I’d rather have people like Chertoff calling me a “bigot”, than neighors calling me “gringo”. Or “infadel”.
Party members generally gained few advantages over non-Party citizens. Officeholders were more fortunate in this regard. Just as there was a graduated scale of the power to fill office, there was a similar scale regarding access to privileges and to goods that were not widely available. In a deficit economy like that of the Soviet Union, access to scarce goods was a real bonus, and those who held official positions gained such access. The level and range of availability differed according to the level of position one occupied, but because all of the leading positions were determined by the Party, it was the Party that determined who got access to such goods. The Party was thus the key to access to privilege in the Soviet Union.
USSR
Communist party
Why do open border lobbies push for amnesty while borders leak like sieves? (hint: new dem voters)
Excellent observation that bears repeating. The growing grassroots movements around the country to crack down on illegal aliens would be nullified to a large extent by legalizing their status. This is no longer a border state problem.
I’m not buying the ‘business wants this’ argument for the simply reason I’ve never read of a single business that supports it.
Never. Anywhere. At any time.
I’m a business owner, with holdings in multiple states. Thats absolutely positively never once come up in any context.
And I’ll note nobody has ever identified a single company that does.
Beware anonymous claims folks. Haven’t the past seven years or so taught us that lesson?
.
.
MUST READING — AND TURN UP THE HEAT, FOLKS!
Is Congress Trying to Dodge a Lawsuit on Immigration? - Vanity
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1847293/posts
Senate bill would be the eighth amnesty for illegals in 21 years
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1843464/posts
Barbarians at the Gates! Part I
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1841785/posts
Barbarians at the Gates! Part II
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1849240/posts
.
.
the solution...unfortunately appears a lot of work...but beats the alternatives...
http://www.articlev.com/repeal17.htm
Sooo..business is ganging up with the Senate to screw the little guys...well who’da thunk?!!!!!
And to insure an inexhaustible supply of same.
I've come to the same conclusion as you and the e-mailer.
This whole affair is about catering to the business interests involved. And, while they're at it, changing the nature of the electorate -- to a more dependent, thus pliable, class.
We don't trust our politicians. Our politicians don't like us.
And they're trying to do something about it...
"I was just informed that the back-room plan is currently underway to bring Bush-Kennedy back and get it quickly passed through the Senate. I call it "amendments for amnesty."
Here's what's happening.
President Bush and the Amnesty Republicans are attempting to convince about a dozen Republicans to support "cloture" on Bush-Kennedy in exchange for a commitment that a set list of amendments will be considered -- thus, "amendments for amnesty."
Also, Bush and the amnesty leaders are strong-arming conservatives into accepting the "amendments for amnesty" deal or face being banished into Senate oblivion.
Amnesty Republicans have already submitted their list of amendments to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. Once the "amendments for amnesty" deal is finalized between Reid and the Republicans, the bill will be quickly brought back to the floor. The amendments will be defeated and amnesty passed."
Actually this makes perfect sense.
The TAB headed off Texas legislation on immigration this session withthe plea that it was up to the federal govt to do these things ... this same group then put money into ads calling for comprehensive immigration reform.
The Democrats want to then give these low wage earners citizenship, union membership and all sorts of welfare and protections, thus making them dependable democrat voters.
I seem to recall Senator Lindsey Grahamnesty was sighting that part of his reasoning for this bill was the fact that state and local governments were beginning to make laws to deal with the issue themselves.
After reading this article, it’s all beginning to make sense.
ANTI-AMNESTY YOUTUBE SING-ALONG — http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y8WdFHK-faM#GU5U2spHI_4
If you have time, please go make a comment. Perhaps stick it to Kennedy. And to El Presidente.
If this is to be killed it’ll most likely have to be done in the House. There’s just too many paid lobbyists in the Senate posing as servants of the people, though I hope I’m wrong.
About a year or two ago I offered a similar explanation: they’re worried about *civil suits* from *private individuals* (or class actions), such as the one filed against Mohawk Carpet. Some states have “private attorneys general” statutes that lets private citizens file suits on matters of public interest.
Vote with the lever on election day, vote with your wallet today.
I guess with big business money they do not need little old us to contribute. I will save my money for military funds and conservatives who will do the job rinos and rats will not do.