| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"J Young" |
| Date: |
30 Aug 2007 11:06:40 PM |
| Object: |
IMMIGRATION: A PRIVILEGE, NOT A RIGHT |
IMMIGRATION: A PRIVILEGE, NOT A RIGHT
by Raymond S. Kraft
"House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is 'not pleased' with the immigration bill now
before the Senate and suggested today that it needs major changes before she
can support it," writes John Wildermuth in the San Francisco Chronicle, May
19, 2007.
"I agree it's a good first step," said Pelosi, "But I'm very concerned about
what it says about family reunification... A point system for reunification
undermines our family values that we espouse in our country... I don't know
why we have to compromise on reunification of families, I really don't."
Earth to Nancy... Earth to Nancy... the purpose of immigration is not family
reunification. If it were, then we should just open the gates for anybody
anywhere with a relative in America they'd like to be reunited with, and in
twenty years we'll have a billion non-Americans living in what was, once
upon a time, the United States of America.
Although my expectations for wisdom and erudition from the lips of Nancy
Pelosi were not high, this mind boggling flaunt of intellectual vacuity
boggled even me. There are good reasons for immigration, but "family
reunification" is not one of them. Families whose priority is reunification
can be reunified just fine wherever they came from -immigration means
leaving one's old life, old country, old companions, old customs, and most
of one's relatives, behind, and setting out for a new life in a new world,
becoming a new citizen of a new homeland. America.
The thing I don't like most about the massive immigration bill, estimated to
consist of nearly 1,000 pages of legalese, is its massive size, complexity,
and absence of legal and philosophical clarity. It will provide a lifetime
of full employment for an entire generation of lawyers and judges litigating
the meaning and application of a legislative monstrosity that tries to be
something for everybody, and thereby offends everybody else, and which, at
1,000 pages, more or less, is probably (like the Internal Revenue Code)
beyond comprehension.
While I am not prepared to offer the perfect solution, I would like to point
out some principles that need to be taken into account as we debate the many
possible solutions, good and bad, to this problem.
First, Michael Savage is absolutely right about this: a country is defined
by its Borders, Language, and Culture. Lose control of the borders, and you
soon lose the cohesiveness of a common language and a common culture, a
common sense of identity, and without commonality of language and culture
you may have a territory, but not a nation. You may have a population, but
not a People. You are no longer a Big Tribe, a National Tribe, but a
hodgepodge of Balkanized Little Tribes at odds, if not at war, with each
other, grabbing turf for their own ghettos, large and small, rich and poor,
of whatever languages and cultures they brought to America. Thus, a primary
purpose - maybe the primary purpose - of immigration control must be to
assure that immigration is paced and measured so that immigrants, and their
children, assimilate into the national culture, i.e., become Americans,
first, and that whatever culture they left to come here becomes a heritage
secondary to their Americanism, as it has for so many millions of us who
came here, and whose ancestors came here, in past years and centuries.
Immigration to America is for people who want to become Americans, not for
people who want America to become something else.
Second, if I try to please everyone, if I try to be everything to everybody,
I will soon become nothing to anyone. Everyone who knows me will know that I
have no core, no principles, no identity to defend, that I'm the doormat for
anyone who wants to walk on me, to take advantage of my obsequious
subservience to the wills and whims of everybody else. Some psychologists
call this the "martyr syndrome," the servile person who will sacrifice
themselves, their lives, their integrity, their sense of self and identity,
their self respect, to serve the demands of everyone who demands anything of
her (or, less often, of him).
Like an individual, a nation that tries to be everything to everybody will
soon become nothing to anyone. It will lose its identity, its definition,
its core. It will no longer have a "self" to defend. Servile to every demand
of every minority for "social justice" or "family reunification" or "rights"
that are never anchored to reciprocal duties, responsibilities, obligations,
contributions, it will become the doormat the world walks upon.
Led by the Nancy Pelosi wing of the Democratic Party, and the myriad special
interest groups demanding "rights" and "social justice" for their own
particular ethnic culture and identity, America the Beautiful is well on the
way to becoming America the Doormat. America needs to have an open, honest,
and public debate about what America is, and what America will be in ten,
twenty, thirty years, as a result of whatever immigration policies (and
other policies) America adopts now.
Third, immigration to America is a privilege, not a right. Every time I open
a newspaper it seems that I see somebody demanding "immigrant rights." You
may like my house, and you may want to come into my house and live here with
me, but you do not have a "right" to do so. You only have a privilege to do
so, and only if I extend that privilege, only if I invite you to come in.
Likewise, America. America is the house of its citizens, the people who were
born here, and the people who have become naturalized citizens by complying
with the laws that define the naturalization process. People who have not
been invited to come to America do not have "immigration rights" - they are,
from a legal perspective, trespassers. They have entered the property of
another, the home of another, without the consent of the owner. And they may
be evicted, or deported, at the will of the owner.
And America, like any homeowner, has the Right (with a capital "R") to
decide whom comes into its house, who stays, and who leaves. Nobody has
immigration rights until they have received an immigration visa, an
invitation to come in, and their rights are defined by the terms of the visa
(invitation). No visa, no invitation, no rights.
Now, that doesn't mean we have to evict, or deport, everybody who came here
without an invitation. We may. Or we may evict some, but not others. Since
it is our home, and they have no immigration rights, deciding who stays and
who leaves is entirely within America's discretion.
Fourth, as a guiding principle, American immigration policy should be based
on a reasoned calculation of what is best for America, for the American
economy, for the preservation of American borders, language, and culture,
i.e., for the preservation of a strong American national identity and a
vigorous economy. We must, as the psychologists say, "set boundaries." We
cannot "merge" with others, without losing ourselves. We cannot be
everything to everybody, without becoming nothing to anyone. We must be some
things, but not other things, and we cannot try to be all things to all
people without becoming America the Doormat.
Thus, if there are not enough Americans willing and able to work as farm
labor in the San Joaquin and Imperial Valleys, weeding peppers and picking
peaches in 105 degree weather, it is rational for us to issue visas to
people from Mexico and South America who want to come be farmworkers. If
there are not enough American engineers to meet the demand, then it is
rational for us to issue visas to engineers from anywhere to meet the
demand. It is rational to keep a steady stream of immigrants flowing into
America, it keeps the intellectual and biological gene pool fresh, it keeps
new ideas, energies, and creativities flowing. But it is also rational for
America to limit the influx of immigrants to a level that will not inundate
America with people who have not become assimilated to the idea of being
Americans. And it is rational to grant permanent residence visas to those
who want to become American citizens, and not to those who want America to
become Mexico del Norte, or Jihadistan.
Fifth, like it or not, it is indisputable that illegal immigrants now make
up close to 10% of the U.S. labor force, and in some areas and industries,
such as California agriculture (the single largest industry in California)
perhaps as much as 75% of the labor force. Sudden deportation of 10 or 15
million illegal immigrants now working in America, or freezing them out by
large-scale prosecutions of their employers, would result in the rapid
collapse of entire industrial sectors, especially in agriculture, as their
labor force evaporated, with devastating consequences for the U.S. economy.
But the fundamental principle behind immigration policy should be, or must,
be: What immigration policies are best for America? Not what policies are
best for everybody from everywhere else who might want to come here for any
reason, but what is best for America?
Kelly Johnson, the engineer who for many years ran the Lockheed Skunk Works,
kept on his desk a plaque that summarize - in just four words - the
engineering principle that defined the design evolution of many of the
greatest airplanes ever built, including the incomparable SR-71 Blackbird.
Those four words? "Simplicate, and add lightness." Simplicate, and add
lightness. Simplicate, and add lightness.
I would like to simplicate and add lightness to the immigration bill.
First, I would scrap all existing immigration visa categories, and replace
them with just four: the White Visitors Visa, the Blue Student's Visa, the
Yellow Work Visa, and the Green Residency Visa.
These would all be plastic biometric cards, like a driver's license, with
the person's photograph, name, age, height, weight, country of citizenship,
date of issue, and date of expiration, on the face of the card, just like a
driver's license. The same data can be replicated in a magnetic strip on the
back, along with entry and exit dates, so that Customs or INS or any police
agency can swipe the card and know the dates and locations of the person's
entries into, and exits from, the United States.
The White Visitors Visa would be the simplest and easiest, issued to
everyone who got a visa to visit the US for a limited time. It would not
authorize extended stays, enrollment in school, or employment. With a White
Visa, you could not apply for any other visa while in America. You have to
go home first.
The Blue Student Visa would authorize longer stays, for foreign students
attending school in the US. The expiration date could be linked to the
expected date of completion or graduation of their course of study, and
could be extended, when appropriate, by applying to the INS for an
extension. If offered a job in America while here on a Blue Visa, the
student could apply for a Yellow Work Visa - a temporary work visa - which
would issue if the person was qualified for a work classification for which
visas were being issued, and other conditions (security, background, etc.)
were satisfied. I.e., with a Blue Student Visa, one could apply for an
upgrade to a Yellow Work Visa while legally in the United States.
The Yellow Work Visa would be issued for a term of five (5) years, if the
applicant applied to work in any of the categories of labor for which the
Department of Labor determined, on an annual basis, there was a need for
immigrant workers. The Yellow Visa would be the first visa issued to all
immigrants - a five year "probationary" visa for all immigrants. It could be
renewed one time, for five years, after four years in the United States, if
the person (a) had been employed at least 36 of the past 48 months, (b)
passed a basic English literacy exam, and (c) had no felony convictions, and
no more than one misdemeanor conviction. A person working on a Yellow Visa
could apply for an upgrade to a Green Residency Visa while legally in the
United States.
This would allow, for instance, Mexican or other South American citizens who
want to work in America for a limited time, but not become US citizens or
permanent residents, to work in agriculture or other industries with labor
shortages, for a specific, definite, length of time, but would avoid the
patent absurdity of the "guest worker dance" envisioned by the bipartisan
immigration reform bill now in the Senate that requires such a worker to go
home after two years, stay in Mexico a year, while applying for another
two-year permit, and so forth. It would allow a Mexican citizen who wanted
to earn money and return to Mexico to work here for up to ten years, and
then return to Mexico with a nest egg.
The Yellow Work Visa could also serve as a marriage visa, allowing the
foreign spouse of an American citizen to live and work in America for up to
five years, at the end of which, if the marriage remained viable, he or she
would qualify for a Green Residency Visa, permanent residence and a
citizenship track. The Yellow Work Visa would not authorize the entry of any
other person - other than the worker's spouse and minor children.
The Yellow Work Visa would also show - on its face - the quest worker's tax
identification number. This would not be a Social Security number, but a tax
identification number, like the TIDs issued to businesses. The guest worker
would pay income taxes and other payroll deductions, but would not pay
Social Security taxes, and would not accrue any right to any Social Security
benefits, i.e., a guest worker with a Yellow Card would stay out of the
Social Security loop, until he, or she, got a Green Card.
The Green Residency Visa ("Green Card") would issue upon completion of five
years residence on a Yellow Visa for those who had been accepted to the
permanent residence track leading to citizenship. The applicant would have
to (a) show employment for 48 of the previous 60 months, (b) pass a basic
English literacy test, and (c) have no felony convictions, and no more than
one misdemeanor conviction, to qualify for the permanent Green Residence
Visa upgrade.
Then, when an immigrant becomes a U.S. citizen, he, or she, would get a red,
white and blue Citizenship Card.
This would enable employers to know, at a glance, whether the worker was
eligible to work in the United States, and when his or her Yellow Card
expired. The use of a taxpayer identification number (TIP) rather than a
Social Security number would make it easy for the Internal Revenue Service
to track workers who had overstayed their Yellow Cards, or whose cards had
been revoked because of one felony or two misdemeanor convictions. And it
would make it feasible to penalize employers who employed any non-citizen
who did not have either a Yellow Card or a Green Card after, say, December
31, 2008, and require any non-citizen to get either a Yellow Card or a Green
Card by then (this would be pro forma for legal immigrants) or leave, i.e.,
without a Yellow Card, illegal immigrants couldn't work as of January 1,
2009.
Ideally, this should be done yesterday, but practically, it will take some
time to get the system set up and running.
This would enable us to issue Yellow Work Visas to illegal immigrants who
are now embedded in the U.S. economy, working in American jobs, that would
give them an arbitrary but not draconian time (five years) within which they
must either (a) qualify for a Yellow Work Visa extension (another five
years), or (b) arrange to repatriate themselves back to wherever they came
from.
Because I do not think it is good policy to break up families with minor
children, I would also allow illegal immigrants who are (a) married to U.S.
citizens or legal permanent residents, and (b) have one or more minor
children who are U.S. citizens, to apply for permanent resident status, but
not to qualify for citizenship.
Finally, the Labor Department and INS could adjust visa quotas each year,
depending on the projected need for workers in American industries, and
other public policies as determined from time to time by Congress in its
infinite wisdom. And as a pragmatic matter, I would propose that 50% of all
Yellow Work Visas and Green Residency Visas should be issued to people with
college degrees - one visa for a college degree, for every visa issue to
someone without a degree. For permanent residency status, the Green
Residency Card and citizenship track, preferences should be given to those
with PhDs and other doctoral level academic and professional degrees, then
for those with Master's degrees, then Bachelor's degrees, and then those
without degrees based on labor force needs.
If there's going to be a brain drain anywhere in the world, we might as well
"drain the brains" into America. It's in America's interest to do so.
My proposals are probably not the last word, the final or perfect or best
solution to this enormous and complicated problem. I don't see them that
way. They are ideas that will, I hope, stimulate thought and debate, and
refinement, and amendment, until the American people can develop, I hope, an
immigration policy that will meet three objectives.
One, it will bring an end (along with physical border control) to illegal
immigration into the United States.
Two, it will "legalize" illegal immigrants now working in the United States,
bring them into the INS tracking system, but not reward them with
citizenship, while giving them either (a) an opportunity to become legal, if
temporary, guest workers, or (b) an opportunity for some who meet our
qualifications to become legal, permanent, residents, or (c) an opportunity
to go home, without imposing the harsh, severe, and undue hardship of sudden
deportation, or gutting U.S. industries now dependant on their labor.
Three, it will divide future immigrants into two categories, (a) those
temporary workers, "guest workers," who meet U.S. labor needs on a 5- or
10-year basis, but do not want to become, or do not qualify to become,
permanent residents or citizens, and (b) those who will be on track for
permanent residency and citizenship, who want to become real Americans (not
just foreign nationals living in America), and who will be selected for the
objective, self-interested benefit of the United States.
--
J Young
younginsights@aol.com
.
|
|
| User: "Gwenyth Bennet" |
|
| Title: Re: IMMIGRATION: A PRIVILEGE, NOT A RIGHT |
31 Aug 2007 07:16:33 AM |
|
|
On Aug 30, 11:06 pm, "J Young" <younginsig...@aol.com> wrote:
IMMIGRATION: A PRIVILEGE, NOT A RIGHT
Go back to your cave.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tim Crowley" |
|
| Title: Re: IMMIGRATION: A PRIVILEGE, NOT A RIGHT |
19 Sep 2007 03:52:53 PM |
|
|
On Aug 31, 5:16 am, Gwenyth Bennet <bennetwitho...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Aug 30, 11:06 pm, "J Young" <younginsig...@aol.com> wrote:
IMMIGRATION: A PRIVILEGE, NOT A RIGHT
Go back to your cave.
It never left.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: IMMIGRATION: A PRIVILEGE, NOT A RIGHT |
31 Aug 2007 11:24:36 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 00:06:40 -0400, "J Young" <younginsights@aol.com>
wrote:
"House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is 'not pleased' with the immigration bill now
before the Senate and suggested today that it needs major changes before she
can support it," writes John Wildermuth in the San Francisco Chronicle, May
19, 2007.
"I agree it's a good first step," said Pelosi, "But I'm very concerned about
what it says about family reunification... A point system for reunification
undermines our family values that we espouse in our country... I don't know
why we have to compromise on reunification of families, I really don't."
Neither do I. If someone is here illegally, send them back home. If
they have family here with them, send the family back home too. Let's
keep families together, where they belong - in THEIR country.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Sebree" |
|
| Title: Re: IMMIGRATION: A PRIVILEGE, NOT A RIGHT |
31 Aug 2007 11:54:03 AM |
|
|
On Aug 31, 12:24 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 00:06:40 -0400, "J Young" <younginsig...@aol.com>
wrote:
"House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is 'not pleased' with the immigration bill now
before the Senate and suggested today that it needs major changes before she
can support it," writes John Wildermuth in the San Francisco Chronicle, May
19, 2007.
"I agree it's a good first step," said Pelosi, "But I'm very concerned about
what it says about family reunification... A point system for reunification
undermines our family values that we espouse in our country... I don't know
why we have to compromise on reunification of families, I really don't."
Neither do I. If someone is here illegally, send them back home. If
they have family here with them, send the family back home too. Let's
keep families together, where they belong - in THEIR country.
And when part of their family are American citizens because they were
born here? After all, this IS their country? You want to split up
families and send the parents away and keep the kids here? You want
to deny US citizens the right to live in this country with their
parents?
These kinds of issues are never as cut and dry as some try to make
them seem.
Mark Sebree
.
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: IMMIGRATION: A PRIVILEGE, NOT A RIGHT |
31 Aug 2007 09:40:24 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 09:54:03 -0700, Mark Sebree
<sebree@infionline.net> in alt.abortion with message-id
<1188579243.678815.304300@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com> wrote:
On Aug 31, 12:24 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 00:06:40 -0400, "J Young" <younginsig...@aol.com>
wrote:
"House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is 'not pleased' with the immigration bill now
before the Senate and suggested today that it needs major changes before she
can support it," writes John Wildermuth in the San Francisco Chronicle, May
19, 2007.
"I agree it's a good first step," said Pelosi, "But I'm very concerned about
what it says about family reunification... A point system for reunification
undermines our family values that we espouse in our country... I don't know
why we have to compromise on reunification of families, I really don't."
Neither do I. If someone is here illegally, send them back home. If
they have family here with them, send the family back home too. Let's
keep families together, where they belong - in THEIR country.
And when part of their family are American citizens because they were
born here? After all, this IS their country?
That law should be changed.
You want to split up
families and send the parents away and keep the kids here?
Yes.
You want
to deny US citizens the right to live in this country with their
parents?
If their parents are illegal deport them. Now.
These kinds of issues are never as cut and dry as some try to make
them seem.
Yes, they are.
--
Pro-Choice is Pro-Freedom
Every illegal alien is a criminal.
No amnesty under any name or for any reason.
Deportation upon identification, not work permit or citizenship.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: IMMIGRATION: A PRIVILEGE, NOT A RIGHT |
31 Aug 2007 11:18:56 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 19:40:24 -0700, Attila wrote
(in article <b6khd3dll9v57qvm97geglvb7jei9lkrng@4ax.com>):
And when part of their family are American citizens because they were
born here? After all, this IS their country?
That law should be changed.
You want to split up
families and send the parents away and keep the kids here?
Yes.
You want
to deny US citizens the right to live in this country with their
parents?
If their parents are illegal deport them. Now.
How about we start by deporting people who don't give a ***** about anyone but
themselves?
--
Osprey inadvertently admits to being sexually aroused by young girls.
³We can allow girls to go to school in short mini skirts and revealing tight
tops and that isnıt distractive, but itıs a distraction if a girl has the
confederate flag on her purse?³
- A comment made by Robert ³Osprey² Heishman in which he accidentally admits
to being turned on by school girls in mini skirts and tight tops while
arguing that the Confederate Flag is not a racist symbol. (January 10, 2006)
--
.
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: IMMIGRATION: A PRIVILEGE, NOT A RIGHT |
01 Sep 2007 03:38:19 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 21:18:56 -0700, David W. Barnes
<dbarnes@barnesco.com> in alt.abortion with message-id
<0001HW.C2FE3640004899B1B022094F@news-server.san.rr.com> wrote:
On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 19:40:24 -0700, Attila wrote
(in article <b6khd3dll9v57qvm97geglvb7jei9lkrng@4ax.com>):
And when part of their family are American citizens because they were
born here? After all, this IS their country?
That law should be changed.
You want to split up
families and send the parents away and keep the kids here?
Yes.
You want
to deny US citizens the right to live in this country with their
parents?
If their parents are illegal deport them. Now.
How about we start by deporting people who don't give a ***** about anyone but
themselves?
That is not a citizenship issue.
--
Pro-Choice is Pro-Freedom
Every illegal alien is a criminal.
No amnesty under any name or for any reason.
Deportation upon identification, not work permit or citizenship.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "osprey" |
|
| Title: Explanation of just how dishonest Barnes truly is. |
01 Sep 2007 12:01:17 AM |
|
|
On Sep 1, 12:18 am, David W. Barnes <dbar...@barnesco.com> wrote:
On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 19:40:24 -0700, Attila wrote
(in article <b6khd3dll9v57qvm97geglvb7jei9lk...@4ax.com>):
And when part of their family are American citizens because they were
born here? After all, this IS their country?
That law should be changed.
You want to split up
families and send the parents away and keep the kids here?
Yes.
You want
to deny US citizens the right to live in this country with their
parents?
If their parents are illegal deport them. Now.
How about we start by deporting people who don't give a ***** about anyone=
but
themselves?
--
Osprey inadvertently admits to being sexually aroused by young girls.
=B3We can allow girls to go to school in short mini skirts and revealing =
tight
tops and that isn=B9t distractive, but it=B9s a distraction if a girl has=
the
confederate flag on her purse?=B3
- A comment made by Robert =B3Osprey=B2 Heishman in which he accidentall=
y admits
to being turned on by school girls in mini skirts and tight tops while
arguing that the Confederate Flag is not a racist symbol. (January 10, 20=
06)
--
Note: Barnes current problem with reading.
There is no such admittance. Of course I would never say anything like
that, it's simply not true.
If you note, Barnes provides no message ID what so ever.
Why is that?
Because if any reader was to read the entire thread and what the topic
was, he or she would see that I'm not admitting anything like that at
all, but instead I'm making a comparison to what we accept and what we
don't accept. It's as simple as that.
Barnes wishes to deceive the reader, much like Keegan and Fischer
does. They will cut, snip, hide what ever they want to in order to
change the entire meaning of a post or quote.
Let me give you an example of what they will do, and I am willing to
bet money somewhere down the road Barnes will come up with some
***** quote from this.
Lets say that Barnes accuses me of being a murderer.
And I come back to Barnes and say something like, Are you saying I
murdered someone?
What Barnes will do later on is take out parts of the sentence and he
will claim, Osprey admits to murder. He will take my quote and he
will take out the words, "are you saying".
Leaving only "...I murdered someone".
That's the kind of B.S. Barnes pulls, just like he is doing with this
issue on the confederate flag.
also note, people like Tom S. and others who CLAIM to be
intelligent...fall for his *****, and go right along with him.
That doesn't give much credibility for their claims of being
intelligent individuals, not when they fall for crap like this.
Now, does anyone who has any type of intelligence see anything that
shows I admitted to what he claims?
This excludes keegan, Gwen, Humphrey, Tom, or Fischer. They are
naturally going to agree with Barnes.
I'm asking the intelligent readers.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Explanation of just how dishonest Barnes truly is. |
01 Sep 2007 01:42:23 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 22:01:17 -0700, osprey wrote
(in article <1188622877.805552.64100@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>):
On Sep 1, 12:18 am, David W. Barnes <dbar...@barnesco.com> wrote:
On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 19:40:24 -0700, Attila wrote
(in article <b6khd3dll9v57qvm97geglvb7jei9lk...@4ax.com>):
And when part of their family are American citizens because they were
born here? After all, this IS their country?
That law should be changed.
You want to split up
families and send the parents away and keep the kids here?
Yes.
You want
to deny US citizens the right to live in this country with their
parents?
If their parents are illegal deport them. Now.
How about we start by deporting people who don't give a ***** about anyone
but
themselves?
--
Osprey inadvertently admits to being sexually aroused by young girls.
³We can allow girls to go to school in short mini skirts and revealing tight
tops and that isnıt distractive, but itıs a distraction if a girl has the
confederate flag on her purse?³
- A comment made by Robert ³Osprey² Heishman in which he accidentally
admits
to being turned on by school girls in mini skirts and tight tops while
arguing that the Confederate Flag is not a racist symbol. (January 10, 2006)
--
Note: Barnes current problem with reading.
There is no such admittance. Of course I would never say anything like
that, it's simply not true.
If you note, Barnes provides no message ID what so ever.
Why is that?
Because if any reader was to read the entire thread and what the topic
was, he or she would see that I'm not admitting anything like that at
all, but instead I'm making a comparison to what we accept and what we
don't accept. It's as simple as that.
Barnes wishes to deceive the reader, much like Keegan and Fischer
does. They will cut, snip, hide what ever they want to in order to
change the entire meaning of a post or quote.
Let me give you an example of what they will do, and I am willing to
bet money somewhere down the road Barnes will come up with some
***** quote from this.
Lets say that Barnes accuses me of being a murderer.
And I come back to Barnes and say something like, Are you saying I
murdered someone?
What Barnes will do later on is take out parts of the sentence and he
will claim, Osprey admits to murder. He will take my quote and he
will take out the words, "are you saying".
Leaving only "...I murdered someone".
That's the kind of B.S. Barnes pulls, just like he is doing with this
issue on the confederate flag.
also note, people like Tom S. and others who CLAIM to be
intelligent...fall for his *****, and go right along with him.
That doesn't give much credibility for their claims of being
intelligent individuals, not when they fall for crap like this.
Now, does anyone who has any type of intelligence see anything that
shows I admitted to what he claims?
This excludes keegan, Gwen, Humphrey, Tom, or Fischer. They are
naturally going to agree with Barnes.
I'm asking the intelligent readers.
You are losing it.
--
Osprey inadvertently admits, on 2/3/2006:
³I was offered a position with Border Patrol about a year and a half ago.
My wife and I both like it here in Delaware though.³
As we all know, the Bush White House states that we are at ³war² and
terrorism needs to be curtailed at the borders. Part of his ³war on
terrorism² is to increase security at the borders by hiring more border
patrol.
The United State Government comes to Osprey and asks him if he will serve his
country and help protect our homeland from terrorism. Ospreyıs answer, ³No.
My comfort is more important than my country.²
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: IMMIGRATION: A PRIVILEGE, NOT A RIGHT |
01 Sep 2007 09:35:12 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 22:40:24 -0400, Attila <<prochoice@here.now>
wrote:
On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 09:54:03 -0700, Mark Sebree
<sebree@infionline.net> in alt.abortion with message-id
You want
to deny US citizens the right to live in this country with their
parents?
If their parents are illegal deport them. Now.
If the parents entered illegally, the kids SHOULDN'T be citizens of
the US, they should be citizens of the country the parents are
citizens of. Otherwise we're granting the parents the fruits of crime
- citizenship for their kids - which is WHY a lot of illegals come
here. Have US citizen kids and the government lets you stay here.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Johnston" |
|
| Title: Re: IMMIGRATION: A PRIVILEGE, NOT A RIGHT |
31 Aug 2007 10:18:26 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 22:40:24 -0400, Attila <<prochoice@here.now>
wrote:
And when part of their family are American citizens because they were
born here? After all, this IS their country?
That law should be changed.
Then you can have a growing population of people with no citizenship,
a truly permanent underclass! It's a noble dream, truly.
Unfortunately, it would require a constitutional amendment to make it
happen.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: IMMIGRATION: A PRIVILEGE, NOT A RIGHT |
31 Aug 2007 11:13:17 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 20:18:26 -0700, David Johnston wrote
(in article <scmhd3l1qk51l3eie6rge2ggfsmlpjcaqf@4ax.com>):
On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 22:40:24 -0400, Attila <<prochoice@here.now>
wrote:
And when part of their family are American citizens because they were
born here? After all, this IS their country?
That law should be changed.
Then you can have a growing population of people with no citizenship,
a truly permanent underclass! It's a noble dream, truly.
Unfortunately, it would require a constitutional amendment to make it
happen.
Or a political party in office that doesn't give a ***** about the
constitution. (Cue the Republicans.)
--
While attacking Ray, Osprey says:
³So in other words Ray, you endorse women and men having sex,
irresponsibly...ie: not using protection, not planning, and you suggest that
women should abort.² - Osprey, Mar 23, 2002
On Apr 21, 2005 Osprey said:
³My first wife and I experienced an "unplanned" pregnancy."
And on Sep 25, 2005:
³So what's the big deal anyway? My wife and I were planning on having
another child, he came sooner..so what? ³
--
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: IMMIGRATION: A PRIVILEGE, NOT A RIGHT |
01 Sep 2007 03:37:22 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 01 Sep 2007 03:18:26 GMT, David Johnston <david@block.net> in
alt.abortion with message-id
<scmhd3l1qk51l3eie6rge2ggfsmlpjcaqf@4ax.com> wrote:
On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 22:40:24 -0400, Attila <<prochoice@here.now>
wrote:
And when part of their family are American citizens because they were
born here? After all, this IS their country?
That law should be changed.
Then you can have a growing population of people with no citizenship,
a truly permanent underclass!
No. They would be deported along with their parents.
It's a noble dream, truly.
Unfortunately, it would require a constitutional amendment to make it
happen.
I know. Something like the Amendment that repealed Prohibition.
An Amendment requiring at least one parent to be a citizen prior to
birth would fix a lot of the problem. Parent as proven by DNA
analysis.
--
Pro-Choice is Pro-Freedom
Every illegal alien is a criminal.
No amnesty under any name or for any reason.
Deportation upon identification, not work permit or citizenship.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Johnston" |
|
| Title: Re: IMMIGRATION: A PRIVILEGE, NOT A RIGHT |
19 Sep 2007 03:19:22 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 01 Sep 2007 04:37:22 -0400, Attila <<prochoice@here.now>
wrote:
On Sat, 01 Sep 2007 03:18:26 GMT, David Johnston <david@block.net> in
alt.abortion with message-id
<scmhd3l1qk51l3eie6rge2ggfsmlpjcaqf@4ax.com> wrote:
On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 22:40:24 -0400, Attila <<prochoice@here.now>
wrote:
And when part of their family are American citizens because they were
born here? After all, this IS their country?
That law should be changed.
Then you can have a growing population of people with no citizenship,
a truly permanent underclass!
No. They would be deported along with their parents.
And why would the place you deported them to not send these people who
are not citizens of their country right back? That's assuming of
course that you can find all of these nonpersons, which you certainly
can not.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: IMMIGRATION: A PRIVILEGE, NOT A RIGHT |
20 Sep 2007 09:41:38 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 20:19:22 GMT, David Johnston <david@block.net> in
alt.abortion with message-id
<nq03f3d82hh8mf9g4m8t5man2tjjg8csiq@4ax.com> wrote:
On Sat, 01 Sep 2007 04:37:22 -0400, Attila <<prochoice@here.now>
wrote:
On Sat, 01 Sep 2007 03:18:26 GMT, David Johnston <david@block.net> in
alt.abortion with message-id
<scmhd3l1qk51l3eie6rge2ggfsmlpjcaqf@4ax.com> wrote:
On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 22:40:24 -0400, Attila <<prochoice@here.now>
wrote:
And when part of their family are American citizens because they were
born here? After all, this IS their country?
That law should be changed.
Then you can have a growing population of people with no citizenship,
a truly permanent underclass!
No. They would be deported along with their parents.
And why would the place you deported them to not send these people who
are not citizens of their country right back? That's assuming of
course that you can find all of these nonpersons, which you certainly
can not.
Send them back as fast as you find them. Deport them to wherever they
came from.
--
Pro-Choice is Pro-Freedom
Every illegal alien is a criminal.
No amnesty under any name or for any reason.
Deportation upon identification, not work permit or citizenship.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: IMMIGRATION: A PRIVILEGE, NOT A RIGHT |
20 Sep 2007 11:02:29 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 10:41:38 -0400, Attila <<prochoice@here.now>
wrote:
Send them back as fast as you find them. Deport them to wherever they
came from.
The problem is that, while the parents came from someplace else, the
kids "came from" here. They're not citizens of the countries their
parents came from.
--
Al at Webdingers dot com
"They laughed at Newton, they laughed at Einstein, but they also laughed at
Bozo the Clown."
- Carl Sagan
.
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: IMMIGRATION: A PRIVILEGE, NOT A RIGHT |
21 Sep 2007 09:48:29 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 04:02:29 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> in
alt.abortion with message-id
<rfg6f39fkqc5vmdi4du2b899fcb6nrnm93@4ax.com> wrote:
On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 10:41:38 -0400, Attila <<prochoice@here.now>
wrote:
Send them back as fast as you find them. Deport them to wherever they
came from.
The problem is that, while the parents came from someplace else, the
kids "came from" here. They're not citizens of the countries their
parents came from.
And that points out a major problem with the Constitution.
One parent should already be a citizen before any child becomes a
citizen by birth.
An Amendment is needed. And has been proposed.
--
Pro-Choice is Pro-Freedom
Every illegal alien is a criminal.
No amnesty under any name or for any reason.
Deportation upon identification, not work permit or citizenship.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Johnston" |
|
| Title: Re: IMMIGRATION: A PRIVILEGE, NOT A RIGHT |
21 Sep 2007 12:44:48 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 10:41:38 -0400, Attila <<prochoice@here.now>
wrote:
No. They would be deported along with their parents.
And why would the place you deported them to not send these people who
are not citizens of their country right back? That's assuming of
course that you can find all of these nonpersons, which you certainly
can not.
Send them back as fast as you find them. Deport them to wherever they
came from.
They didn't "come" from anywhere.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: IMMIGRATION: A PRIVILEGE, NOT A RIGHT |
21 Sep 2007 09:49:05 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 05:44:48 GMT, David Johnston <david@block.net> in
alt.abortion with message-id
<egm6f3ld6f58nugmj17rv815gfdtu0iqso@4ax.com> wrote:
On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 10:41:38 -0400, Attila <<prochoice@here.now>
wrote:
No. They would be deported along with their parents.
And why would the place you deported them to not send these people who
are not citizens of their country right back? That's assuming of
course that you can find all of these nonpersons, which you certainly
can not.
Send them back as fast as you find them. Deport them to wherever they
came from.
They didn't "come" from anywhere.
If they are here illegally they did.
--
Pro-Choice is Pro-Freedom
Every illegal alien is a criminal.
No amnesty under any name or for any reason.
Deportation upon identification, not work permit or citizenship.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: IMMIGRATION: A PRIVILEGE, NOT A RIGHT |
31 Aug 2007 05:16:23 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 09:54:03 -0700, Mark Sebree
<sebree@infionline.net> wrote:
On Aug 31, 12:24 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 00:06:40 -0400, "J Young" <younginsig...@aol.com>
wrote:
"House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is 'not pleased' with the immigration bill now
before the Senate and suggested today that it needs major changes before she
can support it," writes John Wildermuth in the San Francisco Chronicle, May
19, 2007.
"I agree it's a good first step," said Pelosi, "But I'm very concerned about
what it says about family reunification... A point system for reunification
undermines our family values that we espouse in our country... I don't know
why we have to compromise on reunification of families, I really don't."
Neither do I. If someone is here illegally, send them back home. If
they have family here with them, send the family back home too. Let's
keep families together, where they belong - in THEIR country.
And when part of their family are American citizens because they were
born here? After all, this IS their country? You want to split up
families and send the parents away and keep the kids here? You want
to deny US citizens the right to live in this country with their
parents?
Reminds me of the plea of the guy arrested for DWI. He doesn't live
close enough to the bar to walk and there's no public transportation,
so he HAS to drive home drunk.
Maybe he should have thought of that BEFORE he started drinking?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: IMMIGRATION: A PRIVILEGE, NOT A RIGHT |
31 Aug 2007 05:23:12 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 00:06:40 -0400, J Young wrote:
IMMIGRATION: A PRIVILEGE, NOT A RIGHT
Okay!
Anybody whose family was not here in 1490, outta the country!
--
Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
------------------------------------------------------------
"Behold the foul stench of Skeletor's breakfast burrito!"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Part_Time_Troll" |
|
| Title: Re: IMMIGRATION: A PRIVILEGE, NOT A RIGHT |
31 Aug 2007 09:41:32 PM |
|
|
31 Aug 2007,"Mark K. Bilbo" <gmail@com.mkbilbo> in
news:sMWdnX22AchNCUXbnZ2dnUVZ_qbinZ2d@giganews.com:
On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 00:06:40 -0400, J Young wrote:
IMMIGRATION: A PRIVILEGE, NOT A RIGHT
Okay!
Anybody whose family was not here in 1490, outta the country!
lets kick out anyone whose predecessors weren't residents in 21473 BC
hey, ow.
;-)
--
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22ann+coulter%22++Chupacabras
http://www.google.com/search?q=105+%7C+104+prius+mph+ticket+%
7C+speeding+celeb+%7C+celebs+%7C+celebrity+woz+%7C+wozniak+%
7C+amish
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "skyeyes" |
|
| Title: Re: IMMIGRATION: A PRIVILEGE, NOT A RIGHT |
31 Aug 2007 06:11:09 PM |
|
|
On Aug 31, 3:23 pm, "Mark K. Bilbo" <gm...@com.mkbilbo> wrote:
On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 00:06:40 -0400, J Young wrote:
IMMIGRATION: A PRIVILEGE, NOT A RIGHT
Okay!
Anybody whose family was not here in 1490, outta the country!
My Viking ancestors got here around 930 AD. Can I stay? <G> And if
the answer is yes, can I stay in Arizona, or do I have to go back up
to Newfoundland where they had a settlement?
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes at dakotacom dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: IMMIGRATION: A PRIVILEGE, NOT A RIGHT |
01 Sep 2007 07:13:52 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 16:11:09 -0700, skyeyes wrote:
On Aug 31, 3:23 pm, "Mark K. Bilbo" <gm...@com.mkbilbo> wrote:
On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 00:06:40 -0400, J Young wrote:
IMMIGRATION: A PRIVILEGE, NOT A RIGHT
Okay!
Anybody whose family was not here in 1490, outta the country!
My Viking ancestors got here around 930 AD. Can I stay? <G> And if the
answer is yes, can I stay in Arizona, or do I have to go back up to
Newfoundland where they had a settlement?
I think you have to back to your country of origin and apply for a visa.
Or is that a mastercard, I forget...
--
Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
------------------------------------------------------------
"You believe in a book that has talking animals, wizards,
witches, demons, sticks turning into snakes, food falling
from the sky, people walking on water, and all sorts of magical,
absurd and primitive stories, and you say that *we* are the
ones that need help?" - Jon Stoll
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
