What should be done about illegal immigration?

But slogans work; that's the reason Bush uses them often - even when the underlying proof for success doesn't exist.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

by the most conservative calculations, 5 to 10 million are travelling to Mexico via cruise ships,

Finally I found some data:
according to this source
6.5 million visitors and more than 3,100 cruise ships came to Mexico from various destinations in 2005 (NB: not only USA), while 9,671,000 Americans were passengers on any cruise in 2005 according to Cruise Lines International Association.

So, you're very correct here again. (And I'm pretty sure, your 20 million Americans visiting Europe is fine as well.)

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
by the most conservative calculations, 5 to 10 million are travelling to Mexico via cruise ships,

Finally I found some data:
according to this source
6.5 million visitors and more than 3,100 cruise ships came to Mexico from various destinations in 2005 (NB: not only USA), while 9,671,000 Americans were passengers on any cruise in 2005 according to Cruise Lines International Association.

So, you're very correct here again. (And I'm pretty sure, your 20 million Americans visiting Europe is fine as well.)

Well my estimates were off the top of my head and I could be wrong about the actual totals. But the point I was attempting to make was that it isn't that hard to go to Mexico from just about anywhere or it isn't that tough to go most places other than Mexico either.

Congress can always make special dispensation for the few who honestly cannot go home and figure out some other way they can be accommodated without giving them preferential treatment.

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
by the most conservative calculations, 5 to 10 million are travelling to Mexico via cruise ships,

Finally I found some data:
according to this source
6.5 million visitors and more than 3,100 cruise ships came to Mexico from various destinations in 2005 (NB: not only USA), while 9,671,000 Americans were passengers on any cruise in 2005 according to Cruise Lines International Association.

So, you're very correct here again. (And I'm pretty sure, your 20 million Americans visiting Europe is fine as well.)

None of which makes the slightest bit of difference to her point... that anyone not making the trip would stick out like a sore thumb. No, they wouldn't. The idea that they'd all be leaving at the same time is hilarious in its preposterousness. As if any bill is going to legalize them for business' sake, and then turn around and paralyze those same businesses in such a fashion. It's NOT going to happen that way. If the moronic policy of A->B->A is adapted; it will:
A. Allow a reasonable time frame so as not to disrupt the flow of business.
B. Not expect them to go without guaranteed re-admittance.

or it will C. Fail.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Liberals swallow Idealitstic statements?

This from the party of 'stay the course?' 'If we come home, they will follow us' and 'No end but victory!' ????

Too funny

Cycloptichorn

"a thousand points of light"

"just say no"

"culture of life"

"the moral majority"

"peace with honor"

"FREEDOM FRIES" ????

yowwwwwie!!!

0 Replies

oh. and;

"NEW WORLD ORDER"

0 Replies

You forgot "compassionate conservatism." We just don't do body counts of Iraqis killed and maimed.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

How about Edward's assertion the "War on Terror" is concocted just for fear. There is no threat? Is that idealistic or realistic?

What I suppose he meant that Bush used the war on terror to create fear and get himself re-elected and for cover to excuse all the problems he managed to create.
Note: the greatest threat we face comes from the dodo in the White House.

0 Replies

au: Note: the greatest threat we face comes from the dodo in the White House.

And the support from (now and dropping) 32 percent of the American voters and our congress who doesn't know how to follow the mandate given to them last November.

0 Replies

And only 26% of Americans support this ridiculous immigration bill.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

au: Note: the greatest threat we face comes from the dodo in the White House.

And the support from (now and dropping) 32 percent of the American voters and our congress who doesn't know how to follow the mandate given to them last November.

The American electorate voted the clod in the White House and now expects congress to right all the wrongs that created as easily as switching on a light of turning off the faucet. My fear is that they will go from right wing conservatism to left wing radicalism. Which is no better.

0 Replies

HokieBird wrote:

And only 26% of Americans support this ridiculous immigration bill.

Hi, Hokiebird and welcome to A2K. We are happy to have you join us.

I am a bit of a political junkie and I, to tell the truth, can make no sense of this immigration bill and all of its ramifications. People who should be supporting it aren't and vice versa.
Unfortunatelly, this thread has been pretty much poisoned. Perhaps there will be a new one that that will go through the legislation thoughtfully. But I doubt it.

0 Replies

rjb, You should start one; I'm sure many will participate. T.

0 Replies

realjohnboy wrote:

I am a bit of a political junkie and I, to tell the truth, can make no sense of this immigration bill and all of its ramifications.

But the 51% of Democrats and 48% of Republicans that have read it and can make sense of it oppose it in its current version.

Quote:

People who should be supporting it aren't and vice versa.

Its based on a set of triggers that must be met prior to starting the 'regularization' process and in my opinion, no one trusts that those triggers will be fully met.

Quote:

Unfortunatelly, this thread has been pretty much poisoned. Perhaps there will be a new one that that will go through the legislation thoughtfully. But I doubt it.

If you mean the bill has been poisoned, Sen. Kyl said yesterday that amendments are being made and considered, so we'll just have to wait and see if they're amendments that will be acceptable to each side.

0 Replies

To start with your last point, hokiebird, the bill has not been poisoned. This thread has been by the screaming going back and forth.
Many of us have been here for almost 5 years. That doesn't give us any status, but it does give us a bit of perspective about A2K and the spirit in which it was founded.
Civility. That is starting to disappear on A2K. I find that troubling.

And I find it troubling that your mind is made up, hokiebird, on this or perhaps every other issue. You don't want to listen, discuss, gently debate. You might just want to scream out repeatedly your version of the truth.
Fine. But please give us, those others of us, the space to mull over things. Is that too much to ask?

0 Replies

au: The American electorate voted the clod in the White House and now expects congress to right all the wrongs that created as easily as switching on a light of turning off the faucet. My fear is that they will go from right wing conservatism to left wing radicalism. Which is no better.

I do not believe for a moment that congress is up to the task to find solutions for the mess Bush created; I do not believe anybody now alive is able. If Bush is successful in prolonging this criminal war until past his term, the next president will be responsible. If congress continues to falter as they are doing with Bush, nothing positive will result. The only solution that I can see is to get rid of most in congress who voted to extend this war. It seems the message the voters sent to the democrats have failed.

Bush and his minions continued to tell the American People that they would provide whatever the generals asked for to fight this war. The unfortunate truth is that the generals know they cannot ask for the 500,000 troops to win this war in Iraq. There's a huge problem when the president continues to tell us this war against the terrorist must be won, but he wants to accomplish this important task with a volunteer military; can't be done. If it's that important for the security of the US and the world, they need to implement the draft. That is the only solution to win. All other plans are plans for failure. With the increase in terrorism, we may need more than the 500,000 troops that would have been successful in 2003. I don't trust Petraeus to tell us the truth; his plan is the military and diplomacy at current levels. As a strategist, he has failed the laugh test.

0 Replies

realjohnboy wrote:

To start with your last point, hokiebird, the bill has not been poisoned. This thread has been by the screaming going back and forth.
Many of us have been here for almost 5 years. That doesn't give us any status, but it does give us a bit of perspective about A2K and the spirit in which it was founded.
Civility. That is starting to disappear on A2K. I find that troubling.

And I find it troubling that your mind is made up, hokiebird, on this or perhaps every other issue. You don't want to listen, discuss, gently debate. You might just want to scream out repeatedly your version of the truth.
Fine. But please give us, those others of us, the space to mull over things. Is that too much to ask?

Please point out to me in which part of my post you feel I was 'screaming'?

And how is it you can come to a conclusion that I have made up my mind on every issue? I don't even think I've seen you on this or any other thread in which I've participated.

0 Replies

realjohnboy wrote:

Many of us have been here for almost 5 years. That doesn't give us any status, but it does give us a bit of perspective about A2K and the spirit in which it was founded.
Civility.

Really. Have you even read this thread? I only started reading it in the last couple of weeks or so, and I have to say I didn't see much of this 'civility' of which you speak so fondly.

I really think you have a lot of nerve lecturing me on 'civility', 'screaming', and having my mind made up.

Not only are there those here to whom that criticism would fit, but you could also have thrown in something about 'name-calling' and disallowing posters to voice their own opinions.

Since when is calling people idiots, haters and bigots "listening, discussing or gently debating"?

Maybe you could spare a lecture or two for that person.

Or, is that too much to ask?

0 Replies

hokiebird: The word "screaming" was not intended to apply to you but rather some of the stuff going on in the 10 or 12 or 15 pages earlier. I apologize for putting that word in front of your name.
As for the last paragraph, hokiebird, this immigration bill is so damn complicated in its ramifications. I find it difficult to believe that anyone can understand it enough to have come to a conclusion. That was what I was attempting to say on this issue.

0 Replies

realjohnboy wrote:

hokiebird: The word "screaming" was not intended to apply to you but rather some of the stuff going on in the 10 or 12 or 15 pages earlier. I apologize for putting that word in front of your name.

Apology accepted.

Quote:

As for the last paragraph, hokiebird, this immigration bill is so damn complicated in its ramifications. I find it difficult to believe that anyone can understand it enough to have come to a conclusion. That was what I was attempting to say on this issue.

It is, but I've mentioned specific portions of it at least a couple of times here to open 'gentle' debate with no responses.

What about the bill, exactly, are you deeming so 'damn complicated'? Perhaps we can discuss the issues without either of us being called names or shouted down for voicing our opinions.

0 Replies

What should be done about illegal immigration?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know