Hmmm... The ANTI Leader Mark Krikorian, Executive Director, Center of Immigration Studies and author of the ANTI's "Rule of Law" argument said to the RNC, if they ever hope to gain leadership again, they must change their approach towards Immigration. He says the Current Approach (Hate Talk/Animosity) "is both incomplete and counterproductive." While I agree the Hate Talk must end (meaning ANTIs MUST STOP using the terms: Anchor Babies, Mexifornia, 3rd World Country, Illeegal Aliens, etc.) and some softening on the judges' ability to allow Legal Immigrants with deportation orders to stay, I do not see changes from the current argument, including no change to Mass Deportation through attrition/enforcement which results in Racial Profiling and Hate Crimes.
The only changes I see he is making is using more politically correct language and significantly reducing overall (legal and illegal) immigration in the future. In addition, the changes he is recommending will be adamently opposed by the many extremist and angry ANTIs who I think will continue with their angry rhetoric.
Readers, what do you think of the changes Kirkorian is recommending?
Excerpts from Mark Kirkorian's article in the National Review: (click on link for complete article)
With Republicans shut out of power, now is the time to take a new look at their approach to immigration, to develop a new and distinctive alternative to the majority party on immigration, what is needed is not so much a reversal in specifics but a different framework within which to fit the specifics.
For too long the Republican story line has been “Too Much Lawbreaking,” when instead the real problem is “Too Much Immigration” — only one part of which involves lawbreaking. This exclusive focus on illegal immigration — opposing amnesty and pushing for more enforcement — is both incomplete and counterproductive.
1. Incomplete because the effects of illegal immigration aren’t that different from those of legal immigration — an illiterate Central American farmer with a green card is just as unsuited for a 21st-century economy as an illiterate Central American farmer without a green card.
2. Counterproductive because the focus on criminality can seem punitive and serve to polarize the debate, potentially alienating not just immigrant voters, who really aren’t that numerous, but the native-born, who want less immigration but don’t want to feel bad about themselves for holding such a view.
A new approach would retain the widely popular, and morally compelling, support for more consistent application of immigration laws and opposition to legalization — but make them part of a broader push for a more moderate level of future immigration overall.
If the debate focuses solely on legality, ultimately there’s no real argument against amnesty and open borders. You just legalize the whole thing and the issue goes away — no illegals, no problem. In the appropriately larger context, amnesty is bad not only because it rewards lawbreaking (which it does), but also for the same reason that the Visa lottery is bad: it leads to excessive immigration. A new GOP approach to immigration would also recognize that there are two components to the debate — immigration policy and immigrant policy, the first governing who and how many we take, the second how we treat people once they’re here...
The ..option .. most Americans (of whatever party) intuitively support — a pro-immigrant policy of low immigration, one that seeks a smaller number of future admissions but extends a warmer welcome to those admitted. Ironically, such reductions in immigration could actually drain away some of the venom from the immigration debate by allowing a more relaxed approach to those immigrants we do let in. For instance, something called “cancellation of removal” can be used by a judge to allow a legal immigrant to stay despite a deportation order, because of hardship to his family. Because of mass immigration, causing the system to be a sieve, Congress raised the bar in 1996, from “extreme hardship” to “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship.” A lower level of immigration, allowing us to reestablish control, would permit Congress to trim back a couple of adjectives, because the problem wouldn’t be as acute. The same could apply to other areas, such as welfare eligibility, where tough standards are required in the face of massive numbers, but more flexibility is possible when the tide ebbs. Thus a pro-immigrant policy of low immigration can serve two purposes — it puts the illegal immigration question into a larger context, providing more than simply a gut-level opposition to amnesty. And it can allow a more flexible and less punitive approach to management of immigrants already here, making a policy that will necessarily involve a certain degree of sternness be somewhat less severe.
Posts
43 comments:
This comment by Krikorian is EXTREMELY POMPOUS and Incorrect! "Feel Bad about themselves?" Come on!
This exclusive focus on illegal immigration — opposing amnesty and pushing for more enforcement — is both incomplete and counterproductive....
Counterproductive because the focus on criminality can seem punitive and serve to polarize the debate, potentially alienating not just immigrant voters, who really aren’t that numerous, but the native-born, who want less immigration BUT DON'T WANT TO FEEL BAD ABOUT THEMSELVES FOR HOLDING SUCH A VIEW.
The reality is, Mass deportation, Ice Raids, Racial Profiling and Hate Crimes are counterproductive and a wrong approach!
Dee wrote, "The reality is, Mass deportation, Ice Raids, Racial Profiling and Hate Crimes are counterproductive and a wrong approach!"
Again you are indulging in hyperbole. There have been no mass deportations. Mass deportations have been defined by the 8 million German nationals deported from the eastern territories in less than a year following the close of WW II. No mainstream pro-America advocate believes in mass deportation as defined by the German experience. Long term systematic deportations with due regard for the needs of our economy, the jobs that cannot be filled otherwise if offered at a living wage with benefits, the degree of assimilation the illegal alien has achieved, military service, and a variety of other considerations. That is not mass deportation. Let's reserve that term for the roundup and deportation of millions each year.
ICE raids must continue and E-verification is an even better approach provided it is followed by expeditious repatriation.
Hate crimes we all agree should be quickly prosecuted to the full extent of the law. This is another example of the rule of law that needs to be followed without much compromise for youthful thoughtless acts.
Krikorian is a pro-America leader who is trying to give the GOP some advice to get them back on track regarding immigration. He is a learned person and has the background to see this problem more clearly than
others who are blinded by their ethnicity. Krikorian's parents were Armenian immigrants. He does not appear to be an advocate for other Armenian immigrants so one has to wonder about his critics who advocate for their illegal ethnic brethren instead of the national interest.
There can be no doubt that Krikorian's bottom line, lower total immigration, is in the national interest. The concept of the "Rule of Law" did not originate with Krikorian. I could cite a huge number of books and writings by gifted scholars in which that term is used and recognized as the foundation of all civilized society. If you don't have the rule of law, then you have the rule of men like Adolph Hitler and others of lesser ill-repute.
I see the word "pompous" has now become one your favorite cliches.
I thought Krikorian's suggestions were positive in the sense of stepping away from hate talk and animosity. But, as you have demonstrated, one cannot even discuss this problem in realistic terms without someone from the anti-American crowd characterizing completely legitimate terms like Mexifornia, anchor babies, chain immigrations, and illegal aliens hate language. Even the president of the U.S. has used the term "illegal aliens" and he is the same guy who said, "If you can get across the Rio Grande, you are welcome." What an idiot!
I agree with Krikorian that our primary focus must by on reducing the total immigration numbers. I have mentioned several times the figure 200,000 per year, excluding tourists, students, and temporary migrant workers. That number focused on highly skilled, inventive, innovative,highly educated scientists and entrepreneurs with proven tract records would be in the national interest.
The sub-issue, of course, is how to achieve that number and a national objective of a stable population. Obviously, the first step is to change the current quota system to contribute to achievement of that goal. This will be for naught if the hemorrhaging continues at the border.
Stopping the hemorrhaging requires: staffing and infrastructure improvements, better rules of engagement, an end to any form of catch-and-release, six months of work on border infrastructure for the first offense, whether it occurs at the border or in the interior, hard time for repeat offenders,and vigorous internal enforcement based on E-verification.
Without these measures our borders will never be secure and those who say they are in favor of secure borders but deny us the tools necessary to achieve that goal are being disingenuous -- and they know it.
Dee wrote,"While I agree the Hate Talk must end (meaning ANTIs MUST STOP using the terms: Anchor Babies, Mexifornia, 3rd World Country, Illeegal Aliens, etc.)"
Again, you don't know what you are talking about. If you want to see some hate talk, read some of the material from the 3rd Reich and Hitler's anti-Jewish pronouncements. Read about the Holocaust before you go off the deep end.
You consider the terms above to be offensive only because they are truthful and accurate. We wouldn't want to have any of that in this discussion, would we?
Instead of denouncing those neutral terms, why not explore them sufficiently so you can try to prove that they are inaccurate. These terms to you are like the cellophane man, you look right through, walk right by-- without really comprehending their meaning. Instead, you see something dark on the other side without even researching the veracity of their real meaning. This means you are guilty of a form of propaganda in which you ignore the truth and characterize them to suit your own purposes.
I have always been in favor of allowing some illegals to stay and granting them an appropriate legal status. However, I believe the criteria should be narrowly defined and fairly rigid to avoid judicial activism. As Krikorian suggests these criteria might be liberalized once we have the immigration problem under control. There is a way to do this the right way but it requires the cooperation of all in the national interest. That cooperation has not been forthcoming in any substantial way.
"The only changes I see he is making is using more politically correct language"
I agree. Conservatives are learning how to talk the talk as POC become a larger and larger demographic. Of course, it is all cosmetic, no substance on the horizon yet. Maybe one day?
Kirkorian: "an illiterate Central American farmer with a green card is just as unsuited for a 21st-century economy as an illiterate Central American farmer without a green card."
Nice. Guess what, Central Americans live in the 21st century too! And their economy also exists in the 21st century! But I appreciate your quaint Ameri-centricism buddy.
Kirkorian: "the focus on criminality can seem punitive and serve to polarize the debate, potentially alienating not just immigrant voters, who really aren’t that numerous, but the native-born, who want less immigration but don’t want to feel bad about themselves for holding such a view."
Not quite. Naturalized immigrants may be a small voting group, but their communities include a huge number of native-born Americans with recent immigrant roots who sympathize with immigrants and who feel the racial-profiling effects of our f'ed up immigration system. 'Not wanting to feel bad' is a dismissive and incorrect way to whatever it is he is talking about.
@ultima
The term "illegals" is one of the insulting terms Dee's post is talking about. Like a human body's existence can actually be illegal. Immigrants who are here without official documentation commit an offense when they cross a border they don't have permission to cross. That action can be described as "illegal," but their personhood is not. We don't call someone who shopplifted once an "illegal," even if they continue to keep the shoplifted item in their house.
Calling undocumented immigrants "illegals" is meant to dehumanize them and sap away sympathy for their human rights.
"This exclusive focus on illegal immigration — opposing amnesty and pushing for more enforcement — is both incomplete and counterproductive...."
While opposition to amnesty and better immigration enforcement has been a part of the pro-America agenda, it is far from its "exclusive focus". We have posted at length about declining natural resources, the need to limit all kinds of immigration to fit our needs, the rule of law, border infrastructure, etc. Thus, if opposing amnesty and pushing for more enforcement were the exclusive focus of the pro-America movement, that would be incomplete but that is not the case. Although some have focused solely on illegal aliens, I have not. I have signed on to the idea of a stable population achieved through enlightened tax and immigration policies.
It's interesting that Krikorian makes a distinction between immigration policy and immigrant policy. I should think that the anti-America folks would see this as a very positive things. The immigrant policy should be focused on stopping immigrant bashing and hate crimes against immigrants with the possibility that if the minority communities affected got behind an immigration policy leading to a stable population, we could have a much more liberal policy toward illegal aliens and immigration enforcement.
However, instead of recognizing this as a new and positive idea, the queen of ethnocentrics can only criticize Krikorian by suggesting that this is just a way of recasting the illegal alien argument in PC terms.
Krikorian is neither "extremely pompous nor incorrect". There are many neolibs who continue to feel bad about themselves because of the institution of slavery which ended almost 150 years ago. Some feel bad about themselves because their ancestors ran roughshod over the Indians and took their land after they had decimated the tribes with European diseases. If they are feeling bad about the illegal aliens, they have forgotten their concern about the Indians. They are willing to roll over and play dead as it happens all over again.
Czech wrote,"Like a human body's existence can actually be illegal."
You are putting an entirely wrong connotation on the word "illegal". It simply means "contrary to law" relating to one's conduct or behavior in relation to the requirements of the law. It has nothing to do with a person's "existence" per se. But you knew that, didn't you? Is this a sort of ad hominem argument? Are you trying to arouse people's emotions by suggesting that they want to deny the existence of illegals through the use of that term?
Czech wrote, "Central Americans live in the 21st century too! And their economy also exists in the 21st century!"
So why are they coming here? Again no one suggested that "all" Central Americans were illiterate peasants. However, many of those who come here to do stoop labor are. It is curious how easy you find it to find the most obtuse interpretation of what you read. There seems to be a lack objectivity in your posts.
Czech wrote,"their communities include a huge number of native-born Americans with recent immigrant roots who sympathize with immigrants"
Yes, we know a couple of those. Some don't even live within the illegal alien community. These are the neolibs and the ethnocentrics who do not know the damage they do to their country and to their fellow citizens. They never think about that because their interest is narrowly focused on sympathy for those who have violated our borders and who have no regard for the future of America.
Quote Krikorian:
"As the 111th Congress convenes, Republicans need to rethink their immigration policy.
This isn’t because of the supposed lessons of last November’s elections. Despite his herculean efforts at passing Ted Kennedy’s amnesty bill, Sen. McCain’s share of the Hispanic vote was in the usual range for Republicans — though lower than the Republican share in 2004, just like among every other category of voter. He did lose, after all. And if no Hispanics at all had voted, Sen. Obama would still have won."
As he stated the Hispanic vote for McCain was within range though lower than 2004. Much of the reason for that was because of the failed Bush Administration and the fact that Hispanic's historically vote Democrat and that Obama (the minority) ran against McCain. Even if immigration were an issue with Hispanics this election, as Krikorian stated, Obama would have won without the Hispanic vote anyway. Also McCain was pro-amnesty so how does immigration fit into the outcome of the election? We weren't voting for an entire party but a presidential candidate. Obviously McCain was not a hardline conservative on this issue. Immigration issues are decided in congress and not by the president anyway. So anyone who wants to claim that McCain and or the whole damned Republican party lost because of their immigration views are only kidding themselves.
Ultima,
Given our Immigration history, any Mass Deportation whether short term or over 4 - 6 years is still reprehensible. This cloud has encouraged the increase in Hate Crimes against all Latinos and the rampant Racial Profiling (e.g. Arpaio's 287(g) policies).
Krikorian wants to change the approach to encourage an RNC return to power? It will not happen in this Hate/Anger filled environment.
Ultima said...
Long term systematic deportations with due regard for the needs of our economy, the jobs that cannot be filled otherwise if offered at a living wage with benefits, the degree of assimilation the illegal alien has achieved, military service, and a variety of other considerations. That is not mass deportation.
Ultima,
It is your ANTI side that is anti-American when they use Hate Language like Mexifornia, anchor babies, chain immigrations, and illegal aliens.
Ulty,
I see by your use of this language that you are refusing to take Krikorian's suggestions of stopping the use of this Hate Language.
I knew it would not take long.
So much for the RNC getting the majority vote.
Ultima,
Sounds like you want to bring in Russian, German and Iranian Scientists, perhaps those with the Anthrax and WMD secrets.
I think we need to bring groups of people from all countries that want to come here and love our country. Then, we, within our own country should focus on improving our Education systems. Otherwise, we will never see another Barack Obama, Cesar Chavez, MLK, Dolores Huerta, or George Washington Carver to name a few.
Ultima said...
That number focused on highly skilled, inventive, innovative,highly educated scientists and entrepreneurs with proven tract records would be in the national interest.
Chain migration and illegal aliens are government terms.
ultima: "You are putting an entirely wrong connotation on the word "illegal". It simply means "contrary to law" relating to one's conduct or behavior in relation to the requirements of the law. It has nothing to do with a person's "existence" per se. But you knew that, didn't you? Is this a sort of ad hominem argument? Are you trying to arouse people's emotions by suggesting that they want to deny the existence of illegals through the use of that term?"
and then, one post later...
ultima: "It is curious how easy you find it to find the most obtuse interpretation of what you read. There seems to be a lack objectivity in your posts."
ultima, you are a master of irony!
I agree immigration should come from several counties in fair quotas for each. That isn't what is happening lately. Most should have skills that support our 21st century high tech world and only "some" should come with less or little skills.
Ultima,
Obviously you are not listening to Mark Kirkorian. He said now is the time to take a NEW APPROACH because your current approach is Counterproductive.
He said to focus on Immigration. YOU continue to call citizen children by the hatefilled term Anchor Babies. You SAY you KNOW it is accurate. I say you are wrong! I have heard many on your side call AG Gonzales by that term. Many on your side use this talk towards any latino you dislike.
Look at the Hate Crimes against Latinos.
As long as you continue this language, there will never be a compromise. You have to learn, at a minimum, to stop the Hate filled language.
That is what Krikorian wants. At least listen to him.
Ultima said...
Again, you don't know what you are talking about. If you want to see some hate talk, read some of the material from the 3rd Reich and Hitler's anti-Jewish pronouncements. Read about the Holocaust before you go off the deep end.
You consider the terms above to be offensive only because they are truthful and accurate.
The term "illegals" for a group of humans whose only crime was to cross a border is indeed a demeaning term meant to erase not the existence of illegal immigration but the humanity of unsanctioned immigrants.
I am sincere when I say this is not "what they are". Again, the existence of a person is not legal or illegal. It is an action that is legal or illegal. To call a person "illegal" is meant to dehumanize, especially since we only use it to refer to immigrants and not people who break other kinds of laws.
ultima: "These are the neolibs and the ethnocentrics who do not know the damage they do to their country and to their fellow citizens. They never think about that because their interest is narrowly focused on sympathy for those who have violated our borders and who have no regard for the future of America."
Links please. These sweeping generalizations must be based on research that we should all see. Citizens who live in communities with close ties to immigrants are not all "ethnocentric", nor are they all "neolibs", nor are they all stupid or unaware of what is in their best interest. I find it fascinating that you are so qualified to speak for this demographic. Perhaps you were part of the research team that studied this demographic and published the research that your statements are surely based upon?
Here is what President Bush said recently:
"BUSH: Take, for example, the immigration debate. That's obviously a highly contentious issue. And the problem with the initial outcome of the debate was some people said, "well, Republicans don't like immigrants." Now, that may be fair or unfair, but that's the image that came out. And if, you know, the image is "we don't like immigrants," then there's probably someone else out there saying, "well, if they don't like immigrants, they probably don't like me as well."
Even Bush understands your side needs to stop the Hate Talk!
Ultima,
Why should your side be the ones to define when we have immigration under control?
By your past history, it wont be until you mass deport the majority of those here.
Why is it your side thinks you are the only one who's opinion counts?
ultima said...
I have always been in favor of allowing some illegals to stay and granting them an appropriate legal status. However, I believe the criteria should be narrowly defined and fairly rigid to avoid judicial activism.As Krikorian suggests these criteria might be liberalized once we have the immigration problem under control.
the Czech,
Very well said!!
the czech said...
The term "illegals" is one of the insulting terms Dee's post is talking about. Like a human body's existence can actually be illegal. Immigrants who are here without official documentation commit an offense when they cross a border they don't have permission to cross. That action can be described as "illegal," but their personhood is not. We don't call someone who shopplifted once an "illegal," even if they continue to keep the shoplifted item in their house.
Calling undocumented immigrants "illegals" is meant to dehumanize them and sap away sympathy for their human rights.
Ultima,
I said this was the one positive area of Krikorian's proposal, his reference to immigrant policy and stopping the hate/anger in the discussion.
But as I said, many/most will not give up the Hate/Anger language. He will convince none (very few) of you to stop.
Therefore, do not look for any increase in minority or humanitarian votes for the RNC. You just cannot help yourselves from using Hate/Anger language and behaviors.
Ultima said...
It's interesting that Krikorian makes a distinction between immigration policy and immigrant policy. I should think that the anti-America folks would see this as a very positive things. The immigrant policy should be focused on stopping immigrant bashing and hate crimes against immigrants
Ulty,
I Guess the truth hurts.
Ultima said...
However, instead of recognizing this as a new and positive idea, the queen of ethnocentrics can only criticize Krikorian by suggesting that this is just a way of recasting the illegal alien argument in PC terms.
Ultima,
The problem is you are not empathic to anyone else's argument but your one.
What about those that say the N word is not offensive, just the truth. Should they be allowed to say it?
Same thing! Both words are offensive and dehumanizing!
ultima said...
Czech wrote,"Like a human body's existence can actually be illegal."
You are putting an entirely wrong connotation on the word "illegal". It simply means "contrary to law" relating to one's conduct or behavior in relation to the requirements of the law. It has nothing to do with a person's "existence" per se.
Ultima,
If you provide links per Czech's request, only from unbiased sites, none from the ADL proclaimed ANTI Immigration Hate Sites including FAIR and NumbersUSA.
@Dee
Well, I just want to know what material ultima is referencing since some of his recent statements (such as the following) are quite incendiary, but yet he seems to feel like he has his finger to the pulse of the native-born-with-immigrant-roots community.
ultima said..."They never think about that because their interest is narrowly focused on sympathy for those who have violated our borders and who have no regard for the future of America."
Czech,
Ultima is a follower of Roy Beck and NumbersUSA and John Tanton's FAIR group. They and Krikorian from CIS have developed several doomsday charts to illustrate their agenda. I asked Ultima to provide documentation other than the same old slanted references their side frequently uses.
Krikorian is blinded by his European "ethnicity" and wants America to resemble Europe as much as possible-meaning no colored people unless they are highly skilled.
Ultima uses the same old tired tricks of calling all who favor CIR as un-American and all who have an Hispanic background as being racist for supporting CIR.
The little man has no credibility as he yowls at moonless skies.
Yawn.
@ teh czech
Calling undocumented immigrants "illegals" is meant to dehumanize them and sap away sympathy for their human rights.
Something about the "Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act" (IIRIRA) of 1996 comes to mind here. Human Rights, they are not being denied in the USA, and there is no sapping away sympathy for them by calling them what they are defined by our Government. Your 'moral values' are yours and the few who think as you do, don't impose them on those who disagree with you. There are more than 'your' solutions to the problem.
@Matt Adore:
So where does the government use the term "illegals"? I suspect, but I don't know for sure, that there is no official gov document that uses that term.
Matt said... "Your 'moral values' are yours and the few who think as you do, don't impose them on those who disagree with you. There are more than 'your' solutions to the problem."
No need to be patronizing Matt. We are all adults here. I haven't offered any solutions, but of course if I had solutions to immigration problems I would come here to argue for them because that's what one does when one thinks they have a good idea. They argue for it in the marketplace of ideas.
@the czech
"Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) of 1996"
That first word stands out quite prominently, does it not??
"if I had solutions to immigration problems I would come here to argue for them because that's what one does when one thinks they have a good idea. They argue for it in the marketplace of ideas."
Yet you dismiss any and all of Ultimas ideas? Irony (your word) or Hypocrisy? Although I do agree that we all argue our ideas in the marketplace, sometimes being open minded results in the answer to the problem.
@ teh czech
Calling undocumented immigrants "illegals" is meant to dehumanize them and sap away sympathy for their human rights.
Since "illegal" in illegal immigrant is a modifier and not a noun, the adjective "illegal" in the phrase "an illegal immigrant" modifies "immigrant", and thus limits its meaning in that it cannot be, say, a legal immigrant or LPR/GC holder.
Matt said ""Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) of 1996"
That first word stands out quite prominently, does it not??"
I think you misunderstand me. I am arguing against calling unsanctioned immigrant "illegals". I have not posted any arguments against the phrases "Illegal Immigration" or "Immigrant Responsibility".
Matt said "Yet you dismiss any and all of Ultimas ideas? Irony (your word) or Hypocrisy? Although I do agree that we all argue our ideas in the marketplace, sometimes being open minded results in the answer to the problem."
I argue against solutions that I do not like. That is neither irony or hypocrisy. It is arguing against solutions I do not like, which is quite common on this blog on all sides.
Agreeing with ultima is not the definition of "open mind".
Why do you assume that I have reached my opinions with a closed mind? You don't even know me! Immigration is a matter of great importance to me, and I have spent substantial time reading, writing and discussing it. It appears that I have reached different conclusions than you have. We can differ without accusing each other of having closed minds.
Czech,
It is obvious Matt is not fully reading your responses, otherwise he would know calling someone by an adjective in a demeaning way is extremely disrespectful, particularly when the offenders mispronounce the adjective: illeeeegals. This has become the new N word. It is demeaning, disrespectful and derogatory!
Additionally Matt forgets Ultima is merely sharing his opinion. Immigration is a very complex issue and many people have varying opinions, especially those who have not studied the issue at length.
@ Dee
Additionally Matt forgets Ultima is merely sharing his opinion. Immigration is a very complex issue and many people have varying opinions, especially those who have not studied the issue at length.
And you are merely sharing yours, and I am merely sharing mine, so what. Are you insinuating I have not studied Illegal Immigration issues at length? Or are you attempting to say, you are the all knowing Immigrant specialist? Because from what I have read on your blog, you spout nothing more than your sides talking points which have all been refuted.
So Ultima called illegal immigrants 'illegals' once during his comments, after having called them illegal aliens and illegal immigrants many times prior, your making a mountain out of a mole hill?
@ theczech
I argue against solutions that I do not like. That is neither irony or hypocrisy. It is arguing against solutions I do not like, which is quite common on this blog on all sides.
But earlier you said you "have not offered any solutions". You have done nothing more than, as I pointed out to Dee, made a mountain out of a mole hill with focusing on one time when Ultima says 'illegals' when the numerous times prior he has said illegal aliens and illegal immigrants.
Matt said..."But earlier you said you "have not offered any solutions". You have done nothing more than, as I pointed out to Dee, made a mountain out of a mole hill with focusing on one time when Ultima says 'illegals' when the numerous times prior he has said illegal aliens and illegal immigrants."
I think you are confusing some things here. I have not offered a solution to fix the United States immigration system.
I have offered an idea towards removing hateful language when discussing immigration. Since this is the topic of Dee's post, the simple act of discussing it is not "making a mountain out of a molehill". It is discussing the topic of the post and offering my idea.
Everyone who posts here is aware that the word "illegals" has much wider usage than just through ultima.
Post a Comment