Patterico's Pontifications

11/10/2004

Thanks a Lot, President Bush

Filed under: Morons — AMac @ 12:10 pm

After managing to get all the conservatives to come home for the election, Bush has decided to piss us all off again with amnesty.

That shithead.

20 Responses to “Thanks a Lot, President Bush”

  1. Heh. Thanks for hiding the profanity in the extended entry, Clam.

    Patterico (dea56d)

  2. I do my best.

    Besides, the fun part is people thinking there’s a huge rant coming up and getting the point very quickly.

    The Angry Clam (c96486)

  3. As much as amnesty rubs me the wrong way, does anybody have a better idea that doesn’t (1) involve maintaining the status quo or (2) sound like Berlin in 1939?

    Jeff Harrell (937967)

  4. Sure. If you can’t deport everybody, deport the felons.

    See how easy that was?

    Patterico (756436)

  5. As I understand it, in order to get amnesty, they have to agree to abide by the laws (including immigration/naturalization and city/state/federal tax) henceforth. My biggest objection to the illegal immigrant issue, aside from the government’s lack of resolve in pursuing them, is that they (illegals) benefit from our social programs without paying into them. Seems like Bush’s proposal would address both issues. This red-state voter isnt going to get too worked up about it.

    bains (cf261d)

  6. I don’t pretend to speak for anybody but myself, Bains, but the reason some red-staters get worked up about absolutely-one-time-only-no-exceptions amnesties is that we seem to have one every few years or so. Some of us aren’t wild about the message this sends across the border. “Come on over, hang out, keep your head down for a few years, then you can become citizens through an amnesty.” Not real good for anybody, that.

    Jeff Harrell (937967)

  7. New Mexico and Arizona voters sure as hell will. Nevada voters to a certain extent as well. Those are fairly key states, worth almost as much as Ohio in electoral votes, and, with the exception of Arizona, very swing-likely states.

    And what’s wrong with Berlin 1939 for our border? It needs to be protected. I’d prefer a Maginot Line solution.

    The Angry Clam (c96486)

  8. I’m not pissed, why do you guys flip. Aye Caramba!

    El Rey Carlangas

    A Toda Madre (8ebad6)

  9. Patterico, the felons are and will be deported, we kick them to the curb all the time here in AZ.

    The True King Carlos

    A Toda Madre (8ebad6)

  10. Would it go over better if:

    1) Every felon was deported

    _and_

    2) Sneaking over the border prior to 1/1/2004 is changed to a gross misdemeanor -> $1000 fine.

    Back off of the main proposal and figure out what is an adequate punishment for the non-gang member, non-posse, non-hoodlum types. Because there’s 10,000,000 illegals, and there isn’t 10,000,000 of them that have committed _other_ crimes.

    Al (98e4ad)

  11. The drain on the social services would be alleviated if the Federal Government would adopt a nationwide consumption tax vs. the current income tax system. All of those illegal aliens would become non-volunteer federal taxpayers. Here in Texas we have millions of illegals, but we raise money through state and local sales taxes (no state income tax). They buy something – they contribute to our tax base. Not a solution, just worth considering.

    Texas_Taxpayer (fd97f4)

  12. Texas also has a significantly smaller amount of social services than California, making illegal aliens less of a drain on the system.

    The Angry Clam (9bb02f)

  13. “Texas also has a significantly smaller amount of social services than California, making illegal aliens less of a drain on the system.”

    Agreed. I was not trying to address the problem of funding state-provided social services (recognizing that it is a problem). California residents have to decide what they are willing to provide. My principal point was that the current federal “income tax” and income-based “social security tax” is ridiculously easy to avoid for illegal aliens. It is my experience that many of our local social services are heavily subsidized by the Federal Government (and therefore by residents of all of the USA).

    Texas_Taxpayer (fd97f4)

  14. The problem is two-fold as I see it. Difficulty for blue collar/manual labor to get in legally tied with a laxity in law enforcement. Hell, I wager that between 2% and 10% of the guys building the houses here in Colorado that I design are illegals – they are honest and hard working, and just want to make a living. But I see your point, Jeff regarding the 4-year cycle (political pandering).

    bains (cf261d)

  15. I live 10 miles from the Mexican border. And all I can say is that most Americans don’t know a damn thing about Mexico. There are three classes of people in Mexico: the ladinos (who are pure-bred Spanish, the descendants of Conquistadors, who did not inter-marry with the indigenous people) that are 3% of the population but control 90% of the money; the mestizos (who are a mix of Spanish and indigenous people) who make up the insignificant middle-class; and the indigenous peoples (who are members of aboriginal tribes that never inter-married), that is, the poor. The game the rich in Mexico are playing is dumping their poor, uneducated peasants on us for us to pay taxes to educate, employ and provide health care for, while they refuse to pay taxes to educate, employ and provide health care for their own citizens. This is an irreconcilable difference. But what is to be done about it? If the US seals the border, the economies of every border city and state would be decimated, and several dozen towns in Mexico that depend on money from migrants would cease to exist. I favor a US position that says basically, Hey, Mexico, reform your economy and judiciary, and provide for your own people. Because the US taxpayer has had just about enough of this pathetic game.

    Scott (566b8c)

  16. Cry me a river for those towns in Mexico that would cease to exist.

    The Angry Clam (9bb02f)

  17. Yeah it sucks to have to educate the poor Mexicans.

    The alternative is to have a fourth world country at our Southern border. From a defence and economic stand point which serves better our long term interests?

    We need to make it easier for people from the South to cross our borders. Channel them to border crossings where they can be checked. The alternative is tthe huge crowds crossing our borders between border stations. Most of them unchecked.

    The bad guys can get lost in such a crowd.

    Economy of force. i.e. what is the easiest way to achieve achievable goals. Manning the borders the way the East Germans did is probobly not going to fly in America. So you have to consider what is politically feasible. (I know we just won an election – what can stop us now?)

    As it is we are training huge numbers of smugglers to evade our border patrol. Drugs and people smugglers. I don’t see an advantage to that but perhaps I’m insufficiently Republican.

    On top of that would we prefer Mexicans get a Mexican education or an American one?

    Just a thought.

    M. Simon (dab924)

  18. Clam,

    What about the American towns that would cease to exist?

    Well they probably voted Democrat any way. Screw ‘em. Right?

    M. Simon (dab924)

  19. Right- they subsist off the breaking of American immigration laws. I find it difficult to cry for criminals and those complicit with them.

    The Angry Clam (c96486)

  20. BUSH –
    pushing hard again for open borders with Mexico. Via The Angry Clam who’s, well, angry….

    PRESTOPUNDIT -- "Kerry in Cambodia" Wall-to-Wall Coverage (84db7a)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.2372 secs.