Buchanan is right in saying that you will effectively stop enforcement by reforming the laws in a way that turns off the 'magnet' that attracts illegals. Specifically, eliminating the benefits that illegals are entitled to per the law (requiring a change in the law) and steeper fines/penalties for those who hire illegals (requiring a change in the law).
I think you are doing too many mental gymnastics to try and prove me wrong when the truth is you agree with me (and with the plan Mitt approved.) The laws on the books are a confusing and contradictory mess. They need to be reformed. The magnets (points 2 and 4) need to be changed. That required a 'law.'
And to call changes to immigration quotas a small issues is flat wrong. The current policy was set in the 1960s and was a huge 'reform' passed under President Johnson and was advocated on the floor of the US Senate by Edward Kennedy. That law needs to be 'reformed.'
If you aren't conversant in the plans offered by presidential candidates a year ago, are you sure you have enough of a grasp of laws that stretch back generations to make authoritative statements about what needs reform and what doesn't?
By making them legal. LOL You are a real hoot!
As Pat Buchanan has said, simple border enforcement isn't enough and even interior enforcement isn't enough either. Buchanan is right in saying that you will effectively stop enforcement by reforming the laws in a way that turns off the 'magnet' that attracts illegals. Specifically, eliminating the benefits that illegals are entitled to per the law (requiring a change in the law) and steeper fines/penalties for those who hire illegals (requiring a change in the law).
I really don't care what Pat Buchanan said. But if you have a link to his words, I would be happy to comment. Forgive me if I don't accept your interpretation -- I prefer primary sources. But really, can you not speak for yourself?
I think you are doing too many mental gymnastics to try and prove me wrong when the truth is you agree with me (and with the plan Mitt approved.)
I think that you have a real LISTENING problem. I DO NOT AGREE WITH YOU. Please! Instead of telling me what Tancredo thinks or Buchanan thinks or anybody else thinks, address what I wrote! This is really tiresome!
The laws on the books are a confusing and contradictory mess.
Which ones, specifically? What provisions/words in those laws are are contradictory?
The magnets (points 2 and 4) need to be changed. That required a 'law.'
As to #2, can you cite any "immigration reform" bill that included a provision to clarify the intent of the 14th Amendment thereby eliminating anchor babies? Please cite the bill number.
And to call changes to immigration quotas a small issues is flat wrong.
Perhaps you did not read my words as I did NOT say it was a small issue. I said no LAWS were required to change quotas.
The current policy was set in the 1960s and was a huge 'reform' passed under President Johnson and was advocated on the floor of the US Senate by Edward Kennedy. That law needs to be 'reformed.'
Why? Chain migration is not the problem (unless you give citizenship to 20 million illegals). Chain migration or "Family Reunification" as it was enacted, allowing citizens to sponsor other immigrants from their family to come to the U.S. is not bad policy. If we have good, law abiding, hardworking LEGAL immigrants in this country, why shouldn't we want a member of their family to take up one of those quota spots? Family is a good thing.
If you aren't conversant in the plans offered by presidential candidates a year ago, are you sure you have enough of a grasp of laws that stretch back generations to make authoritative statements about what needs reform and what doesn't?
You really are an insulting little cuss, aren't you? I think my posts speak for themselves.