Has a shocking conversation going on regarding a piece of the new "comprehensive" immigration legislation. Apparently we are to ask the mexicans before we can put up a fence on our own land......
(b) CONSULTATION REQUIREMENT.--Consultations between United States and Mexican authorities at the federal, state, and local levels concerning the construction of additional fencing and related border security structures along the United States-Mexico border shall be undertaken prior to commencing any new construction, in order to solicit the views of affected communities, lessen tensions and foster greater understanding and stronger cooperation on this and other important issues of mutual concern.
http://michellemalkin.com/
6 comments:
Rhino I've been reading about this as well. While malkin just creeps me out, I have been reading some others that don't quite produce the same bile reaction. Unlike Coulter, she doesn't even have humor going for her.
One thing that surprises me. SHOCKS ME even..is the fact that I have not seen much mention of state's rights here.
Allow me to elaborate. Studies (MANY, from Cato to Policy Research Inst. plus many more) have repeatedly published the numbers on revenues versus expenses (sales tax, federal tax from those that have paid, etc)
It is clear that the feds gain from illegal immigration whereas the high costs are absorbed by the state and they categorically LOSE. No money is given back into the states impacted the most like Arizona, Texas, etc. So basically the country as a whole benefits from immigrants in the form of taxes but the local ones have to deal with the ones that are not paying in, and their social services are being exhausted. That makes no sense. The money collected should reimburse the states for enabling the system. NO?
Further, I disagree with the idea that use of the national Guard is innappropriate to secure the borders. (not that I am saying it is an ideal choice by any stretch) what is illegal is their use in Iraq.
I think they would have been better off FOR NOW emphasizing national security as opposed to the whole damned mixed bag.
I am well aware of the local/national quagmire. i also am aware that hillary of all people proposed giving said revenues to the states most effected but she was shot down.
She and you are wrong. Why should we help these states? I think we should penalize them! Force them to act! then when they declare an emergency, and when they allow their police to ask someone if they're here illegally we can help them out.
Wouldn't giving these states extra money just incentivize them to NOT enforce the law? OF COURSE IT WOULD! and if they're not suffering who would complain about the illegals? who would want to stop the invasion? Only the people who care about the country as a whole which would include me, tom tancredo, michelle malkin, donkey,..... not enough people to sway the corrupt government that we have in place currently.
Of course they should emphasize national security first. They should emphasize enforcement first, and once we stop the invasion, then we could deal with the existing invaders.
Hmm I did not consider that reimbursing (not giving aid) might egg them on... I was thinking that it was the other way. The states often bitch but as long as the feds benefit... border control cannot be a state issue.
What is the real reason for this inability to ask citizenship status? Why is it discrimination to fact-find as to whether or not a person is breaking the law? I mean, I understand they cite resource problems with prosecutions. But do they let people possessing drugs walk away just because of system overload? They seem to use the burdened system a lot when it comes to immigration. Or am I crazy. I say get off the useless war on drugs and prosecute people who traffic- smuggling people is dangerous and seems more criminal than a dime bag.
http://goldsea.com/Personalities/personalities.html
Here's a fair and balanced report on Malkin from Goldsea, a genuine Asian American Site I found yesterday. Michelle Malkin: The Female Asian American Pitbull. I plan to use it as a base for an article about Malkin.
In order to prepare, I will listen to The Rezillos Greatest Hits and then Less Than Jake, in that order. Rezillos, the main Scottish band in 1977 London, mostly new wavy, decided to pick up som LLL by promoting their punk anthem, "Somebody's Going To Get Their Head Kicked In Tonight" on BBC Pop Radio. Otherwise, the band is very Chandler Bing in nature, as in their other very popular song, "Flying Saucer Attack".
And as for Less Than Jake, and Michelle growing up in far south jersey, on the shore, one would think that place would have a resemblance to Florida, in its cultural character.
I should also find something New Zealandy. All your disconsolate veterans are belong to us.
Actually its this
http://goldsea.com/Personalities/Malkin/malkin.html
you've just lost your taco privileges, Mr.
Post a Comment