Posted on 05/15/2006 4:13:02 PM PDT by devane617
Edited on 05/15/2006 4:38:26 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
I searched but did not see a thread already open for tonights speech. I think this is the most important speech the President will probably make for the remainder of his term.
Mod Note:
This could turn into a whack-a-troll thread. All immigration trolls that would like to participate should post here. It'll be interesting to see if we mods can whack the trolls faster than they can sign up new accounts.
Jim
Real conservatives do run in primaries but often without the GOP support, voters need to get behind them.
Many good people objected to Kennedy's proposals when we opened up immigration in the late 1960s - to base it completely on who wanted to come and not who we wanted to come - and to the "adjustments" he got into the "reforms" in the 1980s (yes, the same Ted Kennedy). Everything his critics said then that would happen has happened. And now our "conservative" President and that same Kennedy are on the same side of another round of "reforms". What's that that they say about twice burned?
The facts and logic tell you that if you have no intent to adequately even try to enforce the current law, and secure your border, then after you've added 12 more encyclopedic volumns of additional complications and requirements into the law, who in their right mind believes you will enforce the enforcement provisions in the reforms? Only idiots.
Either we have immigration laws or we don't. If we have immigration laws and we 12 million illegals in the country that have skirted the law, then nobody can tell me there was any serious attempt to enforce the law.
The only thing wrong with the current law is that it is not enforced, by choice of our Presidents and our congress. They will not, absolutely will not enforce the new laws if they are not made by us, the people, now, to enforce the existing law.
There is nothing "comprehensive" needed to enforce the existing law.
Most employers of illegals do so using the fraudulent Social Security numbers the illegals get. The IRS knows they are fraudulent, because they match them against the official Social Security database. When they don't match, its like found money to the treasury, because they have no person to match it to. The income tax side just goes into the general fund and the FICA goes into an account set up just for these "unkowns".
A simple 800 telephone number where the employer keys in their employer federal ID, then keys in the Social Security number he's been handed and a recording comes back with "OK" or "Fraud", and records the employer ID and the bocus social in an indexed file.
Employer makes their quarterly tax payments. Before any payments are applied, the IRS checks the list of social security numbers the money is to be applied to, against the same Social Security database. If their is one bocus number in their, the IRS does not accept the payment, at all.
Employers taxes are not paid.
After a few quarters of mounting tax arrears, and a couple tax lien letters from the IRS, the employer will get the message and fire his illegals.
If employers cannot conduct their financial business with the government, using bocus social security numbers, they will quit being the honey that attracts the workers.
No act of congress or "reform" is needed. Just executive authority to use every legal means to enforce the law.
LOL...I am duly impressed with your skills to win one over. A worthy plan and one worth serious contemplation. I think they get a good dose of the values of points #1, #2 and #4 by simply spending some time here. If they have come here for work then I think they could hardly avoid absorbing that consciously or unonsciously. In order to carry out point #3, "instill them with an appreciation of republicanism," it would be good if some solid examples of Republicanism in action could be pointed to. (I would prefer to instill 'conservatism' rather than republicanism so that they get the right idea.)
They also need to know they were treated with forebearance and compassion. We need to return them to Mexico with an extremely positive attitude about the US.
First of all I think our BP agents do an exemplary job of that within their means. I know of no endemic abuses there.
But you want a full program of indoctrination. In order to do that we would need ten times as many BP agents as we have and three times that number of social services employees to really do the brainwashing. We would also have to house them for quite a time while they underwent "the change." Of course the whole thing would lead them to conclusions that were utterly false, namely that we were sending them back because they weren't American enough not because they were breaking the law.
All of the above will change the face of that nation.
Which is a nice gesture but not our responsibility. And a futile gesture as long as they aren't interested in changing Mexico. It would all be received as in insult.
I went back through until I got to your original post. Every scriptural quote you proffer boils down to using a practical example in order to point to selfishness and suggest generosity as an antidote to that poisoness attitude. To make any correlation with those to the situation of enforcing our sovereign borders and immigration laws is to suggest that America is selfish in that respect. Outlandish! Absurd! Farcical!
Your God-given intellect should certainly be used.
Used? Without wisdom, compassion simply causes more problems than existed to begin with. You and the President need to drop the fish back in the water and back away from the stream.
This problem is close to the flash-point of violence right now. If the wrong decisions are made, such as following the President's plan, the eventual outcome will be horrific for both countries.
Amen to that! All the laws that are needed are in place now.
The quote referred to...
That was when Joshua led the Children of Israel into the Promised Land and displaced the people currently living there.
Unless you are saying that the reason God supported the Children of Isreal was because they were illegal aliens then your analogy is as hollow as a pinata. One must also assume that God always supports illegal aliens and that the story of Joshua was kept as Scripture in order to demonstrate that.
The only issue with the scriptural quotes is "do they relate to the subject of aliens as presented in the bible?"
Since many of them specifically mention aliens, then they do relate.
I think I had a few about the treatment of enemies.
If you feel you must derive the rule that God "always" supports illegal aliens, then go for it.
I see alternatives.
However, in that particular instance God did support them.
"Since God did X in situation Y, then God will always do X for any situation" does not seem to be logical to me.
That does not change, though, that God did do X in situation Y.
Then your posting of the story of Joshua was meaningless. There is either a principle there that you're applying to the situation or there isn't. Now you are claiming there isn't.
The story of Joshua invading Israel is instructive. I gave an example of a time when it did happen in the Bible.
Therefore, to say that God never does it, or that it never happpens is incorrect.
You have to determine if that situation has any similarity to this one.
We report; you decide.
You might want to look at why God permitted it that time and not before when Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob roamed the area.
I should think you would have contemplated that before posting it. So far you have admitted to one and only one association with the current situation as a reason to post it. It has the word 'alien/s' in it. You have as much as admitted that you have no idea what principle it's supposed to convey, in or out of its original context. A Biblical factoid casually tossed into the mix with the intention that someone else figure out its relevance. I'll pass.
Actually, I do have an idea of the similarity, and it does potentially relate.
Show me where the Bible says to allow hordes of illegal aliens to invade and, ultimately, achieve their goal of overthrowing our government ... and, then perhaps we can have an intelligent discussion.
3,140 posted on 05/16/2006 12:46:09 PM EDT by caryatid (Jolie Blonde, 'gardez donc, quoi t'as fait ...) [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3137 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
Just for the record, it's sometimes good to see what had generated a particular line of discussion. The question was a Bible question that asked "show me where...."
I did that, and it is a legitimate answer to the question.
Your question, "why is this citation relevant?" is also answered. It's relevant FIRST because it was an answer to a direct question.
There is also an application for those who choose to research it: God permitted the invasion of Canaan because the inhabitants had become extremely evil from God's perspective.
Was Canaan any more evil than California?
God only knows....
Another reason for the invasion, of course, was the fulfillment of prophecy which had already been spoken. That's a different subject, though.
By all means, share it. So far you have only pointed to the fact that the word 'aliens' is a common denominator. I suspect a word search on 'aliens' in "Golf for Dummies" would be at least as interesting and just as relevant.
Lacking an identifyable principle to apply from the one situation to the other the mere presence of a single analogous word doesn't mean a thing. Using your methodology if we were to discuss Devil's Food Cake we would then look up every passage of Scripture with the word 'devil' in it and draw from them some conclusion about dessert. It's rather obvious from your previous selective efforts that you would not use the words 'food' or 'cake' as search criterion. Says a lot.
Your devil's cake analogy doesn't work.
The example of the invasion of the children of Irael under Joshua is established bible fact.
I suspect you're not interested in a serious conversation. Therefore, feel free to have the last word.
Looks like he did respond, though I found his response unsatisfactory. (The proper way to address this, as I've maintained all along, is by voting out RINOs in primaries, whenever possible, not by capitulating to the liberals.)
http://marksteyn.com/index2.cfm?edit_id=30
PLEASE STOP ENDING THIS TO ME PRIVATELY:
Re: [Rush] "Immigration" Bill Is an Attempt to Expandthe Federal Government and Kill Conservatism
From ARealMothersSonForever | 05/27/2006 4:25:31 PM PDT read
Letter to Joshua F. Speed
Abraham Lincoln
Aug. 24, 1855
Dear Speed,
You know what a poor correspondent I am. Ever since I received your very agreeable letter of the 22nd of May I have been intending to write you in answer to it. You suggest that in political action now, you and I would differ. I suppose we would; not quite as much, however, as you may think. You know I dislike slavery; and you fully admit the abstract wrong of it. So far there is no cause of difference. But you say that sooner than yield your legal right to the slave--especially at the bidding of those who are not themselves interested, you would see the Union dissolved. I am not aware that any one is bidding you to yield that right; very certainly I am not. I leave that matter entirely to yourself. I also acknowledge your rights and my obligations, under the constitution, in regard to your slaves. I confess I hate to see the poor creatures hunted down, and caught, and carried back to their stripes, and unrewarded toils; but I bite my lip and keep quiet. In 1841 you and I had together a tedious low-water trip, on a Steam Boat from Louisville to St. Louis. You may remember, as I well do, that from Louisville to the mouth of the Ohio there were, on board, ten or a dozen slaves, shackled together with irons. That sight was a continual torment to me; and I see something like it every time I touch the Ohio, or any other slave-border. It is hardly fair for you to assume, that I have no interest in a thing which has, and continually exercises, the power of making me miserable. You ought rather to appreciate how much the great body of the Northern people do crucify their feelings, in order to maintain their loyalty to the constitution and the Union.
I do oppose the extension of slavery, because my judgment and feelings so prompt me; and I am under no obligation to the contrary. If for this you and I must differ, differ we must. You say if you were President, you would send an army and hang the leaders of the Missouri outrages upon the Kansas elections; still, if Kansas fairly votes herself a slave state, she must be admitted, or the Union must be dissolved. But how if she votes herself a slave state unfairly--that is, by the very means for which you say you would hang men? Must she still be admitted, or the Union be dissolved? That will be the phase of the question when it first becomes a practical one. In your assumption that there may be a fair decision of the slavery question in Kansas, I plainly see you and I would differ about the Nebraska-law. I look upon that enactment not as a law, but as violence from the beginning. It was conceived in violence, passed in violence, is maintained in violence, and is being executed in violence. I say it was conceived in violence, because the destruction of the Missouri Compromise, under the circumstances, was nothing less than violence. It was passed in violence, because it could not have passed at all but for the votes of many members, in violent disregard of the known will of their constituents. It is maintained in violence because the elections since, clearly demand it's repeal, and this demand is openly disregarded. You say men ought to be hung for the way they are executing that law; and I say the way it is being executed is quite as good as any of its antecedents. It is being executed in the precise way which was intended from the first; else why does no Nebraska man express astonishment or condemnation? Poor Reeder is the only public man who has been silly enough to believe that any thing like fairness was ever intended; and he has been bravely undeceived.
That Kansas will form a Slave constitution, and, with it, will ask to be admitted into the Union, I take to be an already settled question; and so settled by the very means you so pointedly condemn. By every principle of law, ever held by any court, North or South, every negro taken to Kansas is free; yet in utter disregard of this--in the spirit of violence merely--that beautiful Legislature gravely passes a law to hang men who shall venture to inform a negro of his legal rights. This is the substance, and real object of the law. If, like Haman, they should hang upon the gallows of their own building, I shall not be among the mourners for their fate.
In my humble sphere, I shall advocate the restoration of the Missouri Compromise, so long as Kansas remains a territory; and when, by all these foul means, it seeks to come into the Union as a Slave-state, I shall oppose it. I am very loth, in any case, to withhold my assent to the enjoyment of property acquired, or located, in good faith; but I do not admit that good faith, in taking a negro to Kansas, to be held in slavery, is a possibility with any man. Any man who has sense enough to be the controller of his own property, has too much sense to misunderstand the outrageous character of this whole Nebraska business. But I digress. In my opposition to the admission of Kansas I shall have some company; but we may be beaten. If we are, I shall not, on that account, attempt to dissolve the Union. On the contrary, if we succeed, there will be enough of us to take care of the Union. I think it probable, however, we shall be beaten. Standing as a unit among yourselves, you can, directly, and indirectly, bribe enough of our men to carry the day--as you could on an open proposition to establish monarchy. Get hold of some man in the North, whose position and ability is such, that he can make the support of your measure--whatever it may be--a democratic party necessity, and the thing is done. Appropos of this, let me tell you an anecdote. Douglas introduced the Nebraska bill in January. In February afterwards, there was a call session of the Illinois Legislature. Of the one hundred members composing the two branches of that body, about seventy were democrats. These latter held a caucus, in which the Nebraska bill was talked of, if not formally discussed. It was thereby discovered that just three, and no more, were in favor of the measure. In a day or two Douglas' orders came on to have resolutions passed approving the bill; and they were passed by large majorities!!! The truth of this is vouched for by a bolting democratic member. The masses too, democratic as well as whig, were even, nearer unanamous against it; but as soon as the party necessity of supporting it, became apparent, the way the democracy began to see the wisdom and justice of it, was perfectly astonishing.
You say if Kansas fairly votes herself a free state, as a christian you will rather rejoice at it. All decent slave-holders talk that way; and I do not doubt their candor. But they never vote that way. Although in a private letter, or conversation, you will express your preference that Kansas shall be free, you would vote for no man for Congress who would say the same thing publicly. No such man could be elected from any district in any slave-state. You think Stringfellow & Co. ought to be hung; and yet, at the next presidential election you will vote for the exact type and representative of Stringfellow. The slave-breeders and slave-traders, are a small, odious and detested class, among you; and yet in politics, they dictate the course of all of you, and are as completely your masters, as you are the masters of your own negroes.
You enquire where I now stand. That is a disputed point. I think I am a whig; but others say there are no whigs, and that I am an abolitionist. When I was at Washington I voted for the Wilmot Proviso as good as forty times, and I never heard of any one attempting to unwhig me for that. I now do no more than oppose the extension of slavery.
I am not a Know-Nothing. That is certain. How could I be? How can any one who abhors the oppression of negroes, be in favor of degrading classes of white people? Our progress in degeneracy appears to me to be pretty rapid. As a nation, we began by declaring that “all men are created equal.” We now practically read it “all men are created equal, except negroes.” When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read “all men are created equal, except negroes, and foreigners, and catholics.” When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretence of loving liberty--to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocracy.
Mary will probably pass a day or two in Louisville in October. My kindest regards to Mrs. Speed. On the leading subject of this letter, I have more of her sympathy than I have of yours.
And yet let say I am
Your friend forever
A. Lincoln--
This is what I am all about. Your mileage may vary.
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.