[calcowgirl]

No, everyone here did support some kind of immigration reform because everyone here is unhappy with the status quo.

I'll say it again, in case you didn't notice the first time I posted it (to you).

I do not, and did not, support any kind of "immigration reform," and I was not/am not alone on FR in having this opinion.

"Immigration reform" as uttered by Congress, implies that there is a need to change the law or to add new laws.

Being "unhappy with the status quo" does NOT equate to needing new laws. Government currently has the authority and the duty to enforce the law. They are only lacking the will to do so. New laws will not change that -- only kicking the dufuses out of office will.

P.S. Your personal attacks on Synro (e.g. "Aspergers can be treated") are disgusting.

[mbraynard]

So you don't think laws need to be changed or added to affect the following status quo:

• Chain migration.
• Anyone born on US soil - even if their parent just snuck across the border - being granted US citizenship.
• Letting Obama's illegal relative stay in the US.
• Illegal immigrants being entitled to education, health, and all kinds of social benefits.
• Immigration quotas that favor the third world

So you don't support reforming that (like Mitt and Tank do)? Not even a little bit?

Do you moonlight at the Wall Street Journal?

[Reagan Man]

If the Feds just enforced the immigration laws on the books, such as the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, illegal immigration would be stopped dead in its tracks. That was the bill Reagan signed into law and the one Ted Kennedy gutted the funding of its enforcement provisions.

There was an FR poll question at some point that asked FReepers if they'd support House version of immigration reform, HR4437 -— Border Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005 -— or the Senate version, S.2130, better known as McCain-Kennedy or "McKennedy". According to my FR archive, FReepers supported the House version with 83% approval.