Posted on 08/22/2002 7:04:53 AM PDT by Sabertooth
This is a vanity post, let's get that straight from the start.
Perhaps the most vain aspect of it is the conceit that it might stay on topic, but I'm going to give it a whirl.
One of the more contentious species of threads encountered on Free Republic are those dealing with the subject of America's immigration policy, particularly with regard to the Illegal Aliens currently in our country. According a range of reasonable sources, the estimates of their numbers here currently here range from six to thirteen million. Whatever the actual count, there are quite a few people now in violation of American immigration law.
One subtopic that inevitably arises is the question of Amnesty:
Should all or some portion of the Illegal Aliens be granted an Amnesty and be thereby allowed to change their status and acquire legal residence in the United States?
That's the question I'd like to put forward to the members of Free Republic.
Almost as inevitably on threads dealing with this subject, flame wars erupt. It's not my purpose to instigate another round of that, they're rather predictable. So I'd like to ask that your comments, if you're inclined to share them, focus on the big picture of American immigration policy, with particular attention to the subject of Amnesty. I'm not interested in the stock and gratuitous divisiveness of race-baiting or referring to the President as "Jorge," or anything of that nature from any quarter. It achieves nothing, it's sulphurous methane heat with no light shed.
I'd also like to avoid ad hominem ambushes. I'm genuinely interested in learning the collective feelings of Free Republic members on this subject. If you're gonna post, I'd like to ask that you ante up with your opinion on the question at hand before engaging the discussion with others. No taking potshots from the obscurity of the sidelines. I'll post my opinion below at #1.
Fair enough?
So, once again, here's the question:
Should all or some portion of the Illegal Aliens be granted an Amnesty and be thereby allowed to change their status and acquire legal residence in the United States?
Where did I say that I was claiming credit for Abraham's loss?
You can't deny reality, he and Dick Chrysler sabotaged immigration reform in 1996 that would have gone a long way to keeping out the kinds of terrorists who blew up those buildings. FAIR and Numbers USA did extensive media coverage of Abraham and his positions during the campaign, it cost him the election.
You are totally missing the point anyway, even if only 3 to 5% of voters are swayed by a candidate's views on mass immigration/amnesties, that could be enough to kill their chances of winning.
Immigration is a very important issue to many people, any attempts to keep topics focused on prescription drugs and Social Security will be defeated as soon as candidates take questions from voters. It always comes back to illegal immigration and its impact on communities. Watch C-Span once in a while when they cover town meetings and see what citizens talk about.
As far as Michele Malkin, get a life, this is about illegal immigration. She or her parents came legally. As far as legal immigration goes, during the eighties we took in approximately 500,000 annually. I see no reason to go back to those numbers as opposed to the nearly 1,000,000 today. That's way too high, they need to be moderated so communities can absorb and assimiliate them better.
So in your opinion, when I've stated that a few hundred thousand of the million Section 245(i) Amnesties so far granted have been employer sponsored, is that a fair estimate?
And since I understand that employer-sponsored 245(i) Amnesties count against immigration caps, is it also fair to say that a few hundred thousand legal immigrant candidates were not allowed into our country to make room for these Amnestied Illegals?
Sorry, that's more obfuscation. Faulty logic alert. More incorrect, Chutch Brother's assumptions.
If I wanted to mislead, as well, I could say that 85% want the levels decreased or to stay the same, while only 12% want an increase.
That would be equally deceptive, though. I'm a conservative Republican and above that. ;^)
In actuality, if the same respondents were given only the two choices of increased or decreased, that 36% would be split between the two remaining choices.
The numbers would probably be more like 84% levels decreased and 13% levels increased. That's fair, no? :P
LOL!
Employer-sponsored Amnesties penalize law-aibiding immigrant candidtates.
Family sponsored 245(i) Amnesties penalize law-abiding citizens and legal residents of the United States of America.
And in both instances, lawlessness is excused and rewarded. Perfect for the Clinton Legacy.
I'll go a step further... currently, lawful family reunification also busts our immigration caps. The cap numbers are about as honest as a prison sentence... the number given is never intended to be the actual outcome.
I don't have a problem with family reunification in principal, in fact I think it's desirable, provided the family can pull their own weight financially. But chain immigration, even if legal, ought to count against immigration caps. If this was done, compassion would be served and the rule of law upheld simultaneously.
They're going to break their noses going threw the wrong door, with signs like that.
HC, contrary to what your referenced poll (gallop) indicates, just about every national poll conducted on the issues regarding immigration in the last 5 years have shown strong and broad support for immigration reform which cuts across all ethnic, racial and political linesincluding Hispanic Americans.
This is a well-known TRUTH that most immigration advocates like to downplay or ignore. In fact the CBS poll on the same page showed that 59% of those polled said that Legal immigration should be decreased. Now do you honestly believe that if the question were about Illegal immigration that the percentage of those saying it should be decreased would have been LESS than 59%? I hope not.
You strike me as a case study in the life of a political operative who has no appreciation for the truth, just propaganda and twisted reasoning in an attempt to justify warped positions that support your particular special interests. On that, you are no different than most democrat political operatives.
Exactly. Hutch and others refuse to admit immigration is on the minds of a lot of people. To him, it's a non-issue no one cares about. Even when a Republican loses because of it, they'll try and blame it on some other reason.
You subjected us to your brother's biased opinions, that differed from a recent, scientific poll by a huge factor, 10 times on that prior thread and then you start in with his biased opinions again on this thread.
You use half quotes from Bush, taken out of context, to try to win an argument.
You twist poll results. (12% increase plus 36% stays the same) = you win?
You try to use a liberal, NEW YORK TIME'S POLL to demonstrate that immigration isn't an issue with CONSERVATIVES?
You berate me and challenge me to "put up or shut up".
So, I put up.
Now you're drawing the lines on decorum, after you've so mightily transgressed?
Who do you think you are?
If there was a handbook on how to "Destroy America" the above would certainly be in it. In fact the Communist Manifesto goes into great detail about how mass immigration from 3rd world countries helps their cause by creating social and political instability in Western Nations. Seems that many in the Beltway have read it.
In fact the Communist Manifesto goes into great detail about how mass immigration from 3rd world countries helps their cause by creating social and political instability in Western Nations. Seems that many in the Beltway have read it.
It's working quite well...
Remember what happened?
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.