[PapaNew]

I think the argument against amnesty is largely a socialist argument. We certainly need security at our borders but so-called conservatives seem to forget that before the 1920's there were NO immigration restrictions. They also seem to forget what's carved on the pedestal of the Statue of Liberty:

"Give me your tired, your poor
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

I believe that's what our county is all about - a place of refuge for any and all.

[cripplecreek]

So be a democrat and get it over with.

[markomalley]

I think the argument against amnesty is largely a socialist argument.

1. We didn't have the socialist economy that we do now.
2. Immigrants were actual immigrants (for the most part) and wanted to be Americans. You can't say that, for the most part, now.
3. We most certainly did have restrictions on immigration. See, for example, the 1862 Coolie Act.
4. With the exception of Chinese, the vast majority of immigrants to this country were Christian. That is no longer the case (you may not have noticed the volume of mosques going up in recent years...if you live under a rock). Same general religion...same general core values.
5. Low skilled jobs depended upon manpower back then. We now have these things called "machines" that do our ditch digging for us.
6. etc.

[bmwcyle]

You are an idiot. You act like we let no one in this country. Go away so I don’t have to see your stupid posts.

[evilC]

a place of refuge for any and all.

The world population is about 7 billion. Most of them from countries poorer than Mexico. So should we let them all in?

America's golden period, when the middle class grew; when prosperity was enjoyed by most; when it was respected throughout the world; when we built the interstate highway system and put a man on the moon, all happened in the post World War II immigration lull.

After the post 1965 immigration surge our shuttles blow up, our bridges collapse, the middle class shrank, and we are hated throughout the world.

Immigration worked in the 1920 to 1965 period because it was low, controlled, and focused on White Europeans. If we must have high immigration, and I do not believe we do, then at least make it as much like the indigenous population as possible (many Europeans, British, and beleaguered Afrikaners would love to come here).

However a country of over 300 million does not need immigration. How many congested highways must we slow-crawl along, how many over crowded schools must our children suffer, how many localities must suffer water shortages before we say “enough!”

[GeronL]

And we give citizenship to plenty of people every year who went about it the legal way.

We should never surrender to foreign criminal invaders

[xzins]

The nation has had immigration and naturalization laws from the beginning.

Art I, Sect 8. US Constitution

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,

[etcb]

I believe that's what our county is all about - a place of refuge for any and all.

It would probably be instructive to review the history of the Statue of Liberty. It was the brainchild of a Frenchman and reflected his idea of the obligation of the United States to the poor of the world. It never reflected the policy of the United States but unfortunately has helped foster the misguided idea that immigration policy should be primarily for the benefit of the people who want to come here rather than the benefit of the nation.

[Politicalmom]

YOU support them!!!

[meyer]

We certainly need security at our borders but so-called conservatives seem to forget that before the 1920's there were NO immigration restrictions.

There was no welfare state in the 1920s either. People came here to become Americans, to enter the land of opportunity, not to get a free lunch, free school, free health care, and free housing. Illegal immigration is no longer about becoming American, it's about freeloading off the already overburdened taxpayer-slaves in this country.

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

[Praxeologue]

I believe that's what our county is all about - a place of refuge for any and all.

You should have added "... with a special preference for Mexican nations who enter the country illegally". You want all the other worthies from around the world to get to the end of line behind criminals from our adjoining country.

[Ghost of Philip Marlowe]

Really?

How about a land for free handouts...that the citizens pay for?

How about, a land for people who hate our system and want to fundamentally transform it into a communist/socialist system?

Is that what we are really all about?

What you quoted on the statue has nothing to do with our founding documents. It is a crappy sonnet written by someone with socialist sympathies. And we are open to take those who need a hand, but we do NOT want people to parasite off the citizens of this country.

There were two huge differences between our LEGAL immigration (I have no idea where you got the idea there were no restrictions on immigration in the 1920’s, there were, including quarantine) then and now:

1. The people coming here knew and understood that contrary to the anti-Americans, we did have a uniquely American culture. They knew that and were willing to put their own cultures aside in the public sphere in order to join the American culture and add to that UNITY that made us so strong and free and prosperous.

2. The number of people in the country was far fewer and that number was in a ratio to those who were contributing to society and those who were drawing from society. What I mean is that people came here to work and considered it shameful to take public assistance. They came and worked and chipped in. Today, millions of the immigrants who come here illegally and who hate our culture and want to spread their own cultures here in the public sphere, do everything they can NOT to chip in (working under the table if they do work) and to TAKE everything they possibly can for free (e.g., the ER is their local clinic).

Why it is a CONSERVATIVE argument not only to NOT reward those who came here ILLEGALLY and are sucking at the public teat but to RESTRICT ALL immigration (legal and illegal) is because we don’t want a giant socialist government to provide for all those who come here as parasites AND we also know that if we lose our uniquely American culture, our culture will divide and fall, and then there is no hope for anyone on the planet for a life of freedom and prosperity.

So, no, it is not a socialist issue to want our government to abide by law and order and it is not a socialist issue to want to preserve our culture and defend our nation from a disunity that is sure to sink us.

[Will88]

I think the argument against amnesty is largely a socialist argument. We certainly need security at our borders but so-called conservatives seem to forget that before the 1920's there were NO immigration restrictions. They also seem to forget what's carved on the pedestal of the Statue of Liberty:

Things change. The world reached a population of two billion around 1930. The world population 200 years ago was around one billion. Now the world population is seven billion. Can you see any difference in the potential results of unchecked immigration now and 100 or 200 years ago?

And the US still lets in around 1.2 million legally each year. Your argument is complete nonsense.

[GBA]

And who will take our poor, our huddled masses yearning to breathe free, hmmm?

Where is such a place now that we've fallen and had our private property surrendered to those who have broken in to our home and taken it by adverse possession?

Do you leave your home unlocked and let any and all come in and make themselves at home, calling yours, theirs?

I think not. You're the "Do as I say, not as I do" party, right? That seems more accurate for those who speak as you do.

Your socialism is unwelcome here. Marx has given the world evil and you embrace it? The stench of death is unbearable.

[lentulusgracchus]

Emma Lazarus, the poetess, was primarily a proto-Zionist, not so much an enthusiastic proponent of America. Jewish affairs and her faith engaged her more.

[Sloth]

I believe that pretty much anybody — aside from known criminals, etc. — should be allowed to come here if they can find a place to live and support themselves (i.e., no welfare of any kind). My exception to that is the criminal invaders who are already here. They have already expressed their contempt for our national sovereignty by violating our borders and laws and should never, ever be eligible for legal residency.