"Illegals aren't subsidized any more than any other employees."
Posted on 08/30/2005 10:34:44 PM PDT by goldstategop
Pat Buchanan, former communications director to President Ronald Reagan, former presidential candidate and WND commentator, has come to the conclusion that a courageous Republican legislator should move a bill for impeachment of President Bush.
I reluctantly agree – and for the same reasons.
President Bush has had nearly six years in office to honor his oath of office and enforce immigration laws in this country.
He has not only failed, he has intentionally neglected this sworn duty, instead claiming he prefers to promote a vague immigration "reform" plan that involved a "guest worker" program that has served as an encouragement to the most massive influx of illegal immigration this country has ever seen.
Some will tell me this can't be done and that it is irresponsible to propose it because Bush is a wartime president.
My response? It is precisely because this nation finds itself in a desperate war declared by a formidable foe determined to use our open borders to destroy this country that we must act now.
Some will remind me I endorsed Bush just two years ago for re-election.
My response? I made it very clear at the time that I was not really endorsing Bush, per se, but seeking the only practical way to defeat his reckless and irresponsible and treasonous opponent. There is no contradiction here. Kerry had to be defeated. Now Bush must go. America can do better.
I don't agree with many of Pat Buchanan's foreign policy ideas. But on the border, he is 100 percent right. Bush has been a disaster. No matter how successful we might be in our campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan, we can lose this war against jihadist Islam right here at home.
Our enemies have already used the open border to penetrate this country – and they will do so again.
When Bush placed the old Immigration and Naturalization Service under the new Department of Homeland Security, I actually believed he recognized how critical border security was to the defense of our homeland. I was fooled.
In the current issue of my premium, online, intelligence newsletter, G2 Bulletin, author Paul Williams recounts in extravagant detail how al-Qaida operatives have already used the open Mexican border not only to sneak operatives into the country but to smuggle in nuclear weapons with the help of the MS-13 (Mara Salvatrucha) street gang.
The fuse has been lit.
The war in Iraq, which I have supported, will mean little when, not if, a nuclear weapon is detonated inside our own country.
When that happens, we will no longer be having debates about who has more culpability for Sept. 11 – Bush or his predecessor. Bush has had ample opportunity to address the mistakes of the past. Instead, he has repeated them. They say hindsight is 20-20. Not for Bush.
Even if the border issue and the tsunami of illegal immigration was not strictly speaking the No. 1 national security issue we face, enforcing the laws of the land would be the right thing to do – the only moral and right thing to do.
Americans are dealing with more joblessness, higher crime, skyrocketing taxes, a crippled medical system, overcrowded jails, an overburdened judicial and law enforcement system, costly and divisive language barriers and changing demographics that are permanently transforming the U.S. culture.
Why?
Bush claims it is because America needs cheap labor. That's what the law of supply and demand is all about. It's not his duty or responsibility to acquire workers for big corporations and other fat cats below what the market will support.
I don't even believe Bush is being honest when he makes this argument. I am convinced there are international agreements behind this. I am persuaded the systematic destruction of the American way of life through uncontrolled and illegal immigration is part of a master plan for merger and global consolidation – first with our neighbors in this hemisphere and later worldwide.
This secretive plot must end here and now.
America was founded on the principle of independence and sovereignty. The president is betraying our most sacred national heritage.
Bush is ignoring the will of the people and he is violating the law of the land.
It's time to turn up the heat.
As Buchanan suggested: Will even one courageous Republican member of Congress have the guts to sponsor a bill of impeachment?
In #333, Newsweek should be Business Week.
I can't find anything honest and meaningful in your writings. It is all unclear, spastic and twisting...like the rantings of a Democrat.
Your very real problem, snookums, is that I post facts, they clearly refute your biased blindness, you can't refute what I post, so you name call and impugn me. If you imagine that I sound like "the rantings of a Democrat", then you need your head examined, as well as your eyes.
It is the DemocRATs which want Bush impeached that and self-admitted haters of America.
Provide your own source if you don't like mine. So far I haven't seen anything from the anti-immigrant crowd except myths repeated on disreputable sites.
Ri-i-i-ight....Here's the one piece of "supporting evidence" therein:
Nationally, Hispanics boast an estimated $700 billion each year in consumer purchasing power, according to the Hispanic Chamber.
Mmmmm. Sounds as credible as Raul. I guess we should set our immigration policy according to whatever extravagant claims ethnic pressure groups can make us swallow.
Who is this "crowd" that you keep referring to that is anti-legal immigrant? And which disreputable sites are you referring to? And what myths are you talking about? Why do you feel the need to post in the form of a riddle?
Dead serious. Would YOU keep the current immigration policy after September 11th, 2001? If so, why? It is insanity. Can you tell me, with a straight face, that NO ONE with ill will towards America has walked across the border illegally, or legally obtained a visa/student visa and settled down in an American town waiting to do who knows what? One person is too much.
Why on earth would Bush want this potentially fatal blow to America hanging over his head?
BTW, the $700 billion dollar spending figure 'rod pulled out of his...brains seems to be based on a report in Hispanic Business Magazine, which in turn was based on a study by some outfit called the Conference Board, a globalist corporate thinktank founded according to its website in 1916 when "[d]eclining public confidence in business and rising labor unrest had become severe threats to economic growth and stability," "[a] group of concerned business leaders, representing a variety of major industries, concluded that the time had arrived for an entirely new type of organization," a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization. It would be interesting to do more research on this bunch, since it seems to be an engine behind business support for illegal immigration.
The nutbags are up tonight...
Thank you!!
Wrote the very same post here right on the date of 9/11/01: that our immigration policy was insane; that I truly believed (which belief was soon vindicated) that the policy was a principal factor in that atrocity. I had not the slightest suspicion that Bush would continue in our nation's immigration folly---not the slightest: I couldn't believe anyone---much less our national leader--could be so blind, so venal. The failure of his Administration---notwithstanding the 9/11 atrocity---to do anything about uncontrolled immigration but to try to make it worse, and to do nothing to defend our nation's borders after a murderous attack carried out by aliens, is one of the bitterest political disappointments of my life. Do I think Bush merits impeachment for it? Who can doubt it?
"Illegals aren't subsidized any more than any other employees."
I don't agree with the Guest Worker "plan" and most of your ranting, but you are spot on with this post. And I'm livid with this article BTW as should many here (and there is) on FR.
No, but I seriously do believe that it's your own wages you're concerned about, and you don't honestly give a hang for the rest of those workers. Your professed solidarity only serves the purpose of giving you the numerical strength to push a self-serving agenda. Just as unionists claim to be for "the workers", but in fact pursue policies that raise a few workers' wages, and condemn many other workers to unemployment. In exactly the same way, you want a few construction workers to get more money without having to go get more skills first, and don't care about the affect on the economy because all Americans have to live with higher prices.
You seem to want to make it me against the Mexicans...it's a much larger problem than that.
True--it's really you against the American people. You want Americans to be forced to pay more, to shore up your salary, instead of finding something we'll pay you more for without needing to be forced.
I'm for sending your beloved undocumented workers back today and showing green card holders the door when their green cards expire.
Once again with the false insinuation that I approve of illegal immigration. Way to keep the moral high-ground, there. But I quote you because you've added an interesting wrinkle. "Showing green card holders the door" could mean that you want to enforce the law when their time is up, but I strongly suspect it means a little bit more: you mean that we should follow a policy of refusing to renew green cards.
After a year or so, if there are no workers to fill certain jobs, issue temporary permits for those specific jobs.
Socialist Canada already has exactly that law. It's hard to immigrate to Canada if you have useful skills, because they're afraid you'll "take jobs away from Canadians". If you keep pushing this agenda, maybe you can turn our economy into the same model of growth that is Canada. Good luck to you!
Using your warped logic, we shouldn't protect our borders at all and just let anyone who wants to walk right into the country because Canada surely doesn't have that policy...and we wouldn't want to be like Canada.
Your whole debating style in this thread has been to make me appear to be greedy because I'm a poor man who has observed that a continuous flow of cheap labor into this country prevents me from offering my labor at an increasing wage. I've always refused to join a union because I believe that whole concept is unAmerican, it is unfair to the business owner who should have total freedom to pay his employees what he feels they are worth and hire and fire the employees of his choosing. The continuous flow of cheap labor is equally unfair to the laborer. The laborer has no opportunity to better his situation because he can be disposed of in favor of newly arrived cheap labor to take his place. You can say "well, you'll just have to work harder than the cheap labor immigrant that the rich allowed in to compete for your job" but a citizen shouldn't be forced into a situation where he needs to work twice as hard to maintain his old wages. After all, when a business owner works harder he gets richer.
This is how the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
Nonsense! We should protect them from militants, terrorist infiltrators, criminals and the diseased, etc. For that reason it makes perfect sense to create points of entry and force traffic through them, so that would-be immigrants can at least receive a criminal background check and a medical exam, and so that enemy soldiers can't sneak up on us. Give me a break.
You would like to see that distorted into a weapon against the American people, whereby they are forced to pay higher prices for things, so you don't have to go to the trouble of learning a little spanish, or taking up welding. Sorry; the border is there to protect us from attack, not to subsidize your income at taxpayers' expense.
This is how the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
It's interesting how easily so-called conservatives fall back on socialist rhetoric. I know it's bollocks, of course, because I was the poor. My own experience illustrates the fact that social mobility means the "poor" of 1980 and the "poor" of 1990 aren't even the same people. I was the "poor" of 1980, and I'm in the top 20% today. But people like you go around claiming that I've become poorer.
Instead of turning socialist, why not take a freaking spanish class? According to you, it's what stands between you and a foreman's job--you can have that job by Christmas, if you quit the whining.
Far from being "socialist", it is the cause and effect obvious truth. I don't know of any socialists who want to end the influx of cheap labor that drives down the wages of the poorest citizens. They share your views on immigration.
I don't find it quite so obvious that I've become "poorer", despite your claim that it's "the caus and effect obvious truth". I don't feel any poorer. Don't eat anywhere near as much beans-n-franks, either. Are you sure I'm poorer?
(For the irony impaired, I'm pointing out the fallacy of the "poor get poorer" chestnut: the expression sounds good because it encourages the fallacy of believing that "the poor" are a specific set of people. Twenty years ago I was "the poor", but now I'm not. And conversely I know folks who were making six figures, who are now in the bottom 50% for wages--i.e., under $44K. Some of them are now "the poor", but they used to be "the rich" who, according to Jim_Curtis, have gotten richer.)
So Jim, are you going to do what I recommend? Stop the whining and learn Spanish and/or bricklaying? You'll thank me six months from now when the paychecks start rolling in. Or are you going to keep drinking your Bud and complaining?
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.