Say Anything Blog

I could be wrong on this, but isn’t banishment a little too Middle Age-ish for 2006?

Because they vote democrat.

Rhetorical question, I presume. 

I could be wrong on this, but isn’t banishment a little too Middle Age-ish for 2006?

I don’t think so.  If I had my way I’d send ‘em all back home.  Flouting our immigration laws is a serious offense. 

The purpose of government shouldn’t be to do good, but simply to refrain from doing evil.

Let’s see, Illegal alien and a convicted criminal… I know America is about chances (trust me I know), but come on.  Send them home already.  I’ll bring the ticker tape.

I’m less concerned about "moral turpitude" (as apparently already addressed in the bill) than I am about crimes like burglary, assault, and kidnapping (which is apparently covered in the amendment).

I’m also concerned about whether this will allow the chance for them to apply for citizenship, or require them to apply for citizenship. If we must amnesty them (and let’s be honest this is an amnesty), let’s require an effort towards citizenship.

The learned Mr. Williams said: let’s require an effort towards citizenship.

I think we should require much more.  The ones that came here legally had to prove their desire to be here and assimilate to our way of life.  Illegals openly dismissed our laws.  They have to prove over and above their legal counterparts that they understand and respect our laws.

Ryan said, I could be wrong on this, but isn’t banishment a little too Middle Age-ish for 2006?

Why would you consider wanting to keep out murderers and thieves "too Middle Age-ish"? Does that question look like a ridiculous one to you? It should.

Being a liberal is standing on your head and then telling the rest of the world that it is upside down.

Let’s look at the history for a moment:

In 1996, Clinton nominally won reelction in a three-way race using campaign funding illegally solicited from the Chinese communists in exchange for US missle telemetry and MIRV technology.  According to Democrats this constituted a "mandate."

In 2000, having failed to win the candidate’s home state, or Clinton’s, the Democrats tried to steal Florida through the systematic disqualification of overseas absentee ballots, most of which were those of US military personnel including those sent by Clinton to the Balkans. (Those military personnel are STILL there, too… ten years later.  Still lacking the "exit strategy" that the last Democrat administration failed to provide.)

In 2004, dead Democrats in Georgia, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Ohio rose up on election day and voted en masse for John Kerry,  thus proving that they were at least brain dead.  It didn’t work, and President Bush was re-elected with a substantail popular majority.

So for 2008 the Dems are obviously planning on using the votes of the illegal aliens and convicted felons to carry them to victory.  And why not?  Nothing else they do seems to work.  Certainly nothing they do legally. 

it appears to me that the current crop of porkin’ republicans are no better than the  socialist democrats and I doubt that I will be able in good consciance to vote for either come November..especially if the immgration bill offering amnesty is passed. Hell, we might as well just ask mexico if it wants to be the 51st state—which might be a better idea than amnesty.

BatOne—   Good piece of sarcasm. 

I will offer the bare truth:  This illegal alien issue is about voting and political power.  Who can offer criminals more in exchange for their votes?   That is the question.  The unknown is how someone will vote while in the voting booth.  We convicted our vote buyer in the 70s in SC, Carmichael.  Others have been convicted also.  Who is next?

http://magyartruth.blogspot.com/2006/01/27-convictions-in-operation-lost-trust.html