Replies

Since dumping most of the last group of quislings, FR seems to have accumulated another tiny group of pro-illegal alien enthusiasts, supporters, apologists, and enablers to take their place. This post is meant for the six of you. The others I have pinged I consider loyal American conservatives, and they have performed extremely well in advancing the arguments of loyal American conservatives against the pro-illegal alien people that continue to infect this conservative site.

Below is an exchange I had with someone known around FR as Once-Ler. In the quoted passages, his statements are generally in italics, mine are generally not; there are only a few exceptions which should not confuse you. I consider Once-Ler a worthy debater and, for the most part, a gentleman.

Rather than responding by individual posts, I direct my part of this same exchange to the six of you, in response to your many posts on this thread.

”FR takes my money just fine...”

FR takes everybody’s money just fine. It’s still a conservative site for loyal American conservatives (unless you want to dispute the FR mission statement and JR’s supplement thereto). The Hispandering GOP Big Tent gaggle of RINOs, liberals and moderates are tolerated, that’s all.

”I'm for tax cuts, pro military, pro law enforcement and for controlling our borders.”

Agree on the first three but your posting record even today continues to be a problem on “controlling borders”. Disagree on the fourth.

”I want people to go through legal channels to get to the USA. I agree with many of the things your side says about illegal immigration. It needs to be stopped. It is a danger to our security. Terrorists may be slipping in, and not being spotted because a family of 7 is caught instead.”

Agree.

”I am against a fortified wall around the land of the free and the home of the brave.”

Yes, as you suspected this indeed is where the wheels come off. If that’s what it takes to once and for all stop the illegal alien lawbreakers, I’m all for one big honkin’ wall and the sooner the better. Disagree, big time.

”I have compassion for an illegal who snuck across, got a job and supported his family until the INS found him and ripped apart the family.”

I have no compassion for illegal aliens. None. They are lawbreakers and should be deported instantly when located. They represent a threat to those values I consider most important: sovereignty, borders, culture, customs, traditions and language. The federal government has a lot to answer for, starting with the 20 million lawbreakers now here. And I wouldn’t worry too much about the INS (ICE) finding your illegals–as they have amply demonstrated, they can’t find their own ass with both hands. Disagree.

”It is estimated that 20 million illegals live in the US now and still there is a huge demand for more workers. With legal and illegal immigration the CIA world fact book estimates our population grew by less than 1% last year. Unemployment is down to 5%. Illegals want jobs, and the businesses want workers. Some people wait years to get in legally. Most unskilled workers who apply are denied.”

That huge demand for more workers is in reality a huge demand for the cheapest labor possible. I’ll forego commenting on your source, but a 1% population growth and a 5% unemployment rate does not justify letting more lawbreakers into our country. Illegals who want jobs can make application for entering the country on temporary guest worker status, with which I have no problem so long as such a reformed program makes such stays of specific reasonable duration with all participants documented, fingerprinted and tracked while here, and further provided the anchor baby outrage is brought to a halt. Unless that is done, no guestworker program. Some people may very well wait years to get in legally–so what? And we don’t want unskilled anybodies–they should be denied any status other than as a temporary worker under a drastically reformed guestworker program with a "real teeth" oversight program to go with it. Disagree.

”I support Dubya's guest worker program to eliminate the job vacuum our shrinking native population is causing. With this one step I believe we could eliminate over 50% of the illegal flow across our borders. Perhaps much more.”

I do not support the Bush proposal because it is essentially an amnesty dressed up as a guest worker program. It features a slap on the wrist fine for being in this country illegally. Your justification for buying off on this disgrace is the old “aborting babies/need more workers” smokescreen. A guest worker program which merely passes a magic wand over 20 million illegal aliens and pronounces them all “guest workers” is nothing this country is going to accept. Ever. You do not eliminate “illegality” by pronouncing everyone “legal”. Anyone dumb enough to draft legislation doing exactly what Bush wants to do has a bill that is DOA in the House. I will only support a guest worker program when I am satisfied that all of the associated issues have been resolved; i.e., a halt to anchor babies; a deportation plan for the 20 million lawbreakers already here; a strong border protection plan, including whatever may be required in the way of armed guards and concrete fences. Disagree.

”I am not for indiscriminately letting any one across the border. I'm for allowing workers in, not criminals and terrorists and I expect checks and registration for all guest workers.”

Sounds reasonable, but the devil is always in the details, is it not? Until I am satisfied that all of the issues I have discussed above have been properly resolved, including an extensive and iron clad program for vetting all applicant guest workers, I am opposed. Agree provided all of my guest worker program concerns are satisfactorily resolved.

”I am all for increasing border security to capture terrorists, smugglers, and other criminals. I am less supportive of more border money so we can fail to stem the flow of illegals. I am doubtful there is a way to stop millions of starving illegal workers from figuring out how to work around our security, without killing many of them. I don't believe the American people would stand for massive casualties among illegals on the border.”

I am for anything that stops the illegal alien invasion. While I do not favor killing people, lethal force is certainly justified as a last resort to protect our sovereignty, borders, culture, customs, traditions and language. There’s those annoying loyal American conservative values again. As for whether the American people would stand for a lethal response, lets hope we don’t have to find out. Disagree.

”As a point of practicality, I favor letting some illegals stay as long as they have established a good work and criminal history, and perhaps family ties.”

You’re compassionate on the illegal alien issue–I’m not. No room for compromise here. Rule of law applies. If you came here illegally– get out. Go back and apply legally. Disagree.

”I am for protecting our sovereignty, and securing and protecting our borders. I am against laying land mines.”

The problem we have here, and have been discussing ad nauseum, is that what you are “for” comes up short when tough measures must be put in place because that is where you go all wobbly on us with “compassion”. I reserve my compassion for our citizens in the border states and elsewhere who have had to bear the brunt of the illegal alien invasion. Save your compassion for them. Disagree.

”I'm for preservation of American culture, customs, traditions and language. But American culture has changed with immigrantion before, even as the immigrants changed and adopted our culture. I see no reason to fear the mostly Catholic Hispanics. They love their families and wear pants.

No “buts” allowed when it comes to the preservation of American culture, customs, traditions and language. You’re either for it or agin’ it. Your words say you don’t really feel all that strongly about it. Loyal American conservatives do. Disagree

”Some claim Hispanics don't assimilate like previous immigrants. These people are ignorant of history.”

How does that old joke go? Don’t pee on my leg and try to tell me it’s raining? Something like that. Look I reside in SoCal, right next to Santa Ana. Don’t try to tell me the illegal aliens assimilate. They do not, regardless of what you believe history says. That was then--this is now. Disagree.

The children of illegals are being schooled in our schools. They are citizens adapting to our culture.”

Please explain just why in the hell American taxpayers should fund the education of anchor babies foisted on us by illegal alien parents. We should not be responsible for providing free education for the children of lawbreakers, even though people like you feel it is the “compassionate” thing to do. Schools around here have been flooded with them. School districts are going broke trying to deal with it. You’re smoking something that is probably illegal if you believe any of us are going to buy into this one. And I am not entirely convinced that the law requires us to do so. Disagree

”So I've answered you questions. Did you even want to try and refute any of my previous posts, or just call me a quisling and question my love for this country?”

No, you really haven’t answered my single question, which was: You know what a loyal American conservative is, don't you? It is someone who believes strongly in defending American sovereignty, secure and protected borders, and the preservation of American culture, customs, traditions and language. These are the values of loyal American conservatives, the majority group at FR. Tell us Once-Ler, do you accept these values? Loyal American conservatives want to know.

Just as two of the other three attempted to do, you too could not bring yourself to voice a simple “yes”. Instead, you explain, add conditions, interject excuses, lecture us on the need for “compassion” and carry on at length about the phantom need for more labor. At bottom, you don't want to say “yes”, but rather want to appear to be saying “yes”, but no matter how we try to interpret what you say, it still comes up short because you can’t accept the hard decisions when it comes to those magic values I talked about. You’re either for aggressively defending American sovereignty, protecting and securing our borders, and the preservation of American culture, customs, traditions and language, or you’re not. According to your own words: yes, you believe in this provided I don’t have to use lethal force to do so; yes, I believe in that as long as I don’t have to build a wall.

You may consider yourself a loyal American conservative. I do not. Feel free to come back and apply again when you don’t have to hang so many “ifs, ands and buts” onto your answers...By the way, I do not question your love for this country--just seems to me, based on your own words, it's kind of conditional (that "compassion" problem again)."

[End of my August post to Once-Ler.]

**********************************************

A belated thanks for the ping, Czar. And a sincere thank you for the string of eloquence, common sense, and resolute adherence to conservative principles contained in all of your responses to Once-Ler (whose arguments I believe are noble and well-intentioned, but dangerously naïve in the current political context).

Allow me to excerpt just a few of your many observations that deserve (constant, drumbeat) repetition:

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

If that’s what it takes to once and for all stop the illegal alien lawbreakers, I’m all for one big honkin’ wall and the sooner the better.

They [illegals] represent a threat to those values I consider most important: sovereignty, borders, culture, customs, traditions and language.

I do not support the Bush proposal because it is essentially an amnesty dressed up as a guest worker program … A guest worker program which merely passes a magic wand over 20 million illegal aliens and pronounces them all “guest workers” is nothing this country is going to accept. Ever. You do not eliminate “illegality” by pronouncing everyone “legal”.

You’re either for aggressively defending American sovereignty, protecting and securing our borders, and the preservation of American culture, customs, traditions and language, or you’re not. According to your own words: yes, you believe in this provided I don’t have to use lethal force to do so; yes, I believe in that as long as I don’t have to build a wall.

You may consider yourself a loyal American conservative. I do not. Feel free to come back and apply again when you don’t have to hang so many “ifs, ands and buts” onto your answers.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

You happened to hit on one of the explosive issues about which I am particularly sensitive … and I don’t intend to be posting much over the next couple of weeks … so I feel a case of ‘wordity’ (as fellow FReeper First_Salute would call it :) welling up. You may want to bookmark this for reading sometime when you’re down with a cold, or you may want to schedule a bathroom or dog-walking break somewhere in the middle. :)

I believe the most erosive threats to our republic’s sovereignty, security, and retention of our ancestral roots lie in the threats posed by terrorism, illegal immigration, the tyrannical nature of the judiciary, federal fiscal irresponsibility, and the desperate need for tort reform (in that order).

I live in Lancaster Country, in south-central Pennsylvania. Rural farm country that boasts the most fertile, non-irrigated farmland east of the Mississippi. We have virtually no illegal alien problem. We have a fairly large Vietnamese and Ukrainian population -- as a matter of fact a Ukrainian electrical engineer just purchased the house we have lived in for thirty-two years, and two of my younger piano students are from Vietnamese families. Every one of the Vietnamese and Ukrainian immigrants that I have met is here legally, and is employed, hard-working and extraordinarily family-oriented.

So I can’t empathize, firsthand, with the hell on earth that is being created by illegals for those Americans living in the border states. Heck, my blood pressure rises significantly every time I read accounts of the cost to the American taxpayer (and the borders state residents in particular) of educating the children of illegals, providing benefits that their employers do not, subsidized housing, disproportionately high incarceration, pro bono legal services, etc. … and the increasing arrogance with which these perks are demanded. I find unimaginable the thought of personally dealing with such circumstances on a daily basis.

A couple of months ago, I wrote a detailed description of where I believe the solutions to this deadly problem lie. Many of the suggestions would have to be implemented by those with a much more specific knowledge of the logistics, structural, personnel, etc. considerations, but I believe the proposals are feasible.

From our correspondences, and your posts here, I do not believe there is any major aspect of this issue on which we disagree, but I’d like to add a few more thoughts, even though I strongly suspect that you have formulated them yourself, or, if not, you will be justifiably predisposed to accusing me of preaching to the choir. :)

Americans used to take pride in the fact that we were considered the ‘melting pot’ of the world. That label presupposes that the various ‘ingredients’ poured into the mix eventually are going to be combined into one relatively homogeneous whole.

The concept of the ‘homogeneous whole’ has found itself relegated to the dustbin of history, as more recent (over the past four decades) immigrants, both legal and illegal, have simply refused to ‘melt’. Assimilation is no longer pursued, and past allegiances are no longer renounced in deference to the ideas and principles that once made this republic unique among civilizations, past and present. Instead, balkanization has been increasingly encouraged, even sometimes initiated, by leftist leadership that has developed (over the same four decades) an insatiable desire to increase the number of people living within the borders of this republic who are:

(1) dependent on the ‘largesse of the state’ for their survival, and

(2) willing to vote for politicians who will see to it that the continued burgeoning of the nanny state is not imperiled.

Those who cross our southern borders without following the proper channels make up an inordinate, and illegal, portion of (1). At the same time, any American citizen who observes the above aloud or in print will invariably find himself branded (by the political, media and academic elites) as ignorant at best, and racist at worst.

In five years (more than four of which occurred post-9/11), the Bush administration has authored absolutely nothing of substance in its policy-making targeted at confronting the illegal immigration threat. Indeed, the half-hearted, dangerously ‘compassionate’ political trial balloons being launch of late almost seem aimed toward diffusing the anger of the electorate rather than actually addressing the festering, potentially deadly problem. And the administration is accomplishing neither of the above.

The last time Congress attempted to address the issue of illegal immigration was during the Reagan administration – twenty years ago. And that attempt was scuttled, mainly because the general public was not yet as aware of, and enraged about, the issue as we are today, and the voices of those businesses who employed illegals at the time were significantly louder than the relatively small fraction of the (then) electorate who had a vital interest in stemming the flow from the south.

The countless amnesty (although those proposing the programs have employed the semantics of political convenience in order to tap dance around the term) programs currently being proposed by the administration and other inveterate compromisers on the Hill (McCain and Kennedy chief among them) also conveniently tap dance around the unwritten bottom line in all of their proposals: Eventually rewarding those who have committed a crime amounts to defining as naïve suckers those who have played by the rules and entered the country through legal channels. And, even worse, it encourages others to follow the example of the lawbreakers. Always has … and always will.

Our so-called leaders’ unwillingness to punish lawbreakers – both the illegals who have already entered from the south, via deportation … and those hundreds of businesses who knowingly employ them on the financial backs of the American taxpayer, via fines and imprisonment – is at the core of the present problem.

And our so-called leaders’ unwillingness to funnel resources out of supporting crime (i.e., using taxpayer money to subsidize illegal activity) and into formulating viable ways of walling off our southern border, portends a deadly sovereignty and security risk, and a looming economic cataclysm that defies description.

Walling off our porous southern border must be our first line of defense – a fifteen-foot high cement tourniquet, if need be, Any other proposal is simply political window dressing … a band-aid applied to a severed artery.

A porous border is not only an invitation to illegal workers, and non-citizens who freely feed at the tax-payer-funded public trough. It is also an invitation to the criminal element whose crossing is being aided and abetted by the Mexican government itself (‘Here’s your official government copy of ‘The Guide for the Mexican Migrant,’ courtesy of Vicente Fox, and replete with tips on how to steal across the border and avoid detection … and good riddance!)

And then there are the drug smugglers … and the terrorists of all stripes.

Ernesto Zedillo appears to have been not only Vicente Fox’s predecessor, but also his mentor. Zedillo told a public audience of Mexican-Americans in the US about ten years ago that they are not Americans, but Mexicans living north of their country’s border. And, when addressing a La Raza meeting shortly thereafter, he told the members that ‘the Mexican nation extends beyond the territory enclosed by its borders,’ and that Mexican immigrants are a very important part of this expansion.

Both Zedillo and Fox appear to be intent on creating a trans-national North America, using the European Union as an example. The only problem with that comparison is that the nations that make up the European Union entered that union (1) on a relatively equal basis, and (2) with a formal written agreement.

And it would appear that the past three American administrations and their respective congresses have been, and continue to be, far less focused on preserving the American language, tradition, republican form of government, and sovereignty than their Mexican counterparts of the past two decades have been focused on insidiously and covertly erasing their northern border.

We cannot allow the most moral, prosperous civilization in the history of the world to fall as a result of a combination of phony ‘compassion’ born of political expediency … and citizen malaise.

We must see to it that people like this …

are free to spew their socialist, one-world propaganda on the other side of something like this …

(Wake up! This was a rambling political rant, not a lullaby! :)

~ joanie …