Story: "Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist on Sunday said he wants a Senate vote soon on an immigration bill focusing primarily on border security, but acknowledged that quick passage is doubtful.
Frist, R-Tenn., said he's willing to push ahead with the bill favored by House Republicans, which is narrower than the version he and other senators favor. Even so, action may not be possible before the November elections, he said.
"If you're going to address immigration reform, you have to first and foremost secure our borders," he said on ABC's "This Week.""What I've done, and hopefully what we'll be voting on the floor of the Senate this week, is take the common parts of the House bill and the common parts of the Senate bill."
In December, the House passed legislation that concentrated on border security and enforcement of laws banning employment of undocumented workers. The Senate in May then passed a broader bill, generally endorsed by President Bush, that included provisions for a guest worker program and ways for the nation's estimated 12 million illegal immigrants to work toward legal status and eventual citizenship."
House Bill: Secure the borders, and begin tracking and exporting the illegals currently in the country.
Senate bill: Amnesty!!! w00tz!! Forgive the crimes of 12 million with a broad, vote garnering measure.
The house bill acctually begins to solve the problem for the long term. Up till now, the republicans haven't done any work to pass the house bill, but I'm guessing the frustration from the base is starting to take its toll. The republicans have the majority in both houses and the White House, they should be taking full advantage of this to pass the house bill.
This does appear to be the start of this.
I do find this all interesting, after the RNC told the NY Times that the house was going to ignore criminal immigration till after november, and place the focus on The War on Terror, that this is now happening. Flying under the radar to pass this may be what is nessecsary.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
20 comments:
Okay, but you know what? The majority of illeagal immigrants are just trying to make ends meet to support their families. Why?
The US makes it nigh to impossible for a poor wage-earner to immigrate to the US through a plethora of paperwork and what-not. Many families (trying to immigrate the "legal" way) have to wait as much as 7 years to come into the US.
One can speed up the visa process by paying out your ears, but obviously many of these people don't have money to begin with -- that's why they're trying to come over here.
Those who do come legally are usually the crooks -- drug-dealers who can pay lots of money to speed up their visas and pay their way through the paperwork.
Many of these illegal immigrants use such desparate measures to get over here not because they want to blow us up, but because they just want to survive.
We should go ahead and grant amnesty, then close the borders for a while and fix the problem with the visa availability. If we want legal immigrants from Mexcio, then we need to make the process easier for the wage-earners.
*steps off soap box*
You wanted to hear about my opinion on the US/Mexico border issue...
But do YOU know what, Carey? It's not a right to immigrate to America...it's a privilege. And it's not a right to illegally immigrate to America..it's a crime. America is not "wanting legal immigrants"--it's demanding a stop to illegal ones.
Why should we grant amnesty to people who--the very first thing they do, is break laws like crazy? They illegally cross our borders; illegally drive vehicles; illegally get jobs; illegally pack their children into schools; and they illegally mooch off our tax money (through using the schools and healthcare.) They also take OUR JOBS (you can't talk about unemployment unless you first talk about immigration), lower wages for everybody, and hurt our economy by filtering all their earnings BACK TO MEXICO. They have no loyalty to America--the first thing they do when we talk about illegal immigration? They start WAVING MEXICAN FLAGS!!!!
And do you honestly expect me to believe that those who legally immigrate are usually the crooks and drug-dealers? At least the U.S. can monitor and investigate them!!! What about all the crooks and drug-dealers who don't legally immigrate!!! Amnesty for them? What about the gang-starters who illegally immigrate and make our streets unsafe!!! Amnesty for them? Huh? What about all the terrorists who are probably already in this country? Amnesty for them?!?!?! They're citizenship won't last long. They'll probably blow themselves up soon if they can.
And in reference to your last paragraph: "Close the borders for awhile." And then what, open them up again? And do you think it would even be possible to "fix the problem" after granting 12+ million criminals (YES, THEY'RE CRIMINALS) U.S. citizenship? The problem would get 100 times worse (that many more would want to come over).
I'll repeat: America does not want illegal OR legal immigrants. They should be begging us to take them.
We need to realize that this country is being invaded through open borders and there are people, like Carey obviously, who want to reward the executors of the invasion--which is both economic (the "poor wage-earners") and violent (terrorists, gang-members, and drug-dealers).
Palm Boy, please, continue to "Push Back Ignorance."
Good grief, calm down. All right, I did some more research and perhaps amnesty isn't the best solution. What about helping those who are already here on their way to citizenship? (Or they can just leave.)
Do you realize how much time and money it would take to hunt down every "illegal" immigrant to arrest and deport them? It's mearly impossible. That's why I first suggested amnesty and closed borders. From then on, we keep closer tracking on the immigrants.
Some illegal immigrants do take American freedoms granted, I'll admit that, but how many of us legal citizens take our privileges for granted?
We can't blame the present state of the economy on the illegal immigrants coming here to work. That's part of the problem, but not the whole picture.
Why do we Americans have a holier-than-thou mentality? Yes, our country is one of the greatest and our privileges top that of many countries. This is a great place to live, but we are not "God's country." Freedom is a human right - not just an American right - and we should be willing to help those who do not have it.
"I'll repeat: America does not want illegal OR legal immigrants. They should be begging us to take them."
No one needs to come begging to the mighty Americans for citizenship. How assuming and down-right selfish! Besides, our country was founded on immigration. Our diversity is part of what makes us so great. My ancestors were Scottish and German-Jewish immigrants in the early 1900s. Were they "legal" or "illegal"? I have no clue, but I enjoy full American citizenship (and all the benfits) today.
Kingdom Advancer: Have you been on the border scene and spoken with those who have first-hand experience with people who deal with (and have extensive knowledge) the border/immigration problem? I've been there several times and have seen first hand what's going on. I've made the border crossing a dozen times. Have you? Can you speak on this subject from experience? Do not be so swift to pass judgement and speak for all Americans, because obviously, not all of us agree with you.
"How about helping those who are already here on their way to citizenship?"
You pointed out in your first post how difficult it is to legally get citizenship. How long, and hard, would the process be to legally immigrate if we gave all the illegals a path to citizenship. Those suffering, waiting to receive legal citizenship, have a sense of principle, justice, and respect for America. Generally, those who legally immigrate are more loyal to America...they love America. Illegals send all of their money back to their homes in Mexico, and they themselves jump back and forth across the border. My plan would track down as many illegals as possible, ship them back to Mexico, secure the borders, and put those shipped back to Mexico at the BACK OF THE LINE. Respect and preference to those who tried to do it right the first time, not the other way around.
"Do you realize how much time and money it would take to hunt down every "illegal" immigrant to arrest and deport them? It's mearly impossible. That's why I first suggested amnesty and closed borders."
"Amnesty" in this sense of the word could be called "surrender".
And, actually, in your first post, you said "closed borders for awhile," until America could fix the visa problem. You made it sound as though, when the problem was "fixed," that would mean all those would-be-illegals would then be legals. That's not a solution; it's another disguised term for surrender. It would be easier to be legal, and therefore legal would mean less than it used to.
Also, I didn't claim that the illegal immigrants were the source of the entire economic problem. I merely stated that you can't be strong on the economy if you're weak on immigration.
"Freedom is a human right - not just an American right."
So, are you a supporter of "Operation: Iraqi Freedom" and President Bush? For he says that all the time, and that's how you spread freedom in the world, by helping set up free governments and societies. Not by accepting every freedom-desirer. That's unsafe and impractical, as well as impossible (we'd have millions of Chinese wanting away from their Communist government, probably.)
You didn't mention this exactly, but others have: "We're all immigrants." This is downright false. I'm not an immigrant. My father and mother aren't immigrants. Their parents aren't immigrants. Either my great grandparents or great-great grandparents are immigrants, but I'm certain they entered legally.
As for your comments about your ancestors immigrating, you probably ought to pick up Pat Buchanan's new book, "State of Emergency." You'll see some astounding numbers in there. The immigration of Mexicans is on a much bigger scale than any other immigration, and we are also living in a different time of our history. A lot of our ancestors were also farmers. Does that make a difference? And, of course, the Mexican immigration is mostly ILLEGAL.
"Some illegal immigrants do take American freedoms granted, I'll admit that, but how many of us legal citizens take our privileges for granted?"
The difference? Americans are AMERICANS. A fundamental point is being missed here. America is a sovereign nation endowed with the responsibility to protect the borders from all invaders. And the issue here is that, America is not protecting itself from any invaders, malicious or otherwise.
"No one needs to come begging to the mighty Americans for citizenship. How assuming and down-right selfish!"
Again, I emphasize a missing of the point. I'm not saying we should conquest the world and deny all but Americans freedom. I'm saying that with citizenship, should come honor, through due process. Everything that an illegal immigrant does in this country is illegal, whether violent or not. As an American and a Christian, do you think they should be rewarded for that?
I'm not speaking selfishly. When I said "Americans don't want immigrants," I was responding to your comment, "if Americans want legal immigrants." My point was that we are not ASKING for immigrants, they should be ASKING us for citizenship.
It's not America's responsibility to be the money-tree of the world, though we've often acted like it. Rather than granting amnesty to Mexicans, we need to push the Mexican government and their citizens to change their own country.
From a Christian perspective, I see this as another step toward the End Times: America losing her sovereignty, setting up even moreso a globalist government. Already, the vast majority of the world doesn't like our efforts to protect ourselves, and now many Americans don't even want to put a premium on citizenship--or even LEGALLY ACQUIRING CITIZENSHIP.
And lastly, Carey, I haven't been to the border. But are you going to accuse me of not having credibility on the emotional "you haven't seen what I've seen basis"? I see the news: economy down, jobs lost, murders, gangs, drugs, and terrorist threats; people entering with no checks or balances;and people wanting to give them citizenship in spite of the facts. That's what I see.
I meant to mention another thing about historical immigration.
If you speak English and are a patriot, then I imagine that your ancestors "assimilated" to America. Our ancestors grew a quick and deep loyalty to America, and were willing to make English their primary language for the sake of the unity of the country. Illegal immigrants do not want to learn English, and they do not want to be loyal to America, since they're not even citizens. It's basically just about money. If they found a wallet with a hundred thousand dollars, they probably would leave America for good. (I realize I'm not speaking for all illegal aliens, but the vast majority.) When immigrants in the past came, there was no turning back. America was their new home, and their only option was to bring the REST of their family to America.
"Amnesty" in this sense of the word could be called "surrender".
Surrender? Why are you making this sound like a war? We're not going against Mexico in war. The majority of Mexican immigrants are not terrorists trying to blow us up or evil people trying to steal our money and weaken our economy. They send the money they earn back to Mexico to feed their families.
Yes, I agree that it would be better if the Mexican government itself took the responsibility to fix its country and economy -- but that in itself is a very depressing issue. Mexican governement has corruption on every single level like gangrene. I could even begin to think of a solution for that. As a result of poor government and economic management, the majority of Mexican citizens are dirt-poor and uneducated. Their only thought is to survive (rather than re-vamp their government).
As far as the language issue: I do agree that if you choose to live in the US, you should learn to speak English. Plain and simple. However, retaining one's heritage and mother tongue is no sin, as long as you make an effort to learn English to better operate within our system.
It is frustrating at times to think, "Why are we having to learn Spanish in order to compensate for the vast amount of Spanish-speaking immigrants?" For me, I grew up around Spanish-speaking people and have been speaking Spanish for years. Also, for my major, a second language is necessary, so speaking Spanish is a natural choice for me.
But why do we make the average American citizen learn Spanish? Our signs are in English/Spanish -- our labels are in English/Spanish. We should make it a goal to be able to communicate to people of other languages (I'm not supporting an English-only society), but is this going too far?
As far as the whole Bush/Iraq deal... that's another discussion for another time. I'll just say that under the original pretenses of going to war with Iraq -- or rather, invading Iraq -- I do not agree with Bush's actions.
While Saddam's overthrow meant good news for a lot of people who had lived in fear under his regime, Bush did encroach upon Iraq's national sovereignty. We all now know there were no weapons of mass destruction -- or if there were, they were discreetly disposed of.
To me, overthrowing Iraq after we were bombed by a terrorist group comprised of Saudis who trained in Afghanistan made absolutely no sense at all. Iran is a bigger threat than Iraq -- why didn't we go overthrow their governement? Could it have something to do with oil? Most likely so.
But again, that's another discussion for another time. Maybe I should start a blog solely for the purpose of discussing foreign affairs. What do y'all think?
Oh, BTW, KA -- I didn't mean to start some heated, angry debate. My apologies. While I do think debating and discussing issues like this is fun, I don't want you to take this to a personal level and be affronted. Let's just agree to disagree, okay?
Carey: If they have commited a crime, they deserve justice. In the case of an illegal immigrant, that justice is a return to their home land.
Thanks for sharing your opinion, I'll come back later when I have more time.
Kingdom, I agree with a lot of your statements, but can we tone it down? Cyber-shouting doesn't do anyone any good. If you want to make a point use the HTML tags.
Yeah, the mexican criminals do wave mexican flags, not americans. But we don't have an employment shortage in the US, we have record employment levels.
As for terrorists, that is one of the best reasons to seal the border.
What I don't agree with: That the US does not want legal immigrants. If they come legally, then they should be welcomed with open arms. Without legal immigrants, our nation would be nothing like it is today.
As for criminal immigrants, deport them.
Carey:
Regardless of how much time or money it takes to track down criminals, we should be doing it.
Amnesty has been tried before, in the 1980s. And yet, we have this problem again.
As for your apology, Carey:
I didn't mean to bite your head off. I just am passionately concerned about this issue and--as you'll see if you read any of my other comments--I have a tendency to get on a roll and not be able to put on the brakes. A comment may agitate me, and then I get more riled up when I reply, sometimes. (I used to just vent to one of my family members, so they probably appreciate that I'm blogging now.)
Palm Boy, the same apology goes for cyber-shouting on your blog, although I should point out that the HTML tags don't always work when I'm making a comment, that's why I use CAPS(see, I wasn't shouting just now. ;))
As for the last allegations against my argument:
My reference to "Operation:Iraqi Freedom" had nothing to do with other logistics--that was the point. If you think that Americans should help all people attain freedom, it is done by freeing them from their own Fascist, Communist, tyrannical dictatorships. Not by harboring everyone here in America--although, as in the case of Cuba, sometimes that may be a necessary plan of action.
My reference to "surrendering" was also to make a point that was misunderstood, obviously. I was stating that when you make that argument--"Can you imagine how much time and money it would take?"--it's giving in. It's saying that based on the required effort, something isn't worth it. That's all I was trying to get across.
Palm Boy, I realize that the economy and jobs are both issues that are really improving. But, I'm saying that as long as there are people who are able to work but who don't have jobs, you have to take into account that people who shouldn't be here are taking some of the jobs (and taking them for less money than an American could afford to.)
And lastly, Palm Boy, it seems as though I'm getting pretty beat up about saying that the "U.S. doesn't want legal immigrants." You and Carey have both called me out on this. I was simply stating this as a case of extremes in reply to this statement by Carey: "If we want legal immigrants from Mexcio, then we need to make the process easier for the wage-earners." Perhaps this is true, but these are the points I was making:
1) It should be more of an honor to the Mexican to become an American than for the American government to receive a new citizen. (Open arms, yes. But if anyone should be on their knees "wanting" something, it should be the immigrant, not the Customs Agent. As I stated in my first comment, we aren't begging for legal immigrants; we're demanding a stop to illegal ones. That's why I said we can't grant illegals legal status. It would defeat the purpose. See next point...)
2) Make the process easier? Maybe. But watering down the process would do no good. And,
3) We can't possibly make a citizen out of everyone who wants to be one: that's why the process is so difficult.
P.S. Carey, I guess we will have to agree to disagree, and that sort of makes me regret my tone in previous comments: I want to be a persuader, not a polarizer. But, I guess I can take solace in that you took a step back on your amnesty position.
As for your apology, Carey:
I didn't mean to bite your head off. I just am passionately concerned about this issue and--as you'll see if you read any of my other comments--I have a tendency to get on a roll and not be able to put on the brakes. A comment may agitate me, and then I get more riled up when I reply, sometimes. (I used to just vent to one of my family members, so they probably appreciate that I'm blogging now.)
Palm Boy, the same apology goes for cyber-shouting on your blog, although I should point out that the HTML tags don't always work when I'm making a comment, that's why I use CAPS(see, I wasn't shouting just now. ;))
As for the last allegations against my argument:
My reference to "Operation:Iraqi Freedom" had nothing to do with other logistics--that was the point. If you think that Americans should help all people attain freedom, it is done by freeing them from their own Fascist, Communist, tyrannical dictatorships. Not by harboring everyone here in America--although, as in the case of Cuba, sometimes that may be a necessary plan of action.
My reference to "surrendering" was also to make a point that was misunderstood, obviously. I was stating that when you make that argument--"Can you imagine how much time and money it would take?"--it's giving in. It's saying that based on the required effort, something isn't worth it. That's all I was trying to get across.
Palm Boy, I realize that the economy and jobs are both issues that are really improving. But, I'm saying that as long as there are people who are able to work but who don't have jobs, you have to take into account that people who shouldn't be here are taking some of the jobs (and taking them for less money than an American could afford to.)
And lastly, Palm Boy, it seems as though I'm getting pretty beat up about saying that the "U.S. doesn't want legal immigrants." You and Carey have both called me out on this. I was simply stating this as a case of extremes in reply to this statement by Carey: "If we want legal immigrants from Mexcio, then we need to make the process easier for the wage-earners." Perhaps this is true, but these are the points I was making:
1) It should be more of an honor to the Mexican to become an American than for the American government to receive a new citizen. (Open arms, yes. But if anyone should be on their knees "wanting" something, it should be the immigrant, not the Customs Agent. As I stated in my first comment, we aren't begging for legal immigrants; we're demanding a stop to illegal ones. That's why I said we can't grant illegals legal status. It would defeat the purpose. See next point...)
2) Make the process easier? Maybe. But watering down the process would do no good. And,
3) We can't possibly make a citizen out of everyone who wants to be one: that's why the process is so difficult.
P.S. Carey, I guess we will have to agree to disagree, and that sort of makes me regret my tone in previous comments: I want to be a persuader, not a polarizer. But, I guess I can take solace in that you took a step back on your amnesty position.
"Surrender? Why are you making this sound like a war? We're not going against Mexico in war."
We are in a war. We are being invaded, and over the past 8 years, over 12 million criminals have entered the country, just through the southren border. I don't care what they do to support their families, as long as it is legal. Breaking and entering into the United States is not legal.
How can the Mexican government start revamping the economy? Free markets, with very limited taxation. It works everytime its tried. Mexico should be on par with China in the world economy, the work ethic of its peole is incredible. And yet, thank to the government leaching off the people, no growth is occouring.
Language: Learn english, I agree. I just don't see much effort to do that.
"While Saddam's overthrow meant good news for a lot of people who had lived in fear under his regime, Bush did encroach upon Iraq's national sovereignty. We all now know there were no weapons of mass destruction -- or if there were, they were discreetly disposed of."
Your Wrong. Saddam fragging used WMDs and yet you still blithly deny it. 13,000 kurdish settelers were murduered in a single poisen gas attack!
And we uncovered over 500 tons of weaponized chemical weapons, not to mention the nuclear labratories. In addition, Iraq was a haven for terrorists, churning out over 2000 new, freshly trained agents of islamic violence each year.
We did not violate the sovirenty of Iraq. If we did that, we would have set up Iraq as yet another State of the US. Rather, we installed a new government, for the Iraqis and by the Iraqis, much like we did in Afganistan.
Back to illegal immigration:
If they are here illegally, they should not be rewarded for breaking our laws, they should be punished. Thats how Justice works, at least on this present earth. Surredering to the criminals is the worst desicion that we, as a nation, could make.
A bit of a related matter here..I wish more states would pass recall legislation to enable voters to boot politicians that violate their oath or their word. They come begging for our votes and make all sorts of promises, only to get Washington Fever and forget about their promises in between elections. I'd support a constitutional amendment to do this if need be.
As conservative as I am, I can see that a significant part of the business/corporate world has no interest in controlling illegal immigration because of cheap labor. In addition to throwing out the politicians who refuse to pass crackdowns, there ought to be hefty fines and lengthy jail terms for business owners who hire illegals.
Kingdom Advancer: No problemo. I'm easy-going and not easily insulted. No biggie. And I am open to new information that might change my mind. In the case of politics, my viewpoint changes with new information I receive, so if you want to back up your claims with lots of cold, hard facts (minus the passionate discourse) I'm willing to listen.
Robert: You yourself have been to the Mexico border area. You've seen the poverty. Get off your patriotic hobby horse for a moment and put yourself in their shoes.
Both of you guys need to have a little more mercy in this situation. (I guess that's what women like me are for, eh?). I'm not saying "give up," but really, at this point -- give those who want citizenship their right to freedom as human beings. America isn't here to look pretty, for Pete's sake -- we should promote freedom.
As for the Iraq thing and "freedom" for all -- we should strongly encourage other governments to follow suit, but we ourselves must live out our political credence to the world -- not militarily enforce it on others.
That would be like me shoving my faith down someone's throat as opposed to living it out for others to see, so that they might ask for the reason for the hope that is in me (1 Peter 3:15).
Ultimately, it's all up to God and only He can change people's hearts. We have to remember that the most important issue has nothing to do with borders or economics. The world is in a downward spiral and the only One who can fix it is Jesus Christ Himself. No amount of "good" politics or philosophy can repair the damage of humankind.
In an un-important matter, I don't know why my last post is on here twice. Anyways...
"Your Wrong. Saddam fragging used WMDs and yet you still blithly deny it. 13,000 kurdish settelers were murduered in a single poisen gas attack!
And we uncovered over 500 tons of weaponized chemical weapons, not to mention the nuclear labratories. In addition, Iraq was a haven for terrorists, churning out over 2000 new, freshly trained agents of islamic violence each year.
We did not violate the sovirenty of Iraq. If we did that, we would have set up Iraq as yet another State of the US. Rather, we installed a new government, for the Iraqis and by the Iraqis, much like we did in Afganistan."
I agree with you completely, Palm Boy, I just decided not to take that route (of proving Iraq as a threat). I did mention, however, that we freed Iraqis through that war. Can you imagine if we had tried to leave Saddam in power and rather smuggle all the freedom-loving Iraqis into America? That would be a disaster.
Of course, most of your post is echoing what I said (more calmly echoing ;)), but I also want to agree with your assessment of war. I didn't explicitly use that word, and I explained my meaning by using the word "surrender," but I did this because--well--you know what people think of when they hear "war": Iraq, Afghanistan, and all Islamic Fascists who hate us. But we are in a different type of war right here in America. We're still being invaded. We're still being harmed--and there's a potential to be horrifically harmed. We do not know how many terrorists cross the border. We do not know how many gangsters cross the border. We do not know how many drug-dealers cross the border. And, hey! We don't even know how many diseases might cross the border.
Solameanie: I think you'll notice this in more than just the upper, business-executive class. Anyone who benefits from illegal immigrants, or even has friends who are illegal immigrants, will obviously side toward weak-border policy. Take Carey, for instance. I doubt she owns a business which takes advantage of illegal cheap labor. But she said that she grew up around Spanish speaking people and she's spent a lot of time around the border, so her opinion is obviously effected. But our views have to be based on what's best for the whole country, and what's based on principle, protection, and patriotism. We can't let connections sway us one way, or racism the other way (on the complete opposite end of the spectrum).
Carey: I have mercy for the poor, but I have less mercy for those who disrespect our country and take advantage of our country by illegally crossing our weak borders, and then breaking law after law once they get here. And besides, before we start curing the poverty of the whole world, perhaps we should start in our own townships, rural and urban.
I agree with you that human beings have a right to freedom. Criminals, however, do not. Everything they do here is a criminal act, worthy of punishment. Criminals are locked in somewhere. All I want to do is lock them out of America, sending them back to where they belong (unless they justifiably attain citizenship here).
And besides, first you say "freedom is a human right that we should help all to attain, not just Americans." Then you said the following:
"As for the Iraq thing and "freedom" for all -- we should strongly encourage other governments to follow suit, but we ourselves must live out our political credence to the world -- not militarily enforce it on others. That would be like me shoving my faith down someone's throat..."
First you say freedom is for all; then you say that we shouldn't "shove it down their throats." Well, I've already made it clear that we can't give everybody citizenship, but now you say that we can't give everybody free governments? Do you think it wrong to "shove" democracy down dictator's throats? I do not. The only reason I would say we cannot continuously free oppressed countries is because it--like illegal immigration--would be detrimental to this nation-- America. And perhaps that's where you're not seeing where I'm coming from. As a Christian Patriot, I'm worried about Christians first (and those who need to be saved), then I'm worried about issues that effect America. If I still have time left to worry after that, then I'll worry about other nation's people.
Saddam forfeited his sovereignty when he invaded Kuwait. He got some of it back under the terms of armistice that brought about the end of the First Gulf War. When he failed to abid by those terms, he again forfeited his sovereignty.
Nobody has to hunt down illegals to deport them. We need simply to fine and jail those who knowingly hire them, and abet their illegal presence. When their job market dries up, they'll go home.
And yes, it's difficult to immigrate to the United States. It should be. It is a priviledge to be here, and to be a citizen of the only nation in the world where the government was designed to serve the people, not the other way around.
Congratulations on making World Magazine.
KA: All right, as far as Iraq is concerned (and the Middle East in general) -- there really is no hope for democracy there while Islam still holds its iron grip. This goes so much beyond borders and national sovereignty and all that crud -- can't you see the spiritual warfare behind this?
If you studied the religion, you know that Islam and democracy can never co-exist in the same country. An Islamic-Democratic State is an oxymoron.
The real problem is (duh) spiritual. Even though our country is going down the tubes as well, we are better off than most countries because we still maintain some Judeo-Christian ethics and ideals. Literally, the Bible is the only thing that holds us above the precipice of political, social, and moral collapse.
We need to remember that there is only one Solution to all of our twisted world politics -- Jesus Christ. As Christians, this should be our #1 concern.
Those who would have total separation of church and state are on a one-way track to destruction.
Robert: I do not deny that Saddam used WMDs... are you kidding me? I'd have to be a complete fool to believe that WMDs are/were non-existent in Iraq. But they were never found. The effects were known, but the cause never found.
The UN wanted tangible proof in the form of real-live WMDs and unfortunately, they didn't get it. It would be nice if someone would launch an investiagtion to find the WMDs and follow through.
"Saddam forfeited his sovereignty when he invaded Kuwait. He got some of it back under the terms of armistice that brought about the end of the First Gulf War. When he failed to abid by those terms, he again forfeited his sovereignty."
Major Givler, sir, that is true. But what are we to do about Iran? It seems like there is no end to this. Well, truly, there isn't until Christ returns.
"We need simply to fine and jail those who knowingly hire them, and abet their illegal presence. When their job market dries up, they'll go home."
Yes, but are the corporations going to comply with this when cheap labor is so readily available? No. The Almighty Dollar speaks louder than national security.
The politicians want to get re-elected and therefore will cave to the Hispanic voters so those who run for office in the SW will not vote for any type of immigration bill. The corporations who benefit from cheap illegal labor will throw in more $$$ to those they think they can buy. The human rights people will protest and write letters against such deportation. The big left wing liberals will put on campaigns against it. In the end, those who speaks the loudest and w/ the most $$$ will win, unfortunately, that's how politics are today. The conservatives are I think still not united on this issue. As a result, if you are old enough to vote, then speak up and write to your politicians.
Carey: Let's just say that one post probably wouldn't be able to handle a change to the topic of Islam. But, I will say, that, although I am no supporter of Islam (if you see my comments on other posts you clearly see that), part of the problem in the Middle East is that the people are used to dictators. They don't know how to handle freedom. They don't know how to react to "power to the people." Hey! They don't even know how to thank those who should be their heroes.
Another problem in Iraq is related directly to Islam-- the different sects starting a civil war. And, of course, you have the whole Islamic terrorist thing (although I said that this blog couldn't handle that conversation too.)
But, the only logical, practical, and plausible way to spread freedom is through aggressively diplomatic--and, sometimes, aggressively militaristic actions against other countires. Fortunately, though, in relation to national security, any future confrontations (North Korea, Iran, Cuba, China) will kill two birds with one stone.
I agree with you that the Middle East--as everywhere else in the world--has problems that center spiritually. But is the illegal immigration issue that spiritual? Are we talking about taking immigrants into our homes and churches or into our country?
My brother had a good example: if some stranger walked up into your front yard and started building a tent, replying to your objections with "It's all God's land, anyway," how would you react (especially if the person was kind of shady)? You probably wouldn't like it. But that's what's happening on a nationwide scale.
"Robert: You yourself have been to the Mexico border area. You've seen the poverty. Get off your patriotic hobby horse for a moment and put yourself in their shoes."
Yes, I have been to the border area. Reynosa, in fact. And while it was poor, it wasn't the third world cardboard boxes and shacks that we are lead to belive. While standing on the 2nd floor of the chruch, in one of the poorer areas of the town, about half the houses I could see had Dish Network recievers, and many had cars. Is that poverty?
While the standard of living may not be up to our standards, it is not as bad as it is made out to be.
As for a patriotic hobby horse, I fail to see why respect for the laws of our land is a high and mighty position.
"Both of you guys need to have a little more mercy in this situation. (I guess that's what women like me are for, eh?). I'm not saying "give up," but really, at this point -- give those who want citizenship their right to freedom as human beings. America isn't here to look pretty, for Pete's sake -- we should promote freedom."
We do promote freedom, but freedom with out respect for the law is but one step away from Anarchy.
Carey, WMDs, they found 500 tons of Nerve gas this spring. It was mainly ignored.
mercy Now, Sadly, that is the truth.
Robert: Forgive me for sounding a little too harsh.
Dish recievers and cars? You musn't have been in the area of Reynosa I was in. It was literally cardboard boxes. I have photos to prove it.
KA: I like your brother's illustration. Very true, however, it is all of God's land. But I myself do not like the idea of someone camping out in my backyard without asking. That's a good point.
However, I do think we should try to help these people (but I'm too much of a mercy person, I suppose).
As far as the Iraq side-discusssion - we seriously need to transport that to another blog. I thought of... hmm... just had an idea. Will bring that up later.
Post a Comment