SHARE THIS PAGE View Viral Dashboard ›
    • JohnFrank

      Senator Rand Paul has made his decision to stand with the interests of a particular segment of American society, along with the interests of illegal aliens, or if you prefer undocumented workers. However, in doing so, is he pitting those interests against the interests of other segments of American society.  The simple question must be asked, who stands for the interests of Americans? Clearly Senator Paul can no longer make that claim on this issue. One other factoid that people may find of interest: Data In New State Dept. Letter Further Proves Immigrant Welfare Prohibition Being Ignored Are we unsympathetic to those who have been in the country for many years, are model citizens and want to be legal? No. Are we unsympathetic to those who were brought to America as children by their parents and know no other home? No. However, we need to first secure our southern border. The open border we presently have is a national security risk. In turn, the executive branch needs to enforce the existing law. Yes, we need to reform the immigration system, so making it much easier for people to come here legally, with a focus on skilled workers and entrepreneurs. We want people who are not going to be a charge on the State. While we are sympathetic to the plight of low skilled workers from Latin and South America who desire a better life, the data shows that a significant portion of these people end up being a charge on the State.  Also, the data shows a very large portion of these individuals have no desire to be citizens. While we may be sympathetic to their plight, what about the existing problems facing citizens who are low skilled or under skilled?  With a national unemployment rate of just under 8% and underemployment rate of around 16% do we need to aid even more burden for the benefit of those with little or no skills? Another problem. We have many people who have been waiting for years to come here legally. How is it fair that people who came here illegally should be treated more favorably, or even equally then those who want to come here legally? Here is another tidbit. Under the Affordable Health Care Act, if illegals are deemed legal, even if they are only residents, they are eligible to participate in that program. Since many of these individuals can apply for subsidies, who will bear the additional costs?  That is correct, taxpaying citizens, at a time when we are running trillion dollar deficits and we have no plan to balance the budget, let alone start to pay down the outstanding debt in the near term. In addition, citizens in distressed circumstances have expressed dismay that allowing low skilled workers who are here illegally to stay will harm their opportunity to achieve success. Is this a legitimate concern, and if so clearly citizens must be given preference over those who are not here legally. The experience in Europe shows that ethnic multiculturalism does not work, but rather leads to a segmented society with pockets were one believes that you are in a foreign country, such that the ties that bind people together fray.  We see the same happening in America, were ethnic groups, who are not citizens form conclaves, and in these conclaves you are no longer in America. This is why, if someone wants to stay as a resident, it makes sense that this individual is able to speak English and has a good understanding of American history, such that he or she is able to participate fully in American society and not feel the need to live in a conclave.  Just some thoughts.

    • JohnFrank

      Good article. Thank you Evan McMorris-Santoro for honest reporting. What is interesting to read is the war against women that is being waged by many of the commentators on this site. An “idiot?” Someone whose “15 minutes is up?”  Wrong.  The speech that Sarah Louise Heath Palin gave at CPAC2013 was delivered by an intelligent and thoughtful person. People could learn quiteafew things after listening to her speech: CPAC 2013-Former Governor Sarah Palin (R-AK) She gaveasuperb speech in which she legitimately took to task both President Obama, and the Republican establishment while outliningapoignant and compelling vision for the future. Oh yes, the “big gulp” wasadeliberate parody on the arbitrary and capricious law that was pushed by Mayor Bloomberg and that was deliberately struck down by the Court, allowing the big chains (including 7-11) to continue to sell big drinks like the “Big Gulp,” while banning the big drinks in mom and pop restaurants, along with promoting liberty and individual responsibility. But,Iguess that would be tough for some folks to understand.

Load More