Replies

Nah, you and your little Yellow Peril clique piss me off. I don't like seeing it here on this forum. We don't allow VDARE to be linked from here, so a bunch of folks decided they'd just make this place VDARE. Just my observation.

But, I have no illusions that you and your pals are every bit my political ememy as are the Democrats scrambling toward Concord and Manchester right now. I am a staunch George W. Bush supporter. I support EVERY GOP candidate for Senate and the House of Representatives to win in in November. You people don't, therefore you're going to need to be FIGURATIVELY steamrolled. That's Karl Rove's job, and I think he's doing it exceptionally well.

I'm not a nice guy about this crap. We're at War with an enemy we cannot allow to prevail. Victor Hanson called this the most important election since 1864 for the future of this country. And you people are jacking around. Let's see what happens.

But, I have no illusions that you and your pals are every bit my political ememy as are the Democrats scrambling toward Concord and Manchester right now

Funny, I feel the same way about you and your socialist, globalist, compassionate, tolerant, politically correct neo- con ilk.

As far as VDARE, could you elaborate because I really have no idea what you speak of. Though, if it is something you are so vehemently against, it may be something I should look into.

And you go ahead and vote for every GOP candidate you can pull the lever for. The results won't vary much. A billion here, a billion there.

Yer gonna be in tough shape if Bushco. is sent back to the ranch in November. I am thinking some sort of opiate...

Here's what else Hanson has to say...
President Bush's recent proposal to grant legal status to thousands of Mexican citizens currently working in the U.S. under illegal auspices seems at first glance to be a good start--splitting the difference between open and closed borders, and between amnesty and deportation. Politically it was a wise move on the eve of a Mexican state visit to grant some concessions to Vicente Fox. After all, the president of Mexico cannot ignore the $12 billion in worker remittances sent his way--and he can either encourage or discourage millions more of his citizens to head north in lieu of needed radical reform at home. Yet the proposed legislation, even if it should pass in Congress, will create more problems than it might solve--the fate of all such piecemeal legal solutions to systematic problems of illegality. Once the U.S. government--not to mention the Republican Party--commits its good name and legal capital to regulate, rather than end, the current chaos, a number of contradictions will arise that will only make things either more embarrassing or, in fact, worse.
< -snip- >
Instead of squabbling over piecemeal legislation in an election year, rolling amnesties or a return of braceros, we might as well bite the bullet and reconsider an immigration policy that worked well enough for some 200 years for people from all over the world. Reasonable advocates can set a realistic figure for legal immigration from Mexico. Then we must enforce our border controls; consider a one-time citizenship process for current residents who have been here for two or three decades; apply stiff employer sanctions; deport those who now break the law--and return to social and cultural protocols that promote national unity through assimilation and integration. In the short term, under such difficult reform, we of the American Southwest might pay more for our food, hotel rooms and construction. Yet eventually we will save far more through reduced entitlements, the growing empowerment of our own entry-level workers (many of them recent and legal immigrants from Mexico), and the easing of social and legal problems associated with some eight million to 12 million illegal residents.
More importantly still, our laws would recover their sanctity. Without massive illegal immigration, Americans would rediscover their fondness for measured legal immigration. At a time of war, our borders would be more secure. And we could regain solace, knowing that we are no longer overlords importing modern helots to do the jobs that we, in our affluence and leisure, now deem beneath us.
El Norte (The case against Bush's immigration plan.)
Wall Street Journal (FR link) - 1/19/04 - Victor David Hansen

Want more?
We never would have had this conversation [about Illegal Aliens] in 1950. There was no conversation about a wall or a fence. It was very simple: If you came across the border illegally, you were deported. The employer was not to hire people who were here illegally. It's very simple to do, but it just requires a degree of courage.
Paradise Lost? (Victor Davis Hanson comments on Bush's immigration proposal)
The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review (FR link) - January 10, 2004
Bill Steigerwald with Victor Davis Hanson