Posted on 12/28/2003 10:49:51 AM PST by mrustow
Well how about the fact that these immigrants are voting democratic/socialist.
The dems game plan is to dilute the conservative vote with new arrivals.
Read this
.....................................................
Clinton’s Subtle, but Historic, Redefinition of U.S. Immigration Policy
January 10, 2001
Commentary by Ira Mehlman Federation for American Immigration Reform Spokesman
The Clinton Administration is now a part of history, and historians are just getting started assessing the Clinton legacy. There will be plenty to keep them busy.
Among the records set during the Clinton years was the largest sustained wave of immigration in America’s history. Some 10 million new immigrants arrived in the U.S. during his presidency, and by the time he left offices there were nearly 30 million foreign born residents, accounting for more than 10 percent of the population.
But perhaps more significant than the sheer numbers of people who settled here during the Clinton years, was the dramatic redefinition of the purpose of immigration policy and the relationship between immigrants and their adopted country. Two subtle, but significant shifts occurred during the last eight years that are worth noting: U.S. citizenship was turned into a political commodity, and immigrants became America’s “customers.”
After losing control of both houses of Congress in the 1994 election to the Republicans, Clinton embarked on a program to reshape the electorate in a way that was more to his liking. In addition to using his considerable powers of persuasion to win back public support, he set about creating a new American public. The administration directed the Immigration and Naturalization Service to mint new citizens in time to vote in the 1996 elections. Under the direct control of Vice President Gore, the Citizenship USA program was tasked with naturalizing as many noncitizens as they could possibly find in time to participate in the next election.
The plan succeeded. Democrats have eliminated the Republicans’ majority in the Senate and have significantly eroded their advantage in the House. An analysis of voting patterns across the country shows that voting by new citizens has been the deciding factor in numerous elections, and in nearly every case, has broken to the Democrats’ advantage.
That immigrants are playing a significant role in American politics is nothing new. What changed during the Clinton years is that altering the political landscape became an objective of immigration policy. In much the same way as employers have used immigrants to change labor market conditions to their advantage, the Clinton Administration used them to create an electorate more to their liking.
The second subtle, but important, change that occurred under Clinton was a redefinition of the relationship between immigrants and the American nation. One of the priorities set forth by Clinton’s INS commissioner, Doris Meissner, was to improve the agency’s “customer service.”
Certainly no one who has ever dealt with INS would dispute the need for improvements in the way the agency treats those who are going through the immigration process. But Meissner’s repeated description of immigrants as “customers” was more than a matter of semantics. The choice of words reflected a very significant change in attitude.
In the past, immigration was seen as policy designed to serve the interests of the nation. As such, there was a general belief that it was the responsibility of the immigrants to go the extra mile to accommodate themselves to the social, cultural and linguistic norms of the country. As customers, that relationship is reversed. It is the nation that must bend over backwards to accommodate the “customers,” and provide whatever services and programs they need.
Under the customer model, if immigration creates overcrowded schools, or exceeds the capacity of public health care system, you don’t reduce immigration. Instead you build as many schools and emergency rooms as the “customers” require. Under the customer model, it doesn’t matter whether immigrants have marketable skills, or that more than one-third have less than a high school education. It becomes the nation’s obligation to deal with the needs of the immigrants.
Very often it is the subtle policy changes of a presidential administration that define its legacy. Clinton’s subtle manipulation of immigration policy could prove to be among the most long lasting imprints he leaves on America.
............................................
We had the rats on the ropes in 1994 but Slick Willie pulled a rabbit out of his hat and got back in the game.
Its all about votes. Why do you think the democrats are for maintaining a high legal immigration rate and granting amnesty to illegals ?
We'll never get a handle on this situation unless we ... get tough with people who violate our laws.
WOULD this be your solution to the so-called 'drug war' as well?
FUNNY how SO many people see the LEGALISATION of DRUGS as the solution the the problem they perceive as the 'drug war' but OVERLOOK this as a possible solution for the immigration problem ...
Just more facts, reason, and logic from you txdoda
You have to check this out. It was waiting for me this morning.
..........................................................
To: Missouri
Hey racists,
Without immigrants (legal or ilegal) in this country, only the very rich will be able to afford to eat out, get their hair cut at a decent price or have their office restrooms cleaned every day. This is a country of 290,000,000 people - so what if we let in 50,000 people every year? Even if we did 500,000 a year, that is nothing compared to the god knows how many people who are on welfare in this country.
33 posted on 12/28/2003 5:00:11 AM CST by leavesofgrass [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
.........................................................
The last post on this thread was on Dec.14. Two weeks ago. leavesofgrass just sign up today. Do you think he/she's a troll ? (sarcasm)
I got news for this stuped troll. We're letting in alot more than 50,000.
Please stop with the Jesse Jackson playbook, it's not going to work here.
It's fairly easy to show that the costs of the WOD are greater than the benefits. If you have evidence that the same is true for attempts to reduce illegal immigration, I'll listen.
Geez....... I mis-spelled stupid. If been looking for my glasses for the last hour, I better find them soon.
Check the bottom of the article, not the upstairs line. It says:
Originally published in the December, 2000, Middle American News.
Now that is an original idea, we tried that in 1986, it sure stopped illegal immigration didn't it?
Amen! This single issue is the main reason I am so disenchanted with President Bush. He has been so great for our country in other areas, why can't he "get" the fact that illegals - of ALL stripes - are a major concern of many voters.
My wife is a L&D Nurse, and at least once a day she relates some story about a patient who came in via an ambulance (paid for by the taxpayer), to the ER (paid for by the taxpayer), to have an emergency C-Section (paid for by the taxpayer), only to have the baby, a new US citizen end up in a neonatal intensive care unit at about $100K+ (paid for by the taxpayer) because the illegal didn't have any prenatal care. Last week it was an illegal with twins that fit this exact profile - the estimated bill (paid for by the taxpayer) will be in excess of $500K for the entire process. And what just frosts her butt if whenever she goes over the admission paperwork with the illegal she gets a little smile when she asks about her social security number.
Now the really bad part is that even though this would be the ideal place to have INS come in a catch the illegal and her 20+ relatives (all illegal) no hospital allows it, nor would the Feds respond to it.....
One here seems to think my ancestors were 'taxed to death' to support all the Irish immigrants.
No way do I accept the arguement from the open-borders crowd that we're a nation of immigrants. The first people who arrived here had to tame the wilderness, clear the land, feed themselves. There were no hospitals, railroads, or police. They are the creators of this country. Even immigrants from 100 years ago had it alot tougher than today. No welfare, no free medical, no ACLU suing for ballots in different languages.
Pick a few strawberrys, put up a couple of roofs, or babysit rich peoples kids and they tell you that they're the ones who keep this country going. Todays immigrants have it made compared to those older immigrants and its a slap in their face when that comparison is made.
Check the bottom of the article, not the upstairs line. It says:
Originally published in the December, 2000, Middle American News.
Thanks for the heads-up; I'll alert the author immediately, if you haven't already.
I have a friend who flew planes all over the world during WWII. He noticed one thing about the very poor countries, they all had too many people, that is what you are proposing for our children, and grandchildren.
I feel the same as you do. Pres. Bush is a great patriot and a good man, doing what it takes to defend the nation, and yet while going off to fight outlaws, he leaves the farm unprotected, and the baryard door wide open. (Except in this case, the varmints go IN, instead of OUT!) Many of the crazy notions he supports seem to come from this nut Karl Rove, but the President is still responsible for choosing his advisors. If he gets the credit for Rumsfeld and Rice, he gets the blame for Rove. (I'm not sure what to say about Powell.)
.
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.