Posted on 12/09/2009 2:48:08 PM PST by neverdem
Makes sense.
Then again you usually do {make sense :^)}So, why tell me my friend?
"I am PROFOUNDLY against illegal immigration, as it has devastated California, and is hurting many other states as well."
Me, too.
And remember who you're telling [that] to, OK?
Few [here] know what you've been through, as I.
"Any candidate who is for amnesty will not get my vote, and that includes Palin until she renounces her statement for a 'path to citizenship' for illegal immigrants."
Nor mine.
Period.
"If you have never been to California, you cannot possibly appreciate how much damage can be done."
I have lived in CA, steph.
Northern CA, granted it was 30+ years ago, but...
Not only a different time, literally a different place...then.
"Joe Arpaio has done much to reverse illegal immigration."
Joe enforces the law.
If doing so reversed illegal immigrants to AZ, so be it.
I think we both could agree the republic needs more Joe Arpaios, say about 50 million more. For starts. LOL
"He gets 2-5 death threats every day, probably most from La Raza, and their affiliates."
You got'em, too.
Anyone who:
1) Lives on the 'front line' of the republic's illegal issue, doesn't like it, probably will/does.
2) Attempts to vocally speak-out against, definitely will.
It's the way of thugs, you know that.
As for Libertarian candidates, the original topic? :o)
I vote Republican because doing so is where --I deem-- my vote will count most. For now.
However it doesn't mean I agree with every Republican candidate any more than agree with every Libertarian candidate.
Truth is there're Republicans who have no clue what Republicanism means, and, Libertarians who're just as challenged on Libertarianism. The ones I take issue with are the Republicans speaking out against Libertarianism when they in reality know neither.
For good or bad, that's life in a republic. :^)
Now if you'll excuse me, I'll go & continue digging out. LOL
I'll hold until I see you warm up to the idea that lawful immigration--particularly if such immigration results in the importation of people with useful skills, education, and backgrounds who can make a net contribution to the United States--is actually a good thing.
There already is a "path" to citizenship for illegal aliens.
Go home and get in line.
That path has always existed.
While I will admit that path is excessively bureaucratic and cumbersome--and that's the real "reform" that is needed, along the lines of the K.I.S.S. "Keep It Simple Stupid" method--that's no excuse for violating valid U.S. immigration law.
And for anyone who comes here and wants to join American society, it's a very bad first impression if your first act involves breaking U.S. law.
Don’t kid yourself. The general immigration polices are not excessive and not all the problems are solely due to bureaucratic screw-ups. We recognize that those do occur, but the truth is, demand far outstrips our ability to take more people in.
If we sped the process up and took everyone who wants to come, it would destabilize our society in short order.
Look at the disruption one nation on our border can muster. Imagine that extrapolated out to a global influx.
People can complain all they like about the process, there is only so many people we can take prudently each year.
We need to end mass immigration, we are overfull and the fabric of our society and culture has been torn apart.
Without the change in immigration by the 1965 immigration act, then this would still be a neat, clean, cohesive, conservative society, the radical left would have been checked and rolled back decades ago.
Yup.
"Go home and get in line."
Yup.
"That path has always existed."
Yup.
"While I will admit that path is excessively bureaucratic and cumbersome--and that's the real 'reform' that is needed, along the lines of the K.I.S.S. 'Keep It Simple Stupid' method--that's no excuse for violating valid U.S. immigration law."
Yup.
"And for anyone who comes here and wants to join American society, it's a very bad first impression if your first act involves breaking U.S. law."
Yup.
Isn't often I could agree with anyone as much as I have what you've written. ;^)
“There already is a “path” to citizenship for illegal aliens.”
IMO, our legal “path to citizenship” should NOT include illegal aliens, since they chose to illegally bypass the legal route. We don’t need to reward the one’s who’ve already broken our laws to get here. I say fingerprint them, secure our borders, and never let them back in. There are plenty waiting legally, in line, for the chance to become law abiding citizens.
Thank you, dcwusmc. I’m not libertarian, small or large L. And no, I’m not R or D, either. They all stink. I simply tire of very few (thank heaven!) posters who post disinformation, get called on it time after time and keep posting it and lie about what others post.
Once in a while, here on FR, we see a vanity about how to make FR better. I’ve never offered my opinion, not my house. But it would be nice to have a basic reading and comprehension test for some. :<)
Bingo! That’s my argument in a nutshell.
Oh man! 921,000 libertarian votes against Reagan. Just over 1% of the vote nationally. Yep, that's 2000 nail-biting election proportions right there. Did they count pregnant chads too?
Who gives a feces, they hold no political power.
Meanwhile your buddies in the RNC and McCain-Graham are getting ready for Amnesty: The Sequel.
The greatest unity that libertarians have ever shown in electoral history was when they united in a failed attempt to stop Reagan. No other candidate has brought out the libertarian party in such opposition numbers, ever.
It is the party platform of the party that this thread is about.
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.