I have noticed on here that a lot of people really like Mrs. Palin. Could someone explain the main reasons why she is so popular as a political leader? I know she is attractive, and that she believes a lot of good things, but the same could be said for a lot of conservative women. Why is Mrs. Palin the choice to lead us?
Glad you aren’t a founding father for this country, guess you wouldn’t have let my grandparents in. Who came here legally, learned the language, fought in American wars, and became productive members of society. Why don’t you go find yourself a private island. Everything I see Sarah talking about is LEGAL immigration.
I think Sarah is just naive sometimes.
OK Slick, what part of this do YOU disagree with: 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. Have YOU EVER been to an INS office and observed what goes on there. NO WONDER aliens(Legal) say F*CK it and just stay here anyway they can. FIRE MOST OF THESE TURDS and you MAY rid ourselves of alot of these type of “problems”.
Yawn. Malcontents like yourself are always disappointed with someone. “We want the perfect person (like myself).”!!!!! Yer an idiot.
On Beck, you highlighted "Do you agree with me make the door wider and make it easier to bring people in".
In Palin's response you highlighted the word "absolutely" which is not a response to the highlighted portion of Beck's question above. She stated "Every part of bureaucracy needs to be streamlined, absolutely." She did NOT say anything about increasing immigration in that statement, she merely said the process is inefficient.
Even in the completion of her answer which was "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", she did NOT say anything about increasing immigration, she merely said they should come in legally.
Without checking your posting history, I don't know if you are a serial Sarah basher, so for now I will give you the benefit of the doubt that it was a misunderstanding based on a simple reading comprehension problem.
Legal immigration is what our country is all about, and each of us owes our own citizenship to it, at some point. I agree with everything she said.
Illegal aliens, on the other hand, must be STOPPED.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find only things evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelogus
Why did you highlight Beck’s claim that she endorsed Graham?
You know that isn’t true, right?
“Palin: The immigrants, of course, built this country. And ..... I think we need to recognize that again, immigrants built this great country”
Sarah, Sarah, Sarah. NO, IMMIGRANTS did NOT build this country! There were 4 or 5 ‘immigrants’ who were founding fathers. American citizens built it and fought for it FAR more than ‘immigrants’ever did. Sarah needs a history lesson.
And THOSE immigrants wanted freedom, not to be coddled from cradle to grave like the current ones.
And before someone posts the LARs Larson interview, where he led her anyway he could away from amnesty, she STILL stated “ not allow this generous amnesty that the Democrats are proposing.”......what kind, Sarah, the John McCAin kind of amnesty??
And for ‘legal immigration’. Evidently she doesn’t have a clue how many come in ‘legally’...with the visas, etc, it’s well over 4 million a year. How many does she think we should take in??? And from where??? Fairbanks, Alaska is even trying to deal with their gang problem!
Makes you wonder what she actually does read.
Survey to determine scope of Fairbanks gang problem (Fairbanks, AK): Fairbanks leaders will conduct a citywide survey later this month to determine the extent of local gang activity.
Source: Fairbanks Daily News-Miner Date: February 2, 2010
http://newsminer.com/...
Maybe it’s just her turn to divert our attention.
Why can’t handle the existing illegals and we can’t stop them from coming here but we need to allow more legal immigrants when we don’t enforce the existing laws in the first place? Wow.
As for this, she's drawing a fine line to separate the issues of immigration and illegal immigration. Being against the illegals != hate immigrants, as the left tries to paint it.
Yet ANOTHER "Sarah's Disappointed Me" VANITY.
BOO-HOO
>> I’m not saying Gov. Palin is evil, liberal, or statist.
Sad that you need to throw up the protective shield when providing sincere criticism.
But I agree, she’s a wonderful person.
Getting into the US should be like getting into a good college.
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.
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).
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