Support our Minutemen Patriots!
Be Ever Vigilant!
Posted on 04/04/2006 8:56:39 AM PDT by EternalVigilance
Support our Minutemen Patriots!
Be Ever Vigilant!
Good article. President Bush IS NOT writing the legislation. Individual legislators are...in the legislative branch of government.
Well, whatever you say.
But it sure seems to me that the current Dem/RINO compromise smells suspiciously like what the President has been pushing.
Am I wrong?
How do his plans and theirs differ?
Whatever I say? Did I say something untrue?
Focus.
I still thought the article was good (some outstanding points) and I thank you very much for providing the link to it.
I guess I didn't understand why you were saying that.
Are you trying to steer responsibility for the attempt to pass amnesty away from the President? That's how I took it.
And again, you're welcome.
The invasion can has been kicked down the road for many years. I am 100% behind your Dem/RINO compromise (disgust) in the legislature. We the people (you and I) have a lot in common. Our differences are insignificant. Thanks for posting and linking and all of the other outstanding contributions you have made over the years.
Hey, God bless you.
ping.
Snookered, sold out, mocked, and ridiculed - that's us.
got that right.
Moral reasoning that ignores the common good is in fact not moral at all. Cardinal Mahoney and other Catholic leaders should revisit and ponder this principle of the Catholic moral tradition. If immigration control serves the common good, then effective immigration laws are appropriate and morally obligatory.Thomas Aquinas rightly points out that law without enforcement is no law at all. Therefore, effective immigration law means effective enforcement of the laws. When Cardinal Mahoney encourages citizens to ignore the laws, and thus undermine their effectiveness, he encourages them to take particular actions that, by contributing to the overall collapse of the economic, social and political infrastructure, will result in far greater misery and suffering than they purport to alleviate.
This is irresponsible, immoral and contrary to the rational requirements of Christian conscience. Christ exemplifies the truth that, for the sake of the whole, even innocent individuals ought to be willing to sacrifice themselves. Encouraging illegal immigrants to seek their own advantage by a route that undermines the common good thus represents a corruption of their respect for the principle that ought to govern their Christian consciences.
Do you just have a collection of stock responses you roll out on this issue, regardless of what that the other person actually said? Because your post makes no sense in the context of what I've written repeatedly. Please point me to the post where I demonstrated that I was "more concerned with the feelings/circumstances of millions of illegal aliens." For that matter, please point me to where in my posts I demonstrated any concern for their feelings. My point has never been about the feelings or circumstances of illegals. I've never mentioned that, and really don't care about it.
My point along has been that getting a perfect immigration bill through Congress is not possible, so we've got to look at compromises that improve the status quo. And if a border enforcement mechanism can't get through without some form of amnesty, I'd rather take half a loaf than no loaf at all.
And you're still making no sense with respect to your own ideas. Apparantly, according to your last post, you think we should just enforce the laws now in place. Yet, you've already claimed in prior posts that the government will never do that. So if you believe the government isn't ever going to enforce the laws, and your position on this is stuck at "enforce the laws", you're contradicting yourself big-time.
So then, according to your point of view, amnesty ad nauseum, every 15 or so years must continue.
How is agreeing to continuation of amnesty a compromise when that is exactly what have been COMPOUNDING the problem?
I will never support amnesty. NO COMPROMISE.
No, it musn't. I would not accept any amnesty deal that did not include greatly strengthened border security. Build a fence. Require that the number of INS agents assigned full-time to the border not drop below a certain number. If that happens, the law bars additional grants of amnesty. Add in a proviso linking number of new illegals to stopping of amnesty. Lots of things you could do.
The key to any plan is stopping the flow of new illegals. No plan, of any kind, can work without securing the borders. It's the first priority.
I will never support amnesty. NO COMPROMISE.
No compromise? Okay, then I assume you're willing to accept a status quo that has seen the number of illegals quadruple in the last two decades.
I'm not. I want that border secured. But if that's not that important to you, I suppose you're entitled to your opinion.
The reason is has quadrupled is a direct result of repeated, and continued, amnesty.
That increase all happened under the status quo. Right? Don't you think we have to change that?
Right now, there are two huge problems. The first is the illegals we already have here, and the second is that more are pouring over the border all the time. And those illegals are pouring over even though the amnesty provisions of this new bill have not yet been enacted. Yet, they're coming over anyway. Plenty of illegals come here, and remain here illegally for years, without ever getting amnesty.
You apparently refuse to recognize the political reality that there are not enough votes in Congress to throw all the current illegals out. So no matter how much you might prefer that, the votes don't exist. Those people are going to stay here, amnesty or no. And whether you like it or not. I hate to break the news to you, but your personal preferences aren't going to change the way Harry Reid and Arlen Spector vote.
So if there isn't enough political muscle to kick out the current crop of illegals, then we've at least got to stop more from arriving. Personally, if the border is secured, I don't think it matters much whether those illegals already here remain as "illegals" (as they do under the status quo), or remain as "legals" (under amnesty). Either way, they're here, and they're staying. Right?
And if they're going to be staying here anyway because we lack the votes to kick them out, then why not accept a limited amnesty if it is linked to a closing of that border? Doesn't that put us in a better place than we're in today?
Who has propositioned, with any seriousness, that the border will be shut down, with serious resources?
Though that was the claim back in 1986, when amnesty was given: "the borders and immigration laws would be enforced," but it hasn't happened. We're right back to 1986, but with even more illegals.
I'll tell you what I see happening:
In 2021, they'll be talking about giving amnesty to the 30 million illegals in the country and enforcing the proposed "2006 enforcement of the immigration laws and the border."
And in 2036, they'll be talking about giving amnesty to the 60 million illegals in the country and enforcing the proposed "2021 enforcement of the immigration laws and the border."
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.