This is one of the best opinion pieces I have read on illegal immigration. Illegal immigration is immoral By Victor Davis Hanson Sunday, Feb. 19, 2012 | 12:00 AM Modified Fri, Feb 17, 2012 05:05 PM Read more here: http://www.fresnobee.com/2012/02/17/2726677/illegal-immigration-is-immoral.html#storylink=cpy President Barack Obama recently assured El Salvador that the United States would not deport more 200,000 Salvadorans residing illegally in the United States. As the election nears, and the president looks to court Hispanic voters, he also created a new position of "public advocate" for illegal immigrants. His duties would appear to be to advocate that millions circumvent, rather than follow, current federal law. The administration has also said it will focus enforcement only on those who have committed crimes -- with the implicit understanding that it is no longer a crime to illegally enter and reside in the United States. In contrast, Obama has caricatured those supporting completion of a fence on the border as wanting to place alligators in the Rio Grande. It is time that Americans revisit the issue and ponder very carefully the morality of entering the United States illegally. True, American employers have welcomed in illegal aliens as a source of cheap labor. Employers were happy to pass the ensuing social costs on to taxpayers. To summarily deport those who have resided here for 20 years, obeyed the law, worked hard, stayed off public assistance and are now willing to pay a fine, demonstrate English proficiency and pass a citizenship test would be impracticable, callous and counterproductive. Most, however, probably do not fit those reasonable criteria. More importantly, we forget that the influx of millions of illegal aliens unfairly undercuts the wages of the working American poor, especially in times of high unemployment. Crossing the border was also hardly a one-time "infraction." It was the beginning of serial unethical behavior, as illegal aliens on everyday forms and affidavits were not truthful about their immigration status. The legal process of immigrating to America was reduced to a free-for-all rush to the border. Million of applicants abroad wait patiently, if not naively, in line to have their education, skills and capital resources evaluated. But they are punished with delay or rejection because they alone follow immigration law. Billions of dollars in state and federal social services do not just help provide parity to illegal aliens, but also free them to send back about $50 billion in remittances to Latin America each year. That staggering sum also suggests that Mexico and other Latin American governments, as an element of national policy, quite cynically export human capital to gain U.S. dollars, rather than make the necessary economical, social and political reforms to keep their own at home. Nor is it very liberal to turn illegal immigration into an issue of identity and tribal politics. Too many advocates for open borders and amnesty argue about the politics of ethnic solidarity rather than considerations of immigration law. In other words, we do not hear much national outrage over the plight of the occasional Pole, Nigerian or Korean who overstays his tourist visa, but rather equate the circumvention of immigration law almost exclusively with social justice for Latinos. How reactionary and illiberal that debate has become, when Mexican Americans who object to the undermining of immigration law are slandered as sellouts, while non-Hispanics who do the same are smeared as racists and nativists. In fact, illegal immigration unfairly warped perceptions of undeniable Hispanic success. If one does not include millions of recently arrived poor Latin American foreign nationals in federal and state surveys, then Hispanic American citizens prove statistically to be assimilating, intermarrying, integrating, and finding economic success at rates comparable to many other immigrant groups of the past. To mean anything, laws have to be followed. When newcomers choose to ignore them, then the entire structure of jurisprudence crashes as well. If aliens are free to ignore federal immigration law, then cannot citizens likewise pick and choose which statutes they find inconvenient? Finally, illegal immigration has wrongly been couched in terms of a xenophobic and insensitive exploiter preying on a more noble and defenseless guest. In truth, the United States is the most generous host in the world, and never more so than during the present age. There are now about 40 million foreign-born people residing in the United States, both legal and illegal immigrants. That is both the greatest absolute number and percentage of the population in our nation's history. No other country in the world is more liberal in its legal immigration policies or has been more caring toward new arrivals. To suggest otherwise is dishonest and shows an ignorance of how most countries, who now export their citizens to the U.S., treat any who would do the same to them. We can argue about the history or the future of illegal immigration. But please spare us the psychodramatic appeals to a higher morality. In most regards, illegal immigration has proven as immoral as it is unlawful.
I disagree, Obama is ahead in national polls but when the electoral college comes into play I don't see him winning. He will not carry many if any of the swing states. I can see him winning the popular vote by several million, only because he will carry the urban centers by alot, and still lose the electoral college by 100.
I can only pray that you're right. Sometimes I can't help but wonder if this President is actually trying to bring about the downfall of this country.
I try very hard not to. The immigration situation troubles me, but some of the things going on now actually scare the hell out of me. Russia and China are beefing up their military, while at the same time Obama wants to cut our military. At the same time he wants to "streamline" our military, Iran is threatening to block the Strait of Hormuz. While I'm conviced that Iran's entire military force couldn't stop a single U.S. Battle Group from passing through the Strait of Hormuz, it's not Iran that we should be worried about. It's the countries that back them. Lord, we could use a President with Ronald Reagan's take on what America's military should be right about now.
This sorry excuse for an american: 1. wanted to apologize to the Japanese people for dropping 2 atomic bombs on them; 2. Wanted to apologize to the Korean people for so many Koreans dying in the Korean War; and wants to negotiate with the Taliban. I looked up "what has a big mouth and no spine" on the Inet and the answer was "slug", how befitting.
1. http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201110140004 and if you listen to Fox news than you have other issues to deal with. 2. Can't find any proof of that. 3. He wants to negotiate an end to the war that's lead by the new Afghanistan Constitution.. “They must be led by the Afghan government, and those who want to be part of a peaceful Afghanistan must break from al Qaeda, abandon violence, and abide by the Afghan constitution.” "No spine".. so by that thinking Ike had "no spine" when he did basically the same thing to end the Korean War? I get it.. most of us dislike the current president. But dudes.. back it up with strong evidence not propaganda and hearsay. Like Obamacare for instance.. you've actually got something there.
Duke - #1 http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politic...-of-obama-visiting-apologizing-for-hiroshima/ had nothing to do with Fox; #2 was on the Korean Broadcasting System (English news)(Dish network channel 9394). The president of Korea Yi Myong-Baek's reply to Obama was not to say anything to prevent rioting among the young Koreans that have no idea about the war; and #3 the Taliban are terrorists and its US policy not to negotiate with terrorists. For Obama to be willing to negotiate with them, is a propoganda coup for them. Remember, those who fail to learn from history are damned to repeat it. We assisted those who made the Taliban and Al-Queda, when they were fighting the soviets as the Mujahadeem. They then turned on us. They used slogans like "The soviets couldn't beat us and neither will the infidel Americans." Truman was one of the instruments of dividing Korea into the north and south at the end of WWII (from the Potsdam Accord with Churchill, Truman and Stalin). MacArthur ignored Eisenhowers orders not to enter China and drew the Chinese into the war. The USSR, also fought in the war by providing pilots in exchange for American POW's to be interrogated in Russia. With China overtly involved and the USSR covertly involved, Eisenhower saw no clear way to end the war. When he sent indirect messages to China that the USA was willing to expand the war to China and use nuclear weapons, China agreed to sit down to negotiate peace. The war has never ended in Korea, it has been a cease fire that has been violated many times over the years. No propoganda, no hearsay.
I don't think you're getting it IV.. the "apology" story was a fabrication of the truth as in it never happened and never was going to - it's a propaganda piece. The Korean thing is another fabrication of the truth.. misquoted and taken out of context - more propaganda. The Taliban thing.. he's looking to end the war period. In Korea we negotiated with commies and that wasn't popular either.. but it had to be done. Period. The war must end as we have no more money to give to it. After the American revolution we negotiated and backed England over France.. ever after we just beat them in a war.. turning our backs on France who helped us.. that wasn't popular either but it had to be done. And these kids turned on us because we failed to educate them after nearly like 90% of the adults had died during the Russian war.. I'm not excusing them.. I'm just throwing out the facts. Look.. I'm a Republican.. but I'm not bias towards a party and I despise the use of wrongfully delivered facts to stir emotion and brain-wash people into believing a certain way.. that's media propaganda.. and it should be dispelled from argument the moment it is brought into one. My point is.. it belittles us all when this kind of hearsay is involved in choosing a president or a candidate. We should be better than this.. using facts from actual political agendas that affect our lives.. like healthcare.. immigration policies.. the economy.. things that truly affect us as Americans. The kind of drivel like the president seeking the black vote.. or misquoted media garbage over a false apology.. or who a candidate slept with has no place in reasoning why or why not to elect someone. And it seems.. my Republican brethren want only to discuss topics like the one above.. and not the real issues.
Yes facts are good, here is one. Who has deported more Immigrants at this point in Bush first term and Obama? That would be Obama.
The fact is, no one can get elected talking about the real issues. Can you say Ron Paul? He keeps trying to talk directly about issues and the others keep throwing mud on one another's records. I don't agree with some of Paul's positions but he does try to avoid the mud wrestling and tries to deal with the things that matter. His reward? He largely gets ignored by the debate facilitators.
Our military is bigger than every other military in the world COMBINED. Even with whatever cuts are made. The Commander in Chief of whatever political persuasion would not alter that situation. It is not in his interest to do so. Keep calm.
Although still viewed as the most powerful country in the world, I'm pretty sure the US isn't even in the top 5 when it comes to military size.
