 | ||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||
|
« Back Home | Main | Flickriffic » November 28, 2005Borderline MadnessHossein Derakhshan, a/k/a "Hoder," the Iranian-born Canadian-citizen blogger who spoke at BlogNashville last May, has been barred from entering the U.S. for six months by, well, by one of the federal idiots in charge of our borders. The Committee to Protect Bloggers has the details and relevant links. We can't seem to stop millions of illegals coming into this country from Mexico, but Hoder - who helped foster the growth of the Iranian blogosphere that has become a bane of the Iranian regime's existence - they stop at the border. Posted in Miscellaneous
Comments
So are you (and seemingly most everyone except me) upset because Hoder "...helped foster the growth of the Iranian blogosphere that has became a bane of the Iranian regime's existence" and therefore worthy of special treatment or because it has been established that he broke no immigration laws? Or is there some other reason? Posted by: Doug at November 28, 2005 4:52 PMIt's a wierd juxtaposition to have you fretting over this guy not getting back into the US while two posts down a fruitcake that you invited to blog here is railing against letting anyone into the country. Posted by: Michael Chaney at November 30, 2005 8:54 AMFruitcake? And, um, she doesn't rail against lettting "anyone" into the country. She argues for better controlling our borders against illegal immigration. Posted by: Bill Hobbs at November 30, 2005 9:37 AMYes, fruitcake. I would just say "racist" and get it over with, but I'd guess that white "forners" wouldn't be welcome, either. It's just generic bigotry. If you'd take 5 minutes to read anything that she's posted or linked to, you'd find that the problem isn't "illegal immigration", it's "immigration". Read "A question of balance" below and note that she does not differentiate between the two- only you do that in the comments. There was an earlier article that she posted stating how much of a burden immigrants are on the US (again, the article specified that there's no difference between legal and illegal in this regard). A doctor friend found that one particularly insulting, as did my wife. It's okay. I noticed early on that most people who are railing against illegal immigrants (job-stealing forners, all of them!) are really using that as a front for their bigotry against all foreigners. Donna Locke has proven that point graciously. Oddly, Bill, I don't think you fall into that category. But you need to pay attention to who you're aligning yourself with, because I think they have something different in mind. Posted by: Michael Chaney at November 30, 2005 5:10 PMMichael, The desire to greatly reduce immigration, illegal or even legal, does not make one a racist or a bigot. A big focus of Donna's is on the President's amnesty plan for the 12 million people already here illegally, mostly from Mexico and Central/South America. Is that automatically racist? No. Having said that, it is true that our "immigration" policy is in bad need of reform both for illegals and legals. And I'd probably be more draconian than Donna. If I was in charge, we'd have barred all immigration from the Middle East for 2 years immediately after 9/11 (as well as visits on tourist and student visas) for example - or at least barred Saudis from entering. Given who attacked us on 9/11, that would have been prudent. We'd also be building a wall along the Mexican border to stop the invasion of our country by millions of people from Mexico and points south - as well as closing a door al Qaeda can use to get into our country. We'd also be slowing the influx of legal immigrants who lack skills or education, and ramping up the influx of educated, skilled immigrants. Posted by: Bill Hobbs at November 30, 2005 6:40 PMThe funny thing is this, Bill. You and I agree on most points. Donna does not agree with us. The main difference between you and me is that I understand that without the current crop of illegals in the country, our economy would wither and die. They are pushing the housing boom, and taking jobs that would otherwise be empty. Even with 11M+ illegals, we are at full employment (blame the Bush tax cuts). But I believe in severely limiting middle-east emigrants (although we must be careful not to punish Copts and others who are fleeing oppression), and trying to get more skilled labor. This month's Reader's Digest has an excellent article on the current problems that we're facing in this regard, by the way. But you and I both note that there is a difference between legal and illegal immigration. Again, reread Donna's posts (or, more probably from your response here, read them for the first time) and you'll see that she's got a problem with "forners" in general. Job-stealing, white-culture-killing, non-English-speaking forners. Hmm, where did I read that? Oh yes! Now I remember. http://groups.google.com/group/nashville.general/msg/a00f8b1d3557479d Post a comment
Comments Policy: Your comment is subject to deletion if it is off-topic or includes foul language or personal attack. Readers, please email me if you find comments that include egregious violations of this policy. Comments may not post immediately - do not post twice!
|
|||||||||||
