Posted on 01/13/2015 5:04:02 AM PST by norwaypinesavage
“Immigration reform” may be the single most abused phrase in the English language. It has become a legislative honorific almost exclusively reserved for proposals which benefit everyone but actual American citizens.
Consider the recent Obama-backed “immigration reform” bill rejected by Congress. That bill—the culmination of a $1.5 billion lobbying effort1—doubled the influx of foreign workers to benefit corporate lobbyists, offered sweeping amnesty to benefit illegal immigrants, and collapsed enforcement to benefit groups in the Democrat political machine that advocate open borders.2 But for American citizens, the legislation offered nothing except lower wages, higher unemployment, and a heavier tax burden.3
Those who suggest the only problem with the “Gang of Eight” bill was that it was “comprehensive” instead of “piecemeal” are missing the point. Whether in one part, five parts, or ten, the underlying policy would have been no less disastrous.
(Excerpt) Read more at sessions.senate.gov ...
NOT “reform”.
The correct approach is ENFORCEMENT, dumbass!!
If you were to actually read this, you would see that neither I nor Senator Sessions directly used the word reform. I didn't use it at all, and Senator Sessions always placed it in quotation marks, showing distain for the word.
Ignore the idiots.
Sessions has the entire picture.
At this rate, the typical American will soon have zero respect for those who pretend to govern. That is a death sentence to a republic.
Read the article for a change. Sessions is calling for enforcement.
Some money quotes and why Jeff Sessions ought to be President:
CONCLUSION
The immigration debate can be reduced to three essential questions:
Is America a sovereign nation that has the right to control its borders and decide who comes to live and work here?
Should American immigration laws serve the just interests of
the country and its citizens?
And do those citizens have the right to expect and demand that the laws passed by their elected representatives be enforced?
If we believe the answers to these questions are “yes,” then we have no choice but to fight and to win.
Why were we elected, if not to serve the people who sent us here?
BTTT
I agree, but we also have to have a war strategy that will result in success. There are too many with a strategy that will result in failure to win.
The immigration debate can be reduced to three essential questions:
Is America a sovereign nation that has the right to control its borders and decide who comes to live and work here?
Should American immigration laws serve the just interests of the country and its citizens?
And do those citizens have the right to expect and demand that the laws passed by their elected representatives be enforced?
If we believe the answers to these questions are “yes,” then we have no choice but to fight—and to win.
Why were we elected, if not to serve the people who sent us here?
I’m confused why you are simply posting the conclusion to a document that I already posted?
Norway, surely you are aware of the longstanding FR tradition of never reading the linked article?
We post the conclusion because we like it and think it’s important enough not to be missed.
Jeff Sessions for President
Pelham, I concur. You summed it up quite well! B^)
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.