0 comment Monday, October 13, 2014 | admin
Today's Washington Times has a piece by Rep.Kay Bailey Hutchinson and Rep. Mike Pence, pushing Pence's amnesty -- oops, non-amnesty, temporary-worker program.
We believe it is imperative that Congress find a responsible solution and enact comprehensive reform.
[...]We are putting forth a proposal that we hope can be used as the basis for new discussions. Our plan is tough on border security, but it recognizes the need for a temporary-worker program...
OK, hold it right there. Whenever I see the words 'comprehensive reform' and phrases like 'recognizes the need for a temporary-worker program', I know all I need to know. It's just more of the same old, same old, even if they tinker with the terminology (like saying a 'temporary-worker program' instead of 'temporary guest-worker program'), I know they are pushing for more immigration and for some kind of amnesty, despite their protestations that it isn't amnesty. Methinks they protest too much, these illegal-enabling politicians.
As if to further confirm my wariness, they Hutchinson and Pence go on to say
The millions who come to our country seeking jobs to support their families are not a security threat to our nation, but the weaknesses in the nearly 7,000 miles of international border and 95,000 miles of shoreline have given terrorists, drug dealers and human traffickers an opening that is being exploited; this is a risk we cannot allow to continue. Part two of our plan is a temporary-worker program that is essential in order to fill jobs in our economy that are in high demand.''
So, Kay and Mike, you can guarantee that these 'hard-working people' are 'not a security risk'? How do you know that? Do you have a crystal ball, or precognitive powers? Will you personally guarantee all the 'job-seekers' you bring into my country?
And as for this idea that making all the illegals legal by a stroke of the pen will solve all the problems attending on their presence, please! You insult our intelligence by making these sweeping claims which you have no way to back up, by making assertions with no supporting evidence. For instance you take as a given that these people are 'essential' in order 'to fill jobs in our economy that are in high demand.'
Name some of those jobs that are in high demand, Kay and Mike. I suspect that many of these 'essential' jobs are jobs that are created by the presence of the immigrants themselves, like more social workers (bilingual, of course) to serve the many, many needs of these 'job-seekers', or more bilingual teachers, hospital interpreters, police officers, or maybe we 'need' more taco wagons and churro vendors.
So, Mike and Kay, I need to be shown that they are essential; I don't take your word as gospel. I need specifics and proof. You want to tamper with my country and its laws, show me why it's so vital.
I also have little faith in this new bureaucracy you propose to screen the 'job-seekers'. Can we trust that they truly would perform background checks? How does one do that for people with phony IDs and with no paper trail? Does Mexico keep accurate records on its citizens? If so, can they be trusted to deal honestly with us, given the level of corruption and incompetence that prevails? Or would we truly screen these people for communicable diseases? Are we willing to reject those who don't pass, or are we so cowed by the fear of charges of 'racism' from the usual quarters that we would allow questionable people in? And if we turn them away, can we be sure they don't simply come in the back door as they are doing now? Why should they suddenly develop a regard for our laws, and play by the rules, if they can just sneak in, in the time-honored way?
No, Kay and Mike, this is just smoke-and-mirrors, as usual.
I still want an answer from somebody in Congress as to why you people think that you can operate flagrantly against the will of the majority of your constituents. Why do you keep pushing this thing, this amnesty-which-isn't-amnesty, despite the clear message that we, the people, the American people, that is, don't want it?
Why are you defying us?
Sorry, but in the wake of that eye-opening piece by Fredo Arias-King which I linked to the other day, I can't help wondering if you two, and all the other illegal-enablers, aren't among those brazen frauds who called us, their constituents, 'rednecks', laughing at us, and apologizing for us to Vicente Fox's people.
Kay and Mike conclude their article thusly:
Congress owes it to the American people to solve this crisis. We are attempting to protect our national security while providing benefits to our country for generations to come. We urge our colleagues in Congress to come back to the table and produce a workable system. The future of our country depends on it.
Well, there are a few true words there: I give you credit for accidentally saying something true.
You in Congress DO owe it to us, the American people to solve the crisis. But you elected officials, along with your cheap-labor procurers and your globalist buddies, created this crisis, only to say, "look, the system is broken! Now we need to 'fix' it." when all you had to do was enforce our laws. We have good laws on our books that were and are purposely, deliberately ignored and flouted, apparently under orders. So all you need to do is see that our laws are enforced. Bringing in millions more and calling them 'legal' will not fix the problem.
But you are right when you say the future of our country depends on fixing the borders problem. Your solution, however, will ensure that traditional America, as we have known it, will be transformed. It will be changed into something unrecognizable to us, and unthinkable to our forefathers. The future of our country depends on securing our borders, controlling and limiting who enters, and preserving our American culture and our English language and our culture. Throwing the gates open to masses of hostile or at best indifferent third-worlders, who reject our culture, resent us, and refuse to learn our language can only mean the end of America.
You can have your 'comprehensive reform' and millions more strangers in our country, or we can have our country, and our future. We can't have both. You can serve the people who elected you, or you can serve your special interests.
But be mindful that our Founding Fathers said, we the people are the bosses here.
Where the law of the majority ceases to be acknowledged, there government ends, the law of the strongest takes its place, and life and property are his who can take them."
"The will of the people...is the only legitimate foundation of any government..."
Thomas Jefferson.
We believe it is imperative that Congress find a responsible solution and enact comprehensive reform.
[...]We are putting forth a proposal that we hope can be used as the basis for new discussions. Our plan is tough on border security, but it recognizes the need for a temporary-worker program...
OK, hold it right there. Whenever I see the words 'comprehensive reform' and phrases like 'recognizes the need for a temporary-worker program', I know all I need to know. It's just more of the same old, same old, even if they tinker with the terminology (like saying a 'temporary-worker program' instead of 'temporary guest-worker program'), I know they are pushing for more immigration and for some kind of amnesty, despite their protestations that it isn't amnesty. Methinks they protest too much, these illegal-enabling politicians.
As if to further confirm my wariness, they Hutchinson and Pence go on to say
The millions who come to our country seeking jobs to support their families are not a security threat to our nation, but the weaknesses in the nearly 7,000 miles of international border and 95,000 miles of shoreline have given terrorists, drug dealers and human traffickers an opening that is being exploited; this is a risk we cannot allow to continue. Part two of our plan is a temporary-worker program that is essential in order to fill jobs in our economy that are in high demand.''
So, Kay and Mike, you can guarantee that these 'hard-working people' are 'not a security risk'? How do you know that? Do you have a crystal ball, or precognitive powers? Will you personally guarantee all the 'job-seekers' you bring into my country?
And as for this idea that making all the illegals legal by a stroke of the pen will solve all the problems attending on their presence, please! You insult our intelligence by making these sweeping claims which you have no way to back up, by making assertions with no supporting evidence. For instance you take as a given that these people are 'essential' in order 'to fill jobs in our economy that are in high demand.'
Name some of those jobs that are in high demand, Kay and Mike. I suspect that many of these 'essential' jobs are jobs that are created by the presence of the immigrants themselves, like more social workers (bilingual, of course) to serve the many, many needs of these 'job-seekers', or more bilingual teachers, hospital interpreters, police officers, or maybe we 'need' more taco wagons and churro vendors.
So, Mike and Kay, I need to be shown that they are essential; I don't take your word as gospel. I need specifics and proof. You want to tamper with my country and its laws, show me why it's so vital.
I also have little faith in this new bureaucracy you propose to screen the 'job-seekers'. Can we trust that they truly would perform background checks? How does one do that for people with phony IDs and with no paper trail? Does Mexico keep accurate records on its citizens? If so, can they be trusted to deal honestly with us, given the level of corruption and incompetence that prevails? Or would we truly screen these people for communicable diseases? Are we willing to reject those who don't pass, or are we so cowed by the fear of charges of 'racism' from the usual quarters that we would allow questionable people in? And if we turn them away, can we be sure they don't simply come in the back door as they are doing now? Why should they suddenly develop a regard for our laws, and play by the rules, if they can just sneak in, in the time-honored way?
No, Kay and Mike, this is just smoke-and-mirrors, as usual.
I still want an answer from somebody in Congress as to why you people think that you can operate flagrantly against the will of the majority of your constituents. Why do you keep pushing this thing, this amnesty-which-isn't-amnesty, despite the clear message that we, the people, the American people, that is, don't want it?
Why are you defying us?
Sorry, but in the wake of that eye-opening piece by Fredo Arias-King which I linked to the other day, I can't help wondering if you two, and all the other illegal-enablers, aren't among those brazen frauds who called us, their constituents, 'rednecks', laughing at us, and apologizing for us to Vicente Fox's people.
Kay and Mike conclude their article thusly:
Congress owes it to the American people to solve this crisis. We are attempting to protect our national security while providing benefits to our country for generations to come. We urge our colleagues in Congress to come back to the table and produce a workable system. The future of our country depends on it.
Well, there are a few true words there: I give you credit for accidentally saying something true.
You in Congress DO owe it to us, the American people to solve the crisis. But you elected officials, along with your cheap-labor procurers and your globalist buddies, created this crisis, only to say, "look, the system is broken! Now we need to 'fix' it." when all you had to do was enforce our laws. We have good laws on our books that were and are purposely, deliberately ignored and flouted, apparently under orders. So all you need to do is see that our laws are enforced. Bringing in millions more and calling them 'legal' will not fix the problem.
But you are right when you say the future of our country depends on fixing the borders problem. Your solution, however, will ensure that traditional America, as we have known it, will be transformed. It will be changed into something unrecognizable to us, and unthinkable to our forefathers. The future of our country depends on securing our borders, controlling and limiting who enters, and preserving our American culture and our English language and our culture. Throwing the gates open to masses of hostile or at best indifferent third-worlders, who reject our culture, resent us, and refuse to learn our language can only mean the end of America.
You can have your 'comprehensive reform' and millions more strangers in our country, or we can have our country, and our future. We can't have both. You can serve the people who elected you, or you can serve your special interests.
But be mindful that our Founding Fathers said, we the people are the bosses here.
Where the law of the majority ceases to be acknowledged, there government ends, the law of the strongest takes its place, and life and property are his who can take them."
"The will of the people...is the only legitimate foundation of any government..."
Thomas Jefferson.
Labels: Incomprehensible Reform