Posted on 01/31/2005 6:19:13 AM PST by DTogo
You know, somedays, I think "L-hollywood" has entered politics but only to attempt to provide "star power" to those actors and actresses whose works are not selling. That's the pulse Hollywood has got: It's the sound of Money. K-Ching! Entering politics is a way for them to pretend to have "gravitas".
There's angling, I detect, in liberals wings to bring on another "war" -- the borders. And why? I suspect it is what underlays their recent "exit strategy" press podium blather.
You see... they'll demand immigration reform immediately (ergo, Hillary's position), in attempts to split troops, etc. Just seems part of a piece, probably concocted at some mucka-mucka liberal dem "brainstorm" meeting. Got the lib wing -- Boxer, Pelosi angling against the war; Reid, Kerry carping about an exit strategy.. and where's Hillary? Suddenly she's pro-life? (Census after census reveals those incoming from Mexico have a strong Roman Catholic base) and something about "securing our borders"?
Of a piece, it all has.. one or two plays yet to be laid out on the table..
See you're penchent for non sequitars hasn't stopped, you realize Hillary collapsed today right?
Also that the woman in the picture was an actor pretending to be an illegal.
There are a lot of things to worry about concerning illegal immigration, but they are from the average American who is frustrated about nothing being done, not the selfish concerns of hollywood phonies.
Nice vaugeries, here in the real world, how is Super Bush tracking terrorists if he's made no way of knowing who is a Mexican sneaking over the border for the spoils of the US, and who is an Arab pretending to be a Mexican?
Uh yes, and if you would notice the time stamp on my reply #7, you would see that the timestamp is 6:27 AM 1/31/01, about 4 hours before her dizzy spell.
The latest news is that hillary has the flu and is basically ok, but nice try to demonize me in a very weird and desparate way.
Not demonizing, just letting you know that bringing up Hillary when this article made no mention of it was the one being desperate, but you are correct you posted that before her dizzy spell.
That should stop you from posting your non sequitar strawman about Hillary/Malkin for about another few hours before going right back at it on any thread regarding immigration.
Where did you ever get that idea ? Open borders are a hallmark of his geo-political position
Some information on current work visa's etc.
*******
http://www.usimmigrationsupport.org/
Green Card Lottery
Every year the United States Government issues 50,000 Green Cards through the DV Lottery Program. Applicants are chosen randomly by a computer-generated drawing.
[check if you qualify]
US$40 Registration Fee
FREE Airline ticket to winners
What is a Green Card?
How do I obtain a Green Card?A Green Card, officially known as a Permanent Resident Card, is evidence of your status as a lawful permanent resident with the right to live and work permanently in the United States. There is NO time restriction, as long as the Green Card holder is a permanent resident of the USA.
There are several ways you can obtain a Green Card:
- Marriage to a United States citizen
- Through Investment
- Through Employment
- As a Special Immigrant
- Green Card Lottery (DV Lottery Program)
United States Visas
- B-1 Business Visa
- B-2 Tourist Visa
- B-1/B-2 Visa Extension
- F-1 Student Visa
- K-1 Fiancé Visa
- TN NAFTA Work Visa
A TN Work Visa is a temporary work visa available only to citizens of Canada and Mexico.
Under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), a citizen of a NAFTA country may work in a professional occupation in another NAFTA country, as long as the applicant meet certain requirements. The spouse and unmarried, minor children of the principal applicant are entitled to the derivative status (called TD visa), but they are unable to accept employment in the United States.
- H-1B Work Visa
- H-2B Work Visa
Almost anyone, regardless of age or educational background, can obtain a F-1 Student Visa and legally live in the United States. [USA Student Visa]
US Citizenship
Citizenship gives you the maximum rights available in the United States.
- Application Forms
- Citizenship Test
- Obtain a copy of your Certificate of U.S. Citizenship
This website is not affiliated with the United States Government. We are an independent non-government organization dedicated to help individuals and their families through the U.S. immigration process. We provide up-to-date immigration information and do-it-yourself immigration packages which may save you up to 80% in legal fees.
No, you give them too much credit for being humanitarian .
They want the dollar an hour nannies to be able to do the grocery shopping, and chauffeur the kids. This is all about THEM
That should stop you from posting your non sequitar strawman about Hillary/Malkin for about another few hours before going right back at it on any thread regarding immigration.
Total bullsh!t.
You all have been pushing hillary saying a few words about immigration that she is going to the right of Pat Buchanan on immigration, which isn't true.
And when you're Empress hillary has been shown to have no clothes(i.e not condemning the ad by the hollywodd left) as shown in my reply #7, you all go loony.
JMO, you may find a rewarding career with a howard dean run DNC.
Here is a related article from a while back:
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-fonte071403.asp
July 14, 2003, 10:00 a.m.
Wrong on the Founders
The Wall Street Journal Independence Day tradition.
By John Fonte
Before 9/11, the Wall Street Journal always used to celebrate Independence Day by publishing an editorial endorsing a constitutional amendment proclaiming that "there shall be open borders." Since the attacks on the United States by foreign enemies who easily penetrated our borders (which were "open" in any objective sense), the Journal has refrained from the explicit promotion of their proposed constitutional amendment.
However, the open-borders ideology continues to haunt the Journal's otherwise sensible editorial pages. On July 3, on the paper's website, assistant editor Brendan Miniter begins his op-ed, "Let Their People Come," with the quotation from the Declaration of Independence that complained about George III's restrictions on European immigration to the American colonies. Miniter then uses this quotation as a launching pad to endorse a "fundamental right" of emigration to America and implies that this "right" is one of the founding principles of our nation. He thus maintains that the "right and necessity to allow people to live and move freely is self-evident indeed."
In fact, exactly the opposite is true. As the Declaration of Independence states our nation is based on " rights " and "consent" — or "government by consent of the governed." Clearly, in American democracy, immigration policy is decided by the "consent of the governed," that is to say, by the American people. There is not — and never has been — a "fundamental right" to immigrate to the United States against the consent of the American people. To suggest otherwise, as the Wall Street Journal editorial page did on July 3, is to ignore the crucial principles of "consent" central to our democratic republic.
Nowhere in their voluminous writings do any of the Founders endorse the idea that everyone in the world has a "fundamental right" to immigrate to the United States. They would have considered such a notion preposterous. The Founding Fathers' views on this subject are best explained by the Claremont Institute's Thomas G. West in Vindicating the Founders in his chapter on immigration.
At the beginning of the chapter, Professor West notes that the United States from the first days of the republic has "always set limits" on immigration and citizenship. Moreover, he argues that:
To say that there is a fundamental right to immigrate is as much as to say that the government of one country is obliged to secure the rights of every person in the world who presents himself and demands it. Such an obligation is by nature both impossible and unjust….a violation of the fundamental terms of the social compact.
On immigration, assimilation, and citizenship naturalization, West finds that the views of Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Hamilton, Madison, Franklin, John Jay, and Gouverneur Morris are remarkably similar.
First, the Founders believed that the American republic had the right to set the limits and conditions of immigration and eventual citizenship. As Gouverneur Morris stated at the Constitutional Convention in 1787, "every society from a great nation down to a club had the right of declaring the conditions on which new members should be admitted."
Second, they welcomed immigrants, but on the condition that they become good citizens. As George Washington explained, "We shall welcome [them] to a participation of all our rights and privileges, if by decency of conduct they appear to merit the enjoyment."
Third, the Founders insisted on assimilation. Washington wrote to Adams that he worried about immigrants "retain[ing] the language, habits, and principles (good or bad) which they bring with them" and favored "an intermixture with our people [where] they, or their descendants, get assimilated to our customs, measures, [and we] soon become one people."
In short, the Founders maintained (sensibly enough) that immigration/assimilation policy be judged on the basis of national interest, i.e., what was good for America. There is not a scintilla of agreement between the Founders' views and Miniter's position that there is some "fundamental right" of free immigration. (Incidentally, Miniter's position is also rejected by leading libertarians such as Milton Friedman).
For more than 200 years America has been enriched by millions of immigrants who have strengthened our nation. And Miniter is correct to say that there have been benefits in having a generous immigration policy (as, too, there have sometimes been deficits). But these are questions of national policy and national interest that reasonable people can debate, not self-evident moral principles.
The Journal's writers would serve the American public (and mainstream conservatism) better if they produced serious and historically accurate July 4 editorials instead of repeating their annual exercise in self-parody.
Chill out. I am not "you all" and would never vote for Hillary if I had a gun pointed to my head. You take your non sequitar strawman ranting to far when you start cussing at me based on your own logic.
I told you guys people were listening to this... that there was rumbling among the "ground troops." Enough is enough... and too many of us are not willing to be "stepford" Republicans. This is our country and our families.
So, we should just give in? Just like Kerry would have us do with the terrorists.
Wow! I can see you spitting and crying tears of anger as you type this. Need some tissue. Give me your address and I'll send you some.
My question is where has he been on this issue the last few years when he could've been much more useful in this debate? Americans who know the truth on illegal immigration have been screaming for years about this and all we've ever had was deafening silence from Rush, Snow and the rest of the mainstream talking heads.
Keep telling all y'all, Limbaugh can be included, you're watching his left hand while his right hand is working. That is all, carry on.
BTTT!!!
"Where did you ever get that idea ? Open borders are a hallmark of his geo-political position"
I guess it was just wishful thiking on my part.
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.