Posted on 07/15/2013 3:41:50 PM PDT by ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas
"The House should pass legislation on the issue, but ”that doesn’t mean you go to conference” with the Senate, he explained. (Conservatives have argued in recent weeks that taking House and Senate bills to conference would produce something much more similar to the Gang of Eight bill than whatever the House passes.)
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
Mine is this:
Any legislation that suspends, lessens, cancels or forgives any legal consequences for a person or persons that have committed an illegal act... is by definition... amnesty. I call a path to citizenship for entering our country illegally and breaking any number of laws while working and living here in America... well... I define that as treason.
LLS
I think the most common meaning is a NEW-DIRECT- SPECIAL-FOR-ILLEGALS "pathway to citizenship." As I posted above, unless you specifically exclude citizenship in the text of a law, simply giving to right to stay and work without mentioning citizenship may not be sufficient. That sort of "reform," although not defined as "amnesty," may produce the same result eventually. See Goodlatte's last sentence above.
In fact, even if you explicitly prohibit citizenship in the text of a new immigration law, there are rogue judges/EOs/corrupt bureaucrats/future congresses to worry about.
Yes, extremely disappointing.
If I start thinking about Congress for more than a minute or two I know I’d develop nonstop vomiting.
Hopefully, what he means is that the House can pass a good bill, full of enforcement and penalties and so on, and then send it to the Senate. The Senate can either accept the House bill or not. There is no requirement for a conference to hash out differences.
Another one bites the dust. Damn. And I had hopes for Gowdy.
Just enforce the law. What can possibly be so hard for these guys to understand?
= = = = = =
Lord have mercy, Trey Gowdy?
upchuck, please ping the Gowdy list.
We must call him!
After the immigration expert in my congressman’s office said he will not vote for a pathway-to-citizenship, (this agrees with his “Where I Stand” section on his website). I stressed that I take that promise very seriously.
WRT “Working with Dems” I told him, “Who sups with the Devil needs a long spoon.”
Some welfare is what a compassionate society does....but to be where we are now is insane. Food stamps/EBT cards should be rare not as common place as they are.
Yes! Dammit!
BTTT!
It has to be much more than lack of understanding what we want and need.
You are correct. Any legislation that allows the lawbreaker to stay and work here is amnesty. A path to citizenship is just the cherry on top.
The "most common meaning" is the wrong one put forth by those who try to disguise what amnesty really means. Once you legalize the status of the lawbreakers and allow them to stay and work here, it is an amnesty. You don't need a path to citizenship nor do those who receive permanent legal status have to apply for citizenship. We have 10 to 15 million green card holders in this country who don't want to be citizens.
I posted above, unless you specifically exclude citizenship in the text of a law, simply giving to right to stay and work without mdentioning citizenship may not be sufficient. That sort of "reform," although not defined as "amnesty," may produce the same result eventually. See Goodlatte's last sentence above.
You are falling for this Orwellian use of language by the left and the RINOs. Of course this is an amnesty. The RPI visa under McRubio-Schumer is the same as the McCain- Kennedy Z visa. These people will be given work permits, allowed to travel freely in and out of the country, and bring in their wives and children, etc. Don't be so easily fooled any more than Rubio claiming that their plan is not an amnesty, but rather an earned path to citizenship by paying a fine, getting to the back of the line, learning English etc.
Ed Meese, Ronald Reagan’s Attorney General, commenting upon the 2007 McCain-Kennedy amnesty bill as compared to the 1986 amnesty in a New York Times op-ed entitled, “An Amnesty by Any Other Name…” said,
“Note that this path to citizenship was not automatic. Indeed, the legislation stipulated several conditions: immigrants had to pay application fees, learn to speak English, understand American civics, pass a medical exam and register for military selective service. Those with convictions for a felony or three misdemeanors were ineligible. Sound familiar? These are pretty much the same provisions included in the new Senate proposal and cited by its supporters as proof that they have eschewed amnesty in favor of earned citizenship.
The difference is that President Reagan called this what it was: amnesty. Indeed, look up the term "amnesty" in Black's Law Dictionary, and you'll find it says, "the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act provided amnesty for undocumented aliens already in the country."
I don't know who your Congressman is, but I would be very wary about his statement. If he were truly on our side, he would say that he is against legalization of the lawbreakers period. Citizenship is just the cherry on top.
If those statements are accurate, he'll catch hell walking them back, to me anyway.
He's way too smart to make dumb-ass statements like that and be that far out of touch.
Lawyer. Just another damn lawyer— no honor, no conscience.
Same here. I thouht this guy was with us. He sounds so out of touch on this issue. What do they not understand about the fact that the USA can’t endure having over 50 million immigrants being dumped here in the next 10-20 years without the country imploding ?
Come on now, just 90% of them give the rest a bad name :)
I cannot agree at all. The federal government should not be in the charity business. Help for the deserving poor should be either private or local. The fedgov’s duties and limits are clearly stated in the Constitution.
Welfare has RUINED at least 3 geneations of black people and more than enough white people. Ruined their sense of personal responsiblity, humilty, willingness to work, to be thrifty, to get married and have an actual family.
Before AFDC 80% of black children were born to married parents. And 98 to 97% of white children were born to married parents. Now around 75 to 80% of black children are born to single mothers, and IIRC about 20% of white babies. Hispancs are in the middle. That is a national shame and tragedy.
When charity is private and local, there is immediate oversight, no layers of gov employees making their livings off of the entitlement racket and thus with a vested interest in keeping and enlarging the number of recipeients of the gov charity. With private and local charity freed from crazy unnecessary regulations (which needs to happen all across the board) people can use their creativity and think up ways not just to give poor people a hand out but help them get off of charity. Poor farms, for instance - so they can learn skills and learn to grow their own food. Industries set up to employ poor people, etc. The way it’s run now is ruining not just the poor people (and heck, I’m a lot “Poorer” than most people on welfare!) but the rest of us who have to pay for this crap and then live in the rotten society with so many feral ruined people our money has created!
THere should be no foodstamps, no energy assistnats, no free phones, no HUD and whatever else the gov has boiled up in the cauldren of entitlements.
The system of “helping the poor” has turned into a toxic stew that has ruined millions of lives.
The axiom that compassion without intelligence and wisdom is cruelty comes to mind; as well as the road to hell being paved with good intentions.
Over 90 percent of the Republicans we elect are business as usual politicians and many fall for the emotional words that come out of their mouths.
Fake conservative words come from this guy, too.
He replaced a RINO named Bob Inglis, who I once considered “conservative” as well.
He represents an area with business interests that are comfortable with “immigration reform” I guess and they are pressuring the elected officials to do something..
NO BILL HAVING ANYTHING TO DO WITH IMMIGRATION WHATSOEVER.....
He’ll vote for a “security bill” that will get conferenced into a “pathway to citizenship” amnesty bill and be signed by Barack Obama.
But leaders like Boehner and Reid can’t be trusted.....
Or we could start growing our economy. We need immigrants. We don’t need welfare slugs.
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.