Amendment to immigration bill would slam door in face of terror advocates

Senate web site ^ | April 4, 2006 | Unknown

[3AngelaD]

Amazing this is still true.

[B Knotts]

Unbelievable that we don't already have such a thing on the books.

[BenLurkin]

What do we do with the Michael Moore and Ward Churchill types who are already here?

[taxed2death]

Can we "Grandfather" this in to include all the anti American protestors in LA two weekends ago?

They seem to want to overthrow our government and way of life.

LA would be a good start

[edcoil]

“This amendment says, simply, that if you advocate terrorism,"

Define terrorism?

Under Clinton, those that defended the Constitution or spoke of the Bill of Rights "too often" were considered domestic terrorist.

[Final Authority]

Another BS law when the border is an open sewer of Mexico's human effluent. If a terrorist is committed to his craft, killing Christian and Jews, women and children, then they just go to Mexico laughing all the way, buy a bus ticket right to the border, and walk across the fenced border that GWB won't build or defend.

The law, like gun laws, only operates when people are law abiding and offer themselves to be screened for a visa. Yea, the terrorists will absolutely do that. Right!

[Proud_USA_Republican]

They should call it the "Yale Taliban" clause.

[BlueStateDepression]

Define terrorism?

Terrorism: The act of attacking to harm and kill a civilian population for the purpose of forcing a government(s) to take,or not to take, certain actions.

Let this defenition be clear. Attacking military targets under the rules of warfare accepted by the world is not terrorism.

Cults/gangs that act without the label of a state are also committing terrorism regardless of who or what they attack.

In its simplest form, attacking civilians as the primary target in a military mission is terrorism.

What is your defention of terrorism?

[edcoil]

Yours sounds reasonable - my point was the previous President had a different definition. It should be in the legislation and not open to each administration.

[sheana]

By the time they get done with this "immigration reform" bill there is no telling what it will look like. You can already call it "no illegal alien left behind".
These people will wind up compromising away our soverignty.
Oh wait, they already did.

[BlueStateDepression]

I think you make a great point. The USA, the UN, Europe, and the rest of the world need to come together and define what terrorism means in no uncertain terms.

When this is actually done, I offer that there would be alot more agreement on what to do about it when it rears its ugly head. When the debate is about what terrorism consists of...how can a strategy of dealing with it gain any consensus?

Some folks think that dissent is the only and most important thing. They fail miserably with their ideology when their dissent disallows even such things as a simple accepted defenition of something as straight forward as 'terrorism'.

[stopem]

Lol, what else give them a worker program and amnesty and extend their citizenship?:)

"This amendment says, simply, that if you advocate terrorism, you lose the privilege of coming to the United States,” Senator Allard said during a floor speech in the Senate. “Incredibly, that is not the rule under current law and U.S. Department of State regulations.”

You think? no one knows who snuck into this country, no one knows exactly how many are here, no one knows the true intent of the invaders but yet we are going to offer all sorts of rewards, free medical care, free housing anything else they can think of for tapayers to pay for to support them. Since we have no idea what their true intent (and please stop saying they are here to do jobs America WON"T do)is than do not pass any immigration legislation. This is a threat to national security right now of epic proportion not knowing how many are here, who their employers are, and worse of all their true intent for sneaking in!

Oh yes and, it was my understanding that demonstrating is a right of Citizens not illegals.

[BlueStateDepression]

You can already call it "no illegal alien left behind".

I will be happy to back such a slogan.

Providing the context is deportation. ;)

[edcoil]

As you know, the UN does not define "suicide bombers" as terrorist or terrorism.

[BlueStateDepression]

Oh yes and, it was my understanding that demonstrating is a right of Citizens not illegals.

I agree, and it is my understanding that when citizens of a foriegn country do it inside a nation not their own....its called a foreign insurrection.

Somehow I must have missed that 'right' in the bill of rights or the constitution./sarc

[BlueStateDepression]

Indeed the UN has yet to come up with a serious definition for this. It is high time this bridge be crossed.

I think I remember reading where they have trouble with defining WMD also. Seems like a common problem at the UN......he he...imagine that.

[edcoil]

It is interesting on definition. Yesterday the jury of Moussaue (sp) noted the the airplanes used in hitting the WTC were WMD.

[3AngelaD]

Sounds good to me. Now if we could just agree on what "is" is.

[BlueStateDepression]

9 11 showed that intended USE is the issue, I think that bolsters the definition I hold. I sure do wish that people could come to a common agreement on what 'terrorism' actually is. But I suppose that is reaching to far....

[BlueStateDepression]

Yes, I have to agree, the "is" debate would have to be settled first. LOL.