Nice link if you are illegal...

[Bud Williams]

 

[Steve McKellop]

I hope that targeted group in NC reads this! :angry:

 

[Richard McAlister]

Sad when we have articles such as this one telling people the best place to be illegal. I wonder if there is such an article telling bank robbers, murderers, and other felons the best place to escape justice?

:soap:

 

[Bud Williams]

And it's Fox News link...?!? so much for the Liberals saying Foax News is sooooo unfair....

 

[Bill V]

And it's Fox News link...?!? so much for the Liberals saying Foax News is sooooo unfair....

Bud, read the article. It's definitely written from a right-wing perspective. This does nothing to make Fox appear any closer to "center" than they ever have...

 

[H D]

Bill,



What would a left-wing perspective have included? Would it have just mentioned areas of the country where federal laws don't apply?

 

[Rodney Leary]

The article was obviously written in satire and is dripping is insincerity. Mostly it's pointing out the areas of the country that have high illegal immigrant numbers and aren't doing much to stem the flow.



I don't know why supporters of Fox news get so bent when someone points out it is a conservative news channel... are conservatives saying their own views are a bad thing? You should accept it and own it if you believe what you and Fox preach... don't fight it. if you feel all other news channels are liberal, than you should be happy you have your own news channel to give you the opposite view, right?



In my opinion, all these 24 hr news channels don't report the news anymore, they sensationalize it for ratings. Whether it be right or left slanted. And if you eat it up and spew it back out as the truth, then you are doing exactly what makes them rich.

 

[Les]

Bud, read the article. It's definitely written from a right-wing perspective.

So, Bill, you are saying protecting our borders is only a right-wing concern?

 

[H D]

That's the way I read it, Les.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Left, right... douche-bags on both extremes IMHO. As I stand in the middle I see the chest beating and ******* actions and comments from both sides.



No sane person wants our borders to be wide-open.



Then again, no sane person wants to pay higher prices for many of the goods and services they enjoy that would certainly come if illegals somehow went away.



No one wants the ills caused by some of the illegals, such as crime, overburdened schools in impoverished neighborhoods, drain on healthcare and other services.



I think the war on illegals is a lot like the war on drugs, etc. There are those that profit from the war and the illegal activity, and there are those that pay a high price for both.



Frankly, as I see it, mostly the politicians are benefiting from the so-called war on illegals. It allows them to play their parties and the zealots within like the fiddles from hell that they are.



Way to let yourself get programmed and lead folks.



How about thinking for yourself, all?



Did you ever consider questioning "why" there are these safe harbors for illegals? Did you ever question "how" we might both stem the tide AND retain the best of the illegals that provide valuable services to us?



TJR

 

[H D]

I don't have a right wing or left wing stance on this issue. I'm not even sure what that would mean. That's why I asked Bill for his left wing version, if this article is right wing.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Hugh,



There are those that feel that the right is tough on illegals and that the left goes easy on them. I find that line of thinking to be far too simplistic. Most conservatives try to be pro-small business and anti-government expansion; such would imply some level of support for figuring out a way to legally retain the workers that are beneficial to small business.



I don't necessarily see this as a polarizing issue, but like so many other issues in our country we the people seem to allow our politicians and the media to turn it into such.



TJR

 

[H D]

Our politicians are good at making up polarizing issues to throw the trail off of their true dealings. Obama hasn't really been much different from Bush except where he wants to spend all the money we don't have. The financial security of our nation is second in importance only to personal freedom, in my opinion. The rest of it is just details affecting those two priorities.

 

[Bill V]

Hugh, Les, Bud, rather than me basically retyping it, read Rodney's post. He clearly gets the obvious tone of the article, where it seems you do not.

 

[H D]

I get the sarcasm. I don't think it's becoming of a news organization, either. I only asked what the liberal stance would be.

 

[Kevin Lang]

I don't know why supporters of Fox news get so bent when someone points out it is a conservative news channel

Perhaps it is because when Fox news is described as "conservative" by many, the word is used as a euphemism for untrustworthy, and is ironically delivered with condescension and contempt?



Also perhaps because the same people who turn "conservative" into a curse and make a point of always labeling Fox News as such continually fail to label MSNBC et al as "liberal" with the same regularity?



Though you have a point. The derision of Fox News really shouldn't affect fans of Fox as the people who generally label Fox News as "conservative" in such a fashion as to try to denigrate it are usually the same idiots who think that spelling Fox News as "Faux News" is a pun, the pinnacle of wit, and makes sense. Anyone with any sense, regardless of their opinion of Fox News, can see that using the French term for "fake" in lieu of "Fox" is a failed pun as the pronunciation is vastly different; the words aren't homophones. :banghead:



FYI I do understand that the article was written in a massive tongue-in-cheek/facetious tone, that was what I first assumed when I read it. Text really needs a way to convey a facetious/sarcastic intent. I also thought the article was funny, but in a sad way, as I live in Maryland and it is all too true what the article says about the 7th state. :cry: :boohoo:

 

[H D]

I think I asked my question incorrectly, so I'll try to amend it.



What would a completely non-politically biased reporting of the facts presented in this article look like?



What title would convey the main point without seeming biased?

 

[Les]

Mostly it's pointing out the areas of the country that have high illegal immigrant numbers and aren't doing much to stem the flow.

Bill, as I asked before, what makes guarding and protecting our borders right-wing? I would think it would be a concern of all legal citizens. But I guess this is OK with you.

 

[H D]

Just another chance to lash out at Fox news. It's hard to argue against the facts of that article, regardless of the tone used to present them.

 

[Bill V]

:banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead: