Interesting thread as usual, thanks.
Glad you're enjoying it, thank you.
Just for clarity, does "no to a large amnesty" mean you're open to a slim one?
Posted on 08/22/2002 7:04:53 AM PDT by Sabertooth
This is a vanity post, let's get that straight from the start.
Perhaps the most vain aspect of it is the conceit that it might stay on topic, but I'm going to give it a whirl.
One of the more contentious species of threads encountered on Free Republic are those dealing with the subject of America's immigration policy, particularly with regard to the Illegal Aliens currently in our country. According a range of reasonable sources, the estimates of their numbers here currently here range from six to thirteen million. Whatever the actual count, there are quite a few people now in violation of American immigration law.
One subtopic that inevitably arises is the question of Amnesty:
Should all or some portion of the Illegal Aliens be granted an Amnesty and be thereby allowed to change their status and acquire legal residence in the United States?
That's the question I'd like to put forward to the members of Free Republic.
Almost as inevitably on threads dealing with this subject, flame wars erupt. It's not my purpose to instigate another round of that, they're rather predictable. So I'd like to ask that your comments, if you're inclined to share them, focus on the big picture of American immigration policy, with particular attention to the subject of Amnesty. I'm not interested in the stock and gratuitous divisiveness of race-baiting or referring to the President as "Jorge," or anything of that nature from any quarter. It achieves nothing, it's sulphurous methane heat with no light shed.
I'd also like to avoid ad hominem ambushes. I'm genuinely interested in learning the collective feelings of Free Republic members on this subject. If you're gonna post, I'd like to ask that you ante up with your opinion on the question at hand before engaging the discussion with others. No taking potshots from the obscurity of the sidelines. I'll post my opinion below at #1.
Fair enough?
So, once again, here's the question:
Should all or some portion of the Illegal Aliens be granted an Amnesty and be thereby allowed to change their status and acquire legal residence in the United States?
Ah, such confidence. The kind of confidence that appears at peaks just before a change. The Democrats were so convinced that Bush Sr. was unbeatable that their major contenders bowed out of 1992 election and let Slick Willie take the democratic nomination. It's a long way off to the 2004 election and I wouldn't take comfort in high water mark polls that have great downside potential.
No.
In other words...."no".
I was a member of the Retail Clerks Union when I was working my way through college. Doing one of those jobs that lazy Americans aren't supposed to want to do.
My fellow employees weren't involved in the union activities or politics. There were never more than 3 of us, out of 10,000, at the union meetings versus 30 union reps.
So maybe that number could be right, if they're polling members of all the different kinds of unions and not just UAW.
I've got a feeling the number would be higher since 9/11.
As I remember there were a lot of union members that were upset that their union leadership was using their funds to support Democrat candidates when they were voting Republican.
I was in a union and never voted Democrat.
No. Nor should they get driver's licenses, bank accounts, social security or taxpayer numbers, or voter registration. Bill the country of origin for any medical care and the cost of deporting the people. Take payment for these services from any foriegn aid.
If the country of origin is one from which terrorists may come, deport the culprit to Gitmo with the only exception being that children under 16 are returned to their homeland. I'm not worried about being "compassionate"--I just don't want to saddle our military with a bunch of kids. If they have to shoot somebody on Gitmo, I don't want them to have to chose between protecting themselves and shooting some kid.
Beats a Donkey every time.
Glad you're enjoying it, thank you.
Just for clarity, does "no to a large amnesty" mean you're open to a slim one?
My question for you would be..... name an administration that has done more to secure our borders than GWB? (I know 9/11 is a huge factor) but I challenge anyone to show me a signed bill that grants amnesty or even a single quote where this President has asked Congress to present him a bill that even comes close to what Ronald Reagan signed into law?A reasonable person can't. But this Admistration is responsible for undertaking the task of reversing that neglect, and not to do things that make problems worse in the process.
Does it do any good to divide conservatives on this issue ? or does it make sense to recognize the fact that with this president and the aftermath of 9/11 our border issues are at least being addressed.The President's border security measures are almost entirely WoT related. That's fine, as far as it goes, but President Bush has yet to demonstrate that he considers Illegal Aliens to be much of a problem.
As to comparisons between what President Bush has proposed and what President Reagan signed (which I, to my regret, supported at the time), I haven't made them, nor have I seen others do so.
Trial balloons from the White House are another matter.
A more apt comparison is between President Bush's attempted extension of Section 245(i), and President Clinton's original signing of it. It's a Clinton legacy, and should die.
NO amnesty bill has been signed and the President has never offered one.I'll give credit where it's due, but blame as well.
Would conservatives have been divided over this issue had President Bush not tried to extend Section 245(i)?
I maintain that the answer is "no."
Since he did, and there is division as a result of that, on whose desk does the buck stop?
I say follow the laws on the books and enforce them vigorously.The rider for the Section 245(i) extension was attatched at the President's request. That it did not reach his desk to be signed, to his expressed regret, can hardly be credited to him.
On this we agree. Thanks for your post.
I assume individual people are "amnestied" or get their status adjusted constantly for various reasons. I have no problem with that...Blanket amnesty for political considerations? No. I go with #3.
I do, however, approve of using amnesty talk as a tool to hurt the democrats by simply putting it on the table.
Remember the Lemming Creed:
"If enough of us jump, it won't be a cliff."
This would apply to aliens that entered the US illegally or overstayed his or her allowed time in the US and is currently in an illegal status, is married to a United States citizen (USC), and meets the following requirements...
When you're dealing with foriegn-born spouses, you've entered an entirely different realm. I'm not sure I feel that "Amnesty" is the right term in those cases.
The thing we have to be vigilant against is that some don't game the system with sham marriages. What if we made them post a bond, say $10K to $20K?
Many members of the longshoremen's union (ILWU) have changed their political preference, which used to be strongly Democrat, to a more conservative outlook. They realize that the shipping companies would love to hire illegal aliens for pennies if they could get away with it. They are disgusted with Bush because of his open border policies, and many are planning to vote third party.
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.