Replies

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.

Are you going to address that comment by Sam Francis or not?

Or are you instead going to duck that uncomfortable fact by questioning my motives for posting on this thread?

I ask again, is the comment below by Sam Francis acceptable discourse?

"The civilization that we as whites created in Europe and America could not have developed apart from the genetic endowments of the creating people." — SAMUEL FRANCIS, SPEECH AT THE AMERICAN RENAISSANCE CONFERENCE, MAY 1994

A simple yes or no will do. Of course, I can understand why you might not wish to deal with it.

In addition, if one seeks to LOWER the current quotas, is that not advocating restriction? Isn't "restrictionist" an appropriate adjective for those who advocate that position? Why do you object to that term if it is accurate?

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?

"Do you approve of a plan that makes agressive use of temporary guest workers to reduce the economic incentive for illegal immigration, while allowing some of the eight million illegal aliens in the United States to move towards legal status provided they register for temporary status, stay employed, pay social security taxes, and are eligible to apply for permanent legal status from their home countries only after a period of six years, in the same manner as other applicants?"

The wording of poll questions DOES count for something, no? I found the poll question on FR so loaded that I almost went for "yes" out of annoyance, but calmed down and clicked undecided. Ya, my version is probably a bit loaded too. It just shows that I can play the game myself, no?