home

What about the Statue of Liberty?

By Last Night in Little Rock, Section Social Justice
Posted on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 02:13:27 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

by Last Night in Little Rock

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-tossed to me.
I lift my lamp beside the golden door.

And, at our southern border, we will build a wall to keep you out. If we can't keep you out, we will jail you.

We will deny you any social benefits, even if you are a taxpayer, until you can pry citizenship loose from the government.

Let's just be honest about it: We should build a wall around the Statue of Liberty, too, to keep people out as a symbol of our suddenly discovered election year "immigration problem."

She is, after all, becoming merely an historical artifact.

< No Bond for the Miami Terror Wannabes | Lieberman Calls In Reinforcements >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    What about the Statue of Liberty? | 48 comments (48 topical)
    Re: What about the Statue of Liberty? (none / 0) (#1)
    by John Mann on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 02:32:40 PM EST
    Let's just be honest about it: We should build a wall around the Statue of Liberty, too, to keep people out as a symbol of our suddenly discovered election year "immigration problem."
    Doesn't that seem a little excessive? After all, it'd cost a fortune to build a wall around it. Why not just knock it over and create a nice reef? The fish would love it, and no more nonsense about hungry, poor, tired, huddled masses.

    Re: What about the Statue of Liberty? (none / 0) (#2)
    by kdog on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 02:50:27 PM EST
    You guys are missing the small print disclaimer at the bottom of the statue's placard, it reads..."Offer void upon completion of infrastructure and/or inconvenience, some restrictions may apply, void where prohibited" Ideals Ishmeals

    Re: What about the Statue of Liberty? (none / 0) (#3)
    by jimcee on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 03:00:42 PM EST
    LNILR, Actually there is a wall around the foot of the Statue of Liberty as well as a moat. The first is a decommissioned fort that provides the base the later is called New York harbor. It seems that that should be plenty unless her Royal Highness Hillary needs to bring home some pork for the coming election.

    Re: What about the Statue of Liberty? (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 03:12:05 PM EST
    She is, after all, becoming merely an historical artifact.
    And French. We don't want a crummy "surrender-statue", do we? Everytime you turn around, France is getting invaded. But we, we fought our Revolution unilaterally.

    Re: What about the Statue of Liberty? (none / 0) (#5)
    by wumhenry on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 03:14:04 PM EST
    Question for TL: Does the democratically-elected U.S. government have the right to adopt and enforce laws that set limits on immigration into this country?

    Re: What about the Statue of Liberty? (none / 0) (#6)
    by squeaky on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 03:24:38 PM EST
    Actually there is a wall around the foot of the Statue of Liberty as well as a moat.
    We can solve a few problems in one fell swoop. Continue building the wall upwards and encase the lovely lady in a giant bastille shaped phallus. Lady liberty can be converted into the central column of the new panopticon. Pfizer will foot the bill, Haliburton will get the contract and Rush can christen it with a bottle of bud light. Gitmo can finally close down and the enemy combatants can move into the swanky new Liberty Prison. Oh, and France will be utterly humiliated.

    Re: What about the Statue of Liberty? (none / 0) (#7)
    by Patrick on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 03:50:03 PM EST
    LNILR's post presupposes there are people out there (With some influence) who support stopping all forms of immigration. I haven't seen that. Having a workable approach to immigration is not on par with stopping all immigration. Kdog, Was that a pun on ME's or a rhyme?

    Re: What about the Statue of Liberty? (none / 0) (#8)
    by Patrick on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 03:51:23 PM EST
    and trying to say so is simply playing politics, which the author appears to take much disdain with.
    Let's just be honest about it: We should build a wall around the Statue of Liberty, too, to keep people out as a symbol of our suddenly discovered election year "immigration problem."


    Re: What about the Statue of Liberty? (none / 0) (#9)
    by jimcee on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 03:55:23 PM EST
    Squeaky, I was just being a literalist although it does have a fort (a part of the old harbor batteries) and a moat and they seem to work just fine. Jondee, from a former thread: The reason I come to Talkleft is to understand the Left side of the political spectrum. I've been coming here for the last couple of years and I intially chose TL because it was a well conceived and fair weblog. The reason I have used the DU analogy is because I used to visit DU for a while and then I was refered to TL by Prof Reynolds and I enjoyed the blog because it was civil, informative, reasonable and had relatively non-moderated threads. As time has progressed many of TL's posts are moving more into the 'emotional' realm and less into reasonable one. And many commenters on the threads replied in kind. So I still come here because I like the give and take and the still relatively non-moderated comments. Oddly I rarely write to Righty sites because I do not need to add to the echo chamber. I would suggest you write in a few RW blog threads and see what happens. It is anthropology by proxy. One hint, be more like Margaret Meade and less like the 'lost' Rockefeller. Thank you TalkLeft you guys are AOK.

    Re: What about the Statue of Liberty? (none / 0) (#10)
    by squeaky on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 05:23:35 PM EST
    I was just being a literalist although it does have a fort (a part of the old harbor batteries) and a moat and they seem to work just fine.
    Yes jimcee. A literal foundation is important for imaginary flight of fancy. Thank you for providing that. As for miss liberty, she too seems an imaginary flight of fancy these days as her metaphoric torch has morphed into an all seeing eye. She would be more in keeping with the times by literally walling her up. The Cask of Amontillado comes to mind.
    It was now midnight, and my task was drawing to a close. I had completed the eighth, the ninth, and the tenth tier. I had finished a portion of the last and the eleventh; there remained but a single stone to be fitted and plastered in. I struggled with its weight; I placed it partially in its destined position. But now there came from out the niche a low laugh that erected the hairs upon my head. It was succeeded by a sad voice, which I had difficulty in recognising as that of the noble Fortunato. The voice said -- "Ha! ha! ha! he! he! -- a very good joke indeed -- an excellent jest. We will have many a rich laugh about it at the palazzo -- he! he! he! -- over our wine -- he! he! he!"
    So it goes for the land of liberty and the free. That chapter is evidentially a historic footnote.

    Re: What about the Statue of Liberty? (none / 0) (#11)
    by Sailor on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 06:24:03 PM EST
    some Mexican teenager
    gee, wouldn't just 'teenager' apply? 'nuff said, we know where this commenter is coming from. Back OT: The funny thing is, they'll probably use illegal labor to build the wall.

    Re: What about the Statue of Liberty? (none / 0) (#12)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 06:55:53 PM EST
    John Mann - Why are you concerned? Are you getting ready to make the big jump from Canada to the US?

    Re: What about the Statue of Liberty? (none / 0) (#13)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 07:13:57 PM EST
    Still baffled by the "illegal" part of "illegal alien", I see. Seriously, why do you want to support a flow of illegals across the border? At best, they'll be exploited as cheap labor ("work for pennies or we'll call the INS").

    Re: What about the Statue of Liberty? (none / 0) (#14)
    by jondee on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 08:15:22 PM EST
    Funny I've lived around and worked with Mexicans practically my whole adult life, and Ive never experienced this culture-of-rudeness that our little skinhead friend and his compatriots have, with their laser-like powers of discernment, penetrated to the core of; but you can bet that after all the warnings, I'll be on guard and on the lookout for "those people" from now on.

    Re: What about the Statue of Liberty? (none / 0) (#15)
    by Sailor on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 08:40:09 PM EST
    Once again when 'it' rears it's ugly head ... Jondee comes to the rescue, LMAO!

    Re: What about the Statue of Liberty? (none / 0) (#16)
    by wumhenry on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 08:59:10 PM EST
    If a large population of unskilled Hispanics willing to work for low wages is the ticket to national prosperity why are Mexico, Guatemala, and Nicaragua such sh*tholes?

    Re: What about the Statue of Liberty? (none / 0) (#17)
    by John Mann on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 09:27:56 PM EST
    John Mann - Why are you concerned? Are you getting ready to make the big jump from Canada to the US?
    Not many years ago, Jim, I would've welcomed an opportunity to relocate south. But the climate of fear that's existed since the Bush the Dumb years and worsened immeasurably with Bush the Dumber on the throne ensures you won't be having me for a neighbor any time soon. Now I know this news will be hard for you to take, but you'll get by without me.

    Re: What about the Statue of Liberty? (none / 0) (#18)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 09:28:01 PM EST
    The Statue was given to the USA in 1884 when it was called "Liberty Enlightening the World." Six years later, in an accident of propinquity, the feds built an immigration inspection station on nearby Ellis Island. In 1903, the poem from Emma Lazarus was placed there. Which hardly makes it indelible public policy.

    Re: What about the Statue of Liberty? (none / 0) (#20)
    by Che's Lounge on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 11:59:03 PM EST
    Yeah, "They are intelligiusnthtksj..." Great way to get the point across. OTB (off to bed)

    Re: What about the Statue of Liberty? (none / 0) (#21)
    by Che's Lounge on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 12:01:24 AM EST
    The filters were red hot around here.

    Re: What about the Statue of Liberty? (none / 0) (#22)
    by Johnny on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 04:44:06 AM EST
    Once again, I get a good chuckle out of a bunch of indo-europeans hand-wringing about a potential horde of unwelcome, un-invited persons of a different color and culture wiping out their own identity. Such is the way of the world. Fight them, but take your own advice should you lose: "Get over it you babies" Cultural annihilation and suppression is an ugly thing.

    Re: What about the Statue of Liberty? (none / 0) (#23)
    by Slado on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 06:25:41 AM EST
    Why do people confuse enforcing the law with being mean? We have immigration laws. Mexican immigrants are the largest offenders of these laws. The Mexican government actually helps their citizens braeak our laws. Enforcing these laws is not mean but neccessary. Not everyone can move to America right now. America is not a giant welfare state that should allow anyone who wants to come here to come here. While that would be nice it is impossible. Illegal immigration is out of control. That some want to either deny that this is so or acuse those who want to bring it under control as being unamerican only shows that they are not serious about the issue. We should enforce the boarders and then figure out how to deal with the ones that are already here. We as a country have ignored this issue long enough and our penalty/reward is allowing most of those who've made it in to stay but putting a finger in the dike isn't some sign that the union is crumbling.

    Re: What about the Statue of Liberty? (none / 0) (#24)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 07:09:46 AM EST
    The question that nobody in these discussions ever seems to want to address is how many immigrants we can absorb without degrading the quality of life for everybody here. We are a nation of 300 million people. The Ogalalla aquifer, from which we pump the water that we farm with in the plains states, has dropped hundreds of feet. We take so much water out of the Colorado river that it peters out in the desert and no longer reaches the Gulf of California. We are paving over much of the finest farmland in the world, California's Central Valley to accomodate an endless expanse of monster tract homes. How many people can we absorb without degrading our quality of life to the point where our children no longer have the advantages we do? Whenever I ask this question, people usually change the subject and move on. Nobody addresses it seriously.

    Re: What about the Statue of Liberty? (none / 0) (#25)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 08:07:45 AM EST
    I guess the dikes and fags will be on the first bus that isn't filled with those filthy mexicans... and then we can get rid of the black people... and then the jews... and who will be left to stand up for you when they tell you you're going on the next bus?

    Re: What about the Statue of Liberty? (none / 0) (#26)
    by Slado on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 08:11:49 AM EST
    Peaches, Of course this issue is very complicated. That was the point of my post. TL and others seem to me to be saying very simply that we used to let everyone in so why can't we now? They forget the fact that 150 years ago the country was 1/10th the size it is now and we need immigrants to both expand our boarders and our economy. As I stated in my post dealing with the immigrants, their rights, our rights, the labor laws etc... etc... is a very complicated issue. However it can't be solved as long as the flow of illegal aleins (and that's what they are) keep flowing over the boarders. How can you mop up the water in your basement while the pipe is still leaking? I know this is a simple analogy but most of us who support enforcing the boarders are only saying you can't fix a problem while it is growing uncontrolled. We can either turn a blind eye or we can begin to fix the problem and the first step is controlling our boarders. Please don't throw around the word racist when discussing this issue. Of course race is invovled for some it always is but I wouldn't care if Canadians were sneaking into the country by the millions. An illeagal immigrant is an illegal immigrant no matter what race they are. That doesn't change the fact that most of these immigrants come from Mexico and solving the souther boarder problem is the highest priority right now.

    Re: What about the Statue of Liberty? (none / 0) (#28)
    by Sailor on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 08:31:15 AM EST
    Please don't throw around the word racist
    uhh, if the shoe fits:
    We are letting our country be overrun by thirdworld scum
    Open borders with a third world [$]hithole will lower us to thirdworld status.
    F[**]k off you hairy dike! I hope you drown in a sea of open sewage in some Mexican [$]hithole town
    Re: What about the Statue of Liberty? (none / 0) (#29)
    by Slado on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 09:03:51 AM EST
    Peaches and Sailor, Is everyone who believes in enforcing our boarders a racist? Also I didn't say any of the things you italicized and highlighted so please don't attribute them to me. If you don't want to debate the issue just say so. Don't accuse or imply that eveyrone who opposes your veiw is a racist. I believe we should enforce our boarders and allow anyone who wants to immigrate legaly into our country. How is that racist?

    Re: What about the Statue of Liberty? (none / 0) (#30)
    by Peaches on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 09:32:10 AM EST
    Slado, You asked a question.
    Why do people confuse enforcing the law with being mean?
    I answered it. That is called debate. You didn't like my answer, but you can't change the terms of the debate after the fact. Of course you didn't make those statements. I was just pointing out to you that racism is the driving force behind the wish to close the mexican border. Whether or not you are racist, I don't know but it is irrelevant. At the very least you are ignorant. Read Michael Venturas latest column Here is a sample.
    Republicans rant about immigration, but their behind-the-scenes behavior does not match their rhetoric. The Washington Post, June 19, p.1: "Between 1999 and 2003 [that is, since Bush took office] work-site enforcement operations were scaled back 95 percent. ... The number of employers prosecuted for unlawfully employing immigrants dropped from 182 in 1999 to four in 2003. ... In 1999, the United States initiated fines against 417 companies. In 2004, it issued fine notices to three." ...The pattern repeats across the country. Talk tough against immigrants for the redneck vote, then stop any anti-immigrant operation that costs businesses money - which means all of 'em. Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff: "It would be hard to sustain political support for vigorous work-site enforcement if you don't give employers an avenue to hire their workers in a way that is legal, because you're basically saying, 'You've got to go out of business.'" Or: You raise wages to hire U.S. citizens - and the price of everyone's goods and services goes up. The Post article reports that after 1999 (in other words, during the Bush administration), the "numbers of fines and convictions dropped sharply, with fines all but phased out." ...Republican voters are being taken for a ride by hypocritical politicians who don't intend to do a damned thing because the people who fill the campaign coffers of these politicians are the same people who hire the immigrants.
    Re: What about the Statue of Liberty? (none / 0) (#31)
    by Sailor on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 09:42:58 AM EST
    Is everyone who believes in enforcing our boarders a racist?
    That's a strawman that no one but you constructed.

    Re: What about the Statue of Liberty? (none / 0) (#32)
    by Slado on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 09:59:27 AM EST
    Peaches your response both claims that I'm ignorant. How so? To claim one party is playing politcs is a tired and lame retort. All politicians play politics with all issues. I thought we were debating personal beliefs. I guess the debate is really about do you Peaches think anyone who wants to come into this country should be allowed to? If so their is no debating you because all laws are unnecessary if you belive this and any law to enforce some sort of restriction on open immigration can be classified as racist, restrictive or just plain mean. Most on this thread are in denial that immigration is a problem and choose to take pot shots at those who have an honest opinion of how to fix it. Instead of offering a solution they either claim the other side is hypocritical, racist or mean. That is not a solution or an opinion just an attempt to play politics.

    Re: What about the Statue of Liberty? (none / 0) (#33)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 10:12:42 AM EST
    Gosh Dork and Slado embrace capitalism and the free market system except when they personally have to compete. Then all of a sudden it is unfair and the rules need to change. You guys are all about anti-regulation untin you feel the need to stack the deck in your favor. Well who do you think you are an American Corporation? Immigration has brought life to this country for over two centuries and will continue to do so. If you do not like competition move to a communist country or better neighborhood.

    Re: What about the Statue of Liberty? (none / 0) (#34)
    by Peaches on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 10:15:03 AM EST
    Slado, Ventura acurately describes why you are ignorant. Immigration is a plus for businesses supporting the coffers of republican administrations. They do not want a crackdown on illegals because it would shut down essentail services, manufacturing plants and agricultural production accross the country. Republicans also rely upon the votes of rural white males who comprise the base of the party. These white males are predominantly racist and immigration gets them all worked up in a lather about the future of our white nation. You align yourself with this base. As far as laws, most illegal immigrants arrive in the country through legal visas and then overstay their visit. This is how the 9/11 terrorists came into the country, not over the mexican border. Attempting to close the border with walls or increased patrols would be too costly and have little effect on the problem of illegal immigration in our country. That is why you are ignorant. As for if you are racist, I can only go by the evidence. You're part of the base.

    Re: What about the Statue of Liberty? (none / 0) (#35)
    by Patrick on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 01:40:30 PM EST
    As far as laws, most illegal immigrants arrive in the country through legal visas and then overstay their visit. This is how the 9/11 terrorists came into the country, not over the mexican border.
    I think is in innacurate on more than one point. Can you provide a link? I think the 9/11 terrorists all had current visas but I could be wrong. I think more illegals walk in rather than fly in, but again, I could be wrong. So, for those reasons I ask for a link.

    Re: What about the Statue of Liberty? (none / 0) (#36)
    by Peaches on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 01:46:03 PM EST
    Patrick, My point was that the 911 hijackers entered the us legally. Ventura provides his sources. I linked to him above.
    Proponents of a wall neglect to mention that 40% of undocumented workers enter the country legally, then overstay their visas. (The Washington Post, June 19, p.1) Colorado's vile GOP Rep. Tom Tancredo can rave, "They're coming to kill you, and you, and me, and my grandchildren," (The Washington Spectator, April 15, p.4). But, in fact, the 9/11 hijackers entered the country legally. "The 500,000 or so people who manage to sneak in from Mexico each year are a minuscule fraction - about 1% - of the tourists and students and other visitors who enter America legally. ... Mexico is not the preferred route of the suspected terrorists caught so far because they prefer more convenient options, like the Canadian border." (The New York Times, May 16, p.25)


    Re: What about the Statue of Liberty? (none / 0) (#37)
    by Patrick on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 01:52:13 PM EST
    Peaches, The other reason I ask is that reading the article you linked to, 40% of illegal immigrants overstay their visas, that's less than "most" which I take to mean 50%+1. Additionally it doesn't mention the 9/11 terrorists except to say they entered legally. The article seems pretty accurrate although it ain't only the republicans failing to act on the wishes of the population, it's both. Another valid point which seems logical is that terrorists would probably be more likely to use the Canadian border to sneak into the U.S. The reason for this I believe is that they (Canada) already have a larger population of Islamic Fundamentalists than Mexico and Canadian law enforcement is more lax than that in Mexico. Get caught doing a crime in Mexico, and well, you've all heard the stories. In Canada I think there's very limited pre-trial confinement.

    Re: What about the Statue of Liberty? (none / 0) (#38)
    by Patrick on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 01:57:32 PM EST
    Peaches,
    My point was that the 911 hijackers entered the us legally.
    Then why didn't you say that. I doubt there's be much argument. I guess it took me more than 6 minutes to type my second comment. Sorry for being redundant. I think two of them left the country just a month or two before September 2001, to remain in compliance with their visas. Which is why I think they were still legally in the country on 9/11. I also think there was enough information out there to catch them if it had all been put together, but it wasn't. That said, I wouldn't expect them to try to get that many people into the country the same way if and when they try again.

    Re: What about the Statue of Liberty? (none / 0) (#39)
    by Peaches on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 02:04:58 PM EST
    Then why didn't you say that. I doubt there's be much argument.
    No, Patrick we don't seem to have much argument on the above points. You must have joined in the argument late without reading my points in the context as a reply to Slado. The thread is about illegal immigrants and I was making the argument that closing the mexican border and cracking down on illegal immigration of mexicans has more to do with racism than with our security or economics. the 911 hijackers were used as an example of the threat from legal immigrants who vastly outnumber the illegal immigrants slipping accross our southern borders looking for work and providing a boon for our economy.

    Re: What about the Statue of Liberty? (none / 0) (#40)
    by Slado on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 03:04:50 PM EST
    Peaches, I'll try a humanitarian tack then. Since 100's of illegals or "not necessarily Mexican non descript crossers of international boarders" die every year in the desert don't you think stopping the black market boarder crossing buisness and keeping immigrants alive is reason enough to enforce our boarders? The illegal and dangerous trek across the United States-Mexico border has claimed fewer Mexican lives than usual so far this year, the Mexican government said today. In the first half of the year, 117 Mexicans died trying to cross the border, down from 210 in the first half of last year and 283 in 2000. Mexico's foreign ministry said in a statement that 50 migrants from other parts of Latin America also died. Hundreds of thousands of people try each year to cross the 1,987 mile border. But officials say fewer migrants are crossing now, in part because the United States authorities have stepped up patrols since the Sept. 11 attacks and because an economic slowdown means fewer jobs are open in the United States. NYT 6/5/02 Looks like boarder security is good for something.

    Re: What about the Statue of Liberty? (none / 0) (#41)
    by Sailor on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 03:29:56 PM EST
    I'll apologise in advance for the OT: Patrick, remember the discussion about cell phones and driving? Check this out. (BTW, this isn't a challenge, or some other tactic, I just thought you'd like to see it.) Back on topic:
    Peaches your response both claims that I'm ignorant. How so?
    In addition to Peaches' comment, she gave links and text. By only concentrating on one tiny statement amongst many, you have proven yourself to either debate insincerely (and using obvious logical fallacies) or are unaware of the pertinent facts.

    Re: What about the Statue of Liberty? (none / 0) (#42)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 03:51:29 PM EST
    Sailor - I think Peaches is a "he."

    Re: What about the Statue of Liberty? (none / 0) (#43)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 04:04:42 PM EST
    Peaches writes:
    The Post article reports that after 1999 (in other words, during the Bush administration), the "numbers of fines and convictions dropped sharply, with fines all but phased out."
    Nope. That would include 14 months of the Clinton administration. et al - Let us cut to the chase. The Demos want the votes and the Repubs want to use them to depress the price of labor. That is if you believe that all business owners are Repubs, something I have found remarkedly untrue.

    Re: What about the Statue of Liberty? (none / 0) (#44)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 04:51:03 PM EST
    14/74= 18.9% of the time period in question. So aWol is responsible for the state of affairs 81.1% of the time, but ya gotta blame Clinton somewhere, or are you tired of bashing the Bush Administration in the Thursday open thread and want to be even-handed. I excerpt, you decide.

    Re: What about the Statue of Liberty? (none / 0) (#45)
    by Slado on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 06:49:30 PM EST
    Sailor, The "facts" are an opinion piece that Peaches linked (I assumed a women as well, sorry) not some documented piece of history. If you are going to "debate" with opinion pieces I'd be more then happy to link sevearl Fox News, NRO, Weekly Standard etc... articles that make my case. Is that a debate? I'll ask the question to you since Peaches won't answer it. Do you think we should let everyone in who wants to come in? If not (avoiding the strawman) what reasonable, un-racist restrictions should our government enforce? Furthermore if most of the illegals come from our southern boarder is it mean or racist or even "ignorant" to focus on them? Eagerly awaiting the debate.

    Re: What about the Statue of Liberty? (none / 0) (#46)
    by Patrick on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 08:11:41 PM EST
    Sailor, Never disagreed it wasn't dangerous to drive, I just don't think the law will change too much. Having a controlled immigration policy is not akin to closing the borders.

    Re: What about the Statue of Liberty? (none / 0) (#47)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 08:34:46 PM EST
    About halfway up the page, I made a post hoping to open a discussion about the carrying capacity of the country. It's the kind of issue that nobody ever seems to want to address, but at some point, somebody's going to have to. So here it is again. The question that nobody in these discussions ever seems to want to address is how many immigrants we can absorb without degrading the quality of life for everybody here. We are a nation of 300 million people. The Ogalalla aquifer, from which we pump the water that we farm with in the plains states, has dropped hundreds of feet. We take so much water out of the Colorado river that it peters out in the desert and no longer reaches the Gulf of California. We are paving over much of the finest farmland in the world, California's Central Valley, to accomodate an endless expanse of monster tract homes. How many people can we absorb without degrading our quality of life to the point where our children no longer have the advantages we do? Whenever I ask this question, people usually change the subject and move on. Nobody addresses it seriously.

    Re: What about the Statue of Liberty? (none / 0) (#48)
    by Sailor on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 08:59:08 PM EST
    Sailor, Never disagreed it wasn't dangerous to drive, I just don't think the law will change too much. Having a controlled immigration policy is not akin to closing the borders.
    Patrick, I know you didn't disagree, I just thought you'd find the study interesting. I also agree on your second point, but I think we have a controlled immigration policy already ... it just isn't enforced equally.

    Re: What about the Statue of Liberty? (none / 0) (#49)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jul 07, 2006 at 08:36:16 AM EST
    Posted by Sailor ........ I think we have a controlled immigration policy already ... it just isn't enforced equally.
    What do you mean it isn't enforced equally?

    Re: What about the Statue of Liberty? (none / 0) (#50)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jul 07, 2006 at 08:46:46 AM EST
    Dark Avenger - So? Frankly I don't understand your point. The comment excluded 14 months of the Clinton administration, which is totally incorrect. I suppose you think that if the father leaves he didn't imptregnate the mother... Now, unlike what I would have thought if you had wrote the comment, I don't think Peaches really meant to exclude and hide facts, but I thought the omission should be noted.

    What about the Statue of Liberty? | 48 comments (48 topical)