Hannity calls any immigration policy change "asinine"

Hannity Radio Show ^ | self

[putupon]

[Moderator's note: threads regarding immigration issues and border issues have been spiralling out of control for some time on Free Republic. This is going to change. Fair warning: this would be a very poor thread to engage in flame warring, flame baiting, or otherwise being needlessly instigative. If you have not yet read this thread, you may want to before engaging in the debate on this or other similar threads. If there are any questions regarding the new scrutiny of these threads, please take them to that thread rather than cluttering up these threads.

Up until last night, people had been very cooperative with this effort, and for that I was grateful. Last night, I think there must have been a full moon or something, but we'll get that straightened out.

Thanks, and happy Freeping.]

Sean Hannity just used the word "asinine" in regards to any immigration change until we gain control of the current immigration situation.

[Issaquahking]

I would beg to differ with you. I vote republican most of the time because they continuously offer up the best canidates. Being a conservative is doing the right thing even if it costs you, I see RINO republicans such as Shays(jerk who wouldn't come to NY on New year's eve) sell their soul.

Bush has sold us out on border security. I couldn't believe it when he had the gall to tell Syria to watch their border and stop anybody there. Mr. Bush, how can you tell them that, when you can't stop illegals from coming into our country? Lead by example! This is an issue that will always stick irritate me. That said though, he is still a decent president, and will get my vote in 2004.

Rush is Conservative, Hannity is Solid Conservative. I'd rather consider myself Hannitized than be a ditto head, and that is the line.

I think Rush and Hannity are both good hearted, and try to do the right thing, in their hearts. When the heat comes on though, and I had to be in a foxhole with one of the two - give me Hannity ten times over.

[The_Eaglet]

Thanks.

[William Wallace]

Ugly stuff too. Now I know where all the anti-semites went.

I thought they all went to OWK's site. ;-) Where no doubt they were resoundingly humbled by the penetrating logic of pure reason and had no choice but to go elsewhere. ;-D

Actually LP isn't only home to A-Ss, but also features Brigadiers, Birchers, cranks, KKKs, Know Nothings, grassy knoll conservatives, mental health inpatients, paranoid foil beanie-wearers who think black helicopters are watching their every move and self-styled true conservatives/disgruntled ex-Freepers who think GWBush and JimRob are stupid evil geniuses.

If this post doesn't make the cut&paste, I give up.

[Poohbah]

I think there's going to be a big storm blowing through here from the Kingdom of Mod.

Either that, or FR's going to become a mirror-image of LP.

[William Wallace]

Either that, or FR's going to become a mirror-image of LP.

I think these other sites are a good example of what FR could become without moderators. We have our dust-ups and flame wars, but I've seen stuff over there ranges from the clearly defamatory to borderline-criminal invasion of privacy.

I'm jealous of anyone here who get trashed on those sites. It's a badge of honor to be ridiculed by fools and hated by scoundrels.

[MissAmericanPie]

I think it assenine for government to ignore it's own laws on the books and refuse to enforce them.

[Huck]

I think it assenine for government to ignore it's own laws on the books and refuse to enforce them.

Much better to have a policy you are willing to enforce, don't you think?

[MissAmericanPie]

No, I think the policy and laws on the books right now is just fine and needs to be inforced, thank you. I think politicians need to keep their grubby mitts off our sovereignty and voting booth, I think they need to stop playing around with the diversity is our strength scam when all evidence is in that they can't keep up in our public schools. That they drain our resources, hospitals, state budgets, and welfare system, now our SS system.

I think they should have started inforcing our laws yesterday, but today would be a good time to start.

[William Wallace]

You are correct. The fact that Hannity is not smart is in coincidental. :-P

That isn't a fact, it's your opinion. And if you're right, his accomplishments are all the more impressive without the benefit of your superior intellect. ;-)

No doubt Carter and Clinton are considered much smarter than Bush and Reagan. Didn't stop the Democrat dynamic duo from making a lot of incredibly stupid decisions while those two dummies won the Cold War without firing a shot, produced the greatest economic expansion in history, liberated 50 million from brutal totalitarian regimes and cleaned up the spectacular messes left by our geniuses.

Sean's job may seem easy from the driver's seat going home. Hitting a Randy Johnson slider looks easy from the big chair in my living room too. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't feel so smart in front of a microphone three hours a day plus an hour in front of the cameras.

Well maybe I would if I could sit next to Alan. ;-)

[Huck]

I do agree that the job is not as easy as it seems in the hands of a professional radio host. I give him credit for that. I am sure it's easier than hitting a slider from the Big Unit, but it's not a cakewalk. It takes some skill. And it takes other positive qualities to attain his success. He has accomplished a lot. Having said that, he ain't all that bright. I don't think I have ever heard him say anything at all that was original or especially interesting in any way. He's a cheerleader, with the brains to match.

[Aetius]

Again, the more people who rely on a program, the harder it is to get rid of it.

Immigrants did not create welfare, nor did they create racial preferences, or multiculturalism.

But can anyone really deny that MASS immigration strengthens all three of those things?

Reducing immigration would make it easier to deal with each, because the base of people who benefit from those policies would cease to grow ( at least as rapidly as it is now), thus lessening the power of the interest groups and politicians who make sure these policies remain in place.

[Aetius]

"To be blunt, the failure of the immgration restrictionist crowd to police its own ranks makes me think that there is no problem among that crowd with bigotry that Mr. Francis and VDARE engage in. I find that unacceptable."

Well there are some problems with that line of thought. First of all, what exactly qualifies as 'bigotry' these days? Its not as though the left is cautious in throwing charges of racism and xenophobia around. I mean you have the leading Democratic candidate, Howard Dean, who basically called people who oppose racial preferences 'racist.' By his definition upwards of 60-70% of Americans are racists. You have reformer and Congressman Tancredo, who supports reductions that would still allow between 200-300K immigrants per year, regularly referred to as 'anti-immigrant' and 'anti-immigration' for daring give voice to the majority who wants a reduction in numbers. Victor Davis Hanson recently released a book about immigration and California. He went out of his way to make it so that he couldn't be accused of racism, including spouting the standard platitudes about immigration everytime I saw him on television to promote the book. But guess what, some still saw fit to accuse him of.....you guessed it---racism. Its like something out of the Twiligt Zone that putting forth moderate, mainstream majority supported positions that have no inherent racism will put you in a postion of having to deny that you are a racist. Its crazy.

My point is that the charge of racism and bigotry has been so cheapened by those who recklessly throw it around w/o any justification that I'm not simply going to take your word for it that this Francis in particular, and VDARE in general are guilty of bigotry. They most certainly are guilty of crimes against the dogma of multiculturalism and political correctness, but that doesn't mean they are racist. In particular they do write about the racial dynamics of immigration. They point out the collision with the policy of racial preferences. Is that beyond the pale now? Is it off-limits? Is is not proper to be discussed in the glorious age of diversity? Well it seems to me that the racial dynamics are more important than ever now, and its not a good sign if we as a society cannot openly talk about it a reasoned, logical manner without someone accusing you of racism because they simply don't like facts, or better yet because they fear actual implementation of what is the majority will.

And another thing about diversity. Maybe it is a strength, but maybe its a weakness when it goes too far. Time will tell, I guess. But one of the reasons some are so vehemently opposed to imm reduction is that one of its effects will be to slow, and maybe even eventually halt the rapid demographic shift taking place right now. Now that may never cross the mind of certain people who call for reduction, but the fact that is is a result means that some people will suspect you of racism, and wanting to maintain the 'white-power structure.' But what if one of your goals is specifically to maintain an ethnic balance in this country where white people are the majority, as they have been since the founding. Does that make you racist? And if it does, then why isn't it equally racist to support a policy that increases diversity, or in other words makes the country less white? See what I'm saying? Why is it okay to think a less white nation equals a better nation, while wanting to maintain what has always been makes you a racist?

And as to you comments about Scalia; I don't think that a prospective immigrant should judged on race. Nor do I think immigration policy should be set, as it is now, to favor third world immigrants.

I believe legal immigration levels should be set between 200 and 300 thousand per year. Now that will mean less non-white immigrants, but it will in no way result in a resumption of mostly-white immigration. The majority of immigrants would most likely still be Hispanic and Asian. I think that family reunification should be limited to spouses (i.e. a male husband of a female resident, and a female wife of a male resident), and dependent children of citizens and legal residents, and maybe parents. That would effectively cut off chain migration in a matter or yrs. I believe that any guest worker program should be made up of actual 'guests' who eventually go home, or if given permanent residency should be made to fit within existing caps on legal immigration. I believe that a child born in the US should have to have at least one parent be a legal resident for that child to have automatic citizenship. And while I wish racial preferences were just abolished outright, in the meantime I don't think any immigrant or their children should be eligible to receive them.

Does this make me a racist? If it does then I probably have the company of most Americans.

As as to policing the reductionist crowd: Well I'm sorry but I don't think the reductionist crowd is made up of enough bigots so as to sully the whole bunch. And its not as if immigration is an issue that cuts right down party or ideological lines. Many Democrats support reduction. Most conservatives do, but not all. People's motives run the gambit from economic reasons, environmental reasons, cultural reasons, historical reasons, to yes even racial/ethnic reasons. If the results of a reduction are positive, which I think they would be, then I really don't care why someone would support a candidate promising reduction. Though I would prefer they not have hate in their hearts.

[bvw]

"Proof it", indeed. Well, we all make mistakes. Some are more *synchronous* than others.

* * * *

The availability of greatly under-market rate labor hobbles innovation in what e'er market that labor is found in. Innovation drives down prices.

This is why states with high minimum-wage laws are on top of the median wage earned stats. Not because of socialistic "minimum wage" clap-trap, but because the minimum wage makes adding innovation favorable vis a vis adding labor. So those states can and are more innovative, and more productive.