Comments on: LOOKING FOR MIDDLE GROUND IN THE IMMIGRATION DEBATE http://rightwingnuthouse.com/archives/2006/05/17/looking-for-the-middle-ground-in-the-immigration-debate/ Politics served up with a smile... And a stilletto. Tue, 28 Apr 2026 23:16:56 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7 hourly 1 By: Connie http://rightwingnuthouse.com/archives/2006/05/17/looking-for-the-middle-ground-in-the-immigration-debate/comment-page-1/#comment-264257 Connie Tue, 18 Jul 2006 16:12:18 +0000 http://rightwingnuthouse.com/archives/2006/05/17/looking-for-the-middle-ground-in-the-immigration-debate/#comment-264257 We have to fix our borders, why don't people realize that we are beginning to look a lot like the middle east by letting people come to this country illegally and tell us what we need to do to make them happy, doesn't anyone see the similarity, it is scary to me and it should be scary for all americans. We have always been the United States, lets not change to please those who don't want to follow our laws, they want us to change them, most of them don't want to be americans anyway, so whats the problem, send them home and let them tell the government the came from to change We have to fix our borders, why don’t people realize that we are beginning to look a lot like the middle east by letting people come to this country illegally and tell us what we need to do to make them happy, doesn’t anyone see the similarity, it is scary to me and it should be scary for all americans. We have always been the United States, lets not change to please those who don’t want to follow our laws, they want us to change them, most of them don’t want to be americans anyway, so whats the problem, send them home and let them tell the government the came from to change

]]> By: Jim Allen http://rightwingnuthouse.com/archives/2006/05/17/looking-for-the-middle-ground-in-the-immigration-debate/comment-page-1/#comment-257866 Jim Allen Mon, 10 Jul 2006 14:38:52 +0000 http://rightwingnuthouse.com/archives/2006/05/17/looking-for-the-middle-ground-in-the-immigration-debate/#comment-257866 Has anyone looked into the costs of a complete double wall security fence (with doors/gates provided for legal immigration) with a nominal required amount of border patrol on our U.S. southern border vs. fully manned border security using primarily border patrol without the fence??? My question seeks both initial construction and annual maintenance costs vs. total a manned Much of, if not all costs, arising from illegal immigration and deportation could be provided by stiff fines applied against companies involved with the employment of illegals. Most of the illegals would soon be providing the price of their own way back due to ever increasing economic pressures. One last comment, any of the following countries Japan, Taiwan or, Hong Kong would love to have the natural resources of a country like Mexico!! What keeps that country from helping itself?? Has anyone looked into the costs of a complete double wall security fence (with doors/gates provided for legal immigration) with a nominal required amount of border patrol on our U.S. southern border vs. fully manned border security using primarily border patrol without the fence??? My question seeks both initial construction and annual maintenance costs vs. total a manned

Much of, if not all costs, arising from illegal immigration and deportation could be provided by stiff fines applied against companies involved with the employment of illegals. Most of the illegals would soon be providing the price of their own way back due to ever increasing economic pressures.

One last comment, any of the following countries Japan, Taiwan or, Hong Kong would love to have the natural resources of a country like Mexico!! What keeps that country from helping itself??

]]> By: Ed Harder http://rightwingnuthouse.com/archives/2006/05/17/looking-for-the-middle-ground-in-the-immigration-debate/comment-page-1/#comment-242205 Ed Harder Sat, 24 Jun 2006 04:29:10 +0000 http://rightwingnuthouse.com/archives/2006/05/17/looking-for-the-middle-ground-in-the-immigration-debate/#comment-242205 I agree with the notion that let's not sacrifice border security over the idea, as to whether or not the estimated 11 million illegal aliens will be legalized. Looking at the bigger picture and by choosing the lesser of the evils, we have the opportunity to keep the bad guys (i.e. terrorists) out, while relieving some pressures off of our local law enforcements, by giving the illegal aliens, who complies with the requirements of the new immigration reform act, the opportunity to legalize their status. What difference does it make, when perhaps, your neighbor, co-worker, a friend of your friend, whom you have known for many years, happens to be illegal? Nothing. He or she is still the same person that you know and have known, and perhaps liked. Rather than expending all our energy in condemning them, why not focus, with vigilance on a neighborhood watch, looking after these radical religious group trying to harm us. In addition, if there needs to be a middle ground between the House and the Senate Bill, I suggest the following: 1) Split it in the middle: Instead of the 5 years and longer group that the Senate wants to grant legalization, make it 10 years or longer for the first year. The remainder to follow on the second year. The rest must leave as it is now provided in the bill. This will reduce any backlog and will provide time for thorough review of applications. 2.) In addition to the background check, pay back taxes, etc., give priority to the ones who are educated and will less likely or become a public charge, rather a benefit to our economy. Immigration is a previlege and not a right. America has the right to choose who she wants and when she wants. 3.) Dependents will only be limited to spouse and children, even if they have acquired their U.S. citizenship in the future. Parenst may come, but will not be entitled to any entitlements. It is also worth noting that the American Heritage dictionary defines the following cross-referenced words, to wit: 1.) Amnesty - an general pardon. 2.) Pardon - to release from punishment; exempt from penalty. 3.) Penalty - a punishment established by law or authority for a crime or offense; something, especially a sum of money, required to forfeit an offense. Deportation is a (civil) penalty. However, even Mr. Sensenbrenner is not in favor of massive deportation, let alone practical. Therefore, it leaves with one possible penalty - an imposition of a fine (sum of money). Since the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Bill carries a hefty fine, it does not therefore fall within the meaning of the word amnesty. It may be a penalty in its reduced form, but still a penalty and no one is exempted. Again, we can debate this, but just for a moment compare this to the necessity of having a stronger border security. Which is the lesser of the evils? I agree with the notion that let’s not sacrifice border security over the idea, as to whether or not the estimated 11 million illegal aliens will be legalized. Looking at the bigger picture and by choosing the lesser of the evils, we have the opportunity to keep the bad guys (i.e. terrorists) out, while relieving some pressures off of our local law enforcements, by giving the illegal aliens, who complies with the requirements of the new immigration reform act, the opportunity to legalize their status. What difference does it make, when perhaps, your neighbor, co-worker, a friend of your friend, whom you have known for many years, happens to be illegal? Nothing. He or she is still the same person that you know and have known, and perhaps liked. Rather than expending all our energy in condemning them, why not focus, with vigilance on a neighborhood watch, looking after these radical religious group trying to harm us. In addition, if there needs to be a middle ground between the House and the Senate Bill, I suggest the following:
1) Split it in the middle: Instead of the 5 years and longer group that the Senate wants to grant legalization, make it 10 years or longer for the first year. The remainder to follow on the second year. The rest must leave as it is now provided in the bill.
This will reduce any backlog and will provide time for thorough review of applications.
2.) In addition to the background check, pay back taxes, etc., give priority to the ones who are educated and will less likely or become a public charge, rather a benefit to our economy. Immigration is a previlege and not a right. America has the right to choose who she wants and when she wants.
3.) Dependents will only be limited to spouse and children, even if they have acquired their U.S. citizenship in the future. Parenst may come, but will not be entitled to any entitlements.

It is also worth noting that the American Heritage dictionary defines the following cross-referenced words, to wit:
1.) Amnesty - an general pardon.
2.) Pardon - to release from punishment; exempt from penalty.
3.) Penalty - a punishment established by law or authority for a crime or offense; something, especially a sum of money, required to forfeit an offense.

Deportation is a (civil) penalty. However, even Mr. Sensenbrenner is not in favor of massive deportation, let alone practical. Therefore, it leaves with one possible penalty - an imposition of a fine (sum of money). Since the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Bill carries a hefty fine, it does not therefore fall within the meaning of the word amnesty. It may be a penalty in its reduced form, but still a penalty and no one is exempted. Again, we can debate this, but just for a moment compare this to the necessity of having a stronger border security. Which is the lesser of the evils?

]]> By: Watcher of Weasels http://rightwingnuthouse.com/archives/2006/05/17/looking-for-the-middle-ground-in-the-immigration-debate/comment-page-1/#comment-196984 Watcher of Weasels Fri, 26 May 2006 07:26:18 +0000 http://rightwingnuthouse.com/archives/2006/05/17/looking-for-the-middle-ground-in-the-immigration-debate/#comment-196984 <strong>The Council Has Spoken!</strong> First off...  any spambots reading this should immediately go here, here, here,  and here.  Die spambots, die!  And now...  the winning entries in the Watcher's Council vote for this week are Let Us Make Them All Welcome by Ga... The Council Has Spoken!

First off…  any spambots reading this should immediately go here, here, here,  and here.  Die spambots, die!  And now…  the winning entries in the Watcher’s Council vote for this week are Let Us Make Them All Welcome by Ga…

]]> By: EdWonk http://rightwingnuthouse.com/archives/2006/05/17/looking-for-the-middle-ground-in-the-immigration-debate/comment-page-1/#comment-196792 EdWonk Thu, 25 May 2006 23:05:29 +0000 http://rightwingnuthouse.com/archives/2006/05/17/looking-for-the-middle-ground-in-the-immigration-debate/#comment-196792 Ours is the nation that simultaneously fought, and defeated, two world powers. (Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan) Ours is the nation that sent men to the moon and brought them safely home again. Ours is the nation that won the Cold War. We CAN secure our border AND solve the illegal immigrant problem, if only our political leadership had the will. Ours is the nation that simultaneously fought, and defeated, two world powers. (Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan)

Ours is the nation that sent men to the moon and brought them safely home again.

Ours is the nation that won the Cold War.

We CAN secure our border AND solve the illegal immigrant problem, if only our political leadership had the will.

]]> By: The Glittering Eye » Blog Archive » Eye on the Watcher’s Council http://rightwingnuthouse.com/archives/2006/05/17/looking-for-the-middle-ground-in-the-immigration-debate/comment-page-1/#comment-195646 The Glittering Eye » Blog Archive » Eye on the Watcher’s Council Wed, 24 May 2006 14:18:47 +0000 http://rightwingnuthouse.com/archives/2006/05/17/looking-for-the-middle-ground-in-the-immigration-debate/#comment-195646 [...] Right Wing Nut House, “Looking for Middle Ground in the Immigration Debate” [...] [...] Right Wing Nut House, “Looking for Middle Ground in the Immigration Debate” [...]

]]> By: Watcher of Weasels http://rightwingnuthouse.com/archives/2006/05/17/looking-for-the-middle-ground-in-the-immigration-debate/comment-page-1/#comment-195490 Watcher of Weasels Wed, 24 May 2006 06:27:03 +0000 http://rightwingnuthouse.com/archives/2006/05/17/looking-for-the-middle-ground-in-the-immigration-debate/#comment-195490 <strong>Submitted for Your Approval</strong> Submitted for Your Approval

]]> By: Carl Hayden http://rightwingnuthouse.com/archives/2006/05/17/looking-for-the-middle-ground-in-the-immigration-debate/comment-page-1/#comment-193466 Carl Hayden Mon, 22 May 2006 03:44:24 +0000 http://rightwingnuthouse.com/archives/2006/05/17/looking-for-the-middle-ground-in-the-immigration-debate/#comment-193466 I am opposed to the 'compromise' because in truth it amounts to a total surrender since Bush has made it abandantly clear that he has absolutely NO intention of enforcing laws against illegal immigration. He has NOT enforced the laws on the books now against those who employ illegal aliens. The Justice department is refusing to prosecute smuglers of illegal aliens. Bush alerts Fox as to areas being patrolled by the Minutemen so that the illegal aliens will know what areas of the border to avoid. Bush refuses to secure the border first, but tells the gullible that he will enforce new laws (not existing ones) AFTER he gets his amnesty proposal. So, what happens when we have essentially NO enforcement? I am opposed to the ‘compromise’ because in truth it amounts to a total surrender since Bush has made it abandantly clear that he has absolutely NO intention of enforcing laws against illegal immigration.

He has NOT enforced the laws on the books now against those who employ illegal aliens.

The Justice department is refusing to prosecute smuglers of illegal aliens.

Bush alerts Fox as to areas being patrolled by the Minutemen so that the illegal aliens will know what areas of the border to avoid.

Bush refuses to secure the border first, but tells the gullible that he will enforce new laws (not existing ones) AFTER he gets his amnesty proposal. So, what happens when we have essentially NO enforcement?

]]> By: Redhead Infidel http://rightwingnuthouse.com/archives/2006/05/17/looking-for-the-middle-ground-in-the-immigration-debate/comment-page-1/#comment-191397 Redhead Infidel Fri, 19 May 2006 12:27:40 +0000 http://rightwingnuthouse.com/archives/2006/05/17/looking-for-the-middle-ground-in-the-immigration-debate/#comment-191397 I posted this back on May 4th: <blockquote><strong>“Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.”</strong> -Barry Goldwater</blockquote> I posted this back on May 4th:

“Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.”

-Barry Goldwater

]]> By: Redhead Infidel http://rightwingnuthouse.com/archives/2006/05/17/looking-for-the-middle-ground-in-the-immigration-debate/comment-page-1/#comment-190752 Redhead Infidel Thu, 18 May 2006 16:43:23 +0000 http://rightwingnuthouse.com/archives/2006/05/17/looking-for-the-middle-ground-in-the-immigration-debate/#comment-190752 <i>*clap, clap, clap*</i> Compromise, eh? I live in Texas, and I'm living with the long-term results of such compromise. But nevermind the reality, moderation is the key, right? I'll bet everyone feels really, really good about themselves as a "voice of reason". Good for you. Because that's what it's all about - feelin' good about yourselves. It's even better when you get to call other conservatives names like "mouthbreathers" and "knuckledraggers". Heh heh - how very high brow. Unfortunately, it doesn't go very far in bridging the divide, does it? And isn't that what you claim you want to do? So don't break your arms patting yourselves on the back just yet... After 5 1/2 years of doing nothing, Bush's plan is nothing more than placatory, inneffectual half-measures arranged around the centerpiece of his amnesty plan to gussy it up a bit for the masses. "Ahh, but wait," you cry, "he's against amnesty." Right. UNLESS he can call it a "guest worker program" instead. <a href="http://euphoria.jarkolicious.com/journal/2006/05/17/2349/" rel="nofollow">FACTS</a>: Bush promised and authorized 10,000 new border agents. Last year he reneged and authorized funding for only 200. He spends more time explaining himself to the Mexican president than he does his own people. The Mexican military has invaded our border hundreds of times, and have actually kidnapped Americans on several occasions. Our citizens live in the wasteland of a war zone on the border. If Bush's plan gets shoved through AGAINST the will of the American people, within 20 years we will have more aliens than our infrastructure can sustain. That's a fact, not histrionics. And if you think Americans are framing this debate, think again. As the illegal immigration debate has risen to the surface over the past five years, it has been <a href="http://euphoria.jarkolicious.com/journal/2006/05/17/2350/" rel="nofollow">molded and defined</a> by Mexico. Read it before you airily dismiss it from your high horse. It's Fox's <i>Plan Nacional de Desarrollo 2001-2006</i>. We've been led like sheep. Step by step, the Mexican government has accomplished a comprehensive plan, while we've been wallowing in rhetoric like yours. Today's debate has been deliberately defined in emotional, extremist terms not of OUR choosing, but of Mexico's. And you've fallen for it. "Concentration camps"?! Sheesh. *clap, clap, clap*

Compromise, eh? I live in Texas, and I’m living with the long-term results of such compromise. But nevermind the reality, moderation is the key, right? I’ll bet everyone feels really, really good about themselves as a “voice of reason”. Good for you. Because that’s what it’s all about - feelin’ good about yourselves. It’s even better when you get to call other conservatives names like “mouthbreathers” and “knuckledraggers”. Heh heh - how very high brow. Unfortunately, it doesn’t go very far in bridging the divide, does it? And isn’t that what you claim you want to do?

So don’t break your arms patting yourselves on the back just yet…

After 5 1/2 years of doing nothing, Bush’s plan is nothing more than placatory, inneffectual half-measures arranged around the centerpiece of his amnesty plan to gussy it up a bit for the masses. “Ahh, but wait,” you cry, “he’s against amnesty.” Right. UNLESS he can call it a “guest worker program” instead.

FACTS: Bush promised and authorized 10,000 new border agents. Last year he reneged and authorized funding for only 200. He spends more time explaining himself to the Mexican president than he does his own people. The Mexican military has invaded our border hundreds of times, and have actually kidnapped Americans on several occasions. Our citizens live in the wasteland of a war zone on the border. If Bush’s plan gets shoved through AGAINST the will of the American people, within 20 years we will have more aliens than our infrastructure can sustain. That’s a fact, not histrionics.

And if you think Americans are framing this debate, think again. As the illegal immigration debate has risen to the surface over the past five years, it has been molded and defined by Mexico. Read it before you airily dismiss it from your high horse. It’s Fox’s Plan Nacional de Desarrollo 2001-2006. We’ve been led like sheep. Step by step, the Mexican government has accomplished a comprehensive plan, while we’ve been wallowing in rhetoric like yours. Today’s debate has been deliberately defined in emotional, extremist terms not of OUR choosing, but of Mexico’s. And you’ve fallen for it.

“Concentration camps”?! Sheesh.

]]>