American Thinker Article

[Yahoshua]

http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/05/getting_the_government_the_thi.html

[waste gate]

People generally don't go from one Third World country to another.

The scariest part.

[Chock]

That's a very poorly thought-out article, with a very narrow minded view of things, in addition to being a thinly-veiled attack on some left-wing policies with which the writer evidently does not agree. On a small and petty level such as the stance of this article, these policies don't bother me either way, and as such, I read it with no bias. Read with such eyes, it's clearly partisan. I tend to think that an article under the banner American Thinker would actually be more useful if it included some thought processes, rather than a veiled diatribe.

Naturalization won't inculcate virtue immediately; rather, they will bring their passions, ideology and voting habits with them and lend their support to the same kinds of corrupt leftists they supported in their native lands.

Note that this assumes that all corrupt governments will be left-leaning rather than right, when in practice there is little to choose either left or right when a government is corrupt, and left or right in those circumstances is something of a moot point. So why not a corrupt right-wing governmentt? Or just a corrupt government? The phrasing betrays the authors true thoughts with its choice there. Of course the author's entitled to be right wing if he likes, but hiding it under some flawed logic is just weak.

The article also assumes that people leaving a land to come to another one will be happy to bring all the things they are probably trying to get away from in the first place, which seems questionable at best, although doubtless it will be true in a few cases.

Last time I checked, the Statue of Liberty had this written on it:


Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"


If that's no longer an approved or preferred US sentiment, then presumably the author will be advocating pulling the dear old statue down and destroying that famous plaque.

One of the things that impresses me about the US, is the fact that it holds that sentiment dear and, occasional political blunders aside, generally stands for truth. If the US lets that go because of this kind of paranoid nonsense, then such a move is far more likely to result in the destruction of the USA's finest qualities than a few Mexicans with a penchant for a bent police force sneaking across the border.

The author an American Thinker? Well he may be an American, but he aint no thinker.

:D Chock

[The Avon Lady]

That's a very poorly thought-out article, with a very narrow minded view of things,
Why?
in addition to being a thinly-veiled attack on some left-wing policies with which the writer evidently does not agree.
Nothing veiled about it.
On a small and petty level such as the stance of this article, these policies don't bother me either way, and as such, I read it with no bias.
Giggle. Who are you fooling?
Read with such eyes, it's clearly partisan.
So?
I tend to think that an article under the banner American Thinker would actually be more useful if it included some thought processes, rather than a veiled diatribe.
Pot.

Kettle.

Black.
Naturalization won't inculcate virtue immediately; rather, they will bring their passions, ideology and voting habits with them and lend their support to the same kinds of corrupt leftists they supported in their native lands.
Note that this assumes that all corrupt governments will be left-leaning rather than right, when in practice there is little to choose either left or right when a government is corrupt, and left or right in those circumstances is something of a moot point.
You read too much into the article. Practically speaking, at present, are the vast majority of immigrants coming from left-leaning socialist policied countries or not?
So why not a corrupt right-wing governmentt? Or just a corrupt government?
Specifically under present circumstances, that we be who?
The phrasing betrays the authors true thoughts with its choice there. Of course the author's entitled to be right wing if he likes, but hiding it under some flawed logic is just weak.
Once again nothing is veiled here. You yourself point out the obvious.
The article also assumes that people leaving a land to come to another one will be happy to bring all the things they are probably trying to get away from in the first place, which seems questionable at best, although doubtless it will be true in a few cases.
What statistics do you have to show that immigrants generally drop their "passions, ideology and voting habits"? A dubious claim, indeed.
Last time I checked, the Statue of Liberty had this written on it:
Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
If that's no longer an approved or preferred US sentiment, then presumably the author will be advocating pulling the dear old statue down and destroying that famous plaque.
Never in the history of the US was there a carte blanche giveb for the entire world to emigrate to the US without limitations. Just like most sentiments, they should be taken in the proportions they were meant for. In fact, the article mentions the Immigration Act of 1924 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_of_1924) as the precedent.

Does someone really have to tell that to you?
One of the things that impresses me about the US, is the fact that it holds that sentiment dear and, occasional political blunders aside, generally stands for truth. If the US lets that go because of this kind of paranoid nonsense, then such a move is far more likely to result in the destruction of the USA's finest qualities than a few Mexicans with a penchant for a bent police force sneaking across the border.
The article is referring to the general mindset of most of the immigrants and not only of a handful of corrupt officials that make it across the border.

[Heibges]

Reagan would definitely still get elected in California. We love actors!

Arnie is a confessed pot smoking, orgy attending, sexually harrassing playboy and we love him!

[August]

Reagan would definitely still get elected in California. We love actors!

Arnie is a confessed pot smoking, orgy attending, sexually harrassing playboy and we love him!

No man is without sin, though there are some who would have you believe they are...