My ANTI friend Ultima has another suggestion. I think it is viable:
"amnesty should be granted under certain circumstances to a limited number of illegals rather than indulging in mass legalization. So let's call amnesty with conditions , the primary one being demonstrated need by employers who have made a good faith effort to hire citizens to no avail."
This has possibilities. How do we offer this as a potential solution? Do many ANTIs support this recommendation?
I object to the inherent bias of your PRO-ANTI labels. If you don't think they are unfair then I suggest you prove it and reverse them. As in PRO-immigration-law-enforcement, ANTI-immigration-law-enforcement.
ReplyDeleteSorry to rain on your fantasies of finding a compromise, but your side's preening Ladeeenyo-supremacists have revealed themselves as a clear threat to the health, wealth, and safety of this nation and its indigenous people. There will be no compromise from anyone who realizes, like I do, that your La Raza isn't interested in compromise. You're interested in reconquista. And knowing that you can expect we will resist, not appease.
Please, please convince "your people" to do what they do best. Demonstrate. Riot. Vent your hate on more Americans. Tell us more about Aztlan and Stolen Land. Help turn the tide even further.
Its indigenous peoples? Not that I care for the "Recoquistadores" or whatever anyone wants to call them, but, that's hilarious; much like the rest of your thoughts.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I do agree with you about the "pro" and "anti" label; as is the case with "republican" and "democrat," there ain't much difference.
ReplyDeleteI was born in this country. I'm indigenous. If you think that's hilarious you should consult a dictionary.
ReplyDelete