I'd really, really like to know what is wrong with just enforcing the laws on the books.
Trey
Gowdy
Ping!
Want on or off this ping list? Just drop me a FReep mail.
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 ...
I agree, we should start deportations, fining businesses, and incentifying people to get off welfare.
I agree with most of what you wrote. Charity should be just that, not stealing from one family (taxes) to give to another. I agree it is most effective when it is private and local. Your points about the effect on families are spot on. We agree on this issue, EXCEPT, occasionally there are people who do need assistance - some disabled folks(I mean the truly disabled.) Some cannot fend for themselves and need a helping hand. That is the compassion I referred to.
Yep.
Gowdy might have said some interesting things in some hearing that had no relevance to anything at all.
But his actions, i.e his support of this push for treacherous legislation, speaks much louder to me than anything he said.
Politicians are professional liars, and Gowdy is a politician.
As long as Obama is _resident he will pick what immigration laws to enforce. Republican politicians are stupid to pass any immigration laws while Dems control 2 branches within govt.
I agree about the truly disabled, and still IMHO it is private charity that would do the best job helping them. Or very local charity. The fedgov needs to shrink tremendously and when it does, people won’t pay so much in taxes and will have more $ to donate to charities that can help others. ANd the red tape is horrible - needs to change.
There is no easy solution - and there will always be poverty and suffering, but the fedgov just increases and perpetuates it. Religious organizations should really be at the forefront of charity.
We don’t need immigrants. We need the US population to get off of welfare (which needs to get eliminated) and there will be plenty of people willing to work.
I read that Gowdy said he doesn’t want to work in Washington for a long time and wants to go back to prosecuting in SC.
Also I think he may have been too nice a person to want to primary Graham.
Sanford was elected despite his flaws opposing amnesty among other issues.
We can do both. We do need immigrants. We have the room, just not the welfare money.
It was normal to have a job when I was in HS. I worked at a garden center for $3.35 an hour. I endlessly worked in greenhouses, unloaded trucks, handled produce, moved products around inside and outside, etc. Built a railroad tie retaining wall with another kid who was twice my size and on the football team. In winter, it was handling Christmas trees, soaked to the skin and outside in the freezing wet weather. It was a great job; the owners were fantastically good guys.
The financial oligarchs keep having their news and entertainment media and their “public” schools preach propaganda to America while they have their “personal” Congress and legislatures continue to make normal life illegal.
IMHO...
I don’t think it’s so much that today’s generation has had things handed to them, it’s that secular humanism - culminating in at least 200 years of effort - has replaced faith in God for far too many people. Even “professing” Christians often do not understand what they say they believe; the corruption of mainstream Churches has increased during that same timeframe.
So “right and wrong” is “what we humans want it to be”; no understanding - groundless, aimless, hedonistic.
And our most intelligent people are too often “wise in their own conceits”, i.e., the “wise” are “fools” and the “simple” are “wise”.
I'd really, really like to know what is wrong with just enforcing the laws on the books.
Trey
Gowdy
Ping!
Want on or off this ping list? Just drop me a FReep mail.
Ditto.
It seems none of them can just leave well enough alone.
Sheeesh.
Hmmmm, this is so confusing coming from him.
Does anyone even discuss the laws already on the books anymore? It seems to get drowned out and lost.
How many immigrants do we need a year?
I agree with that. I think no bill is the way to go, because Boehner can’t be trusted. We know he wants the Senate bill, and we know he hates conservatives. If Gowdy was Speaker, I’d be willing to trust that the House won’t conference on amnesty.
We have 10 to 15 million green card holders in this country who don't want to be citizens.
Not all of them, but Obama and Schumer do, and that would be a tragedy. And just wait until they join leftist unions and Dem operatives tell them they need to vote to protect collrctive bargaining.
Note that this path to citizenship was not automatic. Indeed, the legislation stipulated several conditions: immigrants had to pay application fees,....
That's what they claimed, but you and I know their claim was pure sophistry. Indeed,the 2007 bill conformed to the definition of "amnesty" I proposed, because it created an explicit special path-to-citizenship for illegals.
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.
Fooled like Rubio??? Please! I have been denouncing him since this immigration push got started in the senate. I understand that you feel passionate about this (so do I), but you should not try to put words in my mouth, nor imagine that you can read my mind, especially since you seem unaware that I have been publicly bashed him. Now he seems to have disappeared.
I do not see any point on which I disagree with you about policy goals, but I am not confident the US public has the will to do the right thing. Please learn to stop insisting on arguing with people who agree with you.
Note my post That sort of "reform," although not defined as "amnesty," may produce the same result eventually. See Goodlatte's last sentence above.
So plans which legalize only in the text of a law can produce the same result as plans that directly create a path-to-citizenship. By the general meaning of the term, such a plan can be called "amnesty," although some of us are in the habit of associating that word with such things as the current senate bill, the 2007 GWB immigration bill, and the 1986 disaster. In 2007, the word "Amnesty" was also a kind of political buzzword we used as a weapon against the bill. I would have no objection to using it to describe plans without an explicit path-to-citizenship, although in my judgment, an immigration bill with such a direct, explicit citizenship provision is more dangerous than one without one.
I think you underestimate the damage a citizenship provision would do. Just think about family immigration times 30 million. However, any kind of legalization is also very dangerous. I also told the staffer that I am opposed to any immigration bill in the house.
I told you to keep an eye on this guy, and remember how Grahnmnesty came to power.
Hint...He gave a command performance in the House during the Clinton impeachment.
Seems to be a pattern. Get a reputation as tough on a Dem president, and then work like hell to give Dems exactly what they want. Maybe that's a little premature until we actually see what the bills look like, and how Gowdy votes. Keep an eye on him? Every damned day!
Spock: "There is an old Vulcan Proverb: 'Only Nixon could go to China.'"
That depends on us. We don’t need a single welfare immigrant ever. We do need a growing population. Much of the problem with immigration is generated by state and local laws - zoning, permitting, and anti-competition regulations including taxation.
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.