Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom 1) I have no intentions of listening to a man who will not uphold the immigration laws we currently have. 2) He made a campaign promise to secure our borders and has not followed through. 3) Anti-gay marriage already being proposed on the 2006 ballot! I am so over the Republican Party as this point. CAN WE PLEASE HAVE A VIABLE THIRD POLITICAL PARTY!!!!
Originally Posted By sherrytodd Tom - I fully agree. I don't think either party truely represent what the American people want anymore. They are so tied up in special interests and their personal agendas that they have forgotten what they are supposed to stand for. They stand for the highest bidder, not America.
Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom Thanks sherrytodd. I know there are many here who feel the same way. We simply need a better alternative to the two major political partys we have. This constant bickering and debating isn't getting this country anywhere. The Democratic and Republican partys spend more time in deadlock while nothing happens. Kinda like Nero fiddling while Rome burns.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip Wouldn't you know... for once I actually LIKE something Bush is doing but no one else does. I think Bush plans to secure the borders, but in the meantime the U.S. needs a plan on what to do with those already here. Loading them all up in cattle cars and shipping them back to Mexico is NOT the answer. Many have been here for a considerable time and have children who are U.S. citizens, etc. The main problem with the current situation is lack of documentation. Under Bush's plan we would know who is here. They would have to pay taxes on their income. We would be better able to find those who are criminals and deport them. To handle any problem you first need to identify what the problem is. Bush is looking to do that. As Governor of Texas Bush obviously had to deal with this and knows the realities of the situation. It amazes me how we "libs" are all supposed to give Bush the benefit of the doubt when it comes to the war in Iraq, spying on U.S. citizens, etc. etc. But WOW... the first time he does something the conservatives (AND libertarians) don't like you are all ready to burn him at the stake!
Originally Posted By sherrytodd The fact that coming forward for the people who are here illegally will involve them paying a lot of money in current and back-taxes will keep these people in hiding. If it's no more difficult to work here illegally, why come forward and shell out a bunch of money that these people will not have? They are barely paid as it is.
Originally Posted By ecdc "3) Anti-gay marriage already being proposed on the 2006 ballot! I am so over the Republican Party as this point." The gay issue is Bush's ace in the hole. It's Rove's evil genius. Putting the gay issue on the ballot allows conservative Christians who might otherwise not vote come out and vote for Bush. You know they aren't going to vote for him over Iraq; and abortion is a non-issue these days for most people. So gay marriage is it. Guaranteed in the future that it'll be gay adoptions on the ballot. Most political pundits agree: Bush is the current President of the United States because the state of Ohio had an anti-gay initiative on its ballot. Take that off the ballot, Kerry wins Ohio and the Presidency.
Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom As I said in post 1; I have no intentions of listening to a man who has NO intentions of upholding our current laws. Particularly those dealing with people in this country without a visa. The man made a campaign promise to secure our border and he has NOT followed through. The law is the law is the law. Even if the President doesn't follow through with it. Its still the law. Unless you believe in changing the law to suit your whims. I don't want a governent that changes the law to suit "their" whims. sherrytodd is correct. The Democrats and Republicans candidates are placing the needs of themselves ahead of the needs of this country.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<As I said in post 1; I have no intentions of listening to a man who has NO intentions of upholding our current laws. >> He would not be doing this by Executive order. He would do it by having Congress pass legislation. Laws change all the time, including making things legal that previously were illegal. You can certainly be opposed to what Bush is proposing, but I don't find his actions out of line.
Originally Posted By friendofdd Sadly, I find little redeeming qualities in the rascals of both parties who have been voted in, but I do recognize that practically all of them do what they do so they will have a good chance of being re-elected. Personally, I believe a true conservative as President would handle the border problems properly. However, I also believe such a one has no chance of being elected.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh Supposedly, the President is supposed to be proposing a plan to secure the border and enforce the current immigration laws. Also, who is saying "anti-gay marriage" is going to be on the 2006 ballot?
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <I think Bush plans to secure the borders, but in the meantime the U.S. needs a plan on what to do with those already here.> No, first we need to secure the borders, then we can figure out what to with those already here. One thing we won't need to do is load them all up in cattle cars and ship them back to Mexico. Simply securing the border will gradually aid in deportation, as illegal workers go home for holidays and then can't come back.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<Supposedly, the President is supposed to be proposing a plan to secure the border and enforce the current immigration laws.>> Exactly. And he has already called on the National Guard to assist with border patrol. What do people want? Give the Guard orders to shoot on sight? Sadly, I think a fair percentage of people in the U.S. would probably be OK with that.
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder "Also, who is saying "anti-gay marriage" is going to be on the 2006 ballot?" Fox News seems to think it will be for one. Here's an exchange with Laura Bush just this weekend, who doesn't think it should be a campaign issue. "WALLACE: We're also on this program going to be talking to Mary Cheney, and I want to talk to you briefly about gay rights. As you well know, dozens of families, gay families, brought their children here to the Easter egg roll. Karl Rove and congressional Republicans are planning to reintroduce a constitutional amendment this summer to ban same sex marriages and, they say, also to mobilize the conservative base. First of all, do you support such an amendment and, secondly, what do you think about using it as a campaign... BUSH: Well, I didn't know Karl was an elected official, but... WALLACE: No, but he's got some influence. BUSH: The Easter egg roll is open to all families. And families had a wonderful time, even though it was a rainy day. It was raining on everyone, but they had a wonderful time at the Easter egg roll, and I'm glad that families were able to come to the Easter egg roll. It's the one event at the White House that's open to children all year, and it's totally designed for children. You can't come as an adult unless you're accompanied by a child under the age of eight. And it's a very, very happy and wonderful tradition at the White House, and it was just as happy and wonderful this year as it ever has been. WALLACE: If I may press my question, what do you think of the constitutional amendment and the idea of using it as a campaign tool? BUSH: Well, I don't think it should be used as a campaign tool, obviously. But I do think it's something that people in the United States want to debate. And it requires a lot of sensitivity to talk about the issue, a lot of sensitivity. People, I have found, over the country don't want the governor of Massachusetts or the mayor of San Francisco to make the choice for them — the courts of Massachusetts, I should say. So I think it deserves debate. I think it's something that people want to talk about."
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<BUSH: The Easter egg roll is open to all families. And families had a wonderful time, even though it was a rainy day. It was raining on everyone, but they had a wonderful time at the Easter egg roll, and I'm glad that families were able to come to the Easter egg roll.>> I think Laura has been taking public speaking lessons from her husband... ;-)
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder Is that great or what? A gay marriage question with an aside about the Easter egg hunt elicits such a long answer about the egg hunt.
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder She forgot to mention that she appreciates rain, because it is wet, and she so therefore she can appreciate wet rain.
Originally Posted By Shooba My boyfriend was in Washington on business and saw a bit of the Easter Egg event. He had this to say in an e-mail: Incidentally, due to pouring rain this morning (though it was completely sunny by the afternoon) there were a LOT of miserable children (and parents, though the children were most expressive) today at the egg roll all soaked the bone -- some of them in pretty pink or yellow Easter dresses. I saw a couple of gay/lesbian parents with kids (identified by rainbow leis); they didn't seem too unhappy. There were also the obligatory obnoxious Christian fundamentalist people protesting across the street from the White House. Interestingly, they did not limit their condemnation to just gay people, but also to people of other religions, and even "Sunday" Christians (who show up to church on Sundays, but are otherwise evil people or whatever). Fortunately, I didn't have to listen to them for long, and I took solace in knowing they were being rained on too.
Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom <a href="http://www.washtimes.com/national/20060515-122825-2467r.htm" target="_blank">http://www.washtimes.com/natio nal/20060515-122825-2467r.htm</a> <<Reform bill to double immigration By Charles Hurt THE WASHINGTON TIMES May 15, 2006 The immigration reform bill that the Senate takes up today would more than double the flow of legal immigration into the United States each year and dramatically lower the skill level of those immigrants. The number of extended family members that U.S. citizens or legal residents can bring into this country would double. More dramatically, the number of workers and their immediate families could increase sevenfold if there are enough U.S. employers looking for cheap foreign labor. Another provision would grant humanitarian visas to any woman or orphaned child anywhere in the world "at risk of harm" because of age or sex. The little-noticed provisions are part of legislation co-sponsored by Republican Sens. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and Mel Martinez of Florida, which overcame some early stumbles and now has bipartisan support in the Senate. The bill also has been praised by President Bush, and he is expected to endorse it as a starting point for negotiations in his prime-time address to the nation tonight All told, the Hagel-Martinez bill would increase the annual flow of legal immigrants into the U.S. to more than 2 million from roughly 1 million today, scholars and analysts say. These proposed increases are in addition to the estimated 10 million to 12 million illegal aliens already in the U.S. whom the bill would put on a path to citizenship. These figures also do not take into account the hundreds of thousands of additional immigrants who would be admitted to the U.S. each year under the guest-worker program that is part of the bill. "If there is anyone left in the world, we would accept another 325,000 through the guest-worker program in the first year," said NumbersUSA's Rosemary Jenks, who supports stricter immigration laws. The numbers have emerged only recently as opponents studied the hastily written 614-page bill in the five weeks since it was first proposed. It quickly stalled over Democratic refusal to allow consideration of any amendments to the bill, but debate resumes today after Senate leaders reached a compromise on the number of amendments. "Immigration is already at historic levels," said Ms. Jenks. "This would double that at least." The figures have been provided by Ms. Jenks, the Heritage Foundation and several Senate lawyers who have studied the bill since it was proposed. One of the most alarming aspects of the bill, they say, are the provisions that drastically alter not only how many but also which type of workers are ushered into the country. Historically, the system that grants visas to workers has been slanted in favor of the highly educated and highly skilled. Currently, a little less than 60 percent of the 140,000 work visas granted each year are reserved for professors, engineers, doctors and others with "extraordinary abilities." Fewer than 10 percent are set aside for unskilled laborers. The idea has always been to draw the best and the brightest to America. Under the Senate proposal, those priorities would be flipped. The percentage of work visas that would go to the highly educated or highly skilled would be cut in half to about 30 percent. The percentage of work visas that go to unskilled laborers would more than triple. In hard numbers for those categories, the highest skilled workers would be granted 135,000 visas annually, while the unskilled would be granted 150,000 annually. What's more, the Hagel-Martinez bill would make it considerably easier for unskilled workers to remain here permanently while keeping hurdles in place for skilled workers. It would still require highly skilled workers who are here on a temporary basis to find an employer to "petition" for their permanent residency but it would allow unskilled laborers to "self-petition," meaning their employer would not have to guarantee their employment as a condition on staying. Slanting immigration law in favor of the unskilled and uneducated would be costly, said Robert Rector, a senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation who has just completed a study on the impact of immigration and the new Senate bill. "College-educated immigrants are likely to be strong contributors to the government's finances, with their taxes exceeding the government's costs," wrote Mr. Rector, who will release his findings today at a press conference with Sen. Jeff Sessions, Alabama Republican. "By contrast, immigrants with low education levels are likely to be a fiscal drain on other taxpayers," he added. "This is important because half of all adult illegal immigrants in the U.S. have less than a high-school education. In addition, recent immigrants have high levels of out-of-wedlock childbearing, which increases welfare costs and poverty." The flood of unskilled workers could cause other problems as well, opponents say. Because they would be allowed to "self-petition," their obtaining permanent residency here would bypass the Department of Labor, which currently monitors immigration to ensure that American workers are not displaced by foreign immigrant labor. But the greatest cost to the U.S. may not be the unskilled workers who immigrate here in the future, but the ones who are already here illegally. Mr. Rector estimates that the Senate bill would grant citizenship to between 9 million and 10 million illegal aliens. If allowed to become citizens, those immigrants would be permitted to bring their entire extended family, including any elderly parents. "The long-term cost of government benefits to the parents of 10 million recipients of amnesty could be $30 billion per year or more," Mr. Rector said. "In the long run, the [Hagel-Martinez] bill, if enacted, would be the largest expansion of the welfare state in 35 years." >>
Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom And this from Neil Boortz today. <<BUSH SPEAKS TONIGHT President Bush will make his address to the nation tonight on the issue of what the politically correct among us refer to as "illegal immigrants" or the "immigration" problem. The "immigrant" word seems to have stuck. It's just a nicer way of saying "gate crasher." The proper phrase is not "anti-immigrant" because these people aren't immigrants. Immigration is a legal procedure, and those who ignore the legalities and just flow across the border in violation of our laws don't earn that label. If these home invaders are immigrants, than we could just as easily apply the same name to an invading army. Call them what they are, and please don't cloak them with the same respect do most of our ancestors who followed the law and waited in line to get here. By the way ... apparently talk show hosts like me are part of the problem. Over the weekend I read the words of some columnists who made references to "anti-immigrant talk radio." Secondly, instead of "anti-immigrant," what's the matter with the phrase "pro-sovereignty?" We're really going to have to wait until after Bush's little speech tonight before the real discussion starts, but there are a few points I would sure like for him to cover. 1. We're supposed to have a military capacity in this country to fight two separate wars in two separate areas of the globe at the same time. Now we hear that we don't even have enough troops to put on the Mexican-American border. If we can't stop the Mexicans from invading the U.S., we sure as hell can't stop Kim Jong Il from invading South Korea. Sup wid dat? 2. Does your idea of a path to citizenship put these illegals who have flooded our country ahead of those who have followed the rules and who have gone to our embassies and consulates, filled out the proper paperwork, and then have waited for their return phone call? If so, aren't we, the great country of the rule-of-law, rewarding these people for ignoring those laws? 3. Are you willing to place harsh penalties on American employers who hire illegals? We know that these employers of illegals are huge supporters of the Republican Party. Can you put your oath of office to defend the borders of this country ahead of those campaign contributions? 4. Do you have the courage to tell Vicente Fox that his open support and encouragement of the Mexican invasion is not making him any friends in this country, and that it will no longer be tolerated? 5. Are you willing to take a principled position and stand up to the sure-to-come demands from the left that non-citizen Mexicans and Hispanics be allowed to vote in local elections around the country? Speaking of El Presidente .... Mexican president Vicente Fox called Bush yesterday to ask if he was militarizing the border. Well, duhhhhh. Pretty nervy guy, that Vicente. Let's see ... the Mexican government is openly encouraging the invasion of the United States by it's low-skilled workers. The Mexican government even prints instructions on how to cross the border, and to avoid being caught once in the US. There are reports -- too many to ignore -- of uniformed Mexican troops appearing along the border to assist Mexicans in getting across, even reports of illegals being ferried across the border in Mexican army troop carriers. And, to top it off, there are reports that uniformed Mexican troops have actually fired on U.S. Border Patrol agents trying to intercept Mexican drug smugglers. In the face of all this .... Vicente Fox calls Bush to ask if he's militarizing the border? Fox has a lot at stake here. Mexico is a country rich in natural resources and people. There is no reason Mexico can't be a thriving economic power unto itself -- no reason, that is, except for the rampant corruption throughout the Mexican government. The illegals streaming across the border into the U.S. give Fox relief on at least two fronts. One, they relieve the pressure for reform that could lead to jobs and opportunities in Mexico. Two, the illegal invaders represent about a $20 billion per year boost to the Mexican economy. That's "free," if you will, money just flowing into Mexico via wire transfers from the gate crashers living and working in the U.S. Oh ... and by the way ... that's $20 billion that's not being spent here to boost our economy. Bush will take the position tonight that there is just no practical way that we can deport the 12 million illegal Mexican and Hispanic aliens now in this country. Fine .. I agree. We can't deport them. Logistically, it would be a nightmare and would most likely result in violence and riots in many American cities. We can, though, yank out the welcome mat. I've gone through this on the air and in the Nuze before, but just in case the president's speech writers wanted to take a look at my notes before they polished up Bush's remarks, (yeah ... right) ... here's just how to reverse the flow: 1. Harsh .. to the draconian level .. penalties against any employer who knowing hires any workers who are not in this country legally. 2. Punishment - though milder - of any employers who hire illegals because they didn't conduct due diligence in the hiring process. 3. Change the law to deny citizenship to children born to a woman who is in this country illegally. 4. No children of illegals in American government schools. 5. Deny all social welfare benefits to anyone who is in this country illegally with the one exception of life-saving medical care. 6. Confiscate a substantial portion of the monies earned in this country by illegal immigrants. We confiscate drug money because it was earned illegally, so why can't we confiscate the money earned by illegals? I'm not saying take it all. Leave them enough to buy some food and get a bus ticket to Matamoras. Does all this sound harsh? Sorry ... I suppose it is ... but these people are criminals. They are NOT, as their signs proclaim, America. The idea here is to make them feel as unwelcome here as we possibly can. Yank out the welcome mat from under their feet. Make them prefer life in their own country to a life of deprivation here. >>
Originally Posted By CrouchingTigger >>One thing we won't need to do is load them all up in cattle cars and ship them back to Mexico. Simply securing the border will gradually aid in deportation, as illegal workers go home for holidays and then can't come back. << We must also pursue any employers that hire illegals, and pursue them vigorously. And employers need to be given a reliable method of confirming that their employees are legally allowed to work in this country. Once you do that, the jobs dry up and no one has any motivation to enter illegally.
