Posted on 06/07/2006 7:46:22 AM PDT by Reaganwuzthebest
Sensenbrenner said again for the 100th time a few days ago he's not signing off on any "path to citizenship". He must be one of those back in Washington Bush was referring to.
He has a Harvard/Yale education, yet this guy can barely form a complete sentence.
I would not sign it either.....its illegal..period...make the fines tougher every year...today $3,000...in two years $20,000 and 10 years in jail...then see if the illegals leave...they will and would...but the politicians would NEVER pass something that works...I am a disgusted American
Nope. Dubya just does not get it. We have a path to citizenship now and millions of people have gone through the difficult, expensive, process. They start the process from their home countries by applying to the American consulate.
If you notice that's exactly the direction every other country in the world is taking, including Mexico yet we're supposed to follow the destructive "path to citizenship" line. Thankfully the House isn't buying it.
Let's see, he wants to give them immunity from the existing laws, money they don't deserve, a path to citizenship without going through the regular channels and let them jump ahead of people who are trying to become legal residents and citizens by following our laws and he says this isn't amnesty. How stupid does he think we are? Pretty damn stupid from the looks of it.
To call the Senate bill simply 'amnesty' can be misleading. It is not FULL amnesty. However, it is PARTIAL amnesty. To say it's not amnesty at all is simply a lie. I don't think it's possible to state this too strongly. There will be some kind of amnesty. (There's not enough political support for even a reasonable application of current law on illegal immigration, i.e., no amnesty at all.) It won't be FULL amnesty. The real question is what degree of amnesty.
An Ivy League education isn't what it used to be. :)
When 70% of this country realizes that we need to take steps to control illegal immigration, maybe Bush should remember he is the President for only all LEGAL Americans and stop this nonsense.
But, then again, maybe people are calling it amnesty because that is what it is.
And illegal aliens already have a path to citizenship. They can apply just like anyone else. What the President and Democrats in the Senate are trying to pass is a PRIVILEGED path to citizenship which rewards criminals simply because they've violated our borders already and have been able to elude law enforcement authorities long enough to qualify.
Toss that around, Mr. President.
Here's an idea: Send the National Guard to Fox's palace and ORDER that the Mexican government WILL allow american oil companies to drill for oil in a country with one of the largest proven oil reserves in the world.
Whazzat you say? You didn't know our outrageous oil prices are due to Mexico's refusal to allow foreign oil companies to explore and profit from their finds?
The wall Mexico has built against oil exploration is higher than any wall ever conceived of by our border patrol. Further, the standard of living in Mexico, if all the new oil royalties were not looted, would be as high as ours.
The usual penalty for illegal entry or violating terms of a visa is removal from the United States..anything less is amnesty, if they don't go to jail but are just removed, I guess one could also call that partial amnesty...but being allowed to work and stay here is a reward and is more than being forgiven, it is more than amnesty. Rob a bank and keep the loot ? What do you call that?
And just where did you read this? Not in that article. He has clearly said that according to his plan, the illegals would have to go through the same vetting procedures as legals (criminal background checks, employment certifications, etc.), but they would have to pay a fine for breaking the law and would be placed in line behind those who are legally coming in.
No - I don't say toss them out.
I say take away the job opportunities by putting the screws to those that hire illegals. I say take away all government benefits such as food stamps, welfare, free medical care, waiver of out-of-state tuition, etc. I say if we quit making it easy and profitable for them to stay they will leave of their own accord.
If I break into a house and I am caught, I do not get to keep the property I have taken unlawfully. The property will be taken away from me.
If I commit bank fraud and I am caught, I do not get to keep the money I have obtained unlawfully. The money will be taken away from me.
If I commit tax fraud and I am caught I do not get to keep the money I retained by fraud. This will also be taken away from me.
If I steal someones identity and get caught, I do not get to keep the forged drivers license, birth certificate, and checks. These are taken away because they do not belong to me, even though I may have paid to have them forged.
If an alien enters this country unlawfully, or illegally stays after entering lawfully, then they are an illegal alien. They should not get to keep their residency here in this country (which was obtained illegally). Their residency should be taken away from them.
If they DO get to keep their residency here, or get some sort of advantage over those who have waited in line, then this is amnesty. Amnesty by any other name is STILL amnesty.
The concept is simple, but some pretend not to understand.
Sadly, it reminds me of Clintoon arguing over the definition of the word "is".
I agree and say that the senate bill is "amnesty plus." Mere amnesty would be saying "cease and desist, but we won't penalize you for your past violations of law" (unlike, for example, the UAE, which IIRC levied a fine on people in the UAE illegally - equal to something like $30/day for each day they had been present). "Amnesty plus" says "continue on as you have, and we won't penalize you for past violations of law.'
No Mr. President, I get scared when you continue to propose amnesty. Please reconsider your position.
Officer: I clocked you travelling at 88 mph in a 65 mph zone. We don't tolerate such flagrant violations of the law in the Great State of XY.
Motorist_1: Sorry officer, but I'm not from here. I was just violating the limits that the residents of XY are no longer willing to violate.
Officer: How long have you been doing this?
Motorist_1: About 6 months.
Officer: Enjoy your visit in XY and speed no more.
Officer: I clocked you travelling at 94 mph in a 65 mph zone. We don't tolerate such flagrant violations of the law in the Great State of XY.
Motorist_2: Sorry officer, but I'm not from here. I was just violating the limits that the residents of XY are no longer willing to violate.
Officer: How long have you been doing this?
Motorist_2: About 5 years.
Officer: Can you prove it?
Motorist_2: Yes, I have a receipt for the purchase of my fake drivers license in April of 2001.
Officer: Very well, enjoy your visit in XY. Put this bumper sticker on your car and you will be free to continue at 94 mph and not get pulled over.
Oh, an amnesty.
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.