See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Comments

1. #101
   On November 23rd, 2011 at 12:27 pm, Pasadena Phil said:

   I wonder if Newt has a clever opinion about this? I guess the Border Patrol officers had it coming to them?

2. #102
   On November 23rd, 2011 at 12:39 pm, conservative hispanic said:

   CollateralDamage:

   To answer your question: WHATEVER IT TAKES, WHATEVER IT COSTS.

   You offer a false choice, you stupid self-hating American, you.

   People like you will be the end of America. We can’t afford to stop them ,so we’ll let the illegals run wild!! Imbecile.

3. #103
   On November 23rd, 2011 at 12:42 pm, happyscrapper said:

   On November 23rd, 2011 at 12:13 pm, Truesoldier said: Happens everytime there is a Conservative book on there and they will not remove it as they will tell you that these are the opinions of the individual author and not the opinion of Amazon.

   Still, I want to write to Amazon. Anyone know how?

4. #104
   On November 23rd, 2011 at 12:44 pm, Pasadena Phil said:

   On November 23rd, 2011 at 12:42 pm, happyscrapper said:

   They do have a “contact us” link somewhere, probably in the help section. I’ve contacted them myself.

5. #105
   On November 23rd, 2011 at 12:52 pm, mondamay said:

   On November 23rd, 2011 at 12:42 pm, happyscrapper said: Still, I want to write to Amazon. Anyone know how?

   Try this: It’s their “contact us” link.

   http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/contact-us/features-and-services.html/ref=amb_link_47889982_7?ie=UTF8&subject=1&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=center-1&pf_rd_r=1RF3JSXEZMFS7V56YY3A&pf_rd_t=7001&pf_rd_p=1309582982&pf_rd_i=customer-reviews-guidelines

6. #106
   On November 23rd, 2011 at 1:13 pm, Virginia Patriot said:

   Keep electing people who tell you they put foreign nationals above American citizens and you will lose your country.

   How many Americans must die at the hands of illegal aliens before we stop believing the propaganda?

   Almost everyone in the media, unions, churches, government, etc. etc., are trying to convince you that what you know is wrong should continue. Foreign nationals flouting our laws with impunity benefits NO ONE!!

   It continues to corrode the foundations that underpin our society.

   One more amnesty and say good bye to America and the rule of law.

7. #107
   On November 23rd, 2011 at 1:28 pm, Virginia Patriot said:

   All the sob stories about breaking up families is propaganda designed to tug your heart strings. They can take their children with them when they go home. If you were illegally in another country, would you leave your children behind?

   Isn’t bringing a minor across an international boundary without proper documentation child abuse?

   Would you do that? Use phony documents? Take benefits you’re not entitled to receive?

   These are not “good citizens”. They are tresspassers. Stop believing the propaganda.

8. #108
   On November 23rd, 2011 at 1:34 pm, T-Bone said:

   Interesting. Yes, if you take your children with you during the commission of a crime, you are a child abuser. Social Services take children away from parents like that all the time.

9. #109
   On November 23rd, 2011 at 1:42 pm, happyscrapper said:

   On November 23rd, 2011 at 12:52 pm, mondamay said:

   Thank you for that link!! I guess I needed to go to the book review section first. Anyway, I wrote to Amazon and this is what I said:

   Every time there is a new book by a well-known conservative, the reviews are snarky, nasty and most importantly, untrue!! Just because someone hates the author, they shouldn’t have the right to lie about the book and slander that person. If you can’t control these reviews, perhaps they shouldn’t be on there at all. If this doesn’t get resolved, I will no longer order from your site. Thank you for listening.

   Amazon may not pay attention to this right now, but if we start affecting their bottom line, you can bet your bippie they will make a change! Speak up, folks!

10. #110
    On November 23rd, 2011 at 2:03 pm, Pasadena Phil said:

    Pundit and Pundette pretty much nails it on Newt. Not to be taken seriously. Just a self-absorbed windbag.

11. #111
    On November 23rd, 2011 at 2:06 pm, Truesoldier said:

    On November 23rd, 2011 at 2:03 pm, Pasadena Phil said:
    Pundit and Pundette pretty much nails it on Newt. Not to be taken seriously. Just a self-absorbed windbag.

    The only thing I would love to see Newt do is to be the Press Secretary for the new administration. I love the way he handles the press.

12. #112
    On November 23rd, 2011 at 2:19 pm, Dexter Alarius said:

    “Gingrich wants poor kids to be janitors.”

    That’s an entry level job… what’s wrong with that?
    Isn’t that better than being a gang-banger?

13. #113
    On November 23rd, 2011 at 2:19 pm, Bruce said:

    On November 23rd, 2011 at 2:03 pm, Pasadena Phil said:

    Pundit and Pundette pretty much nails it on Newt. Not to be taken seriously. Just a self-absorbed windbag.

    Like you, you mean? Takes one to know one.

14. #114
    On November 23rd, 2011 at 2:23 pm, Roland said:

    1) Correcting the USSC and removing birthright citizenship will take a Constitutional Amendment. That is not going to happen.

    2) Gingrich is strong on border security (remember, border security is why the issue was in this debate), including building a complete fence.

    3) Gingrich supports e-verify, with serious penalties for employers who do not comply.

    4) Gingrich favors ousting all of the illegals who have not been generally good members of our society, including all of the ones who have come here recently and so have no real track record of generally good behavior.

    What Gingrich was talking about with the 25 year family and the 80 year old grandmother were the outliers to the Deport Them All strategy that most American Voters in the squishy middle find unnecessarily harsh.

    What Gingrich would do would be effective, whether or not you approve of his willingness to give a pass to a few good people who jumped the fence because that was the path our government and our society was telling them by our actions was the right way to do it.

15. #115
    On November 23rd, 2011 at 2:51 pm, Hiraghm said:

    On November 23rd, 2011 at 2:23 pm, Roland said:

    1) Correcting the USSC and removing birthright citizenship will take a Constitutional Amendment. That is not going to happen.

    Removing the “natural born citizen” requirement would also require a Constitutional amendment, and yet we ignored that inconvenient section of the Constitution. It would be enough to A) continue the distinction between “citizen” and “natural born citizen”, and B) deport the parents and allow the children to stay as citizens. Put them up for adoption if nothing else.

    2) Gingrich is strong on border security (remember, border security is why the issue was in this debate), including building a complete fence.

    Prove it. Building a “complete fence” isn’t particularly strong on border security. Putting Nat’l Guardsmen on the border with orders to shoot to kill is strong on border security.

    3) Gingrich supports e-verify, with serious penalties for employers who do not comply.

    I do not support penalties for not-using e-verify. This is more of the typical governmental-authoritarian mindset. I oppose crime prevention; I support crime punishment. An employer can use whatever method he chooses to determine legal status; but if he’s caught with an illegal as an employee, the penalty should be harsh. There’s NO reason to require the use of e-verify, except to set yet more precedent for the infringement of civil liberties, and to reinforce the idea that the real problem is evil Americans who must be controlled and monitored.

    4) Gingrich favors ousting all of the illegals who have not been generally good members of our society, including all of the ones who have come here recently and so have no real track record of generally good behavior.

    That would be all of them. But he doesn’t favor deporting all of them. So this statement is false.

    What Gingrich was talking about with the 25 year family and the 80 year old grandmother were the outliers to the Deport Them All strategy that most American Voters in the squishy middle find unnecessarily harsh.

    Deport the squishies along with the illegals then. I’m tired of seeing my country destroyed because anyone is allowed to have a say, even though they can’t be bothered to do their homework.

    What Gingrich would do would be effective, whether or not you approve of his willingness to give a pass to a few good people who jumped the fence because that was the path our government and our society was telling them by our actions was the right way to do it.

    “Effective” would depend upon what effect you want. Would it reverse the destruction of our culture? No. Would it restore to proper citizens the jobs and even entire segments of the economy appropriated by those 25 year occupiers? No. Would it punish them for the harm their very presence and unwillingness to assimilate have caused? No. Will it repay the billions of tax dollars they’ve appropriated over the years, illegally? No. Would it encourage more recent invaders to come forward, take their lumps and get at the back of the line? No, it would encourage them to try staying in the country under the radar, hoping that after enough years, the idiots will once again foist another amnesty on us.

16. #116
    On November 23rd, 2011 at 2:55 pm, Hiraghm said:

    Oh, and Roland, there’s something else this “grandfathered” illegal alien invader policy would leave intact:

    The network of illegals now embedded in the nation, which will provide logistics and other support for, not only recent invaders, but the drug cartels and terrorists.

17. #117
    On November 23rd, 2011 at 3:02 pm, Hiraghm said:

    “By the way, I think the fence is least effective. But I’ll build the godd***ed fence if they want it.” – John McCain

    To heck with a fence; I want Hadrian’s Wall. It was effective for a very long time. Of course, it had troops stationed along it, with authority to kill invaders.

    The Great Wall of China was nearly 4,000 miles long. With modern technology and tools, we should be able to build much better fortified walls than either the Romans or the Chinese of those eras.

18. #118
    On November 23rd, 2011 at 3:08 pm, Roland said:

    There’s NO reason to require the use of e-verify, except to set yet more precedent for the infringement of civil liberties, and to reinforce the idea that the real problem is evil Americans who must be controlled and monitored.

    The requirement to use e-verify removes the excuse of “I did not know they were illegal.” Without removing that excuse, serious penalties that would really deter the use of illegal labor are effectively impossible.

    Deport the squishies along with the illegals then.

    How? It is politically impossible. Between the Left and the squishes, they have us outnumbered by at least 2 to 1.

    The rest of your points fall under the ‘not really addressing what I said’ category. You are failing to grasp that there might be an illegal or two here who have actually been assimilating.

    The removal of the jobs magnet and the ejection of the actual bad element would go a long way toward accelerating that assimilation.

19. #119
    On November 23rd, 2011 at 3:13 pm, Roland said:

    With modern technology and tools, we should be able to build much better fortified walls than either the Romans or the Chinese of those eras.

    Yes. And that combined with the removal of the jobs magnet and enforcement of existing law will fix the problem over time, whether or not we let some percentage of the best of the current illegal population stay.

20. #120
    On November 23rd, 2011 at 3:19 pm, Roland said:

    The requirement to use e-verify removes the excuse of “I did not know they were illegal.”

    BTW, e-verify does not take away any existing rights. The requirement for withholding and reporting for Social Security already exists.

21. #121
    On November 23rd, 2011 at 5:01 pm, Blackstone said:

    On November 23rd, 2011 at 1:01 am, Roland said:

    The way to stop illegal immigration is to turn off the magnet. The magnet is not the possibility that 25 years later there will be an amnesty (the last amnesty was in 1986).

    The magnet is work. The magnet is money.

    Gingrich is as strong as anyone on clamping down on employers using illegal labor.

    He supports e-verify.

    An even better way to shut off the magnet than to get the feds involved in something like “e-verify” (which, let’s face it, is a little difficult to find justification for among Congress’s enumerated powers) would simply be to unleash the states, and let them continue to do what Arizona’s doing, only with even more autonomy.

22. #122
    On November 23rd, 2011 at 6:23 pm, Roland said:

    On November 23rd, 2011 at 5:01 pm, Blackstone said:

    Some states would do nothing, or worse.

    If most of the states dealt with it responsibly but a few big ones like California acted as magnets, then the illegals would all go to the irresponsible states, and then those states would get more representation in Congress and the Electoral College.

    The invasion is a nationwide problem. Of course states should not be deterred from doing their own enforcement, but it would insufficient by itself if the magnet is not turned off.

    BTW, Obama and the Democrats have actually done a reasonably good job of turning off the magnet with their aggressive, widespread destruction of jobs. The Democrats are even bragging about how much more effective Obama has been than Bush was.

23. #123
    On November 23rd, 2011 at 8:32 pm, Blackstone said:

    If most of the states dealt with it responsibly but a few big ones like California acted as magnets, then the illegals would all go to the irresponsible states, and then those states would get more representation in Congress and the Electoral College.

    Cut off their aid. Then see how chipper they’ll be about acting like “magnets” on their own (non-existent) dime.

24. #124
    On November 23rd, 2011 at 10:35 pm, ChapBix said:

    Extending some form of legal status to long-term illegals would be the undoing of the legal immigration process. Why bother going through the lengthy, expensive legal process when you can eventually have legal status, albeit twenty five years, after entering illegally?

    Wonder how long it will take for the open borders crowd to press for full citizenship of these former illegals? Which politican wants to stand in the way of that?

25. #125
    On November 23rd, 2011 at 11:52 pm, ChapBix said:

    And who wants to wager that twenty five years would be the earliest that an illegal would be given legal status? Why not twenty, or fifteen, or ten? In their (ie. open borders politicians) haste to place more illegals on the voting rolls as Democrats should be enough to inform us that it would be well south of twenty five years.