Re: Immigration talks rouse hate

"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:evCdnS3emfo6d0zanZ2dnUVZ_uDinZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Jeff Strickland wrote:
>
>>
>> "Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
>> news:SOSdneyLqqErQUzanZ2dnUVZ_q-jnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>>> Jeff Strickland wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "ZeD" <zed@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>> amnesty.  As far as I care, the path to citizen****p starts on the 
>>>>> other
>>>>> side of the border.  If you wish to call it hate by all means do so.
I
>>>>> don't care what you call it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bingo! The path to citizen****p starts on the other side of the
border.
>>>>
>>>> This tells me that ZeD is not opposed to immigration, he is opposed
to 
>>>> ILLEGAL immigration.
>>>
>>>
>>> That statement doesn't tell us one thing about ZeD's view of legal 
>>> immigration.  ZeD is on record as saying we should not increase (and 
>>> probably decrease) the number of legal immigrants we allow into this 
>>> country from Mexico.
>>>
>>
>> That's a difference in the way we sharpen our pencils.
>>
>> He thinks the current quota is good enough, and nobody above that
number 
>> shold come in. I think we have room for more and should increase the 
>> quotas accordingly, then nobody after that should come in.
>
> That's not just "sharpening pencils".  That's a substantive difference 
> that goes to the heart of this debate.
>

On the other hand, the current quota might be set at the right place, in 
which case, I'm good with it.

I haven't got enough information to know what the proper quota should be, 
but given we have 12 million here, it stands to reason we could increase
the 
qouta so people could come here legally. Whether or not the current quota
is 
set properly, the road to citizen****p begins at home, and nobody that is 
here illegally should be granted resident alien status unless they go home

and apply a resident immigrant visa and wait for it to be approved.

We are not really that far off.


>> Either way, my point remains valid, controlling illegal immigration is 
>> not based in hate.
>
> Your point would make sense if this debate were just about illegal 
> immigration, but it is not.
>

But it should be. That's ALL it should be about.

America has an immigration policy, and immigrants that are here lawfully
are 
welcome by their neighbors. The immigrants that are here in violation of
the 
immigration policy are the ones nobody wants here. That, my friend, makes
it 
an illegal immigrant debate.

Making the illegal immigrants into legal immigrants is part of the debate
as 
well, but if they were legal immigrants in the first place, we would not
be 
having the debate. That makes it an illegal immigrant debate.

And, when the debate is about illegal immigrants, that does not constitute

hate -- as is asserted by the Hispanic Advocacy group at the top of this 
discussion thread.