Posted on 05/20/2007 5:26:04 AM PDT by Alas Babylon!
It is all an exercise to destroy the GOP and garner millions of Democrat voters.
Here is a draft of the bill. I have gone through quickly the 326 pages. There are increases in various catergories of immigration including citizenship and green card quotas in the future. That really isn't as important as the fact that the Y visa[400,000 a year guest worker program] and Z visa holders [the 12 to 20 million illegals] will be able to bring in their spouses and children, and in the case of Z visa holders, their parents. The HIB visa quota has been increased from 65,000 to 115,000 in 2008 and eventually to 180,000. [Page 217}
The poster that I was responding to mentioned the implications of the illegal aliens becoming citizens. To which I responded that I have "heard" that there was no increase in citizenship quotas.
While what you mention about the "Z" visa and this new "regularization" status is troubling, it in and of itself doesn't effect the citizenship numbers which was my point.
I do thank you for your link but minus the support you give to your claim that the green card quotas will go up, only a look through of this monstrosity from the link that you provide, will apparently make that point.
The definition for misdemeanor is not what was meant then versus today. Misdemeanor was closer to bad behavior than what we now consider a crime.
I would have to look it up but it may be in Federalist Number 10 that I read it. It’s been awhile since I’ve read them. Madison, of US Constitution fame, also wrote many of the Federalist Papers and they serve as a good explanation for constitutional intent.
I would disagree on the Constitution being so easily understood. The number of cases defining and addressing all the articles in the Constitution suggest it was not that cut and dried.
From what I have read our Constitution was more of a compromise, to be interpreted more finely later. It is more of a list of limitations placed on the Federal government. Read the history of the Federal Banks, and the problems we had, both pro and con, as an example. Roads too. The Constitution provided for Post Offices but not the roads to get the mail there. So, the Fed began the support of road building, which is nowhere in the Constitution.
This is why Justice Scalia says he’s an originalist and not a strict constructionist. He explained we cannot limit government in society as a strict constructionist would.
My only point was there are a lot of things that have to be understood concerning constitutional intent and the reality of our constitutional laws today.
The Senate bill is taking fire from both sides of the political spectrum. Numerous blue collar workers on the left are disgusted with this bill, including some of the dummies at DU. They are especially unhappy this is being written behind closed doors and no one knows exactly what will be in the final version of the bill whether they are for it or against it.
Having started with that sad and incorrect assertion the President continues with a sad and incorrect campaign for immigration.
There ARE economic reasons to allow cheap labor in. For myself, I am MORE in favor of allowing the poor and so called "unskilled" in than I am the so-called "skilled". That's a lesson of past in migrations -- the greater contributions to America from those who develop their in-born gifts in America.
However the plan on the table is inscrutable -- too large, too unwieldy, too promoting of irregularity and discord in the courts and in the towns where their are already problems with migrants arrived here outside of legal entryways. It is a law that if passed (pray it is not) will ADD to disrespect for law.
All excellent points.
Although I don't believe that immigration, legal and illegal, should be a partisan issue, I believe it can be a winning issue for the Reps as long as they stay on the right side of the issue. No matter what kind of spin the elites try to put on this issue, it is coming down to whom do you believe, the politicians or your own lyin' eyes? Grassroots organizations are springing up all over the country to fight back. More and more people are being affected personally as the problem metastasizes all over the country.
I still believe Republicans are more loyal to issues than the party but I completely agree with everything else you added.
Enforce existing laws, before writing a massive new contract with more laws to enforce.
The Border Patrol officers that were sentenced to prison for doing their jobs are an
example of not being able to operate on the existing set of laws. You suggest we enact new
laws on top of the ones we are already unable to enforce?
It doesn't make sense to overload yourself with new laws, when the old set of rules
just might do the trick if implemented.
It as if the political class seems to think that passing MORE laws some how “fixes” a problem. Perhaps in some cases but how does passing MORE law fix a problem that originated because people are ignoring the existing law?
Every once in a while I walk into a fast food restaurant or a dry cleaners or somet place like that and I see young people like your daughter and her friends and it is always a pleasant experience. They make me proud and give me hope.
And that’s in Florida, but were on the west side of the map.
Our chads get punched.....Sorry to anyone named Chad
Yes the citizenship numbers will be increased to account for these large numbers of people going through the process from Z visa to green card to citizenship. Of course, it is up to the individual to decide if they want to apply for citizenship once they get their green card. And Congress can change the rules at any time. If a Dem wins the WH in 2008 and the Congress remains under Dem control, I can evisage them expediting the citizenship process for at least some of them so they can get them on the voting rolls sooner rather than later. Say, anyone who has been physcially present in the US for 15 years can become a citizen in an expedited fashion.
Once they have permanent residence status, a green card, they are eligible for most of the benefits of citizenship. Why is it important for you in terms of citizenship? It really becomes their option.
If you want to solve the problem of illegal aliens, just pass a law making them legal. Problem solved for another 20 years and then we will do it again for a third time, only the numbers will be even larger and the terms even more generous because of the political beachhead that has been established by the previous illegals who are now citizens.
Why, if the intent of the founding fathers was to have "bad behavior" as a reason for the impeachment of a president, did they not specifically say so as they did for judges?
The definition for misdemeanor is not what was meant then versus today. Misdemeanor was closer to bad behavior than what we now consider a crime.
Founding Father James Wilson would disagree with your definition.
James Wilson:A crime is an injury, so atrocious in nature, or so dangerous in its example, that, besides the loss which it occasions to the individual who suffers by it, it affects, in its immediate operation or in its consequences, the interest, the peace, the dignity, or the security of the publick. Offences and misdemeanors denote inferiour crimes.
(My underline)
If we can see this, certainly the experts we elected to represent us should be able to understand it. I heard a comment the other day that a Republican businessman would sell his enemy the rope to hang him with; it does seem to apply here.
In Florida, if you miss one general election, you have to renew your card. Renewal is easy
I've heard, I've not had to renew mine.
Ok, Johnnie, time to cool down on the personal attacks. I agree with your premise, but lets not become overly emotional like you’re accusing Angor of doing.
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.