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

January 7th, 2003 | Sabertooth

[rintense]

Lansing has a few very good authentic Mexican restaurants.

El Azteco in East Lansing is the best in the state!

[xJones]

So why haven't we shut down the borders and stationed troops or mined the borders...if we are truly a nation at war with international and internal terrorists...we aren't certainly aren't acting like it...

We catch 'em at the airports, don't you know? Yes sir, let any illegal Mexican or Central American try to buy a board an airplane in the U. S., France, or Britain and we'll get them! (Of course, that would be only if they had wires sticking out and kept striking matches, but that's beside the point.)

As for guarding U.S. borders, that is ridiculous to expect. We can guard the entire Syria-Iraq border half-way around the world, but not here with our Homeland Security and all those snazy new laws.

Of course when the world is one race one culture of one mind under one leader then there will finally be peace...that's the New World Odor's plan anyway...flooding the west with the third world is the one of the last steps on this journey accross the bridge to the future.

Yes, and the New World Odor will pull most Americans down - but for whose benefit? Cui Bono? Who profits? This is a one-way street and the traffic is all against us.

[Lead Moderator]

I don't think we are in any danger of getting to the point where all there are are "tepid, lukewarm groupthink responses". As a matter of fact, as things have been discussed on this thread here today, there have been plenty of contentious debates going on today on this issue, without people calling each other "wench", talking about "wetbacks", saying that poster A is a bigot for wanting the borders protected, saying that poster B is a socialist for not abandoning all support of President Bush over the issue. The things we are talking about taking out are the needless crap which get in the way of a good spirited debate, not the things which add to it.

[hchutch]

Those on the opposite side of the Wall Street Journal. I consider FAIR, Americans for Better Immigration, and NumbersUSA to fall into that category.

Now, are you ready to deal with the questionable stuff you admit is present, or will you still try to spin it away? I provided one of the quotes that led me to make my comments about Sam Francis and VDARE.

Are comments like the one I posted accpetable, or not? And if they ARE unacceptable, are you willing to show those who would make such comments the door?

[sfRummygirl]

A nationwide manhunt? Too extreme? I think it's called protecting your border. Do you guys live in a border state? While I'm not advocating flaming others, we (America), have got to figure this out FAST, or we are really in deep doo-doo.

[xJones]

You just banned or suspended Joe Hadenuf?

[sfRummygirl]

It IS sad. I'm not going against the administration just to be an independent trouble maker. I WANT to like Bush with this. But this is killing us.

[diotima]

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.

There are ways to argue your point in a civilized manner, sans the personal attacks and flame bait, that was my point.

Many of the authors of the columns that get posted here, read the forum. They enjoy insightful commentary on their work not nasty flaming sarcasm and insults tossed at other posters here.

If you feel you or anyone else, can not make your point or your argument here with out losing self control, maybe there is elsewhere that would be more amenable to having their resources and bandwidth used for such purposes.

In case you think my comments were directed at you or stem from some particular position I hold on immigration I'll be clear: I am opposed to amnesty, I am in favor of securing our borders and I have no interest in subsidizing and propping up people that have broken the law to come here.

[sfRummygirl]

Yesterday, actually.

[Poohbah]

A nationwide manhunt? Too extreme?

Can you provide proof of US citizenship on demand?

Are you willing to do so every 50 miles or so on this nation's roads, or whenever a cop decides that he's had a rotten day and wants to share the wealth?

I think it's called protecting your border. Do you guys live in a border state?

Yes, I do.

What about the rest of what dirtboy and I chronicled?

Berlin-Wall construction? Minefields? Truly massive troop deployments? AC-130s blasting away at anyone crossing the Rio Grande? Yes, people have advocated all this.

[snopercod]

Violence posts are not allowed, and Freepers should hit abuse on them.

OK, I took you at your word and hit the abuse button on this post. Nothing was done.

Are you just guys and gals just busy, or are posts advocating "summarily shooting" illegal aliens acceptable on FR?

[Lead Moderator]

I agree it should have been, and it now has been. Thanks.

[BushCountry]

The Admin Mod removed the post before I looked. Whew, I thought you were talking about this post. Which I hardly find offensive. };O)

[Final Authority]

If in WWII Japanese decided to send ships of unarmed to the shores of CA or HI what would Truman have done? It matters not what weapon they carry because they are invading and are not welcome and are in fact an enemy of the Constitution as they intend to do harm. There can be no "utility" argument used to excuse the fact they are indeed invaders and subject to destruction. If you do not understand the concept of a "utility" argument please respond and I will try to help you out.

[ohioWfan]

Let's give you your argument that President Bush is a "Neo-con" when it comes to domestic policy.

You posted that he was of 'no worth.'......those were your words.

Do you then feel that our success in the War on Terror is of 'no worth?' Do you feel that the revitalization and respect for the military are of 'no worth?' Do you feel that the tax cuts and rebounding economy are of 'no worth?' And do you honestly believe that the decency of the man is of 'no worth?'

You make no sense, Rebelbase, when you say that what was once of value is now of 'no worth,' and it is such extreme and drastic anti-Bush statements that diminish any civil discourse on the topics at hand.

[Mr. Mojo]

I guess the mod just hadenuf. ....Hopefully it's just a supension.

[Sabertooth]

Those on the opposite side of the Wall Street Journal. I consider FAIR, Americans for Better Immigration, and NumbersUSA to fall into that category.

"That category" being your so-called "immigration restrictionists."

Like you, the Wall Street Journal favors Amnesty for Illegals, therefore, by your definition, anyone not favoring Amnesty is an "immigration restrictionist."

That's a nice, inaccurate, broadbrushed talking point you're bringing to the table.

Plenty of people who are opposed to Illegals and the legalization of them are perfectly comfortable with a generous legal immigration policy. We just prefer to welcome the foreigners who are willing to abide by our laws.

Guess who else falls into your so-called "immigration restrictionist" category?

Question ...

Do you approve of the plan to let some of the eight million illegal aliens in the United States move toward legal status without penalty -- but with social security benefits?

Yes
118 votes - 8%

No
1,236 votes - 85%

Undecided
91 votes - 6%

1,445 votes total
FR poll link

Accordihng to FR's daily stats, there were 3,165 distinct posters on Monday and 3,445 distinct posters yesterday, for an average of about 3,300. You'd need to pick up about 75% of the remaining active Freepers for your pro-Amnesty position to prevail in this poll. Doesn't seem likely that you'll close with a 3 to 1 advantage after opening with a 9 to 1 deficit, does it?

So, you're even further from the mainstream of this forum on the Illegal Alien issue than you are from the nation at large, where opposition to Amnesty polls at 2 to 1.

In fact, you've came to this thread expecting others to prove their sincerity, while you simultaneously slurred most posters on this forum as "immigration restrictionists."

Pull the plank from your own eye.

[Poohbah]

If in WWII Japanese decided to send ships of unarmed to the shores of CA or HI what would Truman have done?

Are we in a state of declared war with Mexico?

It matters not what weapon they carry because they are invading and are not welcome and are in fact an enemy of the Constitution as they intend to do harm.

"Invasion" has a specific meaning in law. Illegally crossing the border is not "invasion" in and of itself.

There can be no "utility" argument used to excuse the fact they are indeed invaders and subject to destruction.

Article VI of the US Constitution and a large number of treaties we have signed disagree with you. Opening fire on unarmed persons merely for crossing the border would make the soldiers who did so instant war criminals.

If you do not understand the concept of a "utility" argument please respond and I will try to help you out.

Please explain, by all means.

[BushCountry]

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!

If your sister is over 20 years old she has broken the law hundreds of times without paying the price (e.g. possibly underage drinking, speeding, turning on a red light, maybe experimenting with drugs, jaywalking, and a thousand other things teenagers do in the process of growing up). There are thousands upon thousands of laws, making it almost impossible to tow the line.

But that is not the point, deporting 11 million immigrants at gunpoint tomorrow will not solve much and would cause more problems than it would solve. Don't forget it is only an accident of birth, that you are here and not in a mass grave in Iraq, or an immigrant yourself.

In 1910, the typical debate in politics was how immigrants from southern europe were going to destroy this country! The immigrant population as a percentage has been greater in the first five decades of the 1900s than now. This is a very old debate. Since the debate is so old, it seems like I should see reasonable solutions to this problem discussed, instead of hyperbole. Provide me with a reasonable, thoughtful solution that would be both politically acceptable and humane and you will have a convert.