GOP, You Are Warned

AEI ^ | 29 dec 04 | David Frum

[FBD]

---

Note to the freeper that this is posted to: I no longer waste precious time to read or respond to mindless Open Borders arguments. I come to FR to get and exchange information with those who share my beliefs that we must protect our sovereign borders, and enforce our immigration laws. I'm not here to trade elementary school insults with posters like you, who engage in liberal emotional hyperbole, or make endless NAACP style accusations of racism/bigotry. This is a generic, pre-written message, stored in my word processor, under the file name: "Generic Note to OBL FReepers who post to me." This post only took 15 seconds of my life to copy and paste to your comment to me. Be advised, if you post to me again, you will get this same reply.

---

[BlackElk]

Nope. I want to drive the socially liberal into decline. If that means swapping them for non-killers, sure. I am an Anglo (at least as much as anything alse 1/4) so I have no desire to drive out Anglos at all or any other ethnic group. I judge people on their morals and not on their ancestry. I understand that you and I disagree on the morals questions but I am not seeing any necessity to trade you to Nicaragua for two hard-core priests and and four young mothers to be named later.

As I told you recently, I am really a much nicer guy than you imagine. I don't need to shut up the social issue liberals, just to change the laws to make them stop killing babies or trying to contract lavender nuptials.

[Sam the Sham]

Gee, that's funny.

I thought the Clintons held the White House for eight years in the 90's. So obviously a lot of Americans have a very high opinion of them.

You really should read Flux Capacitor's post. He spelled it out quite nicely. Because they start with New York and California, the Dems have a massive structural electoral advantage (if either of these states were competitive imagine how much money would have had to be spent in those media markets). Bush spent much time in October in New Jersey and Pennsylvannia and got neither. So given a strong candidate, and Hillary would be a strong candidate, it would be fairly easy to pick up Colorado or Arizona. Or maybe even Louisiana.

[BlackElk]

You don't answer questions very well. Have you read the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment? It trumps institutional racism as it was intended to do. It mentions the equal protection of persons who are not merely citizens. On that, you lose.

[Dane]

No problem FBD, but you incessantly repeating your reply #381(basically shouting "Lalalallallalallalalala, I don't hear you"), is no way to go through life, IMO.

[Torie]

Anyone whose agenda is abortion AND birth control AND snowbird socialism AND lavenderism AND gun controlism and tax hikism NEEDS to be cleansed. Give them 6 months to leave for Canada or any other country large enough for them not to control before the cleansing begins.

I guess I misread the intent of the above. It was apparently meant as more of a vent than a serious policy proposal. Carry on.

[Fatalis]

Did you miss the whole part about illegals registering their *employers*?!

Once the employer is registered by an illegal, he's going to be subject to compliance verification...something that we can't yet do to over 1 million currently anonymous employers of illegals.

Here's a thing or two I didn't miss:

Southack at #363: Apparently, criminals all seem to have it in their heads that the penalties don't matter because they think that they won't be the ones who get caught...

Southack at #316: Mandatory workplace registrations won't work. Voluntary registrations will work.

First you said "mandatory workplace registrations won't work." Then you said criminals ignore penalties because they think someone else won't get caught.

Now you're saying the legalized illegals will turn in their employers, who would comply with the law because they would presumably be subject to penalties. That would make the workplace verification program no longer "voluntary."

I don't see much consistency with your arguments and your premises.

[BlackElk]

I also usually attend Novus Ordo Masses, if you know what that means. Do you have some reason to believe that Anglos are more likely than the run of the mill American to be lavender or baby killers? I don't.

[BlackElk]

#388 was directed at the Sham and NOT at Torie.

[Dane]

I thought the Clintons held the White House for eight years in the 90's. So obviously a lot of Americans have a very high opinion of them

Huh and the Pubs took control and held the House and Senate in 94, even after the best efforts of the MSM, and gained and bucked electoral history in 02 and 04.

Things must be pretty dismal in hillary's campaign basement for you to be that desparate, rhetorically, IMO.

[investigateworld]

RE: The AFL-CIO contributes to MALDF.

Exactly, the leadership there don't really see themselves as having a dog in his fight, other than to promote the Democratic agenda. The bottom line is that the "sending countries" are going to have to clean up their act. That won't happen as long as they can export their people.

[Torie]

Certainly lavendars and birth control types. Probably not baby killer supporters. I guess that the train going to Canada with Torie involuntarily in it will be multi-ethnic and not be a reminder of what the front of the bus used to look like in Alabama, is a fair comment. Somehow though, that does not make your proposal more appealing to me.

[Fatalis]

Nope. I want to drive the socially liberal into decline. If that means swapping them for non-killers, sure. I am an Anglo (at least as much as anything alse 1/4) so I have no desire to drive out Anglos at all or any other ethnic group.

Serious question: what do you mean by Anglo?

[cardinal4]

If she can peel off a couple of southern states over the immigration and border issue (Ariz., N.M., Fla.) she can get to 270 EVs.

At the expense of alienating the legals there. Plus, I just dont see people buying into Hillary "immigration" stance. Hillary and her team scanned the right wing blogs, FR, Lucianne, etc and find out what the Red Staters were thinking. They saw how real polls looked, Why do you think she was so quiet during the Kerry Circus? Oh, she made token appearances, as did her husband, but for the most part, she was laisez-faire with Kerry. This is just another in a long line of Hillary trial balloons. I would give up right to vote before I would vote for Hillary on ANY issue..

[BJungNan]

bump for later read

[Fatalis]

"someone else won't get caught." = "someone else will get caught."

[A CA Guy]

Too bad they are not as talented in politics as they are in warnings.

Going for all or nothing with abortion has given us NOTHING and 750,000 dead a year.

Had they not gone for all or nothing long ago and said that as far as the law goes "NO ABORTION, except for RAPE, INCEST or EXTREEMLY YOUNG PREGNANCYS" there would have been 700,000 less dead a year for decades now.

The stubborness didn't help the outcome.

I agree that there should be NO ABORTION, but that will NEVER pass in a free society where there are different ethics and religious views.

No except what I said was winnable, and could be winnable again.

Then on the rest, you fight for them one at a time privately. You are NEVER going to get a NO ABORTION law passed, but the pro-life movement can mess up enough to not save 700k a year more if they are too stubborn in their agenda and tactices.

They are great at threats, sincere in prayers and desires, but somtimes lacking an effective plan for a better result than they have had.

Win most of the war, then battle the other little wars privately one at a time. It's the only way this can ever get better than it is now. DEAL WITH WHAT IS AND NOT AN IDEAL ONLY!

[Dane]

Serious question: what do you mean by Anglo?

Sorry to butt in, but you damn know well what he means by Anglo, a term used by MECHA and the Buchanan/Tancredo right to put wedges between Americans who work hard and do a honest days work.

But what the hey, you all(jesses jackson, mecha, and pat buchanan/tancredo followers) live on racial politics as your bread and butter.

[Torie]

I think the golden thread is incentivizing snitches.

[Southack]

"Now you're saying the legalized illegals will turn in their employers, who would comply with the law because they would presumably be subject to penalties [VERIFICATION]."

You have two choices.

Your 2 choices are:

1. Let illegals and their employers remain unregistered and anonymous, or
2. Convince illegals to voluntarily register themselves (and their employers).

I know, I know, you hate those two above options, deny them, and insist upon some magical 3rd way, but those 2 options are all that actually exist.

Once registered, we can verify compliance. That's something that we simply can't do for 8 million anonymous illegals and more than 1 million anonymous illegal employers. The scope of the problem is simply too large (bigger than the roundup in Germany of 6 million during WW2).

Will people comply once they are no longer anonymous? I think, yes.

Will they comply if we continue to allow them to operate anonymously and unregistered? I think, no.

So to me, the obvious answer is to convince those 8 million illegals to voluntarily register themselves and their employers. Once registered, we can enforce compliance through verification.

For everyone else, i.e. those who oppose President Bush's registration/plea bargain plan (you know the ones, those who mischaracterize that plan as being an "amnesty"), then those are the people who are supporting, perhaps by default, the above option 1 that continues the status quo of not registering illegals and allows them to remain anonymous.