Posted on 05/15/2006 4:13:02 PM PDT by devane617
Edited on 05/15/2006 4:38:26 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
I searched but did not see a thread already open for tonights speech. I think this is the most important speech the President will probably make for the remainder of his term.
Mod Note:
This could turn into a whack-a-troll thread. All immigration trolls that would like to participate should post here. It'll be interesting to see if we mods can whack the trolls faster than they can sign up new accounts.
Jim
Strawman argument.
No way we can deport 11 million people.
We can't catch every murderer, rapist, or thief either. Shall we just throw up our hands, then, and announce that even though they've violated some laws, they do make valuable contributions to the economy, pay taxes, etc., and therefore, we need to come up with a program to bring them into society rather than trying in vain to hunt them down "like criminals"?
The logic is the same -- and if it's logical logic, it will hold. What stands for one, will stand for the other -- and what fails for one will fail for the other. Examining the logic of a situation in this manner is a standard technique for testing the validity of the logic.
And obviously this "logic" fails the sniff test.
The "there are so many of them that we have to make them legal" argument is logically bankrupt.
"Can't deport them all"? Well, then deport the ones you can deport. (And then watch the rest scurry back home as fast as their feet can take 'em, lest they be the next one's to end up in a "Sheriff Joe"-style abode!)
It's no different from prosecuting purse-snatchers. Sure, you "can't catch them all" -- but, you DO prosecute the ones you CAN catch.
The "can't deport them ALL" nonsense is disingenous strawman term-reframing, masquerading as defeatism.
If not for the fact that some purse-snatchers -- and rapists, killers, thieves, etc. -- are prosecuted, society would enter a downward spiral into utter chaos.
It is only the risk or apprehension that keeps most criminals, and would-be criminals in check.
Eliminate the risk, and welcome to "Lord of The Flies" style "society."
The exact same principle applies here. Of course we "can't catch them all." Hell, we couldn't "catch them all" even if there were only a few hundred of 'em! "Can't catch them all"/"Can't deport them all" is NOT the issue!
By essentially not apprehending any of them (which is the situation now, when those who are caught are set loose and given a "please report back, please" card), we are laying out the Welcome Mat. It's an open invitation.
We don't need to fine-tune the situation. We need a 180 degree course reversal. Anything else is smoke and mirrors.
Whoa! Stop the presses! Someone, please WAKE ME UP from this NIGHTMARE!
However, the Bible does support one instance that I know of in which a horde of illegal aliens invaded and overthrew a legitimate government.That was when Joshua led the Children of Israel into the Promised Land and displaced the people currently living there.
You just compared the Mexican invaders with "the Children of Israel", and, to gild the lilly, you compared the USA to a land occupied by evil Canaanites!
I don't know if you even realize what you said. You have in essence justified the overthrow of the USA by the Mexican invaders.
Good grief.
IMO it's a bit past the point of hoping for any outcome besides the one you painted above. If one thing is clear from the events of the past few days, it's that the fix is in. The goals are in place, and they will not be withstood.
Tell that to your grandchildren when you wake up in a Spanish speaking country where gringos are an ill-treated minority.
We are headed down a certain path, whether we like it or not, whether we want it or not, regardless of the repercussions for ourselves, our children, or their children.
We need to grit our teeth and come to terms with exactly what kind of future we are facing, after 100+ million "immigrants" become the political "center" of this nation.
John McCain is hard to figure out.
Well that and your other comments are true enough. I fully agree.
My apologies if I misunderstood what you were saying. I don't usually search through older posts unless what is presented seems ambiguous or confusing. I'll have to take a look back and see why I took your remarks wrongly. Again, my apologies, no offense was intended.
I most definitely agree with that. It irritates me greatly that the President has repeatedly proffered the canard "those who call for mass deportations." There isn't anyone in the public eye calling for that. No one.
I also think that any illegal who has long-established ties-- sons, daughters, grandkids -- in this country should be treated with great forebearance.
I'm not sure what that would entail but I don't readily see a reason for that. What other laws should be applied based on what emotionally touching stories can be brought forward related to the perps? The IRS sure doesn't take anything like that into account. Apart from young hot blonde teachers who deflower their students I don't know of any regular practice of the law turning a blind eye to crime due to the personage involved.
Every single one that commits the federal felony of hiring illegal aliens. Period!
Here is something that may help you figure out McCain.
Good grief.
Good grief, indeed! At that point I just gave it all up as utterly hopeless. I am having trouble comprehending the Bible quoting compassion babble crowd these days.There are many of us, who are men and women of deep and abiding faith and conviction, who do not believe that closing the border and maintaining the sovreignty of our nation are inimical with our faith.
What an eponymous moment for me... LOL!
Yup. You can count me among that number.
Good grief, indeed! At that point I just gave it all up as utterly hopeless. I am having trouble comprehending the Bible quoting compassion babble crowd these days.There are many of us, who are men and women of deep and abiding faith and conviction, who do not believe that closing the border and maintaining the sovreignty of our nation are inimical with our faith.
And among the verses that spring to mind is one that points out that he who refuses to provide for his own house is worse than an infidel.
Taking provisions out of the mouths of our families, to hand over to criminal invaders... it's like hearing your front door kicked in just as you'r'e sitting down to dinner, and then inviting the thief to come and dine with you -- and then hand him the food from your children's plates, a bag in which to place the silverware, and then a nice handy ring to hold the keys to your house, car, and safety deposit box, as you gather up your family and head out into your new home -- the streets!
This has crossed the line from "charity" to "self-martyrdom". It's a phenomenon that's hardly restricted to the current context (although it's apparently -- and sadly -- a perfect fit). I am personally acquainted with a particular "do-gooder", who has literally made it his life's work to "help others", to the detriment of his own family (and, in the process, has honed the "poor, pitiful me" act to an art). He can be found at all sorts of "charitable" engagements, everything from Boy Scouts to "visiting the infirm in the hospital" (strangers, who have no idea why he's there). His own family, though, persistantly gets the cold shoulder from him, and he is always "too busy" (with "important" stuff) to bother with them when they need his assistance.
I feel like I am watching this same pathology play out on a national level -- and I resent any "personal" efforts to ram it down my throat (i.e., to put me on a guilt trip over my failure to bend over forwards for "these good people.")
PS: On the subject of the aforementioned "do-gooder" -- a few years ago, before the invasion became such a hot topic for most, I said something in passing to the guy. It had to do with the "slow-rider/boom-boom" cars and loud "ethnic music" wailing out the window of a nearby farmhouse. (This was while standing on a very rural property my wife and I were considering buying, to put a house on.)
I got an immediate tongue-lashing from the guy, scolding me for being cruel to "these good people" -- and, a lecture on what "good" people they were. By golly they're just wonderful, and the fact that they make an otherwise "Waldenpondesque" setting into "el barrio el natural" is something that I should just suck up and eat, because, well... because they're such wonderful folk (all 20 of 'em jammed into the farmhouse). And they're so hard-working too!
"And Bingo was his name-O!"
Rudy Guilani did find out that enforcement of all the laws (broken windows) made a huge difference in the culture of crime in NYC.
I'm no fan of "Juliano" (as "Reverend" Jackson has called him). I'm pro-life, pro-traditional family, pro-RKBA, and opposed to B-I-G government. But I can hardly fault him in this regard. The "broken windows theory" has been proven correct so many times that anyone who denies it needs to seek immediate help.
The application to the context under discussion is obvious.
Methinks you read far too much into a parallel.
The question was something along the line of: Has God ever supported illegal aliens?
The Joshua/COI instance says yes.
We need to find a way to indoctrinate the illegals with freedom, capitalism, republicanism, and prosperity; and THEN send them back to Mexico.
They also need to know they were treated with forebearance and compassion. We need to return them to Mexico with an extremely positive attitude about the US.
All of the above will change the face of that nation.
Nice try, but you can't have it both ways. Either your parallel is applicable, in which case my response in on the money, or, your parallel is NOT applicable, in which case, why are you cluttering the thread with it?
Methinks you read far too much into a parallel.The question was something along the line of: Has God ever supported illegal aliens?
The Joshua/COI instance says yes.
It is applicable in that they were illegal (according to the invaded countries) and that God supported them.
The situation is different (I hope) in that God had decreed the sin of the inhabitant of Canaan so bad that they needed to be cleaned out.
A case could be made against San Francisco.
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.