Posted on 03/26/2002 6:34:05 AM PST by Sir Gawain
It's not an amnesty!
Good Lord, we agree on something. Think I'll go and have a drink.
But realistically, what are the chances of ending the welfare state?
Oh, zero to none, but blaming the Mexicans for it doesnt accomplish anything.
This is the first step in the process of "amnesty".
Bull. Since when is being forced to pay a penalty considered "amnesty"?
According to the dictionary, amnesty is:
So how is being forced to pay a FINE equal to a "general pardon"? |
"Something about this whole thing is beginning to stink! It's like the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing. "
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
So...the question begs: "When did, the government right hand know what the government left hand was doing?"
I certainly don't know the answer....................
FRegards,
Letting Illegals stay = Amnesty for those Illegals.
Not when they are forced to pay a fine for their transgression. A simple dictionary query should set you straight.
A clarification: The problem isn't "immigration," it's Illegals.As for whether it "lies not in those crossing the borders, but with the socialist agenda of those already here," the anser is both, and other things as well (like the corrupt oligarchies in the countries they're leaving).
Any comprehensive solution will attack all aspects of the problem, though I'd be happy with incremental progress. However, any amnesty will only exacerbate it.
You understand this,and rest assured Ron Paul understands it,too. He's just making excuses.
He/they CAN'T address it,because if he/they do address it,they would have to admit they are playing affirmative-action games to please a voting block that has horsepower. It has nothing to do with "fairness" or "uniting families",it has to do with kissing the asses of people who might vote them out of office.
Not when they are forced to pay a fine for their transgression. A simple dictionary query should set you straight.
Nice try on the dictionary-based semantical coup, but in the real world of government, the Truth is not as you describe...
There are conditional pardons and unconditional pardons. There are conditional Amnesties and unconditional Amnesties. The "fine for their transgression" is hardly that, when after paying the fine the Illegals are allowed to continue transgressing. After paying the fine, they ought to be deported, just as any other burglar would be expected to leave your house.
$1,000 is just the fee the U.S. government is charging colonistas to go coyote.
Many smugglers of Illegals charge more.
Letting Illegals stay = Amnesty for those Illegals
EBUCK
He's Make-n Sense' it seems
EBUCK
EBUCK
The problem is both -- I believe in borders.
Not when they are forced to pay a fine for their transgression. A simple dictionary query should set you straight.
By your logic then a person who commits a murder and is only forced to pay a fine is thus not receiving amnesty.
*OR*
I feel the violating of our borders and our sovereignty is a major transgression -- not equal to murder of course. You feel it is a minor transgression deserving of a fine.
For myeslf, I believe Illegal Immigration is a crime that deserves total asset forfeiture on the way to being deported, without possibility of legal re-entry.
I believe that there should be sanctions against countries like Mexico who allow identified recidivist Illegals to incessantly sneak across our borders.
Give those nations a disincentive against any further abetting of the invasion.
Or, take away the enticing welfare incentives for crossing in the first place. Until that is accomplished, we must keep them out at all costs.
EBUCK
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.