From: "Gary Britt" 

Well when you said let in everyone from Canada I mistakenly took that to me
European looking whites.  I don't agree with open immigration.  A secure
border that everyone is allowed to pass for the asking is again no border
at all, in effect, and without borders you can't be a country.

I think we should control immigration for what those immigrants can do for
the country once they are here.  We shouldn't set quotas necessarily on a
country by country basis, so that educated white Europeans from the former
eastern bloc countries are discriminated against in favor of non-educated
people from some other country.

I don't mean to say that we shouldn't admit people who will do labor and
don't have college educations.  We need certain numbers of those types as
well.  I just think the influx should be managed to the extent possible to
match immigrants to meaningful employment for the benefit of the country as
a whole.  Right now immigration is a net drain on our government resources,
and it doesn't need to be that way.

Gary

"Ellen K."  wrote in message
news:plr8m153n9h46shv0vh4oosulvcnt3rrts{at}4ax.com...
> Actually I said "open immigration", not "open
borders".  Obviously the
> BORDERS have to be secured.  What I meant by "open immigration" was
> doing away with quotas etc, IOW letting in as many as want to come
> PROVIDED there would be rigorous security vetting and they couldn't get
> any public benefits.  (Since the latter will never happen, this would
> really require a magic wand.)
>
> I didn't say "just white people", and I didn't say those would be the
> *only* ones the "authoritarian" folks would like to let in,
if you look
> again you will see that I was talking about which countries would be
> given preferential quotas.  But FWIW, the person with whom I have most
> frequently argued about this thinks we should only let in people from
> groups documented to have a high average IQ.  He probably would be
> perfectly happy to let in an unlimited number of Japanese.
>
> On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 01:39:00 -0500, "Gary Britt"

> wrote in message :
>
> >I don't agree that libertarians favor open borders.  At least not open
> >borders in the sense that there is open flow of uncontrolled and illegal
> >immigration.  If you meant libertarians would be in favor of letting
people
> >in legally on a controlled basis to compete for jobs, etc., then that may
be
> >true.  The most prominent libertarian I know is Neal Boortz and he
> >definitely does NOT favor our current border situation.  He wants the
> >borders sealed.
> >
> >I also don't agree with the implications in your post that
non-libertarian
> >republicans want to just let white people in.  I think that is an unfair
> >characterization and stereotype.  They want legal immigration as
necessary
> >to meet the needs of our country's economy.  They and the libertarians
> >believe you can't have any kind of immigration policy if you don't have
> >borders.
> >
> >As Reagan aptly put it, a country that doesn't control its borders isn't
> >really a country.
> >
> >Gary
> >
> >"Ellen K."  wrote in message
> >news:p1h8m1hvag45v36sgf6r5igbl7hn95kpc9{at}4ax.com...
> >> The border issue has a built-in divisiveness in that generally
> >> libertarian types favor open immigration while the other flavor of
> >> Republicans (some call them "authoritarian" but I
bet they don't like
> >> that label) would like to even reduce legal immigration and also go
back
> >> to giving preference to certain countries' nationals (which definitely
> >> would not include any from the Western Hemisphere other than Canada).
> >>
> >> Personally I am very concerned about the security issues of lax border
> >> control (I'm sure plenty of Islamist militants are coming in from
Mexico
> >> because it's so easy to get in that way), but assuming that could be
> >> separated (yes, I know, huge assumption), regarding immigration per se
I
> >> would like to be able to wave a magic wand and say anybody can come in
> >> but they can't get any public benefits and (except for public school)
> >> neither can their children below the age of majority.   IOW let in the
> >> ones that want to work, BUT couple this with extensive security
vetting.
> >>
> >> Unfortunately it would really take a magic wand to accomplish that.
> >> :(
> >>
> >> On Fri, 28 Oct 2005 23:24:27 -0400, "Mark"
 wrote
in
> >> message :
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"John Cuccia"  wrote
in message
> >> >news:asp5m1l753qsstbceo4lafn6mf5i9h4h40{at}4ax.com...
> >> >> Mr. "I'm a uniter, not a divider" is even
dividing his own party
now.
> >> >
> >> >Hmm, Lott stands on his own two feet, you blame Bush for
what he said
and
> >> >where he ended up? Sounds like "Bushdementia" to me.
> >> >
> >> >Too, I wouldn't risk too much money on that division bet
John. Sure,
some
> >> >are pissed off at his lack of seriousness about the border (me for
one),
> >> >some others didn't like Miers (me too again), yet others
have issues
with
> >> >him on this policy or that (me yet again, on a variety of
issues), but
> >> >never, *ever* confuse those disagreements by any of those
groups with
a
> >> >fantasy that any of them would ever support a Democrat in
an election
> > >> >agree that Bush thinking he could unite people like
Kennedy, Durbin,
> >> >Schumer, Daschle (whoops Reid) with anyone, anywhere, anytime was a
> >foolish
> >> >thought, they're not interested>
> >> >
> >>
> >
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5