Posted on 12/20/2004 12:21:42 PM PST by nanak
After the White House news conference this morning, Bill Kristol on Fox News praised President Bush's remarks about "immigration reform" as "eloquent." Beg to differ. The president's open-borders statements were empty, garish platitudes strung together sloppily like cheap Christmas lights:
Illegal aliens "do the job Americans won't do." President Bush used that dog-tired phrase about a half-dozen times during today's press conference as he defended his impending illegal alien amnesty plan. Mark Krikorian effectively puts this mindless rhetoric to rest here.
"Family values don't stop at the Rio Grande." Uh huh. Well, terrorists and gang members and drunken murderers and cop-killers don't stop there either. And based on past and recent experience, granting amnesty to 13 million law-breakers will only result in more illegal immigration, not less.
We need immigration reform that "recognizes reality." Rank-and-file immigration enforcement officials give a real reality check on the amnesty debacle here, here, and here.
As immigration enforcement veteran/former U.S. prosecutor Peter Nunez put it:
[W]e need to stop the talk of a coming amnesty, or of a guest worker program, both of which, by themselves, serve to encourage additional illegal immigration. What kind of message are we sending when we dangle that possibility before people desperate enough to put their lives at risk? Doesn’t this kind of talk also indicate that we really don’t care much about law breaking, that we don’t really care that much about the rule of law, that these immigration laws exist only as a token objection to the violation of our sovereignty? Now, that is eloquent.
Ping
25 million +. We'll have a country inside this country at this rate. Culture conflicts will be unavoidable.
As more immigrants, both legal and illegal pour into this country the stress level at many levels will increase. Good farm lands, areas for hunting, fishing, and camping will become less.
That statement does not seem pertinent to this discussion since criminals would not be subject to amnesty. They would be deported when their respective sentences were up.
But the immigrant criminals make up one third of our federal prisoners. They are not being deported.
Even if they were, they have still committed crimes against Americans. That should not be happening if the government were doing it's job. Those crimes can't be undone.
Don't wait to care until it happens to someone you know or love.
Tolerating illegal immigration is not a good deal for America on any level.
Jeez. Another republican so-called conservative recommending that our government continue to allow America to be invaded by millions of 3rd world peasants every year so we can “maybe” float the actuarially bankrupt democrat welfare programs (SS/Medicaid/Medicare) for another generation. Forget about Reforming these programs. It is so much more politically expedient to put a happy face on the unmitigated disaster of illegal immigration.
Hey Smart Guy, what happens in 2030 when the next MUCH larger generation starts to retire? Are we going to import China, India along with whoever is left in Mexico so there are enough workers to make good on FDR's and LBJ's old Ponzi Schemes.
I have an idea: how about we FIX those GD Democrat fraud ridden fiascoes so they don't require a perpetual increase in our population to work. A fix that is actuarially sound and does not necessitate that America surrender its sovereignty to the 3rd World to pay off the Grampas and Grannies of the future.
If only democrats fought for the republican agenda like many republicans do for the democrats' agenda.
Please cite the cases where the jury acquitted regarding the hiring of illegals.
The only cases that I know of is Tyson Foods where the feds just fined them. No Don Tyson was never held responsible, was he? These cases rarely make it to a jury when the defendant is a high profile corporate executive.
.
Believe it or not, but the birth rate in Mexico is slowing to what it once was. Hispanics in the US are not having as many babies as they once did either.
The only solution is for Americans to care for their aging parents like many other countries do. Eventually do away with social security. This is probably the reason Japan is not importing a bunch of foreigners just to have babies. They respect and care for their elderly.
Poohbah explained the case here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1300252/posts?page=379#379
I don't think there's a soul around who believes a single "guest" worker will ever return home ---or that Vicente Fox will ever say enough is enough and now there are enough of his poor people gone so he will start working on some reforms.
Vicente Fox started jumping up and down --- high-fiving his fellow elites --- outside an orphanage for street children --- shouting "we're going for more!! we're going for more!!" when Bush's amnesty plan was announced. Pretty undignified for a leader of a country to act that gleeful about ridding his country of it's citizens.
That is the truth. Other than a handful of reps , we have been sold out .
| Forget about Reforming these programs.
And forget about all your rhetoric concerning Democrats and Social Security and FDR and LBJ. That's all noise. Money is not the issue. Money is just a symbol. What matters is the quantity of actual goods and services in the economy at the time, and that is a function of how many people are working, not how many "dollars" somebody might have in a vault somewhere. There is no such thing as "fixing the programs so that they work." That's a financial illusion. People can't eat money. They can only eat food, and that has to be produced by people who work. If the workers aren't there because they were never born, no amount of money fixes that. No "program" can fix that. The only thing that could have fixed it was having more children 20 years previously. Setting the country up for a culture that euthanizes its old to get them out of the way is hardly a "conservative" position. But that's what you're doing, calling yourself a conservative the whole way. You'd multiply the Culture of Death, and call it "actuarially sound." And maybe it is. But it's not how I want to do it. Killing people to get them out of the way is not on my conservative agenda.
I'll bet you thought that was a conundrum for which there is no answer. But there is one, and Bush found it. By diverting money out of the useless Social Security "trust fund," which Congress just pisses away as fast as it comes in, and into the capital markets, it becomes possible for business to invest more heavily in things that make people more productive. If productivity rises enough, it won't matter that there are only 2 people per retiree, because they will be producing the output that required 4 people in our day. Or at least, we'd better hope it turns out that way. If it doesn't... well, there's always euthanasia. But we ought to try Bush's method first. |
"And you want millions upon millions more people?
Good Lord!"
Exactly.
And the "we need them to prop up the Social Security pyramid scheme" just doesn't wash. Isn't that why the move to privatize SS accounts?
Good to see you too !! Keep the fighter ready for battle , ya never know when you will be needed !
Did Poobah cite the case or was this some made up story?
I'm quite uncomfortable with some of the regulatory stuff that agencies pull off.
But I guess immigration is worth bigger government.
Read the post.
He heard it secondhand from someone dating one of the people in the U.S. Attorney's office where the case was prosecuted.
I briefly dated the young lady who told me this story. It was 10 years ago, but her recounting the case made quite an impression on me--mostly because she was absolutely livid--to the point where I broke up with her because I didn't want to be involved with anyone that went that crazy over things they could not control.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
That's right: forget about it. Because it's not about "programs." It's about how many people are working vs how many people, young and old, there are to support, who are not working.