Posted on 03/16/2002 12:50:08 PM PST by Tancredo Fan
Edited on 04/14/2004 10:05:07 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
WASHINGTON -- When President George W. Bush meets with Mexican President Vicente Fox next week, liberalizing U.S. immigration policy will not be on the agenda, much to the chagrin of Mexican officials.
While immigration advocates hope to at least get a sign that the United States is ready to resume negotiations on the policy, lawmakers on both sides of the aisle who are close to the issue expect Bush to be vague and general.
(Excerpt) Read more at ocregister.com ...
Tell me, your handle implies your from Denmark or something. Is that true, and if so, how do you think most of the Danish would respond if millions of illegals washed up on their shores seeking a better life?
It appears Demark is not doing so well with immigration, and is trying to stop it. Mmmm. If you are from there, you might want to go home and tell them not to do that to all those just seeking a better life.
Who can forget the post in which this Immigration Reform Bill was called a "present to President Fox?" How about when the bill passed and you chimed in with those who said they would never, ever vote for Bush?
You don't even have the decency to back up what you previously posted.
Which is another of the reasons why Mexico's fundamental laws have driven it into abject poverty: pinhead socialism married to 16th century oligarchy creating a corrupt dependocracy.
*whew* Got all that out. Read about it here: Ejido's Discussed
Awwww, poor babies, this means they must understand our hesitation then.
True.
I think the evidence is clear, with calls for "normalization" and "regularization" and "making their work legal," churning periodically ffom the White House, how else do you interpret it?
You posted a poem which accused those of us who supported the Immigration Reform Bill as "favoring illegals."
No, here's the poem... it's written to politicians.
Kiss My VoteWe're a nation strong with immigrants
Who know about fair play;
But you prefer the other ones,
Without an honest day.
I know that you will call me names
But I will not be shy
Hey go ahead, kiss illegals,
And kiss my vote goodbye.I don't care if they're from Mexico,
Canada, France or Spain.
I don't care if they swam a river,
Or got here in a plane.
I'm not giving up my country,
No matter how hard you try
Hey go ahead, kiss illegals,
And kiss my vote goodbye.Put down your economics,
Your demographics too.
Uphold our laws and borders,
As we elected you.
But if you're thinking otherwise,
We'll know for sure you lie
Hey go ahead, kiss illegals,
And kiss my vote goodbye.You lightly take your promises,
But we will not forget.
Double cross us once again,
Your sun will surely set.
The time has come to send them home,
And I have told you why
But go ahead, kiss illegals,
And kiss my vote goodbye.And if you' think it can't be done,
Then step aside, we'll fight.
It's amnesty or honesty,
Surrender or be right.
So listen, you politicians,
And hear our vengeful cry
Deport your dear illegals,
Or kiss our votes goodbye.
Your asking for proof is simply a way to get others to waste their time wading through multitudes of postings in order to "prove" what we are all quite familiar with.
No, my challenge to Dane was to show evidence of two specific allegations:
1. That I ever called Bush a "stooge" of Fox.2. That I was involved in some sort of witch hunt.
Dane has not risen to the challenge.
Who can forget the post in which this Immigration Reform Bill was called a "present to President Fox?" How about when the bill passed and you chimed in with those who said they would never, ever vote for Bush?
True and true.
I voted for both Bush and his father. Dubya very enthusiastically.
I'm vehement in my opposition to his ongoing attempts to grant Amnesties, but not gleeful in deeming those efforts not worthy of my vote.
You don't even have the decency to back up what you previously posted.
Charges were made against me, and the burden of proof is on those who make the charges. In fact, decency requires it.
However, I trust that the back-up I've provided on this post settles for you that particular question about my own decency.
The difference between my reply to you and to Dane is that your charges were substantive, and some true, some not.
You, Miss Marple, have an intellectual honesty that Dane lacks.
I had to leave for a while. I only bumped this thread so I could easily find it in my "self search" later. I'm not part of any clique.
Actually, I agree that the recently passed legislation is not a "blanket amnesty". I could easily, and would willingly, say much that you have said. However, I would not have been as unpleasant as you have been.
Even after the above election fiasco, our county Registrar of Voters is such a gutless wonder, she wouldn't make an effort to clean up the rolls. She seemed to look the other way unless embarrassed into it and then limited her efforts to only the specific incident- like when a "registered" person refused to serve on a jury, stating "I AM NOT A CITIZEN!"
Whatever it is they're doing wrong is going to be up to them to change. The link you posted was an excellent example of what's probably one of many.
If we sent the Democrats, even the Mexicans wouldn't want to live there after a while!
The "new" Mexico would not succeed with that. The Anglo Saxon ideals brought to America of Constitutional government, rugged individualism, and free enterprise are what would transform Mexico into a modern prosperous land. The people south of the border might want to try it, instead of stealing someone elses accomplishments instead, and then have apologists for them like danevagodo try to justify it.
There is an urgent need to modernize ejidos because of a rapidly growing population, with an increasing shortage of land. One means of supporting a larger population on ejido lands is through the use of agricultural intensification techniques (DeWalt 40, 1979). Unfortunately, many of the techniques have had difficulty spreading to the vast majority of the Mexican farmersTranslation: Mexico's population growth - 35 million in 1960 to 100 million now - has completely outstripped it's capacity to support such a population at even a subsistence level.
This is the functional definition of a Third World country. Their social, political and cultural institutions are simply not up to the task of providing a reasonable lifestyle to its people, who are reproducing at a rate completely out of proportion to their ability to provide for themselves (think "Bangladesh").
One of the main cultural institutions is their "resistance" to new methods, which the report author chronicles. In other words, a stubborn backwardsness.
So who pays for these attitudes and institutions? That's right. Us. Because being as close as we are, they vote with their feet to escape.
And what will this place look like when they gain an electoral critical mass such that they can significantly change things? You know.
All of which is a high falutin' way of saying You Wuz Right.
Thanks for the info on the Baja Beach & Tennis Club, I'll pass that on to my friend. Having just been there however, I didn't see any of the Americans quaking in fear of losing their Condos or property or membership in the golf course, "Querencia". Beautiful layout and immaculately maintained. Maybe its the "greased palms" effect.
I remember when I was still lurking, seeing threads about the stunning victory of Vicente Fox over the PRI candidate. I may be naive, but IMHO he deserves a chance at changing things down there from the old entrenched corruption.
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.