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

Skip to comments.

As Congress stalls on immigration, a backlash brews
Christian Science Monitor ^ | September 08, 2006 | Amanda Paulson

Posted on 09/09/2006 2:09:41 PM PDT by Graybeard58

Chicago activists marched 50 miles to House Speaker Dennis Hastert's house last weekend to protest congressional inaction over reforming immigration laws and what they say is his anti-immigrant stance. In Phoenix, protesters rallied at the state's Capitol, also to highlight the stalemate in Washington.

Bob Johnson is equally exercised. The structural engineer from Buffalo Grove, Ill., argues the other side of 2006's Great Immigration Debate - that the US needs to send home illegal immigrants and gain better control of its borders - but he says he cannot believe Congress is punting on immigration reform. He's been writing letters to his congressman and senators and says he may not vote in November or he may vote for a third-party or write-in candidate.

The decision by congressional leaders not to try to bridge the big gulf between the House and Senate versions of immigration reform, at least not before the November midterm elections, is touching off a backlash that may deliver a sting to some incumbent lawmakers.

How big the backlash grows may not be known until the day after the election, but it's surfacing in blogs, letters to the editor, and record-low approval ratings for Capitol Hill.

"When you have both Bob Novak and David Broder writing the same column about Congress's failure to act on immigration, you know something is wrong," says Tamar Jacoby, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute in New York, referring to two well-known columnists who typically have very different views. "People on both the right and left will see it as a huge failure" if Congress ends its term without a bill.

Certainly, many Americans are worked up over immigration. The issue sparked huge rallies and marches in the spring, and has been the subject of endless Lou Dobbs reports. Over the summer, House

(Excerpt) Read more at csmonitor.com ...


TOPICS: Extended News; Government; Mexico
KEYWORDS: 109th; aliens; amnesty; bordersecurity; bushamnesty; illegalaliens; immigrantlist; immigration; invasionusa

1 posted on 09/09/2006 2:09:43 PM PDT by Graybeard58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Graybeard58

We need no more laws on this subject. Clearly, it is illegal for foreigners to enter the US without the permission of our government. What we need now is enforcement of existing law. If a wall helps enforce existing law, then let's allocate the money to build one. Otherwise, no guest workers, no amnesty, no new laws required. At. All. None.


2 posted on 09/09/2006 2:15:16 PM PDT by RKV ( He who has the guns, makes the rules.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RKV

We can start by voting out the incumbents. That will send a message. If they don't get it, vote the rest of them out. Congress was granted that implicit authority in the Constitution of the United States.


3 posted on 09/09/2006 2:20:35 PM PDT by Doc Hunter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Graybeard58
It's not about immigration, it's about ILLEGAL ALIENS, just like Sheriff Joe Arapaoi says.

Using the term "immigration" or "Illegal immigration" makes the issue murky. ILLEGAL ALIENS.

4 posted on 09/09/2006 2:21:09 PM PDT by starfish923 (Socrates: It's never right to do wrong.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Graybeard58

I suspect the CSM would like nothing more than to see a lot of Republicans sit home this fall. I see a lot of articles like this these days. There seems to be a conserted effort by the left to start a ground-swell in this direction. I doubt it will work.

Republicans have plenty to be angry as hell about. I still don't think they'll turn the House or Senate over the idiots of likes of the Left in the United States.

If they should, the RP leadership will have nobody to blame but themselves. I do wish they'd pull their heads out and consult a primer on Conservatism before this gets real ugly.


5 posted on 09/09/2006 2:22:14 PM PDT by DoughtyOne (Victory will never be achieved while defining Conservatism downward, and forsaking it's heritage.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RKV

Agreed!


6 posted on 09/09/2006 2:23:30 PM PDT by DoughtyOne (Victory will never be achieved while defining Conservatism downward, and forsaking it's heritage.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Graybeard58

What possible excuse can congressmen bring to the public to justify their lack of action on securing the borders? And about those demonstrations against border control, what is up with those? Am I to seriously beleive that American citizens, born or naturalized, are actually out there campaigning for citizenship rights for illegals, for people who have not taken the legal route to citizenship, for people who have broken the law and are now freeloading on the American taxpaying public?
Who are those demonstrators? If they are, themselves, illegals, what a perfect opportunity to round them up and send them packing!


7 posted on 09/09/2006 2:23:38 PM PDT by Continental Soldier
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RKV
We need no more laws on this subject.

Exactly!

What we need is less politicizing and more common sense in government.

8 posted on 09/09/2006 2:24:32 PM PDT by EGPWS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Graybeard58
Ah, the Christian Science Leftist strikes again. Mary Eddy would plotz is she read this rag today...
9 posted on 09/09/2006 2:24:37 PM PDT by pabianice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Graybeard58
"Chicago activists Democrats marched 50 miles to House Speaker Dennis Hastert's house "

Who did shelving this bill hurt again?

10 posted on 09/09/2006 2:24:45 PM PDT by elfman2 (An army of amateurs doing the media's job.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Graybeard58

Wishful thinking journalism. No bill is better than a bad bill.


11 posted on 09/09/2006 2:25:10 PM PDT by dirtboy (This tagline has been photoshopped)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Doc Hunter
We can start by voting out the incumbents.

Let's keep the incumbents who are serious about border security. The House is not the problem here.

12 posted on 09/09/2006 2:26:21 PM PDT by dirtboy (This tagline has been photoshopped)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy

Agreed. More Republicans are for border security than they are for amnesty.


13 posted on 09/09/2006 2:28:24 PM PDT by Extremely Extreme Extremist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Extremely Extreme Extremist

I wouldn't mind seeing the likes of Chafee as a sacrificial RINO in the Senate. The House, however, has held the line on this issue. I would like ten minutes in a closed room with many of the House pubbies and a cattle prod, just to zot some fiscal sense into them. But on the illegal immigration front, they have done fairly well.


14 posted on 09/09/2006 2:31:13 PM PDT by dirtboy (This tagline has been photoshopped)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Graybeard58

Where is the BS Alert?


15 posted on 09/09/2006 2:33:49 PM PDT by radar101 (The two hallmarks of Liberals: Fantasy and Hypocrisy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Graybeard58
"The decision by congressional leaders not to try to bridge the big gulf between the House and Senate versions of immigration reform, at least not before the November midterm elections, "

An excellent idea. This election will be about terrorism and illegal immigration.

Two losers for the Dems.


If the Republicans don't deliver though, it'll be "Madame President" in 2009.

16 posted on 09/09/2006 2:36:10 PM PDT by mrsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RKV

That's what I don't understand!

ENFORCE THE EXISTING LAWS!

ILLEGAL aliens are ILLEGA, hence DEPORT THEM.


17 posted on 09/09/2006 2:43:35 PM PDT by nmh (Intelligent people recognize Intelligent Design (God) .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Doc Hunter; Continental Soldier
"e can start by voting out the incumbents."

Perhaps the Always Angry crowd might explain something?

Not only that. Perhaps the Always Angry MIGHT want to consider there will be NO legal way to go back and UNDO the blanket amnesty the Democrats will pass EVEN if Conservatives win back the Congress at some future point.
Not guest worker, a real full bore legalization of all the illegals.

Maybe the Always Angry might want to keep in mind it was Senate Democrats that filibustered to keep any of the US House Republican Boarder Enforcement provisions out of the Senate immigration bill.

Why do the Always Angry Fringers think firing the ONLY people who have been consistently tough about Border Enforcement (US House GOP) in order to put the Congress in the hands of Democrats (who will vote all most 100% against it) is such a "brilliant" political move for Conservatives? EVEN if their magic fantasy of a political wet dream that Conservatives magically win back the Congress, it will be legally impossible to ram thru retroactive changes to the full Amnesty the Democrats will have passed while they control Congress.

This constant advocation by supposedly "Conservatives" that voters should completely destroy any hope of any part of the Antis position on Immigration actually ever being enacted into Law in order to "teach Bush a Lesson" is simply politically insane. It is the babble of people who either know nothing at all about how politics work or are simply hiding their real political allegiance to the Democrat party under the guise of being "betrayed Conservatives".


I guess the Conservative Political Suicide Club would rather have a Democrat Congress who would legislate these sorts of things when in power.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1697413/posts

Senate Democratic leadership threatens Disney with legal and legislative sanctions
americablog.blogspot.com ^ | September 07, 2006 | John in DC

Posted on 09/07/2006 6:12:34 PM CDT by Mo1

Senate Democratic leadership threatens Disney with legal and legislative sanctions
by John in DC - 9/07/2006 06:02:00 PM

This letter was sent today by the entire Democratic leadership of the US Senate. This letter is such a major shot across the bow of Disney, it's not even funny. It is FILLED with veiled threats, both legal and legislative, against Disney. US Senators don't make threats like this, especially the entire Democratic leadership en masse, unless they mean it. Disney is in serious trouble.
Read it, then read my analysis of it below:
September 7, 2006
Mr. Robert A. Iger
President and CEO
The Walt Disney Company
500 South Buena Vista Street
Burbank CA 91521
Dear Mr. Iger,
We write with serious concerns about the planned upcoming broadcast of The Path to 9/11 mini-series on September 10 and 11. Countless reports from experts on 9/11 who have viewed the program indicate numerous and serious inaccuracies that will undoubtedly serve to misinform the American people about the tragic events surrounding the terrible attacks of that day. Furthermore, the manner in which this program has been developed, funded, and advertised suggests a partisan bent unbecoming of a major company like Disney and a major and well respected news organization like ABC. We therefore urge you to cancel this broadcast to cease Disney’s plans to use it as a teaching tool in schools across America through Scholastic. Presenting such deeply flawed and factually inaccurate misinformation to the American public and to children would be a gross miscarriage of your corporate and civic responsibility to the law, to your shareholders, and to the nation.
The Communications Act of 1934 provides your network with a free broadcast license predicated on the fundamental understanding of your principle obligation to act as a trustee of the public airwaves in serving the public interest. Nowhere is this public interest obligation more apparent than in the duty of broadcasters to serve the civic needs of a democracy by promoting an open and accurate discussion of political ideas and events.
Disney and ABC claim this program to be based on the 9/11 Commission Report and are using that assertion as part of the promotional campaign for it. The 9/11 Commission is the most respected American authority on the 9/11 attacks, and association with it carries a special responsibility. Indeed, the very events themselves on 9/11, so tragic as they were, demand extreme care by any who attempt to use those events as part of an entertainment or educational program. To quote Steve McPhereson, president of ABC Entertainment, “When you take on the responsibility of telling the story behind such an important event, it is absolutely critical that you get it right.”
Unfortunately, it appears Disney and ABC got it totally wrong.
Despite claims by your network’s representatives that The Path to 9/11 is based on the report of the 9/11 Commission, 9/11 Commissioners themselves, as well as other experts on the issues, disagree.
Richard Ben-Veniste, speaking for himself and fellow 9/11 Commissioners who recently viewed the program, said, “As we were watching, we were trying to think how they could have misinterpreted the 9/11 Commission’s findings the way that they had.” [“9/11 Miniseries Is Criticized as Inaccurate and Biased,” New York Times, September 6, 2006]
Richard Clarke, the former counter-terrorism czar, and a national security advisor to ABC has described the program as “deeply flawed” and said of the program’s depiction of a Clinton official hanging up on an intelligence agent, “It’s 180 degrees from what happened.” [“9/11 Miniseries Is Criticized as Inaccurate and Biased,” New York Times, September 6, 2006]
Reports suggest that an FBI agent who worked on 9/11 and served as a consultant to ABC on this program quit halfway through because, “he thought they were making things up.” [MSNBC, September 7, 2006]
Even Thomas Kean, who serves as a paid consultant to the miniseries, has admitted that scenes in the film are fictionalized. [“9/11 Miniseries Is Criticized as Inaccurate and Biased,” New York Times, September 6, 2006]
That Disney would seek to broadcast an admittedly and proven false recounting of the events of 9/11 raises serious questions about the motivations of its creators and those who approved the deeply flawed program. Finally, that Disney plans to air commercial-free a program that reportedly cost it $40 million to produce serves to add fuel to these concerns.
These concerns are made all the more pressing by the political leaning of and the public statements made by the writer/producer of this miniseries, Mr. Cyrus Nowrasteh, in promoting this miniseries across conservative blogs and talk shows.
Frankly, that ABC and Disney would consider airing a program that could be construed as right-wing political propaganda on such a grave and important event involving the security of our nation is a discredit both to the Disney brand and to the legacy of honesty built at ABC by honorable individuals from David Brinkley to Peter Jennings. Furthermore, that Disney would seek to use Scholastic to promote this misguided programming to American children as a substitute for factual information is a disgrace.
As 9/11 Commission member Jamie Gorelick said, “It is critically important to the safety of our nation that our citizens, and particularly our school children, understand what actually happened and why – so that we can proceed from a common understanding of what went wrong and act with unity to make our country safer.”
Should Disney allow this programming to proceed as planned, the factual record, millions of viewers, countless schoolchildren, and the reputation of Disney as a corporation worthy of the trust of the American people and the United States Congress will be deeply damaged. We urge you, after full consideration of the facts, to uphold your responsibilities as a respected member of American society and as a beneficiary of the free use of the public airwaves to cancel this factually inaccurate and deeply misguided program. We look forward to hearing back from you soon.
Sincerely,
Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid
Assistant Democratic Leader Dick Durbin
Senator Debbie Stabenow
Senator Charles Schumer
Senator Byron Dorgan
The Senate Democratic leadership just threatened Disney's broadcast license. Not the use of the word "trustee" at the beginning of the letter and "trust" at the end. This is nothing less than an implicit threat that if Disney tries to meddle in the US elections on behalf of the Republicans, they will pay a very serious price when the Democrats get back in power, or even before.
This raises the stakes incredibly for Disney.







http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1696833/posts?page=1

Senate Rejects New Restraints on Cluster Bombs
FoxNews.com ^ | 9/6/06 | Associated Press


Posted on 09/06/2006 10:22:07 PM CDT by kerryusama04


WASHINGTON — The Senate on Wednesday rejected a move by Democrats to stop the Pentagon from using cluster bombs near civilian targets and to cut off sales unless purchasers abide by the same rules.

Snip


Democratic Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Patrick Leahy have long sought to keep cluster bombs from being used near concentrated areas of civilians. They say that as many as 40 percent of the munitions fail to detonate on impact — they can still can explode later — leaving innocent civilians and children vulnerable to injury or death long after hostilities have ceased.


(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
18 posted on 09/09/2006 2:44:30 PM PDT by MNJohnnie (Say Leftists. How many Nazis did killing Nazis in WW2 create? Samurai? Fascists?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: RKV
That's what I don't understand!

ENFORCE THE EXISTING LAWS!

ILLEGAL aliens are ILLEGAL, hence DEPORT THEM.

What is so difficult about that?

If they want to create NEW laws, how about this -

1. Require employees to provide proof of citizenship.
2. Fine the hell out of employers who insist on hiring ILLEGAL aliens.
3. Require proof of citizenship to rent or own property.
4. Deport illegals. 5. Make ENGLISH the required language to learn and use at work.

That's just for starters.

19 posted on 09/09/2006 2:46:18 PM PDT by nmh (Intelligent people recognize Intelligent Design (God) .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: nmh
The actual count of 'marchers' last weekend was 50. That's right 50. I know because my department was involved in providing security.

The only time there were more people 'marching' was when TV cameras were scheduled to appear. Then the Rainbow Push people bussed another couple of hundred yapping members of Rent A Mob, Inc in.

At no time were there more than 250 people all the way across DuPage County.

L

20 posted on 09/09/2006 2:59:17 PM PDT by Lurker (If you want peace, prepare for war.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Doc Hunter
Well voting out incumbents is just a temper tantrum, not a policy. Name one Dem who supports tighter enforcement of our borders? Cetainly most of them don't. Vote them out.

Tom Tancredo is an incumbent. You say we should vote him out too? The only structured opposition to the amnesty in the congress originates in the House, all of whom are up for re-election this year.

A little better plan that "throw all the bums out" is needed.

21 posted on 09/09/2006 3:00:04 PM PDT by Jack Black
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Jack Black

Throw the bums out. And then throw out the next batch. They'll get the message sooner or later. We have to stop thinking its us vs. them (Reps. vs Dems) instead of what it really is: us vs. them (Ordinary Citizens vs. Politicians).


22 posted on 09/09/2006 3:05:55 PM PDT by Wolfie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Lurker
I see this as another one of those "issues" misleading the majority into believing they've got it all wrong - that MOST people WANT ILLEGALS - that MOST people don't MIND their sky rocketing tab etc..
23 posted on 09/09/2006 3:07:43 PM PDT by nmh (Intelligent people recognize Intelligent Design (God) .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Graybeard58

Why is Denny Hastert, and the Pubbies, so STUPID on this issue. It's almost like they want to lose control of the House.


24 posted on 09/09/2006 3:09:29 PM PDT by no dems ("25 homicides a day committed by Illegals" Ted Poe (R-TX) Houston Hearings 8/16/06)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nmh
Most people want illegal immigration to be ended. Poll after poll after poll shows that.

The Dems are going to be in for a rude shock this November I think. I've gotten over a dozen pieces of mail from the RNC regarding Tammy Duckworth and her support for amnesty.

Amnesty for lawbreakers don't play well around here.

L

25 posted on 09/09/2006 3:11:09 PM PDT by Lurker (If you want peace, prepare for war.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Graybeard58

Time to Freep Congress…

As you know our spineless Congress is getting ready to take a break WITHOUT ANY ACTION ON THE ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT PROBLEM!!!

There are many things that could be done.

Granting citizen status to children born here is a big incentive for illegal crossing.

A national database for use by school districts, hospitals and law enforcement to file claims for costs associated with illegal immigration to recover some of the financial costs DEDUCTED FROM US aid to Mexico would not be costly and finally give the Mexican government some incentives to help with the problem as well.

Please take the time to contact your congress critter on this huge problem before it is too late.

http://www.congress.org/congressorg/home/



26 posted on 09/09/2006 3:15:43 PM PDT by ChinaGotTheGoodsOnClinton (To those who believe the world was safer with Saddam, get treatment for that!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Continental Soldier

"What possible excuse can congressmen bring to the public to justify their lack of action on securing the borders?"

I have a theory that I would like to test in this forum, to see how many holes can be shot in it.... It goes something like this:

Illegals score bogus Social Security cards to gain employment in the US. Their employers collect the requisite funds from the illegal's paycheck each week, and send it on in to Uncle Sam. So, we have a bunch of cash streaming in to the Social Security fund from illegal immigrants using bogus numbers. However, those same illegals will be unable to claim their Social Security when they retire, as Uncle Sam will determine the number was bogus. So, our elected officials are able to prop-up Social Security for a little while longer.

I've been trying to come up with some reasonable explaination for why my party is party to the amnesty (oh, I forgot, it isn't REALLY amnesty) proposal - this is all I've come up with. What do you think?


27 posted on 09/09/2006 4:14:38 PM PDT by Just_an_average_Joe (Frank Costanza: I'm like the Phoenix, rising from Arizona.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Graybeard58

The Christian Science Monitor is not the "go to" illegal immigration publication.


28 posted on 09/09/2006 4:19:53 PM PDT by ncountylee (Dead terrorists smell like victory)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Just_an_average_Joe

Considering the illegals usually work for far less than Americans, I don't know how much we would collect. Remember too that these workers usually don't receive any benefits, they will be using local, state and federal services.

I don't see how we can win.

I think incarceration of employers that hire illegals is a far better idea.


29 posted on 09/09/2006 4:26:57 PM PDT by BW2221
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Just_an_average_Joe

I agree with you to a point. But, if what I have read is true, the Senate bill of immigration reform will allow a "grandfather clause" that enables illegal workers to collect SS benefits. Of course, this has not yet passed.

The thing that has come to my mind is this. A large number of American citizens (both naturalized and native) are on the verge of retirement. EVEN IF we have SS benefits, most of us will have to work at jobs we didn't work at in our productive years to supplement our income. Will those jobs "Americans Won't Do" be there when that time comes?


30 posted on 09/09/2006 4:32:52 PM PDT by berdie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie

....funny post #18. I'd rather be "always angry"....regarding immigration / border policy than always wrong, like you.


31 posted on 09/09/2006 4:43:42 PM PDT by taxed2death (A few billion here, a few trillion there...we're all friends right?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne

Well, I'm going to vote for a candidate that supports the drilling for oil in the US, who supports Israel and supports the war against Islamofascism, and who wants to enforce the existing immigration laws.

And if the Republican candidate doesn't fit that bill, then I'll find a candidate that does. The Constitution party is looking like the closest fit as of now.

(It would be nice if the Republican Party of Florida would actually lend it's support for drilling and for the enforcement of existing immigration laws.)


32 posted on 09/09/2006 6:00:29 PM PDT by gogogodzilla (I criticize everyone... and then breath some radioactive fire and stomp on things.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Graybeard58
The last Gubernatorial election in Virginia saw the Republican candidate making illegal aliens an issue and the Democrat candidate ignorning the issue.

The Dem won.

You betcha' all the other politicians saw that.

33 posted on 09/09/2006 7:26:26 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Doc Hunter
We can start by voting out the incumbents. That will send a message. If they don't get it, vote the rest of them out. Congress was granted that implicit authority in the Constitution of the United States.

Let's vote out the Republicans in the House to punish them for passing an enforcement first bill. Replacing them with Democrats will fix everything. /s
34 posted on 09/09/2006 7:34:43 PM PDT by goldfinch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: gogogodzilla
The Constitution party is looking like the closest fit as of now.

Ahhhh, come on. Don't be coy. Just vote for the Democrat. No point in disguising what your vote will accomplish.
35 posted on 09/09/2006 7:37:08 PM PDT by goldfinch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Graybeard58

I know something is wrong when they cite Novak for the "right's" opinion.

Is there a backlash? Hell yeah. It's been happening all year. Remember Hazelton? Remember Bilbray? Remember osbourne? remember my own state party in WA of all places adopting hard approaches in their platform to illegal immigration? Remember liberal Shays coming out for enforcement in Conn? remember cannon being forced into a runoff? Yeah, he won, but most people don't have to suffer the "indinity" of a runoff. That was significant. Remember Gerogia's new laws, and Colorado's. Scwartz was knocked off because he was an all around liberal, and one of those issues at play was his acceptance of amnesty. Not the sole reason there, but a factor. As was spending and pro-life issues. Remember santorum's recent accreditation to his tough stance on the borders for his momentum in Penn. I could keep on but, yeah, there is a backlash.

But the backlash isn't that Congress grant amnesty or write new laws. We could use the ones we have. No, the backlash is that we want the borders secured. If the fools think they can compromise our soveriegnty and our borders by allowing amnesty they'll get what they deserve. Are you hearing me Pence? Hutchinson?

If they stick strictly to security they'll benefit.


36 posted on 09/09/2006 7:53:58 PM PDT by Soul Seeker (Kobach: Amnesty is going from an illegal to a legal position, without imposing the original penalty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jack Black; All

Nelson in Nebraska has a better record on the border then Hagel, and is taking a stronger position then his Republican challenger.

That's why he's one of two Dems I'm supporting this year. The other being Leiberman because of his stance on the WOT.

But, yeah, you are right. Most of the Dems stand for more votes. And amnesty to liberals from Mexico accomplishes that. There are a few Dem exceptions in the House on amnesty, a few in the Senate, only because of the states/districts they reside in but the vast majority are lined up for amnesty.

And I agree tossing incumbents for the sake of tossing incumbents is stupid. Though if Republicans passed amnesty, then I really wuldn't give a damn what happened to any of them. At that point we'd have bigger problems, and I'd probably have the attitude "Screw you" directed towards D.C. without discrimination.

For right NOW, however, if your Congressman stands against amnesty and most of them do, though mine doesn't and is NOT getting my vote, they don't deserve scorn, ridicule, or a throw the bums out rhetoric. Nor do those serious about enforcement need people involved in fighting amnesty that are incapable of discriminating between our enemies and our allies here.

If people want a target direct your attention to Johnny McCain. back off Hastert and the House until they earn scorn on this issue.


37 posted on 09/09/2006 8:03:10 PM PDT by Soul Seeker (Kobach: Amnesty is going from an illegal to a legal position, without imposing the original penalty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie

If "the ONLY people who have been consistently tough about Border Enforcement (US House GOP)" had been truly "consistently tough" we wouldn't be in this situation.

Our consistently compassionate President is the one man you can thank for getting us into this mess. I imagine in your mind it's a shame we can't re-elect him, isn't it?


38 posted on 09/09/2006 8:07:47 PM PDT by B4Ranch (Illegal immigration Control and US Border Security - The jobs George W. Bush refuses to do.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: RKV
We need no more laws on this subject. Clearly, it is illegal for foreigners to enter the US without the permission of our government. What we need now is enforcement of existing law. If a wall helps enforce existing law, then let's allocate the money to build one.

The existing laws were mostly toothless, inviting abuse. Illegal entry into the U.S. is, for instance, classed as a misdemeanor. The workplace enforcement laws are similarly diluted. Nor were enforcement attempts adequately funded.

The House bill is designed to eliminate these flaws -- make the penalties mean something and fully fund enforcement, on both the border and the workplace.

39 posted on 09/09/2006 8:16:36 PM PDT by okie01 (The Mainstream Media: IGNORANCE ON PARADE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: berdie

Good point. Maybe we'll have to buy our semi-retirement homes in China or India?


40 posted on 09/09/2006 8:21:09 PM PDT by Just_an_average_Joe (Frank Costanza: I'm like the Phoenix, rising from Arizona.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: BW2221

Good point. We pay for illegal immigrants, one way or another.


41 posted on 09/09/2006 8:26:08 PM PDT by Just_an_average_Joe (Frank Costanza: I'm like the Phoenix, rising from Arizona.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: okie01
The House bill is designed to eliminate these flaws -- make the penalties mean something and fully fund enforcement, on both the border and the workplace.

Where's the money coming from to "fully fund enforcement"? Not a dime more out of my pocket, I tell you. But don't let me stop you from donating of your own free will.

42 posted on 09/09/2006 8:29:31 PM PDT by King of Florida (A little government and a little luck are necessary in life, but only a fool trusts either of them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: King of Florida
You would rather do without immigration and workplace enforcement, then? This is not an issue with you?
43 posted on 09/09/2006 8:44:22 PM PDT by okie01 (The Mainstream Media: IGNORANCE ON PARADE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: okie01

If it can't be done with the money I'm already paying to fund the behemoth in D.C., then I can very well do without. Half the people where I live speak Spanish most of the time anyway, and very few of them are Mexican.


44 posted on 09/09/2006 8:57:50 PM PDT by King of Florida (A little government and a little luck are necessary in life, but only a fool trusts either of them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: goldfinch

Are you saying that I should vote for a quasi-defeatocrat instead?

Didn't you learn what 'voting' and 'democracy' meant in high school or college...

...you know, where a voter is supposed to vote for the candidate that best represents their issues?

I guess that in your world, one must vote for the candidate that doesn't represent your issues.


45 posted on 09/09/2006 11:06:26 PM PDT by gogogodzilla (I criticize everyone... and then breath some radioactive fire and stomp on things.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie

Rather than insult people here, why not put the blame where it belongs? On the RINO politicans who want to give our country away. If they wanted our votes, they shouldn't have alienated their base. With all the faxes, emails, phone calls, and bricks sent to Congress this last year, they can't use the excuse that they didn't know! The House knew, so the Senate and WH must've known as well but didn't care what we wanted. That attitude has its consequences.


46 posted on 09/09/2006 11:10:51 PM PDT by CottonBall
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Just_an_average_Joe

Very interesting theory. Since I don't know very much about the checks and procedures of the Social Security Administration, I can't dispute what you have offered. But it does seem to me that if Social Security can determine a number account to be bogus at payout time, it should be able to determine that number account to be bogus at collection time. No?


47 posted on 09/10/2006 9:16:13 AM PDT by Continental Soldier
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Continental Soldier

" But it does seem to me that if Social Security can determine a number account to be bogus at payout time, it should be able to determine that number account to be bogus at collection time"

I guess as long as the money is rolling in, the trust doesn't mind the abuse?


48 posted on 09/10/2006 10:26:26 AM PDT by Just_an_average_Joe (Frank Costanza: I'm like the Phoenix, rising from Arizona.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

Comment #49 Removed by Moderator

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