I understand what O'Reilly is saying.
I have been accused of being a "racista" because I believe that illegal immigration is illegal, i.e. rule of law!
Me a "racista"?
Yes, you are a "racista" in the US if you don't agree with certain people about illegal immigration.
My views have been posted before:
I am an immigrant, i.e. a very proud naturalized citizen!
I want the US to allow people to come legally to the US.
I have consistently favored a "work visa" or something similar to the "brasero" program that worked so well in the 1950's.
Again, it was the Dems, and the labor unions, who forced Pres. Johnson to cancel the "brasero" program in the mid-1960s.
I want people to learn English and US history. I lived in Mexico and did not expect official forms to be in English!
Most important, I want the rule of law. I want the US border to be respected, along with any other border in the world.
What's the alternative to the rule of law? Can you say chaos and anarchy?
As we've posted before, the "rule of law" is "business 101" if you want to attract investors, special foreign investors.
Why will anyone invest in your country if contracts won't be respected and observed?
Mexico 1982: Does anybody remember Mexican Pres Lopez-Portillo "expropriating" the banking system because he had to blame somebody?
No rule of law. It took years for Mexico to regain favor with foreign investors who were thrown under the bus by the corrupt and irresponsible Lopez-Portillo!
Over the weekend, The NY Times published a terribly dishonest editorial about conservatives who oppose illegal immigration.
I guess that this the kind of dishonesty that you'd expect from an organization "going out of business".
Here is the bad news. This is the same dishonest newspaper that we've known for years.
Here is the good news. The NY Times is going under. It was literally saved by Mexican entrepreneur Carlos Slim.
A $250 million loan with 14% interest?
We need Carlos Slim in the Obama Cabinet. At least, he understands how to extract a good deal from a failing business.
He probably does not have a tax problem, either!
You can read it, if you can stand it: The Nativists Are Restless
By the way, The NY Times is actually wrong about Hispanics and immigration in 2008.
Like other voters, Hispanic bought into "change" and decided to give Dems a chance.
It was not a referendum on immigration reform:
"The Center for Immigration Studies has released a new Backgrounder challenging that assertion. “Latino Voting in the 2008 Election: Part of a Broader Electoral Movement,” by Prof. James G. Gimpel of the University of Maryland, argues that GOP losses in the election were not limited to Hispanic voters and not affected by the immigration debate." (Latino Voting in 2008)
Last, but not least, The NY Times has found a tough opponent in Bill O'Reilly. Put your money on O'Reilly, at least he is not going out of business anytime soon:
