Posted on 05/23/2006 8:25:20 AM PDT by Gordongekko909
That comparison also qualifies as an insult to our intelligence.
There is no parallel between AMERICANS taking a drink and INVADERS violating our sovereignty and being rewarded for it with one of the most valuable things on earth: AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP.
One solution that has been offered is the "Nuclear Option" at the polls for the House for 2006. (Save the Senate for judicial nominees) Allow the Dems to take the House for the next two years as a message if this passes.
(No harm will be done with all the Dems hearings and investigations. That'll keep em busy for the next two years and they'll show their true colors for 2008.)
"They think you're stupid". -Herman Cain
Great article.He brings up some good points.TS:"Another insult to our intelligence...since we cannot find and deport 12 million people,the only choice left is to find some way to make them legal."That's simply a defeatist attitude propagated by the msm,dims,and pro-amnesty groups.It would take time,but if we secure the border(wall),and begin to deport illegals already here the problem will be solved over time.The big problem is getting everyone from the federal level on down on the same page.
The sad part of all of this is that the Afro-Americans that now do the majority of the concrete and block work and most of the other manual labor in construction will be out of work, replaced by imports that will work for less.
You may think my statement was an insult to your intelligence. But dozens of Freepers have been constantly asking me "what part of 'illegal' don't you understand?" Clearly, for them if not for you, the issue is more one of legality than of economics.
For them, my analogy is spot on. In the 30s they'd have been yelling about the kind of precedent it would set to make alcohol legal again.
Except that if the illegals begin "working legally," they'll have to be paid, I assume, some kind of minimum wage, thus leveling the playing field for Blacks.
I just find a vast difference between CITIZENS taking a drink of alcohol and FOREIGN NATIONALS trashing the sovereignty of the United States and being rewarded for it. Know what I mean?
The answer is they won't and you shouldn't. To be honest, I'm reaching a certain point of disinterest in this topic. They've shown their cards and it's obvious how this is going to go down. Whether a bill is passed or not, the effect is the same: Dems will eventually (sooner than later) take permanent power as a result of changing demographics.
Since the debate about the course of this nation is essentially over, there's better things to do like figuring out how to get a piece of the new pie. As any Calif conservative knows, they are no longer even part of the debate. So the real focus in on golf, fishing & surfing.
It will be interesting to see what leisure/entertainment industries/services emerge as the rest of the country gets used to these facts.
What about Wal-Mart, Target, etc and Home Dept? I reallly don't know for sure about them, just asking.
Tyson shut down that day the illegals demonstrated and I know there other companies, but can't remember them.
Every worker I have met at Targets in New Jersey, New York, or Washington State has at least had the ability to speak basic English, 95% being native born IME.
Not sure about Home Depot, as I never set foot in that sprawling hellhole.
Good for you. But let's assume, just for the sake of argument, that you could somehow be persuaded that having 10 million low wage illegal workers in the country was good for our economy. If that were the case, then you wouldn't have a serious problem with decriminalizing their status, right?
ping
"Not sure about Home Depot, as I never set foot in that sprawling hellhole."
Hey, its a great place to buy concrete and scrap wood.
I don't buy anything else there.
But when will the glib phrase-mongers stop telling us that the illegals are simply taking "jobs that Americans won't do"?
Sowell is usually so right on. Sad to see his reasoning fail here.
Bush has also apparently learned that the word "amnesty" does not poll well. On Monday night, he angrily denounced the idea of amnesty just before proposing his own amnesty program. The difference between Bush's amnesty program and "amnesty" is: He'd give amnesty only to people who have been breaking our laws for many years — not just a few months. (It's the same program that allows Ted Kennedy to stay in the Senate.) -Ann Coulter..
And I'm on the other side of the issue because I take issue with his reasoning. So what?
Our national sovereignty and the value of the rule of law is beyond economic price.
Except that if the illegals begin "working legally," they'll have to be paid, I assume, some kind of minimum wage
The point being that his reasoning is fine. The idea of you taking exception to it has no bearing on wether his reasoning is failing.
It would be like asking Michael Moore to give a balanced view of conservatives in his next movie.
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.