Posted on 04/07/2006 7:17:28 AM PDT by Mo1
In the end we will get a guest worker (that's a reality) ... because most Americans aren't against some sort of quest worker program .. BUT it would depend on the wording
Though with that said .. majority of the people won't go for it until the border security is built up and made stronger first
HR 4437 is the consensus piece of immigration legislation in Congress right now. You're out of step with over 83% of FReepers/Lurkers, the vast majority of conservatives and a majority of Americans too boot. What's up with you? I guess you must be okay with foreigners breaking US laws, distrupting our employment process, undermining our social welfare system and stealing from the American people. Not to mention drug running and other related underground criminal activities. Let's not forget, possible terrorist activities.
DeWine's uppance is coming in November.
We'll have to wait another 4 years to get a shot at Voinovich.
I could go along with enforcing our current law but I would support illegal entry being bumped up to a felony, along with the same label being assigned to those that knowingly hire illegals.
I agree totally that we need to remove the choice of inaction from them. Wether that pertains to reforms in the law and to enforcment of old laws or a new one. They are all there to take a stand and it is time they do so openly for all to see what exactly they stand for and against.
I wouldn't call em trolls so much as I would say they hold an ideology of being against something instead of being for it.
I offer that they would see much error in their own ways if they would be honest with themselves and everyone else by posting what it is they are really for rather than what they are against.
This would force them to back illegal invasion and argue only it's merits. Then they would have to weigh the good and the bad in their decision making process rather than argue an incomplete position that rests soley on feelings about part of the issue while they ignore other parts of the issue.
Carl Leven is defending Al Jazeera
"100% secure is impossible, even with an Israel-type wall."
Fine... we can shoot for 99%.
:)
That isn't an attack clawrence. What I said is a simple truthful statement about your position as you stated it.
When I disagree with someone ( no bill is better than a bad bill) how exactly are they on my side? That makes no sense clawrence.
You do not like what I said to you and you call it an attack. Think now clawrence all I did was say what you yourself said and added in the context of today...that being the lack of adherence to the rule of law.
It isn't my words that you take offense to clawrence. Indeed it is your own position that you take offense to when you are shown the context of your very own position when applied to the reality of today.
In essence you are trying to blame me for your position.
I love it.
I am truly amazed at how some people will say that is just OK and be happy with continuing with more of the same.
Yeah, and it doesn't look like there are any Republican Senators willing to stand up and smack him for it.
> wouldn't call em trolls so much as I would say they hold an ideology of being against something instead of being for it.
Fair enough, but this is the one issue that 90%+ of their posts are about, and I submit that they are Open Border all the way.
Were you to look back at Dane's history and listed evey post on the subject, it would take more time than actually sealing the border - which they both say is impossible, which is also the key to proving the rest of your post.
clarence3 could be his cousin LOL!
Sure it is. After spring break and belt-loosening dinner parties? We will see what effect their own constituents have on them, finally.
I am all for the position he is hollering about right now. IF IF IF IF IF people would stand up and call BS when an entity like NYT or Al Jiz writes what they write.
Where I seperate with his argument is that too many times those types say and print things that are just outright lies and people like him do NOT call BS on them.
I don't have C Span. How on earth did AJ get into this and why is an American Senator defending them?
Oh nooo, we tremble in fear...LOL.
sw
I have no problem with people being for open borders. I am 100% against that position but I do not seek to take away their choice to have that position.
What I do seek is to have them argue their position on the merits for all to see, rather than against other people's position.
Dissent is great and a healthy part of our political lives. Too many times though some offer the dissent without an alternative solution. Were they arguing on the merits of their true position and offering alternatives that qualify their opposition then people could easily pick which position they support.
I will offer that some folks KNOW their position is a tiny minority and they fear losing the debate and the vote to the majority. Their answer is to simply offer opposition without solution in order to pull a heartstring or two to get folks to follow their idea that no action is better than action.
Some people refuse to accept that they cannot have their way regardless of how many people vote against it. They answer this refusal by disallowing the vote in order to claim ill gotten victories thru inaction.
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.