John McCain: no amnesty for illegal aliens could lead to France-style riots

Senator John McCain snowed them in Le Mars, Iowa on Saturday:
...The man wasn't satisfied with McCain's answer. He asked McCain why the U.S. couldn't execute large-scale deportations, as he had heard they did in France and other countries.

The question seemed to pique McCain.

"In case you hadn't noticed, the thousands of people who have been relegated to ghettos have risen up and burned cars in France," McCain said. "They've got huge problems in France. They have tremendous problems. The police can't even go into certain areas in the suburbs of Paris. I don't want that in the suburbs of America."
On the one hand, one might think he's saying that mass deportations would lead to mass rioting. Then again, he's refering to being "relegated to ghettos", which is similar to the talking point of "illegal aliens in the shadows". So, I don't think he's saying we'd only have rioting if we tried mass deportations, but that we could have that if we have large numbers of people living in "ghettos" of some kind.

Obviously, when you have to make such calculations as McCain is, you're admitting that your country has been invaded and settled. It's good to see McCain come right out and admit that, but it'd be even better if we started to hold those who are responsible for the current situation, including McCain. And, it's imperative that we avoid making the situation even worse, which the Bush/Kennedy/McCain bill would do.


_"In case you hadn't noticed, the thousands of people who have been relegated to ghettos..._ How many of those "relegated to ghettos" have an education? Or any sort of job qualification at all? Low educational attainment of immigrants, particularly Africans and muslims, most of whom leave school without any sort of certificate, including those born there, is a big problem across Europe. Regarding Hispanics here in the US, the situation is the same. Most Hispanics live in 'barrios', which is a euphemism for suburban slums. There are a number of reasons for this, among them an ethnic/cultural affinity for each other, and a lack of financial means to live elsewhere. In this way, "diversity" is a problem for egalitarian, competitive societies, because it's obvious that some groups compete (academically, economically) better than others. Meaning an underclass distinguished by race/ethnicity is created. Which is a kind of social pathology, exacerbated by uncontrolled immigration (even large scale legal immigration of Hispanics is very unwise, in this sense). McCain ought to know this. But maybe he doesn't. In either case he shouldn't be President.

One more thing: of course most of those "relegated to ghettos" in France live there legally.

McCain must be on drugs or drinking, he's about as coherent as Rosie Odonnel. First most of the rioting immigrants in France are legal immigrants living in state financed ghettos - duh, they're on the dole. France has a very liberal immigration policy and grants temporary legal status very quickly and they shower their immigrants with benefits too, this only whets they appetite for more freebies and demands, it's because they have legal status they riot, it they were illegal & arrested they'd be deported. Giving immigrants legal status in America would only embolden their demands for more *rights*, *rights* meaning rights to reach into mine & your pockets. France is a nation in decline soon to be taken over by a more agressive & faster growing majority hostile Muslim population, McCain proposes we submit to hostile foreign invasion-like France did to avoid the same problems France now has? This strategy is totally incoherent devoid of logic & common sense. The only thing that makes sense with John McCain is he's a slime and on the take and in the pocket of the immigrant profiteers, this isn't the first time McCain has "took a stand" on behalf of a paying customer, remember the "Keating 5" and the multi billion dollar S&L mess? McCain was there also holding the moral high ground too and don't forget campaign finance reform. George Soros-a foreign Communist profiteer can spend $100 million to influence US elections but Joe Six Pack citizen is limited in how much he can donate? Does this clown make any sense to anybody other than Nancy Pelosi?

Perhaps all anyone ever needs to know about John McCain inorder to know who John McCain is and what his intentions are is to know that he and Ted Kennedy are good friends, that they even share vacation times together, or so the news announced a while ago before McCain again set out for the Presidency (most of the past news about McCain has been hushed up accordingly, since then, and in relationship to this disasterously loathesome "amnesty bill" he's part of). Is McCain a Conservative? Is Kennedy a Conservative? No, neither of them are. They're both Socialists with Kennedy's variation being more toward Marxism than McCain's, but still the "values" are the same. They're both out of touch with reality, they're both anti-American in their assumptions that U.S. citizens can't know what's best for themselves nor how to govern their country, and require a strata to rule over them. I don't resent wealth nor discourage wealth building, but in the case of McCain and Kennedy, these are not two persons who have ever had to earn their way independently in what is often a very hostile world and the acquisition of wealth a difficult challenge. It's time to stop the cultural, social fascination that supports the "I was born wealthy" crowd because they clearly lack any relationship with the average U.S. voter and citizen. And they work to undermine what's important to nearly all the rest of us. I include the Bush family in that, as I do others like them who assume that they have some inherited right to govern the rest of us just because their families and their connections can finance their positions in politics. By this point, I'd value much more highly my plumber or car mechanic in a Senator's seat than I would nearly all the Senate bunch we have now. The Feinsteins, Kohl, Kuhl, McCain, the Bushs in their various positions, Kennedys, the whole lot...these are not people who understand what it is to have to dress themselves as children, to figure out how to get to and from a public school (and survive afterward) on their own, who ever understood what it was to have nothing and figure out how to earn their way in the world. With a constant safety net of prestige and provisions, they utterly lack any reality of what life is like for most Americans.

McCain is braindead. Anyone who knows anything about this guy should know to immediately disqualify anything he says about immigration. The same could be said for Bushie, Graham, Lott, Chertoff, etc. and of course practically any Demonrat.

Are they good-hearted law abiding immigrants who just want to earn a living for their family's? or are they rioting criminal anarchist scum who are so lawless that the police can't enter the neighborhoods they have colonized? They can't be both but that is what John McCain now apparently wants us to believe. If they are the former why do they break any and all of our laws that stand between them and a better life without any respect for the rule of law that makes us different from the crapholes they call home? And if they are the latter why in the world would we or John McCain think people like that should be given a shot at citizenship? And to think ... just a couple of days ago President Bush was accusing our side of this debate of empty rhetoric and scare tactics.

"One more thing: of course most of those "relegated to ghettos" in France live there legally. eh" AND are 2nd or 3rd generation. What a great future we have to look forward to!

Just listened to McCain tout this bill. "I understand the problem". (I tried not to laugh, failed). "We must choose between an imperfect bill and doing nothing at all". You know, John, Bush has been very proficient at doing nothing about enforcement for 6 years. Quite the opposite, he has encouraged the invasion. I recommend a vote for your continuation of "doing nothing", rather than pass this garbage amnesty bill. For 20 years we have seen what happens when you do nothing, Washington excells at that. Now do something. Demonstrate enforcement, build the wall. Kill this bill. We can talk again in a few years if you can demonstrate that you can actually do something. No new laws are needed, just get busy.

So the aliens will have a france-style riots? but what if we the people start OUR Own little Riots against the Mexican government and the son called U.S Government that is now attack us all. hey people maybe that would be the way to go? let it all hang out so we can get on with the business of removment people who hate our freedoms. Freedoms is not free, some times blood must be on the ground maybe that is what Bush Rat and McCain both want with a little help from Mexico city and Red China.

Bush sounds truly deranged when he "explains" his amnesty plan. I believe his irrationality on this question is rooted in his long history of substance abuse combined with his rumored all-too-close relationship with his Mexican nanny. Given that his mother is the hard-as-nails Barbara Bush it is not surprising that he was more closely attached to his nanny than to her. Lawrence Auster deconstructs the insane Bush message: (...) In a statement last Saturday at a briefing on the immigration bill, President Bush made it clear that he has no intention to secure the border prior to legalizing all present illegals as well as all future prospective illegals. I realize that sounds like a paradoxical statement, but be patient while I explain. First, here is what Bush said: PEOPLE SAY, WELL, THE BILL IS REALLY--IS NOT GOING TO DO MUCH TO ENFORCE THE BORDER. WELL, THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER IS, CERTAIN ASPECTS OF THE LAW DON\'T COME INTO BEING UNTIL CERTAIN BORDER MEASURES ARE TAKEN. BUT I WOULD REMIND PEOPLE THAT YOU CANNOT FULLY ENFORCE THE BORDER SO LONG AS PEOPLE ARE TRYING TO SNEAK IN THIS COUNTRY TO DO JOBS AMERICANS AREN\'T DOING. YOU CAN TRY, BUT DOESN\'T IT MAKE SENSE TO HELP THE BORDER PATROL DO THEIR JOB, BY SAYING, IF YOU\'RE GOING TO COME AND DO A JOB, THERE IS A LEGAL WAY TO DO IT, SO YOU DON\'T HAVE TO SNEAK ACROSS IN THE FIRST PLACE? IF YOU\'RE INTERESTED IN BORDER SECURITY, YOU\'VE GOT TO RECOGNIZE THAT GIVING PEOPLE A CHANCE TO COME AND WORK HERE ON A TEMPORARY BASIS MAKES IT MORE LIKELY THE BORDER WILL BE ENFORCED. Let's work our way through this amazing statement line by line. Bush: "[C]ertain aspects of the law don't come into being until certain border measures are taken." Meaning, permanent legal residency is not granted until the enforcement triggers are met. Of course, as we know, the aliens get provisional legal residency immediately, which they will never lose, so the idea that legal permanent residency is conditioned on the triggers is the Mother of All Lies. Bush: "But I would remind people that you cannot fully enforce the border so long as people are trying to sneak in this country to do jobs Americans aren't doing." Meaning, we cannot achieve the enforcement targets that are the condition for legal permanent residency so long as people are trying to enter the country illegally. Meaning, we cannot stop people from illegally entering the United States who want to do so. Meaning, we have no intention of trying to stop illegal immigration. Bush: "You can try, but doesn't it make sense to help the Border Patrol do their job, by saying, if you're going to come and do a job, there is a legal way to do it, so you don't have to sneak across in the first place?" Meaning, we can only secure the border AFTER people have stopped crossing the border illegally. And we will get people to stop sneaking into the country by allowing all _Bush: "You can try, but doesn't it make sense to help the Border Patrol do their job, by saying, if you're going to come and do a job, there is a legal way to do it, so you don't have to sneak across in the first place?" Meaning, we can only secure the border AFTER people have stopped crossing the border illegally. And we will get people to stop sneaking into the country by allowing all people who want to enter the country to do so legally and temporarily. The "temporary guest worker" program is limited to 400,000 or 200,000 per year. What if more than that want to come? Bush has already said that as long as more people seek to enter the U.S. than we are admitting legally, they will cross the border and we can't stop them. So, after we have instituted a measly 200,000 or 400,000 "temporary guest workers" per year, and more than that want to come, they will come illegally, and if we don't want them to come in illegally, we will simply have to increase the number of people admitted legally until there is no one else on the planet who desires to enter illegally. Meaning we must have unlimited legal immigration. And even if it's not an unlimited number that want to come, we know that the passage of this bill will trigger (talk about triggers!) a rush of people into the United States to establish a foothold here, knowing that once they are here they will never have to leave, either through the provisional Z visa, or through future Z visas, or whatever. Bush: "If you're interested in border security, you've got to recognize that giving people a chance to come and work here on a temporary basis makes it more likely the border will be enforced." Meaning, all the things that must be done under this law to reach the enforcement targets--the increased funding, the increased manning for the Border patrol, the border fence, the virtual fences, the helicopters--is all a complete fraud. Bush has told us that he has no intention of doing anything to stop people from crossing the border. His only method of stopping illegal immigration is to make all immigration legal. Or, We'll guard that border, after it's gone._

These illegal immigrants are nothing less than a fifth column. The government is afraid to act against them for fear of antagonizing Latino citizens. We already have laws on the books that simply aren't being enforced. I fear that the election of a Democratic Congress and president will set the stage for an amnesty. Milton Freidman once said that if we abolish our welfare programs, open borders would be all right, or words to that effect. Do we really need 20 million additional poor citizens who will demand food stamps, welfare payments, medical care, Social Security and additional assistance? How many more businesses and government agencies ask telephone callers to press "1" to continue the conversation in English? Our European roots and culture are being hacked away by a burgeoning Latino population. If I sound like Ron Paul or Pat Buchanan, that's fine with me. No one in power seems to have the courage to deal head-on with this issue.