50
   

What should be done about illegal immigration?

 
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 May, 2009 06:12 pm
Quote:
Mexico is the greatest foreign-policy crisis I think America faces in the next 20-30 years. Who is gonna care, Andrea, thirty years from now whether a Sunni or a Shi'a is in Baghdad, or who's ruling in Kabul? We're going to have 135 million Hispanics living in the United States by 2050, heavily concentrated in the Southwest. The question is whether we're going to survive as a country.


Let's play a little game. I will put up quotes from prominent anti-immigrant conservatives. Foxfyre will tell me that they are not the slightest bit bigoted.

The first one is above...
hawkeye10
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 11 May, 2009 06:20 pm
@ebrown p,
Quote:
Let's play a little game. I will put up quotes from prominent anti-immigrant conservatives. Foxfyre will tell me that they are not the slightest bit bigoted.

The first one is above...


THe fact is that those of Hispanic decent tend to come here illegally, produce a lot of babies, and exist in the black market economy.....these are threats to the American ideals and way of life. The fact that they are Hispanic is not made up nor Fox's fault, it is reality, and is thus it is not bigotry to expose the problem. If Hispanics wish not to be called out then they should stop misbehaving.
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 May, 2009 06:23 pm
@hawkeye10,
Hawkeye... it's a yes or no question. I am recording your vote for the above quote as "not bigoted". (Interestingly enough, Hispanic voters are reacting quite differently to this particular quote).
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  0  
Reply Mon 11 May, 2009 06:39 pm
I wonder if this is the time to point out that only a bigot would presume the authority to tell Foxfyre what she would or would not say is bigoted?

And why is it that the pro-enforcement people don't ever talk about race or people's color or even their nationality but rather focus on enforcing the laws and being a people of laws? How is that possibly more bigoted than those who see nothing but people of color, different races among the illegals and therefore there should be no consequence for them breaking the law?
OCCOM BILL
 
  2  
Reply Mon 11 May, 2009 06:43 pm
@Foxfyre,
That's rich. Compassion by way of subjugation!

Here’s a question for the “Legal” opposition in the form of a hypothetical:

Part I. Let’s say Congress passes a sweeping reform, and the President signs it, that effectively legalizes every single illegal immigrant currently residing in the United States for more than 1 year…who is guilty of no other crime, and gives each a clear cut path to citizenship. That would of course be “legal” right?

Part II. Let’s say Congress passes legislation, and the President signs it, that opens up our borders completely in a “North American Union” fashion, not unlike the European Union. This too would be “legal,” right?

Part III. Let’s say Congress passes a sweeping “American Welfare Bill”, and the President signs it, that effectively hikes taxes to like 90% for the purpose of redistribution and equalization. This too would be “legal”, right?

I’d be especially curious how Foxfyre, DTOM, and Mysteryman would respond to these 3 items… and particularly what their thoughts would be if proponents of same used the “it’s the law” argument, after the fact. Would they be moved by this argument?

(The purpose of this exercise is to exorcise the silly notion that “The Law” is Just by default and that boldly pointing out you “just want the law enforced” is absurdly short-sighted at present, when you consider the Law can and does change for better and for worse almost constantly.)

(Ebrown’s many examples of heinous historical “laws” should have covered this already.)
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 May, 2009 06:45 pm
@OCCOM BILL,
Your Part I, II, and III, are worse than fiction. It's not even close to being reality by any president and congress.
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 May, 2009 06:55 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Yes, I know that C.I. That's why I called it a hypothetical.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  2  
Reply Mon 11 May, 2009 07:23 pm
@Foxfyre,
Foxy,

You didn't answer my question about the quote above(which incidently does talk about nationality)...

Is the quote Bigoted or not bigoted. If you answer the question yourself, I wouldn't have to "presume" anything.

0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 May, 2009 07:24 pm
@OCCOM BILL,
Quote:
Part I. Let’s say Congress passes a sweeping reform, and the President signs it, that effectively legalizes every single illegal immigrant currently residing in the United States for more than 1 year…who is guilty of no other crime, and gives each a clear cut path to citizenship. That would of course be “legal” right?


Yes

Quote:
Part II. Let’s say Congress passes legislation, and the President signs it, that opens up our borders completely in a “North American Union” fashion, not unlike the European Union. This too would be “legal,” right?


Yes, but I would oppose it.
But if it passed, I would be at best ambivalent about it.

Quote:
Part III. Let’s say Congress passes a sweeping “American Welfare Bill”, and the President signs it, that effectively hikes taxes to like 90% for the purpose of redistribution and equalization. This too would be “legal”, right?


Yes, but again I would oppose the legislation.


Quote:
and particularly what their thoughts would be if proponents of same used the “it’s the law” argument, after the fact. Would they be moved by this argument?


As long as its the law, I would obey it.
I wouldnt like it, and I would try to have the law changed, but I would obey the law.
genoves
 
  -3  
Reply Tue 12 May, 2009 01:29 am
@OCCOM BILL,
Occom Bill wrote:

A self respecting man, whose family was in dire need, might say something like, “I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death! Funny how those words are widely respected, when the White Man said it; but God forbid the Brown Man feels the same way.

****************************************************************

a re-write

"a self respecting man, whose Moslem family was in dire need because their morals were being corrupted by the Great Satan and since the filth of their unGodly music and cinema were polluting the minds of the Islamic populace, give me liberty or give me death! Funny how those words are widely respected, when the Western man says it: but God forbid the Islamist feels the same way---That is why I am going to try to kill as many American Soldiers as I can when I blow myself up in the marketplace in Islamabad."

****************************************************************

OCCOM BILL, in his massive ignorance, does not realize that the Emergency Quota Act of 1921 set a statutory ceiling on immigration. It capped immigration from Europe at 357,000 a year. Some disagreed but it was the LAW!

How many (In Occom Bill's words) "self-respecting men wanted to move from place to place to find work and provide for his family".

They had to get on the quota list. That was the LAW!!

****************************************************************

I am amazed that there are still people who want to come to the USA. After the eight years of Bush's tenure and the unceasing drum beat by the left wing that our country was probably one of the most corrupt, socially confused and culturally bereft, I am amazed that anyone would still wish to come to the USA.
0 Replies
 
genoves
 
  -3  
Reply Tue 12 May, 2009 01:36 am
Bigoted--definition--

A person who is UTTERLY intolerant of any CREED, BELIEF or race that is not his own.

Therefore, most of the left wing in the USA is BIGOTED.

They have shown themselves to be utterly intolerant of CREEDS AND BELIEFS that are not their own.

******************************************************************

case in point--Bill Maher showing a picture of the Pope and branding him a NAZI.

ebrown p
 
  4  
Reply Tue 12 May, 2009 05:27 am
@genoves,
I noticed that bigots like to type words in all capital letters.

What's with that?
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 May, 2009 08:56 am
@mysteryman,
Many thanks for participating, MM. Your faith in the law is unshakable... and I have to wonder how that came to be?

Items I and II, I would actually like to see... but item III would be cause for revolt.

I'm pretty sure these guys would have concurred:
1. John Hancock (Massachusetts)
2. Josiah Bartlett
3. William Whipple
4. Matthew Thornton
5. Samuel Adams
6. John Adams
7. Robert Treat Paine
8. Elbridge Gerry
9. Stephen Hopkins
10. William Ellery
11. Roger Sherman
12. Samuel Huntington
13. William Williams
14. Oliver Wolcott
15. William Floyd
16. Philip Livingston
17. Francis Lewis
18. Lewis Morris
19. Richard Stockton
20. John Witherspoon
21. Francis Hopkinson
22. John Hart
23. Abraham Clark
24. Robert Morris
25. Benjamin Rush
26. Benjamin Franklin
27. John Morton
28. George Clymer
29. James Smith
30. George Taylor
31. James Wilson
32. George Ross
33. George Read
34. Caesar Rodney
35. Thomas McKean
36. Samuel Chase
37. William Paca
38. Thomas Stone
39. Charles Carroll
40. George Wythe
41. Richard Henry Lee
42. Thomas Jefferson
43. Benjamin Harrison
44. Thomas Nelson, Jr.
45. Francis Lightfoot Lee
46. Carter Braxton
47. William Hooper
48. Joseph Hewes
49. John Penn
50. Edward Rutledge
51. Thomas Heyward, Jr.
52. Thomas Lynch, Jr.
53. Arthur Middleton
54. Button Gwinnett
55. Lyman Hall
56. George Walton

After all, in a single voice, they declared:
"When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. " That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, " That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. " Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. " And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor."
okie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 May, 2009 09:24 am
@OCCOM BILL,
OCCOM BILL wrote:

I'm pretty sure these guys would have concurred:


I'm glad you are now a mind reader of guys that died a long time ago, plus a constitutional expert as well!

Have you considered the possibility that most of those guys would strongly disagree with you, Bill, especially on matters of illegal immigration?
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 May, 2009 10:58 am
@okie,
Laughing Try reading what I wrote again, Okie. The matter at hand was the hypothetical 90% tax “for the purpose of redistribution and equalization.” These guys went bat-**** crazy over what they considered an unfair tax on their favorite breakfast beverage… and it wasn’t even coffee! One need not be a mind reader to guess what their response would have been to such a tax. Watch this: I’m also pretty sure “Okie” would agree with me too. :wink:
0 Replies
 
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 May, 2009 11:53 am
@OCCOM BILL,
Ah, I can see it now, Occom Bill applying for some job requiring clearance and being asked "Have you ever advocated the overthrow of the government by violent means?" The Boston Tea Party was part of a REVOLUTION, even Bill should be able to grasp that simple fact.
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 May, 2009 11:56 am
@ebrown p,
ebrown p wrote:

I noticed that bigots like to type words in all capital letters.

What's with that?



If you mean OCCOM BILL (sic) by that, that's just how he writes - doesn't necessarily make him a bigot Smile
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  2  
Reply Tue 12 May, 2009 01:18 pm
@High Seas,
High Seas wrote:

Ah, I can see it now, Occom Bill applying for some job requiring clearance and being asked "Have you ever advocated the overthrow of the government by violent means?" The Boston Tea Party was part of a REVOLUTION, even Bill should be able to grasp that simple fact.
Said revolution was against the law of the land, and every participating proponent was guilty of treason. That is precisely the point. Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with "The unanimous Declaration of the Thirteen United States of America."
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 May, 2009 01:21 pm
http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/Foden20090513-Redcoats20090513034038.jpg
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 May, 2009 01:26 pm
@Foxfyre,
Sorry, Foxfyre.

I don't get it. (Either I am missing something or this cartoon makes no sense).
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.11 seconds on 04/10/2021 at 03:18:15