We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Tuesday, June 10. 2014
We have posted in the past about the travails of legal immigrants to the US. It's not easy, especially if you are educated and from Europe. Would amnesty apply to Brit, Canadian, and South African MDs? PhDs from India and China? Budding jihadists from the middle east?
In my view, you don't go to a party without an invitation. What is going on, an unarmed invasion? Drudge has this today:
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
My immigration issue is with government dole. If any of these people are migrating into the country for of receiving free money under all the multifarious forms of welfare, that has to stop. Lets see if that has an impact on the border problem.
Only legal citizens should be allowed to receive any government transfer payments.
legal permanent residents? battered (alien) ex-spouses? refugees and asylees? minors? would you turn back the St. Louis?
Minor children should not be housed in the U.S. They should be immediately sent back to their home country and to their parents and family. We have no obligation to care for minor children of another country. This is ridiculous!
Deport, deport, deport. A minor child cannot 'immigrate' on his own. We do not support parent-less children from other countries.
I am wondering when the residents of AZ, TX, etc. will get angry enough to create a full-blown federal showdown. This is madness. I hope those that believe everyone should have an opportunity to flood into the U.S. can see what a fiasco that would be...millions and millions would rush the borders. Honestly, everyone in the world would want to be an American, if they could choose. But the reality is, that is a fantasy.
you'll be pleased to learn that US citizens leave when their parents are removed.
anyway, I'm thinking you'd turn back the St Louis. fair guess?
The guesstimate is that 250,000 people are going to show up at the border in the next year. We cannot handle that amount of influx of poor people from other countries. We are a wealthy country, but we would quickly end up being the poorest, if we took everyone else's poor.
You can feel sorry for the conditions in other countries, but the world sucks. There is no 'fair' in the world. Life is what it is. The best you can do is make other governments improve conditions for their own people so that they don't want to leave. Trade agreements, education, etc. that hinge on actual improvements to their economic situation and how they treat their own people.
America is not forced to take in every person who wants to be here. That would create chaos. Crime. Deteriorating conditions. We already have enough poor of our own. We don't need more.
Frigate's referencing the ship carrying Jews from Germany in '39; see:
so you would turn away the St Louis.
deporting everyone would also against US law -- at the constitutional level -- but that's apparently unimportant, because you know, they're not like Us.
...deporting everyone would also against US law -- at the constitutional level....
Admitting constitutional ignorance I ask you to show me where it says we should admit this influx of non-citizen illegal alien immigrants.
are you intentionally misrepresenting my statements? I said US law prohibits deporting everyone. the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees which is part of the Immigration and Naturalization Act by the Refugee Act, but has the force of law similar to the constitution, gives refugees and asylees (as defined by law) certain rights, including a bar against deportation (or forcible return, or refoulement). similar: Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act for certain individuals from Guatemala, El Salvador, and the former Soviet bloc countries.
so, any of the people mobbing the borders now qualify as refugees or asylees, you can't "deport, deport, deport".
that means you can't "deport, deport deport" everyone.
you'd turn back the St Louis? its a very unpopular question here.
Frigate, what's going on now, with the complicity of our government, has nothing whatsoever to do with the St Louis. Nice try at obfuscating the real issue.
It's an invasion, plain and simple, and no two ways about it. It will not lead to better lives for American citizens or those who want to contribute to our country. it will lead to chaos, which is what our elites want. It has already lead to death and destruction on our roads - and elsewhere.
Yet, lefties like you just cannot resist comparisons of apples and lawnmowers.
No, post 1 (rejecting all but citizens), 2 (deport 3x, chilrun and various others) and 2.1.1 (the poor, and people living in sucky conditions) were inclusive above rejecting wide classes of people who we can't legally or morally turn away or remove in every instance.
oh, but ... you want to pick and choose the Right Kind of alien. be careful about the St Louis, you know who They were.
now, as to the usual personal attacks, I am no "lefty", and my GOP/conservative credentials I'd match against anyone's on this forum. And, of course, I despise foreigners as much as the next American (my gardener excepted). In fact, I'm in favor of the INA and 8 CFR as they're written.
BUT, the "take no prisoners" approach isn't legal and it isn't moral and blathering it is why we conservatives are typically outmaneuvered in the court of public opinion. Bambi is screwing with us and you and others here are playing into his dirty hands.
As to whats going on, it reminds me of the Birmingham civil rights demonstrations/riots when they put the kids and women on the front row to be attacked by fire hoses, police dogs, and recorded by TV news crews.
Unsurprised the usual suspects haven't been working hard to convince a Border Patrol officer's glare is proof of whatever point du jour is, they have still have Bergdahl/Student Loans/YesAllWomen in their keyboard macros.
And in the interim, looks like Cantor may lose his seat over immigration, some grumbling about the Southeast over set asides etc are being given Hispanics, coal state voters are looking hard at their Democratic Party incumbents, and years of Big Blue governance are presenting past due bills.
suggest you be more careful in your historical analogies, because what happened in Birmingham illustrates the point that overreaction will backfire.
1. Bull Connor used fire hoses and dogs on the second day of the marching protest. The first day the kids marched there were only arrests.
2. doesn't it seem to you that the real evil here was that police dogs and fire hoses were used at all?
Cantor is an idiot for letting this happen.
which was my point, over reaction (AKA police riot) only serves those who wave bloody shirts. Which may explain the blood less retreat in the Bundy stand off or three month stand off with the Browns in 2007.
Hmm, thought real evil in Birmingham was segregation.
let's multi-task and say there were two closely related, but different evils in Birmingham: segregation and Connor's willingness to use violence against protesters.
Yes send them back, send them all back. No asylum, no right kind or wrong kind of illegal, no children, no parents and grand parents no exceptions. Deport within 24 hours or prison. If it takes more border patrol agents the rumor is there are a lot of people out of work who would love to have a job. Deport all of them and then begin the hunt for the illegals who are hiding. It doesn't matter if they have been here for hours or decades find and deport until they are all gone. Lock down the border. No one goes either direction without a passport and positive ID. Every truck car and donkey cart gets completely searched. THAT is border control, what we have now is "out of" control.
I don't like foreigners either, but, for what its worth, I'm still in favor of constitutional rule.
you should look it up, you might like the idea.
Well there we differ because I like foriegners. But my allegiance is to this country and to it's citizens. That is what I expect from our elected politicians and our high level bureaucrats. You have to wonder about the allegiance of a congressman, AG or president who put's the well being of illegal aliens ahead of the well being of citizens. In my opinion that attitude should make them ineligible for office/service. The simple truth is we don't need immigrants we are already a very large country probably thrid largest population in the world. And with our welfare style of government immigration only serves to dilute the quality of life, assets and interests of the citizens. Illegal aleins cost the federal government about $330 billion a year and they commit about 3000 murders a year, a substantial amount of the child abuse, rapes and robberies as well. WHY? So some congressman can get reelected!?
Having lived in many countries in my life and having brought my son to Europe as a child and my daughter having been born there I can tell you it never occurred to me that it was a hardship to bring them back to their own country. It isn't a hardship to send illegal aliens home either.
Ironic that you bring up constitutional rule. It is the fact that we are not following the constitution that has created this problem. Our laws should be vigorously enforced not ignored. The constitution is not a mutual suicide pact.
I get it, we both like foreigners as long as they're in foreign places.
I'd rather have all of the immigration laws strictly enforced, and while that means excluding most, in fact, the majority, of the illegals, it means that some cannot be turned away, legally or morally.
and while we're on the moral side of the coin, would you turn away the St. Louis? I'm not asking for what was "legal" just what you'd do, and why.
I would turn away the pope himself if his entry into the country was illegal. What you are really asking is can I stick the camels nose under the tent.
Re: "it means that some cannot be turned away, legally or morally."
Sure they can. We should accept no asylum seekers or displaced people or anyone at all. We have 315 million citizens, we are so deep in debt thanks to welfare that we can never repay it and it will cause great economic sufferring in the near future and we are sufferring now under a president and congress that looks more like a communist dictatorship then it does a constitutional republic. We cannot afford any more hungry mouths, hangers on or economic asylum seekers. It's time we put our country and our people first and stopped trying to give away the citizens assets and rights to people who are not citizens. Make it a felony to be in this country illegally and make it a priority to find and deport all illegals. Make it well known that anyone entering or already in this country will be deported and can never come back for any reason and can never be considered for citizenship, ever. Fine anyone who employees an illegal $1000 a day for each illegal. Fine anyone who aids and abets an illegal alien. Make no exceptions.
Ah, the bloody strawman is waived. Repeatedly.
And yes, given what was known at the time, I would turn away the MV St. Louis, until immigration procedures could be followed.
I'd rather see immigration law changed first, then enforced - the "anchor baby" concept needs tossed back into the dustbin of the 60s.
Here's the key - either control ones' borders, or do not. It's really that simple.
beside the point, I was asking a personal preference. in any event, the ship couldn't make landfall in Florida and returned to Europe.
I'm sure anti-antisemitism had nothing at all whatsoever in the least with why the ship didn't land in Florida or the decision to have the USCG shadow the St. Louis
Given these conversations it becomes quite apparent that there were no orders to interdict the ship and the US Coast Guard units were dispatched out of concern for those on board, not as is supposed by Morse, Schroeder, and Herlin, to interdict the refugees and prevent them from landing.(emphasis added)
no debate at all, the matter is settled. by the government itself. and you trust the word of the government, right?
they were there to make sure all ship had right right number of lifeboats, no doubt about it, nosiree, no Jew hating here.
I just wanted an answer, thanks for providing one.
I don't know why you think the St Louis example is a strawman, its a perfect illustration of refugees who would be legally admissible today and some workarounds were possible even back then. Maybe you're right and its not a big deal, only about half of the returnees were murdered. But I understand the insistence that the laws must be obeyed -- the convenient ones anyway.
Frigate's on a mission to twist, deflect, and obfuscate. As 250,000 invaders stampede over his front lawn . . . excuse me . . . over someone else's front lawn, he'll be yelling, "Thank goodness this is legal!!"
But he doesn't like foreigners. That's important to point out when listing one's creds as a "conservative." Also, he thinks the current situation should be linked to the Holocaust. For clarity.
let's not make this personal, uh, "bunny".. mister wabbit.
Considering that it (at least when I last checked) isn't Spring 1939, and you wish to conflate that with "today", then yes, it's a strawman by definition.