Posted on 02/11/2005 10:55:36 AM PST by Jim Robinson
The shot heard around the Internet has been fired on FreeRepublic.com The owner Jim Robinson and his moderators have launched a sniper style purge against members that disagree with the President’s ‘guest worker’ amnesty or support more control of illegal immigration. Free Republic is an amazing tool for those looking for a good debate and news from around the country.
The problem for the administration of the site is that their creation is allowing the participants to learn that the Bush immigration record and plans are shockingly out of line with the views of most conservatives. The management’s answer to this conflict between the majority of conservatives and the influence of the White House on their Web site has become electronic executions and censorship.
Members and readers of Free Republic would be surprised to know that many members of their community have fallen silent on the discussions about illegal immigration lately because free speech is an illusion on FR.com. They are silent because they have been banned from the Web site without warning, cause, or explanation in most cases. For weeks the moderators have been suspending and banning new members that chimed in quickly on the immigration debates.
Now this trend has broadened as the first groups of long-term users were suspended or banned this past week. Although Robinson and his staff removed many members of the Free Republic community in the first few days of the purge, those that religiously support President Bush’s immigration plan, open borders and approve of public benefits for illegal aliens remain on the forum. Those that were banned were the members that wanted more done to control illegal immigration and a strict observance to the President’s Oath of Office.
So you like Dubya and Laura turning their attention to getting the kids to take more math and science in high school? And Laura helping States and communities learn about stay in school programs that are working in other cities and areas?
So true.
Yes I do, and I like the idea of expanding Pell grants so that more kids can get advanced educations.
Some times, when there are only two options, my opinion does not allign exactly with either. (not necessarily this poll) And remember, we are passing on an Internet poll, not a vote or some such thing.
But we already knew the answer to that.
Please explain why you are undecided between the two options?
If one refuses to oppose illegal immigration, does it not follow that he supports it?
I guess you read my post too fast.
Hyperbole, Life. Granted, walls are static. So is our national border. The Maginot line lacked solid anchor points and was simply bypassed through the Ardennes. Very few of the fortifications actually fell in armed combat. Most were abandoned by their garrisons after being bypassed. Lack of planning and lack of resolve defeated the Maginot Line. Sound familiar?
Unlike the Maginot Line, We have the Pacific Ocean for an anchor point on one end and the Gulf of Mexico on the other. Same deal with the northern border. There is no "express lane" around the end. Walls work well for some purposes, poorly for others. Every prison out there has walls as do banks, military bases, etc. percentage-wise, how often do those walls fail? Our invaders are hardly the Wehrmacht with air, mechanized and armored units, nor are they Ghengis Kahn's hordes. They're uneducated and unwashed, largely unskilled peasants. Even the french could have held off an invasion like that. Sadly, we don't seem to able to.
One really quick way to do that is to have all the sheep (voluntarily) stand up (and get fingerprinted). Will this have unintended consequences, you betcha!
you mean like they "voluntarily" wait for legal entrance; "voluntarily" learn english, pay their own medical bills, get auto insurance? Like they "voluntarily" leave their drugs at home, avoid gang affiliations, don't drink and drive, comply with ANY other law of our nation? Is any of this sinking in? And the gang members and drug dealers, they too will "voluntarily" submit to these standards? How about those with criminal records? Has it occurred to you that EVERY ONE OF THESE PEOPLE is a criminal? That's a great idea! Why don't we apply this standard at home to our home-grown criminals?!. OK, all you gang-bangers and drug dealers. Come in "voluntarily" and be fingerprinted....(waits....)
Strange that they didn't ask me to join.
I think some folks are confusing the term "open borders" with "pro-amnesty". There are definitely pro-amnesty FReepers. I'm guessing the people who voted in support of illegal immigration are Libertarian-types or other social liberals.
"Necessarily" leaves it a bit ambiguous. Which way did you vote?
Actually, there is, you just wish it wasn't there. Movement by sea has always been, and always will be, more economical than movement over land.
Open Borders....to the yes people it means uncontrolled Immigration - to the no people it means uncontrolled Invasion. Seems clear to me that both are correct.
There are also boats, planes and workarounds for any barrier that has ever been built anywhere.
It is my understanding that many illegals come in boats, especially orientals.
Tonk, as a Coastee, do you have any knowledge of illegal alien flow from sea?
P.S. I note some time ago that you corrected your name spelling...LOL! It was more fun as Yatch.
Poohbah, you simply CANNOT support your "over the beach" contention. You must live in the middle of Kansas if you think this a viable route for over 1,000,000 invaders a year. Using your hypothetical arguments, I suppose if we close the borders they can hitch a ride on the Concorde, right? It would be a mere trickle, like those making it up here from Cuba.
It was a poll with only one possible answer....but the issue obviously has much more nuance, that is all I was saying.
LOL
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.