On the Statue of Liberty is a poem, New Colossus, by Emma Lazarus that spoke of our nation at that time. There are now laws that were written and passed by our government that deal with immigration. To not follow the meaning in the poem may be viewed unethical. To not follow the law is "ILLEGAL."
HEARTLESS wrote: On the Statue of Liberty is a poem, New Colossus, by Emma Lazarus that spoke of our nation at that time. There are now laws that were written and passed by our government that deal with immigration. To not follow the meaning in the poem may be viewed unethical. To not follow the law is "ILLEGAL."
HEARTLESS wrote: Most other nations view qualified as educated, self sufficient (not burdening welfare system), and what monies do they bring with them. BHO doesn't care about anything but future Democrat votes.
The first part is what BHO is trying to accommodate. The second part of your post is pure and total speculation/opinion. It may be true. It may not be true. That doesn't diminish the fact immigration has morphed over the years to mean something negative instead of meaning something positive. This nation used to welcome immigrants, no matter their stripe.
You clearly state "the fact immigration has morphed over the years" and that is not true. I then point out that Liberals miss the point of "illegal immigration" being ILLEGAL. You seem unable to focus on a simple question, hence the accusations of deflect, deny, ignore, etc.
One last try, explain how immigration, not the law has morphed/transformed.
BlazerBob wrote: "Orwell said that language makes humans easy to control—control their language and you control the people."
The author is trying to conflate illegal immigration with pre-legal immigration. OK, I think I made up that term but if you read the comments you should know what I mean.
Still does not change the fact immigration policy has morphed over time into something that some consider to be in need of reform at this point in time.
Is there anyone contesting that? No one I am aware of.
What - the "morphing" or the "need for reform"?
Need for reform of course. I will leave morphing for you and Heartless to play with.
HEARTLESS wrote: You clearly state "the fact immigration has morphed over the years" and that is not true. I then point out that Liberals miss the point of "illegal immigration" being ILLEGAL. You seem unable to focus on a simple question, hence the accusations of deflect, deny, ignore, etc.
One last try, explain how immigration, not the law has morphed/transformed.
I'm glad this is "one last try". I believe you've missed the entire point of the article I shared. If you'd simply focus on what's being said and try to actually "hear" what's being said instead of focusing on discrediting the author and, by extension, me as a "liberal", we might be able to have a conversation.
If you still want to try to pin me down, I'd reverse the strategy and ask you how immigration, not the law, has NOT morphed/transformed?
BlazerBob wrote: Need for reform of course. I will leave morphing for you and Heartless to play with.
What are your recommendations?
My recommendations? what difference would they make? I just vote.
As a point of interest it was not that long ago that immigration reform had bipartisan consensus. Even Grady, LJ, archer and myself agreed on much. Does anyone else remember that?
I would make it easier to legally emigrate and permit expedite fees to speed the process. One million new citizens a year sounds like a good quota. Maybe base percentages on continent populations. Asia would get 50% of the slots, etc.
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
BlazerBob wrote: My recommendations? what difference would they make? I just vote.
As a point of interest it was not that long ago that immigration reform had bipartisan consensus. Even Grady, LJ, archer and myself agreed on much. Does anyone else remember that?
I believe immigration reform still has bipartisan support. I happen to believe, though, that some Republicans in Congress are willing to throw immigration reform under the bus, so to speak, in order to derail anything and everything Obama tries. That's an opinion - nothing more.
BlazerBob wrote: My recommendations? what difference would they make? I just vote.
As a point of interest it was not that long ago that immigration reform had bipartisan consensus. Even Grady, LJ, archer and myself agreed on much. Does anyone else remember that?
I believe immigration reform still has bipartisan support. I happen to believe, though, that some Republicans in Congress are willing to throw immigration reform under the bus, so to speak, in order to derail anything and everything Obama tries. That's an opinion - nothing more.
I wouldn't want any of my elected representatives to vote on any half-assed bill that doesn't stress border security above all else. We are going to repeat this nonsense every couple decades and the really bad people we don't want here will continue to walk across the border. To invoke the "you just hate Obama" card, is to discount the real problem of our porous border. Now tell me how it's impossible to secure it wit
The left is angry because they are now being judged by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin.
but if you read the comments you should know what I mean.
