Page 5 of 72 FirstFirst 1234567891555 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 1077
  1. #61
    Joined
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,159

    Re: The Senate's "Grand Bargin" [Immigration Debate]

    Quote Originally Posted by Fluff n Stuff View Post
    Okay, here's the litmus test. Any plan to deal with Illegal Immigration or whatever you wish to call it should be held up to this and see if it is fair:
    ~~~~~~~

    How does the new plan compare to what is actually being done with the LEGAL immigration applicants?

    ~~~~~~~

    If the new plan, in any way, makes it easier to come, stay, or work in the United States than the plan in effect for LEGAL immigration, it should be dead on arrival.

    I would LOVE to hear anybody explain why this would be the wrong litmus test to apply 'nStuff...

    yay thats my feelings on it. I have a Close legal immigrant friend whose life has been made hell by INS. Totally blows my mind he could get shipped to Liberia. And they would give illegals amnesty.

    And it doesnt mean a damn thing till that border is closed.

  2. #62
    Joined
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    74,684

    Re: The Senate's "Grand Bargin" [Immigration Debate]

    Just captured this...but Im still looking for all the text.


    Analysts at the Heritage Foundation have the current legislative text of the immigration deal and are alarmed at provisions they view as dangerous loopholes. They point out that once the bill is signed its language appears to create a "cease and desist" order on law enforcement given what looks like a prima facie assumption that any illegal alien is eligible for amnesty and can therefore be given preliminary legal status. Under the "Treatment of Application" section, once an application for the new "Z" visa has been filed, it appears that the government has only "one business day" to identity a disqualifying factor or the visa must be issued. And lots of provisions are apparently able to be waived by Cabinet secretaries so there's plenty of discretion for the next Clinton administration.

  3. #63
    Joined
    Aug 2003
    Location
    West Richland, WA
    Posts
    6,397

    Re: The Senate's "Grand Bargin" [Immigration Debate]

    Related story, confirmed by snopes.http://<br /> http://michellemalkin...ves/004869.htm


    Montebello High School in California
    Last edited by bk94si; 05-18-2007 at 06:08 PM.
    Brian

  4. #64
    Joined
    Jul 2001
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Age
    30
    Posts
    20,454

    Re: The Senate's "Grand Bargin" [Immigration Debate]

    Quote Originally Posted by PaternityTest View Post
    yay thats my feelings on it. I have a Close legal immigrant friend whose life has been made hell by INS. Totally blows my mind he could get shipped to Liberia. And they would give illegals amnesty.

    And it doesnt mean a damn thing till that border is closed.
    Agreed...ugh... legislators are out of touch with Americans. This is a country that is made up of immigrants (and their descendants) who struggled to come here legally and go through the rigorous process of being a citizen. Now they want to let Jose in illegally, and not only that, but we have to accommodate him and start speaking his language.

    This is my huge, huge point of ire with Dubya. If Dubya had any chance to turn around his presidency, this would be it... but sure enough he'll throw that away. We need a real conservative in the White House who will have the balls to ship these guys back to Mexico where they belong.
    PORTABLE: Intel Core 2 Duo P8600 2.4GHz | 4GB PC6400 DDR2 | 160GB 7200rpm HDD | ATI Mobility Radeon HD 4570 | 8x DVD±RW/Blu-Ray | 15.6" UltraSharp TrueLife display

  5. #65
    Joined
    Jun 2004
    Location
    In a house
    Posts
    5,755

    Re: The Senate's "Grand Bargin" [Immigration Debate]

    This is my huge, huge point of ire with Dubya. If Dubya had any chance to turn around his presidency, this would be it...
    like saying if he was any closer the damn thing would bite him

  6. #66
    Joined
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    74,684

    Re: The Senate's "Grand Bargin" [Immigration Debate]


  7. #67
    Joined
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    74,684

    Re: The Senate's "Grand Bargin" [Immigration Debate]

    [inject humor] Somebody had to do this...

    http://ace.mu.nu/archives/227020.php

  8. #68
    Joined
    Aug 2003
    Location
    West Richland, WA
    Posts
    6,397

    Re: The Senate's "Grand Bargin" [Immigration Debate]

    ^^^

    Great picture!
    Brian

  9. #69
    Joined
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    74,684

    Re: The Senate's "Grand Bargin" [Immigration Debate]

    ^^I couldnt resist. Im reading the text of the deal..^^from above pdf. file.

    And Im struck by one incorrect beginning assumption: That the government will ever to implement all this stuff.
    Suddenly, well be able to find all these folks. Suddenly, they will come foward and sign on. A few too many "suddenly's" for me.
    Im reminded of the adage: Dont legislate what you cant possible enforce.

    So far Im leaning toward the same position I had last year.
    Close the barn doors. Then worry about what to do about the 12 million horses.

    Also give this a read and the original article he talks about. I read the WSJ piece earlier and had similar reactions.

    http://levin.nationalreview.com/post...NmZTA5OTZhZWM=

    <snip>

    The “restrictionist wing” of the GOP? We’re “restrictionists” because we want border security first, which we’ve not had for four decades? We’re “restrictionists” because we want the 1986 comprehensive immigration reform law enforced, the same law championed by the Journal back then? We’re “restrictionists” because we’re concerned about the costs to entitlement programs, public education, and the health care system? We’re “restrictionists” because we want Congress to go through the usual legislative process to examine the many, many details of this deal and ensure they’re carefully considered, rather than negotiating the deal in secret, giving certain groups veto power over provisions, and then ramming it through on the floor?
    Last edited by jimzinsocal; 05-19-2007 at 11:10 AM.

  10. #70
    Joined
    May 2002
    Location
    Twain Harte, CA
    Posts
    18,568

    Re: The Senate's "Grand Bargin" [Immigration Debate]

    ^^^ Haven't read the PDF (probably won't read it all), but was kinda interested in a Tony Snow interview here.

    His description of the 300-some miles of border fencing is something that tells me this is much ado about peddling bulldung. Read what he says... vehicle barriers. I get it. Concrete freeway dividers. We're being sold a bunch of bull.

    Also, his descriptions of who's going to be doing background checks. Yeah, right.

    Its all just a bit too much.

    I go back to this, why not just enact what was done in 1986 first? Who needs a new bill besides the illegal immigrants? What's wrong with enforcing all of the available laws on the books we already have? Why does this need hundreds of pages to be corrected? Why no discussion?

  11. #71
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    25,283

    Re: The Senate's "Grand Bargin" [Immigration Debate]

    Bull-puckey.... plain and simple. No need to thumb through the entire PDF... it does not pass the smell test.

    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  12. #72
    Joined
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    74,684

    Re: The Senate's "Grand Bargin" [Immigration Debate]

    Quote Originally Posted by Dutchcedar View Post
    ^^^ Haven't read the PDF (probably won't read it all), but was kinda interested in a Tony Snow interview here.

    His description of the 300-some miles of border fencing is something that tells me this is much ado about peddling bulldung. Read what he says... vehicle barriers. I get it. Concrete freeway dividers. We're being sold a bunch of bull.

    Also, his descriptions of who's going to be doing background checks. Yeah, right.

    Its all just a bit too much.

    I go back to this, why not just enact what was done in 1986 first? Who needs a new bill besides the illegal immigrants? What's wrong with enforcing all of the available laws on the books we already have? Why does this need hundreds of pages to be corrected? Why no discussion?
    Agree. Massive failure on part of alot of levels of government.
    All these years later and were supposed to believe "Ill be good now...Ive been misbehaving all these years...but THIS time I really mean it"

    Same crap as Social Security. Another "grand plan" gone to the sewer.

    Means as much to me as another famous Aunt Pansey promise to swear off the Smirnoff.

    IMO? This issue will never be resolved as long as the actual criteria remains..."how are these folks going/likely to vote"
    Last edited by jimzinsocal; 05-19-2007 at 01:26 PM.

  13. #73
    Joined
    May 2002
    Location
    Twain Harte, CA
    Posts
    18,568

    Re: The Senate's "Grand Bargin" [Immigration Debate]

    I've strated to read the thing and am absolutely lost in the language... which means there is one other group that's going to benefit from this besides illegal aliens... lawyers.

    This thing is so danged ful of legal mumbo-jumbo its simply pathetic.

  14. #74
    Joined
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    74,684

    Re: The Senate's "Grand Bargin" [Immigration Debate]

    Quote Originally Posted by Dutchcedar View Post
    I've strated to read the thing and am absolutely lost in the language... which means there is one other group that's going to benefit from this besides illegal aliens... lawyers.

    This thing is so danged ful of legal mumbo-jumbo its simply pathetic.
    I hear that. Heres my best analogy:


  15. #75
    Joined
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Corruptfornia
    Posts
    3,786

    Re: The Senate's "Grand Bargin" [Immigration Debate]

    I was watching CNN right after this came out and they were reporting that
    many Senators were voting on something THEY HAVEN'T EVEN READ !

    I heard someone state on the show that this new "bargain" calls for a
    SHORTER fence. It's suppose to be a little over 800 miles long. This
    "deal" the sell-outs came up with CUTS it down to a little over 300 !

    It was reported that Senator's staffs had stayed up all through the night
    to write this double talk. This have it so upside down, inside out that
    it would take at least 2 WEEKS to even get through it to understand just
    how much of a screwing the Nation is going to get.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •