Posted on 04/07/2006 7:17:28 AM PDT by Mo1
On that note,Patriot act comes to mind also ;)
Good post
If Frist had been a good leader, he would have found a way to get all his republicans to vote yes for cloture on HIS bill.
They would have known the democrats would block it anyway, and could have used the vote to prove the democrats don't want to stop illegal immigration, and only support it in their version of the bill because they want to legalize the illegals so bad.
But with so few republicans voting, it's a hard argument.
Thanks, I turned the channel as he was finishing..and couldn't figure out why he was so mad...
I figured he was spinning that report yesterday of Bush's so-called "leak" into the end of the world...
My Senators are Patty and Cantwell.
Cantwell's up for election and there be a long shot she'll listen...but not holding out much hope. Still, they are getting my views. I DO have a Republican Congressman, and he's heard my complaints about the performances of the Majority since last election. ;-)
Tom was on a local L.A. talk-radio staion, KABC 790, and (shockingly) after the interview, the host said EXACTLY that - stop contributing to GOP national party and send money to Tancredo ; )
Don't get started on the "leak".
It's stories like this that make it clear the media is biased. Every thinking person knows that the President is the one that declassifies stuff.
In fact, every day congress asks the President to declassify secret reports so that congress can hold public hearings.
Every NIE report we have seen has come through this process, where the President determines that parts or all of it can be declassified.
So for ANY reporter to use the word "leak" to describe this is dishonest.
My "point" is that you are not "putting it in context of the reality of today" (if you don't like the word "attack") for those who ARE on your side but also point out that no bill is better than a bad bill. Get it now?
99% is not worth the cost.
There are improvements that could be made to the old law, agreed, just as there are improvements that could be made to applications for VISA's.
The key here really is willingness to enforce our laws. Without that anything else is dead as far as acceptance coming from the American people. Our representatives have a chance to prove they will do so by enforcing what we've got first, and they don't even have to wait until they get 60 that will agree and not filibuster legislation.
It really is the practical solution for now to dealing with this problem. It gives Republicans credibility on the borders, it begins to get the problem under control, avoids making it worse, and can be implemented immediately.
The fact they aren't enforcing those laws is living testimony that the current bills are not serious. Only a means to amnesty.
And, yeah. In past elections we've had campaigns about Character (post-Clinton/Gore/Bush 2000), WOT, Iraq, Judges, Taxes etc...D.C. isn't going to want to make this campaign about immigration. Dems want a "Culture of corruption", Reps want to run on the old platform they've let largely drop once they were elected. I don't see why D.C. pols should set the table of issues to discuss this fall when its clear the American people have made this their premier issue for '06. At campaign events, make them take a stand. Ask questions. The base needs to force it of both Dems and Reps running in their areas for election.
I am not "okay with foreigners breaking US laws, distrupting our employment process, undermining our social welfare system and stealing from the American people." I simply prefer the Senate version of immigration reform to deal with all that. I have stated several times I am fine with jailing / deporting ALL other criminals / any illegal alien who does not want to be a U.S. citizen. As for terrorists, they can be shot on sight.
You bet - bring it on!
Assuming we are at 5% effectiveness then, let's start with 10% effectiveness before we shoot our entire wad on 100% : )
The reality of today is that we need a bill even if that bill only states that enforcment of laws currently on the books HAVE to be enforced.
What you miss is that they have a very different position than you do and are not happy with status quo as you are. This means they have a totally different reason for not wanting a bill than you do.
Law breaking goes on today at our border an across the nation by those illegals working. You like it that way and you call it an attack when I inject the rule of law.
It is your position stick to it. In a nutshell, your opposition to the house bill is opposition to enforcing the law. Deal with your own position.
OR
Offer up how you would prosecute the illegal act of entering this nation without permission and obtaining work when not qualifying to do so.
You would not prosecute them for coming here in fact you would reward them. You would not prosecute employers either. Care to post where I am wrong by showing us all what your prosecution for law breaking would be? I would love to see it.
Are they at least 5% secure?
There are times when it is just best to sit back and let the dems make a fool of themselves
Levin defending Al Jazeera is one of those times
Even a wall that is 99% effective allows in 50,000 criminals and terrorists. I'd much rather spend the money being proposed for a wall on catching 50,000 terrorists ; )
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.