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.

[putupon]

[FirstPrinciple]

He must be a Bush-hater.

[Huck]

I'm sure Hannity's a real expert on the subject.

[gubamyster]

ping

[holdonnow]

Expert enough. He's right.

[Support Free Republic]

Rank	Location	Receipts	Donors/Avg		Freepers/Avg		Monthlies
49	Panama	25.00	1	25.00	5	5.00

Thanks for donating to Free Republic!

Move your locale up the leaderboard!

[Lady Eileen]

Sean is right...Well done...He said the they are rewarding lawlessness.

[Huck]

Really? You wouldn't change current immigration policy? You think it should stay as is?

[IncPen]

I see the warning at the top of this thread, and I understand that this is a hot topic here, albeit one in which I've not had occasion to participate.

That said, I question the value of posting 'he said/he said' threads on this topic.

There's a Limbaugh thread, posted a little earlier, that begs the same question.

Does this further the debate?

it amounts to forum pollution, IMHO.

[sickofthehandouts]

Why would a terrorist need to get on a plane to come into this country? Why not goto South America or Canada and just cross the border like so many illegals already have.

[Huck]

That's a fair point. I also haven't been on many immigration threads. I like the zero tolerance approach though ;-)

[Huck]

Why not goto South America or Canada and just cross the border like so many illegals already have.

If you had your pick, which would you rather?

[holdonnow]

Depends what you mean by change. If they want to increase legal limits, ok by me. But the entire notion that we pass laws and then embrace the lawbreakers is foreign to me, no pun intended. A sovereign nation has a right and duty to protect its borders. That's why we have limits on immigration. We are unable to assimilate 10-12 million illegal aliens every decade or so, on top of legal immigration. We need to tighten the borders, and if additional immigration beyond current legal limits are desired, then Congress can do that. But right now, we have chaos and anarchy on our borders. I also don't think Vicente Fox's desire to export his poor is beneficial to our nation, either.

[sickofthehandouts]

I would pick South America. Lots of weapons available and from the appearance of the strict security at airports vs. the border it would be far easier to take a walk through the desert.

[Huck]

I think the assenine thing is to say that any change is assenine, when I think some change appears to be in order. If we want a more lenient policy, laws should reflect that. If we want tighter policy, ditto. The law should match the desired policy. Whatever that is. Anyway, I just don't have much respect at all for Hannity as a thinker. Come to think of it, I have none. I was just making a snide comment. Goofing off on the job.

[Huck]

I think we'd rather have em coming in on foot than hopping international flights. So this is a good thing. We can't seal off the country. It ain't possible. But we can force them out of their favored strategies.

[holdonnow]

Well, maybe you shouldn't be so judgemental about another's intelligence. I see in a comment above you say that we shouldn't seal off our borders. Did someone talk about sealing off our borders on this thread? No. So, that's a false characterization of the issue. Endorsing the enforcement of current immigration laws, which provide for fairly liberal immigration and are updated virtually every year, is a perfectly legitimate position which in no way suggests that its proponent isn't smart. Why don't you stick to the subject, rather than disparaging Sean and twisting the issues? I have to go now. Take care.

[You Dirty Rats]

Long Walk. Colombia is not exactly next door!

[Huck]

I am sure I shouldn't be so judgemental. You are right. Hannity is not exactly off topic though, you must admit. He's in the title of the thread. The topic is what he said. So I responded to that. As for the sealing of borders, I am simply saying we can't seal them--it isn't possible, therefore, even if tightened, they will not be impeneterable. Which means the terror threat presented by border crossing--which the other poster brought up--will remain. Sorry for the confusion. I can see on these hot button issue threads, people come to them with a lot of baggage, which makes it that much harder to communicate effectively. To much reading into things that aren't there. Oh well. Comes with the territory. Remember the Elian threads? Holy cats!

[Mr. Mojo]

Depends what you mean by change.

Precisely. And from where I'm sitting the only change that makes sense is to put the kabosh on ALL immigration - both illegal and legal - for at least a decade. (This would obviously involve placing the National Guard on our borders). We just can't sustain the current rate and number of 3rd-worlders entering our nation, and we need time (and a lot of it) to Americanize the ones that are already here. If we don't, we're begging for a dilution of our unique American culture that we'll never be able to recover from.