Posted on 04/07/2006 7:17:28 AM PDT by Mo1
LOL - here is the proposed RULE OF LAW that I believe in:
"Illegal immigrants who have lived in the United States for five years or more, about seven million people, would eventually be granted citizenship if they remained employed, had background checks, paid fines and back taxes and learned English. Illegal immigrants who have lived here for two to five years, about three million people, would have to travel to a United States border crossing and apply for a temporary work visa. They would be eligible for permanent residency and citizenship over time, but they would have to wait several years longer for it. Illegal immigrants who have been here less than two years, about one million people, would be required to leave the country altogether. They could apply for spots in the temporary worker program, but they would not be guaranteed positions."
We've been here already. ANYONE WITH HALF A BRAIN KNOWS THAT NO BORDER CAN BE 100% SECURED. I said stopping 95% of illegals is better then what we have today. That would be roughly 33%. Huge difference.
Doing whats right is passing conservative policies into law. Supporting and promoting liberal policies is deadwrong.
Btw, this idea that polls are meaningless, is fabrication of the status quo that dwells in FReeperland. While a single poll by itself doesn't carry much weight, paying attention to overall polling trends is something worthwhile and action that is relevent to politics. You can believe that Bush, Cheney, Rove and others in the Executive Branch are paying attention to the polls. You can bank on it!
Which is why I'd much rather spend the money being proposed for a wall, that said plane will just fly over, for identifying and catching (or killing) actual terrorists.
Yes clawrence that is rewarding illegal behavior. Funny thing is you call it law and it is nothing of the kind. You really do no understand that do you.
The law noe says a judge is to decide and deport. You do NOT belive in that do you?!
ONe poll really matters...the one in "writing" on voting day. Politicians better think about that.
Actually, the "proposed" law (that's what I called it) still allows for that but changes the appointment procedure for immigration judges.
Only you RM could consider charity work "criminal".
So then you are saying that the only way you will accept rhe rule of law,or proposed law, is when you agree with it?
Are you saying you reject current law or do you accept it?
That is what you support. Okay. Then you support liberal immigration policy. Period.
YOU SUPPORT AMNESTY!
Fact is, that spending that money doesn't guarantee that you will catch one terrorist.
Your argument is so stupid as to be beyond belief.
You are actually telling us that we cannot secure the border, and catch terrorists elsewhere at the same.
That this money will miraculously end up by catching Osama and others, if we only let in these poor wonderful lawbreakers.
Of course, according to your logic, we had best all do nothing about terrorism either, because spending 80 billion dollars does not guarantee that we will catch 100% of the ragheads.
You are pushing a fools argument on people who know better, desperately trying to prevent them from doing anything, because, according to you, it cannot be done.
Like a deer caught in the headlights of an onrushing car, you would have us freeze and do nothing.
You can take that fallacious argument and put it in your burrito.
We know exactly what you want, and we know that you are lying about your motives.
and that is an insult to our collective intellect.
Oh, I pay attention to polls, and more importantly actual voting stats - I just don't base doing what is right on said polls - what is RIGHT is recognizing that terrorists coming over LEGALLY is a much greater risk than ILLEGALLY.
I consider breaking the law "criminal". Bozo!
If charity crosses the line into illegal behavior then accept it as it is. ILLEGAL.
Aiding and abetting a criminal does not become a moot point simply because it is deemed religious or even humanitarian.
Unless of course you put religion above the law, is that what you are saying Dane?
We capture terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan that are injured. Indeed we provide humanitarian medical care and even provide religious items to them...BUT WE DO NOT JUST LET THEM GO!
They become illegal when they overstay their visas right?
And yeah you wish to make charity work by Churches a criminal offense.
You guys are making stalin proud, IMO.
I am not lying about anything - even ReaganMan agrees that no border is 100% secure - he thinks it is 33% secure right now. I happy looking at ways to increase that to 66%. I just think it is a waste of money to take it all the way to 99%.
I believe so.
Dane the act is what it is. Aiding a criminal is illegal. Crossing the border without permission is a criminal act.
You are a spin meister dane.
Gotcha, a vegetable picker=terrorist to you.
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.