Replies

Yes.

I was going to score 4 types of respones.

1. Support blanket Amnesty
2. Support partial Amnesty
3. Support no Amnesty
4. Decline to state.

For you, Gawain, I'm creating a fifth category...
5. English as a first language, still lacks the skills to cope with the question.

No amnesty for any illegal aliens, Deportation of all current illegal aliens, freeze on all legal immigration for at least 1 year to allow the incompetant INS to catch up on the backlog of data entry and to convert to the new immigration tracking and identification system.

I'm in category 2.

I believe those who have a job and who have committed no crimes other than entering illegally ought to be allowed to remain and tracked into either a bracero program or permanent residence that should not displace those currently going through the process. They should be required to develop proficiency in the English language, and English ought to be the official language of the United States.

I'm on record as favoring deportation of criminals, those caught entering with drugs, those who have gone on welfare, or who are believers in Aztlan.

I'm open as to the time period for which a partial amnesty would be in effect, and as to the specific details, but I do not think there should be a "deport `em all" policy. Those who have been employed, who are working hard and busting their butts to make it here, ought to be allowed to remain, and go legit.

To be quite honest, I feel I have more in common in a cultural sense with those "Illegals" who have taken major risks to get into this country than I do with those who have their hands out for reparations or Euroweenies who seem to enjoy slamming us.

Free Republic calls for "the EFFECTIVE control of illegal immigration" in the About page. And I think that there is room for debate on what exactly would constitute EFFECTIVE control.

For me, I'd rather DOJ focus on the violent criminals, drug smugglers, welfare sponges, and the Aztlan separatists and leave the folks who are hard workers alone.

Based on the experiences my brother had over his two-year mission for our church, I think that the Tancredo-Buchanan crowd has grossly underestimated the ability and willingness of a lot of these "Illegals" to assimilate.

Poohbah's pointed out the logistics of fully militarizing the border - which some of the hard-liners on this issue want to do. Quite frankly, I take very strong issue with a the rhetoric used by a lot of the hard-liners on this matter.

I do not believe that our system of government can only work for a European culture, and I have SERIOUS issues with those who make that argument. I have serious issues with those who want to scale back immigration (I do think we need to cut immigration from Arab nations and Africa to a large extent, and instead focus more on Eastern Europe and Mexico), or even impose a moratorium. If either of those two policies were in effect a while back, then Sabertooth's pick to head the INS might not be in the U.S. at all, and Michelle Malkin would be worrying about Abu Sayyef. Or, as another example, Bailint Vazsonyi might have been in a gulag - if he was lucky.

I don't think that the color of one's skin matters one iota in their potential to achieve in this country. Ask Colin Powell, Linda Chavez, Michelle Malkin, Bill Gates, Ken Griffey Jr., J.C. Watts, Miguel Estrada, or Al Gonzales (the White House Counsel).

I think Bush is pushing the best proposal for all involved, and I'll back him to the hilt on it.

Door #3, silly.

Add more categories.

No amnesty, none.

5 year moratorium on all legal immigration.

No extention of 245i. (I know you consider this a partial amnesty, but the opposition doesn't.)

No guest worker or bracero program, none.