Immigration: Where is the OUTRAGE??

The Sierra Times ^ | Dec. 20, 2002 | Jackie Juntti

[Reaganwuzthebest]

By the same logic, prohibition, the 55 mph, 70% tax rates, War on Drugs confiscation of property, etc. were/are not debatable simply because they were/are the law?

All laws by their very existence are debatable, we can debate whether we should have laws against illegal immigration or not. But as long as it is illegal for someone to cross the border and live here, awarding them benefits like college tutition, jobs, city recognized matricular cards, drivers licenses, or just looking the other way is not debatable. They should be deported, period.

[Ben Ficklin]

I wasn't sure if you were suggesting that are two different sets of stats so I went back and looked at #193 and you'll just have to pardon me in making this statement.

The way Free Republic always worked was that when someone brings a statement to the board, it would back up with a link to the source. In your #193 you tell me to go look it up. Wrong! You look it up and post the link then I, and anyone else who care to, can look at it. Otherwise it is just irrelevant babble.

You know, this place worked fine til all you immigrants came in here tried changing the protocols.

[Pistol]

Your #25:

Bingo! B4. Well put.

I--while not being "hateful-- prefer to call the illegals what they are: Criminal border jumpers.

If that makes anyone angry or upset then destroy this before reading it.

For national security reasons, you know

[FITZ]

Who's gonna want to legalize the illegals?

I'd rather illegalize some types of legal immigration we have now ---most of the women coming to give birth to anchor babies get visitor passes from the INS and technically aren't coming illegally, same with all those elderly they're bringing in ---those aren't coming through the desert but over the bridges. End family reunification and anchor babies, welfare for all immigrants and in exchange I could see letting some types stay if they never used a stolen Social Security number or tried to access a government program (schools or hospitals) and always paid their own way, never had a DWI, shoplifted, or committed other crimes ---of course I realize that wouldn't be the majority.

[nicollo]

Earlier times immigrants had to work. In no way the taxpayer had to support them. Is that true today ?

You need to read up on Tammany Hall and other Democratic machines of the 1800s/1900s. It was all about welfare for immigrants. They did it in exchange for absolute political control. And it was not done with private money. States and cities paid for it all.

Welfare ain't new. Welfare for immigrants -- especially in exchange for votes -- ain't either.

[nicollo]

At expense of being called sophisticated, what we're doing here is defining nuances. The laws I mentioned were unenforceable, and by their nature created illegality. Many laws do this, but not so many on the scale of those I mentioned. If we're gonna restrict immigration, we're gonna have to brace ourselves for the consequence: illegal immigration.

It ain't goin' away. Jump up and down all you want along the borders. These are people who sew themselves into car seats and build compartments to carry themselves in gas tanks.

[FITZ]

You need to read up on Tammany Hall and other Democratic machines of the 1800s/1900s. It was all about welfare for immigrants.

You also don't see me praising any huge wave of immigration for that reason. Labor unions were brought in by immigrants and without the massive immigration of the late 1800's and early 1900's it's doubtful FDR's programs would taken hold and before those times, Americans were different (better --less Socialist). I don't see there was ever any huge benefit by massive immigration waves.

[Reaganwuzthebest]

It ain't goin' away. Jump up and down all you want along the borders.

After Eisenhower's Operation Wetback during the fifties that showed illegal aliens the door, the problem stayed under control for nearly 15 years WITHOUT massive numbers of border patrol guards.

If we simply enforced the law instead of rewarded them, it could be gotten under control. I refuse to be a defeatist.

[FITZ]

Even if every last illegal isn't kept out, we should end free schools, free hospitals, all welfare programs like WIC, Food Stamps, TANF and the rest for all immigrants ---legal or otherwise ---we should eliminate welfare for everyone including Americans but first things first. If 95% of the problem could be solved, the 5% left might be tolerable.

[gabby hayes]

What next? Legitimacy accorded the topic--shopping versus shoplifting? "Illegal" is a difficult concept for the CATO shills to comprehend.

[Reaganwuzthebest]

Even if every last illegal isn't kept out, we should end free schools, free hospitals, all welfare programs like WIC, Food Stamps, TANF and the rest for all immigrants...

It's pathetic the way we're pampering these people. My grandparents came legally and didn't get all these benefits. I don't get them today.

Cut off the freebies and deport them, illegal immigration will stop.

[austinTparty]

you ought to be praying that you finally grow a pair of cojones you back-biting, sniveling, race-baiting, little, chicken-weasel

I have no desire for a sex-change operation. Why don't you try using logic and reason to persuade, rather than resorting to hurling epithets? It's really very ugly and only serves to illuminate the lack of substance in your replies.

Just for the record: Legal immigration is a fantastic thing. In fact, I look forward to a nice, big fat increase in people applying to immigrate here: it means that we are doing something right that so many people want to come here.

Additionally, as I mentioned previously, race is a made-up concept, with no basis in anthropology whatsoever. If you want to call me a race-baiter because I'm not a white supremacist, go right ahead. White pride and black pride are equally stupid. Those who have excessive pride in their ancestor's achievements usually have few of their own. One can certainly admire one's ancestors, but pride in one's own accomplishments is the only pride that makes any sense.

[FITZ]

That's another thing people sometimes forget ---when it was European immigration and there weren't the welfare programs like we have today, one-third of the immigrants returned home within a short time because they weren't able to cut it here. Now we attract the losers and they'll stay forever because they don't have welfare back home.

[Nuke'm Glowing]

The only solutions are quite bleak:

1. Legalize it. Not realistic as you say, as that drives more people to run into our nation and steal our tax dollars.

2. Meld it. Accept more but limited numbers regardless of what contributions they would add. Once again, bankrupting an already bankrupt system.

3. Militarize it. Unrealistic, perhaps, but the only solution and ultimately what will happen. When 250-300,000 people die from a WMD attack, we will seal our borders. Intruders will be shot on sight. Too bad innocents of our nation and others will have to die because we are too short-sighted to do what is necessary:

ENFORCE the God d*mn laws on the books.

[Reaganwuzthebest]

...one-third of the immigrants returned home within a short time because they weren't able to cut it here.

Not only that, but if immigrants became a public charge, the government might have sent them home. Or if they were diseased or couldn't pass the citizenship test. Today's immigration is anything goes, nothing like it was in the past.

[Missouri]

>>The way Free Republic always worked was that when someone brings a statement to the board, it would back up with a link to the source.<<


I've only been on the FR since Oct. 2002. I must have missed the Link rule. Maybe you can give me a Link to Tom Tancredo's thought process on who was to do his home remodeling. I don't have ESP like you.

[nicollo]

You're slipping into the "immigration is the cause of all evil" mode.

You cannot, I repeat, CAN NOT blame the New Deal on immigration. Immigrants then didn't give a damn for politics. They just wanted to eat and make a new life. A good bit of the New Deal was written to protect certain Americans from the threat of immigrant labor. This came in the form of price controls and business regulation. And immigrant restrictions. The Democratic Party was always a mixed bag on immigration. The local machines lived off it. Nationally, the party was always against it. Democrats are the ones who put in language tests, etc. at Ellis Island.

Black migration to the industrial belt, btw, caused similar anxiety as is expressed on this thread. Northern racism, particularly as practiced by labor unions, was especially virulent following the black migration. Don't get me wrong: I'm contrasting, not comparing. Keep perspective.

Labor unions were anti-immigrant. I'm not sure if that's what you're saying or not. Just in case, be it understood that labor unions are protective guilds. They abhor the competition that immigration brings.

[nicollo]

Those who have excessive pride in their ancestor's achievements usually have few of their own.

I'm a failure, then. I worship my ancestors.

[Missouri]

>>You need to read up on Tammany Hall and other Democratic machines of the 1800s/1900s. It was all about welfare for immigrants. They did it in exchange for absolute political control. And it was not done with private money. States and cities paid for it all.<<


Wow. Gangsters, Democrats, and corrupt state governments manipulating our immigration system. Another reason for reducing immigration. Some things never change.

[Ben Ficklin]

Since there was no link on the tancredo statement, you should take it for my personal opinion, which is exactly what it was.

I bid jobs frequently and I'm required to do it in accordance with the requests of the buyer. And yes I have had some that required proof of citizenship which is no problem for me because I don't use illegals. When they require union labor I'm a no bidder.