Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
TBoneTX

A Must-Read: Rush Limbaugh Supports LEGAL Immigration

15 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_042810/content/01125109.guest.html

Too long to reproduce all the text, but read it to see what you agree and disagree with.

(In case the above is unclear to anyone: "Read" comes before "agree or disagree.")


06-04-2007 = TSC stamps postal return-receipt for I-129f.

06-11-2007 = NOA1 date (unknown to me).

07-20-2007 = Phoned Immigration Officer; got WAC#; where's NOA1?

09-25-2007 = Touch (first-ever).

09-28-2007 = NOA1, 23 days after their 45-day promise to send it (grrrr).

10-20 & 11-14-2007 = Phoned ImmOffs; "still pending."

12-11-2007 = 180 days; file is "between workstations, may be early Jan."; touches 12/11 & 12/12.

12-18-2007 = Call; file is with Division 9 ofcr. (bckgrnd check); e-prompt to shake it; touch.

12-19-2007 = NOA2 by e-mail & web, dated 12-18-07 (187 days; 201 per VJ); in mail 12/24/07.

01-09-2008 = File from USCIS to NVC, 1-4-08; NVC creates file, 1/15/08; to consulate 1/16/08.

01-23-2008 = Consulate gets file; outdated Packet 4 mailed to fiancee 1/27/08; rec'd 3/3/08.

04-29-2008 = Fiancee's 4-min. consular interview, 8:30 a.m.; much evidence brought but not allowed to be presented (consul: "More proof! Second interview! Bring your fiance!").

05-05-2008 = Infuriating $12 call to non-English-speaking consulate appointment-setter.

05-06-2008 = Better $12 call to English-speaker; "joint" interview date 6/30/08 (my selection).

06-30-2008 = Stokes Interrogations w/Ecuadorian (not USC); "wait 2 weeks; we'll mail her."

07-2008 = Daily calls to DOS: "currently processing"; 8/05 = Phoned consulate, got Section Chief; wrote him.

08-07-08 = E-mail from consulate, promising to issue visa "as soon as we get her passport" (on 8/12, per DHL).

08-27-08 = Phoned consulate (they "couldn't find" our file); visa DHL'd 8/28; in hand 9/1; through POE on 10/9 with NO hassles(!).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most people are pro-legal-immigration. The left likes to blur the line between legal and illegal immigration.

" How is it fair to legal immigrants that have taken all the necessary steps to become legal citizens for years to grant everybody legal benefits even if they aren't legal and have cheated the system? What is fair? If we're going to use fairness let's throw it right back in their face." -Rush


"The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies."

Senator Barack Obama
Senate Floor Speech on Public Debt
March 16, 2006



barack-cowboy-hat.jpg
90f.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most people are pro-legal-immigration. The left likes to blur the line between legal and illegal immigration.

" How is it fair to legal immigrants that have taken all the necessary steps to become legal citizens for years to grant everybody legal benefits even if they aren't legal and have cheated the system? What is fair? If we're going to use fairness let's throw it right back in their face." -Rush

BLUR! Thats putting it lightly.


"I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine."- Ayn Rand

“Your freedom to be you includes my freedom to be free from you.”

― Andrew Wilkow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most people are pro-legal-immigration. The left likes to blur the line between legal and illegal immigration.

Blur? There's no distinction at all. They are all largely potential Democratic voters and that is the real bottom line.


David & Lalai

th_ourweddingscrapbook-1.jpg

aneska1-3-1-1.gif

Greencard Received Date: July 3, 2009

Lifting of Conditions : March 18, 2011

I-751 Application Sent: April 23, 2011

Biometrics: June 9, 2011

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Who cares what that drug addict has to say. Rush is like putting mayonnaise on french fries, or bacon in a chocolate shake.
Perhaps you're afraid that he'll change your mind. Follow the originally suggested instructions, please. Edited by TBoneTX

06-04-2007 = TSC stamps postal return-receipt for I-129f.

06-11-2007 = NOA1 date (unknown to me).

07-20-2007 = Phoned Immigration Officer; got WAC#; where's NOA1?

09-25-2007 = Touch (first-ever).

09-28-2007 = NOA1, 23 days after their 45-day promise to send it (grrrr).

10-20 & 11-14-2007 = Phoned ImmOffs; "still pending."

12-11-2007 = 180 days; file is "between workstations, may be early Jan."; touches 12/11 & 12/12.

12-18-2007 = Call; file is with Division 9 ofcr. (bckgrnd check); e-prompt to shake it; touch.

12-19-2007 = NOA2 by e-mail & web, dated 12-18-07 (187 days; 201 per VJ); in mail 12/24/07.

01-09-2008 = File from USCIS to NVC, 1-4-08; NVC creates file, 1/15/08; to consulate 1/16/08.

01-23-2008 = Consulate gets file; outdated Packet 4 mailed to fiancee 1/27/08; rec'd 3/3/08.

04-29-2008 = Fiancee's 4-min. consular interview, 8:30 a.m.; much evidence brought but not allowed to be presented (consul: "More proof! Second interview! Bring your fiance!").

05-05-2008 = Infuriating $12 call to non-English-speaking consulate appointment-setter.

05-06-2008 = Better $12 call to English-speaker; "joint" interview date 6/30/08 (my selection).

06-30-2008 = Stokes Interrogations w/Ecuadorian (not USC); "wait 2 weeks; we'll mail her."

07-2008 = Daily calls to DOS: "currently processing"; 8/05 = Phoned consulate, got Section Chief; wrote him.

08-07-08 = E-mail from consulate, promising to issue visa "as soon as we get her passport" (on 8/12, per DHL).

08-27-08 = Phoned consulate (they "couldn't find" our file); visa DHL'd 8/28; in hand 9/1; through POE on 10/9 with NO hassles(!).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Arizona law aside for a moment, I just want to brainstorm all of the aspects of illegal immigrants.

Who supports illegal immigration?

1. Employers in construction, agriculture, hospitality. Why? cheaper operating costs.

2. Libertarians & Liberals Why? Because they feel borders shouldn't be able to stop people looking for a livelihood.

3. George Bush Why? He needed Hispanic votes

4. Barack Obama Why? Same as Bush

5. Democratic Congress Why? Same as Bush

Who doesn't support illegal immigration?

1. Employees in construction & hospitality Why? They are losing work

2. Majority of Republicans Why? They recognize that services are being used that aren't being paid for and they are currently trying to pull the budget they helped break back together again.

3. Landowners near the Border Why? Their land is being trespassed on and damaged.

4. People who fear changing demographics

5. Supporters of strong National Security Why? They don't have background checks and if an open border is created the system (immigration/fbi) may collapse.

Now comparing them:

Pro amnesty

1,3,4,5 - One person or group profiting off of the issue.

2. An honorable idea.

Anti Amnesty

1,3. - People directly harmed by immigration

2,5 - A logical idea

4 - A less than honorable idea.

So what does illegal immigration provide?

1. Cheap Labor

2. Cheaper goods

3. A demographic that returns money to the economy

4. Some tax revenue from goods purchased.

So what does illegal immigration takeaway

1. Civil services with less taxes paid

2. Unpaid Hospital treatments

3. Avoidance of civil torts

So what happens if illegals are removed over the course of a decade?

1. Some inflationary pressure - structures cost more to build, produce increases because machinery / more expensive labor is used.

2. Governments see some reduction in budget spending

3. Medical expenses lower

4. Unemployment lowers, but only slightly as the slowing in population growth also slows economic growth.

5. Wages climb because of mild labor shortages (see inflationary pressure)

What is the danger in amnesty?

Twofold.

1. It declares that the southern border is a legitimate way to enter the country. Therefore why should Mr. A be discriminated against over in Africa who is suffering more than Mr. B who crossed from Mexico.

2. The US immigration system, already at a breaking point would be locked up for years trying to process immigrants who entered illegally. This in turn would harm immigrants who legally wanted to enter AND more importantly, could delay important talent that could be helping the nation in science, security, business.

I went back and read Rush's transcript and it looks like I agree with him minus his typical political ramblings.

Edited by Sousuke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Arizona law aside for a moment, I just want to brainstorm all of the aspects of illegal immigrants.[...]
You've been doing some impressive thinking on this, dude, si man. Did you also consider the "criminal element" of drug-traffickers or gangs, among your groups who would be anti? Edited by TBoneTX

06-04-2007 = TSC stamps postal return-receipt for I-129f.

06-11-2007 = NOA1 date (unknown to me).

07-20-2007 = Phoned Immigration Officer; got WAC#; where's NOA1?

09-25-2007 = Touch (first-ever).

09-28-2007 = NOA1, 23 days after their 45-day promise to send it (grrrr).

10-20 & 11-14-2007 = Phoned ImmOffs; "still pending."

12-11-2007 = 180 days; file is "between workstations, may be early Jan."; touches 12/11 & 12/12.

12-18-2007 = Call; file is with Division 9 ofcr. (bckgrnd check); e-prompt to shake it; touch.

12-19-2007 = NOA2 by e-mail & web, dated 12-18-07 (187 days; 201 per VJ); in mail 12/24/07.

01-09-2008 = File from USCIS to NVC, 1-4-08; NVC creates file, 1/15/08; to consulate 1/16/08.

01-23-2008 = Consulate gets file; outdated Packet 4 mailed to fiancee 1/27/08; rec'd 3/3/08.

04-29-2008 = Fiancee's 4-min. consular interview, 8:30 a.m.; much evidence brought but not allowed to be presented (consul: "More proof! Second interview! Bring your fiance!").

05-05-2008 = Infuriating $12 call to non-English-speaking consulate appointment-setter.

05-06-2008 = Better $12 call to English-speaker; "joint" interview date 6/30/08 (my selection).

06-30-2008 = Stokes Interrogations w/Ecuadorian (not USC); "wait 2 weeks; we'll mail her."

07-2008 = Daily calls to DOS: "currently processing"; 8/05 = Phoned consulate, got Section Chief; wrote him.

08-07-08 = E-mail from consulate, promising to issue visa "as soon as we get her passport" (on 8/12, per DHL).

08-27-08 = Phoned consulate (they "couldn't find" our file); visa DHL'd 8/28; in hand 9/1; through POE on 10/9 with NO hassles(!).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You've been doing some impressive thinking on this, dude, si man. Did you also consider the "criminal element" of drug-traffickers or gangs, among your groups who would be anti?

I can't really get my head around it. The way I see it, the criminal element moves through the "noise" of illegal immigration. Though I would say that it would exist no matter what as long as there is demand for illegal drugs.

Edited by Sousuke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Careful now. Mayo on fries is awesome.

eh, I'd be more inclined to lead towards Miracle Whip here than Mayo for the fries. :thumbs:


nfrsig.jpg

The Great Canadian to Texas Transfer Timeline:

2/22/2010 - I-129F Packet Mailed

2/24/2010 - Packet Delivered to VSC

2/26/2010 - VSC Cashed Filing Fee

3/04/2010 - NOA1 Received!

8/14/2010 - Touched!

10/04/2010 - NOA2 Received!

10/25/2010 - Packet 3 Received!

02/07/2011 - Medical!

03/15/2011 - Interview in Montreal! - Approved!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You've been doing some impressive thinking on this, dude, si man. Did you also consider the "criminal element" of drug-traffickers or gangs, among your groups who would be anti?

Even though most of the conservative arguments against illegal immigration have to do with crime. Any crime related to the drug trade would still continue regardless of whatever happens with immigration. The margins in the drug trade are high enough, and most traffickers have the resources to keep moving drugs into the US.

With illegal immigration, its easier for them to hide within the flow of people. With legal immigration/workers visa, then they would be much more likely stand out like sore thumbs.


keTiiDCjGVo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most people are pro-legal-immigration. The left likes to blur the line between legal and illegal immigration.

I'd say disingenuously and cunningly hide. Or maybe they are just idiots and simply don't know the difference. After all, many of the drugs abused in the 60's are chemicals know to cause DNA damage.


According to the Internal Revenue Service, the 400 richest American households earned a total of $US138 billion, up from $US105 billion a year earlier. That's an average of $US345 million each, on which they paid a tax rate of just 16.6 per cent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who cares what that drug addict has to say. Rush is like putting mayonnaise on french fries, or bacon in a chocolate shake.

The first one is good and the second one sounds good.


"The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies."

Senator Barack Obama
Senate Floor Speech on Public Debt
March 16, 2006



barack-cowboy-hat.jpg
90f.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
- Back to Top -


Important Disclaimer: Please read carefully the Visajourney.com Terms of Service. If you do not agree to the Terms of Service you should not access or view any page (including this page) on VisaJourney.com. Answers and comments provided on Visajourney.com Forums are general information, and are not intended to substitute for informed professional medical, psychiatric, psychological, tax, legal, investment, accounting, or other professional advice. Visajourney.com does not endorse, and expressly disclaims liability for any product, manufacturer, distributor, service or service provider mentioned or any opinion expressed in answers or comments. VisaJourney.com does not condone immigration fraud in any way, shape or manner. VisaJourney.com recommends that if any member or user knows directly of someone involved in fraudulent or illegal activity, that they report such activity directly to the Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement. You can contact ICE via email at Immigration.Reply@dhs.gov or you can telephone ICE at 1-866-347-2423. All reported threads/posts containing reference to immigration fraud or illegal activities will be removed from this board. If you feel that you have found inappropriate content, please let us know by contacting us here with a url link to that content. Thank you.
×