Ah, let's see: you are afraid that if THEY are allowed to become citizens THEY will vote democratic, hm? In other words, you want a one-party system. As a libertarian Republican I continue to be amazed at the "NEW and IMPROVED conservative" whose days are numbered, thank goodness. You are cooking your own goose IMO.
Ah, let's see: you are afraid that if THEY are allowed to become citizens THEY will vote democratic, hm? In other words, you want a one-party system. As a libertarian Republican I continue to be amazed at the "NEW and IMPROVED conservative" whose days are numbered, thank goodness. You are cooking your own goose IMO.
///////////////
You're not a republican so you can't claim to have republican interests at heart. what most republicans look at is the fact that it was republicans under ronald reagan who declared the first amnesty back in 1986. mexicans repaid that kindness by first voting democratic and changing over california from a solidly republican state to a democratic state. ( schwartznegger is an island in the democratic ocean in sacremento.)And second, they considered that the 1986 amnesty was a sign of US surrender of control of the border. Subsequently millions more came over the border. This is history. What's being contemplated in the US senate is a replay of the same history only on a bigger scale.
so what is a republican to think. why not place 100 million Indians in Pakistan. after all why can't they all just get along. Pakistan certainly has no right to complain.