Posted on 04/06/2006 8:33:43 AM PDT by STARWISE
FNC reporting compromise is dead.
Now Ted "swimmer" Kennedy talking.
Saying emotional people sidetracked compromose and vows to continue.
Mine too! I almost feel sorry for those folks, considering the outrage by the general population that is broadsiding them on this. Something they did not plan on, it seems. I have a notion they are all beginning to shake in their boots, waking up to the fact that the country is waking up.
Did someone start a LIVE thread?
Opps - here it is: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1610892/posts
Wonder what percent is that of the total they didn't capture and how many of that unknown percent are actual terrorists?
If they admitted that six of the 96 alien terrorists that are in country were involved in the 9/11 attack, what is the true number of the homicidal crazies still running loose here?
Well, thank you then for confirming that when you claim to be opposed to illegal immigration, you're not being truthful.
H.R. 4437 needs to be passed yesterday, funded and implemented by Monday. That is, if all this Homeland Security stuff isn't just a pile of doodoo. The "911 Commission" should have been about REAL SECURITY!
I don't know the status on Hagel Martinez at this point, but I'd hate to be one of the Ted Kennedy Republicans and run for re-election.
The Republican Party is now pretty well defining itself into two wings: The Ted Kennedy wing and the Republican wing.
By the way: I got the very first copy of my book "Immigration Politics" yesterday. It is pretty darn good if I do say so myself. (only read halfway through so far).
So far it is available at the publisher, authorhouse.com It will be available from amazon.com probably within a few weeks.
Assuming it gets a decent amount of interest, I plan to follow up with Immigration Politics 2 next year, which will document what has happened starting with HR 4437.
By the way: Someone said Hagel and Martinez voted against Hagel/Martinez, because it had enough votes to pass without them?
I have heard of cases where politicians who favored something that would get in political hot water if they voted yes that have been allowed to vote no if the measure is sure of passing.
But to vote no on their own bill? I have never heard of such a thing. I mean, that would immunize them from the public outcry that will hit those who supported Hagel/Martinez? It makes no sense.
Hey, I just heard on the radio that Hagel Martinez went down.
(KABC 790)
John McCain vowed to fight on. No doubt. But losing two weeks of momentum will make it harder for the Kennedy (Hagel/Martinez) bill to pass.
If they knew it was going to fail, it is standard to vote with the majority vote in order to be in a position to immediately move for re-consideration, which is what happened.
The minority voters cannot move for re-consideration. There's always a remote possibility that the move for re-consideration could be effective in reversing the vote if new information was made available that was not available before they voted or during the roll call, from what I understand. But that would necessitate that one of the pro's would have to vote nay to be on the majority side in order to move for re-consideration.
Thank you. My wife and I are being very patient. I'm Canadian so English wasn't an issue for me, but she is Japanese and firmly believes that if you move to a different country, you must know the local language. SHe has become quite proficient in English, sometimes inadvertently using minor 'colorful' language at unexpected times!
It is mind-boggling to me that the gummint is tossing the dice on this -- weighing the benefits of illegal alien labor against the losses of possible terrorism because of open borders.
Whoops:
I originally misread your statement as saying Hagel/Martinez voted no because they knew it was going to pass, I reread your post and saw that you said they knew it was NOT going to pass.
OK, that makes sense then.
I am opposed to illegal immigration - I prefer the Senate verision of reform to deal with it though - I also don't want terrorists or other criminals "illegally" immigrating.
There is no such thing as 100% secure - closing the borders would not even do that - there were hundreds of escapes over even the Berlin Wall.
I heard Tom Tancredo on before that, and afterwards the host urging listeners to stop contributing to the GOP national party but send money to Tom!
HR 4437 was "passed" already. The Senate is simply debating their own version of immigration reform. Once that passes, then we will be even. The real fight will be Conference Committee and what version (if any) gets to the President's desk.
Yeah, sure - if we put up a fence that was 95% effective, you would be against it.
- I prefer the Senate verision of reform to deal with it though
Which deals with it by surrendering to it.
- I also don't want terrorists or other criminals "illegally" immigrating.
Well, then, you should be opposed to the Senate bill:
In 1986, the terrorist Mahmud "The Red" Abouhalima fraudulently got amnesty as a seasonal agricultural worker (in fact, he was a New York cabbie). That status allowed him to travel to Afghanistan for terrorist training - which he later used as one of the 1993 World Trade Center bombers.
Terrorists know how to game the system. Janice Kephart, former counsel to the 9/11 Commission, released a study last year on how easily terrorists obtain immigration benefits. Of 94 alien terrorists in the United States, she found that 59 were successful immigration frauds. That includes six of the 9/11 hijackers.
The Senate bill does nothing to address this problem - while throwing a massive new load on the bureaucracy. A new amnesty will almost certainly ensure that more terrorists gain the legal right to walk our streets.
They will no doubt show their appreciation by attacking innocent Americans. And that will be the nastiest surprise of all.
------------
So you say you are opposed to illegal immigration, but also say you would opposed a fence even if it kept 95 percent of them out. And you say you don't want terrorists to immigrate, yet support a bill that would make it easier for them to do such.
Methinks you are being less than forthcoming about your actual positions. Maybe now you should fall back to your old threadbare talking point that a few posters on FR are opposed to legal immigration.
Then we might as well give up on trying to enforce any laws or fight the WOT, because nothing will ever be 100% effective.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.