Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Bush's Amnesty Plan Triggers Jump in Illegal Immigration
HUMAN EVENTS ^ | January 27, 2004 | Joseph A. D'Agostino

Posted on 01/27/2004 12:51:15 AM PST by sarcasm

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-59 next last

1 posted on 01/27/2004 12:51:16 AM PST by sarcasm
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: gubamyster
ping
2 posted on 01/27/2004 12:51:47 AM PST by sarcasm (Tancredo 2004)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sarcasm
He said that illegal immigration could be brought under control if the federal government wished to do so. "What's lacking is the political will to do it," he said

No mention of a plan, just a platitude.

3 posted on 01/27/2004 12:54:37 AM PST by Dane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dane
No need to mention the plan. Good plans have been mentioned from MANY quarters MANY times before. The answer has been presented time after time in thread after thread.

You don't deport them. You set up the circumstances so they leave of their own free will.

It is already a federal felony to knowingly hire an illegal alien. A pattern of committing felonies is organized crime, covered by RICO.

If employers know they will a) go to jail, b) pay thousands or millions in fines, and c) possibly lose their business if privately held, they will quit hiring illegals. With no jobs they will go home without being evicted. This process can be helped along by denying them things such as driver's licenses, welfare benefits, and citizenship rights for children born of parents here illegally (anchor children).

It is really very simple. When someone ignores the obvious and tries to make this difficult, it causes me to believe they don't want a resolution to the problem

I don't see a platitude - just the truth.

It is obvious to me with this issue that there are those here at FR who a) don't see a problem with the number of illegals in the country, or b) approve of the number of illegals in this country. Perhaps your case would be better served by telling the truth about how you feel on the subject of immigration control, rather than saying it (control) can't be done.
4 posted on 01/27/2004 1:17:43 AM PST by WayneM (Cut the KRAP (Karl Rove Amnesty Plan). Call your elected officials and say "NO!!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: WayneM
If employers know they will a) go to jail, b) pay thousands or millions in fines, and c) possibly lose their business if privately held, they will quit hiring illegals. With no jobs they will go home without being evicted. This process can be helped along by denying them things such as driver's licenses, welfare benefits, and citizenship rights for children born of parents here illegally (anchor children).

It is really very simple. When someone ignores the obvious and tries to make this difficult, it causes me to believe they don't want a resolution to the problem

So you would bankrupt businesses and put native born Americans out of work in the process.

Rush had a caller who smugly said that businesses could raise prices. I guess he didn't own a business. Rush put it very bluntly. Busineses are not in business to employ people, but to make money. I guess you are for a new government regulatory agency such as the IRS to regulate the millions of legitimate businesses for their crime of finding people who will work hard and do good things such as roof houses, clean toilets, and make beds in hotels.

What's the name of your regulatory agency, the Business Purity Administration?

5 posted on 01/27/2004 1:25:38 AM PST by Dane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Dane
America did not need a massive invasion of criminal aliens in the past to become the greatest nation on earth. We don't need them now. Any business breaking federal law with respect to immigration should be put out of business, period.

That's the way it works in a nation governed by law. We are a nation of laws. If you don't like a law, you get it changed. You don't break it at your whim.

The reason the law hasn't been changed is the VAST MAJORITY OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE KNOW ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION IS WRONG AND ARE VEHEMENTLY AGAINST IT.

In America, capitalism does not, and should not, come before the law. Such a perversion of law enforcement is the same argument made by drug dealers and other organized criminals. Any criminal, from petty thief to corporate fraud, can argue he had to break the law to make ends meet.

6 posted on 01/27/2004 1:58:54 AM PST by NoControllingLegalAuthority
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: sarcasm
Bush's Amnesty Plan Triggers Jump in Illegal Immigration

------------------------

Of course. Bush and Fox have meant it to be that way.

7 posted on 01/27/2004 2:13:15 AM PST by RLK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NoControllingLegalAuthority
So I see that you are also in favor of the Business Purity Administration act.
8 posted on 01/27/2004 2:23:36 AM PST by Dane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: WayneM
Dittos to all your points.
9 posted on 01/27/2004 2:47:41 AM PST by dennisw (“We'll put a boot in your ass, it's the American way.” - Toby Keith)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Dane
From your response to my post, I suspect you (or a friend or family member) own a business and employee illegals.
If a business cannot make a profit while operating WITHIN THE LAW, then it should be allowed to go bankrupt. This is what capitalism is all about.
Selectively enforcing the law, as is now done, is unfair because it rewards those who cheat and hire illegals. In addition, it pressures the law abiding to break the law in order to survive.
In an environment where the law is uniformly enforced, every employer will operate under the same set of rules - this is only fair.
I would hope you aren't actually suggesting that illegal actions are OK when you consider them financially necessary.
10 posted on 01/27/2004 8:07:43 AM PST by WayneM (Cut the KRAP (Karl Rove Amnesty Plan). Call your elected officials and say "NO!!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: *immigrant_list; A Navy Vet; Lion Den Dan; Free the USA; Libertarianize the GOP; madfly; B4Ranch; ..
ping
11 posted on 01/27/2004 8:48:14 AM PST by gubamyster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #12 Removed by Moderator

Comment #13 Removed by Moderator

To: WayneM
Don't confuse them with the facts. They will stick with their man even if it bankrupts the nation.
14 posted on 01/27/2004 9:05:14 AM PST by exmarine ( sic semper tyrannis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: WayneM
Party before country. To many, little else matters.....
15 posted on 01/27/2004 9:06:59 AM PST by Joe Hadenuf (I failed anger management class, they decided to give me a passing grade anyway)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: sarcasm
Well, duh.
16 posted on 01/27/2004 9:13:55 AM PST by Tauzero (A slight squeeze on the hooter is an excellent safety precaution)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sarcasm
It's the same all up and down the border. Here in Cochise County, Arizona the ground sensors are constantly being triggered -- the ones belonging to the US Border Patrol and the ones belonging to American Border Patrol.

A year ago, if I went out looking for illegals it was only a 50-50 chance I'd find any on a given day or night. Today it's just a question of how many.
17 posted on 01/27/2004 9:15:54 AM PST by JackelopeBreeder (Proud to be a loco gringo armed vigilante terrorist cucaracha!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dane; sarcasm
<< He said that illegal immigration could be brought under control if the federal government wished to do so. "What's lacking is the political will to do it," he said

No mention of a plan, just a platitude. >>

Decades of banging their plans -- and their heads -- against scores of hundreds of gangster politicians' doors tends to have the effect of reducing good men's plans to platitudes
18 posted on 01/27/2004 9:17:20 AM PST by Brian Allen ( Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God - Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: sarcasm
Again, Bush did not propose in any shape of form any type of Amnesty!
19 posted on 01/27/2004 9:17:40 AM PST by KevinDavis (Let the meek inherit the Earth, the rest of us will explore the stars!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WayneM
The front line in the War on Terrorism is cutting dane's lawns, trimming his hedges -- and flipping his burgers.
20 posted on 01/27/2004 9:19:27 AM PST by Brian Allen ( Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God - Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: WayneM
No need to mention the plan. Good plans have been mentioned from MANY quarters MANY times before. The answer has been presented time after time in thread after thread.

You don't deport them. You set up the circumstances so they leave of their own free will.

It is already a federal felony to knowingly hire an illegal alien. A pattern of committing felonies is organized crime, covered by RICO.

If employers know they will a) go to jail, b) pay thousands or millions in fines, and c) possibly lose their business if privately held, they will quit hiring illegals. With no jobs they will go home without being evicted. This process can be helped along by denying them things such as driver's licenses, welfare benefits, and citizenship rights for children born of parents here illegally (anchor children).

It is really very simple. When someone ignores the obvious and tries to make this difficult, it causes me to believe they don't want a resolution to the problem

I don't see a platitude - just the truth.

It is obvious to me with this issue that there are those here at FR who a) don't see a problem with the number of illegals in the country, or b) approve of the number of illegals in this country. Perhaps your case would be better served by telling the truth about how you feel on the subject of immigration control, rather than saying it (control) can't be done.

I highly disapprove of illegal immigration. Given a viable method I would deport every one of them tomorrow. That being said, I am realistic enough to acknowledge "viable" is the key issue.

What you say is simple is quite the opposite. By law an employer is required to verify a potential employee is eligible to be hired. The potential employee must present 2 of a possible 24 items to verify eligibility. If presented, the employer cannot be held liable for the status of that employee. Even if one of the items is a pathetic forgery, the employer is still absolved because the letter of the law has been complied with. There is no requirement that the employer verify that the item is not a forgery, primarily because of court rulings involving discrimination.

Now if you have a plan for employers actually verifying the validity of documents that will pass challenge in the courts, THEN, perhaps the process becomes simple. Until you can present such plans, perhaps you should be more careful of your indictments of people's motives.

Incidently, denying citizenship to anyone born within the borders of the United States would require a constitutional ammendment (Article XIV, Section 1). Ammending the constitution is simple?

21 posted on 01/27/2004 9:23:58 AM PST by CMAC51
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: KevinDavis
Again, Bush did not propose in any shape of form any type of Amnesty!

Um what do you call it when you legalize illegals?
22 posted on 01/27/2004 9:24:50 AM PST by rolling_stone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: sarcasm
He said that illegal immigration could be brought under control if the federal government wished to do so.

I wish I'd thought of that. He's a genius.

23 posted on 01/27/2004 9:25:36 AM PST by Consort
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RLK
bump
24 posted on 01/27/2004 9:29:28 AM PST by Lady Eileen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: KevinDavis
Again, Bush did not propose in any shape of form any type of Amnesty!

It does pose an interesting question of cause and effect. Which is responsible, Bush presenting a plan which he states does not include amnesty or the media and opponents who claim Bush is proposing amnesty?

The illegal crossing the border is highly unlikely to have looked at the plan.

25 posted on 01/27/2004 9:32:10 AM PST by CMAC51
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Dane
So you would bankrupt businesses and put native born Americans out of work in the process.

Rush had a caller who smugly said that businesses could raise prices. I guess he didn't own a business. Rush put it very bluntly. Busineses are not in business to employ people, but to make money. I guess you are for a new government regulatory agency such as the IRS to regulate the millions of legitimate businesses for their crime of finding people who will work hard and do good things such as roof houses, clean toilets, and make beds in hotels.

A very economical argument on behalf of a peculiar institution:

The employment of Illegal Aliens by unscrupulous businesses.


26 posted on 01/27/2004 9:33:12 AM PST by Sabertooth (Take the Reagan Amnesty Pop Quiz! - http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1065553/posts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: WayneM
Dane has been an advocate for and enabler of illegals for quite some time. It's blatantly obvious in his posts.
27 posted on 01/27/2004 9:36:35 AM PST by ought-six
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: WayneM
From your response to my post, I suspect you (or a friend or family member) own a business and employee illegals

Nope, no one I know. I was just commenting on how you are going to put through your new regulations. It's easy to spout off, let's go after the employers. What about native born Americans who work for that company. Do you want to throw them out on the street? Rush had had a caller yesterday, who smugly said, raise the prices. That ain't going to work. Business is in business to make money and in this highly competitive marketplace, raising prices is suicidal to a business, but what the hey we gotta get rid of the dirty immigrants who clean our toilets, wash our dishes, and make our beds in hotels. No matter their work ethic. Bush's proposal gives them a chance to go above ground, while not granting citizenship.

In closing it seems that you want a new beauracracy in the form of the IRS or OSHA. Isn't business regulated enough.

28 posted on 01/27/2004 9:38:58 AM PST by Dane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: KevinDavis; CMAC51

KevinDavis: Again, Bush did not propose in any shape of form any type of Amnesty!

cmac51: Which is responsible, Bush presenting a plan which he states does not include amnesty or the media and opponents who claim Bush is proposing amnesty?



The Amnesty proposal of President Bush is, in fact, an Amnesty, no matter what he tries to call it, and a repetition of the past.

Effect on Illegal Aliens Reagan
Amnesty
Bush
Amnesty

Legalizes millions, but not all, Illegal Aliens.

Yes

Yes

Charges a fee to Illegal Aliens for legalization.

Yes

Yes

Initially grants temporary, not permanent status to Illegal Aliens.

Yes

Yes

Provides path for subsequent permanent status for legalized Illegals.

Yes

Yes

Provides path to eventual U.S. citizenship for legalized Illegals.

Yes

Yes

Wasn't officially called an Amnesty

Yes

Yes

Take the Reagan Amnesty Pop Quiz!


29 posted on 01/27/2004 9:41:53 AM PST by Sabertooth (Take the Reagan Amnesty Pop Quiz! - http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1065553/posts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Dane
No mention of a plan, just a platitude.

Gee...I must have missed the story about how the economy must have had a "boom" of "Toilet-Scrubbing" jobs...isn't that why they come here ILLEGALLY Dane?

30 posted on 01/27/2004 9:45:10 AM PST by Itzlzha (The avalanche has already started...it is too late for the pebbles to vote!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Sabertooth
The Amnesty proposal of President Bush is, in fact, an Amnesty, no matter what he tries to call it, and a repetition of the past.

As an authority on the subject, perhaps you can answer definitively. Is there a penalty (monetary or otherwise) that a currently illegal alien pays for guest worker status that an alien who is not illegal does not pay for guest worker status? I have heard the question answered yes, but not by an authority. I have not seen enough details of the plan to answer the question authoritatively myself.

The answer, whatever is correct determines if an Amnesty is involved.

According the Marion Webster dictionary, an amnesty is granting a pardon to a large group. A pardon is forgiving an offense without a penalty having been paid.

If a penalty is paid, no amnesty exists. The argument is then over how appropriate the size of the penalty is, which I would presume is negotiable during the formation of any bill.

31 posted on 01/27/2004 10:53:25 AM PST by CMAC51
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: sarcasm
Campaign Finance Reform thread-day 47

32 posted on 01/27/2004 10:57:00 AM PST by The_Eaglet (Conservative chat on IRC: http://searchirc.com/search.php?F=exact&T=chan&N=33&I=conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Dane
You are right it is easier to raise taxes to support business' cheap labor. Business has a lobby the taxpayers gets the shaft.
33 posted on 01/27/2004 11:00:30 AM PST by junta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Dane
Business is in business to make money and in this highly competitive marketplace, raising prices is suicidal to a business, but what the hey we gotta get rid of the dirty immigrants who clean our toilets, wash our dishes, and make our beds in hotels. No matter their work ethic.

The problem is, neither the businesses nor the immigrants pay the full costs of immigration - the massive increase in educational costs from the influx of non-English speaking and special-needs children, the increase in crime, the increase in uninsured people needing health-care, etc.. Illegal immigrants don't generally earn enough to pay significant amounts of state tax; which means the rest of us pick up these costs. Thanks, but I'd rather see the meat-packing industry and the hotel industry pay higher wages to hire native-born Americans, and pay the higher prices for meat and hotel rooms, than pick up the tab in my tax bill.

34 posted on 01/27/2004 11:06:03 AM PST by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Dane
I was just commenting on how you are going to put through your new regulations.

I believe there are already regulations on the books that prohibit hiring of illegal aliens. The solution lies not in new regulations, but with the proper enforcement of existing regulations. In many cases these existing regulations have been on the books for decades, so it’s not like something new is being sprung on anyone.

It's easy to spout off, let's go after the employers. What about native born Americans who work for that company. Do you want to throw them out on the street?

If a business cannot turn a profit while staying within the law, then it should go out of business. I work for a software company. If my company needed to sell crack in order to turn a profit, then maybe we should be shut down.

Rush had had a caller yesterday, who smugly said, raise the prices. That ain't going to work. Business is in business to make money and in this highly competitive marketplace, raising prices is suicidal to a business, but what the hey we gotta get rid of the dirty immigrants who clean our toilets, wash our dishes, and make our beds in hotels. No matter their work ethic.

Nobody can raise prices unilaterally. However, consider a labor market where all cleaning services use 50% illegal labor. If they are forced to give up the illegal labor, and then raise prices to compensate for the higher wages necessary to attract American workers, then they will all just have to bite the bullet and do it. But guess what – it is a level playing field and they will ALL have to do it. Therefore no one company is at a competitive disadvantage.

Bush's proposal gives them a chance to go above ground, while not granting citizenship.

Isn’t that just great. Forgiveness for past misdeeds such as entering illegally, plus all the financial and societal benefits of citizenship without any of the messy obligations. Lawbreakers and linebreakers are rewarded, businesses get their cheap labor subsidized by the American taxpayer – what a wonderful world this could be.

In closing it seems that you want a new beauracracy in the form of the IRS or OSHA. Isn't business regulated enough.

Once again – no need for a new bureaucracy. We already have federal agencies that are responsible for enforcing these laws. Except they have been told they cannot enforce them

All we need to do is untie the hands of existing agencies and personnel responsible for enforcing immigration. Once the first few crackdowns result in a few thousand fines of 10k-20K per illegal worker, businesses will begin to police themselves.
35 posted on 01/27/2004 11:07:25 AM PST by WayneM (Cut the KRAP (Karl Rove Amnesty Plan). Call your elected officials and say "NO!!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Dane
Obviously, you don't know the tax laws concerning an employer's responsiblities regarding paying and reporting payroll taxes to various state/federal agencies otherwise you'd understand why there's such widespread vehement opposition to this idiocy. As someone who employs only Americans and pay all my required payroll taxes, it infuriates me to no end seeing all these other businesses openly breaking federal law by employing and EVADING their tax duty by hiring illegals. Where in the hell is it written that it's Ok to have a double standard in this country when it comes to enforcement of employment laws? Either we have equality under the law or a banana republic....what do you care to live in?
36 posted on 01/27/2004 11:09:39 AM PST by american spirit (ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION = NATIONAL SUICIDE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: CMAC51
Is there a penalty (monetary or otherwise) that a currently illegal alien pays for guest worker status that an alien who is not illegal does not pay for guest worker status? I have heard the question answered yes, but not by an authority. I have not seen enough details of the plan to answer the question authoritatively myself.

The President calls it a "one-time fee." Illegals have to pay it to be legalized. Legitimate guest worker applicants don't have to pay a fee.

Undocumented workers now here will be required to pay a one-time fee to register for the temporary worker program. Those who seek to join the program from abroad and have complied with our immigration laws will not have to pay any fee.
Text of Bush immigration speech
President outlines plan to give illegals legal status
World Net Daily - January 7, 2004
The answer, whatever is correct determines if an Amnesty is involved.

According the Marion Webster dictionary, an amnesty is granting a pardon to a large group. A pardon is forgiving an offense without a penalty having been paid.

If a penalty is paid, no amnesty exists. The argument is then over how appropriate the size of the penalty is, which I would presume is negotiable during the formation of any bill

Yeah, I've seen the dictionary argument before. It doesn't fly.

Here's the most relevant passage from the most famous pardon in American History...

Now, therefore, I, Gerald R. Ford, President of the United States, pursuant to the pardon power conferred upon me by Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution, have granted and by these presents do grant a full, free, and absolute pardon unto Richard Nixon for all offenses against the United States which he, Richard Nixon, has committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from July (January) 20, 1969 through August 9, 1974.
President Ford's Pardon of Richard Nixon
September 8th, 1974

Why do you think that President Ford took such pains to grant a "full, free, and absolute pardon" to Richard Nixon?

The answer is because not all pardons are "full, free, and absolute."

Neither are all Amnesties.

President Bush's Amnesty for Illegal Aliens is an example of that.

There are different kinds of pardons, and different kinds of Amnesties. Pardons and Amnesties can be conditional or unconditional.

Need evidence?

The Google Search on conditional pardon yields over 23,000 results.

The Google Search on unconditional pardon yields over 22,000 results.

The Google Search on conditional amnesty yields over 21,000 results.

The Google Search on unconditional amnesty yields over 32,000 results.

This is not make believe, these are real and long-standing legal doctrines. Selectively parsing an unreasonably narrow definition of "pardon" or "Amnesty" does not erase these doctrines.


37 posted on 01/27/2004 11:12:13 AM PST by Sabertooth (Take the Reagan Amnesty Pop Quiz! - http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1065553/posts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Sabertooth
There are different kinds of pardons, and different kinds of Amnesties. Pardons and Amnesties can be conditional or unconditional. Need evidence? The Google Search on conditional pardon yields over 23,000 results. The Google Search on unconditional pardon yields over 22,000 results. The Google Search on conditional amnesty yields over 21,000 results. The Google Search on unconditional amnesty yields over 32,000 results. This is not make believe, these are real and long-standing legal doctrines. Selectively parsing an unreasonably narrow definition of "pardon" or "Amnesty" does not erase these doctrines.

Nice try, but no prize. Delving deeper into your "legal" vernacular. A condition is different from a penalty. Requiring illegal aliens to reside outside the country for 6 months prior to application would be a condition. Requiring them to pay a fee based solely on the their illegal status is a penalty.

Now, since we've gotten past amnesty. Which is the correct question? "Should there be a guest worker program? or What penalty is great enough to warrant consideration for guest worker?" Or is it that from your point of view that after breaking the law, no penalty is great enough to atone for the offense?

38 posted on 01/27/2004 11:54:01 AM PST by CMAC51
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: CMAC51
Nice try, but no prize. Delving deeper into your "legal" vernacular. A condition is different from a penalty.

President Bush used the term "one-time fee."

"Penalty" is yours.

Fees are certainly conditions.

Requiring them to pay a fee based solely on the their illegal status is a penalty.

When I go to a campground, I pay a fee. It's not a penalty.

Now, since we've gotten past amnesty.

Guess again. You're not being honest with yourself.

Splitting hairs about penalties, fees, conditions, etc., ain't gonna cut it. The Bush Amnesty function essentially as the Reagan Amnesty did. That's your bottom line.

Guest worker programs are fine, so long as they aren't trojan horses to legalize millions of Illegal Aliens.

That's Amnesty.


39 posted on 01/27/2004 12:19:54 PM PST by Sabertooth (Take the Reagan Amnesty Pop Quiz! - http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1065553/posts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: sarcasm
He said that illegal immigration could be brought under control if the federal government wished to do so. "What's lacking is the political will to do it," he said.

What gives a leader the political will to make drastic changes in a failing policy? If we only knew maybe we could send some to GW.

40 posted on 01/27/2004 12:26:31 PM PST by swampfox98
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: glock rocks
FYI
41 posted on 01/27/2004 3:49:25 PM PST by DLfromthedesert (What is the point of fighting in Iraq if we surrender to Vicente?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DLfromthedesert
LOL. I'm the incarnation of Lazamataz's old tagline...

blindly responding to a post without reading the article.

DUH!

thank you.
42 posted on 01/27/2004 3:53:52 PM PST by glock rocks (molon labe)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: glock rocks
No, you didn't. I was pinging you to another thread with the info. I'm not proficient at doing it the other way around.
43 posted on 01/27/2004 3:58:45 PM PST by DLfromthedesert (What is the point of fighting in Iraq if we surrender to Vicente?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: DLfromthedesert
LOL! Oh dear. It's worse than I thought :o)

OMG, that's the best laugh I've had at myself in the last year! Oh boy, now, I'll read the article. after I catch my breath.

(In Orwellian, I feel double-plus stupid. LMAO.)
44 posted on 01/27/2004 4:10:36 PM PST by glock rocks (molon labe)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: DLfromthedesert
"illegal immigration could be brought under control if the federal government wished to do so. "What's lacking is the political will to do it,"

It's beyond focus groups and opinion polls. The public is set against amnesty of any ilk. Sadly, it's time to pull in the strings and hold the necessary feet to the fire.

...and Nixon went to China.

just damn.

45 posted on 01/27/2004 4:23:41 PM PST by glock rocks (molon labe)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Sabertooth
The essence of this argument is the dissolution of the United States as a nation. Surrendering control of borders has already handed the future of this country over to forces outside of our laws. I believe I read the flood of all immigration into this country has increased 70 per cent in about ten years. It is rapidly making the nation ungovernable because the cost to control the mess created by this invasion cannot be borne by taxpayers.

We are rapidly becoming an ungovernable country in which foreigners have every advantage and so-called "citizens" bear every burden.

Every American city in which illegal immigrants have congregated has nearly insurmountable social, criminal, educational and health problems because of it. The media won't talk about it but it's there and it's true.

If illegal immigration was good for this country, we'd be seeing its benefits in cities from El Paso to Los Angeles where the hordes congregate. The truth is, those places are becoming un-American, blighted, gang-ravaged and dangerous communities exactly like those of the third world.

If we do nothing, America goes away...SOON! Our patriots of old would be rolling in their graves to know they sacrificed so much so sovereignty would be surrendered by cowards of this era.

It is not "compassionate" to allow people to break the law. It is not "compassionate" to ask taxpayers to provide medical care for trespassers when the taxpayers cannot afford the same medical care themselves. It is not "compassionate" to turn American cities into third-world crapholes because the people in charge are being paid off by exploiters of human labor. It is not the president's job to be "compassionate" to those who break the law. He is the top cop and he should be throwing the bastards out of the country according to the federal law he has sworn to uphold.

Deportation is not only possible, it is the only solution to the problem. The moment a serious and massive deportation begins, many illegals will leave voluntarily and we will be on the road toward recovering a legal foundation and our sovereignty. Seventy per cent, or more, of the American people want illegal aliens thrown out. They would be glad to assist our government in enforcing this activity.

Illegal immigration is wrong, it's immoral, it's unlawful and it will ultimately and certainly destroy the United States of America if it is not stopped. There is simply no viable alternative to stopping it if we want to survive as a nation.

46 posted on 01/27/2004 5:04:42 PM PST by NoControllingLegalAuthority
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: gubamyster
bttt
47 posted on 01/28/2004 2:16:39 AM PST by lainde (Heads up...We're coming and we've got tongue blades!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Dane
Dane, Dane, Dane.....where to begin......

How about the hundreds of small businesses (legit, I might add), that have been put out of business in my stat of CT in the last 3 years BECAUSE OF ILLEGALS!!!!!!
They don't count?....lets just "screw these taxpayers and reward scofflaws who hire illegals who pay no taxes".....nice plan.....


You might want to move south a country or two....seems you'd be better off on the other side of the border amigo.....

Try again....your true colors are showing now........
48 posted on 01/28/2004 4:28:11 AM PST by taxed2death (A few billion here, a few trillion there...we're all friends right?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Dane
Some people here actually would prefer a country ruled by law....as opposed to your "selective law enforcement"....which is only fair to a a few....

Stop with the stupid euphamisms....stick to the facts.....oh, wait, but then you would have no argument....sorry....
49 posted on 01/28/2004 4:30:33 AM PST by taxed2death (A few billion here, a few trillion there...we're all friends right?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: sarcasm
Gee, who could've predicted this?
50 posted on 01/28/2004 4:32:11 AM PST by Mr. Mojo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-59 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson