Posted on 02/04/2010 9:35:43 AM PST by dangus
Sarah endorses INCREASING immigration with Glenn Beck:
PALIN: Let me address legal immigration and we need to continue to be so welcoming and inviting of those who are represented there by our Statue of Liberty. The immigrants, of course, built this country. And I think republicans, conservatives are at fault when we allow the other side to capture this immigration issue and try to turn this issue into something negative for republicans. I think we need to recognize that again, immigrants built this great country. There are rules to follow if you want to be a part of this great country. Let's make sure people are following the rules. But let's welcome this.When Gov. Palin endorsed Sen. John McCain, I was forgiving, because they had been part of a team. But Palin has also endorsed Sen. Lindsey Graham, the man whose hatred for conservatives and grassroots is exceeded in the Republican Party only by Sen. Arlen Specter. Oh, wait...BECK: Do you agree with me make the door wider and make it easier to bring people in, you know, Bill Gates said, I have a hard time keeping people here because it's so complex. Make, just streamline it and make it easier for people to come in the right way.
PALIN: Every part of bureaucracy needs to be streamlined, absolutely. And people do need to come in the right way. They cannot take advantage of what this country has to offer. The opportunities, the help that is here, they need to do this legally
I'm not saying Gov. Palin is evil, liberal, or statist. But I've been pleading with people to find out what she actually stands for before they stampede to someone based on their personality and/or presence. Maybe she can still be reached, but I'm developing severe concerns we may be on the threshold of lunging headlong to yet another candidate who doesn't represent the conservative viewpoint.
Again, I emphasize she's not necessarily bad, but we should find out exactly how she stands on:
Other way around. What does my personal opinion on that topic have to do with the topic of this thread?
She hasn’t and nowhere in my comment did I say she did, yet even as a private citizen she has as good a chance as any of the others to beat that lying sack of garbage.
Exactly!
Most of the Sarah haters here are Mittwits or Ron Paul nutballs!
You are being very disingenuous. The people that came to this country built it. There would have been NO Revolution without the boatloads of people that came here. Not every patriot was born here. We didn’t win with written words. It took people to back them up.
I live 20 miles north of the San Diego - Tijuana border, largest and busiest border in the world.
I have not peoblem with her position.
You might want to pull your minders from the border and get in boats as this is how they are coming.
Several boats a week leave TJ and land on the beaches here at 2 - 3am with 20 in a boat.
And I have never seen where she ENDORSED Graham. She gave him money-—which was the exact same amount of money he gave her PAC when she formed it. They are now “even”-—I think that was by design so she now owes him nothing.
- - - - - - - - - - -
In that case, Palin has essentially told Graham “Thanks for your support, but no thanks.”
I think Sarah suffers from what ALL pols-good or bad- suffer from. They are terrified of offending all of us.
Americans are the kindest people in the world and we don’t like when people are kicked when they are down. But they misunderstand how we feel about fairness. It isnt fair when illegals are allowed to stay and take advantage of our largesse while others wait years and years to come here.
Speak up! Say it plain. We won’t faint.
I agree with you, IF they are bringing something to the table.
They have to be able to contribute to society.
Like my parents had to do in the 50’s.
You're right, that is a cop out. Of course the Feds could never round up every illegal in America and deport them. But the Feds should make the effort, nonetheless. Its ONLY their job afterall. And sending the illegals home would not be inhumane treatment whatsoever. The only way to deal with law breakers is to enforce the laws of the land.
The RonPaulBots and MittWitts on FR want to make sure Obama has a 2nd term
To be legal, they should either have to be of some potential value to our country, be family members of valued
immigrants already here, or need humanitarian protection for acceptable reasons (Commies threatened with death in a capitalist country or Islamics threatened in a Christian country are NOT acceptable).
I live 20 miles north of the largest busiest border crossing in the world, San Diego - Tijuana
I know what the illiegals are and the situation first hand.
Also why I support Sarah Palin.
I will take the term 'genius' as a compliment since I don't know you. My choice is, and has been, in my tagline.
I did wonder when I saw it posted that she donated money to Graham - wasn't crazy about that at all however, if this is the case - sounds like an honorable thing to do - give him back his money. Kudos to her!
I certainly hope she doesn't support him.
Are We Really a Nation of Immigrants? By: Lawrence Auster
FrontPageMagazine.com | Monday, April 03, 2006
It used to be that only open-borders activists said it. Now the entire political leadership of the United States is saying it. President Bush is saying it. Sen. Specter is saying it. Even Sen. Bill “enforcement-only” Frist is saying it:
“We are a nation of immigrants built upon the rule of law.”
Of course, that cute little addition about “rule of law” is nothing but boob bait for the Bubbas (a category of persons that, in the minds of our leaders, seems to constitute about three-quarters of the country); our leaders have as much intention to enforce the immigration laws as I have to fly to Mars next week. The part of the statement that counts is the business about “nation of immigrants.” To see the entire political leadership of our country pronouncing in unison this slogan, all as a part of an effort to push through the most catastrophic open-borders scheme in our history, is an Orwellian experience. If we’re a “nation of immigrants,” how can we be a nation of Americans?
To say that America is a “nation of immigrants” is to imply that there has never been an actual American people apart from immigration. It is to put America out of existence as a historically existing nation that immigrants and their children joined by coming here, a country with its own right to exist and to determine its own sovereign destiny—a right that includes the right to permit immigration or not. No patriot, no decent person who loves this country, as distinct from loving some whacked-out, anti-national, leftist idea of this country, would call it a “nation of immigrants.” Any elected official who utters the subversive canard that America is a “nation of immigrants” should, at the least, find his phone lines tied up with calls from irate constituents.
Of course, at first glance it seems indisputable that “we are a nation of immigrants,” in the sense that all Americans, even including the American Indians, are either immigrants themselves or descendants of people who came here from other places. Given those facts, it would have been more accurate to say that we are “a nation of descendants of immigrants.” But such a mundane assertion would fail to convey the thrilling idea conjured up by the phrase “nation of immigrants”—the idea that all of us, whether or not we are literally immigrants, are somehow “spiritually” immigrants, in the sense that the immigrant experience defines our character as Americans.
This friendly-sounding, inclusive sentiment—like so many others of its kind—turns out to be profoundly exclusive. For one thing, it implies that anyone who is not an immigrant, or who does not identify with immigration as a key aspect of his own being, is not a “real” American. It also suggests that newly arrived immigrants are more American than people whose ancestors have been here for generations. The public television essayist Richard Rodriguez spelled out these assumptions back in the 1990s when he declared, in his enervated, ominous tone: “Those of us who live in this country are not the point of America. The newcomers are the point of America.” Certainly the illegal-alien demonstrators in Los Angeles last week agreed with him; America, they kept telling us, belongs to them, not to us.
In reality, we are not—even in a figurative sense—a nation of immigrants or even a nation of descendants of immigrants. As Chilton Williamson pointed out in The Immigration Mystique, the 80,000 mostly English and Scots-Irish settlers of colonial times, the ancestors of America’s historic Anglo-Saxon majority, had not transplanted themselves from one nation to another (which is what defines immigration), but from Britain and its territories to British colonies. They were not immigrants, but colonists. The immigrants of the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries came to an American nation that had already been formed by those colonists and their descendants. Therefore to call America “a nation of immigrants” is to suggest that America, prior to the late nineteenth century wave of European immigration, was not America. It is to imply that George Washington and Ulysses S. Grant (descended from the original colonists) were not “real” Americans, but that Richard Rodriguez (descended from 20th century immigrants) and the anti-American demonstrators last week in Los Angeles, are.
Apart from its politically correct function of diminishing the Anglo-Saxon Americans of the pre-Ellis Island period and their descendants, the “nation of immigrants” motto is meaningless in practical terms. Except for open-borders utopians (a group that has grown over the years until now it seems to constitute a majority of the Democratic Party), everyone knows that we must have some limits on immigration. The statement, “we are a nation of immigrants,” gives us no guidance on what those limits should be. Two hundred thousand immigrants per year? Two million? Why not twenty million—since we’re a nation of immigrants? The slogan also doesn’t tell us, once we have decided on overall numbers, what the criterion of selection shall be among the people who want to come here. Do we choose on the basis of family ties to recent immigrants? Language? Income? Nationality? Race? Victim status? First come first served? Willingness to work for a lower wage than Americans work for? The “nation of immigrants” slogan cannot help us choose among these criteria because it doesn’t state any good that is to be achieved by immigration. It simply produces a blind emotional bias in favor of more immigration rather than less, making rational discussion of the issue impossible.
To see the uselessness of the “nation of immigrants” formula as a source of political guidance, , imagine what the British would have said if they had adopted it in 1940 when they were facing an imminent invasion by Hitler’s Germany. “Look, old man, we’re a nation of immigrant/invaders. First the Celts took the land from the Neolithic peoples, then the Anglo-Saxons conquered and drove out the Celts, then the Normans invaded and subjugated the Anglo-Saxons. In between there were Danish invaders and settlers and Viking marauders as well. Since we ourselves are descended from invaders, who are we to oppose yet another invasion of this island? Being invaded by Germanic barbarians is our national tradition!”
Since every nation could be called a nation of immigrants (or a nation of invaders) if you go back far enough, consistent application of the principle that a nation of immigrants must be open to all future immigrants would require every country on earth to open its borders to whoever wanted to come. But only the United States and, to a lesser extent, a handful of other Western nations, are said to have this obligation. The rule of openness to immigrants turns out to be a double standard, aimed solely at America and the West.
It is also blatantly unfair to make the factoid that “we are all descended from immigrants” our sole guide to national policy, when there are so many other important and true facts about America that could also serve as guides. For example, throughout its history the United States has been a member of Western civilization—in religion overwhelmingly Christian (and mainly Protestant Christian), in race (until the post-1965 immigration) overwhelmingly white, in language English. Why shouldn’t those little historical facts be at least as important in determining our immigration policy as the pseudo-fact that we’re all “descended from immigrants?” But immigrant advocates are incapable of debating such questions, because there is no rational benefit for America that they seek through open immigration. Their aim is not to strengthen and preserve America; their aim is to demonstrate themselves to be good, non-racist people—by surrendering America to the immigrant invasion.
http://97.74.65.51/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=4976
and your Ron Paul associates with everything from the NeoLeft to NeoNazies.
With his anti war, anti Israel.
He states, Iran and North Korea are no threat.
Ron Paul staes we deserved to be attacked because we are occupiers and calls as Imperial America.
You NeoLeftist friend is an enemy to this country.
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.