Posted on 06/12/2007 3:22:43 AM PDT by Ultra Sonic 007
Tony Snow is about to appear live on FOX & Friends on FOX News. The subject is Bush's push for immigration "reform".
And that is an arguemnet for what, exactly? Plenty of Mexicans come here expecting to make the equivilent of a month's wages every week working for unscrupulous employers who wind up in jail for any number of reasons. They didn't cross the border for the express purpose of enjoying our prisons. The fact that so many are in our jails is more than enough reason to argue that we need border enforcement, a beefed up security presence at the border and the fence we've been promised. And thenwe need to start deporting every damned illegal who comes in contact with the government in any way, shape of form. As soon as it's determined that Jose, or Abdullah, or Sean is here illegally he should be deported.
I think that if you criticize this administration, you should be able to take criticism yourself. There’s nothing wrong with pursuing your view to its fullest. Where we differ is that namecalling undermines the person who is doing it. And it reflects badly on Republicans.
“Find a way to make an enforceable situation.”
Why? The entire problem is no one enforced the last laws, why should anyone believe that a “new” law would be enforced?
No, there already is a standard set forward, the president is not meeting it. What you are suggesting is rather than say a foot is 12 inches, we should cut an inch of or the ruler and say that now a foot is 11 inches.
Which means that the next administration could say that a “Foot is 11 inches we need it to 10 inches” and so on and son.
Amen! These same conservatives will be voting! So much for the theory that conservatism is on it's last legs & our votes don't count for much. We are a force to be reckoned with & they know it now.
Sure there it is in writing, but aren’t you also saying that the government hasn’t delivered?
When Katrina happened, Jim Geraghty made an excellent point that the people of New Orleans should have gone ahead and made sure that the levees were in good shape and sent the bill in afterwards. I was taking that suggestion a different way— build the fence you want and then go to the government afterwards, if you need to be paid back.
The Feds have every justification to enforce the act, but just might not be challenging these cities.
Why? Amnesty is coming!
What you are failing to consider is that any “compromise” is a loss to conservatives. It seems rather fatalistic to accept the fact that conservatives must fight a losing battle. The Republic has been pecked away, compromise by compromise, and so you are simply arguing that it is lost anyway, so let’s just make it a known rate of failure.
Local law enforcement is just beginning to get involved, through the fairly new 287G plan. Give that a year, and we’ll start pushing a LOT of illegals who also break other laws OUT of the country. That’s a good first step.
Second, we crack down on employers — we are already doing that now some, and not only is it driving illegals away from the places it’s being done, but citizens and LEGAL immigrants are lining up to take those “jobs americans won’t do”.
We secure the border, build the fence, add the agents, and then if we see food rotting on the vine, we set up a guest worker program to handle it. We get the problem under control, and after a few million illegals give up and go home, we look at what we can do with those who have been here so long they have earned “squatter’s rights”.
Do you still want to claim that the Bush-Kennedy-McCain amnesty bill isn’t amnesty?
Thanks to Sister Toldjah
Start with holding federal funds from states, cities, counties that give sancturary to illegal aliens. See how soon thier stupidty dries up.
I’m going by the track record of Congress on things like the “balanced budget act” of the 1980s—Gramm-Rudman, right? They cut taxes, yes, thanks to President Reagan. But oddly enough, when it came time to cut spending to match, somehow, they always managed to somehow defer it, weasel around it, change the meaning of a few things...and voila, spending never got cut and we got saddled with deficits.
We don’t even have to go back that far. Look at the “800” miles of border fence that was authorized last year. We’ve gotten, what, three miles so far? What they pass and what they do can be two very different things.
That’s one reason I think that enforcement and guest-worker or pseudo-amnesty issues should be handled separately. There’s a lot more opportunity for mischief in a “comprehensive” bill.
One other issue—there’s more to conservative anger about this bill than just immigration. There’s the way in which this whole thing was cobbled together in secret, then suddenly dumped on a surprised public, and almost rammed through the Senate with no debate and hardly any public scrutiny. The contents of the bill are bad enough to a lot of us, but the high-handed, arrogant way in which this whole “compromise” was almost snuck through the Senate is really just the toppings on the crap sandwich. And then pile on top of all THAT how anti-illegal-immigration folks have been referenced by some of our own allegedly-conservative people in the GOP.
}:-)4
Sorry, I shouldn’t have posted the whole thing.
Thanks for your post
S.1348 - CHAPTER 6--LANGUAGE OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES
SEC. 766. REQUIREMENTS FOR NATURALIZATION.
SEC. 601. ACCESS TO EARNED ADJUSTMENT AND MANDATORY DEPARTURE AND REENTRY.
Here's the double play...if they want to become citizens of the United States they have to do something. Under the guest worker program they don't have to learn SQUAT!
Let the democrats pass a bad illegal immigrant amnesty bill — the majority opposes it, and will run them out of office.
However, the democrats don’t support this bill either. The liberal interest groups noted that they expect 35 democrats, and 25 republicans, for the bill. Thats 70% of the democrats, and 55% of the republicans. We won’t be able to blame THAT on the democrats.
Yes, we should have tried harder to get what we wanted last year, when we had the majority in the house. Yes, it was the rabid anti-illegal closed-border anti-trade republicans who stopped us from a rational compromise.
But that doesn’t mean we should buy into the crap we are getting now.
I thought some of you might find #216 to be of interest.
You don’t think George Soros and the other deep-pocket democrats will be paying the fines of millions of these new democrat voters?
BTW, the $9000 number is just meant to sound bigger. The FINE in order to stay as long as you want without trying to be a citizen is only $1000. And it’s less for family members.
And it’s only $4000 FINE more for citizenship, and less for family members.
The $9000 includes all the filing fees, which have ALWAYS been there, and paid by ALL including all the legal immigrants.
The illegals who have already been prosecuted and ordered DEPORTED get amnesty, and we had to pay thousands of dollars for their OWN LAWYERS to defend them in deportation hearings.
So Bill Gates and his buddy Warren Buffet put up 5 billion dollars and pay for a million immigrants. Mexico spends their oil money, I bet they cover most of the costs. After all, they have an agreement to get OUR social security money sent into THEIR government coffers — so it’s a great investment for them.
Saveliberty, you have chosen to post a completely fallacious, unsigned editorial from USA Today as backing for your own position. I'm going to address its flaws sentence by sentence.
I am also going to warn you right upfront that there are many folks here on FR who've spent considerable time reading source documents, e.g., S.1348 and S.AMDT.1150 and amendments, as well as external legal analyses. This USA Today editorial you've cioted is wrong, top to bottom. To wit:
USA Today claims: Over time, illegal immigrants would have to pay fines and fees of more than $9,000 (plus thousands more for each family member).
No, the Z1 householder pays a $1,000 fine upon application, 80 percent of which is payable in installments (thus, $200). There will be a one-time processing (application) fee of less than $1,500, and a $500 one-time state impact fee. That totals a maximum of $3,000. No fee (if any) has yet been specified for the 4-year renewal fee, if the 4-year renewal provision even survives. So, for the first 8 years of residence under a Z1 visa, I see $3,000. Where is the other $6,000 that USA Today has conjured?
USA Today claims: They'd have to prove they're working and have no significant criminal record.
Primary documents establishing "proof" of employment are paystubs, IRS records, Social Security records, etc. Alternate acceptable records are bank deposits, remittance records, etc., or affidavits from non-family members. Which means that upon application one needs (for example) an affidavit and a remittance receipt. That's pretty lax.
the criminal background check is U.S.-only. There is no established method to check the criminal record in the applicant's home country, nor does the bill require it.
USA Today claims: They'd have to learn English and American civics.
Yes, before renewal at four years. My wife is an immigrant and learned basic functional English in less than one year of part-time study and on-the-job practice. She learned American civics over about a year in her (county provided) ESL English class; in a (free) American civics class; and through self-study (books, CDs, and myself) at home during the evenings.
If a Z1 applicant cannot learn these things in four years, they are simply too stupid to function as "guest workers" in our advanced technological society.
USA Today claims: And, if they want legal permanent residence, they'd have to return to their home country to apply for it there. No, they do not. S.AMDT.1150 states "The Z applicant must apply abroad" for permanent residence. Not "their home country". Further, the head-of-household Z1 visa holder can also get "green cards" for his entire family during this single trip "abroad". S.AMDT.1150 states "Derivative family members may adjust their status (i.e., get a green card without leaving the U.S.) if the principal Z-1 alien has been given a green card."
In practice this will mean a border run to Mexico or Canada to mail the application.
USA Today claims: Getting a green card would take at least eight years, citizenship at least 13.
So what? People who are completely ignorant of America's immigration practices don't understand that "eight years" is not an uncommon length of time to obtain a green card, except for spousal and the two other direct-family visas, which can still take a year.
The difference is that those applicants wait outside of the United States for their GC approvals, while Z visa holders can afford to wait forever in America since (a) they're already here with work authorization and (b) their Z visas do not ever expire. That is a HUGE advantage to the Z visa holder (aka illegal alien) versus the law-abiding immigration applicant.
As for the insinuation that 13 years for citizenship is some kind of horrible burden, all I can say is "stupid, ignorant, naive, uninformed". 13 years is quite reasonable and normal for citizenship.
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.