Immigration bill: secure border first

Immigration bill: secure border first

There are 62 comments on the TheBostonChannel.com story from Apr 16, 2013, titled Immigration bill: secure border first. In it, TheBostonChannel.com reports that:

This requirement is the cornerstone of an immigration reform bill a bipartisan group of senators are to file on Capitol Hill Tuesday.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at TheBostonChannel.com.

Memo From Turner

Bellmore, NY

#46 Apr 17, 2013
whizbang wrote:
<quoted text>
I can give you my definition, but it's a broad one, so you won't like it. Liberals prefer a very narrow one. That's so they can exclude all the failed socialist states & despots that embarrass the crap out of them.
There is no 100% socialist state anymore than there's a 100% capitalist one. I suppose Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge got as close as any major country has to full-on state socialism.(I've also repeatedly said that Obama and the Dems are quite far away from that nightmare scenario.) But you can be Spain or Greece and still not have killing fields. I doubt anyone wants their 25%+ unemployment or other troubles. On the sliding scale, Obama leans far left and is firmly in the socialist camp in my book and that of anyone else who is honest about the subject.
Nice try at redefining yourselves away from socialism. No cigar, however.(Lefties love to screw with the language, don't they?) Hey, who doesn't want to run from socialism's list of godawful failures and hideous nightmares?
Gee, if only Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Castro, Mao and the Kim-X3 psychopaths of North Korea hadn't all claimed to be the REAL socialism. How inconvenient for all you fellow travelers, so desperately trying to distance yourselves from them. Yes, you're all the nicer, gentler, more benevolent kind that we can trust to rule over our lives forever, cause you've found the One True Path. Oddly enough, that's the same thing they said at the beginning. Kind of makes one go "hmmmmmm....", especially when you claim that your version will make it absolutely impossible for some future despot to use the mechanism you put in place to do evil things. Right. I believe that. History can never, ever repeat itself. LOL!
Interesting post in part, but you are just lumping together a random group of bad guys and calling them socialist. After that you just make up stuff and veer of course.

Tell me when have I ever "claim[ed] that {my} version will make it absolutely impossible for some future despot to use the mechanism you put in place to do evil things".

What in the world are you talking about?
Eleanor

Vernon Hills, IL

#47 Apr 18, 2013
General Zapata wrote:
Well, according to Wikepedia, there are many different flavors of "Socialism", the nature of which also depends on it's context: Whether its applied to economics, ownership, social status, etc.
I think I understood whizbang's attempts to draw parallels between Obamas "socialism" and Hugo Chavez, et. al. I understood it, but I disagree with it.
Obama has repeatedly stated that he disagrees with the government owning GM among other means of production. Yes, he bailed them out but they were allowed to buy back their stock. Had Obama kept the stock, that makes him a true socialist. Chavez, et. al., have long stated the state must control the means of production.
IMO, Obama is either a "libetarian socialist" or "democratic socialist" as defined by Wikepedia. Not necessarily a bad thing, I think.
In the United States, the government is OWNED and CONTROLLED BY wealthy corporations (bought and paid for, either party).

Sort of a 'reverse' situation (for socialism) where its not the government that controls the means of productions. It is the wealthy elite who OWN and CONTROL both the government AND the MEANS OF PRODUCTION.

The people still end up on the short end of the stick (without any power or control).
wont happen

Albuquerque, NM

#48 Apr 18, 2013
Securing the border in 86 was supposed to happen also as part of that amnesty deal. 30million illegals later we all know that didn't happen. Does anyone really think it will happen this time ?
chicagonut

Coachella, CA

#49 Apr 18, 2013
Bob Lewis wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't blame minorities for the cowardice and self loathing which motivated the White majority to elect leftwing lunatics to guide our Country into nothingness.
Minorities? I thought the topic was illegal aliens.
Eleanor

Vernon Hills, IL

#50 Apr 18, 2013
wont happen wrote:
Securing the border in 86 was supposed to happen also as part of that amnesty deal. 30million illegals later we all know that didn't happen. Does anyone really think it will happen this time ?
Nope. The border won't get secured.

A new law will probably be enforced just as badly as the last one.
General Zapata

Hardy, VA

#51 Apr 18, 2013
Eleanor wrote:
<quoted text>
In the United States, the government is OWNED and CONTROLLED BY wealthy corporations (bought and paid for, either party).
Sort of a 'reverse' situation (for socialism) where its not the government that controls the means of productions. It is the wealthy elite who OWN and CONTROL both the government AND the MEANS OF PRODUCTION.
The people still end up on the short end of the stick (without any power or control).
And, the truly ironic thing is that those very same corporations are generally first in line for government handouts. Especially, when they are about to fail.
see the light

United States

#52 Apr 18, 2013
Round em up and we'll have a weini roast.
Bob Lewis

AOL

#54 Apr 19, 2013
Eleanor wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope. The border won't get secured.
A new law will probably be enforced just as badly as the last one.
If America doens't demand that malignant Mexifornia be amputated the Border integrity will never be enforced. We must demand that Calif be amputated from the rest of the Country as part of the "amnesty" this time or America is doomed.
patron of darmocel

Las Vegas, NV

#55 Apr 19, 2013
Memo From Turner wrote:
<quoted text>
Interesting post in part, but you are just lumping together a random group of bad guys and calling them socialist. After that you just make up stuff and veer of course.
Tell me when have I ever "claim[ed] that {my} version will make it absolutely impossible for some future despot to use the mechanism you put in place to do evil things".
What in the world are you talking about?
He didn't lump together a "random group of bad guys". First, they lumped themselves together by ALL claiming to be socialist - that's a historical fact. Second, they're hardly just ANY "random group", but rather the worst mass-murderers in the history of planet earth, bar none (100 million dead - so far). Interestingly enough, they all claimed to be socialist AND they committed horrendous crimes. THAT is what in the world he's talking about! It's not complicated.

The point was not what YOU have claimed (who cares?), but rather to ask: "What assurances are they that Big Government will always be benevolent in nature?". Seems a fair question, considering the history of the 20th century, our experiences with the aforementioned socialist monsters and the socialist tendencies of today's lefties.

And you say.....?
Memo From Turner

Bellmore, NY

#56 Apr 19, 2013
patron of darmocel wrote:
<quoted text>
He didn't lump together a "random group of bad guys". First, they lumped themselves together by ALL claiming to be socialist - that's a historical fact. Second, they're hardly just ANY "random group", but rather the worst mass-murderers in the history of planet earth, bar none (100 million dead - so far). Interestingly enough, they all claimed to be socialist AND they committed horrendous crimes. THAT is what in the world he's talking about! It's not complicated.
The point was not what YOU have claimed (who cares?), but rather to ask: "What assurances are they that Big Government will always be benevolent in nature?". Seems a fair question, considering the history of the 20th century, our experiences with the aforementioned socialist monsters and the socialist tendencies of today's lefties.
And you say.....?
And I say.........You are wrong. I asked somebody to define socialism and the best they could do was a list of certifiable bad guys. I am not going to waste time going through the list. Just the suggestion that Hitler was a socialist is ridiculous. The Nazis and socialists are at complete opposite ends of the political spectrum.
patron of darmocel

Las Vegas, NV

#57 Apr 19, 2013
Memo From Turner wrote:
<quoted text>
And I say.........You are wrong. I asked somebody to define socialism and the best they could do was a list of certifiable bad guys. I am not going to waste time going through the list. Just the suggestion that Hitler was a socialist is ridiculous. The Nazis and socialists are at complete opposite ends of the political spectrum.
I think he pointed out some rather unique bad guys who have one thing in common: socialism. Or are you denying that the crimes they committed were as awful as portrayed? Picking out the Nazis might work, but only if we forget all the others. However, the term "Nazi" is from the German "Nationalsozialismus ", meaning National Socialism. Whatever they did with their version of it, they claimed it was the "real" socialism. It's also true that they believed in ultimate state control of nearly everything, which is similar to other versions of socialism.

So the question remains: Considering what various versions of socialism (real or not) have done in terms of mass murder, what guarantees are there that it will not be repeated? If you don't want to accept them as "true" socialism, so be it. But it's pretty hard to deny that they were proponents of massive Big Government.

I can't see how 100 million dead at the hands of self-proclaimed "socialist" can just be ignored just by claiming that they don't meet some particular modern definition of socialism. Maybe we can put that on their memorial: "The dead who lie here were killed by a poorly defined philosophy that could not properly identify itself by today's standards. However, we're pretty sure we can dust if off a bit and reuse it with no fear of this tragedy being repeated."

Just why is it all those horror shows, including Hitler, wanted to be known as the One True Socialism?

“The "entitled" =communist.”

Since: May 10

MY MONEY, come take it.

#58 Apr 19, 2013
Securing the border is not a pawn to be used in any debate. It's the law. It's one of the few real responsibilities of the federal government. For it to be debated as to whether or not it will be done is not an issue and anyone who thinks so is a traitor and should be taken out back and ........

Since: Apr 10

Houston, TX

#59 Apr 19, 2013
"Moreover, notice the impressive-sounding goal, deliberately placed in the Senate summary’s first page and first section (Section A: Goal for Border Security), regarding the ‘effectiveness’ rate on the border, is just that: a goal. It is not a trigger. And, its reassuring “90% effectiveness rate” on border security actually only applies to “high risk” areas of the border (those where apprehensions are above 30,0000 per year).

Nonetheless, Senator Rubio’s office’s press release this morning states there are “six triggers,” including those that are merely goals (#3 and # 4 below) and not, in fact, triggers."

http://www.mediaite.com/online/top-10-errors-...
Memo From Turner

Bellmore, NY

#60 Apr 20, 2013
patron of darmocel wrote:
<quoted text>
I think he pointed out some rather unique bad guys who have one thing in common: socialism. Or are you denying that the crimes they committed were as awful as portrayed? Picking out the Nazis might work, but only if we forget all the others. However, the term "Nazi" is from the German "Nationalsozialismus ", meaning National Socialism. Whatever they did with their version of it, they claimed it was the "real" socialism. It's also true that they believed in ultimate state control of nearly everything, which is similar to other versions of socialism.
So the question remains: Considering what various versions of socialism (real or not) have done in terms of mass murder, what guarantees are there that it will not be repeated? If you don't want to accept them as "true" socialism, so be it. But it's pretty hard to deny that they were proponents of massive Big Government.
I can't see how 100 million dead at the hands of self-proclaimed "socialist" can just be ignored just by claiming that they don't meet some particular modern definition of socialism. Maybe we can put that on their memorial: "The dead who lie here were killed by a poorly defined philosophy that could not properly identify itself by today's standards. However, we're pretty sure we can dust if off a bit and reuse it with no fear of this tragedy being repeated."
Just why is it all those horror shows, including Hitler, wanted to be known as the One True Socialism?
Why didn't you throw in the Rape of Nanking while you were at it? I asked him to define socialism and he could not. Neither can you apparently.
White Dragon

Orange, CA

#61 Apr 20, 2013
The USA was FOUNDED and BUILT by Whites.(Non-Whites ADDED to it). Institutions were built by Whites. The Constitution was written by Whites. White ancestors did not work hard to build a 1st world nation to give it away to other races to turn it into a 3rd world nation. The USA is traditionally a nation of immigrants, WHITE immigrants.

Diversity/Multiculturalism = WHITE DISPLACEMENT = less democracy = less freedom = more racial tension/conflict

Multiculturalism/Diversity is the main reason Whites are divided. Multiculturalism is a DIVIDE and CONQUER strategy. Diversity causes Whites to lose their ethnic solidarity, but causes minorities to foster a stronger racial identity.

Non-Whites flock to White societies because Whites build the most desirable societies.

Whites have been bamboozled into believing that diversity is a strength and race is just skin color difference. If diversity is a strength, WHY IS RACISM INCREASING?

If the Chinese or Blacks had founded and built the USA, would they allow themselves to become a minority? No!

Different races are suited to being governed by different laws that suit their own unique racial makeup e.g. Chinese are genetically collectivistic, Whites are genetically individualistic. You can’t have one law for all races.

Whites are the only race on the planet that are celebrating diversity as they become minorities in their own nations. Why?

Asia for Asians. Africa for Africans. White nations for everyone. Why?

Political correctness and racial diversity ruins White nations. They will slowly become to resemble those nations where 3rd world immigrants have arrived from.

Most races see their race as their nation i.e. Blood is thicker than water and politics. It's called ethnic nepotism. It is natural and healthy. If there was no media, people would naturally flock to the right, but the mainstream media keeps promoting the lie that diversity is a strength.

Why do only Western nations view their own demographic and cultural eclipse as a moral imperative?

Why are many Whites, as a race, excessively “agreeable” to other races? Great nations are not founded on historical guilt and excessive altruism.

What makes White Liberals so sure a White minority USA will be safe, modern, united, and not anti-White?

Almost 2/3 of all historical wars were because of diversity

Not every race is capable of building and maintaining a 1st world nation
ima- Ilis Myka Ashanti

El Paso, TX

#62 Apr 20, 2013
chicagonut wrote:
<quoted text>
Minorities? I thought the topic was illegal aliens.
remember Chicago, they (perfur) polished words like UNDOCUMENTED and MINORITIES, illegal sounds too criminal as per juan from Pearland Tx. LOL! LOL! myself I PREFER ILLEGAL ALIEN ALL the time.
ima- Ilis Myka Ashanti

El Paso, TX

#63 Apr 20, 2013
see the light wrote:
Round em up and we'll have a weini roast.
UGH!!!....EAT HEARTILY! lol!
patron of darmocel

Las Vegas, NV

#64 Apr 20, 2013
Memo From Turner wrote:
<quoted text>
Why didn't you throw in the Rape of Nanking while you were at it? I asked him to define socialism and he could not. Neither can you apparently.
Fair enough. Let's see your definition. Besides, he wasn't talking about definitions but rather their common claim (false or not) to be the "real" socialism.(Can you explain that?)

The Rape of Nanking was done by another over-arching state which controlled virtually everything. So though not overtly socialist they do have that in common with socialism's other nightmares.

Again, why don't you answer his question: What guarantees are there that once socialism's mechanisms are put in place they will only be used for good?

Please tell me you are not so naive and ignorant of history that you believe those past socialist regimes began by telling everyone their ultimate plans for when they attained absolute power? Do you think Hitler or Lenin's first speeches contained references to gulags, gas chambers & mass murder? Mostly, they sounded just like modern politicians, full of "hope & change" and all that other blather. Perhaps they even believed it themselves at the time. But Lenin was followed by Stalin, despite whatever the intentions of the former.

Lenin, Aug. 1918, at the All-Russia Congress on Education:

"The working people are thirsting for knowledge because they need it to win. Nine out of ten of the working people have realized that knowledge is a weapon in their struggle for emancipation, that their failures are due to lack of education, and that now it is up to them really to give everyone access to education. Our cause is assured because the people have themselves set about building a new, socialist Russia. They are learning from their own experience, from their failures and mistakes, and they see how indispensable education is for the victorious conclusion of their struggle. In spite of the apparent collapse of many institutions and the jubilation of the intellectuals carrying out sabotage, we find that experience in the struggle has taught the people to take their fate into their own hands. All who really sympathize with the people, all the best teachers will come to our aid, and that is a sure pledge that the socialist cause will triumph."

No mention of herding peasants into collective farms or starving millions to death on purpose. No mention of mass deportations to Siberia. No mention of purges (murder) of hundreds of thousands of innocents based on kangaroo courts and secret police torture. Just education for the masses and all sorts of other hopeful things. Hitler's early speeches are similar in content.
Mayela

United States

#65 Apr 20, 2013
EARLY CULTURAL INTERACTION
Early American history began in the collision of European, West African, and Native American peoples in North America. Europeans "discovered" America by accident, then created empires out of the conquest of indigenous peoples and the enslavement of Africans. Yet conquest and enslavement were accompanied by centuries of cultural interaction—interaction that spelled disaster for Africans and Native Americans and triumph for Europeans, to be sure, but interaction that transformed all three peoples in the process.

Native America in 1580
The lands and human societies that European explorers called a New World were in fact very old. During the Ice Ages much of the world’s water was bound up in glaciers. Sea level dropped by hundreds of feet, creating a land bridge between Alaska and Siberia. Asians walked across to become the first human inhabitants of the Americas. Scientists disagree on when this happened, but most estimates say it was around 30,000 years ago. When the last glaciers receded about 10,000 years ago (thus ending this first great migration to America), ancestors of the Native Americans filled nearly all of the habitable parts of North and South America. They lived in isolation from the history—and particularly from the diseases—of what became known as the Old World.

The Native Americans who greeted the first Europeans had become diverse peoples. They spoke between 300 and 350 distinct languages, and their societies and ways of living varied tremendously. The Aztecs of Mexico and the Incas of Peru built great empires (see Aztec Empire; Inca Empire). In what is now the United States, the Mississippians (see Mound Builders) built cities surrounded by farmland between present–day St. Louis, Missouri,(where their city of Cahokia was larger than medieval London) and Natchez, Mississippi. The Mississippians’ "Great Sun" king ruled authoritatively and was carried from place to place by servants, preceded by flute–players. The Pueblo peoples of the Southwest lived in large towns, irrigated their dry land with river water, and traded with peoples as far away as Mexico and California.

In the East, the peoples who eventually encountered English settlers were varied, but they lived in similar ways. All of them grew much of their food. Women farmed and gathered food in the woods. Men hunted, fished, and made war. None of these peoples kept herds of domestic animals; they relied on abundant wild game for protein. All lived in family groups, but owed their principal loyalties to a wider network of kin and to their clans. Some—the Iroquois in upstate New York and the Powhatan confederacy in Virginia—formed alliances called confederacies for the purposes of keeping peace among neighbors and making war on outsiders. Even within these confederacies, however, everyday political organization seldom extended beyond villages, and village chiefs ruled their independent–minded people by consent.
http://history-world.org/united_states_of_ame...

The San Antonio de Valera Mission was founded
in 1718 by Franciscans and Spanish soldiers
http://www.nps.gov/history/nr/travel/american...

White folk built What? When? Where? Riiiiiiight.
ima- Ilis Myka Ashanti

El Paso, TX

#66 Apr 20, 2013
Memo From Turner wrote:
<quoted text>
Why didn't you throw in the Rape of Nanking while you were at it? I asked him to define socialism and he could not. Neither can you apparently.
Clueless, simply put.....socialism is not a form of government DESIRED in our country for fear of losing our treasured freedoms WHICH are already being inconspicuously and ever so quietly being revoked from us, as is the changing of our constitution. Don't worry citizen democrats YOU HAVE ALLOT TO LOSE ALSO, JUST REMEMBER YOU HELPED TO BRING THE COUNTRY DOWN. WE ALL PAY DEARLY.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Illegal Immigration Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News If feds try to ID deportable immigrants using C... 2 min Trump your President 3
News Trump Isn't Bluffing, He'll Deport 11 Million P... (May '16) 3 min President Donald ... 14,926
News Trump close to naming retired Marine general to... 22 min Captain Yesterday 35
News If Donald Trump Was President, Here's What Woul... (Oct '15) 43 min Forensics 13,216
News More anti-immigrant legislation: bill would def... 56 min NeverWithHer 12
News Mexican rape victim sentenced for murdering her... 5 hr ima-Ilis Myka Ash... 9
News Duke Approves - Safe Space' For Illegal Immigrants 6 hr tomin cali 1
More from around the web