Skip to comments.
Congress Nears Deal on Illegal Immigrants (breaking on cable networks)
AP/Yahoo News ^
| 4-6-06
| DAVID ESPO
Posted on 04/06/2006 8:33:43 AM PDT by STARWISE
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,881-1,900, 1,901-1,920, 1,921-1,940 ... 1,981-1,982 next last
To: Eastbound
Nope - I'm saying there are better ways to prevent terrorism than doubling or tripling our "security" at borders.
To: clawrence3
"Limited resources"? ha
Do you know what percentage of the 86-87 Amnesty crowd went on welfare the very first day they could?
And it will take just one terrorist with a WMD getting through and causing havoc and Republican Party is dead.
Dubya is too well known for his open border policy.
To: clawrence3
" In fact, the 9/11 attackers entered LEGALLY!!!! " Ahem.
"Of 94 alien terrorists in the United States, she found that 59 were successful immigration frauds. That includes six of the 9/11 hijackers." -- Janice Kephart, former counsel to the 9/11 Commission.
To: clawrence3
They may have entered legally, but most of them certainly didn't stay here legally. And their ability to skirt the law was in large part due to the fact that our immigration authorities were overburdened by the large numbers of illegals already streaming in. Fencing off the border will help a great deal with that problem.
1,904
posted on
04/07/2006 10:24:31 AM PDT
by
inquest
(If you favor any legal status for illegal aliens, then do not claim to be in favor of secure borders)
To: inquest
How about instead of the fence then, we use all that money to catch any terrorist that overstayed his / her visa?!
To: clawrence3
The fence is a one-time expense. Visa enforcement is a continuous expense. And as it becomes tougher for terrorists to overstay their visas, they'll begin to abandon legal methods of entry and focus more on illegal methods. That's where the fence comes in.
1,906
posted on
04/07/2006 10:35:42 AM PDT
by
inquest
(If you favor any legal status for illegal aliens, then do not claim to be in favor of secure borders)
To: inquest
I agree that some balance needs to be reached.
To: clawrence3
"Nope - I'm saying there are better ways to prevent terrorism than doubling or tripling our "security" at borders." How about offering a quid pro to the terrorists. If they will insure that the U.S. proper will never again be hit by them in any manner, we will allow the ROP and its adherents now in country to remain here so long as they assimilate and stop pushing for their sharia crap and special consideration above and beyond what any other religion in America gets for their religious needs. But no more immigrants from the religion of pieces.
If not, deport 'em all immediately following the next terrorist attack for their own safety. Their call.
To: Eastbound
Nope - we never negotiate with terrorists - as for the assimilation part of terrorists already here, I'm open to suggestions.
To: clawrence3
I don't want any more 9/11 attacks - which is why I am in favor of SPENDING OUR LIMITED RESOURCES WISELY in that regard.Yet you favor the Senate bill, which I pointed out makes the chance of terrorist attacks greater.
So, once again, I don't think you're being forthcoming here.
1,910
posted on
04/07/2006 11:02:34 AM PDT
by
dirtboy
(Tagline under contruction. Fines doubled.)
To: dirtboy
You are free to think whatever you'd like - I think that terrorists coming over LEGALLY is a much greater threat.
To: clawrence3
It wasn't a negotiation. It was an ultimatum.
To: Peach
My fax:
Senator Murray:
Having moved here (against my better judgment) from San Diego, I can tell you that about half the illegal aliens from Mexico come here to pillage. When you vote for amnesty, you are approving of their criminal acts.
To: clawrence3
It's still a nasty sh!thole loaded with cholos and illegals.
To: clawrence3
You say there are dozens on the thread you provided, yet at post 173 out of 178 you said you had a dozen. So, either you are lying or your addition skills suck. So which are you admitting to?
To: clawrence3
Where that balance is struck can be negotiable to a certain extent. But what can not be negotiable is that whatever we decide is the appropriate level of border security, that level of security has to be in place before we can even begin to discuss legalization of illegals.
To do otherwise would just put even more pressure on the border, as the next generation of illegals gets to thinking it can cash in on the next amnesty. '86 all over again.
1,916
posted on
04/07/2006 11:43:12 AM PDT
by
inquest
(If you favor any legal status for illegal aliens, then do not claim to be in favor of secure borders)
To: inquest
I think our country is big enough to walk and chew gum at the same time ; )
To: Bella_Bru
I said there are dozens at Free Republic - one thread woven among many does not the entire tapestry make.
To: clawrence3
I can understand people that want to end legal immigration. I do not agree with them, but I understand them. You, OTOH, want to give citizenship to every person who comes over the border. I guess the welfare lists aren't big enough for you yet.
To: Bella_Bru
That's not what the Senate proposal was - perhaps you need to read it before posting.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,881-1,900, 1,901-1,920, 1,921-1,940 ... 1,981-1,982 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson