Posted on 03/31/2006 3:41:14 AM PST by pageonetoo
As Congress battles over immigration, the consequences are likely to be far greater than the details of border walls or green cards. The most important political outcome may turn out to be the message that Republicans send about the kind of the party they are and hope to be.
To wit, do Republicans want to continue in the Reagan tradition of American optimism and faith in assimilation that sends a message of inclusiveness to all races? Or will they take another one of their historical detours into a cramped, exclusionary policy that tells millions of new immigrants, and especially Hispanics, that they belong somewhere else?...
...The immediate danger is that Republicans will ignore their longer-term interests by passing a punitive, and poll-driven, anti-immigration bill this election year. Any bill that merely harasses immigrants and employers, and stacks more cops on the border, may win cheers in the right-wing blogosphere. However, it will do nothing to address the economic incentives that will continue to exist for poor migrants to come to America to feed their families. And it will make permanent enemies of millions of Hispanics, without doing anything to draw illegals out of the shadows and help them assimilate into the mainstream of American culture and citizenship.
This is not Ronald Reagan's view of America as a "shining city on a hill." It is the chauvinist conservatism usually associated with the European right. How Republicans conduct and conclude their immigration debate will show the country which kind of "conservative" party they want to be.
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
Ahh. So your argument is that the border patrol is a figure of my imagination.
What part of that don't you understand, newbie?
Well, you geniuses argue that $2000 for violating a civil statute is amnesty. And by that logic traffic violators are getting amnesty, since all they get is a fine and no deportation. And many go on to keep breaking the law as a result.
So does the stop sign exist and does it have meaning?
The key word in that sentence is "our"!
That was Reagan's first thought and Bush the 'one-worlder's' last thought, if he even thinks it at all.
That's the difference.
Bush is spending our tax dollars like a drunken Liberal to secure Israel's borders, Iraq's borders, Afghanistan's borders, South Korea's borders, Bosnia's borders, etc., etc. ad nauseum and he does nothing for our own borders.
You're delusional. Tancredo's "nuke Mecca" remarks have eliminated him, forever, from serious contenders for the White House.
This sounds nice, but it's completely wrong.
In Afghanistan we've spent around a billion dollars on border patrol stations, fencing and border patrol agents.
Who do you think paid for South Korea's fence and mine fields and whose troops are protecting their borders?
Do you think Israel's fence or Israel itself would exist without our continued financial assistance?
Who do you think is picking up the lion's share of the bill for security in Bosnia?
Bush has ordered 1,000 new orange cones to be placed along our southern border!
The terrorists and smugglers are ROTFLTAO!
optomism and faith in assimilation!!
I still have it, and that's exactly WHY I am opposed to this blanket guest-worker-amnesty farce.
These new border jumpers have no more desire to assimilate than does a jellyfish desire to breath on land.
Wha????
Oh, so only business owners are qualified to pass legislation??
That's the same ol' tired logic libs use that 'men aren't qualified to have an opinion on abortion' or 'caucasians aren't qualified to have an opinion on racism.'
It's bass ackwards.
No but it does give a mindset to his somewhat anti-business rhetoric in which he has no experience of meeting a payroll or producing a good product or service.
'W' still wouldn't be able to sit down.
Are you really trying to claim that you see no difference in the loyalty and demeanor of the new crop of hispanic border jumpers compared to the immigrants who came to this country in the early 20th century?
C'mon. I despise the WSJ open border types as much as the rest, but we should leave their personal religious beliefs out of the fight, dontcha think?
Ronald Reagan would have fought the WOT whatever the cost. Reagan knew something about spending for defense (and deficits)! You should enroll in a community college and take some remedial AMERICAN HISTORY!
LLS
No, it usually takes several generations for immigrants to fully assimilate. But the 20+ million figure covers the recent 'border jumpers'.
Why don't you stop trying to rewrite it?
Ronald Reagan would have secured our own borders, first. He wouldn't have risked the lives of American citizens to satisfy the greed of a few businessmen.
What we're seeing here is PROFIT "whatever the cost."
I'm not for Amnesty, and I want the borders secure. Stop trying to paint me otherwise.
You have your perceptions as to what Reagan would or would not have done, but I worked for his campaign twice, and consider him one of our Greatest Presidents... and having been invested in his Administration, I have my own opinions.
LLS
And you're welcome to them, but for the record you should know your opinions are wrong. ;^)
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.