What should be done about illegal immigration?

[quote="OCCOM BILL........................

High Seas wrote:

> that the fastest way to destroy the Federal "social programs" is to bankrupt the Federal government, and the fastest way to do THAT is to allow 12 to 20 million illegals currently here, plus up to 4 family members each, to automatically benefit from said social programs having contributed little to nothing into them.

Never underestimate mathematicians, starting with yours truly

Funny you should bring up your 'mathematician' status, while vomitting up such nonsense. Watch: IF 20 million Mexicans brought 4 family members each; that would total 100,000,000 new legal Mexican residents. Do you think that's a rational fear? Laughing

Were this to happen; future migration couldn't be much of a problem because the majority of Mexicans would already be here. (There's less than 110,000,000 Mexicans living in Mexico).[/quote]

_____________________________________________________________

LOL - that's idiocy crossed with illiteracy, with some deep Freudian unconscious association thrown in!

The term "illegals" is interpreted by your tiny brain as "Mexicans"?! Keep at your keyboard, you provide the dismal science with much-needed comic relief Smile

0 Replies

I really wonder what the dems are thinking when they pull a stunt like this...

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/06/06/congress.immigration.ap/index.html

Quote:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A bipartisan immigration bill narrowly survived a potentially fatal challenge on Wednesday when the Senate turned back a Republican bid to limit the illegal immigrants who could gain lawful status.

The close vote on a proposal by Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, to bar felons -- including those court-ordered to be deported -- from legalization reflected the delicate position of the contentious immigration bill, which remains under threat from the right and the left.

So the dems want to allow those illegals convicted of a felony,AND those court ordered to be deported,to stay and become legal??

That makes me wonder what this bill is really about.

0 Replies

I see why so many have already learned to ignore you High Seas. Think I'll joing them. Go on and keep pretending you're fooling someone. Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

I see why so many have already learned to ignore you High Seas. Think I'll joing them. Go on and keep pretending you're fooling someone.

Thank you ever so much, Occom Bill! A greater favor you couldn't possibly bestow on anyone Smile

0 Replies

All I can say to e_brownp and all the others supporters of the "amnesty" bill is this:

HARDEHARHARHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

0 Replies

cjhsa wrote:

All I can say to e_brownp and all the others supporters of the "amnesty" bill is this:

HARDEHARHARHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

So CJ, you prefer the status quo to compromise.

This isn't good for your side, and it isn't good for the country.

This bill was the best the conservatives are going to get. A bill with a path to citizenship will pass, although it may take some time. Unfortunately (for you) it doesn't look like the country, or the Congress, or even the presidency is moving in a conservative direction.

0 Replies

No, I prefer illegals go home. Soon. Time to take off the kid gloves. No more anchor babies.

0 Replies

cjhsa wrote:

No, I prefer illegals go home. Soon. Time to take off the kid gloves. No more anchor babies.

Well that ain't gonna happen.

What you are cheering is two more years of the same. More shouting. More division.

There will be more towns passing anti-immigrant laws with all of the angry shouting and charges of racism. There will be more towns declaring them selves sanctuary cities with all of the angry shouting and charges of treason.

There will be more lawsuits from both sides. There will be more politicians attacking more politicians.

There will be two big losers-- one is the Republican party, which more than the Democrats will tear itself apart over this issue. You already see Republicans attacking Republicans (against Reagan's 11th commandment). Of couse, I don't think this is a bad thing at all.

But the other big loser is the one that really bothers me-- the American worker. The status quo not only keeps the "illegals" here and does nothing to stop them from coming-- but it keeps them here with no rights.

The combination of keeping them here, and giving them no rights, is the worst possible thing for American workers.

A compromise would be good for the country. It is too bad that your side is preventing one from happening.

0 Replies

June 9, 2007
Kennedy Plea Was Last Gasp for Immigration Bill

0 Replies

ebrown,
You are eright,a compromise will be good for the country.

But it would have to be a real compromise.
First of all,the immigration laws already on the books would have to be enforced before new ones are passed.
Last year congress approved the building of a fence,why hasnt that been built yet?
I supported the amnesty plan that Reagan proposed,because congress and Reagan said it was a 3 part plan.
Part one was amnesty,part two was better border enforcement and part three was tougher immigration laws.

The only part of that plan that was ever implemented was the amnesty part.
So,I wont support a new plan that allows amnesty.
And there is no other way to describe this bill.
Remember,the Senate killed an amendment that would have barred legal status to those illegal immigrants convicted of a felony or already under a court order of deportation.Even those people would have been allowed to stay and would have been made legal.
That is nothing else but amnesty.

So,lets compromise.
First,lets secure the border and stop more illegal immigrants from coming in to this country.
Then we can figure out what to do with the illegals already here.
After all,you gotta plug the leak before you can bail out the boat.
The Senate bill would have had us not only not trying to plug the leak,we wouldnt have been allowed to try and bail out the boat.

Once the govt starts enforcing the current immigration laws,then we can work on writing new ones.

0 Replies

You do understand what compromise means, don't you mysterman?

By definition, a compromise contains something for each side of the debate.

mysteryman wrote:

You are right,a compromise will be good for the country.

Quote:

So,I wont support a new plan that allows amnesty.

'nuff said.

0 Replies

"The chance to create meaningful immigration reform legislation was lost the moment the bill emerged from its closed-door meeting with an immediate path to amnesty for anywhere from 12 million to 20 million illegal immigrants,"

I agree with the above statement. It was also surreal watching Sen. Sessions on C-SPAN having to explain to Democrats why the bill should be amended to bar felons and sex-offenders from 'regularization'.

0 Replies

Well then,

As long as your side's unwillingness to compromise on any of its hardline positions is blamed for the status quo... After all, this is the second Immigration compromise bill that has been squelched by Republicans reacting to the hardliners in its base.

It is also nice to see that the prominent politicians launching very personal very public attacks against each other on this issue are all Republicans.

Let's all join in that great conservative cheer-- "Three cheers for the status quo!!!".

0 Replies

HB, Your use of the word "amnesty" is completely out of line. The new bill would have required illegal immigrants to wait much longer than legal immigrants to access American citizenship. That's not "amnesty" by any stretch of anyone's imagination except for people who keep using that word. People's use of that word do a disservice to reach agreement on this very important issue.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

HB, Your use of the word "amnesty" is completely out of line. The new bill would have required illegal immigrants to wait much longer than legal immigrants to access American citizenship. That's not "amnesty" by any stretch of anyone's imagination except for people who keep using that word. People's use of that word do a disservice to reach agreement on this very important issue.

Do you read the stuff you post? That quote was taken directly from the article you shared.

But, yeah - I think it's amnesty. So does much of America - Democrats and Republicans alike.

You're welcome to your minority opinion, of course.

0 Replies

HokieBird wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:
HB, Your use of the word "amnesty" is completely out of line. The new bill would have required illegal immigrants to wait much longer than legal immigrants to access American citizenship. That's not "amnesty" by any stretch of anyone's imagination except for people who keep using that word. People's use of that word do a disservice to reach agreement on this very important issue.

Do you read the stuff you post? That quote was taken directly from the article you shared.

But, yeah - I think it's amnesty. So does much of America - Democrats and Republicans alike.

You're welcome to your minority opinion, of course.

Hokie - my impression here is that CI doesn't make the distinction between "citizen" and "legal resident" - sure it's amnesty, instantaneous and unconditional, for the illegals who aren't interested in citizenship, but conditional for those interested only in legalizing themselves as residents.

Perhaps I misread his post, but that's the only logical construction I can place on it.

0 Replies

The word "amnesty" doesn't explain what was intended for the illegal immigrants already here. Most people define it as easier access to citizenship over legal ones - which isn't the case. That's the issue I'm trying to explain.

Over and above all that, we can only blame our federal government for not enforcing illegal immigration laws already on the books, and not securing our borders.

Illegal immigrants continued coming across our borders to seek jobs that companies hire(d); they in effect also broke the laws. Do you want our government to start penalizing all of them? That's not realistic or rational IMHO.

My conclusion has always been that unless our government enforces laws they themselves establish for illegal immigration, there's not much we as citizens can do. As the current congress is unable to agree on new legislation, we're back to square one. Nothing we can do about that, either.

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

"Three cheers for the status quo!!!".

0 Replies

Why the Senate Immigration Bill Failed

The immigration bill failed because a broad cross-section of the American people are opposed to it. Republicans, Democrats, and unaffiliated voters are opposed. Men are opposed. So are women. The young don't like it; neither do the no-longer-young. White Americans are opposed. Americans of color are opposed.

The last Rasmussen Reports national telephone poll found that just 23% of Americans supported the bill. When a bill has less popular support than the War in Iraq, it deserves to be defeated.

There is no mystery to why the public opposed the bill. In the minds of most Americans, immigration means reducing illegal immigration and enforcing the border.Only 16% believed the Senate bill would accomplish this goal.

0 Replies

Congress was flooded with communications that overwhelmingly opposed the bill. Almost without anybody favoring it at all. I heard numbers like 1,000 to 1 against, etc. etc. This is not rocket science. Any dummy can figure it out. Apparently, some in Congress, plus Bush, haven't figured this out yet.

0 Replies

What should be done about illegal immigration?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know