This great editorial from Ken Taylor is right on the money, and about 80% of Americans agree with what you are about to read. So why does the Right tap dance around the issue?
Those who favor amnesty type progams consistantly claim that the illegal wants to be an American. Why then out of 35 who took the oath last night, (I might add that the judge who administered the oath said she could have doubled and then some that number), only 1 was a Mexican ? The numbers that are waiting in line in this area to take the oath indicate that the percentage of Mexicans waiting is similar to what was witnessed last night. The question arrises, is this indicative to the rest of the nation ? I believe it is. Most illegals that enter this country are not the least bit interested in becoming Americans as immigrants in the past have. An immigrant past that I might add strengthened and made our nation the deverse and free country that we are. Today's illegals by contrast are here for a paycheck or cash under the table only and have no intention of becoming Americans but expect America to change our culture and our way of life to accomidate them. Many of todays elected officials unfortunatly agree with the illegals and that is where much of the problem lay in border enforcement, employment enforcement and deportation of illegals whose very presence is a violation of the law. If they do not think they are violating the law then why did they vanish because of a rumor stopping construction along the Grand Strand ? This was not a few dozen workers but literaly thousands! Cheap labor drives the illegal market again as evidenced by construction workers in this area. Stories of experienced and long time construction workers even entire crews being laid off and replaced by Mexican workers because they will work for less salary are rampant in this area. Yet as shown by last nights ceremony these workers who benefit from our prosperity, live in our cities and even take our jobs have no interest in becoming an American. The problem is that until we get representaion in out state and federal governments that are willing to take a hard stand against illegal aliens and the Mexican government that actually encourages and assists illegal in crossing the border, ceremonies like last night will not change. Workers will still lose their jobs. Laws will still be broken and the flood of illegals will continue to flow until this nation becomes The Hispanic States of America.Ken Taylor
Sunday, September 03, 2006
Another issue that the Right should be getting out to voters
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
15 comments:
Why does the right "tap dance" around this issue?
It's obvious why just from what you've copied here. All you have to do is follow the money. It's all about the cost of labor. The people who contribute to the Republic party have no interest in stemming the flow of cheap labor from across the border. It is the Republics who have had a lock on power in the federal government since 2002. And the problem has not been solved. Has the Republic-controlled government strengthened border enforcement? No, but they've cut taxes. Have they strengthened the INS investigation and enforcement capabilities? No, but they've sent over a quarter trillion dollars to Iraq.
Who benefits by tax cuts? Who benefits by spending a quarter trillion dollars on the military in Iraq? Who benefits from cheap labor by illegal aliens?
Who benefits? Who contributes to the Republics? Who is in power?
Why is nothing done?
it is sad that the Right has not done more with their power...
however, voting for a Dem will do the opposite of what needs to be done...
flood the US with illegals
tax hikes
lose the global war versus radical Islam, cause that's what it is.
and I benefit from a tax cut, cause I pay taxes
and the world benefits from us sending money over to the middle east to fight terrorists...protection is the number ONE job of our govt...not socialism
Oh, yeah, the world's really benefitting. *rolls eyes*
More like being blown to hell.
Game said:
protection is the number ONE job of our govt
Protection of the people of the United States is the number ONE job of our government.
How sad it must be to have to settle for that which you disdain simply because of your irrational loathing of Democrats.
By the way, can you point out where this "global war" is taking place, globally speaking?
Very interesting discussion here.
was to show a well informed, correct world perspective jason. And no Jim, our goal is not to KILL every terrorist, but to make sure the middle east is a very hard place for them to be...and more specifically right now, a place where Iraq can run on its own...then we "WIN" that part of the war on terror...
>>So tell me. If our military was able somehow to kill every terrorist or "islamofascist" in Iraq, we're done, right?<<
So far so good.
>>Because that's where they all are and that's where we'll kill them all, right?<<
Also correct. Our military in Iraq is like a sponge soaking up terrorist filth in the region. This is called fighting them there so we have to fight them much less here. You can't negotiate or have diplomacy with the Islamists-- you have to kill a bunch of them and hammer home to the rest that the cause is hopeless -- we'll never say uncle. Look how Russia is ddealing with their own crop of Islamofascists-- they recently killed Islamist Shamil Basayev after a prolonged effort.
I'll add that the longer Iraq remains a stable democracy, the more and more the Islamists will become marginalized and demoralized. If we spend 3 trillion dollars, lose 10,000 Americans, spend ten years there, and Iraq remains a liberal democracy in the longterm, I'd call it a success. Roosevelt, Truman, and Kennedy would too.
Those on the Left can see no possible way for our military to win...because as soon as we use them, to liberals, we have already lost
Game--
I know, too many people want PC wars these days. Seriously, we lost over 30,000 people in three years defending South Korea, which is a prosperous nation today. In Iraq, we came in with 100,000-150,000 troops and opened a can of whupass on an army almost twenty times its size. That is pure awesome. Moreover, we've been there three years and have only lost around 2600 people. This is good, not bad, but the 1960s generation now runs the establishment (academia, hollywood, media, et cetera) and they preach the view that anytime you use bullets instead of flowers, you're a sinner.
Meanwhile, on the immigration issue, I strongly suspect economic reasons dominate the explanation why politicians are hesitant to legalize the illegals.
I've explained how price floors work before, and how they create unemployment. With respect to many Mexicans, they work below the floor. But if they are legalized, we get hit with a double whammy. One, they will have to be paid minimum wage. Minimum wages create unemployment, which will harm our economy. On top of this, we will have just created an underclass of citizens that can gobble up even more social services indefinitely, since they won't even be working.
What is the solution? Easy-- get rid of the irrational minimum wage laws and legalize most of the illegals. Then everybody wins. But that'll never happen, since whoever pushes for it will get accused of not "caring" about workers (even though it is a policy that keeps workers work-ing), you can't make rational arguments in 30-second TV spots, and most people aren't curious enough to discover basic economic principles anyway.
Our elected officials don't have much incentive to change the status quo on this. If my theory was false, Dems would be all over this to get millions of new voters, but I'm sure the elected Dems are aware of the economic consequences of their actions too.
"Our military in Iraq is like a sponge soaking up terrorist filth in the region."
Exactly. We create violence where none existed. Somantic differences, perhaps, but I think we are on the same idea here.
Not quite, Rhyno. Creating and attracting are distinctly different. One side infers that if we weren't there, there'd be fewer terrorists since our presence has provoked some to join their ranks. The other side more accurately (IMHO) says that our presence has provoked terrorists that already exist to head to Iraq to fight us. I believe the latter is accurate. Hey, the bus ticket has to be cheaper.
But as to the thread, I don't believe the Dems have a great desire to stem the flow of illegals because they see those people as eventual votes if they are given amnesty.
game said...
And no Jim, our goal is not to KILL every terrorist, but to make sure the middle east is a very hard place for them to be...
Perxactly. And with our borders wide open right now, not doing anything with immigration, just letting in any ol' sucka, they can run to here. What the hell, we're unprotected. Why not.
This is why I think we need to get out of there, and start protecting here.
dedanna,
You're obviously very passionate about the border issue. I am as well. I do not, however, concur with the notion of pulling out of Iraq and only protecting here. Just concentrating on here alone won't solve the problem of Islamic radicalism. Making the entire country a giant spider hole isn't the way to go. I think we're capable of shoring up our borders and ports AND continuing the fight that won't go away by our refusal to engage.
It would still be a helluva lot better start.
Go from there if needed, but it's like the old adage that things begin at home...
Post a Comment