously "over it" when the draft ended."
Many men with families went overseas too...
I believe the VP had a family deferment.
Do you always use Democrat arguments?
What potential candidates or candidates for President of the United States in 2008 do you believe would make a good president?
What members of the United States Senate or the United States House of Representatives do you admire?
Did you support passage of S.2611, the Senate's immigration reform bill?
What potnetial candidate or canidates for president in 2008 do you believe would make a good president?
Cong. Tancredo has never said that a bill that solely provides for incrased legal immigration. Cong. Tancredo does believe that bills granting legal status to millions of illegal aliens and allowing them a path to citizenship are amnesty bills.
Did you support S.2611, the Senate immigration reform bill? Do you believe that millions of illegal aliens should be given legal status and a path to citizenship?
Cong. Tancredo supported and voted for H.R.4437, the House's border security bill. It was overwhlemingly supported by House Republicans. It did not provide legal status and a path to citizenship for illegal aliens.
In case you missed it, illegal entry into the United States is a federal crime. It can be a felony or a misdemeanor depending on the circumstances of the crime. Rewarding millions of illegal aliens that committed the federal crime of illegal entry into the United States with legal status and a path to citizenship is amnesty.
"Actually, I'm joined by most Republicans. Not the most vocal, I'll grant you that, but most Republicans favor guest worker programs. Poll after poll shows that. The only way the anti-immigration side can get a poll to say something different is if they use the word 'Amnesty', which has nothing to do with it, as a guest worker program is a separate issue, but they don't let that get in the way, because they don't want it and they know 'Amnesty' polls poorly while 'Guest workers' don't."
I want to see these polls. My GOP state rep in NE Ohio ran on a heavy anti-illegal immigration platform and won hands down in a district at least 50% Democrat. And a guest worker program IMO is somewhat connected to amnesty, if indeed people who came here illegally and work for substandard wages are reclassified as guest workers. A guest worker program is also connected to amnesty if the border is not controlled beforehand, since it tells everyone who came before illegally that they paved the way for even increasing numbers who can come as guest workers. I don't understand how anyone can observe the California economy, for example, with it's plethora of illegals monopolizing so many of the contracting jobs that once went to indigenous Americans, and not think things are screwed up. It's not xenophobia to put indigenous Americans and legal immigrants first.
I don't begrudge family deferments in the slightest. Tommy T was single at the time, as I was. And Cheney still had his family after the draft ended, where Tom Tancredo somehow managed to magically become well just when the draft ended.
"If you are only against illegal immigrants, there is no reason for you to oppose a guest worker program, as that is allowing for more LEGAL immigrants. LEGAL immigrants. LEGAL immigrants."
We already have a 'guest worker program', and aside from a North American Union/SPP, the whole reason the OBL supports 'comprehensive immigration reform' is to gain AMNESTY for the illegals AND their employers. So go ahead and make 40,000 illegal aliens our new LEGAL immigrants, but don't forget their family members, @ 4 x 40,0000 who will be welcome here as well....this is what you're asking for:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4094926727128068265&q=roy+beck
"FYI, a moderator changed the title, not the poster."
I guess a mod just hasn't gotten around to correcting Dane-is the Menace's titles below:
`Tancredo, Gilcrest, etc: What are they smoking' and `Immigration Blowhards'?
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.