cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
bruce MN
Advisor

Re: Immigration reform

What those "smarties" are probably trying to tell you, if indeed they do say what you think that they might, is that you've been plaqued with more than a decade and a half of really hideous policy since the '96 mid-terms when your leadership should have known better.

 

They didn't tell you that, of course, as they've been getting paid by the plutocracy to appease all of you you cultural issue driven little farts. 

r3020
Senior Advisor

Re: Immigration reform


@bruce MN wrote:

What those "smarties" are probably trying to tell you, if indeed they do say what you think that they might, is that you've been plaqued with more than a decade and a half of really hideous policy since the '96 mid-terms when your leadership should have known better.

 

They didn't tell you that, of course, as they've been getting paid by the plutocracy to appease all of you you cultural issue driven little farts. 


If we grant amnesty to 11,000,000 how long before the next 11,000,000 get here? They get amnesty also? I just hope Mr. Kraft is prepared to drastically increase his charitable contributions.

BA Deere
Honored Advisor

Inconvenient truth on Amnesty, Bruce

3020, is exactly right that granting amnesty on 11 million will create another 11 million illegals shortly thereafter.  This was tried in `86 and it flopped, cause the border remained porous.  And that wasn`t a "accident" the AFBF "Bob Stallmans" wanted cheap workers to pick their tomatoes cause "White people don`t do that work, doncha know?"....we got a high real unemployment rate, a comfortable safety net and white people that don`t want to work ...anyone NOT see how this is a disaster???  Mexicans have achieved mythical staus..."They`ll werk boy! They`ll out all day picking tomaters in 130º heat and at night they`ll drywall a entire McMansion in a 1/2hr and all weekends unroll sod ..all for 5 bucks an hour!!!"  with that kind of talk I want a couple Smiley Happy   Liberals knew the demographic change occuring the past 25 years sitting back grinning like a Cheshire cat..knowing get `em over the border and they`re democrats in our safety net for life!http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2007/05/1986-redux-proposed-senate-immigration-reform-repea...    I listen to George Will Sunday saying "We couldn`t deport them!  You`d need a line of buses from Anchorage Alaska to San Diego to fit 11 million illegals!!!!" that`s all r-i-d-u-l-o-u-s, a "strawman"  as Johnaa would say.  Mitt Romney (like it or not) had the most comapssionate, pro-American solution of locking the border and let them "self deport" what could be kinder that that??  go home on your own time.  Sheep herding is boring work that only Peruvians can handle, so ranchers hire them to watch their sheep for a few months in the summer.   They pay the Peruvians well and the Peruvians go home in September to their families ...in Peru.  And come back to do it all again next year, when they retire it will be in their home in Peru...everyone wins!  This is why the best answer is, if white people really are too lazy for some work, a "green card' is the best answer to get Bob Stallman`s tomatoes to market.  John Boehner even said "0bama wants to annihilate the Republican party" well this looks very obvious with "friends" in the media like George Will and Peggy Nooner, I`d hate to see the GOP`s enemies!...grant amnesty to at least 11 million more Democrat voters??? and Krauthammer and David Brooks think that this is a good idea???? Geesh!

Nebrfarmr
Veteran Advisor

Re: Immigration reform

In my opinion (and mine only) 'Amnesty' is not the same as a 'path to citizenship'.

 

Amnesty implies just taking everyone who is illegal, and making the 'illegal' part suddenly be OK.

 

I am meaning a 'path to citizenship' which I don't consider the same thing, it is not a single item, like amnesty, but just one step in the plan.
  In my opinion, the plan might go something like this:

 

1) secure the borders

2) sort out the thugs, gang members, drug runners, and criminals as best you can, and deal with them appropriately (this should be easier to do, once the border is secure).

3) to the otherwise decent people who are here, but don't have full legal documentation, I would be all for an expedited path to citizenship, especially if they are holding down a job, and doing their best to be good members of their community.

 

I know a LOT of conservatives, who would go along with such a plan

 

What they tend NOT to go along with, would be blanket amnesty, for everyone here, including the criminal element, with nothing done to prevent being overrun by MORE illegals, wanting their blanket amnesty. 
Try asking conservatives this question:  "If we secure the borders, would you be willing to give the otherwise law-abiding illegals here an opportunity for expedited citizenship" and see what happens.

 

You may have hit the nail on the head, that businesses would rather have legal workers, than illegal ones, and have to worry about fines, deportation, etc.   However, if the people who want that, support GOP members who also support that.  That is different than GOP members just pandering for votes. 

 

As for bias, I think everyone here, has some amount of bias, myself included.  However, I think we all have differing levels of ability to see through the bias.

 

 

bruce MN
Advisor

It's up to your Party BA

gough whitlam
Senior Contributor

Re: Immigration reform


@Nebrfarmr wrote:

Funny, most of the Conservative people I know, are all for getting those here illgally, but who are otherwise decent people, a good way to legal citizenship.  They, and I realize that they are already here, and we have no practical was to deport them all, so why not find a way for the decent ones, to be able to stay here without feeling like they have to sneak around, and give them a chance for the American dream?   Being here 'legaly' would also make it harder to exploit and bully them, as they wouldn't have the spectre of possible deportation hanging over their heads.

Are you so biased, to think that for some reaosn the Dems that were on the committee, wanted to reach an agreement, that was best for everyone, even if it cost them a bunch of votes, and the Reps, only went along with it, because they were pandering for votes for the next election?


The reasons you give for the decision is correct. The thing being, after the thumping election win, I said they would have to come to the party on some issues as they would forever be seen as complete recalcitrants. This is one of them.  If Obama had won by one vote, they would have snubbed their collective noses at him.  He has gratiously offered them the politics of division, which I explained earlier and the smart ones with a future in politics picked it up and when with him. 

As for these experiencing the "american dream" - not a chance.  In fact, most governments through time have implied it is something everyone should strive for.  But in your heart of hearts, you know this is unobtainable for over half the population in the US and the other half won't let them experience it.  It has been a joke for many years and when those born on the poverty line expect to rise to levels of greatness, barring a selected few, because the gvernment say so, that mentality will cement their future waiting for the dream to happen.

Red Steele
Veteran Advisor

No Fence = No Reform

if we are not going to fence the border and enforce it, why even bother talking about reform?

 

We know where Bama sits on this issue from how his administraion reacted to Arizona trying to enforce border security on their own.