Posted on 06/03/2007 7:02:37 AM PDT by gpapa
WRITE! WRITE! WRITE! WRITE! TILL YOU RUN OUT OF INK IN YOUR PEN!
Bombard the Democrats as well, especially the ones that ran on an anti illegal immigration plank and the ones in marginal districts who could be vulnerable. keep pounding on them. This is a bipartisan issue not a Conservative or Liberal issue BUT AN AMERICAN issue.
Great idea except for those who work for an employer that withholds taxes for Federal, State and Local governments. Only those who own there own companies or act as contractors have the ability to NOT PAY TAXES. While some would say that withholding was put in place to ensure a smooth inflow of cash to the government, I contend that withholding was put in place just so people could not "demonstrate" by refusing to pay there taxes. They got us by the short hairs and they know it!
Yes they will, as soon as the current crop gets legalized, paid higher wages and has to share the federal tax bill with the employers, the hunt for replacement illegal immigrant with start anew. Just put the high wage ones on welfare and go for the "new illegals". That is why it is important to secure the border first, to break the chain of endless illegal immigration, before any added steps are taken or promises made.
Synoposis of the Koolaid whine piece:
- No wall can hold them back, don't bother trying (psst...because we're certainly not)
- Free markets (code phrase for cheap labor in this case) should supercede domestic security (because $$$ rule, and Mexico's version of a "free market" is sucking dollars out of our economy to enrich the hacienda patrons- which is why the peasants are coming here in the first place)
- It's impossible to keep track of anyone entering the country, much less illegals (because cheap labor and Mexican hacienda interests like it that way)
No concern for the tidal wave effect of a cash and carry demographic who send their money back home to familia, will never go through a legitimate process to immigrate, yet use up our social services without paying into it.
No concern for allowing our nation to become the third world s*&%thole of a country that Mexico has always been outside of its gated haciendas. Why is that- with all their wealth and resources- I wonder? Could it be that the privileged patrons prefer the government corruption and two tier class system because it gives them maximum flexibility, wealth and power?
No concern for the explosion of Mexican drug smuggling armies and all that brings that has permeated Mexico and is advancing along our borders.
No concern, remorse, guilt, outrage et al.. for our government agencies abject failure and refusal to fulfill their obligations by enforcing current laws on the books (because it doesn't fit the plan- so let's change the plan to fit our business and political power goals)
Last paragraph from the article:
Our leaders are better off trying for small improvements than insisting on grand solutions. In this and most other spheres of government endeavor, conservatives should know, it's wise not to expect too much.
So, in closing, this a$$clown is saying that our lawmakers and the POTUS that we elect to represent and lead us as a nation can only work on the "small things" because that's the limit of their capabilities and that we conservatives should just sit back, shut up and expect no more ( meanwhile, us cheap labor business types will reap our rewards off the back of taxpayers and the sweat of Pedro). What an arrogant, condescending pr*#k! With an attitude like this, he's well on his way to owning his own hacienda complete with cash and carry peasants.
You can put some of your taxes on hold for atleast 6 months. I am not sure if you can use a 1099 or not.
You're right when you say that it is "All about money". However, the article only talks about the money the illegals want to make here. There's no mention about the money that We the American Taxpayers will pay to prop up those illegals.
There is nothing conservative about the government artificially increasing the labor supply, just like there is nothing conservative about the government artificially increasing the money supply. Flooding the market with immigrants is no different than flooding the market by printing more money.
Will and Chapman are simply siding with the criminal employers and the scofflaw aliens against the American people. They just don’t want to admit it.
“Conservatism, declared George Will recently, “is realism: about human nature and government’s competence.” It requires accepting human beings as they are, not as we wish they were, and recognizing the limited capacity of government to transform the world for the better. But in the immigration debate, many conservatives are embracing policies that, by this standard, are anything but conservative.”
Good quote.
A) That is a strawman argument
B) George Will didn’t even write this column. Steve Chapman did.
In fact Will’s latest column was quite sarcastic on the bad senate immigration bill. so why give him heat?
Realism dictates one thing: It is insanity to do the same thing a second time and expect a different result. It is insanity to think this will succeed when the 1986 failed.
I guess we should get rid of laws making burglary illegal - after all, those impede humans from pursuing their interests.
“Will and Chapman are simply siding with the criminal employers and the scofflaw aliens against the American people. They just don’t want to admit it.”
Please, folks, quit bashing Will over a column he didnt write!
Steve Chapman used (abused) a Will quote to make his point.
Here is Will’s view:
“ In 1986, when there probably were 3 million to 5 million illegal immigrants, Americans accepted an amnesty because they were promised that border control would promptly follow. Today the 12 million illegal immigrants, 60 percent of whom have been here five or more years, are as numerous as Pennsylvanians; 44 states have populations smaller than 12 million. Deporting the 12 million would require police resources and methods from which the nation would rightly flinch. So, why not leave bad enough alone?
Concentrate on border control, and workplace enforcement facilitated by a biometric identification card issued to immigrants who are or will arrive here legally. Treat the problem of the 12 million with benign neglect. Their children born here are American citizens; the parents of these children will pass away.”
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/05/washingtons_words_not_trustwor.html
http://www.fresnobee.com/opinion/wo/story/49901.html
“GEORGE WILL: Immigration bill is doomed to fail
By George Will
05/25/07 05:10:39
Compromise is incessantly praised and has produced the proposed immigration legislation. But compromise is the mother of complexity, which, regarding immigration, virtually guarantees — as the public understands — weak enforcement and noncompliance.
Although the compromise was announced the day the Census Bureau reported that there now are 100 million nonwhites in America, Americans are skeptical about the legislation, but not because they have suddenly succumbed to nativism. Rather, the public has come to the conclusion that the government cannot be trusted to mean what it says about immigration.
In 1986, when there probably were 3 million to 5 million illegal immigrants, Americans accepted an amnesty because they were promised that border control would promptly follow. Today, the 12 million illegal immigrants, 60% of whom have been here five or more years, are as numerous as Pennsylvanians; 44 states have populations smaller than 12 million. Deporting the 12 million would require police resources and methods from which the nation would rightly flinch. So, why not leave bad enough alone?
Concentrate on border control, and workplace enforcement facilitated by a biometric identification card issued to immigrants who are or will arrive here legally. Treat the problem of the 12 million with benign neglect. Their children born here are American citizens; the parents of these children will pass away.
Under current immigration policies, America is importing another underclass, one “with the potential to expand indefinitely,” according to Heather Mac Donald of the Manhattan Institute. To sentimentalists who cling to “the myth of the redeeming power of Hispanic family values, the Hispanic work ethic and Hispanic virtue,” she says:
From 1990 to 2004, Hispanics accounted for 92% of the increase in poor people. Only 53% of Hispanics earn high school diplomas, the lowest among American ethnic groups. Half of all children born to Hispanic-Americans in 2005 were born out of wedlock — a reliable predictor of social pathologies.
The legislation supposedly would shift policy from emphasizing family unification to emphasizing economic criteria (skills) when setting eligibility for immigrants. Critics will say this will sunder families. But the sundering has happened; it was done by illegal immigrants who left family members behind and are free to reunite with their families where they left them.
Anyway, the supposed shift from emphasizing family relations — the emphasis that results in “chain migration” — to economic merit may be diluted to nothingness. It is highly suspicious that there was a rush — fortunately stymied — to pass this legislation through both houses and get it to conference, where the majority of participants will be Democrats eager to court Hispanic votes.
Some Democrats argue that liberalism’s teetering achievement, the welfare state, requires liberal immigration policies. The argument is: Today there are only 3.3 workers for every retiree. In January, the first of 77 million baby boomers begin to retire. By the time they have retired, in 2030, there will be 2.2 workers for every retiree — but only if the work force is replenished by 900,000 immigrants a year.
On Monday, however, Robert Rector of The Heritage Foundation stunned some senators who heard his argument that continuing, under family-based immigration, to import a low-skilled population will cost the welfare state far more than the immigrants’ contributions to the economy and government. He argued that low-skilled immigrants are costly to the welfare state at every point in their life cycle, and are very costly when elderly. Just the 9 million to 10 million illegal adults already here will, if given amnesty, cost an average of $300,000 — cumulatively, more than $2.5 trillion — in various entitlements (Social Security, food stamps, Medicaid, housing, etc.) over 30 years.
To those who say border control is impossible — often these are the same people who said better policing could not substantially reduce crime, until it did — one answer is: It took just 34 months for the Manhattan Project to progress from the creation of the town of Oak Ridge in the Tennessee wilderness to the atomic explosion at Alamogordo, N.M. That is what America accomplishes when serious.
In an attempt to anesthetize people who sensibly say “border control and workplace enforcement first,” important provisions of the legislation would supposedly be “triggered” only when control of the border is “certified” by the president. But in what looks like a parody of the Washington mentality, certification would be triggered not by border control but by the hiring of border control agents and other spending. So, the supposedly hardheaded aspects of the legislation actually rest on the delusion that spending equals the achievement of the intention behind the spending. By that assumption, we have long since tranquilized and democratized Iraq. “
While Will’s current position isn’t as bad as Chapman made it appear, it is not honest and differs somewhat from his opinion expressed last year when he was against the House enforcement bill.
We don’t have to choose between giving the 12 to 20 million illegal aliens who broke into our country amnesty and “rounding them up”. Enforce the laws against hiring them and stop turning them loose when cops catch them driving without a license or without insurance, etc., and millions of them will self-deport.
He also supports a “guest worker program” even though history shows no guest worker program ever worked as planned because guest workers never leave when their invitation runs out. A guest worker program is just a way of undermining any attempt to control immigration.
He also favors; “reducing illegality by putting illegal immigrants on a path out of society’s crevices and into citizenship by paying fines and back taxes and learning English.” That’s like letting a car thief keep the car if he pays a fine and the sales tax.
(See Will’s column; “Conservative views on immigration”) http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20060330/news_lz1e30will.html
So, Will may not be quite as bad as Chapman and others, but he’s sure not helping get this right.
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.