Quote:
Originally Posted by Borderwatch
http://www.the-signal.com/news/article/23428/
By Josh Premako
Signal Senior Writer
jpremako@the-signal.com
661-259-1234 x519
Posted: Jan. 16, 2010 8:33 p.m.
UPDATED Jan. 17, 2010 4:55 a.m.
2 Images
American flags and "Don't Tread on Me" banners flapped in the breeze as about 125 people gathered Saturday to oppose amnesty for illegal immigrants.
"Nobody is calling for mass deportation," he said. "It would put the economy in a tailspin."
Gitlin proposed securing America's borders, and initiating an immigration census to determine people's status and whether or not they have a criminal record.
For the law-abiding illegal immigrants who remain, he said, steps need to be put in place for them to pursue citizenship.
Gitlin used the example of a 30-something house painter he knows, who he said is a tax-paying illegal immigrant.
"(He's) not the problem," he said.
Mario Alvarez of Canyon Country said he came to America from Mexico City 49 years ago and has been a citizen since 1979.
He said the solution to the illegal immigration situation includes closing the borders and levying fines against immigrants here illegally and giving them a path toward citizenship.
"They should find their place in line," he said.
|
I think this is not entirely representative of everyone's wishes. There are factions within the movement that are pushing for legalization of illegals under their guidelines, but from what I see, they would like to make us all believe that is the only way. I am divided as to how to convey otherwise without drawing their ire, but it looks like this newspaper chose that anyway, probably as a close second to their own agenda, which, by the way was also racial:
Quote:
|
A mostly white crowd listened and cheered as several speakers voiced disapproval for both President Barack Obama and former President George W. Bush
|
I think we'll just have to let everyone chime in on their own views, but my personal one is that I don't like choosing favorites among criminals, and especially so when the criteria is based upon willing taxpayers. This seems somewhat at odds with both TEA Party'er and immigration law enforcement supporters. If you oppose the "taxed enough already" agenda, how do you then justify importing new taxpayers who pledge their willingness to pay taxes in exchange for citizenship?
It is my opinion that the term, "path to citizenship", is doublespeak for amnesty.
I don't get it. Is this guy for it, or against it, or did the quite obviously biased writer/editor take some sort of poetic license here?