If you decide to still buy a cable descrambler off the market, be careful what you are buying….

I will be back soon for more info!…

When young people and blacks start voting their economic interests maybe I will. Until then I will enjoy the cheap lawn care, restaurant food, and car washing.

All subsidized by the taxpayers and those with medical insurance who must foot the bill for illegal immigrants’ children’s education, their health care, and their social and economic cost as criminals in our society. A cost which continues generation after generation.

Two articles to read:
http://www.amconmag.com/2006/2006_05_08/cover.html
http://www.vdare.com/awall/mexicans.htm

One positive is that hispanic voters are Catholic and more likely to be socially conservative
You keep hearing that but I have met very few republican hispanics. Those that were, were hardcore. But they were also strong middle class. Of the upper class or the poor hispanics I meet, none are social conservatives.

EF on December 27, 2006 at 9:33 AM

We no longer need to speculate how Mexican immigrants will vote once they become citizens and have the political power to choose politicians that suit them. These “social conservatives” fancy the ACLU types like Villaraigosa.

The beneficiary in my view is employers for the lower wages and workers that likely have fewer job mobility options due to legal status. Target the borders and employers first and then improve the legalization process when those are fixed.

One positive is that hispanic voters are Catholic and more likely to be socially conservative.

You keep hearing that but I have met very few republican hispanics. Those that were, were hardcore. But they were also strong middle class. Of the upper class or the poor hispanics I meet, none are social conservatives.

Amnesty is BAD public policy all by itself because if promises a reward for breaking the law. But without sanctions against landlords and employers it becomes a disaster for all residents of the United States.

I’m not surprised that the Democrats will do this. They continue to prove that they put the fortunes of the Party above America’s national security. They are traitors.

Credit to Slublog, you have done yeoman’s work in defending your position. Just so you know I don’t disagree with your position on immigration but someone telling another what a word they used should mean and, therefore, not be used drives me batty. Funny thing is, I used to be with the WSJ on immigration. It does not affect me in a negative way. 9/11 changed my perspective.

I believe there won’t be amnesty but there will be some sort of work permit program and a program for allowing long time illegals to gain citizenship. At least that is what I hope happens. As long as we get a handle on who is coming and going.

My biggest fear is that we get a series of terrorist attacks and it is linked to a border crossing. Right now I can’t get too worked up about the people who suffer from economic dislocation caused by illegals. When young people and blacks start voting their economic interests maybe I will. Until then I will enjoy the cheap lawn care, restaurant food, and car washing.

One positive is that hispanic voters are Catholic and more likely to be socially conservative. Once they get in they will probably do what all the other immigrant groups that have come behind them- lock the door.

I’m willing to admit – the plan is not perfect, but I tried to strike a balance between the ‘deport them all now’ and the ‘amnesty for everyone’ views on the issue.

You’ll run into big problems when you try to compromise the rule of law. Exceptions are hard to justify.

I’m still waiting for a city to declare itself a sanctuary for polygamists or tax evaders like several cities have declared themselves sanctuaries for illegal aliens; just to see if the feds will take action to enforce those laws while they refuse to enforce our immigration laws…exceptions are hard to justify.

Really now, C’mon, you all know the thread/topic has a comment limit per person Maybe it’s an unwritten rule, but I’m just guessing that 25 to 30 comments each, and an argument between just a few of you totaling something like 60 or 70 posts has got to be approaching that ‘limit’.
Makes it tough to read if I don’t want to get involved with the side topic you found so captivating.

Maybe we need IM on this thing? MM? all that extra dough you’re making subbin’ for big O’…

Is there anyone here in the US illegally who you believe it would be ok to deport prior to carrying out a crime?

I’m willing to admit – the plan is not perfect, but I tried to strike a balance between the ‘deport them all now’ and the ‘amnesty for everyone’ views on the issue.

Actually, since Atta had applied for an extension, he was given a de facto extension. The student visa issue is one that needs to be addressed, but since most illegal immigrants don’t apply for such visas, I did not mention them in the policy I outlined.

Is there anyone here in the US illegally who you believe it would be ok to deport prior to carrying out a crime?

Most of my day has been spent chasing my daughter (who is nine months old), keeping her from sticking electrical cords in her mouth or listening to her scream when she realized that she hadn’t seen mommy in hours.

Cabernet…take me away…

Slu, sugar, when I left the hospital with my first, twelve years ago, I left the two day supply of diapers that they foist on you and took the IV pole. I’ve been mainlining Valium ever since.

I love that country song, “Mr.Mom”. You have my sympathies. Truly.

Mohammad Atta was in the country illegally. Are you saying we should wait until the illegal alien carries out a crime before we deport?

Actually, since Atta had applied for an extension, he was given a de facto extension. The student visa issue is one that needs to be addressed, but since most illegal immigrants don’t apply for such visas, I did not mention them in the policy I outlined.

5. Deport all illegal immigrants who have committed a crime other than illegal status

Mohammad Atta was in the country illegally. Are you saying we should wait until the illegal alien carries out a crime before we deport?

Why are you so invested in believing that you should be able to use this particular word in the debate over immigration reform?

I’ve been debating immigration reform on Hot Air again. Like Cetera says, it’s a hard habit to break. I had never really put all of my thoughts for immigration reform in one place, so I did so in that thread…….

Merriam-Webster.

American Heritage

Wikipedia

Again, political correctness has nothing to do with it. And I’ll ask my questions a third time:

How, exactly, is one’s argument strengthened by using a word that many consider offensive?

More to the point, why would one desire to use a word considered offensive to make a political point on a sensitive policy issue?