President Defies Most Republicans on Immigration

www.townhall.com ^ | May 29, 2006 | Phyllis Schlafly

[Jeff Head]

Well, the Security and Prosperity Partnership is real enough. Here's a link to the official government site:

Folks can read the info there and make upo their own minds...but I do not go along with it in the least.

Here's the mission staement:

To enhance the competitive position of North American industries in the global marketplace and to provide greater economic opportunity for all of our societies, while maintaining high standards of health and safety for our people, the United States, Mexico, and Canada will work together, and in consultation with stakeholders, to: Improve Productivity, Reduce the Cost of Trade, Enhance the Quality of Life.

Sorry...but "our" people as far as I am concerned are the citizens of the United States. You are not going to "lift" the Mexican population as a part of "our" people, without lowering the whole. They have to "lift" themselves and be willing to spend the resources and make the sacrifices to do that. But the Security portion of the Agenda gives a clue as to how the SPP intends to do it...here's a pertinent security goals:

Further streamline the secure movement of low-risk traffic across our shared borders

Clearly the Senate is on board with this travesty. Thank God the House is not.

I think we are seeing the outward demonstration of a fairly significant internal struggle regarding this critical issue in the two seperate plans/bills from the House and Senate, and the debate going on regarding them.

Domestic enemies are organizing protests that clearly lean in support of plans similar to, or even more radical than what the SPP proposed.

We the people must ensure that the House holds the line, that the Senators voting for their bill are soundly whipped in public opinion and at the polls, and that the Senators who opposed it, and who are pro-American in their other positions, are complimented and supported as a result.

[Mind-numbed Robot]

Don't see how you can support open borders, but at least you state your case without name-calling of those of us who oppose illegal immigration and open borders.

I support open borders only in a perfect world, just as I support open doors and windows in neighborhoods. I don't support them in the real world. As someone wisely said, without borders there is no state.

I laid out what I think must be done but I don't think it can be done. Yet, we must support that even as it destroys the Republican Party, else we are untrue to ourselves.

I support closed borders and limited immigration, allowing in those who can make a positive contribution to our society and the American way of life. The days of "Give me your tired, your poor, your downtrodden and hopeless, ..." or whatever the Statue of Liberty says, are long gone.

I reject the idea that Bush is part of some leftwing global conspiracy. That is the basis of my disagreement. However, to the Internet Rambos who demand immediate gratification I do point out that what they want is impossible under current circumstances.

[La Enchiladita]

Saith Lady Liberty: "Give me your tired, your poor, your downtrodden and hopeless, ..." ?

How about, "Give me a break ... please."

[Smartass]

Post #141"in consultation with stakeholders"; and
post #142 "global conspiracy"

Other then the American people, who are these
stakeholders, and conspirators?
That's an easy one...
Passage of S-2611 proves this issue a no brainer:

"that this nation United States of North America, under God The New World Order, The Tri Lateral Commission, The Bohemian Grovers, and The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), shall have a new birth of freedom Socialism -- and that government of the people Globalists, by the people Globalists, for the people Globalists, shall not perish from the earth."

That's my take, and I stick by it!

 

[Altura Ct.]

She nailed it!

[Altura Ct.]

What was it Americans won't do?

Great shot!

[Smartass]

#104, and #135.
Thanks...
   

[JustPiper]

And Clintoon and ChinaGate