okie wrote:So Howard Cosell was a bigot too? I thought he was just a humorous Monday Night football guy. I keep learning about more bigots all the time.
Are you just pretending to be ignorant here?
I admit to being flippant. I am tired of the politically correct crowd, as is most people. On the one hand, the media has preached the political correctness, but on the other hand, it is one of the worst offenders. There is no respect for anything or anybody anymore.
But bottom line, the bigotry argument against those that oppose illegal immigration is counterproductive and only complicates a reasonable debate over policy into a very vicious argument. And in the long run, will only make matters worse for the Mexican people coming here. It will only cause resentments to grow. Just as the people like Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and other like minded people make their living by accusing people of racism, but only make it worse. They want to prolong and emphasize the problem because that is how they make their money.
Have you played pick-up basketball, and always somebody that cries foul if they miss a shot? That is the situation here. They are better off to admit they missed the shot, and keep playing. But no, their game is to try to win by crying foul, whether there was an honest foul or not. In my opinion, that is not how the game should be played. So if there is a good hard foul, call it, but otherwise get on with the game.
The anti-immigration arguments here have been consistently and thoroughly shredded, repeatedly, only to be ignored. The proponents of anti-immigration have produced arguments that are reasonable (scarce few) and arguments that are founded in bigotry (whether you want to admit it or not). Pointing this out is not an act of political correctness. Talk about a cop out.
Shortly after your misguided defense of McG; he opened his mouth again and removed all doubt about his motives... yet still you persist with this nonsense. If you want to argue the subject without using bigoted BS; knock yourself out. Ebrown has been patiently draining the air out of these arguments from the get go. If you want to defend bigoted arguments; than prepare to be counted with the bigots.
The only racists and bigots I've observed on this thread are those proposing open borders and lax immigration policy. They have consistently depicted the Mexican people as too ignorant and too weak and too incapable to survive without largesse from the magnificent American liberal . And it is those racists and bigots who are so freely playing the race card to sidetrack any meaningful discussion of what the best possible immigration policy should look like.
"The anti-immigration arguments here have been consistently and thoroughly shredded,"
only in your own minds though.
What is the difference between an illegal immigrant and a shop-lifter Bill?
Both are stealing from someone, both are small crimes that can potentially lead to larger crimes, both have an economic impact and neither are good for society.
Now, you suggest that I "removed all doubt about his motives", yet you have absolutely no idea what my motives are. I am against illegal immigration and I have stated as much repeatedly just as you have stated your pro-terrorist stance repeatedly. The only argument ebrown has forwarded is one of blind compassion. Great for teddy bears and Hollywood, not so great for the real world.
November 2006 (please note the year) new Mexico rescinds the asian land act which prohibited asians (specifically chinese) from property ownership in New Mexico. I'm pretty sure it was not bigotry that created this provision. (LOL)
Foxfyre wrote: The only racists and bigots I've observed on this thread are those proposing open borders and lax immigration policy.
Objecting to bigotry makes you a bigot? Huh? Have you recently fell and hit your head?
Foxfyre wrote:They have consistently depicted the Mexican people as too ignorant and too weak and too incapable to survive without largesse from the magnificent American liberal .
Now
I'm a liberal?
Foxfyre wrote:And it is those racists and bigots who are so freely playing the race card to sidetrack any meaningful discussion of what the best possible immigration policy should look like.
It's early... but I think you've got a good shot at "idiotic post of the day". They don't come much less coherent than that.
McGentrix wrote:"The anti-immigration arguments here have been consistently and thoroughly shredded,"
only in your own minds though.
What is the difference between an illegal immigrant and a shop-lifter Bill?
Both are stealing from someone, both are small crimes that can potentially lead to larger crimes, both have an economic impact and neither are good for society.
Now, you suggest that I "removed all doubt about his motives", yet you have absolutely no idea what my motives are. I am against illegal immigration and I have stated as much repeatedly just as you have stated your pro-terrorist stance repeatedly. The only argument ebrown has forwarded is one of blind compassion. Great for teddy bears and Hollywood, not so great for the real world.
Not to be outdone by Foxy....
Illegal immigration is stealing? Huh?
I have a Pro-Terrorist stance?
These aren't arguements, bigot. This is just plain idiocy.
Yes, illegal immigration is stealing and yes, you have a pro-terrorist stance. Terrorist lover.
You can't argue against them so you blow them off with smilies, how convenient for you... terrorist lover.
OCCOM BILL wrote:Foxfyre wrote: The only racists and bigots I've observed on this thread are those proposing open borders and lax immigration policy.
Objecting to bigotry makes you a bigot? Huh? Have you recently fell and hit your head?
Apparently. That's what you have been consistently calling the rest of us while advocating the worst forms of bigotry yourself.
Quote:Foxfyre wrote:They have consistently depicted the Mexican people as too ignorant and too weak and too incapable to survive without largesse from the magnificent American liberal .
Now
I'm a liberal?
That's the message you've been broadcasting loud and clear and the one that lets you thumb your nose at U.S. law to accommodate the illegals. You won't see the argument taken from the following 'letter to the editor":
Quote:Certain people are angry that
the US might protect its own
borders, might make it harder
to sneak into this country and,
once here, to stay indefinitely.
Let me see if I correctly understand
the thinking behind these protests.
Let's say I break into your house.
Let's say that when you discover
me in your house, you insist that I leave
But I say, "I've made all
the beds and washed the
dishes and did the laundry
and swept the floors. I've
done all the things you don't
like to do. I'm hard-working
and honest
(except for when I broke into your house).
According to the protesters:
You are Required to let me stay in your house
You are Required to add me to your family's insurance plan
You are Required to Educate my kids
You are Required to Provide other benefits to me & to my family
(my husband will do all of your yard work because
he is also hard-working and honest, except for that
breaking in part).
If you try to call the police or force me out,
I will call my friends who will picket your
house carrying signs that proclaim my
RIGHT to be there.
It's only fair, after all, because you have
a nicer house than I do, and I'm just
trying to better myself. I'm a hard-working
and honest, person, except for well,
you know, I did break into your house
And what a deal it is for me!!!
I live in your house, contributing only a
fraction of the cost of my keep, and
there is nothing you can do about it
without being accused of cold,
uncaring, selfish, prejudiced, and
bigoted behavior.
Oh yeah, I DEMAND that you to learn
MY LANGUAGE!!! so you can communicate with me.And don't forget to
make sure your forms are in MY language - I need to understand them...
I think your new country of choice (Costa Rica) will take an ever more dim view of this line of thinking than the sensisble ones in the USA are expressing, and I suggest you don't call those good folks bigots for enforcing their immigration laws.
Quote:Foxfyre wrote:And it is those racists and bigots who are so freely playing the race card to sidetrack any meaningful discussion of what the best possible immigration policy should look like.
It's early... but I think you've got a good shot at "idiotic post of the day". They don't come much less coherent than that.
Well at least you've graduated me from 'racist' and 'bigot' to idiotic. I'm not the one who has been playing the race card in this debate however though I think I've finally figured out the motive behind those of you who do. Fight fire with common sense as I always say.
McGentrix wrote:Yes, illegal immigration is stealing and yes, you have a pro-terrorist stance. Terrorist lover.
You can't argue against them so you blow them off with smilies, how convenient for you... terrorist lover.
Mays Gillium... He's for Cancer.
OCCOM BILL wrote:The anti-immigration arguments here have been consistently and thoroughly shredded, repeatedly, only to be ignored. The proponents of anti-immigration have produced arguments that are reasonable (scarce few) and arguments that are founded in bigotry (whether you want to admit it or not). Pointing this out is not an act of political correctness. Talk about a cop out.
Shortly after your misguided defense of McG; he opened his mouth again and removed all doubt about his motives... yet still you persist with this nonsense. If you want to argue the subject without using bigoted BS; knock yourself out. Ebrown has been patiently draining the air out of these arguments from the get go. If you want to defend bigoted arguments; than prepare to be counted with the bigots.
Why do you keep mis-representing the problem? You keep referring to ANTI-IMMIGRATION and that is a gross mis-characterization of the problem.
The issue is if you are Pro or Anti "ILLEGAL-IMMIGRATION". The key word is ILLEGAL.
Foxy: The inherent idiocy in the "you want to help terrorists" nonsense; is that if my plan were enacted ONLY CRIMINALS AND TERRORISTS WOULD HAVE TO SNEAK IN... and they wouldn't be able to blend into the millions of decent people seeking nothing more than an opportunity to work for a better lot in life.
woiyo wrote:OCCOM BILL wrote:The anti-immigration arguments here have been consistently and thoroughly shredded, repeatedly, only to be ignored. The proponents of anti-immigration have produced arguments that are reasonable (scarce few) and arguments that are founded in bigotry (whether you want to admit it or not). Pointing this out is not an act of political correctness. Talk about a cop out.
Shortly after your misguided defense of McG; he opened his mouth again and removed all doubt about his motives... yet still you persist with this nonsense. If you want to argue the subject without using bigoted BS; knock yourself out. Ebrown has been patiently draining the air out of these arguments from the get go. If you want to defend bigoted arguments; than prepare to be counted with the bigots.
Why do you keep mis-representing the problem? You keep referring to ANTI-IMMIGRATION and that is a gross mis-characterization of the problem.
The issue is if you are Pro or Anti "ILLEGAL-IMMIGRATION". The key word is ILLEGAL.
Bullsh!t. They are whining because I advocate making it LEGAL.
OCCOM BILL wrote:Foxy: The inherent idiocy in the "you want to help terrorists" nonsense; is that if my plan were enacted ONLY CRIMINALS AND TERRORISTS WOULD HAVE TO SNEAK IN... and they wouldn't be able to blend into the millions of decent people seeking nothing more than an opportunity to work for a better lot in life.
The idiocy is in calling those who want a sensible, practical, efficient, and ENFORCEABLE immigration policy 'idiots' (as well as racists, bigots, etc. etc.) by those of you who want us to open the borders and let anybody and everybody in no questions asked or even a modified version of that. And you do it on the principle that we must be benevolent saviors of those poor people who are unable to help themselves. You are unwilling to see the downside of your philosophy or give any consideration that your way might be the least compassionate way of all.
And yes, enforceable immigration laws will make it much more difficult for terrorists to enter the country and blend in without notice. That is just one of many good reasons to have control of of who will be allowed to be here legally.
Foxfyre wrote: OCCOM BILL wrote:Foxy: The inherent idiocy in the "you want to help terrorists" nonsense; is that if my plan were enacted ONLY CRIMINALS AND TERRORISTS WOULD HAVE TO SNEAK IN... and they wouldn't be able to blend into the millions of decent people seeking nothing more than an opportunity to work for a better lot in life.
The idiocy is in calling those who want a sensible, practical, efficient, and ENFORCEABLE immigration policy 'idiots' (as well as racists, bigots, etc. etc.)
Nonsense. I reserve those monikers for those who earn them. Not everyone who's opined on your side of the argument has.
Foxfyre wrote: by those of you who want us to open the borders and let anybody and everybody in no questions asked or even a modified version of that.
That is representative of NO ONE's position, so I'm left with little choice but to consider it the product of idiocy.
Foxfyre wrote: And you do it on the principle that we must be benevolent saviors of those poor people who are unable to help themselves. You are unwilling to see the downside of your philosophy or give any consideration that your way might be the least compassionate way of all.
More nonsense. Do you ever tire of making up your oppositions positions?
Foxfyre wrote:And yes, enforceable immigration laws will make it much more difficult for terrorists to enter the country and blend in without notice. That is just one of many good reasons to have control of of who will be allowed to be here legally.
More idiocy. NO ONE suggested any such thing. Legalizing the vast majority of border crossers would make it easier to spot the illegal crossers. Every argument to the contrary can only be founded in idiocy. There's plenty of reasons to oppose immigration. That is
so not one of them; it's counter productive.
Bill is an example of what happens when you stop taking a logical examination of an issue and develop and emotional one.
You lose sight of what the topic is and anyone that has a different view becomes an idiot, a bigot, or any other degrading terminology he can come up with.
No argument there McG. I love Obill and he knows it, but on this issue he has definitely drifted to the dark side and I don't pretend to understand why somebody who is usually pretty astute and sensible on these issues would do that. We have never fully agreed on every issue any more than you (McG) and I have agreed on every issue, but we always have been able to discuss differences rationally and without rancor.
This one is different though.
Immigration debacle
TODAY'S EDITORIAL
May 21, 2007
The bipartisan immigration "reform" legislation pushed by Sens. Edward M. Kennedy and Jon Kyl and others, applauded by Michael Chertoff, the secretary of Homeland Security, and Carlos Gutierrez, the secretary of Commerce, is a disaster in the making. That is not so slowly becoming abundantly clear.
It's a disaster for national security, for keeping Islamist jihadists out of the country, for exploding the costs of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, for preserving the rule of law, and for that quaint principle called national sovereignty. From the details that have leaked out thus far, the legislation, which provides amnesty for nearly all of the 12 million (or maybe even 20 million) illegal aliens already here, would swell the size of the welfare state in a way we haven't seen since Lyndon Johnson imposed his Great Society on us four decades ago. Sen. Jeff Sessions, the Alabama Republican who is likely to lead the fight to save the nation from this disaster, and Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation will reveal at a press conference this morning the details of just how expensive it will be. We're talking trillions of dollars -- that's not millions or even billions -- over the next several decades.
Senate floor debate on the bill begins today, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid clearly wants to force it through before Memorial Day, before senators and everyone else can become familiar with even a fraction of what is in this massive bill, which could run to 800 pages. It was still being written over the weekend. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, who is said to lean in favor of the bill, yesterday said that at least two weeks would be required for a serious Senate debate on such a complex piece of legislation. We hope he means it when he says "serious debate." To win the support of conservatives who opposed last year's immigration bill, the administration agreed that provisions enabling illegals to remain here could only become effective after new border-control measures are in place.
These include the hiring, training and deployment of 5,000 to 6,000 additional Border Patrol agents, increasing the total to approximately 18,000 agents. (Assuming there are 12 million illegals here, this amounts to 2,000 of them getting amnesty for every new Border Patrol agent hired to keep illegals out).
The legislation calls for erecting 370 miles of additional fencing along the U.S.-Mexican border. To put that number in perspective, in October, the Senate passed legislation sponsored by Rep. Duncan Hunter, California Republican, calling for 854 miles of fencing. Mr. Hunter protests that the Senate bill in effect "cuts my fence in half." (Actually, it's closer to 55 percent.) That assumes of course, that Congress actually keeps its word and appropriates money for the fence. Counting on Congress is always a very big "if." Another "trigger" requires that the Department of Homeland Security -- not a model of bureaucratic efficiency -- develop and implement by the end of next year a system to enable employers to quickly verify that job applicants are in the country legally. In exchange for such very modest achievements, the administration and the Senate propose to make enormous and in some cases unacceptable concessions to illegal aliens and their political patrons. Here are some of them:
m Amnesty, document fraud and terrorism: There is good reason to be skeptical of the notion that United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) -- the Homeland Security bureaucracy that will be charged with verifying whether tens of millions of illegals are terrorists and/or criminals, and therefore ineligible to receive amnesty -- is up to the job. Over the past four years, the ineptitude of the immigration services bureaucracy has been severely criticized by the Office of Inspector General and the Government Accountability Office and other investigators. This, according to Michael Cutler, who spent more than 25 years as an immigration agent, would "provide millions of illegal aliens who have violated our nation's borders" with "official identity documents that would enable terrorists to embed themselves in communities around our country as they await instructions to launch the next terrorist attack against against our nation and the people who live in the United States." Mr. Cutler says the Senate bill should be named the "Terrorist Assistance and Facilitation Act of 2007."
m Staggering increases in federal, state and local spending, with attendant pressure for tax increases. Mr. Rector of the Heritage Foundation says one major effect of the Senate amnesty bill will be to make approximately 9 million additional persons -- many of them low-skilled immigrants -- legal permanent residents of the United States who could lawfully benefit from a variety of social programs, including Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Supplemental Security Income and public housing. Over the course of their lifetimes, these people will utilize $2.5 trillion more in government services than they will pay in taxes. American welfare and social services were designed for poor Americans; as a result of amnesty legislation, this legislation would expand the American welfare state to include a significant portion of the population of Mexico. Instead of going home to Mexico at the end of their working years, these elderly beneficiaries of amnesty would remain in this country "and collect public funds for the rest of their lives," Mr. Rector says.
m The Senate immigration bill includes legislation called the DREAM act, legislation subsidizing college education for illegal aliens. And what a dream it is.
m Illegal aliens who worked using fraudulently obtained Social Security numbers will be able to collect Social Security Disability Insurance.
The Bush administration deludes itself if it believes that the measure can be improved during Senate debate. Right now, the toughest criticism of the bill is coming from labor unions who argue that the amnesty/guest-worker provisions are too strict, and from senators like Mel Martinez of Florida, a Republican who talks of waiving the much-ballyhooed $5,000 fine illegals are meant to pay. If the administration wants to preserve what's left of its credibility on immigration, it would spare us Mr. Chertoff's hyperbolic rhetoric that critics of the administration regard anything short of capital punishment to be "amnesty." The only "capital punishment" coming is what's likely to happen to the careers of those determined to inflict this disaster on us.
OK let's hear it from the left. The editorial writer is a bigot as are all the congress people are against giving amnesty to people who criminally entered the US. And believe that the US as a sovereign nation has the right and responsibility to determine who should enter this nation and how.
There is no doubt that some accommodation will be made for those presently in the US. However IMO they should never be accorded citizenship and the right to vote. .
