Post by: The Rabbi on December 19, 2007, 05:05:39 PM
Immigration is a loser of an issue in this election. Outside of right wing chat boards and talk radio I really don't see much support for the "ship 'em home" crowd.
Maybe one candidate will actually start talking some sense on this issue. You listening, Fred?
Post by: Paddy on December 19, 2007, 05:21:39 PM
Post by: The Rabbi on December 19, 2007, 05:26:24 PM
It really doesn't make any difference what the Republican candidates do, or even who is nominated. The next election is going to the Democrat. I won't be voting Republican again this year, and neither will millions like me.
Of course millions didnt vote Republican in the last election either.
It is still way too early to tell what will happen. At this time last cycle Howard Dean looked unstoppable.
Post by: mtnbkr on December 19, 2007, 05:29:28 PM
Immigration is a loser of an issue in this election. Outside of right wing chat boards and talk radio I really don't see much support for the "ship 'em home" crowd.
The Prince William County government is a chat board or talk radio?
http://www.pwcgov.org/default.aspx?topic=030010000790004322
http://www.nbc4.com/politics/13656072/detail.html
Chris
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on December 19, 2007, 06:05:28 PM
Post by: mtnbkr on December 19, 2007, 06:15:44 PM
Chris
Post by: longeyes on December 19, 2007, 10:07:28 PM
Tancredo had the right ideas but not the right presence.
Post by: The Rabbi on December 20, 2007, 02:00:53 AM
Post by: Perd Hapley on December 20, 2007, 02:08:53 AM
Immigration is a loser of an issue in this election. Outside of right wing chat boards and talk radio I really don't see much support for the "ship 'em home" crowd.
And we all know that talk radio has a paltry audience of a few thousand people that don't even vote. Wait...
Post by: Waitone on December 20, 2007, 02:25:49 AM
I got an idea. Make a sticky "2008 Election Predictions". Then in 2009 we can accurately see whose crystal ball is the cleanest.
Post by: The Rabbi on December 20, 2007, 03:08:05 AM
Immigration is a loser of an issue in this election. Outside of right wing chat boards and talk radio I really don't see much support for the "ship 'em home" crowd.
And we all know that talk radio has a paltry audience of a few thousand people that don't even vote. Wait...
If talk radio were the big influence then Tancredo would be vying for first place, not a has-been also-ran.
Post by: Perd Hapley on December 20, 2007, 12:51:48 PM
In any case, the idea that the border-enforcement position is limited to conservatives is - well, just wrong.
Post by: roo_ster on December 20, 2007, 01:31:50 PM
Thing is, it is not the only issue.
Tancredo is partly responsible for elevating the issue's profile and for torpedoing the last few amnesty/open border *expletive deleted*ss-humpings of the American citizenry.
One bit of fallout of the events was the changes the leading Rep candidates made in their stance on immigration, illegal & otherwise. Rudy, Fred, & Mitt (& Huck) were pretty squishy on illegals, but all have moved closer to Tancredo's position. Politicians pay attention when a President who HAD majorities in both houses get his ass handed to him.
Post by: The Rabbi on December 20, 2007, 02:57:03 PM
If illegal immigration were really such a hot issue then Tancredo would still be in the race. It isn't and he isn't.
The more the candidates blast off with this stuff, the more votes they'll lose.
In the general election they cannot win without the Hispanic vote, which counts heavily in places like Utah, New Mexico, etc. And they are losing that vote heavily, as polls have shown.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on December 20, 2007, 03:00:47 PM
heres some of the non impact.
and according to the cops i know nothins changed on their end. except the latinos are afraid of em. there aren't any spikes in folks they are grabbing. sadly even if they grab em and call ice ice won't come even on some serious charges that warrant action
Post by: Waitone on December 20, 2007, 03:02:05 PM
BTW, just heard speculation that he will run for Allard's seat in the senate. Any confirmation out there?
Post by: mtnbkr on December 20, 2007, 03:13:52 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/04/AR2007100402253.html
heres some of the non impact.
and according to the cops i know nothins changed on their end. except the latinos are afraid of em. there aren't any spikes in folks they are grabbing. sadly even if they grab em and call ice ice won't come even on some serious charges that warrant action
heres some of the non impact.
and according to the cops i know nothins changed on their end. except the latinos are afraid of em. there aren't any spikes in folks they are grabbing. sadly even if they grab em and call ice ice won't come even on some serious charges that warrant action
Here's some of the positive impact:
Quote
Prince William would save on school expenditures and other costs if thousands of illegal immigrants leave.
"How many are going to leave naturally because of opportunities in the housing market drying up, and how many are leaving because of our policies?" Covington said in an interview. "If there is a significant number of departures, I think we'll be a more financially stable county."
"How many are going to leave naturally because of opportunities in the housing market drying up, and how many are leaving because of our policies?" Covington said in an interview. "If there is a significant number of departures, I think we'll be a more financially stable county."
It's a shame the feds won't even take action when illegals are handed to them on a silver platter.
Chris
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on December 20, 2007, 03:48:52 PM
In Prince William, an early indicator of the impact of the anti-illegal immigrant policies is likely to be seen in the real estate sector, and the county is a gloomy place in a grim regional market. In two years, from August 2005 to August 2007, home sales fell 66 percent in Prince William, 52 percent in Loudoun County and 49 percent in Fairfax County. The number of properties on the market in Prince William more than doubled, from 2,753 to 6,515.
About 900 of the homes on the market in August were "properties in distress": bank-owned or sliding into foreclosure, said Michael T. Minnery, president of the Prince William Association of Realtors. That is a tenfold increase from 2005, he said.
Many distressed properties are in Zip codes with high concentrations of Latino residents. One county resident told supervisors at a board meeting this week that a house up for auction on her street didn't draw a single bidder, despite an opening price of $259,000. The house used to be worth $400,, she told the board.
Minnery said it is too soon to know whether Prince William's recently introduced anti-illegal immigrant measures are driving Hispanic residents away or discouraging potential buyers from moving to the county. The association does not have an official position on the policies, but Minnery said he thinks that "anything that puts limits on the housing market is bad."
"Everyone should be able to own a home in this country," he said. "Everyone has the right to home ownership, no matter if they are a U.S. citizen or not."
Post by: longeyes on December 20, 2007, 05:19:42 PM
In California the Terminatrix has decided that we need massive new taxes, in the face of an already serious budget deficit, to provide "free" health care for--let's be blunt--mostly illegal aliens and their offspring. I say this won't fly next November, when the voter has to okay the funding. Will "the courts" step in somehow?
Look, folks, this is about whether the tyranny of the elites is going to triumph. At some point the American people are going to fully get their minds around that. It will probably take the collapse of the financial system dashing the "American dream" to marshal the awakened.
Post by: The Rabbi on December 20, 2007, 06:21:57 PM
I am surprised you don't know any better than to post drivel like that.
Post by: roo_ster on December 21, 2007, 12:53:27 AM
You guys are really missing the point.
If illegal immigration were really such a hot issue then Tancredo would still be in the race. It isn't and he isn't.
The more the candidates blast off with this stuff, the more votes they'll lose.
In the general election they cannot win without the Hispanic vote, which counts heavily in places like Utah, New Mexico, etc. And they are losing that vote heavily, as polls have shown.
TR, it is you who is missing the reality trying to drive your point home.If illegal immigration were really such a hot issue then Tancredo would still be in the race. It isn't and he isn't.
The more the candidates blast off with this stuff, the more votes they'll lose.
In the general election they cannot win without the Hispanic vote, which counts heavily in places like Utah, New Mexico, etc. And they are losing that vote heavily, as polls have shown.
Illegal immigration wasn't so great an issue as to be able to carry Tancredo and his perceived one-note campaign to the nomination. But it is large enough to force all the candidates to address it substantively and for them to alter formerly squishy positions into better defined positions more in accord with Tancredo than Teddy Kennedy...or their former squishy stance.
Your insistence that a broadly popular policy position regarding border enforcement will be a loser does not pass the common sense or laugh tests.
What longeyes described is neither new no unique. The last third of the following article addresses it pretty well:
http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=ZWIzYWI4NTBjYTc3NGE1OGEwYWMyZjE1NDZjOWVmMDQ=
Quote
As the elites pull away from the rest of us, and the rest of us become more atomized and disorganized a heap of loose sand in Sun Yat-sens memorable phrase about the late-Imperial Chinese we may be headed for the kind of intractable elite-commoner hostility predicted by Michael Young in his 1958 book The Rise of the Meritocracy. I dont think it is fanciful to see an element of this in the current widespread anger towards the political class the presidents approval ratings down in the 30s, and Congresss even lower.
Some of that is anger at particular policies Iraq, the immigration bill. Much, though a rising proportion, I believe is systemic: a feeling that the elites are now running the show for their own interests, Latin-America-style, with not much regard for ours. As [one of my readers] correctly observed: The low paid politician has vanished. The surest route to wealth is politics, followed closely by government service.
Here is Paul Johnson in Modern Times:
Like FDR, he [i.e. John F. Kennedy] turned Washington into a city of hope; that is to say, a place where middle-class intellectuals flocked for employment.
What I am seeking is an anti-JFK a candidate who will transform our nations capital from a city of hope for middle-class intellectuals, into a city of despair for them. The despair of those intellectuals, I am increasingly convinced, is the hope of our nation. Looking at all but one of the Republican candidates (and, it goes without saying, all but none of the Democratic ones) I see nothing in prospect but a new draft of office-seeking intellectuals, primed and eager to bring us new expansions of federal power, new pointless wars, new million-strong reinforcements for the Reconquista, new thousand-page tax loopholes, new inducements for idleness and crime, new humiliations for the saps who follow rules and obey laws. Sadly and reluctantly at last, I include the S.O.B.* in that all but one.
* * * * *
From Kimberley Strassels piece in the Dec. 14 Opinion Journal:
Paul rallies heave with voters waving placards and shouting Liberty! Liberty!
Are those supporters crazy, as some colleagues tell me?
Perhaps they are, to be shouting for liberty in 2007, after decades of swelling federal power and arrogance, of proliferating taxes, rules, and interests, of gushing transfers of wealth to politically connected elites from working- and middle-class grunts, of the college and teacher-union scams, of the metastasizing tort-law rackets, of ever more numerous yet ever more clueless intelligence agencies, of open borders and visas for people who hate us, of widening cracks in our sense of nationhood ( Press one for English & ), of speech codes and race lobbies and judicial impositions.
Some of that is anger at particular policies Iraq, the immigration bill. Much, though a rising proportion, I believe is systemic: a feeling that the elites are now running the show for their own interests, Latin-America-style, with not much regard for ours. As [one of my readers] correctly observed: The low paid politician has vanished. The surest route to wealth is politics, followed closely by government service.
Here is Paul Johnson in Modern Times:
Like FDR, he [i.e. John F. Kennedy] turned Washington into a city of hope; that is to say, a place where middle-class intellectuals flocked for employment.
What I am seeking is an anti-JFK a candidate who will transform our nations capital from a city of hope for middle-class intellectuals, into a city of despair for them. The despair of those intellectuals, I am increasingly convinced, is the hope of our nation. Looking at all but one of the Republican candidates (and, it goes without saying, all but none of the Democratic ones) I see nothing in prospect but a new draft of office-seeking intellectuals, primed and eager to bring us new expansions of federal power, new pointless wars, new million-strong reinforcements for the Reconquista, new thousand-page tax loopholes, new inducements for idleness and crime, new humiliations for the saps who follow rules and obey laws. Sadly and reluctantly at last, I include the S.O.B.* in that all but one.
* * * * *
From Kimberley Strassels piece in the Dec. 14 Opinion Journal:
Paul rallies heave with voters waving placards and shouting Liberty! Liberty!
Are those supporters crazy, as some colleagues tell me?
Perhaps they are, to be shouting for liberty in 2007, after decades of swelling federal power and arrogance, of proliferating taxes, rules, and interests, of gushing transfers of wealth to politically connected elites from working- and middle-class grunts, of the college and teacher-union scams, of the metastasizing tort-law rackets, of ever more numerous yet ever more clueless intelligence agencies, of open borders and visas for people who hate us, of widening cracks in our sense of nationhood ( Press one for English & ), of speech codes and race lobbies and judicial impositions.
Post by: The Rabbi on December 21, 2007, 03:40:46 AM
Quote
Illegal immigration wasn't so great an issue as to be able to carry Tancredo and his perceived one-note campaign to the nomination. But it is large enough to force all the candidates to address it substantively and for them to alter formerly squishy positions into better defined positions more in accord with Tancredo than Teddy Kennedy
No, you still dont get it.
No candidate is going to be better at being Tancredo than Tancredo. No candidate was more identified with the "send em all home and mine the border" mentality than Tancredo.
That position is a political loser. If people pay attention to it at all, that isn't what they want, recognizing that identifying, detaining, and deporting 10 million people just isn't the easy road to riches it's been sold as.
If the position had resonance, then Tancredo would be a contender. He isn't. The marketplace of political ideas has rejected that product. I dont care how many talk show jocks and right wing nutjobs on chat boards talk this up. It is a loser.
Post by: Scout26 on December 21, 2007, 05:15:37 AM
I have to respectfully disagree.
Last night at my shooting club we had our candidates night. We had 16 candidates from both parties. 3 US Senate Candidates, 10 US House Candidates from 4 districts.
Each candidate was given 3 minutes to give their "Stump" speech and then 2 minutes to take questions from the membership (roughly 150 out of 1200) showed-up.
Three guess as to what the most ask question was
Nope, not the 2A issues etc. (remember this is a SHOOTING Club)
Nope, not Iraq (though the 2nd most asked topic tied with Taxes/Spending)
Yep, the most popular topic/question (and EVERY candidate was asked) was: "What are you going to do about the illegal alien problem ??"
Tancredo had several problems, one diminsional, no name recognition, virtually ignored (along with most of rest of the Republican candidates) by the main stream (all Hilliary and Obama, all the time) media.
Illegal immigration is a hot issue, but Tancredo was unable create tne necessary "buzz" to get his (only) message out.
Post by: Manedwolf on December 21, 2007, 05:17:39 AM
Bleagh. Idiot. I just lost all respect for him.
Post by: The Rabbi on December 21, 2007, 05:26:21 AM
Assuming that questions from members of a shooting club represent the opinions of even a large number of Americans is folly in the extreme. Another example of "all my friends voted for Stevenson so why isn't he President?"
Ron Paul started with no name recognition, mostly 1 dimensional, and ignored by the mass media. Come to think of it, he still is.
But whatever traction he has gotten comes from the resonance of his issues (big gov't is the problem, not the solution) with voters.
Fred Thompson should have been the candidate mouthing those sentiments on domestic policy and a muscular foreign policy. He would have been the clear front runner. Instead he's a muddle of govspeak.
Post by: longeyes on December 21, 2007, 07:38:28 AM
If you think that isn't a visceral issue, you are dead wrong. Mexicans, without enforced assimilatioin, will bring "Mexico." Period.
In their hearts most American citizens--of all races, colors, creeds--understand this. We are just in a lull where The Rest of Us are trying to figure out what exactly to about the treachery and open contempt of "them."
It is too much to deport millions? Really? Well, then let's deport the heart of America instead, because that is exactly what we are doing day by day.
Post by: The Rabbi on December 21, 2007, 08:54:03 AM
One People. One Nation. One Leader!
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on December 21, 2007, 10:40:08 AM
One People. One Nation. One Leader!"
has a familiar ring...... surprised some messiah hasn't rallied a bunch of folks behind that ditty
Post by: The Rabbi on December 21, 2007, 12:19:59 PM
"Yes!
One People. One Nation. One Leader!"
has a familiar ring...... surprised some messiah hasn't rallied a bunch of folks behind that ditty
One People. One Nation. One Leader!"
has a familiar ring...... surprised some messiah hasn't rallied a bunch of folks behind that ditty
It probably sounded better in a European language. Especially for a nation that was intent on preserving its purity in the face of outsiders.
Post by: roo_ster on December 21, 2007, 12:24:46 PM
Truly disgusting examples of the worst of APS.
Post by: longeyes on December 21, 2007, 04:08:34 PM
Quote
t probably sounded better in a European language. Especially for a nation that was intent on preserving its purity in the face of outsiders.
No one mentioned racial purity--although that's rather important down in Mejico--the issue is values. Of course subversion of the law and subversion of the will of the American citizen and taxpayer clearly doesn't matter to the morally self-righteous amongst us.
Veiled accusations of Nazism do not an argument make.
I will say this: if anything will produce an "American Hitler"--and it will be a tragic day if that ever happens--it will be the defiance of the law and agenda-driven unction that will create it.
Post by: grampster on December 21, 2007, 05:15:48 PM
If illegal immigration is such a non issue, how do you explain the fact President Bush and the leftists in the congress did not get their "comprehensive" immigration reform bill passed?
It didn't pass because millions of Americans thought that comprehensive bill sucked. It was full of bull crap, double talk and disrespect for our laws and our people. And they got off their usually lazy arses and called and wrote and called and wrote etc etc etc and scared the crap out of those $400.00 haircut, shiny pant suited sociopaths we call congress critters.
Most of Americans want our borders secured, not closed, secured! As long as those who wish to come here let us know who they are and that they wish to make America a better place through assimilation then they will be welcomed. Assimilation does not mean that they have to forget where they came from, never ever speak the mother tongue again or quit eating some of their favorite foods. What it means is that they become Americans and add something to our culture so that we as a people become stronger and more united, not diverse. Diversity is a fools errand for it means we are divided not united. We are the United States of America, not the Divided States of America.
Post by: The Rabbi on January 02, 2008, 10:51:21 PM
Your analysis does not pass the reality test. That is not what happened. There was no mass outcry.
What there were and are are many different agendas, all of them conflicting. Against the backdrop of a lame duck politically weakened president, a bold (comparatively speaking)idea like that had no chance whatsoever.
The bill provided for secure borders. So on your view people either were lobbying against what they said they wanted or they didnt understand the bill.
The WSJ had an interesting piece this week. They pointed out that the alleged problems from illegals are not borne out in the data. Crime is lower in cities with large illegal populations than it had been 10 years earlier, when presumably there were fewer illegals.
Post by: Paddy on January 03, 2008, 05:35:50 AM
Quote
Crime is lower in cities with large illegal populations than it had been 10 years earlier, when presumably there were fewer illegals.
I'm surprised, Rabbi. You know better than to try to foist of this kind of logical fallacy here.
Now, the question for the class, is Rabbi's statement
a) non sequitir
b) post hoc ergo propter hoc
c) modus tollendo tollens
Post by: The Rabbi on January 03, 2008, 05:55:32 AM
Quote
Crime is lower in cities with large illegal populations than it had been 10 years earlier, when presumably there were fewer illegals.
I'm surprised, Rabbi. You know better than to try to foist of this kind of logical fallacy here.
Now, the question for the class, is Rabbi's statement
a) non sequitir
b) post hoc ergo propter hoc
c) modus tollendo tollens
There is no logical fallacy, other than that it doesnt accord with what "everyone knows."
There are two facts juxtaposed: there are many more illegal aliens than there were 10 years ago. Does anyone want to dispute that?
There is less crime, both violent and property, in those places where there are the largest concentrations of illegals. Anyone have evidence to the contrary?
This is not a non-sequitur (note spelling) nor a post hoc. I am not positing that one thing caused another.
But it does suggest that scenarios of massive crime waves caused by hordes of marauding illegals are more the figment of fevered bigoted imagination than anything rooted in reality.
Post by: Tuco on January 03, 2008, 12:20:58 PM
They pointed out that the alleged problems from illegals are not borne out in the data. Crime is lower in cities with large illegal populations than it had been 10 years earlier, when presumably there were fewer illegals.
It would seem to me that being an illegal is a crime. Why was this crime not included in the Journal's analysis?
That is the crux of the immigration issue. People without regard to the laws of a nation ought not be given amnesty's free ticket.
Post by: longeyes on January 03, 2008, 12:32:37 PM
Quote
There is less crime, both violent and property, in those places where there are the largest concentrations of illegals. Anyone have evidence to the contrary?
Rabbi, where do you live?
For the record, I live in Los Angeles, not in the suburbs, in the core of the city.
Post by: Paddy on January 03, 2008, 01:10:30 PM
Quote
But it does suggest that scenarios of massive crime waves caused by hordes of marauding illegals are more the figment of fevered bigoted imagination than anything rooted in reality.
As usual on this particular subject, you're just wrong, again. Illegal border jumpers fill our prisons, occupy the evening news every freaking night with their criminal activity, push our hospitals out of business. and are a general nuisance. We can't afford them in these huge numbers. Employers who hire them need to be severely sanctioned, with heavy fines and criminal penalties.
Oh, and yes. We're One Nation, Under God, and Indivisible. Not some polyglot boardinghouse for freeloaders.
You may now return to your Godwin diatribe.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on January 03, 2008, 01:14:47 PM
Post by: The Rabbi on January 03, 2008, 01:32:26 PM
They pointed out that the alleged problems from illegals are not borne out in the data. Crime is lower in cities with large illegal populations than it had been 10 years earlier, when presumably there were fewer illegals.
It would seem to me that being an illegal is a crime. Why was this crime not included in the Journal's analysis?
That is the crux of the immigration issue. People without regard to the laws of a nation ought not be given amnesty's free ticket.
Is being here illegally a violent crime or a property crime? Those were the only two counted.
btw, the last time you drove on the highway, did you exceed the speed limit for any portion of your trip? If you did, you're a criminal. If you bought something over the internet but didnt declare state sales tax, you're a criminal.
Go turn yourself in. What part of illegal do you not understand?
Post by: The Rabbi on January 03, 2008, 01:56:27 PM
Quote
There is less crime, both violent and property, in those places where there are the largest concentrations of illegals. Anyone have evidence to the contrary?
Rabbi, where do you live?
For the record, I live in Los Angeles, not in the suburbs, in the core of the city.
But your city is safer today than it used to be. In 2003 you had 13.4 murders per 100k. In 2006 that number had dropped to 12.4.
In 2003 you had 795 aggravated assaults per 100k, while in 2006 you had only 377.
In 2003 you had 2009 larceny thefts while in 2006 you had 1539.2 per 100k of population.
So, has the illegal population in LA declined from 2003 to 2006? No, it has gotten bigger. Yet crime has decreased. QED.
Post by: Paddy on January 03, 2008, 02:01:22 PM
Post by: Tuco on January 03, 2008, 02:08:12 PM
They pointed out that the alleged problems from illegals are not borne out in the data. Crime is lower in cities with large illegal populations than it had been 10 years earlier, when presumably there were fewer illegals.
It would seem to me that being an illegal is a crime. Why was this crime not included in the Journal's analysis?
That is the crux of the immigration issue. People without regard to the laws of a nation ought not be given amnesty's free ticket.
Is being here illegally a violent crime or a property crime? Those were the only two counted.
btw, the last time you drove on the highway, did you exceed the speed limit for any portion of your trip? If you did, you're a criminal. If you bought something over the internet but didnt declare state sales tax, you're a criminal.
Go turn yourself in. What part of illegal do you not understand?
Answers -
No, I was enjoying a fat stogie and tried to prolong the trip.
I have declared interstate purchases on my tax return since there was a line item provided for such. Subpoena my tax records if you must.
Don't try to pull me into your justification of decriminalizing illegal immigration.
I AM holier than thou.
Post by: The Rabbi on January 03, 2008, 02:36:16 PM
The Rabbi Solution to Crime=Increase Illegal Immigration.
It would solve a lot of problems. If you take illegals and take the comparable US-born socio-economic group, the illegals are generally healthier, use fewer public services, work harder, pay taxes, and commit fewer crimes.Deport Detroit to Mexico and open it up as a "free area" and the area will revitalize.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on January 03, 2008, 02:38:08 PM
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on January 03, 2008, 02:39:47 PM
Post by: Tuco on January 03, 2008, 05:50:20 PM
.....if you take illegals and take the comparable US-born socio-economic group, the illegals are generally healthier, use fewer public services, work harder, pay taxes, and commit fewer crimes...
That's a generalization I can agree with, based on personal experiences with both illegal immigrants and residents of Detroit.
I'll consider this angle of the argument but will stop short of being race baited into justifing the deportation of non-producing residents.
Post by: longeyes on January 03, 2008, 06:15:24 PM
Anyone who thinks "crime is down" in L.A. has been overdosing on lotus.
Post by: The Rabbi on January 03, 2008, 06:17:11 PM
I believe the "official" government crime records the way I believe the government's CPI numbers. The fix is in.
Anyone who thinks "crime is down" in L.A. has been overdosing on lotus.
Yes, when the facts are against you, shout conspiracy.Anyone who thinks "crime is down" in L.A. has been overdosing on lotus.
Thanks for playing. You have no credibility on this issue.
Post by: longeyes on January 03, 2008, 08:15:36 PM
No, it's not a conspiracy, Rabbi, it's corruption.
Post by: The Rabbi on January 04, 2008, 02:52:08 AM
Break out the tin foil. Looks like cloudy weather with a chance of helicopters.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on January 04, 2008, 03:02:48 AM
Post by: Jamisjockey on January 04, 2008, 03:36:43 AM
No, it's a loser of an issue. It is to conservatives what gun control is to liberals. And the sooner the rest of the candidates get the idea that shipping em all back home isn't going to get them elected the better.
Maybe for you its a loser. I think turning a blind eye to the widescale breaking of US immigration law is a loser.
Shipping 'em home is only part of the solution. Leaving the middle east alone and actually taking a stake in the prosperity of our own side of the globe, ending the cuban embargo, and a ground up reform of immigration policies and procedures is the only way to fix it.
Giving 12 million illegals amnesty isn't going to work. Why? Because then 12 million more will be hot on thier heels.
It has nothing to do with race. Its economics and crime.
How does an illegal alien become a "legal" worker?
Identity theft. Our own government tells us its a huge problem. Well, lets start with the largest group of identity thieves.
The illegals that are paid under the table send thier income back to thier country of origin. They also don't pay the same taxes as the rest of us.
Post by: LAK on January 04, 2008, 03:54:42 AM
--------------------------------------
http://searchronpaul.com
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org
Post by: The Rabbi on January 04, 2008, 05:03:43 AM
No, it's a loser of an issue. It is to conservatives what gun control is to liberals. And the sooner the rest of the candidates get the idea that shipping em all back home isn't going to get them elected the better.
Maybe for you its a loser. I think turning a blind eye to the widescale breaking of US immigration law is a loser.
Shipping 'em home is only part of the solution. Leaving the middle east alone and actually taking a stake in the prosperity of our own side of the globe, ending the cuban embargo, and a ground up reform of immigration policies and procedures is the only way to fix it.
Giving 12 million illegals amnesty isn't going to work. Why? Because then 12 million more will be hot on thier heels.
It has nothing to do with race. Its economics and crime.
How does an illegal alien become a "legal" worker?
Identity theft. Our own government tells us its a huge problem. Well, lets start with the largest group of identity thieves.
The illegals that are paid under the table send thier income back to thier country of origin. They also don't pay the same taxes as the rest of us.
You lost me when you advocated "shipping them home." You also lost any semblance to a reasonable policy.
Ship em home, mine the border might play in Pigsknuckle IA but it won't attract any votes. And it sure isnt a policy that will generate success at the polls.
Post by: Paddy on January 04, 2008, 06:00:45 AM
Post by: The Rabbi on January 04, 2008, 09:09:44 AM
So, Rabbi, I assume you support parity, treatment equal to U.S. citizens for all these border jumpers? IOW, these indigents are entitled to free medical care, welfare, foodstamps, education, bilingual services (which aren't necessary for most U.S. citizens, but that's another argument), etc., no matter what it costs?
I dont support those things for anyone, I dont care where they came from.
But nice try.
Post by: longeyes on January 04, 2008, 09:19:08 AM
Call it "conspiracy" if you want, call it George Bush's Mexicanic Complex, call it corrosive countrywide corruption in government circles, I don't care. What is, is (thank you, Bill Clinton). We have pols who have sold out the rule of law and their American neighbors. We have businesspeople doing the same thing.
The good news is that the real perps in this process are a decidely finite number--in the thousands--and if we want, when we have to, we can deal with them to save this nation. That day will come. Ajea jacta est, my friend.
We are not just going to absorb tens and tens of millions of people who care little or nothing for the values that produced America without, eventually, all hell breaking loose. What kind of hell that is is up to us and whether we are going to do the right thing or have things do us.
Rock on, padre.
Post by: mtnbkr on January 04, 2008, 09:21:02 AM
in mannasas georgtown south was a noted open air drug market for decades... till the latinos moved in
Sorry, it ceased to be an open air drug market when the police created several satellite stations in GTS and began patrolling the area frequently, doing community outreach, etc. I live in the neighborhood next to GTS. I can see GTS from my front porch and my deck. I drive through GTS to get to downtown Manassas (it's shorter than going around). It and its issues are neither remote nor abstract to me.
We had a recent crimewave in our neighboorhood consisting of Hispanics breaking into homes during the day. It was serious enough for the police to perform a mass phonecall campaign. The message left on my phone specifically mentioned Hispanics as the suspects.
Chris
Post by: longeyes on January 04, 2008, 09:26:49 AM
Quote
The idea that "government at all levels" will not enforce the laws they are sworn to uphold (to the point of falsifying evidence) is a conspiracy theory.
Break out the tin foil. Looks like cloudy weather with a chance of helicopters.
Break out the tin foil. Looks like cloudy weather with a chance of helicopters.
The issue isn't what word you use to describe, the issue is whether I am correct. And I am. It is happening from the White House on down. Massive arrogance on the part of elected officials and unelected bureaucrats. They are defying our will. THAT is the underlying problem, and a better word than conspiracy is tyranny.
Post by: The Rabbi on January 04, 2008, 10:43:18 AM
Quote
The idea that "government at all levels" will not enforce the laws they are sworn to uphold (to the point of falsifying evidence) is a conspiracy theory.
Break out the tin foil. Looks like cloudy weather with a chance of helicopters.
Break out the tin foil. Looks like cloudy weather with a chance of helicopters.
The issue isn't what word you use to describe, the issue is whether I am correct. And I am. It is happening from the White House on down. Massive arrogance on the part of elected officials and unelected bureaucrats. They are defying our will. THAT is the underlying problem, and a better word than conspiracy is tyranny.
Post by: CAnnoneer on January 04, 2008, 12:30:40 PM
Thankfully, the public is not so stupid. If Tancredo were just a looney that nobody pays attention to, the other candidates would not have made large changes in their stance to at least appear tougher on the issue. Even Hillary missed a beat with the driver's licenses. The candidates saw how amnesty bill after amnesty bill got defeated in 2007, to a great extent due to the efforts of common folk organized by grass-roots movements, such as NumbersUSA, one in which I did my part, btw. Ah, but it is a killer issue with SOME hispanic voters. Would you rather lose a few percent of "open borders" loonies or 80% of the voters demanding enforcement and the rule of law?
Clearly, the Rabbi in his midwestern bunker in the boonies has not yet got the cocoanut mail.
LOL
Post by: Paddy on January 04, 2008, 12:40:42 PM
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on January 04, 2008, 02:09:41 PM
Post by: longeyes on January 04, 2008, 04:50:13 PM
As for the rabbinical exchanges, I'll stand by my assertion that what we have goes beyond "conspiracy" to outright tyranny, an arrant disregard for the rule of law and the will of American citizens by those entrusted with political power. The hat dance starts in the White House.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on January 04, 2008, 05:01:45 PM
the neighbor hood in question was a notorious open air drug market its not today. chris and i disagree as to the causes. he lives on the border of the area i used to be a customer had a few friends that lived there.
Post by: roo_ster on January 04, 2008, 07:26:54 PM
On the other hand, every Republican candidate has significantly modified their position on illegal immigration to be more in line with Tancredo's. To include McCain.
Perhaps they know something that The Rabbi does not.
Post by: longeyes on January 05, 2008, 07:13:23 AM
Quote
reallity can be a painful thing when it attacks an ideology
the neighbor hood in question was a notorious open air drug market its not today. chris and i disagree as to the causes. he lives on the border of the area i used to be a customer had a few friends that lived there.
the neighbor hood in question was a notorious open air drug market its not today. chris and i disagree as to the causes. he lives on the border of the area i used to be a customer had a few friends that lived there.
Which "ideology" is that? The one that says that MS-13 doesn't represent "family values" any more than the high percentage of babies born out of wedlock in the same community?
Post by: The Rabbi on January 05, 2008, 02:48:23 PM
On the one hand we have The Rabbi saying that cracking down on illegal immigration is a loser.
On the other hand, every Republican candidate has significantly modified their position on illegal immigration to be more in line with Tancredo's. To include McCain.
Perhaps they know something that The Rabbi does not.
On the other hand, every Republican candidate has significantly modified their position on illegal immigration to be more in line with Tancredo's. To include McCain.
Perhaps they know something that The Rabbi does not.
Or perhaps they are responding to the Know-Nothing wing of the party that is demanding "action" in return for votes. That never happens, right?
In the meantime if immigration were a winning issue Tancredo would be a front runner instead of the has-been he was even before Iowa.
How many Dems have addressed immigration? How often do you hear them talk about it? Seldom, because people outside of talk radio dont much care and no one has an effective solution that is politically feasible.
The GOP cannot win this election without winning border states like AZ. Since legal immigrants in those states make up a large number of voters, anti-illegal rhetoric is perceived (rightly so in many cases) as anti-Hispanic. And those people will either sit home or vote Democrat.
Post by: The Rabbi on January 05, 2008, 02:51:02 PM
This thread is the typical Rabbi: any nationalism = Nazi, any cultural identity = racism, any law enforcement = Auschwitz, any opponent = antisemite.
Thankfully, the public is not so stupid. If Tancredo were just a looney that nobody pays attention to, the other candidates would not have made large changes in their stance to at least appear tougher on the issue. Even Hillary missed a beat with the driver's licenses. The candidates saw how amnesty bill after amnesty bill got defeated in 2007, to a great extent due to the efforts of common folk organized by grass-roots movements, such as NumbersUSA, one in which I did my part, btw. Ah, but it is a killer issue with SOME hispanic voters. Would you rather lose a few percent of "open borders" loonies or 80% of the voters demanding enforcement and the rule of law?
Clearly, the Rabbi in his midwestern bunker in the boonies has not yet got the cocoanut mail. LOL
I would challenge you to point out any place that substantiates these outrageous claims.
Thankfully, the public is not so stupid. If Tancredo were just a looney that nobody pays attention to, the other candidates would not have made large changes in their stance to at least appear tougher on the issue. Even Hillary missed a beat with the driver's licenses. The candidates saw how amnesty bill after amnesty bill got defeated in 2007, to a great extent due to the efforts of common folk organized by grass-roots movements, such as NumbersUSA, one in which I did my part, btw. Ah, but it is a killer issue with SOME hispanic voters. Would you rather lose a few percent of "open borders" loonies or 80% of the voters demanding enforcement and the rule of law?
Clearly, the Rabbi in his midwestern bunker in the boonies has not yet got the cocoanut mail.
LOLPost by: CAnnoneer on January 05, 2008, 04:06:01 PM
Post by: The Rabbi on January 05, 2008, 04:15:13 PM
Rabbi, learn to look at yourself through somebody else's eyes. You have hot buttons that always get pressed, over and over again and in different threads. You need to look inside yourself and ask yourself how many national interests you are willing to undermine to cater to your fear of the "goy".
It's posts like this and posters like you that make me question why I ever decided to come back to this board.
Post by: Gewehr98 on January 05, 2008, 04:21:59 PM
NEXT!