Really
"This amnesty will give citizenship to only 1.1-1.3 million illegal aliens. We will secure the borders henceforth. We will never again bring forward another Amnesty Bill like this." -Ted Kennedy, 1986
Posted on 05/19/2007 7:46:12 AM PDT by Zakeet
The White House and key Senators struck an immigration deal this week that looks like the best chance in years to balance border security with human and economic realities. There's room for improvement and a long way to go before any reform becomes law, but Senators Jon Kyl of Arizona and Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts deserve high marks for making progress.
On the plus side, the bill addresses the 12 million undocumented aliens living in the U.S. by providing a way for most to obtain legal status with minimal disruption to their lives or employers. In return for reporting to authorities, paying a $5,000 fine, passing a criminal-background check and making a "touch back" visit to their home country, illegal aliens would be eligible for a "Z" visa allowing them to keep working here.
Restrictionists are calling this "amnesty," but they were going to slap that label on anything this side of mass deportation. The public is understandably upset about the presence of so many illegal aliens in the U.S. But there is no evidence that voters want millions of foreign families--many of whom have been here for decades and have American children--uprooted and forcibly removed from the country. The restrictionist wing of the GOP simply wants no new immigration, and "amnesty" is merely a political slogan to kill any reform.
Another major part of the legislation is more problematic: This would shift immigration away from family ties and toward a merit-based model that favors better-educated immigrants with higher skills. The stated justification for this change is that the U.S. currently admits too few skilled workers due to unchecked "chain migration," which facilitates the entry of unschooled and unskilled kin.
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
"Restrictionist" rhetoric aside, the Journal's main beef lies in applying a skills test to future immigrants. This means we no longer have people to do the jobs Americans are unwilling to do and thus, "Natives may end up doing jobs they're overqualified to do, or those jobs will disappear altogether and diminish our quality of life."
Another beef: the guest-worker program. "The U.S. has so many illegal immigrants in part because there aren't enough legal ways to enter the country. The answer, of course, is to make barriers to entry much lower.
You can respond to the Journal through a link on the bottom of the page.
The Wall Street Journal is, and has been, for open borders. They have on a set of economic blinders and are completely oblivious to social or political consequences.
The WSJ is nothing more than a Business-Socialist rag. They have always been pro-illegal
wobbly is an understatement. They've long been apologists for the illegal alien influx. Cheap widgets trump everything at the WSJ.
After hearing Bill (I’m looking out for you) O’Reilly sounding like La Raza cut him a big check, He is henceforth known as Bill (I’m looking out for me) O’Raza.
I like the President and the WSJ, but vehemently disagree with both on this issue.
The definition of amnesty: a period during which offenders are exempt from punishment. It is no less amnesty if the period is open ended. And a few grand as a “fine?” Puhleeze!! Maybe I should consider my taxes a “fine” too, particularly since a portion of it will go towards these invaders.
I wrote to McCain and Kennedy (stop laughing, he is my senator, although not by any vote of mine). It will be interesting to see what canned responses I get, if any. In my opinion, McCain has just become a walking dead man, politically speaking.
I will gladly pay more for a head of lettuce, than pay more in taxes to support a bunch of freeloaders from south of the border, or wherever they come from.
These poor, hard working illegals deserve a path to citizenship. I suggest the 5 Freeway in California. It heads right to the border and once across it they can get in line and take their turn like everyone else.
Middle America has the most to lose from this shamnesty bill, don't ever expect the WSJ to defend the interests of Middle America.
The WSJ editorial board (but not the news staff) is conservative in some ways. But it’s mostly big business, country club conservatism.
Thus they have never been supporters of the right to life, because abortion is a convenience for big business people who might want to have a good time without inconvenient consequences, like a baby.
Thus they are supporters of unlimited immigration, because it provides cheaper labor for big business, especially big agribusinesses.
It’s sad that the WSJ is about as “conservative” as the MSM gets. The same with the NY Post. Murdoch is relatively conservative, but only until it interferes with his business interests, like doing business with China supporting Al Gore in 2000 for the presidency in return for promised favors.
Bill O’Raza? LOL
Well he runs down a list of how it’s a cheat, it’s unfair, they’ll keep coming and it screws America forever......but it’s a good thing?
Thank you for your work on this issue. I have seen some appalling violations of law and human rights in these shadows. Ignoring them with sanctuary policies threatens the rights of us all. Amnesty will just make others think they will be able to get away with law breaking, too. It is time to stop pretending that everyone who is in the US illegally is just a hard working stand up guy.
If this passes expect a street crime wave of Biblical proportions as illegal attempt to get the 5k needed to stay.
You idoits WSJ. Going out and attack the one thing that makes sense in this mess of the bill. You think Illegals or Illegals familes are “high skilled” workers. Sure they like know the important skill of mopping and dusting which is all you care about.
Really
"This amnesty will give citizenship to only 1.1-1.3 million illegal aliens. We will secure the borders henceforth. We will never again bring forward another Amnesty Bill like this." -Ted Kennedy, 1986
“This amnesty will give citizenship to only 1.1-1.3 million illegal aliens. We will secure the borders henceforth. We will never again bring forward another Amnesty Bill like this.” -Ted Kennedy, 1986
Sounds just like what he would have said. Do you have an original source?
ping
The groups that support the illegals should be able to pay the fines for them. Employers should be required to pay the $5,000 fine for each one they employee.
Some people need to give a thought to the facts that these illegal Mexicans have Catholic backgrounds and are family oriented. Give me Catholics over Muslims any day.
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.