Posted on 11/04/2011 7:39:05 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
But the beauty of my plan (and every brilliant mind in my one person office spent at least 10 minutes working on it) is it’s simplicity. As soon as a few employers got nailed with fines and word got out, other employers would stop hiring illegals. And illegals that did find work would see the writing on the wall, turn themselves in, get a $300 reward AND plane fare home. Next big issue?
That’s an interesting history lesson. So... How do you conduct an Operation Wetback today in the politically correct and leftist toxic rhetorical climate?
I do know that there was an Operation Streamline on the Texas border in the Del Rio sector. No illegals got through, but the counter argument to Operation Streamline was that we just sent the illegals to the Az or NM border to cross.
The point is that Operation Streamline worked to seal the border on a sector-by-sector bases. The question is, how well will it work if you apply a Streamline-type operation across the entire border.
I love your plan.
One problem. Our economy sort of depends upon illegal labor. So how do we reconcile the businesses that depend upon illegal labor?
What I mean is that is there a way that you can solve the underemployment problem in the meat packing, chicken farming and hospitality industry?
Tagging question. Do you think that politically the person/party instituting your plan can survive the backlash of rising food and hospitality prices?
Okay, I concede. It was a misunderstanding on my part. All I would point out is that amnesty is often confused with offering legal citizenship as part of the amnesty, and that the distinction is sometimes forgotten, as I did.
That said, if the “amnesty” only involved sending them home and having those who wished to do so return with green cards (issued under our control in the number we specified), and treating those who remained here illegally as illegal aliens, why on earth would you object to that? It would essentially solve the problem, assuming we then tightened up the borders, unless you think that we don’t need any migrant help at all...which is another issue, I’ll readily admit.
However, Perry's views on illegal aliens are well in line with those of past presidents (even Ronald Reagan gave amnesty, if you recall). Perry's views do not make him stupid, just typical. As President, he'd be status quo only, but not evil.
What I'm actually saying is, if the choice were between Perry and Barry, I would not hesitate to vote for Perry. My preference at this point, is still Herman Cain.
Good question. Its going to take a sea change in the attitude our candidates have shown in the past. Up to now they've allowed their perception of the public mood to be entirely too much colored by the news media, and have depended far to little on their moral compass.
How about doing whats right for a change, and not simply taking the path of least resistance? Americans are just, they also know right from wrong; fair from unfair. They will reward candidates who attempt do whats right for the country as a whole and in good faith.
Of course I'm taking a huge leap in assuming these people went into politics to 'do whats right'.
RE: How about doing whats right for a change, and not simply taking the path of least resistance?
It's not just the politicians. Politicians are salesmen. They'll adapt their sales pitch to match the customer (the voter). Not their fault. It's just the way it works.
The customer with the most influence are those in the 45-65 demo, who went to school during the height and post-mort of the Civil Rights movement. This generation was taught that color is irrelevant. All people are equal.
You cannot roll that back. It was a moral decision by the leaders of the day to change the education system to push the "blue eyes/brown eyes" race doesn't matter meme.
I am not saying the above is wrong. In fact, it is morally correct. However, the 3rd rail of race politics runs right through these learned sensibilities, and they are easily manipulated. The generations afterwards are even more soaked in those post-Civil Rights ideals. It's not practical.
As long as economic times are good, no one wants to fight that fight of changing what I mentioned above. When economic times get tough, we start looking around for people to blame. And that's where we are right now.
So, changing immigration policy to be discriminatory in favor of white Europeans really is a 3rd rail. How are you going to sell that to the masses, as described above. Or did I describe it accurately?
So I'm not really sure wher you're coming from.
it’s sad how many freepers are fooled by the msm.
Well, if they get work visas... that would end their ‘illegal’ status as soon as they got it.
And speaking of legal immigration, btw, and as long as America isn’t granting visas solely based upon actual need of the country, what would be wrong with granting visas in proportion to the ethnic mix of the country as it is? I don’t think it would be too hard to convince the majority of Americans the madness of the current policy of transplanting entire villages of Somalians to Minnesota.
thank you for your response and also thank you for reminding me of the sending a post to several people at once..I completely forgot that one..yeesh!
Skeeter—
I was talking about the political problems with proposing that the US should go back to the pre-1965 immigration policy that favored white Europeans.
joe
Frankly, I find this whole thing disgusting on both sides.
Cain wants it to stay alive (issues some kind of statement everyday)/ Before you ask, his ridiculous statements on China and then Block making it even worse with his stupid remarks needed to be shoved in the background. Why do you think they released the Supposed Kissinger meeting. There are a lot of people that don’t like Kissinger. Me included.
We are still dealing with his handiwork.
His fingerprints are all over the sabotage of Vietnamese peace talks in 1968, which prolonged American involvement in that bloody and pointless war for four more years; the secret bombing of Cambodia, unintended but clear precursor to the Killing Fields; Operation Condor, an unholy alliance of military dictatorships throughout Latin America designed to help one another eliminate all traces of opposition; Indonesia’s 1975 invasion of East Timor, another prelude to genocide; and disgustingly cozy relations with despicable dictatorships in Iran and Pakistan.
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/8001-henry-kissinger-jon-huntsman-qa-good-candidateq-for-president
rush limbaugh says there’s nothing to it.
it’s an attack on cain.
politico has had 90 stories in 5 days.
why do people on this forum believe the msm?
thank you very much for your response.
Thanks for your response...what a terrific sense of humor you have!” a pill to cure stupid”..I’m gonna have to keep that one to use at work, ha.
How do you feel about Newt, just curious. I like him also very much.
Thank you very much for your response.
I am also liking Newt lately more than I had in the past.
I would Pay-Per-View probably a couple hundred dollars to see Gingrich debate Obozo for 2 hours, ok, ok, even for 20 minutes! ha!
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.