About the Moderators' recent efforts on the Illegal Alien threads: keep an open mind

January 7th, 2003 | Sabertooth

[PhiKapMom]

Divided we fall.

Exactly! Hope people take this to heart!

[PhiKapMom]

Thanks for clearing that up -- we need a list of what is off-limits IMO!

[Sabertooth]

All I know is, that 90%+ of the best articles on immigration are published by a web site that is banned on FR. Thus, it is impossible to have an intelligent, thorough, informed debate on illegal immigration here.

I think I should rephrase my stement a little (revision in bold)...

Nor is there any overarching effort to censor a wide-ranging debate on Illegals, as far as I’ve seen. In the context of the current effort underway on the Illegal Alien threads, I haven’t received even the slightest hint that there are subjects that are off limits to me in this regard, nor have I been given the impression that there can’t be vigorous debate, and I’m hardly a party-liner in this.

I'm aware of a few sites that aren't allowed. When I've gone to those sites from time to time, I've mainly seen articles that would be acceptable at FR, but for the fact that they're from forbidden sites.

If there are other aspects of those sites that make them entirely objectionable, I haven't seen much in the way of a thorough explanation of them, though I've asked.

It's a discussion worth pursuing, in my opinion.

[Lead Moderator]

Made the change in your original post. Thanks

[Travis McGee]

At least now we're talking about "FR's third rail," so that's good.

[Sabertooth]

Oops.

For the record, I didn't hit abuse on your VDARE post, I found it all rather amusing.

[Kevin Curry]

Very well said, and my sentiments exactly. I have been troubled by this very thing lately as we are coming into election season, and this is the last thing we need to be doing. Divided we fall.

Groupthink is deadly poison. Keep it in your own cup, please.

[Joe Hadenuf]

If I or any one of the staff here removes something, and you, Joe, repost it because you disagree, then you will be banned.

I fully understand that. But I didn't repost anything that had been removed. LOL! It's no big deal. Really, No hard feeling.

This whole invasion thing is over the top. People are extremely upset, and the outrage goes far beyond this site.

I personally know of good people that wouldn't last 10 seconds on this board as their outrage is shear brutal contempt for those that have allowed this titanic invasion to escalate. These people are cynical, fed up, and way beyond calmly chatting over tea regarding this epic crisis.

Those that suggest that we just continue to calmly debate this issue is like telling someone who is on fire to calmly, slowly, walk to the hospitial and inquire about treatment.

[Sabertooth]

*Divided we fall.

**Exactly! Hope people take this to heart!

I hope the President takes this to heart.

To push Amnesty will cost elections for the GOP. It's a polical loser.

Those concerned about judicial appointments need to understand how an effort to legalize Illegals will jeopardize potential gains in that area.

[Lead Moderator]

"But I didn't repost anything that had been removed"

OK, since you keep wanting to portray me as a liar, I've decided I've had enough. Buh bye.

[diotima]

This a great post Sabertooth. It is quite sad that this "meta" issue had to come up in the first place. One should always argue to the point and not the person, and there are clearly serial violators of this principle. On almost evey political issue discussed here.

There are prominent radio talk show hosts, congressman, journalists, political consultants and tv personalities that read this forum. I know this for a fact, I talk to these people all the time. They don't come here to read people's petty and infantile behavior or watch stupid cyber jihads carried out. They read FR to feel out the base and they read FR to see what issues are hot with the right-leaning public.

If you care about the forum and you care about the influence the forum has on the political circle, knock off the stupid petty inflamatory behavior. If you don't think you can say something to someone's face with out getting punched then don't say it. Don't ruin this forum and turn it into a virtual grudge match. Make a point with reason and facts, people lurk here and value the unfolding of a reasonable debate. Nothing turns off lurkers faster than observing a giant internet Hatfield-McCoy exhibition.

[Joe Hadenuf]

I an not suggesting that.

[Sabertooth]

I asked you to define "immigration restrictionist."

You said "define open borders' first."

So, I did.

Now, please answer my question, since you implied that you would:

How do you define "immigration restrictionist?"

[Final Authority]

The Posse Comitatus I believe is not applicable because those crossing the border without going through customs are criminals and not US citizens and therefore are indeed foreign enemies and are also invaders. They are subject to military action and subsequent destruction.

[sfRummygirl]

Interesting...I didn't even know this was happening. That's me, in my own little world....
Anybody got the president's e-mail handy?

[expatguy]

How is this type of arguement ever relevant?

A CRIMINAL OFFENSE has been commited.

My sister makes a wonderful pineapple upsidedown cake and is a decent hardworking person as well. But if she BREAKS the LAW then she has to PAY the PRICE!

Besides that, What do you say to the people who patiently follow the path of LEGAL IMMIGRATION? Is it fair to those people?

[SCalGal]

The one thing I have noticed is they are saying it is not an amenesty program and does not grant them permanent residency or more importantly citizenship and a right to vote. That is huge in my book.

My concern is that a worker program will be a first step in leading to an amnesty, and I think that is just wrong.

[Kevin Curry]

They don't come here to read people's petty and infantile behavior or watch stupid cyber jihads carried out. They read FR to feel out the base and they read FR to see what issues are hot . . .

Rather, they come to read the tepid, lukewarm groupthink responses to the hot issues--because the hot reponses and their authors have been kicked out and denied entry.

But it tends to validate and reinforce a point-of-view they're comfortable with. It does have that virtue.

[ambrose]

Reader's Digest version?

[Poohbah]

The Posse Comitatus I believe is not applicable because those crossing the border without going through customs are criminals

Which makes crossing the border illegally a matter for civil law enforcement and not the military.

and not US citizens and therefore are indeed foreign enemies and are also invaders. They are subject to military action and subsequent destruction.

Actually, they aren't. They are criminals; they are not members of a hostile armed force. There is a significant difference between the two, and that affects what we can legally do about the situation.