That’s what has you all a-twitter? Sheesh, that Obama’s nothing more than a front for the Chicago Dem machine (which isn’t anything near what it once was) is among the more comforting thoughts this election cycle.

24ahead.com/blog/archives/002135.html

Derek Copold: don’t waste my time either. I’ve got 18 mentions of JH at my site, with this as the latest:

http://24ahead.com/blog/archives/007842.html

Once again: you people have absolutely no clue how disastrous a BHO presidency is going to be. There will be a backlash, but not before the ChicagoMachine has gotten its people permanently embedded in the Federal government.

As opposed to McCain, who has directly hired Juan Hernandez, who served in the Mexican government as a cabinet official.

And he even blogs at the web site of a magazine whose editor-in-chief endorsed Kerry in 2004!

http://www.amconmag.com/article/2004/nov/08/00008/

ZOMG Daniel! Run for your life!

So, I think I’ve got some bona fides.

And, I’m not worried about her or McCain or this issue actually going through. We blocked it before, we can block it again.

What Larison should be worried about is that he keeps getting linked approvingly by the post-delusional Sully and now even Crooks & Liars. That site’s PAC is/was working with a group headed by someone linked to the Mexican government.

I got linked by Icke once, but if I kept getting linked approvingly by Icke I’d take a good look in the mirror.

The bottom line is what it’s always been: BHO would be a complete and utter disaster for this country.

See my comments here:

http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2008/10/16/palin-and-reagan/

Well, that’s certainly rich.

You want to know what a real illegal immigration amnesty looks like? Malaysia did it once. They told all their illegals that they had a month to report for deportation, and if they complied they wouldn’t be caned. THAT’S an amnesty. They got to leave the country without punishment, but they still left the country.

What we call “amnesty” is really a reward for lawbreaking. So, yes, there’s some dishonesty, but not in your favor.

What McCain has proposed lately is still “amnesty”, but it costs the recipient a small bribe. The real prize is getting to stay here. Illegal aliens would have no problem fronting a few thousand dollars, because legal residence is worth many multiples of that. So your “fine” is no such thing. It’s just a payoff, and nominal one at that.

We shall use the term “citizenship” as the Greeks and Romans? Is that intention? If so, then let us be “citizens” of our, ahem, “cities”. Would anyone from a city on the Aegean have recognized the American, modern, liberal, usage of the term “citizen”? Would a “burgher” of city in 15th century “Germany” recognize the modern use of “citizen”? Would even Thomas Jefferson understand “citizenship” in America today?

If Mexicans are not to be “citizens” (I am not arguing that they should be), then why should Blacks be accepted (I am not arguing that they should NOT be)? The idea of citizenship can be strict (”conservative”), and include only White men that have plead loyalty to the American Republic, as was the original intention, or it can be “liberal”, and include any number of groups of people, including women, Blacks, Mexicans, etc., whether they plead loyalty or not.

My point: the use of “citizenship”, and everything contained therein, leads us down a “slippery slope” of Liberalism; yes: the Roman Republic was a Liberal institution, as were the Greek city-states. They may not have started as such, but the essence of Liberalism infected those polities in due time. That is the result of accepting “citizenship” over “subjecthood”. The Roman Imperial Republic went on to be ruled over by German citizens of Rome, who never would have been considered “subjects” of the Old Kingdom of Rome.

One way to “head off” such things as amnesty is to understand that we are not “citizens” of the United States, but subjects of our states (e.g., because you’re a good Texan doesn’t make you a good Tennessean; or: I am a subject of the peasantry, Mr Larison is a subject of the noblesse, etc.). It is entirely too easy for one to be a “citizen” of the United States, and for one’s loyalty to rest elsewhere. One can be a “dual citizen”, but can there be such a thing as a “dual subject”?

Not in a republican system. That would be the system that we (theoretically) still have.

“the idea of “citizenship” is alien to conservative thought”

No, it isn’t. It is not as if the designation of citoyen, civis or politis was something invented by revolutionaries. It may have been adopted or co-opted by them, but the “idea of citizenship” predates the modern era. For that matter, it predates the middle ages. There is nothing necessarily un-conservative about it, and many of the early modern classicizing aristocrats were interested in precisely the kind of civic republicanism practiced by the ancients. It is typically not something that exists in monarchies, and I can understand why monarchists might have a problem with the idea, but there is no requirement that conservatives be monarchists.

We are subjects of our states, not citizens.

American Conservatives are Liberals. The comments here are proof positive.

When you see the sign in the elevator telling you not to smoke and promising a fine if you do, no one considers it amnesty.

When you get a parking ticket, which involves no punishment other than a cash payment, no one considers it “amnesty”.

In fact, the only time people use the word “amnesty” to cover most popular legal punishment – the fine – is when the subject is immigration. Then, suddenly, asking a guy to pay a few thousand dollars in penalty becomes “amnesty”.

I’ll admit, it’s a clever way of saying “I will accept nothing less than deportation” without sounding so heartless. You’re not fooling anyone though.

The only ones being dishonest are the people who characterize paying a fine as “amnesty”.

They’re usually the prime victims of identity theft, too. They also suffer from most of the social costs of illegal immigration, like overcrowded neighborhoods and higher crime. A lot of Hispanics take a hawkish line on this issue.

Still, the idea of some sort of mass deportation is not workable, I agree, but you can apply steady pressure through internal verification and reduce the number over a period of time. That, in combination with a serious border, would allow the country to look at offering some sort of legalization.

You could apply that same criteria to any type of enforcement action; it shouldn’t be an excuse to do nothing.

“How in the hell is a republican ever going to get elected without the hispanic vote and trust me you’ll lose it permanaently if you haven’t already.”

Did I miss the part where the GOP was winning the Hispanic vote? Bush lost it in 2000 & 2004, & McCain is on track to lose it by an even larger margin this time.

Ever heard the term false positive? I know lots of natural born citizens with the same name as tons of illegals. Can you imagine the fun they’ll have trying to prove that they’re US citizens and should be allowed back?

How in the hell is a republican ever going to get elected without the hispanic vote and trust me you’ll lose it permanaently if you haven’t already.

We will never secure our borders and we will never round up and deport the illegals. It’s a wedge issue, nothing more.

Of course, McCain has no intention of truly securing the borders and setting up internal enforcement mechanisms, but that goes to his honesty, not his position’s coherence.

My point is, I don’t see why Palin couldn’t have given a straightforward, sensible answer to Ramos.

It’s not rocket science. We tried amnesty with a mere not to enforcement. Try it again, shame on us.

“We learn from history that we do not learn from history.”