Posted on 03/28/2006 7:47:23 AM PST by SmithL
OF COURSE, America needs immigrants. This is a country founded by immigrants and made richer by the imprint of newcomers in search of a land that rewards their hard work and determination to make a better life for their families.
The problem is that no country -- certainly, no country with a social safety net -- can afford to accommodate everyone who wants in. (Or as Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Huntington Beach, put it, "We can't be the HMO to the world.") That's why there are immigration policies that limit the number of people who can immigrate here legally.
The lack of an open-door policy has spawned this week's victim class, illegal or "undocumented" immigrants, who have flouted American law and apparently believe they should not have to pay the consequences of that choice. Hence Sunday's huge demonstration in Los Angeles, where activists carried signs that called for "Amnistía, Full Rights for All Immigrants."
The Los Angeles Times duly reported, "Some Republicans fear that pushing too hard against illegal immigrants could backfire nationally, as with Proposition 187 (the 1994 ballot measure that sought to deny benefits for illegal immigrants, that) helped spur record numbers of California Latinos to become U.S. citizens and register to vote. Those voters subsequently helped Democrats regain political control in the state."
Call that the Backlash Myth. In fact, Prop. 187 passed with 59 percent of the vote and GOP Gov. Pete Wilson, who championed the measure, was re-elected in 1994. In 2003, when Democratic Gov. Gray Davis signed a bill that would allow illegal immigrants to get drivers' licenses, he so enraged voters that he sealed his political demise. After Davis was recalled from office, the heavily Democratic California Legislature repealed the bill.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
Stevio,
I hope your right, but I have a queasy feeling in my stomach
What has this country come to when a MSM journalist, from San Francisco no less, better understands the reality of this issue, and holds a more conservative position that a (so-called) Republican President?
The author of the article is correct in her position. If any type of legal status is afforded to illegals, there will be a MASSIVE backlash by American citizens towards the president, and the party in power. Bet on it.
Those who side with them are also traitors.
Let's wait and give the other guys a chance. Especially the Congress.
----
If the past six years are any sign of "progress" on this issue, we are in major trouble as a nation.
This sentence is positively delusional.
Illegals are a reflection of the numbers of criminals both here and abroad who are willing to openly break our laws when there is financial gain to be had. The only possible long-term effect they can have is to ERASE the wealth differential that we now enjoy.
Some of them do. They aren't in it for just the $. Wielding power is addictive and they know if they can appease the money people in their own party, not rile the Democrat voters too much, tap dance enough to not have all their base turn on them, they have a chance to hang on until they won't have to kiss up to any of us any longer. They fear the Mexicans far more than any of us. We won't revolt; we're the sheeple. If the Mexicans and Communists don't get what they want, they may be blown up along with some historic buildings.
That's correct, but what you're leaving out is that you're going to get to donate a big chunk of your earnings to reduce your income and bring someone from south of the border's up to par with what you have left so we can be "harmonized" into one big 3rd world cesspool.
So, you think that if a good law were passed, driven by Republicans, that there would, in fact, be a backlash against them?
Nope. But you show me a good immigration law that the Repub Senate will pass.
Actually, we'll be huddled in Warsaw. Russia has plenty of Muslims, Poland has relatively few.
So it is in that sense a "white-culture"
But in no way did I seek to give off the impression that I was referring to the actual skin color
I can see you've never been to Camden.
i hate to break this to you but Mexico is a western country and spanish is a western/european langague.
it may shock you to know just how much of Russia is muslim
I agree the spineless ones will not do it. But i agree with the article that the backlash will only happen if they don't.
It's been ages since I've sent any money to the RNC. the last few contributions have consisted of this one that I picked up here at FR:
""Just as the amnesty debacle of Reagan cost him.""
What are you smoking??? Reagan never experienced a backlash from 1986 amnesty
LOL, yeah I sure did! I forgot that Camden was so far south! :)
Reagan admitted it was a mistake. It is something that blemished his otherwise sound decisions.
Just as then, we now have the morons of the country club senate trying to apply their delusions to the real world.
I just had to mention that.
It's a darn shame what's happened to NJ. Most of the state is beautiful. Of course, I'm old enough to remember when Camden was a nice little city.
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.