On Jul 6, 4:13 pm, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Uhm.....Ditto what PlainOl said, except he said it much nicer than I
> would. "Hogwash"
>
> It's hard to believe that we have any true American that is this naive and
> blind to what is going on.
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 4:59 PM, margareth <mzeba...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> > I would agree with you, If the solution you suggest is to use guns. I
> > still would not pay the hundred bucks it costs to get a passport
> > unless I was also planning a trip to Europe, or Asia in the near
> > future. As a consequence I will not be spending many tourist dollars
> > in the US.In truth it is the Canadians and the Mexicans who should be
> > concerned about the security of THEIR borders. American criminals
> > like to move freely across, then practice their dubious trades in our
> > cities and town.
> > What I really find mind boggling is the concept that if you really
> > want to control illegal immigrants, it is not the huddled masses, but
> > those cheapskate businessmen and homemakers that are always ready to
> > hire them. They simply would not be so anxious to come...if they could
> > not find any legitimate jobs.... and who gives them that? Just to save
> > a few bucks on benefits etc?.
>
> > On Jul 6, 12:33 am, plainolamerican <plainolameri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > the current occupant of the White House yesterday proved himself every
> > > bit the social engineer his predecessors were. Health insurance,
> > > energy, the financial industry, education, nation building -- in each
> > > area and more the head of the executive branch, Barack Obama, has
> > > embraced the dominant bipartisan doctrine which proclaims that
> > > government planners know best
> > > ---
> > > the current crop are ignorant and corrupt
> > > they should be removed from our gov asap by any means necessary
>
> > > On Jul 5, 9:09 am, "M. Johnson" <micha...@america.net> wrote:
>
> > > > "Yes, how dare they not present themselves at once to the government?
> > Do they think this is America? Oh wait. It is America. Well, never mind.
> > Just confess that you broke a statute that violates thenatural law, register
> > (!), pay your tribute, and learn English. Why must they learn English? Does
> > not knowing English violate someone's rights? (As if there weren't already
> > some incentive to learn English.)"
> > > > "Wasn't there a time -- once long ago -- when "being an American" meant
> > that the government operated inside the bounds of the natural law? (At least
> > that was the theory.) It's different now. The politicians arbitrarily make
> > up the "law" as they go along, and rest of us are expected to live within
> > its bounds as though its our civic duty. That's what being an American means
> > now."The Goal Is FreedomBorder Control BogeyWhat's next? Internal
> > passports?bySheldon Richman
> > > > Posted July 02, 2010
> > > > As if we weren't already aware, the current occupant of the White House
> > yesterday proved himself every bit the social engineer his predecessors
> > were. Health insurance, energy, the financial industry, education, nation
> > building -- in each area and more the head of the executive branch, Barack
> > Obama, has embraced the dominant bipartisan doctrine which proclaims that
> > government planners know best and mere people -- interacting according to
> > the principles of consent, cooperation, and competition -- know nothing.
> > What would we do without our "leaders"?
> > > > And so it comes as no surprise that we see the same doctrine applied to
> > nullify theright of people to move freely-- that is, immigration.
> > > > Obama gave hisfirst big speechon the issue yesterday in which he tried
> > to satisfy everyone. More than likely he satisfied almost no one. Count me
> > among the dissatisfied. He rhapsodized about hardworking immigrants in
> > America while boasting he has made great strides in "securing" the border.
> > He read Emma Lazarus's poem about the huddled masses yearning to breathe
> > free while proclaiming, "Today, we have more boots on the ground near the
> > Southwest border than at any time in our history. Let me repeat that: We
> > have more boots on the ground on the Southwest border than at any time in
> > our history."
> > > > Nice image for America.
> > > > Obama's message: You want to come here? You'll do it on my terms (if at
> > all). "We should make it easier for the best and the brightest to come to
> > start businesses and develop products and create jobs," he said. There's the
> > pretense of knowledge in action.
> > > > And to show that you can't violate some people's freedom without the
> > violating other people's freedom, he said:[B]usinesses must be held
> > accountable if they break the law by deliberately hiring and exploiting
> > undocumented workers. We've already begun to step up enforcement against the
> > worst workplace offenders. And we're implementing and improving a system to
> > give employers a reliable way to verify that their employees are here
> > legally.So our "free enterprise system" will not tolerate employers being
> > free to hire whomever wishes to work for them. That's hard to square with
> > limited government. Note the sly juxtaposition of "hiring and exploiting."
> > Is Obama saying that any hiring of an undocumented worker -- translation: a
> > human being without government-issued papers -- is exploitation? He would
> > prefer you not realize that it's immigration law which makes exploitation
> > possible. When workers are afraid to protest conditions or quit because they
> > might get turned in to Immigration and Customs Enforcement, they are ripe
> > for exploitation. Yes, employers who take advantage of these workers are
> > scoundrels. But the politicians and bureaucrats who write and enforce the
> > restrictions that enable the exploitation are worse. It couldn't happen
> > without them.
> > > > By going after employers the government interferes with desperately
> > poor people trying to make better lives for themselves. Obama acknowledges
> > that that's what they are doing -- but he wants them thwarted anyway.
> > "[U]ltimately," he said, "if the demand for undocumented workers falls, the
> > incentive for people to come here illegally will decline as well."
> > Compassion stops at the border.
> > > > Let's not overlook Obama's phrase "a reliable way to verify that their
> > employees are here legally." That's an ID and a database.Demanding
> > ResponsibilityHe went on: "Finally, we have to demand responsibility from
> > people living here illegally. They must be required to admit that they broke
> > the law. They should be required to register, pay their taxes, pay a fine,
> > and learn English."
> > > > Yes, how dare they not present themselves at once to the government? Do
> > they think this is America? Oh wait. It is America. Well, never mind. Just
> > confess that you broke a statute that violates thenatural law, register (!),
> > pay your tribute, and learn English. Why must they learn English? Does not
> > knowing English violate someone's rights? (As if there weren't already some
> > incentive to learn English.)
> > > > "They must get right with the law before they can get in line and earn
> > their citizenship not just because it is fair, not just because it will make
> > clear to those who might wish to come to America they must do so inside the
> > bounds of the law, but because this is how we demonstrate … what being an
> > American means."
> > > > Wasn't there a time -- once long ago -- when "being an American" meant
> > that the government operated inside the bounds of the natural law? (At least
> > that was the theory.) It's different now. The politicians arbitrarily make
> > up the "law" as they go along, and rest of us are expected to live within
> > its bounds as though its our civic duty. That's what being an American means
> > now
> > > > "Being a citizen of this country comes not only with rights but also
> > with certain fundamental responsibilities," Obama said.
> > > > And don't be so naive as to think that your fundamental
> > responsibilities are confined to respecting other people's rights and taking
> > care of your family. The government has a long list of other things you'll
> > have to do.
> > > > The politicians can give you lots reasons to"secure the border."But
> > they're rationalizations, and each one might one day be used to justify
> > issuing internal passports and securing the state borders. Even if it never
> > came to that, contemplate how powerful government would have to be to
> > prevent unauthorized movement across the 2,000-mile Mexican border, not to
> > mention the Canadian border and the coastlines. It's not doable, but a lot
> > of power would be accumulated -- and liberty destroyed -- in trying.
> >http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/tgif/border-control-bogey/
>
> > --
> > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/<http://www.politicalforum.com/>
> > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
No comments:
Post a Comment