Posted on 01/04/2004 7:55:31 PM PST by Lead Moderator
Edited on 01/04/2004 8:43:28 PM PST by Lead Moderator. [history]
Lando
I doubt highly that anyone you debate with here on Free Republic considers themselves to be pro-criminal. I doubt very many consider themselves to be pro-illegal alien.
You may consider those to be the natural result of their positions, but that doesn't change the fact that they are coming at the problem from a different angle. They can (and most are) just as sincere and conservative as you.
Yes, I said just as conservative as you. The reason that this is such a hot debate within conservatism is that it involves many different and sometimes competing aspects of conservative thought. It is conservative to want to protect America's culture from rapid change and destability. It is conservative to want to keep the nation secure and to have the law respected. It is also conservative to not believe that a perfect solution can be found. It is also conservative to understand that their are limited resources and be concerned with cost. It is also conservative to be concerned with the impact on civil liberties. And wrapped around all of this are electoral politics concerns- which many different people think are impacted in many different ways by many different approaches. And most of these people are sincere.
You could probably help keep these threads on the right track by not baiting people by calling them pro-criminal. Instead, make arguments that point out how in your eyes the stance they take rewards criminal behavior. It is a subtle difference, but less instigative. And as a benefit to you, it is more likely to convince the person you are debating. I doubt highly that you are winning any converts with insults.
And the answer is not for people to behave when the mods are watching and then be like they are now on other threads. The answer is for people to cool it a bit so that those who are causing the problems stand out and can be dealt with.
Here's a repeat: "One group is those who really have no other goal other than to try to fracture conservatives and turn them on each other." There are sincere people who support the breaking of laws, whether it be drugs laws or gun ordinances. On the other hand, those who want to humanely find a solution to undocumented immigration are not advocating lawlessness but rather accepting the geographic, political, cultural, demographic, and socio-economic reality which is our common southern border, and look for a workable solution from Washington. Those who advocate against illegal immigration have an extra responsibility to ensure no one uses FreeRepublic to foist their calls for violence (as in "shoot shovel and shutup") or bigotry or dehumanization against any race, nationality, culture, or language. That self-policing has been sorely lacking in the past.
|
|
On this, I disagree, and this goes beyond Free Republic.
Any movement has the added responsibility of being somewhat self-policing. Those who make illegal immigration a top priority do need to call out those who either hold the same position (or pretend to hold the same position) who start advocating violence or racism. It may not be fair, but it is reality. Tolerance of unacceptable views within a particular political faction injures that faction. That is just the way the world works.
I am against illegal immigration. I do not think amnesty works. I also do not think we have the resources to find and deport all of the illegals we have right now. I also think that if we did allocate the resources to find and deport all illegals, the effort would cause such an uproar amongst civil libertarians (since it would invariably involve investigating many more people than just illegals) would fracture the political right.
|
On this, I disagree, and this goes beyond Free Republic. Any movement has the added responsibility of being somewhat self-policing. Those who make illegal immigration a top priority do need to call out those who either hold the same position (or pretend to hold the same position) who start advocating violence or racism. It may not be fair, but it is reality. Tolerance of unacceptable views within a particular political faction injures that faction. That is just the way the world works.
|
So I'll distill it down. Both sides have a responsibility to call out the unacceptable coming from supposed allies.
Especially when it comes in the form of calls for violence and racism.
Especially when it comes in the form of calls for violence and racism.
|
Bingo! But the devil will be in the details here. For example, if there is a Volunteer Reserve (which is much needed IMHO), under whose control will that Reserve be?
In my mind, I'd like to see this fall to the several States instead of the federal government.
Besides that, I'd like to see a severe pimp-hand put down on any and all businesses which employ illegal aliens, from the States and the feds penalizing the offending companies.
If by that you mean poster X says one thing, and poster Y totally distorts what poster X said and screams "you're a violent racist" then yes, I agree with you, and no that should not be controversial.
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.