Posted on 04/07/2006 7:17:28 AM PDT by Mo1
I have (obviously) been too busy to look up the Federalist Papers reference for you , but trust me, you are completely wrong about the Senate being the "will of the people" - if you are still interested, try a Google search on "cooling saucer" House Senate : )
That's exactly why I am more concerned about the determined terrorists!
There are more effective, and less costly, ways to make sure people actually go through a legal point of entry.
You may think that is funny. I do not. Promoting liberal immigration policy is wrong. Especially on a conservative website.
>>>> Here's my "best way" to reduce terrorist attacks - kill them over there before they get here. As a back up, make sure anyone identified as a possible terrorist NEVER makes it through a LEGAL point of entry. After you do all that, then we can talk about a wall.
Stay on topic. We're talking about illegal immigration in general. 10% of all illegal border crossings are made by criminals. How many border crossings are being made by potential terrorists, is anyones guess. Bottom line. Terrorists are here in the US. Securing the borders will stop the criminals and the terrorists at the same time. Understood?
I said it was to keep the senate from imposing it's will on the people.
I'll take a look when I get a chance.
Sounds more like closing the barn door after the cows got out.
Incentives like those being debated in the U.S. Senate, for example. Decreasing the massive backlog in the LEGAL immigration process. Free lollipops for every immigrant, for goodness sake, would be less costly than $80 billion.
You are right about that. The House and Senate are a comprimise not unlike that of the Electoral college.
States have even rights of representation in the senate and the house balances that power with the population being able to have an equal say regardless of state boundries.
Arguments on both sides of law making and elections brought valid points to the table. Most of those surrounding the rights of the states and the rights of the people in them to have equal representation.
Like what kind of incentives clawrence?
The problem all along has been not securing our borders. You say shutting our borders down now, would be an effort in futility. That is 100% wrongheaded reasoning. Not securing the borders is what liberals and libertarians want. Conservatives want the US borders secured. NOW! 83% of Freepers want HR 4437 passed into law. ASAP! Stop promoting liberal immigration policy. Its WRONG!
NO BORDER IS 100% SECURE! I am fine with increasing the percentage it is secure, but not with wasting all our effort to make it 99% secure. And, I am obviously part of that 17% of Freepers (on this and on the Dubai ports deal too, I will note). Doesn't both me one bit. I thought it was always our mantra to do what is right, not what the polls say.
I was fine with the "amnesty" provisions offered today.
What is right consists of the people of THIS nation deciding who we will let into OUR country WHEN we will let them in and HOW we will let them in. How about we take a VOTE in referrendum form on that clawrence? Would you support the outcome of such a thing?
What is wrong is for a massive illegal invasion to dictate to US what OUR policy will be. That is a foreign insurrection clawrence.
Then you support rewarding illegal behavior and cannot possibly believe in the rule of law or its enforcment.
That would make a good name for a drink in a Republican coffee shop.
If there is such a thing. :^)
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.