Thread: Curious

Originally Posted by ALIPAC

Draconis,

Your dreams of No Immigration are very remote. Americans cant even stop the 6,000 more illegal aliens that will cross tonight. Why would you even think that stopping legal immigration is on the political table?

W

I never said I was in favor of "no immigration." Rather, I favor reducing the level of legal immigration and gearing it towards highly skilled immigrants, something that is already the case in many other countries. We could easily stop illegal aliens from coming here. The problem is that the U.S. federal government is unwilling to enforce our laws. This, in turn, is attributable to the dominance of the Republican Party in American politics and its reigning ideology of "conservatism" which suffocates discontent which could be channelled towards effective reform. Have you ever been given the FreeRepublic treatment?

Why do I think stopping legal immigration is on the table? Because so many groups are negatively affected by it. I find the focus on "illegal immigration" one of the worst aspects of the immigration reform movement. This sort of appeal is directed squarely towards "law and order" conservatives who are outraged by various politicians turning a blind eye to border jumpers. The problem with this is that there are not enough of these people to build a serious movement.

As it happens, I am not a conservative. I'm actually something of a progressive, but I support immigration reform. In my view, the out of control immigration system is destroying the environment, lowering income mobility, increasing poverty, changing our culture, and ruining our country in all sorts of ways that I find undesirable. That's why I support immigration reform. Whether or not these people have the proper piece of paper is not something that really concerns me. The immigration reform movement will never go anywhere until it becomes a majority rights issue, not a conservative one.

Curious:

What level of LEGAL immigration would be acceptable to you? Please give a number per year.

Originally Posted by CheyenneWoman

Curious: What level of LEGAL immigration would be acceptable to you? Please give a number per year.

We have to take into consideration the number of immigrants already here the fact that are having children well above the replacement rate. It's the type of immigration that concerns me more than anything else. The last thing we need is more unskilled third world laborers with no education. The only people who should be allowed to immigrate here are those we really need. I would like to see something like the Johnson-Reed Act redux.

Originally Posted by Draconis

Originally Posted by CheyenneWoman

Curious: What level of LEGAL immigration would be acceptable to you? Please give a number per year.

We have to take into consideration the number of immigrants already here the fact that are having children well above the replacement rate. It's the type of immigration that concerns me more than anything else. The last thing we need is more unskilled third world laborers with no education. The only people who should be allowed to immigrate here are those we really need. I would like to see something like the Johnson-Reed Act redux.

Okay - butI still need a number.

Originally Posted by Draconis

We have by far the most irrational immigration policy in the entire world. I'm not aware of any other country more liberal on immigration that the United States. That's right. The Netherlands and Canada, believe it or not, are more "conservative" on immigration than we are. The Canadians ask: is this person a plus or a minus for Canada? The Australians ask: does this person have valuable skills that are needed in Australia? The Japanese don't even bother to ask such questions because they take for granted that Japan is for the Japanese.

Draconis, I will address this comment first, then proceed with a general response to your comments in this thread.

The US has one of the worst immigration policies in the world. I'm not sure that it's THE worst. I don't know if you have been to France, Holland, or the UK lately. Northern Europe is currently being overrun by non-Europeans, and the governmental policies are only just now beginning to come around to stop encouraging the process. France still has absurdly conciliatory policies regarding the many Islamist immigrants who refuse to assimilate into French culture. Then again, Europe is a few decades ahead of us as far as the globalist agenda goes.

As far as your posts in general, it appears that the intent of your posts is being misunderstood and that you are doing little to correct the misperception. If I understand correctly, it is your premise that the focus on the technical matter of legality versus illegality as concerns the status of the foreign invaders on our soil is detrimental to the cause of defending the interests of native American citizens because it reduces this to an argument of semantics. In so characterizing the efforts of this PAC, I believe you are mistaken. The issue here is not semantic, and the efforts here are not aimed at semantics. The agenda is to first make sure that those who unlawfully entered this nation are not granted ANY status that would allow them to remain on US soil. The next step is to get them off US soil by denying them benefits intended for citizens and denying them access to labor by various means, the most effective of which is active prosecution of employers who facilitate their law-breaking by unlawfully giving them jobs. Yet another focus is to make sure that the immigration that is allowed under the law benefits not only the corporations and big business but also the American citizens at large. The PAC is taking a multi-pronged approach at solving all facets of the immigration problem.

Now, I understand your premise. What is your proposed solution?

CrocketsGhost,

I believe you've nailed it. I think Draconis' concern is indeed that focusing on the illegality of undocumented immigrants in the U.S. opens a door to the solution being to simply make them legal. '

In other words, your only objection to our intolerable immigration policy is that aliens are jumping across the border and violating some law. If they come here legally, they are fine. If they come here legally and commit crimes, they are fine. If they come here legally and bring with them poverty and disease and ignorance, they are fine. If they come here legally and radically change our culture, they are fine. If they come here legally and vote in our elections as a fifth column, as the National Council of La Raza or MALDEF already does, they are fine. If they come here legally and engage in drug trafficking, they are fine. If they come here legally and get on welfare, they are fine. If they come here legally and bankrupt our hospitals, they are fine. If they come here legally and overcrowd our highways and schools, they are fine. If they come here legally and destroy our environment, they are fine. If they come here legally and take jobs from Americans, they are fine.

I know what your problem is.......(and you do have one.) You have been listening to Bush too long.
But trust me, you can't believe EVERYTHING you hear from him.
He's one heck of a back stabber. And he's darned good at it too. Right now he's backstabbing the AMERICANS........wait till he starts backstabbing the ILLEGALS in this country.
And it's coming. Mark my word.

Man, I'm off the board for a bit and I miss out on this fierce debate I am way too tired today to step into this one and besides, everyone here has done a terrific job explaining our position.

As far as someone getting the idea they can just walk right in and take what they want - I would say the actions of our government for the last 25 years has given the entire world that idea.

It doesn't make it right, but you have to admit - not much has been done to suggest otherwise.

It seems the American people were the only ones in the world that didn't recognize the problem.