The third side of the immigration debate

From USA Today...

"Viewed from afar, America's immigration debate appears to center on two groups: liberals whose primary concern is the welfare of immigrants and conservatives whose primary concern is ending illegal immigration.

"But there is a third element that has inserted itself into the conversation: those who oppose immigration -- legal and illegal.

"This group is led by three major anti-immigration organizations: Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), NumbersUSA and Center for Immigration Studies (CIS). Their work on immigration has led major news media to often label them "conservative." Yet the reality is that these groups do not share conservatives' interest in ending illegal immigration, if doing so might mean more legal immigration."

Read the full article here.

14 comments (Add your own)

1. Lovely wrote:
I am not an anti-immigration fanatic. I unenrstadd the desire to come to my country and make a better life. I would just like people who are doing that to come and try to do it legally. I don’t have unreal expectations of immigrants.I believe Immigrants should follow a few simple rules.!. Follow the Law of my country2. Try your best to assimilate. Learn the language, customs etc. I am not saying forget your heritage but you belong to a different group, now: You are an American.3. Build our nation up don’t tear it down.These rules are important because just because you can get to America does not mean you deserve to stay. I want those who really want to better themselves, their families and our country. I don't want Criminals, Terrorists, angry exiles, or any other non-desirables. Everyone in this county is descendant of immigrants.

Tue, March 26, 2013 @ 11:49 AM

2. state auto insurance wrote:
they re natural rights and that means that what the government says goes, but that doesn t make them given by the government? Are you familiar with the term Begging the question ? Wiki logical fallacies. If you don t have rights without being granted them, then you would be wrong to fight for them and take them. You would be stealing and forcing your will unjustly on the government. Right. That s why in history books, successful rebellions are called revolutions and unsuccessful ones are called traitorous acts against the government. See how that works? Right and wrong depend a great deal on which side you take. Let us take, for example, Israel. Israel has the right to exist. Not because of any god given right, but largely because they continue to fight for and keep their country against a great number of enemies who want them eradicated. Yet another way of looking at it would be to say Israel was given their land out of a great deal of guilt post WWII, and Palestine was totally screwed out of their homeland and are trying to reclaim it. But that s not what we put forth, because we re Israel s ally, and history books are nothing if not propaganda for how we want our citizens to view the world.I can most assuredly take away your freedom of speech right. Step on my private property, and I can have you removed. You cannot speak freely on my property if I don t want you to.Can governments take away freedom of speech ? Sure. China does it. The Soviets did it. Britain did it. Free speech is guaranteed by the first amendment. Not by whatever god you believe in, not whatever natural right you think you have. Have you read the Patriot Act? It circumscribes your freedom of speech quite explicitly. If you think you have the right to something (which you quite clearly do), then you fight for it by exercising it. You cannot give one example of a right that cannot be removed, or which was not put in place, by a government. A sense of entitlement does not make it a right. It makes it a wish. Oh. And your entire last paragraph is a straw man.

Fri, April 5, 2013 @ 1:34 AM

3. cheap insurance wrote:
that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed it does not say The citizens shall have the right to keep and bear arms. It is a pre-existing right. A natural or God given right. The purpose of the constitution is not to grant rights but to restrict the government from violating our pre-existing natural human rights. There is no such thing as a statutory right. Just because a piece of paper says that we have a right to have a building permit doesn t mean it s true. That s just a legal word without any meaning. If a right is granted, it can be taken away. It is therefore a privilege, not a right.As far as building permits go, I would say that we have the right to build what ever we damn well please without having to beg the government for permission.The summary of natural law is do no harm . Meaning everyone has the right to do anything they want as long as they are not harming anyone, depriving them of property, coercing them, etc.Any other law that goes beyond do no harm and just controls it s subject is a violation of that man s natural rights. It creates a victimless crime which is not actually a crime.Wow that was a long off topic tangent. thanks for reading and thanks for the input. Don t be a stranger.

Tue, April 9, 2013 @ 1:06 AM

4. buy car insurance online wrote:
I find the first picture to be very interesting. It is as if they are wearing Halloween costumes. Like the clothes are wearing them, but they are not wearing the clothes. This seems to be parallel to their adaptations to the Americanized customs they had to wear. Except this was not a holiday, but for the rest of their lives. I also see a struggle of trying to fit in as well, to become more excepted as white men. There was definitely a class divide between the white men, and the Chinese. Almost to the point that they were slaves. Maybe these Chinese Americans thought that by wearing these clothes, they would be treated with respect. The second picture is quite sad as well, like the New York harbor with the Statue of Liberty, California s mountains are so lovely and inviting. A new start was glimmering with the beauty of the landscape. Since most of the Chinese immigrants ended up working most of these landscapes, I goes the clothes were not the only thing that owned them.

Mon, April 15, 2013 @ 12:59 AM

5. BertieorBirdie wrote:|buy viagra %DDD|over the counter viagra 8-D|Georgia car insurance quotes 723330|car insurance quotes 742158|order cialis online wxwre|auto insurance quotes 945|car insurance quotes 37161

Wed, May 22, 2013 @ 10:56 AM

6. Romby wrote:|cheap car insurance Utah jar|auto insurance quotes 216|auto insurance quotes Albuquerque ndybg|Jackson auto insurance quotes wurlqv|Utah auto insurance quotes =O|car insurance quotes 3943

Fri, June 14, 2013 @ 10:11 PM

7. Rope wrote:|car insurance quote 8-OO|car insurance quotes :-D|cheap auto insurance rdum|cheap life insurance =]|buy viagra on line 968|quotes car insurance couxr

Wed, June 19, 2013 @ 10:22 PM

8. Amory wrote:|car insurance quote free 006|liability insurance missouri unw|cialis viagra online =-[|accutane nhq|generic cialis online 3065|cialis best prices =PP

Sun, August 11, 2013 @ 5:18 AM

9. Willie wrote:|car insurance ladies cvd|purchase viagara 841|buying viagra online 21331|non generic viagra online qffaqx|CDs List Buy Cialis Online Pill mpxoj

Fri, August 16, 2013 @ 12:00 PM

10. Susannah wrote:|generic cealis :-)))|auto insurance rankings 8-]]]|cheapest viagara uow|accutane vlzx|whole life insurance policy quotes =-((

Mon, August 19, 2013 @ 7:13 PM

11. qqxqpbxx wrote:

Thu, May 8, 2014 @ 12:20 AM

12. kxldrb <a href=" ">wgexsj</a> wrote:
kxldrb wgexsj

Fri, May 9, 2014 @ 10:48 PM

13. sdwzdfhw [url=]tiotcqb[/url] wrote:
sdwzdfhw [url=]tiotcqb[/url]

Sat, May 10, 2014 @ 1:15 AM

14. professional resume wrote:
professional resume writers

Wed, July 2, 2014 @ 7:07 AM

Add a New Comment


Comment Guidelines: No HTML is allowed. Off-topic or inappropriate comments will be edited or deleted. Thanks.