What's new
US Message Board 🦅 Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Re-examining the Claims for Illegal Immigration

Adam's Apple

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 25, 2004
Messages
4,092
Reaction score
448
Points
48
Rethinking Illegal Immigration
By Victor Davis Hanson, Real Clear Politics
November 10, 2006

Now that the bitter election season is over, both parties will have to return to the explosive issue of illegal immigration.

Increased border patrol, a 700-mile fence to stop the easiest access routes (something President Bush signed into law two weeks ago), employer sanctions and encouragement of one official language can all help solve the crisis. But once the debate is renewed, congressional reformers will be blitzed by advocates of the failed status quo with a series of false assumptions concerning the issue.

Take, for example, the shared self-interest argument - that the benefits to both the U.S. and Mexico of leaving our borders open trumps the need for enforcement of existing laws and outweighs the costs to U.S. taxpayers that result from massive influxes of poor illegal aliens.

Libertarian supporters of relatively open borders, for example, have long argued that illegal immigration is a safety valve for Mexico, one that prevents violent revolution south of our border. By allowing millions of poor people to cross illegally into the United States, we supposedly stabilize Mexico. Billions of dollars in remittances are sent back home to the needy left behind.

For full article:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/11/rethinking_illegal_immigration.html
 

musicman

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2004
Messages
5,171
Reaction score
533
Points
48
Location
Ohio
What we need from this new Congress is not more hysteria about illegal immigration...

This statement implies that we have had any hysteria on the issue at all. This is the doubletalking bullshit attitude that got the Republicans' clocks cleaned for them. The conservative base has the brains and the stomach for this war. Some Republicans will understand that - after their heads clear, their teeth are fixed, and their jaws are wired back in place. Others will not.

Any Republican who ponders November 7, 2006 - and fails to see PRESERVE OUR SOVEREIGNTY, PROTECT OUR BORDERS, AND ENFORCE OUR LAWS in 100-ft. high, flourescent orange letters - is too stupid to even think about getting my vote. George Bush's grand vision of a global capitalist utopia - on the backs and at the expense of decent, productive Americans - has just been repudiated in the most unambivalent, unambiguous, and unmistakable terms possible. I have every confidence that a newly-awakened Republican Party will act accordingly - now that they know what time it is.
 

Annie

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
50,848
Reaction score
4,826
Points
1,790
What we need from this new Congress is not more hysteria about illegal immigration...

This statement implies that we have had any hysteria on the issue at all. This is the doubletalking bullshit attitude that got the Republicans' clocks cleaned for them. The conservative base has the brains and the stomach for this war. Some Republicans will understand that - after their heads clear, their teeth are fixed, and their jaws are wired back in place. Others will not.

Any Republican who ponders November 7, 2006 - and fails to see PRESERVE OUR SOVEREIGNTY, PROTECT OUR BORDERS, AND ENFORCE OUR LAWS in 100-ft. high, flourescent orange letters - is too stupid to even think about getting my vote. George Bush's grand vision of a global capitalist utopia - on the backs and at the expense of decent, productive Americans - has just been repudiated in the most unambivalent, unambiguous, and unmistakable terms possible. I have every confidence that a newly-awakened Republican Party will act accordingly - now that they know what time it is.

If you only look at the snip, I see your point. In actuality Hanson is further repudiating that statement. The conclusion is that the exodus from Mexico to US has destabalized both countries.
 

musicman

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2004
Messages
5,171
Reaction score
533
Points
48
Location
Ohio
If you only look at the snip, I see your point. In actuality Hanson is further repudiating that statement. The conclusion is that the exodus from Mexico to US has destabalized both countries.

Yeah, but I resent hell out of the snip. It encapsulizes the double-tongue cuteness of the neocon. Anyone who hopes for as much as a polite listen from conservative America had better start talking very plain, very straight, very soon. Cuteness is fatal; the Right is in a foul mood, as we have seen. Conservative America is through bullshitting.
 

Annie

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
50,848
Reaction score
4,826
Points
1,790
Yeah, but I resent hell out of the snip. It encapsulizes the double-tongue cuteness of the neocon. Anyone who hopes for as much as a polite listen from conservative America had better start talking very plain, very straight, very soon. Cuteness is fatal; the Right is in a foul mood, as we have seen. Conservative America is through bullshitting.

I doubt anyone that had supported the administration, much less given hundreds of hours to it's election, was earlier than I in having a problem with how things have been going and making that clear. In many ways, from Schiavo to ports to the communications I've lost friends, here and in real life.

The 'neo-cons' have some things right and some things wrong. Many of the ideas are correct, but the leaders have been condescending and tried to be 'off radar' way too much. It's what leaves them open to the conspiracy theorists, which I think has been a major unrecognized problem.

But dealing with this article, it was not subtle and not 'neo-con.'
 

rtwngAvngr

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2004
Messages
15,755
Reaction score
512
Points
48
It's what leaves them open to the conspiracy theorists, which I think has been a major unrecognized problem.

But dealing with this article, it was not subtle and not 'neo-con.'

I wonder why they don't recognize the conspiracy theorists criticizing the NWO?

WHy do you think they ignore them? Maybe it's because both Major Bushes are on record talking about the NWO?
 

musicman

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2004
Messages
5,171
Reaction score
533
Points
48
Location
Ohio
I doubt anyone that had supported the administration, much less given hundreds of hours to it's election, was earlier than I in having a problem with how things have been going and making that clear. In many ways, from Schiavo to ports to the communications I've lost friends, here and in real life.

The 'neo-cons' have some things right and some things wrong. Many of the ideas are correct, but the leaders have been condescending and tried to be 'off radar' way too much. It's what leaves them open to the conspiracy theorists, which I think has been a major unrecognized problem.

But dealing with this article, it was not subtle and not 'neo-con.'

Just what is this "hysteria", then - that Hanson doesn't want "more of"?
 

Annie

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
50,848
Reaction score
4,826
Points
1,790
Just what is this "hysteria", then - that Hanson doesn't want "more of"?

My interpretation: The false arguments that have been used that the problem 'of those already here' and 'building a fence' are insurmountable.

Likewise the way some on the other side act as if most or 'a great percentage' of the illegals are 'dangerous.' They are not in a physically criminal sense, but are to our economy and our legal system. A small percentage are 'dangerous' in either a criminal or terrorist threat sense, but all are criminal in a legal sense. The problem must be addressed and not with amnesty.
 

musicman

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2004
Messages
5,171
Reaction score
533
Points
48
Location
Ohio
My interpretation: The false arguments that have been used that the problem 'of those already here' and 'building a fence' are insurmountable.

Likewise the way some on the other side act as if most or 'a great percentage' of the illegals are 'dangerous.' They are not in a physically criminal sense, but are to our economy and our legal system. A small percentage are 'dangerous' in either a criminal or terrorist threat sense, but all are criminal in a legal sense. The problem must be addressed and not with amnesty.

I agree. And, I hope it dawns on the Republican Party that it has arrived at its defining moment. A candidate can blur his true self on a lot of issues - MOST of them, in fact. But, his stance on immigration is the window to his soul. Does he regard this country - this IDEAL - as unique, precious, fragile - worth protecting with his fortune and his life? Or is government of the people, by the people, and for the people a convenient springboard to his designs on power - a voting bloc - a trading bloc - a cheap labor pool? Does he cherish the specialness of America, or just mouth its pretty platitudes when that serves his greater agenda? On this issue alone, he cannot hide his true self. The manner in which he proposes to address immigration tells us who he is.

That's why my eyes glaze over as soon as a pundit or a politician replies to plain questions of sovereignty, the sanctity of our borders, and the rule of law, with "Yeah, but...". At that moment, I've heard enough. I know who I'm dealing with - just another sellout. How can I trust him on anything else?
 

Annie

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
50,848
Reaction score
4,826
Points
1,790
I agree. And, I hope it dawns on the Republican Party that it has arrived at its defining moment. A candidate can blur his true self on a lot of issues - MOST of them, in fact. But, his stance on immigration is the window to his soul. Does he regard this country - this IDEAL - as unique, precious, fragile - worth protecting with his fortune and his life? Or is government of the people, by the people, and for the people a convenient springboard to his designs on power - a voting bloc - a trading bloc - a cheap labor pool? Does he cherish the specialness of America, or just mouth its pretty platitudes when that serves his greater agenda? On this issue alone, he cannot hide his true self. The manner in which he proposes to address immigration tells us who he is.

That's why my eyes glaze over as soon as a pundit or a politician replies to plain questions of sovereignty, the sanctity of our borders, and the rule of law, with "Yeah, but...". At that moment, I've heard enough. I know who I'm dealing with - just another sellout. How can I trust him on anything else?

In many ways, especially regarding immigration and the WOT I agree. At the same time, the rhetoric on both sides has become toxic and is causing problems in and of itself.

It's past time for thinking people to take some time to figure out priorities and prepare for not only the next election, but the threats and problems that confront us all.
 

musicman

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2004
Messages
5,171
Reaction score
533
Points
48
Location
Ohio
In many ways, especially regarding immigration and the WOT I agree. At the same time, the rhetoric on both sides has become toxic and is causing problems in and of itself.

It's past time for thinking people to take some time to figure out priorities and prepare for not only the next election, but the threats and problems that confront us all.

Actually, I believe the conservative electorate have been generously instructive in that regard. We giveth and we taketh away. Talk straight, hold true to the principles upon which this nation is founded, deliver what you promise - or die. That's about as clear a starting point as anyone could hope for.
 

Annie

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
50,848
Reaction score
4,826
Points
1,790
Actually, I believe the conservative electorate have been generously instructive in that regard. We giveth and we taketh away. Talk straight, hold true to the principles upon which this nation is founded, deliver what you promise - or die. That's about as clear a starting point as anyone could hope for.

Some have, some haven't. Obviously the administration and Congressional leadership hadn't. The Rumsfeld resignation once again demonstrated the lack of transparency.

We need someone like Gingrich, that doesn't alienate so many.
 

musicman

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2004
Messages
5,171
Reaction score
533
Points
48
Location
Ohio
Some have, some haven't. Obviously the administration and Congressional leadership hadn't. The Rumsfeld resignation once again demonstrated the lack of transparency.

We need someone like Gingrich, that doesn't alienate so many.

An electorate tough enough to administer - and endure - this harsh a medicine is not much in a mood for anything BUT transparency, I think. The Republicans don't have to run the Second Coming of Christ, but they'd damn well better find a straight-talking conservative.

And, if the Party is to have any future, the global elites need to be flushed like the hostile organisms they are.
 

Annie

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
50,848
Reaction score
4,826
Points
1,790
An electorate tough enough to administer - and endure - this harsh a medicine is not much in a mood for anything BUT transparency, I think. The Republicans don't have to run the Second Coming of Christ, but they'd damn well better find a straight-talking conservative.

And, if the Party is to have any future, the global elites need to be flushed like the hostile organisms they are.

I think regarding the second part, that someone seriously debating withdrawing from the UN could garner many votes on that issue alone. With that said, we cannot do more than comment on other countries' choices, than they do ours. Getting out of the UN though, would seriously negate the 'World' opinion drive.
 

rtwngAvngr

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2004
Messages
15,755
Reaction score
512
Points
48
I think regarding the second part, that someone seriously debating withdrawing from the UN could garner many votes on that issue alone. With that said, we cannot do more than comment on other countries' choices, than they do ours. Getting out of the UN though, would seriously negate the 'World' opinion drive.

Screw world opinion! Or is that too radical?
 

musicman

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2004
Messages
5,171
Reaction score
533
Points
48
Location
Ohio
I think regarding the second part, that someone seriously debating withdrawing from the UN could garner many votes on that issue alone. With that said, we cannot do more than comment on other countries' choices, than they do ours. Getting out of the UN though, would seriously negate the 'World' opinion drive.

What I mean is, let's bury the Rockefeller Republicans already - and their ideological offspring - the Bushes. No more whores. Their infection has been eating at the Party for 40 years - or more. The electorate have administered the antidote - a BIG old dose. Please God, the Republicans are smart enough to let it do its work, and emerge as healthy, clear-eyed conservatives. A conservative electorate - a truly conservative party - think of the possibilities!

Get the U.S. out of the U.N.???!!! I'm on board!!!!
 
OP
A

Adam's Apple

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 25, 2004
Messages
4,092
Reaction score
448
Points
48
What I got from Hanson's article is that all the claims that have been put forth in defense of illegal immigration should be re-thought and re-examined, both by ordinary citizens and by people in our government. He points out
how some of these claims are nothing more than b.s.
 

Gunny

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2004
Messages
44,689
Reaction score
6,854
Points
198
Location
The Republic of Texas
What I mean is, let's bury the Rockefeller Republicans already - and their ideological offspring - the Bushes. No more whores. Their infection has been eating at the Party for 40 years - or more. The electorate have administered the antidote - a BIG old dose. Please God, the Republicans are smart enough to let it do its work, and emerge as healthy, clear-eyed conservatives. A conservative electorate - a truly conservative party - think of the possibilities!

Get the U.S. out of the U.N.???!!! I'm on board!!!!

I understand your argument; however, I think you might be leaving a bit of reality out of it in your quest for "true" conservative idealism.

What you and others on the so-called "traditional" conservative side call "neo-cons" are here, and they aren't going away. When liberalism and the Democrats shifted left, a lot of moderate liberals/centrists were left high-n-dry. When Republicans include them in their political strategy, they win. Simple as that.

Instead of capitalizing on the fact that most "neocons" have and will vote Republican, they get just as much verbal abuse from the far-right as they do the far-left for wanting to choose their cuts of meat instead of buying the whole cow.

If Republicans don't include the moderates/centrists and try to stick to far-right principles/traditional conservatism, they'll be on the outside looking in even as the Dems have found themselves increasingly since the late 70s.

I'll also add that this "we showed them" attitude isn't cutting it with me. Republicans "showed them" by shooting themselves in the ass. It's suicidal, and "showed them" nothing. The MSM and the left have already been diligently working away to brainwash any-and-everyone that will listen that the election was all about Iraq. They'll perpeutate that lie as they have others until sooner or later, it'll be believed.

But this little inter-party "civil war" that's going on either needs to stop, or "showing them" is going to give ALL the power to the Dems. Even if you count the historical backlash that will evcentually result from it, look REAL hard at what even 8 years of Dem control can do to this Nation.
 

Annie

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
50,848
Reaction score
4,826
Points
1,790
I understand your argument; however, I think you might be leaving a bit of reality out of it in your quest for "true" conservative idealism.

What you and others on the so-called "traditional" conservative side call "neo-cons" are here, and they aren't going away. When liberalism and the Democrats shifted left, a lot of moderate liberals/centrists were left high-n-dry. When Republicans include them in their political strategy, they win. Simple as that.

Instead of capitalizing on the fact that most "neocons" have and will vote Republican, they get just as much verbal abuse from the far-right as they do the far-left for wanting to choose their cuts of meat instead of buying the whole cow.

If Republicans don't include the moderates/centrists and try to stick to far-right principles/traditional conservatism, they'll be on the outside looking in even as the Dems have found themselves increasingly since the late 70s.

I'll also add that this "we showed them" attitude isn't cutting it with me. Republicans "showed them" by shooting themselves in the ass. It's suicidal, and "showed them" nothing. The MSM and the left have already been diligently working away to brainwash any-and-everyone that will listen that the election was all about Iraq. They'll perpeutate that lie as they have others until sooner or later, it'll be believed.

But this little inter-party "civil war" that's going on either needs to stop, or "showing them" is going to give ALL the power to the Dems. Even if you count the historical backlash that will evcentually result from it, look REAL hard at what even 8 years of Dem control can do to this Nation.

I agree with all of that. Into that internicene civil war we can add both the hits towards and from the 'religious right' along with the neo-cons. Within the party there should be a time to be heard, mostly it's the leadership that needs to hone their listening skills. But also the membership.
 

Gunny

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2004
Messages
44,689
Reaction score
6,854
Points
198
Location
The Republic of Texas
I agree with all of that. Into that internicene civil war we can add both the hits towards and from the 'religious right' along with the neo-cons. Within the party there should be a time to be heard, mostly it's the leadership that needs to hone their listening skills. But also the membership.

That of course, goes to peception. The hard-liners, who I include the "religious right" in, think the moderates/centrists/"neocons" are the problem and vice-versa.

While your idea is sound, it failed to happen with the Democrats. The extremists outshouted the moderates, the party took to pushing extreme stances, and the moderates bailed. Since them, the only time Dems have won anything except in hopelessly brainwashed liberal extremist areas is when Republicans have offered nothing.

If the Republican party goes through the same internal split, it will become amirror image of what the Democrat party has been since the late 70s.
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$145.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top