O'Reilly warned of immigration bill's "unintended consequences" -- changing ethnic landscape
On the May 17 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, while discussing May 17 Senate negotiations on a bipartisan immigration bill, host Bill O'Reilly said: "Reluctantly, and I mean reluctantly, 'Talking Points' is going to support this legislation. It's the best we can get and does improve the situation." But O'Reilly asserted that the bill "drastically alters the United States of America," adding that "there will be unintended consequences all over the place. The new census report says America's now one-third minority." He continued, "And in four states -- California, New Mexico, Texas, and Hawaii -- whites are the minority."
O'Reilly was citing a report from the U.S. Census Bureau, which found that "[a]bout 1-in-every-3 U.S. residents was part of a group other than single-race non-Hispanic white." He then claimed that "with the infusion of as many as 20 to 30 million new citizens in the next 10 years, the landscape of America will absolutely change."
As Media Matters for America has noted, O'Reilly has previously expressed concern over the increasing non-white population in the United States:
- On the May 16, 2006, edition of The O'Reilly Factor, O'Reilly claimed that The New York Times and "many far-left thinkers believe the white power structure that controls America is bad, so a drastic change is needed." O'Reilly continued: "According to the lefty zealots, the white Christians who hold power must be swept out by a new multicultural tide, a rainbow coalition, if you will." O'Reilly's comments came during a discussion of opposition by the Times and others to deploying the National Guard to help secure the border.
- On the May 1, 2006, edition of Westwood One's The Radio Factor, O'Reilly alleged that the "organizers" of nationwide pro-immigrant protests had a "hardcore militant agenda of 'You stole our land, you bad gringos,' " and that the protest organizers were seeking to "take it back by massive, massive migration into the Southwest.' "
- On the April 12, 2006, broadcast of his radio show, O'Reilly claimed that on the April 11 edition of The O'Reilly Factor, guest Charles Barron, a New York City councilman, had revealed the "hidden agenda" behind the current immigration debate. O'Reilly told his listeners: "[T]he bottom line is Charles Barron said last night is there is a movement in this country to wipe out 'white privilege' and to have the browning of America." O'Reilly suggested that this "hidden agenda" included plans to let "people who live in the Caribbean, people who live in Africa and Asia ... walk in and become citizens immediately."
From the May 17 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
O'REILLY: Reluctantly, and I mean reluctantly, "Talking Points" is going to support this legislation. It's the best we can get and does improve the situation. But make no mistake, it's not fair. It drastically alters the United States of America. And there will be unintended consequences all over the place.
The new census report says America's now one-third minority. And in four states -- California, New Mexico, Texas, and Hawaii -- whites are the minority. So with the infusion of as many as 20 to 30 million new citizens in the next 10 years, the landscape of America will absolutely change.
Finally, the happiest guy in the country tonight is Senator Edward Kennedy [D-MA] because this amnesty is a boon to the Democratic Party. Most of the new citizens will become Democrats simply because of entitlements and peer pressure. So there you have it. It's not pretty. But if the government stops the madness at the border and punishes employers who continue to violate the law, I'll go with it because there's nothing better coming down the pike.
Pat Buchanan says the same thing on MSNBC Scarborugh Country last night. Will MMFA highlight that? Or does Buchanan get a pass this week because Olbermann interviewed him at the GOP Dehate. This to me just looks like another lets attack O'Reilly story. Nothing here and nothing new. But you can bet he may be the "Worst Person in the World" tonight when Olby spews his venom toward people he disagress with. Cant wait.
Then why waste your time reading it and responding?
Well he had to read it in order to come to that realization, right?
I'm just looking at the bigger picture. If MMFA's work is so insignificant and so immaterial in the eyes of people like the poster above, then why patronize the site at all? Yeah, MMFA hosts a forum where all are welcome and you're mostly free to say what you want, but I don't waste my time at blogs or sites that I feel are nothing more than specks of dust on the internet landscape that have "nothing here" and "nothing new".
Buchanan did NOT say the same thing! Check your facts before you post.
Even if he did, screw those who think that MMFA is treating BO unfairly. Too bad. MMFA can point out whatever misinformation that they think will help keep readership up on their site. The market will weed out the sites that are boring. (sounds familiar, doesn't it?)
I've asked b4 and I'll ask agaiin: What misinformation? I fail to see what's factually incorrect in his statements. MMFA can print whatever it likes. That's true.
Iran's president can say whatever he likes as well. But his obvious biases bar him from any intelligent debate on important issues. If you believe someone or something is always wrong, you're probably not fair or objective. And if you're willing to be unfair on one thing, who's to say you won't be unfair on everything?
Perfect example: Sean Hannity's personal attacks on Alec Baldwin after that voicemail release a few weeks back. Hannity doesn't like Baldwin or his politics and his dislike(bias)against Baldwin affected hi judgement and sense of fairness. If hannity will respond to Baldwin in such a manner how can he be taken seriously on anything? An attempt at fairness would be...nice. Can't we all be nice?
If that's the way you truly feel, you'd probably be better off by logging out of MMFA and going someplace like Hannity.com. RushLimbaugh.com, or Free Republic.
O'Reilly supports this because Bush supports this - 'nuff said.
The bill is a hideous sellout. Even O'Reilly's spin can't change that.
You beat me to it. The only reason Bill-O is behind this is because he is a full fledge bush administration robot. In fact I didn't even watch last night's Factor because I KNEW he was going to try and shore up support for Bush's amnesty agenda.
O;reilly has consistently and repeaterdly BASHED Bush for his lack of action on immigration. To suggest otherwise is to LIE!
uh i would hardly call what he does bush BASHING. ive watched billo since 2000, when he disagrees with the president he gives him "advice" or "suggestions". Bill never bashes anyone but dems. Like he bashed that republican judge in vermont but NEVER mentioned or showed that he was a republican.
The Political persuasion of the judge was not pertinent to the story. And I will cede the point that perhaps "bashing" was too strong a word. But he has been critical, stating on more than one occasion that Bush has done "nothing" to secure the border. As to only bashing democrats I would suggest that he rips the "far left". There are no republicans that I know of that are far left. And it is fair to point out not all democrats are far left. There are plenty of reasonable democrats out there and I don't hear O'reilly rip them.
he is critical, but only on specific points. watch how when he criticizes the war in iraq or other issues that can be linked to the executive branch, he will make no such link. he wont say, for example, "bush is pro amnesty and has now cost the gop many votes" and "i have lost faith in mr bush" - he will just criticize him and then proceed to give bush another chance.
I'll look for what you say. but I believe that O'reilly's tone, pretty much regardless of what Bush does, will only rise to a level of criticism that he feels is still respectful. I do not believe that a democrat in the office would get harsher treatment all things being equal. Ofcourse, I could be wrong.
Your comment on BO bashing only the "far left" is dead wrong for one reason--To O'Reilly, 'far left' means Democrats. He has never praised anything that any current Democratic lawmaker has done. He claims to be independant, yet it's obvious that he's stone republican. He bashes Democrats. Period.
I disagree. He's said nice things about Bill Richardson and Lieberman to just name two dems. I would contend he's been critical of Bush and more so of Cheney. He does go after the far left but I don't see him lumping all the dems together.
frankly, there aren't any republicans that are as far out there politically as the the democratic fringe. At least, that's how I see it. An example: some democrats are upset that this bill will not let in enough illegals. That's a view that is way out of touch with what most americans think. I don't know any republicans that support that, or the flipside, which would be "don't let anyone in."
Just a minor point, but Lieberman IS NOT a Democrat. He left the party when the Democrats in Conn. chose another candidate to represent them. I don't know of anyone who feels that he is missed.
that;s techincally correct. Lieberman ran as an independent and beat his far left opponent. O'reilly liked him before his "change".
But it's not like lieberman formed his own little party...
"frankly, there aren't any republicans that are as far out there politically as the the democratic fringe."
Are you kidding me? You are actually claiming the far right Republicans aren't "as far out there" as Democrats. We have a Republican President who thinks God talks to him and who invites religious leaders to the white house to discuss middle east policy. We have murdered hundreds of thousands of innocent people because a REPUBLICAN thinks God told him to lead a "crusade" against the muslims.
At this very moment in our country our entire government is controlled and being dismantled by the far right but you can't see it? All you see are left wing democrats?
A "crusade against muslims." This is why so many dems get a bad name. Incoherent rantings like this serve no purpose. Please provide some evidence that Bush started the war because "god told him to start a crusade."
You can believe whatever you want, whether there's any evidence to support it or not but it's statements like the ones above that lead many like myself(independent leaning right - but I'd vote for a dem I'd like) to write of the democratic party as unbalanced and dangerous. You are hurting your own cause sir.
"This is why so many dems get a bad name. Incoherent rantings like this serve no purpose."
I think it is republicans who have a bad name and Claypot's ranting was coherent.
"Please provide some evidence that Bush started the war because "god told him to start a crusade."
God told him to start a Crusade.
"You can believe whatever you want, whether there's any evidence to support it or not but it's statements like the ones above that lead many like myself(independent leaning right - but I'd vote for a dem I'd like) to write of the democratic party as unbalanced and dangerous."
I'm also an independent and I would describe the republican Party "as dangerous and unbalanced."
That's the proof? A story by the Independent(some paper no ones ever heard of) which cites an unamed BBC series(that no ones ever seen) as it's source? You have a very low theshold of proof considering the seriousness of your accusation.
We could debate all day long whether the war was good idea. It's been a disaster I'd say. The level of incompetence to me seems...staggering.
But I find no credibility that the statement that Bush is waging a religious war.
“That's the proof? A story by the Independent(some paper no ones ever heard of) which cites an unamed BBC series(that no ones ever seen) as it's source? You have a very low theshold of proof considering the seriousness of your accusation.”
Yes, that's my proof.
“We could debate all day long whether the war was good idea. It's been a disaster I'd say. The level of incompetence to me seems...staggering.”
My concern is not with how competently the war was fought; I have a big problem with Bush fighting a war which did not have to be fought.
“But I find no credibility that the statement that Bush is waging a religious war.”
I think he’s fighting an oil war.
I'd say your proof doesn't qualify as proof. If that story could be backed up EVERY news outlet in the country would/would have run with it.
Or was there a cover up? Bush has quieted the press just like he's quieted all the scientists and experts and witnesses on the 9/11 deal?
That ain't proof.
An oil war? Do we get any of Iraq's oil? Does Bush get any of Iraq's oil? Who's getting this oil LOONZ? Or is it some time in the futurre that we'll take all their oil? Is that when Bush and the Bin Ladens are going to take it? This is a popular talking point but there's no proof to substantiate what you say.
Or does the Independent have another BBC series they'd like to quote?
"I'd say your proof doesn't qualify as proof. If that story could be backed up EVERY news outlet in the country would/would have run with it."
Yes that's my proof. If the Bush administration would have said that God did not urge him to invade, I would disavow the story because then it would be reduced to he said, she said.
"Or was there a cover up? Bush has quieted the press just like he's quieted all the scientists and experts and witnesses on the 9/11 deal?"
I'm really not concerned with the media not reporting something like that.
"An oil war? Do we get any of Iraq's oil? Does Bush get any of Iraq's oil? Who's getting this oil LOONZ? Or is it some time in the futurre that we'll take all their oil? Is that when Bush and the Bin Ladens are going to take it? This is a popular talking point but there's no proof to substantiate what you say."
It's an oil war. Look at the Production Sharing Agreements (PSAs) in the new Iraqi Oil Law Bush is urging the Iraqi government to accept. If adopted American oil companies (his buddies) will make out like bandits locking up 80 to 90 percent of Iraq's oil fields for forty to fifty years.
Where do I find these agreements LOONZ? I'll be happy to take a look. What you are saying has not been reported by any credible news agency that I'm aware of. My understanding is that the oil revenue sharing is supposed to divide the wealth between Sunni's, Shiitite's and Kurds. No mnetion of the U.S. benefitting
You can read about it here.
Sigh. Why do I bother to ask. A website no ones ever heard of and an article no ones ever read.
How bout fair and unbiased source LOONZ? Not a website where one of there banner ads reads "the moral case for losing the war."
Is this where you get all your info? From sources with no credibilty and little or no following?
Well, it's your loss. It's great reporting on how the Bush administration and American oil companies are trying to rip off the Iraqis with these PSAs.
Yeah, Loonz. Sure, your site had pertinent info, attributed quotes, credited sources- but it's not popular enough!
This may be a bit off topic but I posted about this just the other day. It may be true that it didn't matter what the political persuasion of the judge was. But why then did he spend the bulk of his time harping on about Vermont's "liberal media" and repeatedly claim that liberals don't care about child molesters and that liberals want to give them light sentences? It was a conservative Republican judge that gave the light sentence so O'Reilly harps on about liberals?
Bill claims to be a completely middle of the road independent who treats all political extremes the same (so it would seem you'd concede him to be a liar about that). Even when he happens to concede that Fox may be slightly right-leaning he denies that he is even in the slightest. But anytime you watch his show it's "loony-liberals" this and "far-left zealots" that.
O'Reilly will accuse people of being "far-left" seemingly so he can attack them for just that. Take the Clintons for example. They are moderately liberal Democrats. But like so many other far-right pundits, O'Reilly claims they (especially Hillary now) are far-left and so any liberal thing they do that he doesn't like he calls far-left yadda yadda yadda.
It seems the only reasons O'Reilly was ever willing to attack Bush about his immigration policies are that:
1) O'Reilly claims to be independent. It's hard to keep that up when you agree with everything Bush says. So pick something you are annoyed about and use it to "prove" that you aren't completely partisan. For instance: Iraq, O'Reilly claimed if Saddam didn't actually have weapons he would stop trusting Bush and stop supporting the war. Seems he was just blowing smoke there.
2) O'Reilly really seems to have an irrational paranoia about Mexican immigrants. He, along with others on Fox, has repeatedly made Mexican immigration into Doomsday for whites, as he does in this article.
And what's with the end of his memo? "Finally, the happiest guy in the country tonight is Senator Edward Kennedy [D-MA] because this amnesty is a boon to the Democratic Party. Most of the new citizens will become Democrats simply because of entitlements and peer pressure." Proof of this assertion, none. I know conservative pundits like claiming that Hispanic immigrants are all wannabe Democrats but that doesn't make it so.
I think you make some good points about the "judge." I'm going to think about what you said.
I don't agree that Bill is anti-Mexican. As an admitted regular listener and viewer I have found him to be supportive of immigrants in general.
To suggest that the other side might not have valid concerns about such a rapid rise of foreigners, regardless of ethnicity, however seems unfair. Bill says newbies to the US support the democratic party 3 to 1. I have no way to varify his stats but I believe that statisically, minorities avail themselves of entitlement programs and social services at a higher rate. They are less educated, more likely to drop out of school, higher percentage of single parent households, etc. These are facts. Some here, like Loonz will call me bigoted for quoting such stats but that will not make them any less true.
Let me give a personal example. My wife is from Argentina. We have a 13 month old son and money's a tad tight right now. Here in Illinois, all kids can have health insurance for free. It's called Kid care(there are also some new programs our Democratic Gov. just got passed. These state programs, on a sidenote are just what we could all expect from national healthcare, Long waits. Few choices and poor care.) My wife would be fine with having our son on the "free" insurance. Afterall, It would save us about $230 a month. Ofcourse, I know it's not "free" and I refuse to have my neighbors and fellow Illinois pay for my healthcare.
“To suggest that the other side might not have valid concerns about such a rapid rise of foreigners, regardless of ethnicity, however seems unfair.”
Why do you say things like that? It sounds like you're xenophobic and bigoted. I too, I'm against illegal immigration and this deal which I think amounts to amnesty but it has nothing to do with the "rapid rise of foreigners."
“I have no way to varify his stats but I believe that statisically, minorities avail themselves of entitlement programs and social services at a higher rate. They are less educated, more likely to drop out of school, higher percentage of single parent households, etc.”
I don’t understand why you mention these statistics other than to say that these people are inferior to you.
“(there are also some new programs our Democratic Gov. just got passed. These state programs, on a sidenote are just what we could all expect from national healthcare, Long waits. Few choices and poor care.)”
We have "long waits, few choices and poor care" through our current system.
those statistics provide a basis for concern over the influx of too many unskilled immigrants. I didn't realize the dots were that hard to connect.
And to suggest that the comments are bigoted just isn't clear thinking. I would think any country would be concerned over sudden and dramatic demographic shifts.
"those statistics provide a basis for concern over the influx of too many unskilled immigrants. I didn't realize the dots were that hard to connect."
I still don't see your point. I lot of these unskilled immigrants already have jobs here.
"And to suggest that the comments are bigoted just isn't clear thinking. I would think any country would be concerned over sudden and dramatic demographic shifts."
Your comments seems bigoted. I don't know what else to tell you. And you really can't compare the U.S. to any other nation because we were built on forced and unforced immigration.
And you must be using a differnt system of health care then me Loonz. With our private policy the choices are many. The care has been good. The wait times are days or weeks compared to months.
"And you must be using a differnt system of health care then me Loonz. With our private policy the choices are many. The care has been good."
Right now I have great healthcare because I am in a union but most people are not that fortunate. Most people endured "long waits, few choices and poor care" (I had to endure it growing up) and we pay twice as much for healthcare than any other country. And the cost of medication here is absurd.
"The wait times are days or weeks compared to months."
What wait times are you comparing?
I'm comparing the wait time with our private policy versus the wait times with the state run plan.
Union coverage is good.
Everything else you said about our healthcare is true. The question is how to fix it. A bit off the subject here.
"I'm comparing the wait time with our private policy versus the wait times with the state run plan."
Your state? Or U.S. healthcare (private) versus German healthcare (national)?
Why on earth would I be comparing it to German healthcare? I'm not in Germany.
Bashed? He never bashes Bush. Any criticism of Bush is always softened or cloaked in classic O'Reilly suck-up.
You don't watch Bill-O do you....it shows.
My view on the whole immigration thing is - secure the border first - Know who is coming into the country.
Whether we want 20 million new immigrants or 0 new immigrants a year, I think the first step is to secure the border. Then we talk about what to do with the illegals that are here and who we want to come in.
i like how the new bill promises 'over 120 miles of new border fence', but we havent gotten the fence that the gop promised us from the last bill. this immigration bill is simply another way to pacify americans for another 20 years with empty promises, until we have another amnesty bill.
if they dont build the first fence, dont trust them to build the second.
100 percent correct. The empire state building was built in one year and in this day and age we can't even build a fence. I have lost all faith in government. If the govt does not watch it we may have a military coup in this country. What I suggest to everyone is whoever is your representative vote for the opposite party. Kick them all out until they can do ONE thing that they have promised.
In order for a military coup to take place, wouldn't we need our military at home?
True. That's why we need the draft to come back.
So we can have a military coup?
Either that or I'm moving to a cabin in the back woods. All I need is my gun and my bible. I will live of the land, and any federal marshal that comes looking for me better watch out. The govt of the usa is no longer in the hands of the people, it is controlled by big business.
Bush is trying to turn North America into one big economic machine:
- Raw Resources come from Canada ( Oil, Nickel, Copper, Wood, etc )
- Capital comes from wall street
- Labor comes from Mexico.
There is this huge super highway being built from port in Mexico all the way through the USA and Canada. No border checks will be necessary on this road. The highway starts at a Mexican port - the port will be partly owned by some Chinese firm. This is all about globalization. The little man has no more say in things.
Urban Myth.
Ha, I beat you...I am already here.
You make an excellent point. Kinda scary too.
You make an excellent point. Kinda scary too.
Sorry for the double post, the first one ended up in a place where no context could be found.
My view on the whole immigration thing is - secure the border first
You make it sound like putting up screen windows.
How would you "secure the border?" How exactly?
Triple the amount of border patrol agents to start. Prosecute to the fullest employers who hire illegals, stop the incentive to come here. Remove sanctuary city policies in cities that have them.
Do you think that would stop people from coming? While I do think the economic incentive to come to the USA is strong, don't you also think that there is a strong emotional pull - the sex appeal, so to speak, of the USA? People just WANT to be here. I don't know if any studies have been done on that or not. But I do think that there's more to it than just $$$.
Well, that's at least achievable - though I don't know what you mean by "remove sanctuary city policies." Those are laws passed by municipalities regulating what their own police force does. I mean, maybe you are saying a Tommy Administration would penalise cities that passed such laws, but that would be different than "removing" them.
My original objection was to the idea that "securing the border" completely is somehow an achievable task, even if it were a desirable one. This is an enormous country, with very long sea coasts. I mean, even if it were possible to build huge, impregnable walls on the land borders and totally militarise every beach in the country, would it really be worth the cost and effort, just to avoid having to hear "Oprima il numero dos para Español" when you call the bank?
Val,
Your simplifying this issue to hearing a Spanish speaking voice at the bank is beneath you, that is absurd and so far away from the issue, it's even more absurd. If you want to have an intelligent dicsussion, fine.....when you offer up silly anecdotes such as that, what is the point.
As for the sanctuary city policies, I know how what they are.......I meant they should be removed by cities and yes, cities that retain them should be denied certain federal funding.
I used exaggeration to make a humorous point at the end of a long, serious post.
I apologise if I lowered the otherwise high level of discourse on this site.
Did you even read what the bill provides for?
I know full well what the major provisions of the bill are, and I wholeheartedly do not support it. Obviously you do.
What provisions of the border security part of the bill do you disagree with?
I'm not sure what makes you think I "obviously" agree with the bill. What I don't understand is why you're saying we have to secure the border, yet you disagree with this bill. Even if it isn't a complete plan for doing so (I assume our southern border is more than 370 miles long, for instance) isn't it better to do something rather than nothing? There's always the possibility to do more in the future.
I have explained fully my objections to this bill.......unless the border is secured first and foremost, before this whole silly "comprehensive" stuff is thrown out, I am against it.
It is 1986 all over again.
Sorry, I don't trust politicians who have no interest in solving this problem for their own selfish interests anymore now, than back then. Secure the border, then come back with the rest.
I don't recall what your objections are to this specific bill.
But I guess from your post you're an all or nothing sort of person. Black and white. No room for compromise.
i thought Tommy's point to be straightforward. SECURE the BORDER, than we move on. This bill will help secure the border if they follow through with the sercurity measures. I'm skeptical that they will but the public outrage over this issue may finally force action. Let's hope so.
Yes, Tommy has (I believe) said we have to secure the border. I point out it has a number of provisions to do so. He says (again, I'm saying so from memory so I might be wrong) that he's against the bill. I ask what are his objections? I'm guessing it's because it doesn't go far enough, but I'll await his response.
I agree you pretty much except that the level of corruption in mexico is the number one reason the people of mexico find it neccessary to illegally imigrate. Until the ruling oligarchy in mexico is brought to justice there will always be many who will leave their family and friends to illegally imigrate. It is fairly irresponsible for the power elite in Mexico to shamelessly rape their own country.
I actually agree w/ Tommy.
ask our boys in iraq how they secured the border with syria to where only a few get in. ask the israeli govt how they stopped hamas from getting in with the wall.
it isnt hard to do, they just want you to think it is.
You may have noticed, the United States is somewhat larger than Iraq or Israel.
Also, we have these things called oceans. Hard to build a fence on water.
No one has suggested that we fence in the entire country. We are trying to stop millions from coming. We will never be able to stop the "lone" terrorist from coming. The perimeter is too big.
But ofcourse, that is not the point of the bill. Your logic is fuzzy. We can't stop every muder in this country. Doesn't mean we should disband the police force or stop trying
You haven't asked me what my logic is, so I challenge your standing to pass judgment on it.
I was specifically responding to the statement "it isn't hard to do." I know some ICE agents (I live in a border region), and they, too, would disagree with that breezy sentiment.
It's not important that the ICE agents would "disagree with breezy statement." What is important is WHY they would disagree. My guess is they're going to say they don't have the manpower and resources. These problems would be easy to fix if our politcians wanted to fix them.
The U.S./Mexico border alone is 1951 miles long.
Please explain how guarding that border could ever be "easy," even given unlimited resources and manpower.
Let me say first that I didn't realize it was that long. thought it was about half that so thanks for the info. That being said, to suggest that it wouldn't be easy with unlimited resources seems...wrong. We don't have unlimited resources though so back to reality...O.K. Easy maybe is too "breezy" of a word. But shutting down 90% of the immigration is certainly achievable, easy or not.
That's fine - I think realistic targets are worth debating. I think 90% may or may not be possible, and I think it would be astronomically costly if it were, but I don't really have any expertise on the matter.
Reasonable people can differ on how big a problem immigration really is, and how much of the national treasury should be allocated to dealing with it.
First get the fence built, and put 50000 guards on it. If the panama canal was built decades ago, with the machines we have today it should be a lot easier.
We don't need a fence.
More brilliant commentary. What do we need Loonz? Nothing? Anything? Your insights are without peer.
Just start throwing employers in jail who hire illegal immigrants. Once these immigrants can't find jobs, they'll voluntarily leave the country. You'll still have a few people who will attempt to cross the border but they will few and far between and the border patrol will be able to handle it.
Just start throwing employers in jail who hire illegal immigrants. Once these immigrants can't find jobs, they'll voluntarily leave the country. You'll still have a few people who will attempt to cross the border but they will few and far between and the border patrol will be able to handle it.
How do we know who to jail? How many enforcement people are needed to look into the ten million plus small businesses in the country, not to mention the big businesses? What about the 12 million people that are here now? I guess they'll just amble back to their home country? From a practical stanpoint your idea is unrealistic. Implementation would be impossible and if you start jaling a bunch of business owners what do you think the fallout will be? You should try to think that through a bit more.
"How do we know who to jail? How many enforcement people are needed to look into the ten million plus small businesses in the country, not to mention the big businesses?"
All you have to do is throw a few in jail and others will get the message. And we can pass a law that holds employers responsible for not knowing the correct legal status for all of their employees. Also, a lot of people know which employers are hiring illegal immigrants. They can make a phone call to an enforcement bureau so the business can be checked out.
Simple-minded drivel. You reached your customary highmark.
"You reached your customary highmark."
Thank you.
Put the national Guard on the border. Thirty to fifty thousand would probably do it. The flow across the southern border would be stopped in a week. The additional suggestions by Tommy wouuld finish the job.
And where would we get 30 to 50 thousand additional National Guard troops to guard our borders?
Are you implying they're all in Iraq? If so, not true. If we had the political will the troops would be there.
I'm not implying that all of our NG troops are in Iraq. I am implying that too many of them are serving in Iraq to divert those remaining stateside to redeploy to our borders.
In 2003 there were 1.3 million National Guard and reservists. While that number is probably a bit lower now, there are still plenty of NAtional Guard troops avaiable for border security.
Keep in mind, the National Guard is a PART-TIME force that is usually used for emergency response pruposes. They are NOT and were NEVER intended to be a full-time border patrol force. Besides, do you really think it appropriate for a New Jersey NG unit for example (which is under the command of the NJ governer) to be guarding our southern border?
Absolutely. I find it appropriate that the national Guard guard the nation. I agree that their intended purpose is not to be long-term border agents but long-term wouldn't be necesary. And the state they are from is irrelevant. Last I checked NJ is part of the U.S. It's the national Guard. Not the, "I only protect NJ" guard
So your solution is to place an unfair burden on between 30,000 and 50,000 families. many who've already had their lives torn apart by their NG members service in Iraq and Afghanistan.
For once, I'd lover to see a con who comes up with a solution that doesn't involve the military.
iT's not an unfair burden. They signed up. It's a volunteer force. The fact that many thought they'd play soldier one weekend a month and get some college bennies is irrelevant. Duty calls!
How would you secure the border?
I have a lot more respect for our military than you do. Yes, they signed up, yes, it's an all volunteer service, but that's not a good enough reason to activate them to secure our borders.
If we continue to abuse our military, enlistments will never recover. We need political solutions, not military solutions.
Immigration reform is not going to be solved as easily as BO and the others would have us think. it's going to involve consensus and compromise from everyone involved.
I'll assume you were never in the military. If wrong I apologize.
You respect them more than me? You must respect them a lot. I guess you feel it's disrespectful for them to do their duty. I do not.
Compromise and consensus? Sounds like amnesty...more amnesty and let's follow that up with...some more amnesty. There's no political solution without securing the border first. At least, no acceptable solution, unless you want another 10-20 million more people every 5-10 years. I do not.
You know what they say about anyone who assumes?
What leap of logic did you follow to make that assumption?
Are you trying to imply that those who serve or have served in our military are required to toe the neo-con line? If you are, you are really out of touch.
I don't believe it's disrespectful to think they should do their duty. I think it's disrespectful for someone like you or the Chickenhawk O'Reilly to want to use our National Guard to secure our borders or to serve at your whim.
The NG, the Reserves and the active duty military have clear definitions of what their duties are. Border security is not one of their duties. At some point, it might be, but it is not now.
There is no simple solution. We need to work at reducing or eliminating illegal immigration. We need to impose the harshest penalties on those who exploit the illegal workforce. The Federal Government also must finance the policing of the Federal Immigration laws by our local authorities if they expect them to enforce Federal laws concerning immigration.
I made that leap of logic as follows: I simply don't feel someone who'd been in the military would find my comments direspectful. Vets might disagree but the use of the word disrespectful suggests to me that you didn't serrve. Are you saying you did serve?
And tow whatever line you like.
The rest we'll agree to disagree on.
Anyone who has served in the military would find your statement about "playing soldier" insulting and disrespectful. I know that I find it disrespectful. I would have never used such a defamatory phrase to describe a reservist.
No other veterans that I know would ever use that term either. You're correct, we do disagree about many things. But one thing most veterans do not disagree on is supporting our reservist the same way we support our active duty personnel.
I believe that you found my comments disrespectful before I made the reservists comments. And I have a problem with reservists or guardsmen who are upset about the raw deal they're getting now. You play the hand you're dealt. Had they been in when I was in, mid 90's, then they're service probably would have been much different.
But these are different times with different needs. If their families face hardships that's unfortunate and they should be taken care of by our govt. Period. But I still fail to see how putting our national guard on the border is disrespectful. It's absurd.
I meant no denigratioin t to reservists as a whole.
Check the times of the posts. I didn't mention being disrespectful until after you mentioned "playing soldier".
Before that I said that I didn't think putting NG troops on the border was necessary, I didn't say it was disrespectful.
Fair enough. I think the remark, taken in context, is not disrespectful, but I could be wrong. That was not my intent and it's not how I feel. I'll apologize for using that phrase.
No problem. As you said, we can agree to disagree. The only way we're going to solve our problems is if everyone takes a step back and hears what the other side is saying. I know that both sides usually only hear what they want to hear. We've both been guilty of that.
Easy. Leave it up to the private sector. Take our security out of the hands of people that have something to gain (government) and put it where we can actually see some progress. i already have the a name for the new and improved border patrol---- Border Bouncer's---
My view on the whole immigration thing is - secure the border first - Know who is coming into the country.
It's my understanding that that's exactly what the bill does:
There's more to the bill.
Fine, you are more than within your rights to support this crap of a bill. You and O'Reilly and Bush, great company.
Point to where I said I supported it? I do support a Congress that's actually DOING something for the first time in six years, however. It's called compromise.
But again, I ask, what is wrong with the bill? You proposed more guards, stricter penalties, and detaining aliens upon capture. This bill seems to provide for that. I'm sincerely curious as to what your specific issues with the bill are.
marv, the problem is that these kinds of things have been proposed before. and they pass as part of the overall bill, but then the funding for them is not passed afterwards. it's happened several times.
Well, if amnesty is contingent on the border security measures occurring then it doesn't much matter.
That's the key. If there's no enforcement then the bill's a sham and a lie.
We already passed a law to build 800 mile fence. Only 2 miles has been built. At this rate it should be done in about 400 years.
That's true. I hope all of our pessimism will be unfounded. Maybe this time...
It is a true shame.. I just feel something is so fundamentally wrong with our government. Something has changed in the last 60 years. I don't know - it is terrible. I will pray for the best though.
That's right. The Republican congress passed that showpiece of a bill and then didn't pass any funding for it.
Republicans have sucked on immigration and The sucking from Bush has been some of the loudest sucking.
I'll go with it because there's nothing better coming down the pike.
Mr. Disingenuous aka Billy-Boy is going along with this horrendous bill because FOX is the propaganda arm of the Bush White House. Period.
As far as his changing of the ethnic landscape nonsense...Personally I don't care what color is dominant as long as everybody works for a living, instead getting on the dole and living off my taxes, and speaks English.
Bill's position on immigration has been consistent and has nothing to do with Bush's position. Bush has refused to secure the border while paying lip service to the idea. He has done NOTHING in the past 5 years to secure the border. Bill has always said secure the border first(and he's bashed Bush repeatedly for not doing so), then work out the 12 million people issue. Seems like a sane and logical position to me.
If Bill says secure the border first, then why is he supporting this amnesty bill?
thank you.
if bill was REALLY independent and NOT a bushbot, he wouldve said "ok secure the border FIRST then pass this bill" --- but he wants to help president bush get a boost and the gop get hispanic votes when bush takes credit for the bill.
i hope pelosi kills it
Because the bill is supposed to secure the border FIRST, before the amnesty takes place(an amnesty I don't agree with but we can't and won't deport 12 million people). None of the amnesty provisions are sup[posed to begin for 18 months, during which, supposedly, the border will be largely secured with 370 miles of new fencing, more agents, etc.
We can debate wether the govt. will actually do anything in the first 18 months. I'm skeptical, and frankly, fed up with both parties on their lack of action on this issue.
Dobbs would disagree with you, he says it is possible to deport all 12 million.
http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2007/05/03/20070503_183009_flash6.htm
but then we'd have to go back to paying the neighbor kid 10 bucks to mow your lawn, which is 2.50 more than the illegal charges. we cant have that now can we.
plus, where is my border fence i was promised in 06?
Dobbs does disagree but I think he's wrong. I can see the fairness in sending them back. I can see the justice in sending them back. But reality is different isn't it?
The reality is it ain't gonna happen no matter how fair or right it might be. Don't forgo the aCHIEVEABLE BECAUSE YOU CAN'T HAVE THE IMPOSSIBLE.
Just like 1986 all over again, sorry - we were fooled once, not again.
Reminds me of an old saying:
"Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me."
We won't get fooled again. Kick the bums out.
Tommy, I understand that the process to become a citizen will be long (8-10 yrs) and costly, I believe they have to pay a 6,500 dollar fine for being here illegally before they can even initiate the process. I wonder how many can actually afford to do that and how many will actually come forward. In addition, during that 8-10 year time frame, no other laws can be broken or the boot is immediate, they must remain employed legally and pay taxes, they will be issued tamper proof identification cards, they will be closely monitored, and they will not be eligible for any entitlement programs. This is but a few of the eligibility criteria I've heard. I will probably search the legislative web site sometime this week-end. Hopefully the proposed bill is on the site. I'd like to know the details before formulating a final opinion. Bill O’rielly may be correct, this may be as good as it gets. Forming units to round up illegals now and kick them out will be extremely labor intensive, and costly. If the border is sincerely and vigorously secured from this point on we find out how many undocumented folks are truly here I think that’s progress and a move toward getting a handle on the problem.
forming an opinion.
Lynn,
We were promised and bamboozled in 1986 about border enforcement and it never happened......because neither party wants it, that is the problem. This is a silly bill that, as I said, is a slap in the face to those who have done the process legally.
Let's hope it never passes.
Actually, O'Reilly didn't say he supported it, only that Talking Points endorses it.
Future weasel room."Talking Points does not represent the views of BilldO and is unaffiliated with Mr. O'Reilly"
uhh, that's just silly. I'll respond to your post seriously but I hope you were kidding. Billrights the TP. He is the TP. lol. Cmon man. With statements like that how can anything that you say be deemed as credible?
ehull, it was basically a joke, but with a morsel of truth, relating to O'Reilly's history of constant lying.
Sorry I densely missed the humor. Please give an example of O'Reilly lying. Since he lies "repeatedly", multiple examples should be easy to come by.
Just go to media matters' search box in the top right-hand corner of the website and type in O'Reilly. I found some examples here, here and here. There are many more.
Right. I'd be about as likely to listen to Media Matters about Bill O'reilly as I would Bill O'reilly about Media matters. Any other sources sir?
You asked for examples and I gave you examples. You can also Google "Bill O'Reilly lies" or just listen to his show.
Hi EHULL. I have a question, or just an observation, I'm not sure which.
One of your earlier replies to Loonz suggested that you are very familiar with his past posts. However, although I have been coming to this site for quite some time, I have never seen your screen name. Then you take HBL to task for a comment characterized by his trademark wit. Finally, you say you don't know who Glen Beck is, and follow that by asking for examples of Billdo lying. Those last three issues indicate that you are not at all familiar with MMFA.
So I guess my question is this. Just who the heck are you working for? Are you some kind of free agent troll, a comment board keyboard-slinger for hire? Or are you someone who was flagged under a previous screen name and is cleverly hiding his past?
None of the above my friend. Would anyone really pay someone to come here and post? If so I'd love the extra money...
I've been coming here and reading the threads for a while. Maybe a month or so. I missed HBL's joke and ackowledged it.
Loonz attacked me personally. If you read my post Loonz is the only poster I've gotten a tad testy with.
I'm a regular viewer and listener to BO. But I'm not taking Media Matters word for Bill's lies. I listened to the shows, T.V. and radio, where Bill covered this topic, from start to finish. Media Matters is implying that Bill is a bigot/racist. I don't believe that a fair-minded regular listener of BO would consider him a bigot/racist. Frankly, I don't see how you draw that conclusion from this article posted on MMFA.
Deflecting the issue at hand by going after me is off this thread's topic as well. I'm just a guy who thought I'd give MMFA a fair shake after hearing about it on BO's show. I wasn't taking BO's word for what happened here.
you want to debate, we'll debate. And we may find common ground. Who knows? If you'd rather insinuate I'm a operative of some kind I think that A) you're giving MMFA too much credit to think anyone would care enough to do that and B) it just sounds...silly.
"Loonz attacked me personally. If you read my post Loonz is the only poster I've gotten a tad testy with."
I read your posts and I think you are a bigot (the DailyKos poster sounds like a bigot but his posts are bizarre). If you are not a bigot, I apologize. Other conservatives have posted to this thread and I don’t see anything bigoted about their posts.
think what you like. But you're wrong and in bad taste to keep saying it sir.
Well, as Loonz pointed out, there are loads of examples of BilldO lying documented here.Since MMFA documents everything, and BilldO makes most things up with no evidence, the fact that you consider them equally credible souces says more about your judgement than anything else.
And don't be so hard on yourself- you weren't necessarily dense in missing my joke, it was subtle by Republican standards.
LOL! So it's like that? The fact that you you'd consider any obviously slanted source reliable speaks the same. You consider Bill obviously biased. Fair enough. But so is MMFA!. The difference is, MMFA tells you upfront it's biased. It's not for exposing media misinformation. It's for exposng CONSERVATIVE misinformation.
Why just conservative? If you say it's because only conervatives/republicans are out there lying then we just can't debate. If you can't ackowledge that both sides can be con-men and criminals then you don't want or like reasoned debate. You're a koolaid drinker whose side can do no wrong. If that's true let me know. I won't respond to your posts anymore.
If whay you say is true then I guess O'Reilly is the one carrying the water for Bush and the GOP while Rush is blasting Bush and the GOP on this issue. I was listening to Rush today and he was going off about how bad this bill is. Many people have said that Rush simply shills for Bush, but that definetely isn't true any more. He's pissed at Bush over this amnesty bill.
I guess you could make that case on this issue. No true conservative would support this bill. But I ask again, if not this, or something siliar, then what? If you want to send them all home it will never happen. There's no public support. There's no political will. And pracitcally speaking it would be a nightmare
We should simply punish the corporations and business owners who employ illegals, and the jobs would begin drying up. Employers would be much more reluctant to employ illegals if they were faced with a big fine, and most illegals would simply go back home voluntarily if they couldn't find work here in the U.S.
This would be the first thing to do and have the most bang for the buck. Throw some executives in jail for hiring illegals and it will make a big impact.
"Immigration" and "Spending" are sort of the "wink wink nudge nudge" fair and balanced throwaways for the conservative media.
The Bush administration, like previous GOP gangs, pretends to care about the issue and promises to do something about it. Their media monkeys pretend to care about the issue.They tell their audience to care. The party, once in power, does nothing or makes the situation worse.
Then the media can say they're unbiased by pointing out their "disagreement" on these non-issues.
Think of it as a poorly performed play or a low level magic trick. About 1/3 of the audience figures out that it's crap right off the bat.
Another third has to see the trick a few times to figure out that it's crap.
The remaining 1/3 is still watching in awe after 7 or 8 years.I think my cats have caught on.
Take your time, we'll wait for you.
Is Media Matters suggesting that the United States would NOT be drastically changed with the influx of another 20-30 million new immigrants over the next 5-10 years? Immigrants that, as a group, would likely be largely unskilled, uneducated, and non-english speaking?
Trying to paint O'reilly as a bigot is counter-productive to any serious debate, not to mention disingenuos. Typical Media Matters. Don't discuss or debate the relevant points. Just attack O'reilly and suggest that anyone who's for sensible immigration policy and reform id a bigot or racist. I'm married to a woman from Argentina who has been attempting to become legal through the lawful process provided. We've spent thousands and wasted countless hours dealing with an inefficent beauracracy. I guess the key is to break the law and keep breaking it. Maybe then we'll be rewarded.
I'm going through the same thing except I'm the one trying to get a green card. My wife is American. It is unbelievable how long it takes the govt to do even basic things. You may have to sue the INS to get them off their butt.
"Typical Media Matters. Don't discuss or debate the relevant points"
Does MMFA not host a comment section where you can discuss or debate the relevant points? Then why not tell us, what are the relevant points?
"Just attack O'reilly and suggest that anyone who's for sensible immigration policy and reform id a bigot or racist."
Is MMFA really suggesting that O'Reilly's a bigot? Or are his own words doing that for him?
Please quote O'reilly's words that are racist and bigoted. Such phrases should not be thrown around carelessly and without any back-up.
Surely you are not suggesting that the idea of border security is racist?
Glenn Beck is starting "Hate University". The only requirements is you must be a white male. Rush will be Dean or tenured prof or something. Beck, since he does not have a college degree will be the first graduate. He will have jackets that say Hate U on them. The hoods on the jackets will be white and pointed and have a flip down sheet to cover the face. Two little eye slits will be there so a person can see.
I don't know who Glenn Beck is...but I didn't ask about Glenn Beck or Rush. Clever post though.
Beck is primary authority imho on the immigration issue ( despite that he has no college education. www.glennbeck.com )
thanks. I'll check it out.
I feel like I just witnessed "stoopid herpes" being transmitted.
Hey, if the Beck site doesn't give you all the data you need on immigration, there's an old guy with a cowboy hat and an American flag on my street who may be able to help you out.
The key word is SUGGEST, as put forth by you in your original post.
"It drastically alters the United States of America...The new census report says America's now one-third minority. And in four states -- California, New Mexico, Texas, and Hawaii -- whites are the minority. So with the infusion of as many as 20 to 30 million new citizens in the next 10 years, the landscape of America will absolutely change."
While these words alone may not be bigoted, what does his mentioning of it SUGGEST? Why would he, as a white conservative pundit on the #1 cable "news" show, mention something like that if he was not alarmed about minorities gaining numbers and infringing on white-dominated America?
" Such phrases should not be thrown around carelessly and without any back-up." I agree, BUT YOU THREW IT FIRST:
"Just attack O'reilly and suggest that anyone who's for sensible immigration policy and reform id a bigot or racist."
So, let's turn it around, please quote where MMFA directly called O'Reilly's words racist or bigoted.
The key word is SUGGEST, as put forth by you in your original post.
"It drastically alters the United States of America...The new census report says America's now one-third minority. And in four states -- California, New Mexico, Texas, and Hawaii -- whites are the minority. So with the infusion of as many as 20 to 30 million new citizens in the next 10 years, the landscape of America will absolutely change."
While these words alone may not be bigoted, what does his mentioning of it SUGGEST? Why would he, as a white conservative pundit on the #1 cable "news" show, mention something like that if he was not alarmed about minorities gaining numbers and infringing on white-dominated America?
" Such phrases should not be thrown around carelessly and without any back-up." I agree, BUT YOU THREW IT FIRST:
I like you Pete. Let's get to it...
Why would Bill say it? Because it's a fact? Or would be with another 20-30 million immigrants? Again, facts are simply facts and in and of themselves CANNOT be bigoted or hateful. Facts, by definition, are NEUTRAL when it comes to such things. Are you disputing the statement that our country would be drastically changed with such a large and rapid inflow of foreigners. If so, we'll have to agree to disagree.
The reasoning that you attribute to Bill for making these statements is again a logical fallacy. Your conclusion is one possibility out of many potential possibilities for why someone would make such a statement. I agree with his statement and I'm married to someone from Argentina. At 6:30 I'll be at the gymn playing ball with some black friends. I guess my wife should divorce me and my friends should shun me. After all, I must be a bigot.
Right?
"While these words alone may not be bigoted, what does his mentioning of it SUGGEST?"
The comment was bigoted. Why does it matter that America's landscape will change.
"Why would he, as a white conservative pundit on the #1 cable 'news' show, mention something like that if he was not alarmed about minorities gaining numbers and infringing on white-dominated America?"
You sound like a bigot.
"Why would Bill say it? Because it's a fact? Or would be with another 20-30 million immigrants? Again, facts are simply facts and in and of themselves CANNOT be bigoted or hateful. Facts, by definition, are NEUTRAL when it comes to such things."
I have no idea what you're saying here.
"Are you disputing the statement that our country would be drastically changed with such a large and rapid inflow of foreigners."
Why does it matter?
"The reasoning that you attribute to Bill for making these statements is again a logical fallacy. Your conclusion is one possibility out of many potential possibilities for why someone would make such a statement. I agree with his statement and I'm married to someone from Argentina. At 6:30 I'll be at the gymn playing ball with some black friends. I guess my wife should divorce me and my friends should shun me. After all, I must be a bigot."
I not sure if you're a bigot but you're using the typical defense a bigot uses when confronted about his/her bigotry.
I've read a lot of your posts Loonz. They are without substance and frankly, are a waste of space.
The part of the terxt where you were unclear on my meaning was a mistype. My point was simple. Stating facts cannot be bigoted because facts cannot be bigoted. Facts are unbiased by definition. It is a fact that the demographics of the US will be dramitcally changed.
Responding with, "why does it matter?" adds nothing to the discussion. If you want to know why people think that it might matter perhaps you should actually "read" or better yet listen to what BO said. But you won't do that because you have little capacity for informed debate.
And another person rears their ugly head. Another person who frelly and without cause throws around words like "bigot." Perhaps you could be very specific and explain to everyone what in my comments is bigoted or racist? I can't wait for your standard non-sensical reply.
“I've read a lot of your posts Loonz. They are without substance and frankly, are a waste of space.”
I disagree.
“Stating facts cannot be bigoted because facts cannot be bigoted. Facts are unbiased by definition. It is a fact that the demographics of the US will be dramitcally changed.”
The reason why I say yours and O'Reilly remarks are bigoted is that you and he are mentioning demographic changes when there's no need to mention them. It doesn't matter that there will be a demographic change. You and he mention it because you guys feel that this is a White country and that Whites should be in the majority.
“Responding with, "why does it matter?" adds nothing to the discussion. If you want to know why people think that it might matter perhaps you should actually "read" or better yet listen to what BO said. But you won't do that because you have little capacity for informed debate.”
It was a rhetorical question. The reason why I think it matters to O'Reilly and you is that both of you are probably bigots. I thought I made it clear in my earlier post.
“And another person rears their ugly head. Another person who frelly and without cause throws around words like "bigot." Perhaps you could be very specific and explain to everyone what in my comments is bigoted or racist? I can't wait for your standard non-sensical reply.”
I said why I thought it was bigoted in my earlier post.
Alright. You can't say how the remarks are bigoted. I guess you're saying that the fact the demographic shift was brought up in and of itself is"bigoted." Thats silly and without logical basis.
Believe what you want. Out of all the posters here, you seem to be the only one that likes to personally attack. You then repeat the same attacks over and over again, hoping, i guess, that repetition will suffice in place of any well thought out, reasoned debate.
Respond to my posts in the future if you like. Call me more names if you like but I can not take you seriously. We've never met. You don't know me, my family or anything about my background. To suggest I'm a bigot is disgusting. You should be ashamed of yourself and all fellow posters here should be ashamed that you're here on MMFA.
"Alright. You can't say how the remarks are bigoted. I guess you're saying that the fact the demographic shift was brought up in and of itself is"bigoted." Thats silly and without logical basis."
If you can give me a reasonable response as to why a demographic shift matters (I don't see why it matters) then I won't say the comments by you and O'Reilly were bigoted.
"Believe what you want. Out of all the posters here, you seem to be the only one that likes to personally attack. You then repeat the same attacks over and over again, hoping, i guess, that repetition will suffice in place of any well thought out, reasoned debate."
Just ignore my personal attacks (I actually thought I was pointing out the obvious).
“Respond to my posts in the future if you like. Call me more names if you like but I cannot take you seriously. We've never met. You don't know me, my family or anything about my background. To suggest I'm a bigot is disgusting. You should be ashamed of yourself and all fellow posters here should be ashamed that you're here on MMFA.”
I read your posts and I think you are a bigot. If you aren't a bigot, I apologize.
EHULL, in my post, I attributed wrongly this comment to you:
Forget my replies to that specific comment.
Mentioning that whites are now minorities in some states may be a fact, BUT IT IS AN IRRELEVANT ONE.
O'Reilly has unnecessarily injected it because HE WANTS TO INSTILL FEAR AMONG THE WHITE AMERICANS WHO WATCH HIS SHOW. He's clamoring for reasons why white people need to be afraid of immigration, something America was literally built on.
Again, in your original post you held in high regard the power of suggestion, but your application of it is now exposed as a double standard that applies only to MMFA. You get to assess what MMFA's verbatim quotation suggests, while Bill gets to spew facts that are irrelevant to a hot-button issue.
The relevant points and are points that have to do with the proposed amnesty legislation. Wether bill is or is not a racist is irrelevant to the larger issue at hand. Why attack the messenger? Why not debate the points O'reilly makes about the proposed bill instead?
And Media Matters may not have come out and used the word bigot or racist. But the quotes they cheryy picked(I heard the whole show and every show this week)are cleary trying to give the impression that bill has a problem with "brown" while really liking the "white." I think that MMFA still fails at this attempt but they attempt it none-the less.
I don't really see anything wrong with what Bill said though. You see, it isn't that I don't want a majority of mexicans here, its just that I dont want to lose the our current white culture. I love blondes and I love pop music. I love the constant back and forth between whites and blacks, I love the debates, and I love our tv setup. I love football, not soccer. I love the feminist movement that we have today thanks to white women. I don't want to go back to patriarchy like 90% of the families in mexico are.
I HATE telemundo, I'm paying for 4 spanish channels already. I cant stand the sexism on the spanish stations either, all the women wear skimpy clothes and fawn over fat 50 year old cubans.
Even though this country is divided, I love it the way it is and I really do agree with Pat Buchanan that it is being reconquered by hispanics and it makes me really sad because we stole it fair and square.
The current back and forth between B lacks and Whites??? What the heck does that mean Mr. I love WHITE culture? Your phrasing is curious, why not just say I love American culture? I'm Black and I am as American as you are or maybe more so?
ive been reading this board for awhile now and i was waiting for your knee-jerk reply. dont worry, i love the black culture too.
Daily,
You certainly can see how the saying "I love our white culture" is a terribly offensive and racially charged comment? And totally irrelevant to this topic?
Not your exact words "I love our white culture", I apologize.....but it does appear to be your intent.
actually im considered hispanic since my skin is brown, but im half and half so i figure i can bash illegals all day long if i want to. i just meant american culture as it is now, i love it, which is mostly a white culture. i jasmine bleath and i dont want to see jasmine hernandez. i love how my college had mostly blonde girls. i love it how if i had a radio show and said that id be thrown off the air by people like lynn. but black people can say 'i love black culture' all day long. im SICK of special privileges given to different groups of people.
those are just my tastes. if someone goes to another school and says 'i love that most of the girls here are black' id think 'wow he just loves him some dark chocolate' rather than assume he was a bigot.Daily,
You are free to bash anyone you'd like all day long......and your offensive and slurring remarks fit nicely into that rhetoric.
ah another crybaby whiner who hates the fact that everyone has personal tastes and expresses them clearly. so if i think asian women are ugly im not allow to express that view anymore? if i think mixed race black/white women are hotter than any other group of women i cant say that anymore because it may offend someone?
get lost
Tommy was expressing his tastes clearly, and you told him to get lost. Who's the whiner?
I don't believe I said you weren't allowed to express your feelings, I said you are free to do so. They may be offensive and vile, but it is your perfect right.
As a matter of fact, I would bet that the Asian female population is celebrating right now.
im sure they are, considering im buddha's gift to orientals
;)Is it just me, or does DialyKosluvr sound a lot like one of our video military men?
It's the colonel baby, that lower case "i" thing and disjointed rants are sure give a ways.
Nice catch HBL.
The colonel in the O'Reilly thread, with the illegal immigrant rant.
I think we've played this game before, haven't we?
Yeah, it's Clueless - a game of military strategy and logical bankruptcy based on the colonels fantasies.
Daily, you can say that but start to use that college education for something other than looking at girls! Get an education that will allow you to write your opinion in a manner that can be understood but does not have to be offensive.
Saying "I love our white culture..." is racist? If he was back and said he loved his black culture would that be racist as well? Liking a culture doesn't make you a racist. DISLIKING or HATING other cultures because of there skin colr.ethnicity makes you a raqcist. Faulty logic Tommy but I luv ya.
Ehull, WHAT THE HELL IS WHITE CULTURE!!!?
You are allowed to say it IF you can explain it.
Pearlene...
I was quoting another post. And who cares what "white culture" is? That's off the point. It was suggested earlier that sayiing "I love white culture" is offensive and racist. IT IS NOT! No more than saying I love Asian cultures, or black culture, or hispanic culture. Saying that you like a culture is the OPPOSITE of racism.
How can it be racist if you "like their culture?" Jerry Seinfeld on a Seinfeld episode once said "I like asian women(or something close to that)". Elaine responded, "Isn't that racist"? To which Jerry replied, "How can it be racist if I like their race." I hope this brings some clarity.
Tommy, unfortunately Daily meant exactly what he said. If he didn't why respond to Lynn with "I love black culture also".
I'm not really sure where to start in responding to your post but I'll start with "I love blonds". Should you qualify that and say natural blonds. Cause with a bottle of lady clairol ANYONE can be a blond. Has pop music gone away? You will always have Brittany. What is "white culture". You should be careful what you label as "white culture". You may lose something you enjoy that actually belongs to the immigrant population.
I love blonde eyebrows.
I have no problem with the "browning of America".
I have a huge problem with the dumbing down of America.
O'Reilly shares the blame for this.
He mentions four states in which he implies that white people are now the minority. I'm not sure but I think that white people in Hawaii have always been in the minority.
So there you have it, as Bill says, "it's not pretty", but every day that BO foams and drools on National TV, America takes a step backwards towards idiocy.
Your post contains nothing of substance and provides no examples of Bill's "idiocy." So people that disagree with you are idiots? That's what you're really saying isn't it? Suppose you'll call me names next...
I don't usually resort to name calling. I have at times, but for the most part, I try to be fair and reasonable.
O'Reilly contributes to the dumbing down of America because to him everything is either black or white, yes or no, on or off. He doesn't know the meaning of the word nuance. Real life requires real solutions, not platitudes and talking points.
O'Reilly is all about O'Reilly. He adds nothing to the national discourse. nor do his supporters.
Fair and reasonable? I can tell. Let me suggest that your personal dislike of Bill may be clouding your judgement? he adds nothing the the national debate? He provides no solutions?
I think what you mean to say is that you don't "like" his solutions. He can be black and white and un-nuanced at times. No argument there. But I would suggest that Bill has been largely responsible for the passing of legislation focused on child predators and mandatory sentencing laws in numerous states. This alone is reason enough to give him a nod of respect.
The only thing Billdo has been responsible for is a bunch of hot air.
Daily?
Do you believe there is something innate about brown people that lead them to dropping out of school? There are valid points to be made about illegal immigration and the consequences of this proposed legislation, but injecting it with xenophobic-racist rhetoric just ugly ups the issue. It almost makes me believe that you wouldn't be as upset if the illegals were Scandinavian or from some other blonde culture. In addition, you do know that Hispanic isn’t a race it’s an ethnic category and many Hispanics are White they simply hail from Spanish speaking societies..
lynn,
please get off the emotional knee-jerk race card playing bandwagon. last time i checked asian americans had brown skin too and they were the most successful minority of them all among immigrants. i hate it when people consider facts and statistics to be racist.
fact - [link to depts.washington.edu] teens drop out at a higher rate. if you want to import a problem be my guest.
Asian Americans have brown skin? Well I guess some do. I’ve worked with a lot of Asians, mostly of Korean and Chinese heritage and they aren’t brown. Although I’ve worked with a few Filipinos and they are pretty brown. You know, you're really a weird guy, but you're still funny. I love the new screen name, you are the colonel correct? If you aren’t you sure do have a soul mate out there in cyberspace and maybe one day you two will make contact. You two have so much in common, the colonel was also a half Hispanic guy that considered himself White and professed his love for White culture and Blondes, although he didn't love "Black Culture" like you. He also hates illegal immigrants, and he’s quite provocative in his assertions. He would love your idea of using snipers to resolve the immigration problem. By the way if you had a radio show and talked about how much you love Blondes and White culture I'd say more power to you and anyone who wanted to listen to you. I could not care less. Lots of White guys and some Black guys love themselves some Blondes, that's actually pretty tame stuff compared to what's on the radio now; most of the radio personalities are pretty obnoxious. Being an obnoxious obviously pays well and as long as they stay in the bounds designated by their corporate sponsors they will have long lucrative careers as professional jerks. You should go for it!
I understand exactly what you're saying and couldn't agree more. facts and statistics CANNOT by themselves be racist, sexist, or anything else. Because they are just facts. Words alone do not determine racism or prejudice. It is one's intent that's important. And since it's often quite difficult if not impossible to know one's true intent(what's really in their heart) the use of these terms and their attribution towards our fellow man should be VERY limited.
Daily, that's why Bush hired Alberto Gonzalez
Were caucasians ever a majority in Hawaii?
No.
Hawai'i was a foreign country, with its own government, currency, system of laws, and embassies from the world's great powers. White immigration is a fairly recent thing, since the end of the Second World War.
The plurailty of Hawai'i citizens are mixed-race. Caucasians are the next most numerous, followed by, I think, Asians. Native Hawaiians are a smal minority in their own country.
Yet BO uses Hawaii in his list of states. Why??? If whites were never a majority, then what's the purpose of including Hawaii?
Fear of the Other. It sells.
Dibbs does the same thing, only at a slightly more elevated level. It's a very old story - my own ancestors faced it too. My grandmother's "race" was listed at Ellis Island as "Southern Italian." Not "white." Back in the day, it was swarms of greasy Calabrians with rusty daggers that were pouring over our borders to defile America's purity. A century later, we have DiGiorno at two for $7 at Safeway.
We will survive this "invasion" too, without a doubt.
I actually like "Greasy Calabrian" better than Valentinian, in case you're thinking of changing your screen name and want to please me.
LOL. It sounds a little too much like "Dirty Sanchez" or "Cleveland Steamer" for my taste, but maybe I'll create an alternative persona that only makes off-color comments.
Dirty Sanchez, Greasy Calabrians, Cleveland Steamer, whatever floats your boat, I'm not going to judge.
Personally, I fancy the occasional Firey Gonzalez, while our friend Jeter recently hinted that his specialty is the Bronx Blitzer.
I hope Jeter isn't gone for the weekend.
The number of people coming is unprecedents. At no time in our history have so many come so fast. And I would imagine that your "Italian" ancestors came legally?
We can assimilate the 12 mill that are here over time. That's true. Adding another 10-12 million or more every 5-10 years? Do the math. We might survive...but at what cost? And why should we be forced to pay the cost, whatever it is?
Um, in 1905, there were no immigration laws to speak of. You showed up. No visa, no green card, just off the boat and into a tenement in Brooklyn.
Also, the four or five million Italians that came over during the peak years were joining an America with seventy some-odd million people in it. Compare that to twelve million in a population of three hundred million. I promise you, America will be fine - and in a generation, we will have the Hispanic answer to the Italian-American Tom Tancredo.
Proving my point for me. They came "legally."
As to the numbers, interesting point and you may well be right. But I would contend that 100 years ago is not a good comparison to otday from an economic standpoint for many reasons. Today we have a service base.Information based economy.
back then we had an agricultually based/manufacturing based economy. A huge influx of unskilled labor 100 years ago was not only not a bad thing, it was probly a necesary thing to drive U.S. progress. Not so today. Such unskilled/uneducated workers today will be relegated to menial low-paying jobs. I question whether there's enough to go around and I would expect the numbers of these low-paying/ unskilled positions to go steadily downward in the future as technology continues to contribute to their elimination.
"A huge influx of unskilled labor 100 years ago was not only not a bad thing, it was probly a necesary thing to drive U.S. progress."
You know nothing of the history of immigration or of the industrialization of America. Not a bad thing, necessary to drive U.S. progress?
Too bad that progress was helped along by corporate and government policies that used the immigrants lives as grease to lubricate the wheels of the industrial revolution.
The wealth of the nation was stolen by the Robber Barons and the nations government and police were used to keep the unwashed masses in line. Men, women and children were nothing more than replaceable parts in the machinery of corporate America.
The descendants of these immigrants were eventually able to work their way into the middle class, but only when the people forced an end to child labor, hazardous working conditions and 72 hour work weeks.
There are many similarities between the immigrants of one hundred years ago and the immigrants of today.
Would you say you're a communist or just a socialist? The government, police and the corporations all conspired?
I guess they left that out of all the HS and college books I read.
That was probably a conspiracy too...and Bush planned 9/11 with the CIA and Mossad.
The poor exploited worker. the poor, exploited immigrant. You're breaking my heart.
I guess they left that out of all the HS and college books I read.
Jeez, I guess they did.
King may have used more colourful language than what you might read in a textbook, but there's nothing controversial about the statement that workers and immigrants were horribly abused in the past.
Don't let ideology blind you to history, man. Nothing good comes of it. "Doomed to repeat it," and all that.
Thanks for the back up, Val.
Saying workers and immigrants were exploited is one thing. No argument from me.
Saying the govt, police and corporations all colluded is another.
And correct me if I'm wrong but I'm guessing that you think this "comspiracy" is alive and well today? In the republican party?
Where did you find "collusion" and "conspiracy" in King's post?
"The wealth of the nation was stolen by the Robber Barons and the nations government and police were used to keep the unwashed masses in line"
Sounds like a conspiracy to me.
OK, so your argument isn't with King, but with your own interpretation of his words. Glad to have that cleared up...
I am not sure how you think government can form a "conspiracy" with the police, as policing is a function of government.
As far as corporate influence on the political process goes, this is, again, non-controversial.
Leaving the "conspiracy" canard aside, then, is what you are saying that the events King described did not happen?
Toned down a tad I suppose not. Saying the police are part of the government, while "technically, correct, is stretching things in this context. We'd be talking about the federal governement collaborating with local police. Or were all police federal agents back when?
As to the robber barons, there will always be a few assholes trying to spoil it for the rest of us. Would you compare them to the tycos and global crossings of today or are you really saying that all corporations are evil and so is capitalism?
I made no reference to today. You claimed that the immigrants today are different then the immigrants from the early twentieth century. I was pointing out that there were many similarities and that the immigrants from the twentieth century had a lot of interests lined up against them.
You stated that since you never read it in a history book that it didn't happen.
I'm probably a little older than you. I was taught about the history of the industrial revolution and nineteenth and early twentieth century immigration in school.
I also learned it from my immigrant grandparents. I've also done a lot of research over the last thirty years into the history of organized labor.
The corporations could not have held out as long as they did against the working people in this country if not for the governments protection.
I in no way implied that it was happening today. I never mentioned the Republican Party. I also never said anything about all corporations being evil. That was more of your inflammatory rhetoric.
That was inflammatory...but you didn't answer the question. I was trying to dig out your ideology/belief system. There are some who don't like corporations and capitalism. Some thinks it/they are evil. Those beliefs color their commentary as would my beliefs that corporations aren't evil and that capitalism is by and large good.
So let me take a step back as you advised(quite wisely) earlier and ask you where you stand on such things?
I don't think that corporations are inherently evil, nor do I think that capitalism is evil. I do believe that many corporations are not the best "citizens" of our capitalist society. I think we've got the best form of government and society on the planet. But we need to keep working and fine tuning. We've got to weigh how development will effect the companies, the citizens, the environment and our governement. Everything has to be in balance.
And to answer your questions from the earlier posts I'm a Vietnam Vet.
A Vietnam Vet. Well don't I feel like an ass! Respect!
And the rest of your post was right on.
we need snipers on the border. 1 tower for every mile of border, they will stop everyone dead in their tracks (pardon the pun) and would be cheaper than a fence.
you cant really expect the govt to provide serious border security when the gop wants the illegals and the dems want the votes and the catholics want the offering plate filled up.
michael savage made a good point a few months ago - if after 9-11 we dont secure the border, then maybe the threat was a sham to begin with and maybe it was all just a ploy to shore up support for an iraq invasion. savage went on to say that maybe the war on terror doesnt exist. if you want to hear some bush bashing, listen to savage today. you wont hear any of his anti-bush, anti-illegal rhetoric on mmfa
Fear. 9-11. Fear again.
Fear change. Fear and loathing. 9-11. We demand, we deserve, we have the right....9-11.
Did OBL get what he wanted? Isn't terrorism all about terrorizing a group of people, and not necessarily war? BushCo has made this very possible. Why does he hate America and the troops so much?
No wonder Liberals find it hard to be with cons. Fear -- a crappy way to live.
Snipers??? You want to turn America into Cold-War Berlin?
Cheaper than a fence?
How many snipers are we talking about?
How much money in training, wages, benefits, equipment, logsitics, etc. would it take to station a sniper who's willing to lie still in stifling heat for 8 hours a day scanning for people to pick off?
i dont REALLY want snipers on the border, but im just saying it IS possible to seal it off to an effective drizzle of say 1000 illegal entries per year (which would most likely be underground tunnels). if we were REALLY worried about having terrorists infiltrate, we WOULD have snipers and choppers on the border. but we dont, so the war on terror is a sham.
PS - FOX BROUGHT BACK THE TERROR LEVEL ON THE TICKER TO HELP GIULIANI
Ah Daily, SNIPERS? I see now, you suckered me in. I thought you were here for reasoned debate like most of the other posters, but now I know. Well it certainly is a beautiful day for a troll huh?
Definitions of facetious on the Web:
Plus the fence cuts of the movement of some animals that live in the desert. This will disrupt them and is a serious threat to the ecosystem. As well most Mexicans are native American's. America is their land - all of south America and North America. We are just guests in their land. We should abide by their rules.
I assume your kidding but that kind of talk, when serious, is just the kind of thing that kills Dems chances with the average voter IMO.
yes I'm kidding - but these arguments are being made by some if you an believe it.
Skettle, while I can't endorse or agree with your post, it is one of the more sensible comments I've seen from you.
Uhhh...wow. I don't want to name call but man, your post is incredible. We're guests in their land? We should respect their rules? I guess we should page back to the start of humanity, figure out who owned what, and....it's so absurd I can't continue.
Yes we must respect the natives - they lived in peace - we can learn much from them. They only had very few rules - one was to respect the land and nature and the elders. We need to heed this advice. We need the wisdom of their elders to help us. Congress should have to get the agreement of the native elders before passing laws. Respect the wind and earth. Natives should know no borders. They should be able to roam their land freely like the buffalo did.
They didn't live in peace. They slaughtered each other and they slaughtered plenty of white people. Many natives were brutal, killing women andchildren. Let go of the tree you're hugging and snap out of it man. If vthey were the superior society/culture then they'd be running the country. but they're not. And the Mexicans? Correct me if I'm wrong but they can't run their OWN contry, let alone ours. That's why they want to come here.
There is this one man in Mexico that is as rich as Warren Buffet and may one day be as rich as Bill Gates. How can a man get that rich is a poor country like Mexico - corruption.
That's my point. Mexico should be able to support it's population. but it can't. Corruption is the key
Mexico is not really a poor country. There are just a lot of poor people, and most of the money and resources is concentrated in the hands of a very small group of people.
That's how the free market works.If you
re wondering what several decades of Republican rule would look like, mira al sur.
Darn Right. The Republican vision of a two-class society is a frightening one. Having visited Tijuana, I've seen first hand what the absence of a middle class looks like.
I should have seen it earlier. Mexico's problems are because of republicans! I suppose I've found another supporter of income redistribution? How much of my money do you want HBL? Or how much of your money are you willing to give?
Let's not be trivial.
If someone working full time, but still living in poverty so that the fruits of their labour can enhance some corporation's shareholder value, how is that anything other than income redistribution?
Define poverty. What kind of full-time job does one have that would keep one in poverty? maybe Walmart or possibly the fast food industry? People choose to work at these locations. They choose to work where they work.
I'm not aware of anyone being forced to work somewhere against their will. So how does someone end up at Walmart or a fast food place(substitute in another low paying job if you like)? What kind of person works there?
Let me say this. The rich, successful people I know have the following things in common: Discipline, a good work ethic(50-60 hours a week)education or licensing of some kind, and drive.
The unsuccessfull people I know, or at least, the people I know who have low paying jobs are undisciplined. They'll work 40 hours but they'd rather not, they have little or no education and no drive.
Ehull, your posts "are without substance and frankly, are a waste of space." Sound familiar?
Congratulations on figuring out the keys to success in your world! However, your formula for success versus failure applied to modern society is simplistic. In the last 30 years the US has lost many of the jobs that allowed for a successful "blue collar middle class." And for the jobs that still exist there has been downward wage pressure that has pushed many people out of the middle class.
What would be your choice: taking an honest job (or two) at Wal-Mart to try to feed your family and do the best you can, or waiting for a job whose salary and benefits befit your opinion of yourself while your family starves?
I wouldn't put myself in a position where I had to work for Wal-Mart. If I was in that position, since I couldn't live on those wages, I'd get a second and third job if need be. Hard work and discipline would eventually allow me to work myself out of that situation.
Don't expect a job with little or no skill required to pay you a wage large enough to support a family. Or yourself for that matter. Jobs that anyone can do won't pay you much. We're in a competitive society. Thats why hard working, disciplined entrepeneurs are rewarded and thus successful.
Democrats are always looking for some magical way to make everybody part of the middle class, and everybody own their own house etc. The fact is we live in global competitive world, and there is no magical way. Except for maybe some type of drug that would make people disciplined and work hard.
hard working, disciplined entrepeneurs are rewarded and thus successful.
That's a very general statement, and one that I suspect has more to do with ideology than reality.
Many people work very hard at these jobs you dismiss as "low-skill" because they have children or older parents to support, and can't afford to take time off to upgrade their skill sets. Check out the book Nickel and Dimed for a look at the lives of folks like that. People is such jobs work very hard, harder than you or I would probably want to, and I regularly work over 50 hours a week.
Sure, there are lazy people out there who would rather do the minimum to get by. I think you are wrong, though, to assume that most people working these jobs are just unmotivated, or that this is the main reason why people get stuck there. The real world is more complicated than that.
It's a bit simplistic, no doubt. And there are always exceptions. But space and time are limited Val.
I know this with anecdotal certainty. The people that I know that are unseccessful or that are failing to live up to their potential(I include myself in this group by the way) have certain things in common. But to generalize even more, they all have one thing in common. They/we are all products of the choices that we make. Make good choices over a long enough period of time and you'll get good back. Do the opposite and..well, you get it.
safety nets should be there for the exceptions but not the generalitis.
Are you serious?
The thing that concerns me about any sort of immigration law reform is that every few years they re-invent the same laws. Each time they work in amnesty and gravy parts for the illegal aliens. They are always quick to hand out the amnesty and gravy parts but they never do get around to the enforcement parts of the laws.
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->
Do they really need a shiny new set of laws when they have never given the old comprehensive laws a test drive?
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->
http://www.vdare.com/rubenstein/051101_nd.htm
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->
Notices of intent to fine employers:
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->
1997: 865
1999: 417
2000: 178
2001: 100
2003: 162
2004: 3
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->
Worksite arrests of illegal alien workers:
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->
1997: 17,554
1999: 2,849
2000: 953
2001: 735
2003: 445
2004: 159
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->
what exactly is the misinformation here???
Is MMFA trying to deny that passing this monstrosity of a bill wouldn't lead to large increase in the non-Caucausian population in the US? or that US wouldn't become more ethnically diverse???
Some people may see this as a good thing and some people may see this as a bad thing, but if this joke of an immigration bill is passed, its a fact that the US will be become less "White" and have a larger % of its population made up by minorities.
Yes sir! And facts can't be prejudiced or bigoted. Think I've said that enough. MMFA is supposed to fight misinformation from conservatives...I fail to see ANY misinformation here...and I fail to see how O'Reily's a conservative. If Bill's conservative than so is Bush and if you believe that than you are confused as to what a conservative SHOULD be. No full-blown conservative would support this bill.
"US will be become less "White" and have a larger % of its population made up by minorities"
Is there a specific quota of whites you are trying to maintain? Do I smell a little racism mixed with hypocrisy?
I fail to see any racism. Again, such terms should not be bantered about with such carelessness overtly by you or somewhat covertly by MMFA. Statements like yours do nothing to further the important debate about the immigration bill. Bill's point was the undeniable demograhic shift that would/will occur. He feels this shift and the suddeness with whch it will occurr will have a variety of unintended consequences. History supports his opinion.
"Changing the ethnic landscape"... well duhhh. No kidding... more hispanics coming into this country will most certainly add to the overall hispanic population percentage. Bill here is preaching to the choir. The issue is when RACE is added to the equation. To be straightfoward, are you opposed to this bill, because of massive influx of people crossing the US border and blanket amnesty will hurt us economically (which is why I am opposed to it) or are you opposed to the Bill because that would mean tolerating more people who are not white? Or is it both?
I'm ideologically opposed to it. It's unfair to those who followed the law. The influx, by all accounts, has a huge drain on social services, especially medical care in southern border states. Additional unintended consequences will surely follow. It's not a "color" issue for me.
That said, although I'm idealogically opposed I don't see a way around this bill. Would it be fair to deport all the illegals? Sure. Would it be just? It most cases, yes. Could we do it? Probably. Will we do it? No. Absolutely not. It will never happen and wishing it were so won't make it so.
If the govt gives the amnesty without securing the border, however, then we've been scammed again.
Your dodging a key question I asked you:
Again, You and I both understand the economic impact. However, are you against the bill because you would have tolerate more people who are not white. Please be honest.
No. And I said on principle I'm opposed. But if the border is secured I'd live with it. By the way...FYI I'm married to an Argentine. You're barking up the wrong tree with me as far as race goes.
"By the way...FYI I'm married to an Argentine. You're barking up the wrong tree with me as far as race goes"
First off, I thought it was supposed to be Argentinean. For all I know, you could be lying, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.
My wife says you are correct sir. And thanks for the benefit of the doubt. I'll be sure to extend you the same courtesy.
There's nothing wrong with wanting to preserve our racial and ethnic heritage. We were founded by white Europeans, and it's not racist to say that we should preserve our ethnic heritage. I don't want to close off our borders. I support legal immigration, but I don't want whites to become the minority in this country. Our country would look completely different and we would be abondoning our ethnic heritage.
I have an interesting question moral question about race:
Prostitution is legal in the Netherlands. I believe though that the girl can decline a person for whatever reason - including race. Is this considered racism ? Should she be allowed to decline for race alone ? It is an interesting question because it places race issues against a woman's right to her own body.
Seeing that is your primary rational for NOT supporting this bill. Just so we're clear.
This post applies to a comment I made on the previous page. Please ignore as it is now out of context
"Seeing that is your primary rational for NOT supporting this bill. Just so we're clear."
This one...
The only thing surprising here is that O'Reilly is actually supporting this amnesty bill. This is a hideos bill that regards illegal behavior and simply entices more people to come here illegally. O'Reilly has always been very tough on the illegal immigration issue, so it's disappointing that he's supporting this amnesty bill. But he's absolutely right to point out that this bill could cause whites to lose their majority in this country. This country was founded by white Europeans, and there's nothing wrong with wanting us to preserve our racial and ethnic heritage.
Sorry, meant "rewards" illegal behavior.
No, actually it legalizes behavior previously thought of as illegal. Kind of like torture, leaking the names of CIA agents and spying on Americans without warrants. Funny how this slippery slope works.
I'm surprised O'Reilly is reluctantly blessing this bill, too. But he's a big business guy with big business interests.
I'm a liberal who finds the illegal immigrant problem very complex with the lives of real people in the balance. That being said, trade deals negotiated and created by Democrats in cooperation with Republicans helped create this mess and the only ones benefiting from this bill and the new trade agreement currently being negotiated are corporations.
My conservative friends, I'm as guilty as the next guy in making fun of you, losing my temper with you and calling you names but we really need to pull together. We are being screwed by politicians who serve primarily at the request of big business and multinational corporations who fund their coffers. They have no qualms with importing cheap labor and exporting our jobs overseas. Meanwhile, OUR median wages have decreased and we're stuck with higher medical bills and energy costs.
The fact that Bill O'Reilly is selling his viewers on this bill is very telling.
I agree with you - we are being screwed by big business. Politicians have to raise so much money to get elected just to pay for advertising.
I believe the rich people/corporations giving that money to the candidates are going to expect some sort of payoff down the road.
I'd like to know who the "left zealots" are who say "the white Christians who hold power must be swept out by a new multicultural tide, a rainbow coalition, if you will."
I know Bill has a bug up his butt about George Soros. I can relate. I have a bug up my butt about another George. But who the hell is he talking about when he references "left zealouts"? He isn't even capable of building up an effective straw man let alone knocking it down.
He apparently doesn't want "a new multicultural tide, a rainbow coalition, if you will." I get that. But why not? What is he afraid of exactly?
I believe his concern is a big number of people in a short amount of time. He has stated that he fears such a large demographic shift would wipe out the republican party, or largely decimate it, resulting in a 1 party system. I'm not sure his logic follow...would these immigrants have voting rights. I'm thinking onbly full citizens can vote but am I wrong? Someone can help me out there. However, the next generation, if largely democratic(which he contends would be the case)would swing the balance disproportionately to the left.
I'm independent but lean right(if that wasn't already obvious). If his fear is well-founded it would be a disaster. Too much power on the right or left is a bad thing. We need both sides. Otherwise we no longer have a democracy/republic.
I'm sorry but it has already been proven that hispanics tend to vote more republican than democrat. Perfect example, FLORIDA. History and the numbers are definitely NOT on Bill's side. All he is doing is trying to instill fear in the hearts of white people everywhere. The obvious notwithstanding, we know what an influx of 20-30 million people immigrating to this country in a short period of time will do to the country economically. We can't afford it and its not right to make us pay.
But, thats not the same as: "The whitey race is in trouble, we don't want those darn illegals Mexicans taking our jobs and land" OR "See, since white people in Hawaii are now the minority, the white race will slowly wither away".
I have a feeling what is going on here is Bush is scared that if he doesn't pass an immigration bill that benefits the Hispanics, and next president is a democrat and then an immigration bill does get passed the republicans will look very bad in the eyes of the Hispanics.
I think Bush is concerned for future of republican party. He does not want to drop the ball on immigration and lose the Hispanic vote.
That being said I think the democrats would like to see the Republicans come off as the killers of this bill - then the democrats will look good in eyes of the Hispanics.
The Republicans have to be very, very careful with this issue. One bad move and they will screw themselves for decades to come.
They already have.
I suppose time will tell.
It's been proven where? I'd love to see the stats. If it's true then I'll agree BO's reasoning deosn't stand up.
Here'a quote from the Chicago Tribune. It does show an upward trend of Hispanics voting Republican.
Democrats, traditionally the party of the largest Latino voting bloc, Mexican-Americans, had the most to worry about. Nationwide, their share of the Hispanic vote total is on a steady decline, most pollsters say--72 percent for Bill Clinton in 1996, 62 percent for Al Gore in 2000 and, by some estimates, 54 percent for John Kerry.
And how about the Cubans? Aren't they hispanic too?
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0410/S00345.htm
"A poll published in September by the National Democrat Network (NDN), a Washington-Based 527 political organization, suggests that the Cuban-American vote in Florida will not be as slanted towards George W. Bush as it was four years ago. As a result, both President Bush and Senator John Kerry are scrambling to energize support among Cuban-American voters in the crucial swing state. Bush, who received 82 percent of the Cuban-American vote in Florida in 2000.
i fail to see your point. I thought you'd initially suggested that it's a well know fact that hispanic/latino voters overwelmingly vote republican. Now you want to narrow that to one demographic of Cubans? Nice try.
Had it been suggested that Cubans overwelmingly have voted republican in the past I would have agreed. But that was not the point being made. If it was you that said it's a fact that Hispanics tend to vote republican then you were clearly WRONG! But don't let the facts get in your way.
Also, I was somewhat conceding the point that BO's concern about a one party system being the future was unfounded. If the tren continues Dtrain your assertion may be correct in the future.
Cubans are a very special case. They cannot be extended to all Hispanics. Cubans vote republican because they see democrats being closer to communism ( and the hate Castro ).
They are also pissed about the way Clinton handle the Elian Gonzalez.
No. You 2 are the ones narrowing things. In fact, Ehull.. you are the one that asserted that the Mexicans are the largest hispanic voting bloc in America and you quoted only their stats to support your argument. Mexicans are not the only hispanics in America. Talk about narrowing. F**king hypocrite. Cubans are the next largest voting bloc and have proven to be quite a voting force to reckon with.
Now its time for a quick math lesson.
We will focus on the 2 largest hispanic voting blocs in america. Mexican and Cuban.
Using election year 2000 numbers we both provided:
100-54= 46% Mexicans voted for Bush in 2000
Mexicans account for 64% (whoa, that is alot though) of hispanics in the US. Follow me closely now:
46% of 64% of Mexican voters account for 30% of the total hispanic republican vote
100-64= 36% Cubans account for the rest of the hispanic vote in US.
82% of 36% of Cuban voters account for another 29.5% of the total hispanic republican vote
So lets review our numbers:
30% of mexicans voted republican
29.5% of cubans voted republican
30+29.5 = 59.5% of hispanics voted republican in 2000.
Thats a majority in my book. The defense rests.
DTrain - you are trying to pull a fast scam with your "analysis"
Only 3.7 % of Hispanics are Cuban:
http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/p20-545.pdf
I smelled something was fishy with your stats, and had to do my own investigating.
I was flat out debunked on the cuban numbers, damn. I honestly thought they're were more cubans than that. Gotta do better D, gotta do better. You win.
Sorry but I've got to agree with Bill.
Don't be sorry. Thanks for your thoughtful and interesting comment.
Heh!