Replies

My position on what you call amnesty is not much different from that of the Wall Street Journal.

The WSJ editorial board is prone to open-borders zealotry

Then again, you'd probably any disagreement from your 18-point plan as Amnesty.

Then again, no.
I define Amnesty as legalizing Illegals.
Then again, your strawman deflection here is moot anyway, since you've said you favor Amnesty, in so many words.
I believe those who have a job and who have committed no crimes other than entering illegally ought to be allowed to remain and tracked into either a bracero program or permanent residence that should not displace those currently going through the process. They should be required to develop proficiency in the English language, and English ought to be the official language of the United States.
I'm on record as favoring deportation of criminals, those caught entering with drugs, those who have gone on welfare, or who are believers in Aztlan.
I'm open as to the time period for which a partial amnesty would be in effect, and as to the specific details, but I do not think there should be a "deport `em all" policy. Those who have been employed, who are working hard and busting their butts to make it here, ought to be allowed to remain, and go legit.
link

And to place the quote in context, I will put the REST of the post there for those to judge below my comments here. The part you omitted - maybe it was rather inconvenient.

Does your restrictionist zealotry allow for things like taking only part of a quote and leaving out the rest of the statement that puts it in context? It is not hard for me to imagine that some immigration laws need to be loosened, just as Congress recently loosened some environmental laws for the military in certain areas.

I do no tthink omitting that part of the post speaks well for your intellectual honesty.

--

To be quite honest, I feel I have more in common in a cultural sense with those "Illegals" who have taken major risks to get into this country than I do with those who have their hands out for reparations or Euroweenies who seem to enjoy slamming us.

Free Republic calls for "the EFFECTIVE control of illegal immigration" in the About page. And I think that there is room for debate on what exactly would constitute EFFECTIVE control.

For me, I'd rather DOJ focus on the violent criminals, drug smugglers, welfare sponges, and the Aztlan separatists and leave the folks who are hard workers alone.

Based on the experiences my brother had over his two-year mission for our church, I think that the Tancredo-Buchanan crowd has grossly underestimated the ability and willingness of a lot of these "Illegals" to assimilate.

Poohbah's pointed out the logistics of fully militarizing the border - which some of the hard-liners on this issue want to do. Quite frankly, I take very strong issue with a the rhetoric used by a lot of the hard-liners on this matter.

I do not believe that our system of government can only work for a European culture, and I have SERIOUS issues with those who make that argument. I have serious issues with those who want to scale back immigration (I do think we need to cut immigration from Arab nations and Africa to a large extent, and instead focus more on Eastern Europe and Mexico), or even impose a moratorium. If either of those two policies were in effect a while back, then Sabertooth's pick to head the INS might not be in the U.S. at all, and Michelle Malkin would be worrying about Abu Sayyef. Or, as another example, Bailint Vazsonyi might have been in a gulag - if he was lucky.

I don't think that the color of one's skin matters one iota in their potential to achieve in this country. Ask Colin Powell, Linda Chavez, Michelle Malkin, Bill Gates, Ken Griffey Jr., J.C. Watts, Miguel Estrada, or Al Gonzales (the White House Counsel).

I think Bush is pushing the best proposal for all involved, and I'll back him to the hilt on it.