"Well let me be clear I am not for a blank check. ..
I am not for auto citizenship for all the folks here illegally. ... But I agree I don't think there should be 11 million new citizens in the next few years."
Niether am I, but if you look at McCain-Kennedy, it *is* a blank check.
"I have some knowledge of the Hispanic community because of my family on my wife's side. That community has been shown to not like illegal immigration by pretty big margins. However, I have heard objections even from many that want illegal immigration stopped to some proposals."
Thank you, that's my point - being for amnesty is hardly the sole Hispanic voter position of thise who are here now, legally. You point about being sensitive to their issues is well-taken. there is a range of views as in any community, as in US as a whole. But most people are common-sense, and the common-sense position is to support reasonable levels of legal immigration and oppose excessive illegal immigration.
"I guess that is my point that this could backfire when it really doesn't need too."
You are right. Felony provision is an example. It was in HR4437, and the Republicans wanted to take it out, but Democrats voted to keep the felony provision in the bill, solely so they could have an issue to demagogue over and make the House Republican bill seem overly punitive.
"I have not bought into the idea that these illegals will be dems forever if they became citizens. For instance how many people that were granted amnesty in 1986 and their families have punched the GOP ticket at some point."
Hispanics vote about 2 to 1 for Democrats today. The poorer and less educated they are, the more likely they vote Democrat. You want more Republican hispanics? Create more middle-class hispanics, it's the only way! I am only telling you basic political reality - it will be *generations* before most of the illegals-turn-amnestied-voters become Republicans. In the mentime, the Democrats get a big boost.
Moreover, they've reaped political benefits already on this as a Republican 'wedge' issue.
"As to anchor babies. Yes you are right the parents had the kids here. Hoverever the kids had no choice in that matter. The people known as "anchor babies' are Americans and will ever be Americans."
If they have their citizenship, it's a done deal. But the fact is that there are many cases of parents using the birth of their children to 'game' the system. I dont see anything wrong with putting a name on that abuse.
" I however have no problem getting rid of birthright citizenship for future children if it can be done."
It can be done, and it would DRAMATICALLY improve the whole immigration picture, by eliminating the biggest loophole in immigration policies.
" One problem when the term "anchor babies' is used is that I don't think its clear to certain segments of the largely Hispanic community(and others) that when there is talk of eliminating birthright citizenship that is prospective only. Believe or not there are people that believe that Congress wants to revoke their citizenship. "
We cant be fully held responsible for the fear-mongering on the other side, that make people believe things that are outlandishly false.
Moreover, while there has been talk of ending birthright citizenship, it's not in HR4437 and its not likely to be on the table for discussion. Some people have the mistaken impression the 14th amendment requires it (it doesn't at all) and that impression makes it hard to make real headway on it.