It's nice to see Stewart both expecting Napolitano to give commentary and acknowledging his differences from the standard conservative talking points. Maybe we're getting somewhere...
It's nice to see Stewart both expecting Napolitano to give commentary and acknowledging his differences from the standard conservative talking points. Maybe we're getting somewhere...
John: You are good at making a big laugh at everything, tell us what YOUR plan is for the 500,000 illegals still coming into AZ alone, and the 12 to 20 million here in the U.S? Remember when Clinton gave blanket citizenship to approx 12 million illegals? The problem was supposed to be solved. Our gov is no better than the Roman Senate in the last days of Rome. We have people who can't make decisions, or are so afraid of their party they just do what they are told, and no one comes through for the American people. In 20 years how many people will be here John that are Illegal if we don't get comprehensive immigration?
You are quick on the mouth. I want to hear answers.
John might be a quick mouth, but you can't use comma's. For example, "In 20 years how many people will be here John that are Illegal if we don't get comprehensive immigration?" You failed to place John between comma's; maybe we're all doomed because you can't speak Amuricun. I can deal with xenophobes, but certainly not xenophobes with poor English. However, you could probably get a job writing signs for Tea Partiers.
And neither of you can spell Jon Stewart's name right :P
(I jest, I jest.)
It's commas.
Because Jon Stewart wants the illegals to stay here, he is pushing for the removal of all welfare, correct?
Cause you can't have open borders (or de facto open borders and a welfare state).
Last line should have read:
Cause you can't have open borders (or de facto open borders) and a welfare state.
I doubt he's gotten to that point, but Napolitano undoubtedly has. And he's citing Napolitano favorably, which is a rare thing to happen for anyone affiliated with FOX. So I'd say that's a good thing.
The answer to the illegal immigration issue is more liberty.
If you want to use the force of government to limit the free movement of people, please leave the liberty movement. You are only a detriment. The answer to problem is never more government.
This is a great point - and I agree.
I think the only argument against it (and I'm paraphrasing - maybe I'm way off - somebody jump in if you know more) is that of Hoppe's where he suggests all borders be owned by private citizens (private property) and then make that land a private citizens responsibility to protect...
I don't exactly know how this works but I imagine there would be several private roads where trade could be tracked...again by private companies. I private company would bear the burden of getting volunteers or employees.
If we had less welfare, more sound money, a more fair tax, this would definitely be less of a problem. This is what happens when a government subsidizes corn so heavily that it kills an entire industry south of us.
These cuts shave only a sliver off the projected spending of the Obama administration. Overall spending still increases drastically and this is unacceptable. -The Balancing Act Lifetime
Post new comment