Real Message of The Bush Amnesty

The American Conservative ^ | 1/12/2004 | PAT BUCHANAN

[sauropod]

Then stick your head in the sand.

[liberallarry]

What???!! I was with you up to that one! What do you mean, "one big country"?!

We have an expansionist history. In Polk's time we stopped where we did because we didn't want the burden of a large Mexican population. We seem to have less of a choice today.

[WOSG]

"Millions would be killed." Military policing action minimal American loss. if done correctly could have 1 million out a month.

Millions killed? Who's in "fantasy land" now? LOL ... If it were to come to conflict, I'd hire the mexican immigrants, even illegals, and train them as a military border force ... fight fire with fire! Heck it's working in Iraq like a charm.

This whole concept of mass deportation is a strawman IMHO. Enforce verifiable documentation. Make the employers stop hiring illegals, with the threat of fines over their heads. Over time, the market for illegal labor will end and the 'magnet' for illegal immigration will cease to operate.

[sauropod]

I know Pippin personally. I didn't quite figure her for a 'Bot.

Too bad.

[AbsoluteJustice]

"1. End the market in labor for illegals. Make document verification mandatory, and start enfocing employer sanctions. (Not enforced because businesses lean on chamber of commerce which leans on our pols; well, that's got to stop.)
2. End the incentive for illegals to get any form of Govt aid (a la 187, I like it, Bush doesnt).
3. Stop giving citizenship to babies born of illegal alien mothers who cross over and show up at our emergency rooms.
4. Abolish the EOIR and end the maze of loopholes and rolling amnesties that keeps criminal aliens in the US.
5. Pass the CLEAR Act, to encourage local law enforcement to assist in immigration law enforcement.
6. Protect the border better with whatever fencing, technology, UAVs, and manpower needed to curtail the porous border. "

I agree with EVERYTHING you have posted here! Very well thought out and very common sense! Because of this it would not fly. I see politicians not thinking with any common sense.

[Cardini]

These folks kinda remind me of birds, they have to surround themselves with shiny colorful things to keep their pea sized brains occupied.

Side note: Anyone else notice that the face behind the child on the Aztlan poster looks just like Michael Jackson. These people are actively supporting child molestation!

[sauropod]

Tell you what Larry. You pay my share of taxes that are having to support illegal aliens and then they can come.

To your neighborhood.

[The Old Hoosier]

Oh, you're right. This is the climate that the marxification of the Left in this country has created. All we can do is go down fighting, I'm afraid. I'd rather do that than surrender.

[The Old Hoosier]

I don't think it's racist. I'm just saying, that's what we're going to hear. "Cultural chauvanism."

[the gillman@blacklagoon.com]

Look at the FTAA. It calls for developing common government and law as well as interconnection of judicial systems.

Good bye Constitution and good bye our few remaining rights.

[the gillman@blacklagoon.com]

We wouldn't be expanding, we'd be surrendering.

[liberallarry]

Thanks WOSG.

I'm very curious about your reaction to the article I linked in post #33. It left me with the impression that the documentation system wasn't working and couldn't work...which is why I proposed a language test.

Regardless, language proficiency is much more important than documentation for the health of our society and a language test kills two birds with one stone; legality and proficiency.

[WOSG]

Half a century ago, Dwight Eisenhower, informed there were a million illegals in the United States, most of them from Mexico, ordered them sent back. The project was called “Operation Wetback.” And did it solve the problem? The statement is made as if to suggest it was successful. It obviously wasn't.

Actually, it was successful for its time. The problem was much less in that decade than today. But it was superceded by other policies that went in a different direction. What intervened historically was the end of the Bracero program *and* the 1965 Immigration Law, a law that opened the floodgates to 3rd world immigration.

Our current out-of-control immigration situation is proof that the 1965 Immigration Law was and is a complete fiasco and should be repealed and overturned . Another disaster thanks to Ted Kennedy. We are still suffering from the consequences of the 1965 immigration law, which dicriminates against European immigration in favor of 3rd world immigration (eg the diversity visa program), which allows for "chain migration" of extended families, whether or not they have employment prospects waiting for them (often not, which is one reason why immigrants have much HIGHER RATES of being on welfare and using social services than native-born Americans).

Illegal immigration is tied in with this form of legal immigration because amnesties of various forms have in effect let whole extended families in due to the amnesty of a single person. This creates further incentive for illegal immigration because there is always the hope that one amnesty or 'anchor baby' will get the whole family in.

If we change the legal immigration law to restrict family sponsorship to nucelar fmailies only, it would go a long way to reducing the incentives for illegal immigration.

[liberallarry]

What's your reaction to post #71?

[WOSG]

Thanks.

Actually, almost all of what I propose there has sponsorship by at least some Republicans in Congress.
I'd say about 120-140 Republicans currently "get it", and 0 Demcorats do ... need to work on that next 100 votes.

[The Old Hoosier]

He is merely setting the table for the 2008 Rep candidate.

As a Cubs fan, I'm willing to tolerate such "wait-till-next-year" naivete in sports, but not in politics. Spend a year or two in Washington and you'll change your tune.

Bush's actions of late generally endanger the advance of conservatism. You can't win in the wake of a termed-out incumbent from your own party by repudiating the incumbent. Stevenson tried it in 1952 and got trounced. Gore sort of tried it in 2000, and it might have contributed to his loss.

Once you create new entitlements and such, there's no going back, or else you just look like a liar. Your ideology is irretrievably lost.

[Pippin]

Since when is being sick and tired of reading posts that attack anybody who tries to defend the President's decisions and avoiding such situations of flame wars and such juvenile behavior as I have witnesses on other such threads known as "sticking my head in the sand"

You wanna know how I feel about this issue?

Why don't you read some of my posts from last week on some of the daily threads like A FEW of FR's Finest; FR Canteen or America The Right Way among others.

If you want I can look up the post nos and days they were posted.

BUT I am NO ostrich AND I don't stick my head in the sand as you suggested. And Just because I don't agree with everything YOU or anybody that has the nerve to ping me just to tell me they are not voting in the next election. Doesn't mean I am ignoring issues. I just hate one-issue voters.

So why don't you jusr get over the fact that not everyone is going to agree with you! Now leave me alone! don't ping me to any more Immigration threads! I won't go!

[Jim Cane]

We have an expansionist history. In Polk's time we stopped where we did because we didn't want the burden of a large Mexican population. We seem to have less of a choice today.

You can't have stable expansion unless you're willing to kill/subdue the current occupants of Mexico and colonize it with English speaking Yankee governors and ubermenchen, and loyal legions (not hired local mercanaries) to maintain the new piece.

Are you willing to pay the price?

[liberallarry]

Millions killed? Who's in "fantasy land" now? LOL

A worst-case - but not unlikely - scenario.

Assuming your documentation/enforcement system worked...what would you do about a destabilized Mexico, about American lives and possession under attack in that country?

[kellynla]

"Many people may not like him and I don't agree with everything he says, but he on the money with this issue." Yes, I was referring to Buchanan.