GOP senators, officials back alien proposal

Washington Times ^ | 2/13/04 | Jerry Seper

[kattracks]

The administration rolled out its top immigration officials and several senior Republican senators yesterday to endorse publicly a guest-worker program offered by President Bush that could give legal status to the 8 million to 12 million illegal aliens now in the United States.

[CommandoFrank]

I figured I'd get flamed a little on my stance but I've received replys consistant with my thoughts...

Looks like this next election will be a choice of the lesser of two evils, or in other words, low voter turn-out.

[ClintonBeGone]

So, on your map, all hispanics are Americans? Where did you get it, from La Raza?

Rand McNally. Try reading a map.

[ClintonBeGone]

You know damn well that "Americans" refers to citizens of the USA, not "inhabitants of the Americas."

A utterly ignorant statement. Americans are those that inhabit the american continent. The americas are not limited to those who live in the United States. Like it or not, what you said has to be one of the stupidest statements I've ever read on this website.

[AzJohn]

A utterly ignorant statement. Americans are those that inhabit the american continent.

Enough with this argument already. The term "American" has more than one meaning. The definitions from Merriam-Webster Online:

1 : an American Indian of No. America or So. America
2 : a native or inhabitant of No. America or So. America
3 : a citizen of the U.S.
4 : AMERICAN ENGLISH

Using the term in the more restrictive sense to refer only to those from the United States is perfectly acceptable.

[ClintonBeGone]

Using the term in the more restrictive sense to refer only to those from the United States is perfectly acceptable.

Nice try, but how silly. The issue wasn't whether US Citizens are American, it's whether Mexicans are Americans. However, thank you for posting that definition. It's clear, I think you'll agree, that Mexicans ARE Americans. You guys may hate our neighbors, but I'll be damned if I'll let you pervert our language for your despicable and underhanded immigration agenda.

[AzJohn]

You guys may hate our neighbors, but I'll be damned if I'll let you pervert our language for your despicable and underhanded immigration agenda.

First, do you really think this is called for? All I do is post a dictionary definition concerning one disputed issue on this thread and I'm being told I "hate our neighbors", and that I am trying to "pervert our langauge" and that I have a "despicable and underhanded immigration agenda". To say that you are reading way too much into my post is a gross understatement.

The issue wasn't whether US Citizens are American, it's whether Mexicans are Americans.

No, the issue is what do we mean when we use the term "American". Raybbr and others on this thread clearly are using the term to refer to United States citizens, which corresponds to dictionary definition #3 that I posted. And by that meaning of the word, Mexicans are not Americans.

You, on the other hand, are using definition #2, in which an American is anyone from the Western Hemisphere, not just the United States. And that is also a valid meaning of the word. The problem is that you are insisting that this is the only possible meaning of the word, and that not to abide by that meaning is evidence of hatred,ignorance, stupidity etc. You have made several such posts which are not at all helpful in this forum, at least in my opinion.

You might want to take another look at the article that seeded this thread. Senator Saxby Chambliss and Asa Hutchinson are both clearly using the term "American" to refer to United States citizens. Are you going to start calling them names also?

[dougherty]

Bush did not cause the mess we call immigration law. He wants to fix it.

He's had four years to fix it, but has done nothing.... until election year. And what does he come up with? A virtual amnesty to appease the La Raza crowd. He's pandering to them for votes, not solving the mess at all.

[AzJohn]

A slight correction: concerning the statements by Chambliss and Hutchinson, Hutchinson actually referred to the "American economy", not citizens.

Nonetheless, my point stands. The adjectival form of "American", like the noun, can refer to either the United States or the Western Hemisphere. Hutchinson is intending the former.

[ClintonBeGone]

First, do you really think this is called for? All I do is post a dictionary definition concerning one disputed issue on this thread and I'm being told I "hate our neighbors",

Yes I do, because you know DAMN well that the question being debated WAS NOT whether US Citizens were Americas, it was whether Mexicans were Americans. You were nice enough to insert your definition along with some fake phone comments that attempted to hide the real debate here. I get nothing but fraud, lies and dishonesty from your side. It's challenging enough to have any respect for your side given (what I believe) is a gutteral hatred to anyone not born in this country, particularly if the come from Mexico. Lies, and phoney statments don't help you one bit.

[citizen]

Massive, unchecked illegal immigration with aliens who will not assimilate and who's primary goal is to take from America and not become Americans are a greater threat to the continued existence of this country than Al Qaeda attacks.

We are giving Bush and Rove a chance to listen. If they won't, write in Tancredo for the symbolism, even though he is not going to run or find a third party of your choice.

Excellent points.

I've been attempting get more to recognise that unchecked illegal immigration is overwhelmingly the most important issue before the American people.

Not many seem to be listening. Too many Bush lemmings.

[AzJohn]

Yes I do, because you know DAMN well that the question being debated WAS NOT whether US Citizens were Americas, it was whether Mexicans were Americans.

If one uses the term "American" to mean "a citizen of the United States" then to me it seems self-evident that people from other countries are usually not Americans. Of course Mexicans who come here legally and become naturalized citizens are American (meaning a citizen of the U.S.), as are people of Mexican ancestry who are born here.

As for the rest of your post, two comments: 1) I believe you are much too quick to assign me to a "side" on this thread. I don't disagree with everything you've said on this thread and I don't agree with everything said by the the other posters I pinged. I just thought you were missing the boat on this particular aspect of the debate, that's all. 2) Way too many insults in your post. Yes, this subject does bring out some racist comments at times, but I believe that's not the great majority of posters here.

[citizen]

You are wasting your time. CBG's just a bomb thrower. I no longer reply to or read CBG.

[ClintonBeGone]

If one uses the term "American" to mean "a citizen of the United States" then to me it seems self-evident that people from other countries are usually not Americans.

John, the very definition you posted contradicts this statement of yours. What gives?

[AzJohn]

John, the very definition you posted contradicts this statement of yours.

Not at all. In the definition I posted meaning #3 is "a citizen of the U.S.". That's the sense in which most on the thread have used the word "American".

[AzJohn]

But the noun American is used exclusively to denote American citizens. So, a citizen of Mexico is known as a Mexican, not an American. Likewise a citizen of Canada is known as a Canadian, not an American.

According to the dictionary definition, the Canadian and Mexican could refer to themselves as Americans in the generic sense that they live in this hemisphere. But yes, we're the only country that can call ourselves that, at least according to Merriam-Webster.

[ClintonBeGone]

But the noun American is used exclusively to denote American citizens.

Johns own posted definition contratdicts this statement. We are a melting pot White, and you better get used to it.

[ClintonBeGone]

That's the sense in which most on the thread have used the word "American".

But that doesn't mean #2 is wrong.

[XBob]

83-" What is your solution? Do you have any suggestion? "


XBob's plan:

1. Illegal's responsibility - caught illegals can never return to or work in US
2. Illegal's responsibility - Anchor babies - no longer allowed.
3. Illegal's responsibility - No SSI benefits for illegals.

4. Illegal's responsibility - No IR$ refunds for illegals.

1. Employer responsibility - 1st illegal employee caught - employer returns illegal to home.
2. Employer responsibility - 2nd illegal employee caught - employer returns illegal to home plus another caught by INS.
3. Employer responsibility - 3rd illegal employee caught - employer returns illegal to home plus 3 caught by INS.
4. Employer responsibility - 4th illegal employee caught - employer returns illegal to home plus 4 caught by INS.
5. Employer responsibility - 5th illegal employee caught - employer returns illegal to home plus 5 caught by INS.
etc, etc etc

Results:
Gradualally escalating returns of illegals, lots of self returns, illegals make money for govt rather than cost money.

7 - This plan is rough, but would work. What if FReepers we were add to/polish it up a bit, but keeping it very simple, and make a serious political proposal out of it?

Perhaps add something like migrant workers could only be hired in their country of origin, would have to come directly from it to their job, and be allowed to remain for only one harvest season, or 6 months, or something?

Let's do something constructive, rather than just bitch!!
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1062207/posts?page=9#9

Any illegals who receive medical/food aid at taxpayer's expense will have 25% of their wages deducted until debt is paid. Mexico must also agree to do the same on any wages the worker earns there.

Employers who wish to employ these willing workers must agree to pay any remaining amount their workers take from the social services support system that these workers do not repay.

12 posted on 01/21/2004 10:43:12 AM CST by Helix (Here's to hoping I've proofread

[XBob]

87-" What is your solution? Do you have any suggestion? "


XBob's plan:

1. Illegal's responsibility - caught illegals can never return to or work in US
2. Illegal's responsibility - Anchor babies - no longer allowed.
3. Illegal's responsibility - No SSI benefits for illegals.
4. Illegal's responsibility - No IR$ refunds for illegals.

1. Employer responsibility - 1st illegal employee caught - employer returns illegal to home.
2. Employer responsibility - 2nd illegal employee caught - employer returns illegal to home plus another caught by INS.
3. Employer responsibility - 3rd illegal employee caught - employer returns illegal to home plus 3 caught by INS.
4. Employer responsibility - 4th illegal employee caught - employer returns illegal to home plus 4 caught by INS.
5. Employer responsibility - 5th illegal employee caught - employer returns illegal to home plus 5 caught by INS.
etc, etc etc

Results:
Gradualally escalating returns of illegals, lots of self returns, illegals make money for govt rather than cost money.

7 - This plan is rough, but would work. What if FReepers we were add to/polish it up a bit, but keeping it very simple, and make a serious political proposal out of it?

Perhaps add something like migrant workers could only be hired in their country of origin, would have to come directly from it to their job, and be allowed to remain for only one harvest season, or 6 months, or something?

Let's do something constructive, rather than just bitch!!
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1062207/posts?page=9#9

Any illegals who receive medical/food aid at taxpayer's expense will have 25% of their wages deducted until debt is paid. Mexico must also agree to do the same on any wages the worker earns there.

Employers who wish to employ these willing workers must agree to pay any remaining amount their workers take from the social services support system that these workers do not repay.

12 posted on 01/21/2004 10:43:12 AM CST by Helix (Here's to hoping I've proofread