Posted on 05/13/2007 8:53:31 PM PDT by AmericaOne
My Senators are Cantwell and Murray. To them, I am less than a lowly serf.
“All indicators point to a vote in the senate by Monday or Tuesday at the latest.”
UH ... What bill are they talking about ?
My senators are Feinswine and Boxer.
It's the president pushing for amnesty that worries me most.
What is about Malkin’s article that is supposed to get all our pistons firing?
Burr and Dole. I’ve contacted them about a number of issues, the war and illegal immigration being at the top of my list.
Thanks,
Bill
Harry Reid has scheduled debate to begin this week on a comprehensive immigration reform (read Amnesty) bill. Since there is no new bi-partisan amnesty bill ready yet, Dingy Harry is set to bring last years Senate Amnesty bill, S-2611, to the floor for a debate.
Just what makes these bills "amnesty" bills? I'm with you as far as opposing bills similar to S-2611, but I don't understand why people confuse them with amnesty.
From where I sit, the question is whether or not the price of legalization is high enough, requirements to qualify are rigorous enough, and the punitive actions against law breakers, including employers, are severe enough to discourage future illegal border crossers.
I sent them a note as well at their website. They are the ones who posted the action alert, so they should be keeping up with this kind of information. As you obviously know, the fight against amnesty is important, so my tone probably came off angrier than it should. I'm sorry if I offended.
Bill
I do know that Dingy Harry has scheduled debate to begin this week on comprehensive immigration reform (amnesty) and has stated that if there isn't a bi-partisan amnesty bill produced, he will re-introduce S-2611 (over GOP objections) and begin the debate with that.
I will definetly remember next time not to post any action e-mails here or elsewhere unless there is a specific bill number included in the action alert.
” and the punitive actions against law breakers, including employers, are severe enough to discourage future illegal border crossers.”
The key is cracking down on the employers - the old lady in the park who throws the popcorn out to the pidgeons is the one you need to stop if you want to keep the poop off your windshield.
Thanks for being on top of this issue.
If Reagan called it amnesty, then it is amnesty.
Any bill that lets the illegals stay here and be put on a path to citizenshp if they pay a token fine and meet token requirements is what I and most (and even President Reagan if he were alive today) would call an Amnesty, even if it includes tougher employer sanctions. The 1986 amnesty law included tougher employer sanctions and border security along with a "one time" amnesty.
The sanctions and border security provisions in the 1986 amnesty have never been seriously enforced since by any administration. There are also more illegals poring over our borders and thru our other ports of entry than ever. What makes you think that amnesty along with tougher employer provisions and enhanced border security will work this time?
In 1986, then President Reagan called these same kind of bills amnesty! These comprehensive immigration reform bills coming is the same amnesty legislation that President Reagan signed into law in 1986. The politicians know that the word "amnesty" is radioactive, so they call their current amnesty bills/proposals "comprehensive immigration reform" and claim it is not amnesty, though these same bills are identical to the 1986 amnesty bill that President Reagan signed into law.
All forms of legalization will be *perceived* as amnesty by millions of people around the world. Many of them will respond by trying to come here illegally.
I don’t want to discourage anyone from calling their reps, but an even better way to fight amnesty would be to publicly embarass an amnesty supporter by asking them questions designed to reveal flaws in their positions. Then, publicize their response here, on blogs, forums, youtube, digg, etc.
I suggest Bill Richardson because he’s a supporter and he’s more approachable than the front-runners. John Edwards is a good choice too.
Here are their schedules:
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/2008-presidential-candidates/tracker/
The amnesty bill they wish to pass is the same or as close as possible to last years senate amnesty bill, S-2611. Bush will sign any amnesty bill that makes it to his desk. With liberal RATS running both houses of congress, there is little chance of a tough enforcement provision being attached to this bill or making this bill tougher. The best bet is to kill this upcoming bill entirely.
The RAT leadership has already stated that no amnesty (comprehensive immigration reform) bill will even be offered for a vote if there is not significant GOP support for the bill. Right now in the Senate, there are I believe no GOP senators co-sponsoring Teddy "the swimmer" Kennedy's latest amnesty bill. That is the reason it hasn't been introduced yet and no senate bill number assigned to it. All the co-sponsors have been RATS.
In other words, the RATS know most of the American people don't want amnesty for illegals. The RATS do not want to take the blame or face the wrath of many Americans by themselves if amnesty passes on largely a party-line vote. If they don't get something like 40-50% of the GOP caucus in both houses to support this bill, they will likely table it. If we can keep the heat on the GOP members of the house and senate, then the amnesty bill may very well die and never reach Bush's desk.
He should know.
As far as I can tell after reviewing the1986 law, his bill was intended to be an amnesty bill. There was no pretense of it being anything other than an amnesty bill.
The only burden I can see that the Congress imposed on the illegal alien was to apply within the specified period, prove they met the requirements under the law, and pay the application fee. That pretty much fits my understanding of amnesty. See: DOJ Immigration Reform and Control Act
Did I miss something? If not, then any current bill which imposes some requirement beyond mere application is not amnesty. The debate hinges on whether or not requirements are punitive enough.
In any case, thank you ( and lonewacko_dot_com) for taking the time to reply.
Best,
R.
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.