Jul 05 2006
Drudge Makes News Like MSM – He Fakes It.
What in the world is going on with our political discourse? Have we been scraping the bottom of the barrel for so long all we have are variations of Kerry and Dean and Tancredo and Buchanan??? Why in the world would Matt Drudge claim that NY City Mayor Bloomberg said we need illegal immigration when he said something totally different?
The economy of the country’s largest city and the entire nation would collapse if illegal immigrants were deported en masse, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg told a Senate committee hearing Wednesday.New York City is home to more than 3 million immigrants, and a half-million of them came to this country illegally, Bloomberg testified.
“Although they broke the law by illegally crossing our borders … our city’s economy would be a shell of itself had they not, and it would collapse if they were deported,” he said. “The same holds true for the nation.
Drudge changed this easily understood concept that we need a large immigrant work force for both seasonal and temprorary (3-6 year) jobs to keep our economy rolling ato something totally different. Drudge’s banner headline: “NYC MAYOR: WE NEED ILLEGALS”
The hard liners are now using deceiptful tactics learned by the liberal media to make their continuing unsustainable position that exposed borders today are better than immigrants who came here illegally ever possibly earning a right to be a citizen (even through military service). This headline is as accurate as “Bush lied and people died”. Drudge is one step away from being a non-source in my opinion. I left the Democrat party because of their complete reliance on hyperbolic rhetoric. And the use of deceipt on the right has become a tall barrier to me ever being willing to call myself a Republican. Right now that possibility is very unrealistic.
>> Tell every illegal immigrant in the US today, to mail to the
>> US Treasury a card containing their name and home address in
>> Mexico, or whatever country they are from.
>> Tell them that beginning one week after the Treasury receives
>> the card, they will begin to receive a check at their home
>> address, in Mexico, once per week for $500.00
>> Do not check on the person, if it is a sorry ass non working
>> American and he wants a check for $500 weekly, with no
>> strings attached delivered to him weekly in Mexico, so be it.
>> Mexico will then have to build the fence, the US won’t have
>> to.
>> Mexico will then have the illegal immigrant problem, the US
>> will not.
>> For all those people that say 11 million people can’t be
>> deported, you better get out of the way of the stampede.
>> This would not cost the US government one dime. All the
>> savings from supporting these Illegals will be used to pay
>> for it and have money to spare.
>> OK, tell me why that won’t work.
Let me get this straight. An illegal now receiving X amount of money in support from the US government is supposed to send his name and his Mexican address to the government, on the promise that the US government will start sending that money to Mexico (and presumably this will be about the same amount of money or less, if it is true that this won’t cost us a dime because all the money we spend supporting the illegals will be used to pay for this largesse).
First off, good luck in getting illegals to send their names and Mexican addresses to the government. Illegals are trying to HIDE from the government. Somehow I don’t see illegals willingly sending in their names and old addresses to the government in order to get their welfare checks sent back to Mexico, even if they decide that OUR government isn’t being “tricksy.”
And secondly, if people are all up in arms over “amnesty” (meaning letting the bastards get away with their criminal presence in the U.S. by rewarding them in the end), then I can’t imagine that people will be very happy about subsidizing Mexicans just so they’ll stay in Mexico. I can just imagine the reaction to a headline like “Congress Proposes $286 Billion Payments to Mexico for Illegals” ($500 x 11 million x 52 weeks = $286 billion a year).
And if these people are mostly Mexicans, then I doubt that Mexico is going to go to the time and expense to put up their own 1500+-mile fence just to keep out the damn Mexicans.
You aren’t too sharp are you Aitch748 ,
You should re read what I said and maybe you’ll understand it.
You obviously have a problem with English Comprehension
I can see why AJ is fed up with For Enforcement. I didn’t call FE an idiot; I just explained why I don’t think FE’s proposal would work. And his response is: “You aren’t too sharp, are you Aitch748? You should reread what I said and maybe you’ll understand it. You obviously have a problem with English Comprehension.” And not a word further about what he thinks I misunderstood or why his proposal isn’t as bad as I think.
Bah.
(Oh well. Some of the hardliners over on Lucianne.com this morning seem to think that Republicans who disagree with the hardliners on immigration are not really Republicans or even RINOs. So I guess if some hardliners are ready to rhetorically cast non-hardliner righties into the pit with the liberals and the Marxists and the Aztlan Klan, I shouldn’t be too surprised to be called a dullard with a reading-comprehension problem. Feh.)
Hey Aitch,
Welcome to the conservative underground! I love to point out I cannot be a RINO – I am not a Republican! I just vote for them most of the time because they make the most sense most of the time. Immigration is proving why they are just normal human beings who can make huge mistakes.
Cheers, AJStrata
Let’s see, Aitch says we should help Mexico clean up it’s act. But like most on this thread, have no suggestions on how to do that? Should we take over the corrupt Mexican government? How do we do that? Should we monitor their businesses to make sure there is no corruption? How do we do that? Aitch wants to shink the difference between the two nations? Ever heard of NAFTA, Aitch? NAFTA was supposed to do exactly that. Gee, guess it didn’t work.
And of course, all those who disagree with FE and me say “what about all those poor business owners that will be put out of business?” Do you really think I care about a bunch of inscruplous businessmen who hire illegals to put their competitors out of business and line their pockets? Remember, poor Terrye had to buy a round baler. I guess Terrye is just behind the times. All ranchers in Texas have round balers. And if they don’t, there are contract balers who will bale the hay for you. And no, THEY ARE NOT ILLEGALS but are other farmers/ranchers who hire out during hay season.
AJ, et al, says we cannot round up 11 million illegals. Well, we can deport 10, or a 100 or 1,000. We can do it everyday until the illegals get the idea that if they come to the U.S. illegally, they will be sent to the farthest most southern point of Mexico as the government did under President Eisenhower. We can finger print them, take their DNA and tell them if they are caught here illegally again, they are going to jail and unless they have the money for a long distance phone call, they won’t be able to contact their families until they are released and they will be required to do work at the jail that will be applied to the cost of their incarceration.
But no, AJ et al, wants to feel good about their humanity toward illegals. AJ just doesn’t want them violating his neighborhood by laws but our federal laws are just not that important. And AJ wants to tell us how things work on The Hill. Well, if saving face is more important that national security, the whole damn bunch needs to be replaced.
AJ wants us to believe that we have not taken care of the border because we balked on the Shamnesty Bill. But he also refuses to admit that there are already laws on the books that take care of border security, they just are ignored and are not enforced.
But I guess I am talking to the screen since AJ has refused to answer all my questions to him like:
if some unknown to you vagrant moves into your home, are you going to let him stay there if he pays part of your rent, or all you going to call the police?
My **point** was that, as long as Mexico remains poor and corrupt, and as long as America remains rich and free, the illegals are going to keep coming. Frankly, I don’t have to have a detailed foolproof plan for making Mexico rich and free before I can make that point. Even if I do have a plan and it turns out to be dead wrong, that still doesn’t change the general point that, if you can’t make a living in Mexico but you can in the U.S., then you’re going to want to move to the U.S., even if the U.S. immigration system is a nightmarish bureaucratic mess. Helping Mexico fix itself, if it can be done, would be one thing that can be done to alleviate the illegal immigration problem.
So Aitch748 , you said.
I can see why AJ is fed up with For Enforcement. I didn’t call FE an idiot;
See what I meant about Comprehension, I didn’t say you did. I re-read it again and I still don’t see where I did. I just said you need a course in Comprehension. You just reinforced that.
As far as why AJ says he doesn’t want to respond to me. I’m not quite sure but it is my opinion that it’s because I’m one of the few people that reads this site that asks him questions that he doesn’t want to answer, because, and he didn’t say this, so I’m not putting words in his mouth, but I suspect that when he actually reads the question and thinks about it, he is thinking that my position is different from his and he doesn’t want to admit that what I’m thinking is what he thinks he should be thinking.
Like Retire05 says above “if some unknown to you vagrant moves into your home, are you going to let him stay there if he pays part of your rent, or all you going to call the police?”
I remember asking a question similar to that, like how long does a burglar have to live in your house before he becomes a part of the family. In my case, as soon as I knew he was there I would see if I could have him arrested. AJ’s response. He didn’t answer the question. one more example, AJ says if someone here commits a felony they would be deported forever, which contrasts violently with the Senate bill which allows persons that have committed one felony and 3 misdemeanors to come into the US. He doesnt’ respond to questions like that.
But I don’t see that as being any different from, how long does an illegal immigrant have to live in this country before he just becomes a citizen? Same thing. Is there a logical answer? Yes, And I know what it is.
But, if you want to read on, I’ll spend the time to explain my plan.
I’ll do it by disecting what you responded. I’ll put my comments in capitals just to distinguish them(I’m not yelling)
Let me get this straight. An illegal now receiving X amount of money in support from the US government(AND HE’S GETTING THIS HOW? WITHOUT THE GOVERNMENT HAVING HIS ADDRESS?, HE MUST TRUST THE GOV JUST A TEENSY LITTLE BIT) is supposed to send his name and his Mexican address to the government, on the promise that the US government will start sending that money to Mexico (and presumably this will be about the same amount of money or less,(FIRST I DIDN’T SAY HE WAS GETING HIS MONEY IN THE US FROM THE GOV. ONLY THE MONEY HE WILL GET IN MEXICO. MY CONTENTION IS, IF HE IS WORKING FOR ANYONE AND IS MAKING $500 A WEEK AND THE ALTERNATIVE IS, HE CAN GO HOME AND SIT ON HIS BUTT AND GET THAT SAME $500 FREE, THAT’S A SIMPLE CHOICE) if it is true that this won’t cost us a dime because all the money we spend supporting the illegals will be used to pay for this largesse).
First off, good luck in getting illegals to send their names and Mexican addresses to the government.(AGAIN, HOW WERE THEY DRAWING THE MONEY FROM GOV WITHOUT SUPPLYING ADDRESS?) Illegals are trying to HIDE from the government.(AND THEY SIGN UP FOR BENEFITS? HMMM) Somehow I don’t see illegals willingly sending in their names and old addresses (JUST NAMES AND NEW ADDRESSES?)to the government in order to get their welfare(IT’S NOT WELFARE, IT’S INCOME) checks sent back to Mexico, even if they decide that OUR government isn’t being “tricksy.â€(YOU THINK THEY DON’T TRUST OUR GOV? THEY TRUST THEM ENOUGH TO KNOW THE GOV IS NOT GONNA DO ANYTHING TO HARM THEM, HELL IF THEY’LL JUST SUPPLY THEIR NAME AND ASK, THEY’LL MAKE THEM A CITIZEN ACCORDING TO THE SENATE BILL)
And secondly, if people are all up in arms over “amnesty†(meaning letting the bastards get away with their criminal presence in the U.S. by rewarding them in the end), (BUT YOU AND AJ AREN’T AGAINST AMNESTY, IN FACT THE SENATE BILL GUARANTEES THEM THAT)then I can’t imagine that people will be very happy about subsidizing Mexicans just so they’ll stay in Mexico.(I THINK THEY WOULD BE ABSOLUTELY DELIGHTED TO DO THIS, CONSIDERING THE ALTERNATIVE) I can just imagine the reaction to a headline like “Congress Proposes $286 Billion Payments to Mexico for Illegals†($500 x 11 million x 52 weeks = $286 billion a year).(THIS WOULD BE A BARGAIN)
And if these people are mostly Mexicans, then I doubt that Mexico is going to go to the time and expense to put up their own 1500+-mile fence just to keep out the damn Mexicans. (YOU MISSED MY POINT, IT WOULD BE TO KEEP OUT ALL THOSE AMERICANS THAT YOU’ALL SAY WON’T WORK HERE IN THE US. THEY’LL ALL GO TO MEXICO TO DRAW THAT $500 WEEKLY, REMEMBER WE’RE NOT CHECKING UP ON THEM)
so Aitch, see what you could have easily understood on your own if you had only had a reading Comprehension class.
Note to Screen, I have attempted very hard to stay away from misrepresenting AJ’S position on anything. I have attempted to stay with facts only. In fact here is my disclaimer. Nothing I have written here is in any way a statement on AJ’s position. He does eloquently stating his own position and I have no intention of attempting to state it for him.
Aitch748, to quote you:
My **point** was that, as long as Mexico remains poor and corrupt, and as long as America remains rich and free, the illegals are going to keep coming. Frankly, I don’t have to have a detailed foolproof plan for making Mexico rich and free before I can make that point. Even if I do have a plan and it turns out to be dead wrong, that still doesn’t change the general point that, if you can’t make a living in Mexico but you can in the U.S., then you’re going to want to move to the U.S., even if the U.S. immigration system is a nightmarish bureaucratic mess. Helping Mexico fix itself, if it can be done, would be one thing that can be done to alleviate the illegal immigration problem.
Don’t you think 11000000 Mexicans and all the lazy people”that won’t work” in the US drawing $500 a week in Mexico would give their economy a shot in the arm? Are do you believe the corrupt Mexican gov would just confiscate it and use it to mail their citizens back to the US?
But then they wouldn’t be poor, just corrupt.
Dont’ ignore this, tell me why it wouldn’t work?
Aitch, you are like a lot of people who think Mexico is a poor nation. Mexico is not poor. Far from it. It is rich in oil, and has a hugh tourist trade. If Mexico is so poor, how has it managed to produce 11 BILLIONAIRES? And the third richest man in the world is? Yep, Mexican. The problem is your second choice: corruption. And there is nothing that the U.S. can do to eliminate the corruption that is rampant in Mexican businesses. It is their country. Remember?
Tell me this, why do you think it is that the Mexican population doesn’t rise up and get rid of the corruption? What allows people to stay in a downtrodden country that has the ability to be a very modern democratic society that can provide for ALL it’s people and rather than fight for their rights, jump the border to another nation?
This is one of my complaints. There are those who want to let these people become citizens of the U.S. Why? They don’t feel the need to fight for their own nation, do we think they will ever fight for ours? I can tell you, they are just as racist, just as bigotted as anyone in the U.S. Hispanic on black gang wars are becoming common place in the U.S. MS13 is a great example.
I love this nation. Some of my ancestors were here before Columbus. And almost every generation of my family has fought for this country. I want people who are willing to defend their own nation, or defend my nation when they adopt it. That is not their culture.
Hmm, I got censored and I didn’t say anything at all negative about AJ, just some good info about aitch’s plan, sorry Aitch, I was trying to help you out but somebody didn’t think you needed it.
I have been converted, I now think the Senate bill is great, the house bill stinks and all you ‘hardliners’ need to come around to my way of thinking. The Senate Bill is only a wonderful compromise and i’ll never say another bad thing about it.
>>>Dont’ ignore this, tell me why it wouldn’t work?
I already did. If giving $500/week to an illegal (provided he returns to Mexico) doesn’t cost us any more than simply supporting him on welfare, then I don’t see how the promise of a $500/week check from the government is going to lure an illegal to pack up again and move back to Mexico. Your scheme also requires that the illegal willingly give his name and his old address to the U.S. Treasury. If the illegal is busy trying to avoid detection, he probably isn’t going to want to do that, and if he knows that there is a movement to get people like him out of the U.S., that might affect his decision on whether to trust the U.S. to come through with their promise of a $500 check every week. Finally, I pointed out that if “amnesty” just won’t fly politically, then I can’t imagine how paying somebody to observe the law by staying in Mexico would fly.
Retire05:
Some people in Mexico may be rich, even super-rich, but apparently there are an awful lot of poor people there too. Maybe if you had a bunch of capitalists down there with the freedom to build wealth more or less as they saw fit, Mexico would quickly become a rich country like Japan. That doesn’t seem to be the case though. People are coming north from Mexico in large numbers, but not many seem to be coming south from Canada.
As far as why the Mexicans don’t rise up against the corruption — well, why don’t people rise up against the corruption all over the world? I think that people rising up in revolt against the government is relatively rare; if life is bad in a country, they usually either try to flee the country or to make the most of a rotten situation as best they can. I don’t think most people rebel in cases like this unless they’re pushed to the wall — particularly if they’re nowhere near as well organized as the government.
Aitch
I already did. If giving $500/week to an illegal (provided he returns to Mexico) doesn’t cost us any more than simply supporting him on welfare, then I don’t see how the promise of a $500/week check from the government is going to lure an illegal to pack up again and move back to Mexico. Your scheme also requires that the illegal willingly give his name and his old address to the U.S. Treasury. If the illegal is busy trying to avoid detection, he probably isn’t going to want to do that, and if he knows that there is a movement to get people like him out of the U.S., that might affect his decision on whether to trust the U.S. to come through with their promise of a $500 check every week. Finally, I pointed out that if “amnesty†just won’t fly politically, then I can’t imagine how paying somebody to observe the law by staying in Mexico would fly.
I sent you a nice disection of your critique, but it got censored, so you didn’t get the benefit of my reading comprehension lesson.
But let me just say that, here you say the illegal is getting compensation from the US Gov and he doesn’t want to give them his address? Is that Comprehension 101 or what?
Besides, I’m not arguing it anymore, as I said above:
I have been converted, I now think the Senate bill is great, the house bill stinks and all you ‘hardliners’ need to come around to my way of thinking. The Senate Bill is only a wonderful compromise and i’ll never say another bad thing about it.
I understand Hell froze over the other day.
For the Screen,
If you’re gonna censor, just censor out the offending parts, I put a lot of time and effort in that post to Aitch and made sure I put a disclaimer swearing that I wasn’t stating anything about your position.
It’s your blog as you point out regularly, but I find it hard to believe you only want an Amen corner, any dissenters not welcome.
Yes I understand that you don’t want someone misrepresenting your position on your own blog, hell, I don’t particularly like it when someone disagrees with me on YOUR blog. But as I’ve said before, I generally agree with you on about 99% of the things you write. My only known disagreement is with your position on illegal immigrants. As I said in that comment you deleted, I didn’t say anything at all about your position, so I couldn’t have misrepresented it.
But if your position is that you only want people that agree with you to read your blog, let me know.
Thanks Screen