President Obama on Thursday gave a thumbs-up to the framework of a plan to legalize illegal immigrants and create a flow of low-skilled foreign workers for the future, saying the bill being worked on by a Republican lawmaker and his Democrat counterpart is “promising.”
The long-awaited framework, written by Sens. Charles E. Schumer, New York Democrat, and Lindsey Graham, South Carolina Republican, calls for illegal immigrants to be put on a path to citizenship and would create a temporary program for future foreign workers. Maybe most contentious of all, it would turn all Social Security cards into tamper-proof IDs.
The senators said their legalization approach would be a “tough but fair” program that would require illegal immigrants to admit they broke the law and make them perform community service and pay a fine.
It would be rewarding criminal behavior with citizenship. They’re not going to actually require illegals to pay fines. And the administration just came out and said that they foresee unemployment to hover around 10 percent for the foreseeable future, so these “legal” illegals wouldn’t be coming here to work, they’d come here to suck on the guvment teat, taking from the system but not putting in to it. This week the Obumbler said in Ohio that we need healthcare reform to create more high-tech jobs, careers that require secondary training and/or schooling to maintain. But look at this story:
President Obama on Thursday gave a thumbs-up to the framework of a plan to legalize illegal immigrants and create a flow of low-skilled foreign workers for the future, saying the bill being worked on by a Republican lawmaker and his Democrat counterpart is “promising.”
These statements are 180 degrees out of phase from each other. If we’re going to build a new, 21st Century economy based on new technology jobs, why would we possibly need low-skilled workers from Mexico and other near third world countries? To build bridges, buildings and such? No, we have plenty out of work contractors in this country right now that could do those jobs. The plan is to build a voter base of low-skilled people who will depend in part or in whole, on the guvment to get through the day.
It would be rewarding criminal behavior with citizenship. They’re not going to actually require illegals to pay fines. And the administration just came out and said that they foresee unemployment to hover around 10 percent for the foreseeable future, so these “legal” illegals wouldn’t be coming here to work, they’d come here to suck on the guvment teat, taking from the system but not putting in to it. This week the Obumbler said in Ohio that we need healthcare reform to create more high-tech jobs, careers that require secondary training and/or schooling to maintain. But look at this story:
President Obama on Thursday gave a thumbs-up to the framework of a plan to legalize illegal immigrants and create a flow of low-skilled foreign workers for the future, saying the bill being worked on by a Republican lawmaker and his Democrat counterpart is “promising.”
These statements are 180 degrees out of phase from each other. If we’re going to build a new, 21st Century economy based on new technology jobs, why would we possibly need low-skilled workers from Mexico and other near third world countries? To build bridges, buildings and such? No, we have plenty out of work contractors in this country right now that could do those jobs. The plan is to build a voter base of low-skilled people who will depend in part or in whole, on the guvment to get through the day.
Perhaps not tyranny, but not very smart either. They’ve been doing the same thing in Germany for several decades (since the Eastern Block collapsed and landed in the EU, anyway) and thier Economy is doing great ... uh, wait a minute…
If we’re going to build a new, 21st Century economy based on new technology jobs, why would we possibly need low-skilled workers from Mexico and other near third world countries? To build bridges, buildings and such? No, we have plenty out of work contractors in this country right now that could do those jobs. The plan is to build a voter base of low-skilled people who will depend in part or in whole, on the guvment to get through the day.
Where’s the tyranny?
The tyranny is in the permanent Democrat Party’s strangle hold on the presidency, the Senate and the House of Representatives. Sutdy after study shows that the more dependent on governemnt an individual is, the more likely that individual will vote Democrat because the Democrats provide the handouts and goodies. The Democrats are levelers who believe heart and soul in equal outcome (except for themselves, of course). They are already threatening to use the Slaughter Rule to pass Trade & Cap, Amnesty and a few other of their pet projects. Nevermind that the majority of Americans don’t want any of these things; our Democrat overlords will cram them down our throats, then force us to pay for them. Is that tyrannical enough for you?
If we’re going to build a new, 21st Century economy based on new technology jobs, why would we possibly need low-skilled workers from Mexico and other near third world countries? To build bridges, buildings and such? No, we have plenty out of work contractors in this country right now that could do those jobs. The plan is to build a voter base of low-skilled people who will depend in part or in whole, on the guvment to get through the day.
Where’s the tyranny?
The tyranny is in the permanent Democrat Party’s strangle hold on the presidency, the Senate and the House of Representatives. Sutdy after study shows that the more dependent on governemnt an individual is, the more likely that individual will vote Democrat because the Democrats provide the handouts and goodies. The Democrats are levelers who believe heart and soul in equal outcome (except for themselves, of course). They are already threatening to use the Slaughter Rule to pass Trade & Cap, Amnesty and a few other of their pet projects. Nevermind that the majority of Americans don’t want any of these things; our Democrat overlords will cram them down our throats, then force us to pay for them. Is that tyrannical enough for you?
Nope, it’s not tyranny.
Jax has the right idea, it might not be smart but it’s not tyranny.
That stranglehold on power is working really well. The Dems have had both houses for what, 3.5 years and the presidency for a little over 1?
Even if they stay in power for the next 50 years through democratic elections it’s not Tyranny, even if you think they’ve stacked the deck, although this isn’t that different from what Republicans attempted to pass in 2006 when they had the House, Senate and the Presidency. As misguided as you may think their ideas were, you can be pretty sure that the motivation wasn’t to hand the democrats any kind of permanent majority.
While we’re on the subject of ludicrous claims, who’s threatening to use the self authorizing process to pass Cap and Trade, or immigration reform?
Perhaps not tyranny, but not very smart either. They’ve been doing the same thing in Germany for several decades (since the Eastern Block collapsed and landed in the EU, anyway) and thier Economy is doing great ... uh, wait a minute…
Maybe not technically tyranny, but in practice it is. The current administration will try to construct a voting block by legalizing those who are here illegally. It’s simply jack booted thuggery.
And Tripper, please address the problem of Obama wanting to build a 21st Century workforce while constructing a naturalization policy that encourages low-skilled persons to enter into the country. It’s blatantly incongruous. What could be the possible motives for allegedly promoting both schools of thought?
Perhaps not tyranny, but not very smart either. They’ve been doing the same thing in Germany for several decades (since the Eastern Block collapsed and landed in the EU, anyway) and thier Economy is doing great ... uh, wait a minute…
Maybe not technically tyranny, but in practice it is. The current administration will try to construct a voting block by legalizing those who are here illegally. It’s simply jack booted thuggery.
And Tripper, please address the problem of Obama wanting to build a 21st Century workforce while constructing a naturalization policy that encourages low-skilled persons to enter into the country. It’s blatantly incongruous. What could be the possible motives for allegedly promoting both schools of thought?
Right or wrong, some people believe that amnesty of some sorts is the better way, or perhaps only way to go. That or status quo. Some don’t believe that throwing out 10-20 million people is doable.
Perhaps not tyranny, but not very smart either. They’ve been doing the same thing in Germany for several decades (since the Eastern Block collapsed and landed in the EU, anyway) and thier Economy is doing great ... uh, wait a minute…
Maybe not technically tyranny, but in practice it is. The current administration will try to construct a voting block by legalizing those who are here illegally. It’s simply jack booted thuggery.
And Tripper, please address the problem of Obama wanting to build a 21st Century workforce while constructing a naturalization policy that encourages low-skilled persons to enter into the country. It’s blatantly incongruous. What could be the possible motives for allegedly promoting both schools of thought?
Right or wrong, some people believe that amnesty of some sorts is the better way, or perhaps only way to go. That or status quo. Some don’t believe that throwing out 10-20 million people is doable.
And others rightly believe that we can’t keep supporting them financially, especially with unemployment as high as it is. It’s funny, intent only seems important to libs when conservatives have an agenda…
Right or wrong, some people believe that amnesty of some sorts is the better way, or perhaps only way to go. That or status quo. Some don’t believe that throwing out 10-20 million people is doable.
There’s a middle ground. In fact, most are in the middle ground. You don’t have to “throw them out”. If and when they are caught, then they are deported. You don’t simply allow them amnesty because it’s too hard or some nonsense. It should continue to be illegal to not be here, uh, legally. That doesn’t mean we “throw out 10-20 million people”. That means we don’t tolerate it if and when they are caught.
Ya might as well get used to the illegals problem, ‘cuz it ain’t ever going away. If the gov’t would investigate more and fine the livin’ shit out of anybody that hires illegals, the problem would be allieviated drastically. The gov’t doesn’t really want the problem fixed. Too many of the libs in Congress want the illegals to be Democrat voters, so the problem ain’t ever gonna be fixed.
Right or wrong, some people believe that amnesty of some sorts is the better way, or perhaps only way to go. That or status quo. Some don’t believe that throwing out 10-20 million people is doable.
There’s a middle ground. In fact, most are in the middle ground. You don’t have to “throw them out”. If and when they are caught, then they are deported. You don’t simply allow them amnesty because it’s too hard or some nonsense. It should continue to be illegal to not be here, uh, legally. That doesn’t mean we “throw out 10-20 million people”. That means we don’t tolerate it if and when they are caught.
That middle ground doesn’t address the fact that there are 10-20 million illegals in US. Having so many criminals must be resource straining by itself. Another type of middle ground would be to secure the borders (somehow), and then grant some form of amnesty for the ones already in. If that would happen, then you would get rid of x million criminals in one sweep. I believe that this was what Reagan was looking for back in the days. They only failed on the securing the border-thing.
Sometimes principles are worth everything, sometimes they might be worth bending.
Ya might as well get used to the illegals problem, ‘cuz it ain’t ever going away. If the gov’t would investigate more and fine the livin’ shit out of anybody that hires illegals, the problem would be allieviated drastically. The gov’t doesn’t really want the problem fixed. Too many of the libs in Congress want the illegals to be Democrat voters, so the problem ain’t ever gonna be fixed.
But illegals can’t vote, so I don’t see the incentive. Are they banking on possible amnesty from time to time? Wouldn’t it be better to work for laxer legal immigration rules? “No work, no relations, no connections, no education? You are all welcome anyway”.
Are they banking on possible amnesty from time to time? Wouldn’t it be better to work for laxer legal immigration rules?
Yes, they are, and no it wouldn’t.
The US is currently in a recession. Every illegal working is an American citizen not working. And every illegal working at subsistence wages is another reason for wages to remain depressed.
Even in the best of times, the US has an entrenched portion of the population that refuses to give up welfare and go to work. A few years back, Omaha had an expremely low unemployment rate. Companies were begging for workers. Companies were willing to pay extra for workers (which is unheard of in Omaha). But we still had the same number of welfare recipients. As long as there is a single able-bodied person on welfare, the US does not have a labor shortage.
Mexico and the rest of Middle and South America have got to solve their social problems themselves—not encourage illegal imigration to the US. With the best will in the world, the US simply cannot afford to support itself and all of the Americas south of our borders—especially when we are being bled white by US dollars being shipped south of our border. Every dollar an illegal sends home is a dollar siphoned out of the US economy.
And why is the US required to accept any and every one who wants to come here? Himself and I are both past age 45 (or is it 40?) so New Zealand will not accept us as immigrants because we would cost them too much in health benefits and other social programs. But if Himself and I decide we’d much rather retire to New Zealand than stay here in the US, the same logic that is used to condone illegal immigration to the US should apply to New Zealand. We’ll hop a plane for a visit, overstay our visas and settle down for a New Zealand taxpayer funded retirement. And if the Kiwi government decides to kick us out, we’ll just start screaming that NZ is bigoted against Americans, nativist and anti-immigrant.
I personally believe that the US must become choosier about who we let in. We need well trained, well educated and ambitious individuals who embrace the American can-do spirit—not a bunch of unskilled illiterates who view the US as nothing more than a cash cow.
Close the borders, deny illegals social services and deport them if they commit a crime. Fine the hell out of companies that hire illegals and jail the HR personnel who hired them. Fine landlords who rent to illegals.
AND QUIT CONFLATING BEING ANTI-ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION WITH BEING ANTI-LEGAL IMMIGRATION !!!!!
Are they banking on possible amnesty from time to time? Wouldn’t it be better to work for laxer legal immigration rules?
Yes, they are, and no it wouldn’t.
The US is currently in a recession. Every illegal working is an American citizen not working. And every illegal working at subsistence wages is another reason for wages to remain depressed.
Even in the best of times, the US has an entrenched portion of the population that refuses to give up welfare and go to work. A few years back, Omaha had an expremely low unemployment rate. Companies were begging for workers. Companies were willing to pay extra for workers (which is unheard of in Omaha). But we still had the same number of welfare recipients. As long as there is a single able-bodied person on welfare, the US does not have a labor shortage.
Mexico and the rest of Middle and South America have got to solve their social problems themselves—not encourage illegal imigration to the US. With the best will in the world, the US simply cannot afford to support itself and all of the Americas south of our borders—especially when we are being bled white by US dollars being shipped south of our border. Every dollar an illegal sends home is a dollar siphoned out of the US economy.
And why is the US required to accept any and every one who wants to come here? Himself and I are both past age 45 (or is it 40?) so New Zealand will not accept us as immigrants because we would cost them too much in health benefits and other social programs. But if Himself and I decide we’d much rather retire to New Zealand than stay here in the US, the same logic that is used to condone illegal immigration to the US should apply to New Zealand. We’ll hop a plane for a visit, overstay our visas and settle down for a New Zealand taxpayer funded retirement. And if the Kiwi government decides to kick us out, we’ll just start screaming that NZ is bigoted against Americans, nativist and anti-immigrant.
I personally believe that the US must become choosier about who we let in. We need well trained, well educated and ambitious individuals who embrace the American can-do spirit—not a bunch of unskilled illiterates who view the US as nothing more than a cash cow.
Close the borders, deny illegals social services and deport them if they commit a crime. Fine the hell out of companies that hire illegals and jail the HR personnel who hired them. Fine landlords who rent to illegals.
AND QUIT CONFLATING BEING ANTI-ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION WITH BEING ANTI-LEGAL IMMIGRATION !!!!!
Do what’s bolded above well enough, and we wouldn’t need to worry about closing the borders in order to control illegal immigration. If we take away the monetary incentives to be here, not only will they quit coming, but the vast majority of the ones already here would leave voluntarily. Another thing that would help and needs to be done is eliminating citizenship for children of illegals born here. If it can’t be proven that a child has at least one American citizen parent, then the child should not automatically be a citizen.
You mis-understood me. The premise was that liberals love illegal immigration because it gives them more voters. You say that the plan behind this is occational amnesty grants. Say every 30 years or so. I asked Dio if it wouldn’t be smarter to just let everybody in. The less skilled, the better, from the liberal perspective. Since they want more voters. No?
AND QUIT CONFLATING BEING ANTI-ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION WITH BEING ANTI-LEGAL IMMIGRATION !!!!!
Perhaps not tyranny, but not very smart either. They’ve been doing the same thing in Germany for several decades (since the Eastern Block collapsed and landed in the EU, anyway) and thier Economy is doing great ... uh, wait a minute…
Maybe not technically tyranny, but in practice it is. The current administration will try to construct a voting block by legalizing those who are here illegally. It’s simply jack booted thuggery.
Technically and in practically it is not tyranny. I wish you had the opportunity to live under real tyranny for a week. I’d love to hear how you got on.
Even if they do what you suggest, by doing what the Republican controled congress and Republican President tried to do a few years ago (and please recall that Reagan gave real amnesty to a bunch of illegals), it’s still not tyranny.
crichton - 19 March 2010 05:44 PM
And Tripper, please address the problem of Obama wanting to build a 21st Century workforce while constructing a naturalization policy that encourages low-skilled persons to enter into the country. It’s blatantly incongruous. What could be the possible motives for allegedly promoting both schools of thought?
Sure. You will no doubt be amazed to know that right now, at this very moment, there are a variety of jobs available in the US. Here is a job opening for a Solar PV Engineer, and the McDonalds a mile from my house has a sign out front saying they are hiring. (you’ll have to take my word for that one).
Are you under the impression that creating more high tech jobs will eliminate the need for low skilled workers? The immigration issue aside for a second here, I don’t see any conflict with the idea that high tech jobs could be created, and at the same time there would still be demand for low skilled workers.
Another thing that would help and needs to be done is eliminating citizenship for children of illegals born here. If it can’t be proven that a child has at least one American citizen parent, then the child should not automatically be a citizen.
Dio, a point of clarification here. Do you mean “if it can’t be proven that a child has at least one legal resident parent, then the child should not automatically be a citizen” ?
While I can see a good argument for a child born in the US of two illegal immigrant parents not being a citizen by birth, (though it would likely take a constitutional amendment), It seems sensible to me that a child born in the US with at least one parent who resides here legally, either because they are a citizen or a legal resident, would be a US citizen by birth.
Diogenes - 19 March 2010 09:05 PM
Ya might as well get used to the illegals problem, ‘cuz it ain’t ever going away. If the gov’t would investigate more and fine the livin’ shit out of anybody that hires illegals, the problem would be allieviated drastically. The gov’t doesn’t really want the problem fixed. Too many of the libs in Congress want the illegals to be Democrat voters, so the problem ain’t ever gonna be fixed.
That doesn’t explain why the Republican party have made a couple of attempts at this one as well, along very similar lines as are being proposed now. There’s probably some truth to your statement that the government doesn’t really want the problem fixed, but all the blame can’t be assigned to the libs in Congress.
samsgran1948 - 20 March 2010 12:04 PM
As long as there is a single able-bodied person on welfare, the US does not have a labor shortage.
What if that single able bodied person doesn’t take the job?
That’s a shitty deal for the business who needs workers. You can’t make that able bodied person take a job they don’t want of course, but the business still needs somebody, hence there is a labor shortage.
Why shouldn’t the business in question be able to fulfill their needs with an immigrant worker?
samsgran1948 - 20 March 2010 12:04 PM
And why is the US required to accept any and every one who wants to come here? Himself and I are both past age 45 (or is it 40?) so New Zealand will not accept us as immigrants because we would cost them too much in health benefits and other social programs. But if Himself and I decide we’d much rather retire to New Zealand than stay here in the US, the same logic that is used to condone illegal immigration to the US should apply to New Zealand. We’ll hop a plane for a visit, overstay our visas and settle down for a New Zealand taxpayer funded retirement. And if the Kiwi government decides to kick us out, we’ll just start screaming that NZ is bigoted against Americans, nativist and anti-immigrant.
You should do some research. There are ways for non NZ citizens to retire to NZ. You’d need to invest half a million US and sort out your own health insurance so it’s not for everyone.
By the way, I haven’t heard anybody saying the US needs to accept any and every person who wants to come here.
samsgran1948 - 20 March 2010 12:04 PM
I personally believe that the US must become choosier about who we let in. We need well trained, well educated and ambitious individuals who embrace the American can-do spirit—not a bunch of unskilled illiterates who view the US as nothing more than a cash cow.
More reactionary rubbish. Depending on what you actually mean by “let in”, you might be surprised to find out that the US is already quite picky about it. You should take a look at the process to get a work visa. Unskilled illiterates won’t get a work visa under the current system, with the possible exception of the green card lottery (which is a fairly daft program)
Another thing that would help and needs to be done is eliminating citizenship for children of illegals born here. If it can’t be proven that a child has at least one American citizen parent, then the child should not automatically be a citizen.
Dio, a point of clarification here. Do you mean “if it can’t be proven that a child has at least one legal resident parent, then the child should not automatically be a citizen” ?
While I can see a good argument for a child born in the US of two illegal immigrant parents not being a citizen by birth, (though it would likely take a constitutional amendment), It seems sensible to me that a child born in the US with at least one parent who resides here legally, either because they are a citizen or a legal resident, would be a US citizen by birth.
If at least one parent is here legally and not on any type of diplomatic or temporary visa, i.e., on a path to citizenship, then yes. If they’re here on a student or any other type of temporary visa, then no.
Tripper - 20 March 2010 02:44 PM
Diogenes - 19 March 2010 09:05 PM
Ya might as well get used to the illegals problem, ‘cuz it ain’t ever going away. If the gov’t would investigate more and fine the livin’ shit out of anybody that hires illegals, the problem would be allieviated drastically. The gov’t doesn’t really want the problem fixed. Too many of the libs in Congress want the illegals to be Democrat voters, so the problem ain’t ever gonna be fixed.
That doesn’t explain why the Republican party have made a couple of attempts at this one as well, along very similar lines as are being proposed now. There’s probably some truth to your statement that the government doesn’t really want the problem fixed, but all the blame can’t be assigned to the libs in Congress.
All the Republican efforts have pretty much been to try to nullify criticism and false charges of xenophobia/racism.
Tripper - 20 March 2010 02:44 PM
samsgran1948 - 20 March 2010 12:04 PM
And why is the US required to accept any and every one who wants to come here? Himself and I are both past age 45 (or is it 40?) so New Zealand will not accept us as immigrants because we would cost them too much in health benefits and other social programs. But if Himself and I decide we’d much rather retire to New Zealand than stay here in the US, the same logic that is used to condone illegal immigration to the US should apply to New Zealand. We’ll hop a plane for a visit, overstay our visas and settle down for a New Zealand taxpayer funded retirement. And if the Kiwi government decides to kick us out, we’ll just start screaming that NZ is bigoted against Americans, nativist and anti-immigrant.
By the way, I haven’t heard anybody saying the US needs to accept any and every person who wants to come here.
Any stand that illegal immigration should be either willingly tolerated or just simply be made legal without enforced restrictions and punishments is truly saying just that.
Tripper - 20 March 2010 02:44 PM
samsgran1948 - 20 March 2010 12:04 PM
I personally believe that the US must become choosier about who we let in. We need well trained, well educated and ambitious individuals who embrace the American can-do spirit—not a bunch of unskilled illiterates who view the US as nothing more than a cash cow.
More reactionary rubbish. Depending on what you actually mean by “let in”, you might be surprised to find out that the US is already quite picky about it. You should take a look at the process to get a work visa. Unskilled illiterates won’t get a work visa under the current system, with the possible exception of the green card lottery (which is a fairly daft program)
Yeah, except for anybody of latin descent who crosses the border illegally.
Ya might as well get used to the illegals problem, ‘cuz it ain’t ever going away. If the gov’t would investigate more and fine the livin’ shit out of anybody that hires illegals, the problem would be allieviated drastically. The gov’t doesn’t really want the problem fixed. Too many of the libs in Congress want the illegals to be Democrat voters, so the problem ain’t ever gonna be fixed.
That doesn’t explain why the Republican party have made a couple of attempts at this one as well, along very similar lines as are being proposed now. There’s probably some truth to your statement that the government doesn’t really want the problem fixed, but all the blame can’t be assigned to the libs in Congress.
All the Republican efforts have pretty much been to try to nullify criticism and false charges of xenophobia/racism.
I think there’s been a healthy helping of courting Latino voters in there as well, and some pressure from those interests who stand to benefit from cheap labour of illegals, or people on guest worker programs.
Diogenes - 20 March 2010 03:17 PM
Tripper - 20 March 2010 02:44 PM
samsgran1948 - 20 March 2010 12:04 PM
And why is the US required to accept any and every one who wants to come here? Himself and I are both past age 45 (or is it 40?) so New Zealand will not accept us as immigrants because we would cost them too much in health benefits and other social programs. But if Himself and I decide we’d much rather retire to New Zealand than stay here in the US, the same logic that is used to condone illegal immigration to the US should apply to New Zealand. We’ll hop a plane for a visit, overstay our visas and settle down for a New Zealand taxpayer funded retirement. And if the Kiwi government decides to kick us out, we’ll just start screaming that NZ is bigoted against Americans, nativist and anti-immigrant.
By the way, I haven’t heard anybody saying the US needs to accept any and every person who wants to come here.
Any stand that illegal immigration should be either willingly tolerated or just simply be made legal without enforced restrictions and punishments is truly saying just that.
Which to be clear, is not what is being proposed, or was proposed in the last couple of attempts at this.
Diogenes - 20 March 2010 03:17 PM
Tripper - 20 March 2010 02:44 PM
samsgran1948 - 20 March 2010 12:04 PM
I personally believe that the US must become choosier about who we let in. We need well trained, well educated and ambitious individuals who embrace the American can-do spirit—not a bunch of unskilled illiterates who view the US as nothing more than a cash cow.
More reactionary rubbish. Depending on what you actually mean by “let in”, you might be surprised to find out that the US is already quite picky about it. You should take a look at the process to get a work visa. Unskilled illiterates won’t get a work visa under the current system, with the possible exception of the green card lottery (which is a fairly daft program)
Yeah, except for anybody of latin descent who crosses the border illegally.
It should be pretty clear from my words above that I was talking about legal immigration.
Yeah, except for anybody of latin descent who crosses the border illegally.
It should be pretty clear from my words above that I was talking about legal immigration.
I don’t know of anything in our legal immigration policy that I have a significant problem with.
Well that’s the question. What about our immigration policy is broken?
And Tripper, you’re right, we don’t have full-on tyranny in this country, but that doesn’t mean that tyrannical actions can’t be taken by our guvment. Please see Waco and Ruby Ridge for details…
And Tripper, you’re right, we don’t have full-on tyranny in this country, but that doesn’t mean that tyrannical actions can’t be taken by our guvment. Please see Waco and Ruby Ridge for details…
Yup, both of those were wrong.
I’m glad you can see that you do not live under tyranny and that there is nothing tyrannical about the proposed bipartisan legislation on immigration.
The biggest problem that I have with the current atmosphere in Washington is that the party in charge sees both healthcare and immigration reform as gateways to an end that they’re not willing to fully expose. Again, what are the problems with immigration, other than the lack of enforcement?
