Posted on 05/18/2010 7:42:19 AM PDT by Kaslin
he wanted to be a kennedy i think and his wife wanted to be a first lady somewhere i guess. not impressed with either one of them especially her eating the muffin in hurry in her car while parked illegally. Real class NOT.
*rme*
I think you need to listen to the video again. It is Whoraldo who is for amnesty but that is nothing new
Remember Hitler was Austrian until Germany was stupid enough to give him German citizenship
In another country in another time....they would have.
That is the definition of amnesty. The back of the line is the lawbreakers' home country. And what kind of message does that send to the approximately 3 million intending immigrants who have completed all of the paperwork and are waiting in their home countries for their turn to enter the US. Many have been waiting for years to enter this country. If you legalize the status of the lawbreakers, they are in the front of the line. Don't you get it?
We had a one time amnesty in 1986. It required the lawbreakers to have been here for five years to apply. They were required to learn English and to pay an application fee. If they had a criminal record, they couldn't apply. The USG estimated that 1 million would apply and the number turned out to be 2.7 million. The process was rife with fraud. And this amnesty just created the conditions for another one--only this time we have 12 to 20 million lawbreakers.
I find it amazing that your are essentially supporting the McCain-Kennedy bill. I have provided you with the costs of an amnesty and the fact that once you legalize tghem, they can bring in 70 to 100 million of their relatives.
The proponents of amnesty are wont to create the false choice between a blanket amnesty and mass deportation of 12 to 20 million illegal aliens. In reality, we have other choices and alternatives that don’t reward people who have broken our laws with the right to stay and work here and an eventual path to citizenship. The 12 to 20 million illegal aliens did not enter this country overnight and they will not leave overnight. Attrition through enforcement works. We have empirical data from Georgia, Oklahoma, and Arizona proving that it does. During the 2006 amnesty debate, the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) commissioned a Zogby poll offering respondents not the false choice between mass deportation or amnesty (a word CIS did not use in the survey), but rather a three-way choice between mass deportation, earned legalization, and attrition — and attrition was preferred two-to-one over legalization.
In arnie’s dreams maybe...in his dreams.
The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986: The textbook example of an amnesty. The 1986 law's path to citizenship was not automatic. The legislation stipulated several requirements to receive amnesty, including payment of application fees, acquisition of English-language skills, understanding of American civics, a medical exam, and registration for military service. Individuals convicted of a felony or three misdemeanors were ineligible. No one disputes that this act provided amnesty.
This part says it all “Hence, they processed applicants and selected only the ones who would contribute to the building up and advancement of their grand experiment called America.”
Why?
1. Any person who is in this country illegally will never be eligible for citizenship, under any circumstances.
2. Social services and assistance programs are available to only American citizens. ID required.
3. Employers in America must obtain citizenship documents or lawful visa documents from every employee.
4. Social Security Administration must contact the employer if a submitted SS number is already being used by another employer.
5. Social Security Administration must contact employees when their SS number is used by another person. The US government will no longer be an accomplice in identity theft.
6. Every ineligible employee will be arrested and imprisoned until deported.
7. Employers who fail to notify ICE of ineligible employees will be fined $50,000 per incident.
Ask him. I guess he believes it is humane.
It does indeed and it proof that illegal immigration is not in the constitution like the left claims
Existing law says that person must be deported.
Yes, but such people and those here now illegally would be forever ineligible for amnesty (which is after all the goal of the DC crowd)
Normally that is the case if they have been found to have broken US laws. In fact, many of the lawbreakers could not even qualify for a tourist visa to enter the US.
To rephrase...why do you say he supports amnesty?
Check out my post #6 and check out the link. I don’t know why he supports amnesty. My concern is that he does. The motivation is irrelevant for my purposes.
hey Elana Kagan does United Nations international Human Rights Laws supercedes America constitution laws ?
Thats just wayyyy tooooo simple...but it would work and without loopholes.
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.