Article

2007-05-18 Home Front: WoT

Fred Thompson: "Immigration" Bill is Lipstick on a Pig!

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by OldSpook 2007-05-18 18:31|| || Front Page|| [11135 views ] Top

#1 Any doubts THIS is the right guy for the job of President?

Posted by OldSpook 2007-05-18 18:40|| 2007-05-18 18:40|| Front Page Top

#2 None whatsoever.

Posted by DMFD 2007-05-18 18:56|| 2007-05-18 18:56|| Front Page Top

#3 I think he is doing a guerrilla campaign run.

Posted by DarthVader">DarthVader 2007-05-18 19:07|| 2007-05-18 19:07|| Front Page Top

#4 In fact, a final version of the bill most likely will not be made available to the public until after the legislation is passed.

Star chamber, anyone?

Thompson continues to bat a 1,000.

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2007-05-18 19:18|| 2007-05-18 19:18|| Front Page Top

#5 "entered the U.S. illegally more than 20 years ago; filed for asylum back in 1989, but fell off the governments radar screen when federal bureaucrats essentially lost track of the paperwork"

not via the Rio Grande, then. How would fortifying the SW border change this?

Posted by liberalhawk 2007-05-18 19:59|| 2007-05-18 19:59|| Front Page Top

#6 It can't change the past. But it can prevent OTMs of potentially nefarious intent from entering to try again in the future.

Here's some photos of items found near Three Points, Arizona, for example. You think Juan Pablo y su esposa were vacationing in the Middle East prior to coming to El Norte?

Posted by eLarson 2007-05-18 20:06|| 2007-05-18 20:06|| Front Page Top

#7 Some of them came in via the refugee debacle, some came in over the border. Pay attention, LH.

Besides, do you disagree that a nation that doesn't control who is within it is no longer a nation?

Posted by Rob Crawford">Rob Crawford 2007-05-18 20:08|| http://www.kloognome.com/]">[http://www.kloognome.com/] 2007-05-18 20:08|| Front Page Top

#8 yes id disagree with that. In theearly 19th century most countries didnt even have passports, movement from country to country was barely regulated.

I wouldnt say there were no nations, there certainly were.

The decision of how much effort to put into controlling the border is a policy decision to be based on costs and benefits. Not an emotional one.

And I certainly agree that post 9/11 we should control the border better. I think we have. Look at the absence of terr acts in the US, despite thousand of Islamist loonies abroad. These guys at Ft Dix were rank amateurs, not trained AQniks, who came over years before 9/11.

Now should we improve border control further - sure. But should we hold immigration reform hostage till the BP gets its act together? Does the BP even care about reform of the status of current immigrants?

Do you agree that a country that has millions of inhabitants, who are not registered, who are living on the lam, who dont have the same access to education and health care, who can be victimized by unscrupulous employers, has a big problem?

But that leaves two options - legalize them, or deport them.

Posted by liberalhawk 2007-05-18 20:23|| 2007-05-18 20:23|| Front Page Top

#9 elarson

there have always been non-Mexicans coming across. if this one guy of the fort dix trio was actually a Rio Grande comer, hes the first terr thus far to do so, AFAIK. and hes hardly first rank terr.

but again, im all for improving border security. I think it should go along with the other changes.

Posted by liberalhawk 2007-05-18 20:27|| 2007-05-18 20:27|| Front Page Top

#10 LH,

Refuse them benefits or permission to work, and place draconian penalties on those who would hire them, and they'll deport themselves. BTW, my congresscritter has cosponsored H.R. 1940, which is a bill to make the "anchor baby" concept illegal. If they can get that passed it would make a tremendous difference.

Posted by Mac 2007-05-18 20:30|| 2007-05-18 20:30|| Front Page Top

#11 LH I am for as you say "deport them". Talk about "immigration" after the border is secured and and every US citizen who wants one has a living wage job.

Posted by Sock Puppet of Doom 2007-05-18 20:59|| www.sockpuppetofdoom.com]">[www.sockpuppetofdoom.com] 2007-05-18 20:59|| Front Page Top

#12 yes id disagree with that. In theearly 19th century most countries didnt even have passports, movement from country to country was barely regulated.

There also wasn't welfare, mandates to provide healthcare, education, free college tuition, providing identification documents, patronising special-interest groups, WMD...

Posted by Pappy 2007-05-18 21:29|| 2007-05-18 21:29|| Front Page Top

#13 In theearly 19th century most countries didnt even have passports, movement from country to country was barely regulated.

LH, your comparison is wholly inadequate, as in apples to oranges. In the early 19^th century, movement between nations was horrendously expensive, very risky to one's life (one in seven ocean going ships never made it back into port) and heavily discouraged due to extreme xenophobia on the part of rural populations (watch the movies Jean de Florette & Manon des Source sometime).

In an age of international air travel and institutionalized human smuggling, your observation no longer applies.

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2007-05-18 21:41|| 2007-05-18 21:41|| Front Page Top

#14 O'REILLY [paraphrased] > Iff there are approxi 20.0Milyuhn new citizens in 5-10 years, mostly HISPANIC?, it will utterly change everything in America. MOST ILLEGALS OR HISPANICS, ETC. VOTE DEMOCRAT - in FIVE YEARS, wid 10.0Milyuhn illegals, etal. now new voters in the ranks, O'REILLY BELIEVES AMERS WILL WAVE = SAY BYE-BYE TO THE GOP, AS THE DEMS WILL TAKE CONTROL BY SHEER WEIGHT OF NUMBERS ALONE, AND AMER WILL HAVE A ONE-PARTY GOVT. AND NATION.

ONE-PARTY GOVT. AND NATION.

Posted by JosephMendiola 2007-05-18 22:08|| 2007-05-18 22:08|| Front Page Top

#15 OTOH, HANNITY AND COLMES > GUESTS > dichotomy is btwn OBEYING THE CURRENT LAW = LAWS ALREADY IN EXISTENCE; versus OBEY THE PROPOSED NEW LAW BUT NOT THE OLD/PAST LAWS???

Posted by JosephMendiola 2007-05-18 22:11|| 2007-05-18 22:11|| Front Page Top

#16 With a wife like this, I see two good reasons to vote for this man. Clearly knows how to pick winners.

Posted by Lampedusa Glaimble2526 2007-05-18 22:29|| 2007-05-18 22:29|| Front Page Top

23:47 Stop the madness
23:37 DMFD
23:23 JosephMendiola
23:15 Mike N.
23:15 JosephMendiola
23:13 USN, ret.
23:02 Zenster
23:01 Natural Law
22:58 Seafarious
22:55 Zenster
22:54 DMFD
22:54 Phineter Thraviger
22:52 Mike N.
22:50 Zenster
22:49 gromgoru
22:42 Mike N.
22:31 JosephMendiola
22:29 Lampedusa Glaimble2526
22:22 JosephMendiola
22:17 JosephMendiola
22:11 JosephMendiola
22:08 JosephMendiola
21:58 trailing wife
21:56 JosephMendiola