We've been active on the same colonista threads the past week or two, Bob...
Do you really believe my vote is the only one?
Even Bush doesn't believe it, that's why he was so sneaky with 245(i).
BTW, by how many "one votes" did Bush win Florida?
Posted on 03/17/2002 1:36:37 PM PST by Sabertooth
For the past 10 years, I voted Republican, rain or shine. I was a single-issue voter.
My only concern was that the candidate be a Republican.
Why?
Because I don't like what the Democrat Party has done to America.
This year, another issue arises that concerns me greatly… so much so, that I might not be voting Republican this November. I'll maintain my GOP registration, but my vote is suddenly in play, where it hadn't been for 10 years.
That issue is: Illegal Immigration, and Federal Amnesties for Illegals.
Some agree, and some don't… that's fine. In any event, I've been active and vehement on the Illegal threads, to the displeasure of not a few. I've been called a few names, and that's to be expected (goes with being a Republican, no?) Among them are "racist," "xenophobe," "libertarian," "Buchananite," "knee-jerk," etc… And…
"Single-issue voter."
As though that's somehow damning. I was a single-issue voter beore, but now it's just a different issue. What bothers some is that it's a different single issue than theirs. Further, I don't really understand those who use this term in the pejorative… Is there no issue, position, or policy on which the GOP could lose your vote? Is there no circumstance under which you would part ways?
Your right to vote is your currency in the Political Economy. If your support is never in doubt, what is the incentive of politicians to listen to you? Do you continue to patronize restaurants with good food and bad service? Or do you let your wallet do the talking?
If so, then why should politics be any different?
How do you feel when arrogant party functionaries mock you, asking "Do you want Hillary?" or "You gonna vote Democrat?" or some other such demagoguery? Are we nothing but pawns?
Or do moments arise when notice must be loudly given to our "leaders," who serve at our pleasure, that there will be an electoral price paid for failing to heed the will of the American People?
We've been active on the same colonista threads the past week or two, Bob...
Do you really believe my vote is the only one?
Even Bush doesn't believe it, that's why he was so sneaky with 245(i).
BTW, by how many "one votes" did Bush win Florida?
After breaking into the country illegally.
Really unfair of me to point that out, isn't it?
Why are you so hostile to the Rule of Law?
No sneaky would have been signing an executive order in the middle of the night, the votes are there.
Yea I know, I know, you are going to raise up in your self-flagellating indignation at those who voted for it(Armey, Delay, Paul, etc.).
Please lay off the dramatics.
But besides all that, what about the other ramifications of letting a RAT back into the White House? Are those worth it? Seriously, I don't ask in jest or disrespect, but in all seriousness.
Is it truly worth it?
Really unfair of me to point that out, isn't it?
Why are you so hostile to the Rule of Law?
We are just going to have to disagree. 245(i) is mostly aimed at people who entered legally, but their paperwork got messed up at the INS. They are basically good people.
It is not an "amnesty" as you scream on every other post. It is much more complicated than you portray, but that's not your point is it?
It was Michael Savage.
Just about everyone understands that this isn't blanket amnesty. The big misunderstanding is by those pretending it's not Amnesty at all.
But be that as it may, eating our own will have ramifications that will lead to Civil War II.
Letting Illegals invade and colonize at will is a far more certain path to Civil War.
Are you aware that 2/3 of those arrested in the L.A. Riots in '92 were Latino? Many of them Illegal. By definition the colonistas don't respect our laws, and it won't take much to light that fuse again.
Any excuse will do.
Okay, help me out here, Sabertooth, because I've read so many posts and I'm getting confused. Dick Armey seemed to be saying that 245(i) was the one that would benefit people who came here legally, but had paperwork snafus. What's more, he made it sound as if those snafus were totally the fault of the INS. He said he's personally seen immigrants waiting in long lines outside the INS, trying their gosh-darndest to get themselves legal, but because of long lines, backlog and incompetence at the INS, these poor folks were illegal through no fault of their own. Bear with me, please, and spell it out for me.
1. Will or will not 245(i) benefit people who snuck across the border?
2. If it benefits only people who are illegal through no fault of their own, as Armey claims, why do you think they are being charged $1,000? Are they being charged $1,000 for not going back to their home countries when their visas expired, but rather, standing in line outside the INS day after day? If so, this actually seems harsh on immigrants, not pandering or encouraging more border-jumpers.
Thanks for your patience, you seem very knowledgeable and I trust your reply!
First this is a very controversial issue. The majority of Americans dont want this, and it needs to be restated that H.R. 1885 was only passed by a single vote.
To say its being almost exclusively lobbied from the top down by special interest groups at odds with the will of the voters is probably a major understatement.
In addition, the adjustment of status provision runs counter to the intent of Congress to tighten laws against illegal aliens, cross border drug trafficking and border security. A provision adopted in the 1996 immigration reform bill - INA Section 212(a)(6) - enacted new disincentives to persons entering the country illegally and may also tie the hands of those who are tracking the cross border drug trade.
However, the Section 245(i) adjustment of status provision, by letting aliens unlawfully present in the United States become lawful residents without having to leave the country, effectively nullifies those measures.
The affected people are not turned into citizens and they have to pay a one thousand dollar.
And as for the second part, I think your referring to the fine. Thats really chump change when you get done to it for people who are willing to pay upwards of several thousand to smugglers, and it really wont do alot to recoup the damage done to lost tax revenue from not having a taxable income base. Some deterrent.
Not to mention its signifigantly less expensive than the costs incurred to people who are law abiding immigrants. This sends a message that its more preferable to break US laws than follow them.
Is it truly worth it?
Ask Bush. Seriously.
Why should we be on the defensive? We're the voters.
Simon was a shot across the RINO bow.Bingo! THAT is a position that I can endorse: send Bush a message by electing the strongest LOCAL conservatives possible!Votes for candidates like Simon are a lot more effective than single issue vote exclusion.
Once again...
Section 245 of the Act allows an alien to apply for adjustment of status to that of a lawful permanent resident (LPR) while in the United States if certain conditions are met. The alien must have been inspected and admitted or paroled, be eligible for an immigrant visa and admissible for permanent residence, and, with some exceptions, have maintained lawful nonimmigrant status. The alien must also not have engaged in unauthorized employment. Section 245(i) of the Act allows an alien to apply to adjust status under section 245 notwithstanding the fact that he or she entered without inspection, overstayed, or worked without authorization.
LINK.Last week's 245(i) extension was specifically about illegals.
Letting Illegals stay = Amnesty for those Illegals.
Now, is it worth it?
No.
It's not worth it for Bush to throw his 80% popularity against 70% of the American people on an issue that's wrong on principle and divides the Republican Party.
That division is his responsibility. We wouldn't be having this conversation if it weren't for Bush's stubborn insistence for this recent Amnesty.
It says apply, it does not say automatically granted. It would probably be granted if someone got married to a US Citizen or such.
But you go ahead with your rant.
Do you really believe my vote is the only one?
Of course not.
Do I believe that any hispanic lurker or Freeper is going to look twice at the rhetoric here?
Some of it is harsh enough to have the capacity to offset the votes in another direction. What has been accomplished then?.
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.