bitterlyclingin
Silver Member
- Aug 4, 2011
- 3,122
- 425
- 98
[On our way to permanent banana republic status. Barack Obama knows the way to the position of President For Life, its through his "If its free, its for me! policies" George Soros has long been a fan of an open borders immigration policy and with the Border Patrol hamstrung under today's policy of no immigration arrests allowed whatsoever, we have de facto exactly that. George gets his wish by having Barack Obama, plastering the sides and facades of every building in that Shining City On The Hill with third world filth and excrement. There was one and only one reason America became the worlds only surviving Super Power and that was the American Ethic and Barack Obama and George Soros intend to drown it in a wave of indiscriminate immigration all hell bent on suckling on the teat of the Nanny State and getting their free stuff.
This spirit of independence and self reliance gave America the wherewithal to fight and win a colossal two ocean world war. The next time a foreign power challenges the dominance of the United States, and rest assured there will be one, this nation composed of a people conditioned to only suckling on the government teat will not respond so ably and so well.]
"On Immigration, Fool Us Twice
Their intentions are, and always have been, crystal clearunlimited immigration and unconditional amnesty. Everything else is a lie.
As President Obama and lawmakers from both parties begin to take their first tentative steps toward again rewriting the nations immigration laws, opponents warn that they are repeating the mistakes of the 1986 act, which failed to solve the problems that it set out to address.
A lie: it was intended to fail. The employers built in a subterfuge, intentionally, as described further in the article (with absolutely no sense of outrage expressed). The politicians never intended to enforce the 86 act.
The latest proposals contain the same three components as the 1986 law .
This is the same old formula weve dealt with before, including when it passed in 1986, and that is a promise of enforcement and immediate amnesty, Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) said last week on the Laura Ingraham radio show. And, of course, the promises of enforcement never materialize. The amnesty happens immediately, the millisecond the bill is signed into law. [emphasis added]
And then we have the following, utterly without irony:
But immigration experts [sic] note that the country has undergone big changes since then.
LOL! Sure thingand what might those changes be?
The most obvious difference between now and a quarter-century ago is demographic. In those days, the Latino vote was not much of a political factor outside a handful of states. Only 3 percent of those who cast ballots in the 1984 presidential election were Hispanic; last year, they made up 10 percent of the electorate. Their growing numbers and increasingly Democratic tilt were considered a crucial factor in Obamas victory, as well as a serious problem for Republicans in the future.
Well, duh! .and why might that be? Did it just happen? Mysteriously? .poof! .7 million more Hispanics just materialized? NO. It was because of the amnesty, and resulting increase in births and chain migration that it happened. The demographic change was engineered by the 1986 Act.
Here it is, practically a boast by the left, in Slate:
In 1980, when he defeated Jimmy Carter and destroyed the Democratic Partys national coalition, Ronald Reagan won the white vote by 20 points. In 2012, when famed car-elevator enthusiast Mitt Romney lost to Barack Obama, he also won the white vote. He won it by 20 points. But in 32 years, the Hispanic share of the electorate quintupled from 2 percent to 10 percent.
The reason, as any demographics-obsessed conservative could tell you, was the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act. Passed by a Democratic House, signed by Reagan, it legalized 2.8 million mostly-Hispanic border-crossers. The new Americans brought their families up from Mexico. They had kids. According to the Public Policy Institute of California, the states Hispanic birthrate rose from 3.2 children per woman in 1987 to 4.4 in 1991. And 21 years later, Reagans own California had become a Democratic landslide state. John McCains Arizona gave Democrats five of nine available House seats. Sen. Jeff Flake only barely won his 2012 race, because 18 percent of voters were Hispanic, and they went for the Democrat by 46 points.
he rest of the article goes on to describe in detail the fraud and misdirection surrounding the enforcement provisions, making it clear that the employers rigged the system to give themselves no culpability for reliance on obviously false documentation, along with complete non-feasance by the government. Its all presented very matter-of-fact without any sense of the obvious disingenuousness and purposeful misdirection of the 1986 Act or current efforts.
But then the glaringly obvious question is posed:
Why so little enforcement, when the practice of hiring illegal immigrants is so widespread? Wouldnt it be enough to just follow the law that is already on the books? (emphasis added)
Another well, duh! moment. But quite right! We already have a perfectly serviceable immigration/labor regime, democratically enactedin 1986, with specific promises about enforcement!!! So whats the answer?
One of the laws most glaring deficiencies was that it did not stipulate or provide a secure means by which businesses could verify the legal status of those they hired. Instead, it listed dozens of documents that could be used most of them easily falsified.
You had a wink-and-a-nod system, where the employer was in compliance and the [illegal immigrant] could find a job .
After all this we are given a version of the old JAWD/JAAND fraud:
Revamping the legal immigration system is an area that has had little debate. The key, experts said, will be coming up with a system that can accurately gauge the demands of the labor market, sorting out actual labor shortages from cases in which businesses are simply unwilling to pay enough to attract legal residents.
Could there be greater economic illiteracy? Or maybe it is just outright deception. Experts will tell whether there are actual shortages! Utterly fraudulentby definition, a shortage means buyers are unwilling to pay enough to attract legal residents.
Its all happening again we are being systematically lied to. They are completely disingenuous in their false promises and their real intent isnt even disguised.
The only way any amnesty should be agreed to is after a serious program of interior enforcement, against the scofflaw employers. A couple dozen lawsuitswith RICO and asset forfeiturewould concentrate the scofflaws minds wonderfully. Otherwise we can be sure that we are being hoodwinked again."
On Immigration, Fool Us Twice | Power Line
This spirit of independence and self reliance gave America the wherewithal to fight and win a colossal two ocean world war. The next time a foreign power challenges the dominance of the United States, and rest assured there will be one, this nation composed of a people conditioned to only suckling on the government teat will not respond so ably and so well.]
"On Immigration, Fool Us Twice
Their intentions are, and always have been, crystal clearunlimited immigration and unconditional amnesty. Everything else is a lie.
As President Obama and lawmakers from both parties begin to take their first tentative steps toward again rewriting the nations immigration laws, opponents warn that they are repeating the mistakes of the 1986 act, which failed to solve the problems that it set out to address.
A lie: it was intended to fail. The employers built in a subterfuge, intentionally, as described further in the article (with absolutely no sense of outrage expressed). The politicians never intended to enforce the 86 act.
The latest proposals contain the same three components as the 1986 law .
This is the same old formula weve dealt with before, including when it passed in 1986, and that is a promise of enforcement and immediate amnesty, Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) said last week on the Laura Ingraham radio show. And, of course, the promises of enforcement never materialize. The amnesty happens immediately, the millisecond the bill is signed into law. [emphasis added]
And then we have the following, utterly without irony:
But immigration experts [sic] note that the country has undergone big changes since then.
LOL! Sure thingand what might those changes be?
The most obvious difference between now and a quarter-century ago is demographic. In those days, the Latino vote was not much of a political factor outside a handful of states. Only 3 percent of those who cast ballots in the 1984 presidential election were Hispanic; last year, they made up 10 percent of the electorate. Their growing numbers and increasingly Democratic tilt were considered a crucial factor in Obamas victory, as well as a serious problem for Republicans in the future.
Well, duh! .and why might that be? Did it just happen? Mysteriously? .poof! .7 million more Hispanics just materialized? NO. It was because of the amnesty, and resulting increase in births and chain migration that it happened. The demographic change was engineered by the 1986 Act.
Here it is, practically a boast by the left, in Slate:
In 1980, when he defeated Jimmy Carter and destroyed the Democratic Partys national coalition, Ronald Reagan won the white vote by 20 points. In 2012, when famed car-elevator enthusiast Mitt Romney lost to Barack Obama, he also won the white vote. He won it by 20 points. But in 32 years, the Hispanic share of the electorate quintupled from 2 percent to 10 percent.
The reason, as any demographics-obsessed conservative could tell you, was the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act. Passed by a Democratic House, signed by Reagan, it legalized 2.8 million mostly-Hispanic border-crossers. The new Americans brought their families up from Mexico. They had kids. According to the Public Policy Institute of California, the states Hispanic birthrate rose from 3.2 children per woman in 1987 to 4.4 in 1991. And 21 years later, Reagans own California had become a Democratic landslide state. John McCains Arizona gave Democrats five of nine available House seats. Sen. Jeff Flake only barely won his 2012 race, because 18 percent of voters were Hispanic, and they went for the Democrat by 46 points.
he rest of the article goes on to describe in detail the fraud and misdirection surrounding the enforcement provisions, making it clear that the employers rigged the system to give themselves no culpability for reliance on obviously false documentation, along with complete non-feasance by the government. Its all presented very matter-of-fact without any sense of the obvious disingenuousness and purposeful misdirection of the 1986 Act or current efforts.
But then the glaringly obvious question is posed:
Why so little enforcement, when the practice of hiring illegal immigrants is so widespread? Wouldnt it be enough to just follow the law that is already on the books? (emphasis added)
Another well, duh! moment. But quite right! We already have a perfectly serviceable immigration/labor regime, democratically enactedin 1986, with specific promises about enforcement!!! So whats the answer?
One of the laws most glaring deficiencies was that it did not stipulate or provide a secure means by which businesses could verify the legal status of those they hired. Instead, it listed dozens of documents that could be used most of them easily falsified.
You had a wink-and-a-nod system, where the employer was in compliance and the [illegal immigrant] could find a job .
After all this we are given a version of the old JAWD/JAAND fraud:
Revamping the legal immigration system is an area that has had little debate. The key, experts said, will be coming up with a system that can accurately gauge the demands of the labor market, sorting out actual labor shortages from cases in which businesses are simply unwilling to pay enough to attract legal residents.
Could there be greater economic illiteracy? Or maybe it is just outright deception. Experts will tell whether there are actual shortages! Utterly fraudulentby definition, a shortage means buyers are unwilling to pay enough to attract legal residents.
Its all happening again we are being systematically lied to. They are completely disingenuous in their false promises and their real intent isnt even disguised.
The only way any amnesty should be agreed to is after a serious program of interior enforcement, against the scofflaw employers. A couple dozen lawsuitswith RICO and asset forfeiturewould concentrate the scofflaws minds wonderfully. Otherwise we can be sure that we are being hoodwinked again."
On Immigration, Fool Us Twice | Power Line
