Boehner hints a back down on 'amnesty'

The Washington Times ^ | March 29, 2006 | Charles hurt

[surely_you_jest]

House Majority Leader John A. Boehner refused yesterday to rule out compromising with the Senate to expand the House border security bill to include a guest-worker program or provisions that opponents call "amnesty." "Let's wait and see what the Senate can produce," he told reporters yesterday when asked whether House Republicans would reject the Senate Judiciary Committee's proposal to allow the estimated 12 million illegal aliens now in the U.S. to seek citizenship after paying a fine.

[Coop]

I wonder if any found their way to FR?

We call 'em Moby.

[Howlin]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1605381/posts?page=356#356

[DAC21]

Republican's are looking at this as lost votes if they hold to the letter of the law. Maybe so but only in boarder states. California is already a lost cause, Texas will be OK. This might tip the balance in New Mexico and Arizona.

Just like there are tens of thousands of 9/11 Democrats that now vote Republican, what do we stand to gain in votes from moderate dems by holding the line on immigration?.,. I think a lot. So maybe it's a wash.

[FreedomSurge]

"illegals once here, help their relatives come to the U.S. "

This is true to a great extent. And they help the people from the same village or district come to the US also.

"no, illegals generally don't go back for visits, as the risks of being caught and paying to reenter are too great."This is an ignorant but telling statement. First of all you are saying that not one illegal goes back and forth across the border to visit their homes. Not even for the death of a parent or a vacation. You may want to argue (although untrue) that "not that many" make the round trip. But to argue none is ignorant.

Question for you: If 2 million illegals cross the border every year but the number of illegals in the US increases by only 500 thousand a year, How does the math work out?

The border is porous in both directions.

[Types_with_Fist]

Can't you tell when you're being mocked?

I've got three teens. Perhaps I am somewhat immune from even noticing that.

[American Quilter]

"A nation can survive its fools and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within.

Superb quote, and absolutely relevant.

[Howlin]

Enjoy your flame war...

Oh, FGS, you're giving just as good as you're getting. Grow up.

[Howlin]

LOL.....well, I can understand that..........but do they do it to your face??

[Types_with_Fist]

but do they do it to your face??

More and more all the time... I think.

[Stellar Dendrite]

"Good posts kid. You're much better read than when I was at your age."

i like DNDMSB's posts as well

[Coop]

[Coop] violated the Terms of Use in his very first post.

Really? That was like eight years ago! I really can't remember. But given your stellar track record of objectivity and honesty, I will take you at your word. Please accept my humble apologies!

Don't go away mad, Jarhead.

Just go away.

[onyx]

You're not much on rules today, are you? You just violated another one in your post to me, wherein you talked about Coop, but neglected to mention him.

To: shhrubbery!

You know the rules. When speaking of another poster, make sure you ping that poster.

1,078 posted on 03/19/2005 7:05:24 PM EST by Lead Moderator

[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1002 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

[Lead Moderator]

You know the rules. When speaking of another poster, make sure you ping that poster.

[Coop]

MANY will be lost, not just the one you ridicule.

Of course they will, Sweetie.

[Do not dub me shapka broham]

Sez who?

Is this an official policy of Free Republic?

If so, where in the by-laws is it explicitly and unambiguously delineated?

You must ping each and every person who you refer to-even in the most oblique, peripheral manner-or refrain from alluding to them in any way whatsoever.

Funny, because I've never come across that particular rule.

[oceanview]

the political equation here (overall) is hard to read - mostly because I do not see any good polling on what hispanic-americans want to see regarding "immigration reform". that the key block being fought over.

[American Quilter]

I've been faxing AND calling. And not just people in my state.

Good for you, Howlin. I e-mailed both of my senators yesterday, but I should contact others as well.

[Howlin]

Funny, because I've never come across that particular rule.

Funny, it's right on this thread.

And I'm sure we've had this discussion before.

[onyx]

To: shhrubbery!

You know the rules. When speaking of another poster, make sure you ping that poster.

1,078 posted on 03/19/2005 7:05:24 PM EST by Lead Moderator

[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1002 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

[Lead Moderator]

You know the rules. When speaking of another poster, make sure you ping that poster.

[American Quilter]

There are, however, internationally recognized national borders now. As such, those entering without permission or right do so in violation of the sovereignty of the United States of America. That alone gives us every right to enforce our borders and deport any and all who enter this nation illegally.

I concur.

[TheDon]

So much for US sovereignty, rule of law and fairplay with the legal immigration process.

After allowing 12 million illegals in over 20 years, and millions more before that, now you want to complain about fairplay and the rule of law? The US has failed to enforce the border and immigration laws for decades, an amnesty is our just punishment for our failure to do so.

The important issue is not the illegals already here, but preventing illegal immigration from today onward. If we fail to control the border and fail to effectively punish employers of illegals, the problem will only continue.