Posted on 06/02/2007 9:59:19 AM PDT by BornInASmallTown
Good!!! “If there is no pressure, there is no change.”
When there was a lot of opposition to the Iraq war Bush said he got to decide, so he’s the “decider”... There’s even more opposition to this, but ultimately Bush will get to dictate what happens. Which begs the question... how much difference is there between a “decider” and a “dictator?”
You’d best prepare for the Attack of the Bushbots for those comments...
I "get it", but I don't want anything to get in the way of me letting them know I disagree. I was simply being civil about it.
No, Clinton was. Carter second worst.
Wrong! Carter was the worst President in the History of the United States!!! Although no need to get in an arguement over it because both are not worth it. lol.
It’s getting difficult to pick the worst POTUS. There are so many POS POTUS. What king george is doing now is the worst thing for the country I’ve had the misfortune to witness.
Yeah, I know.
In addition to your list, it also forbids local LEOs from asking about immigration/visa status.
And if an illegal is somehow caught and brought before a deportation hearing, the immigration judge must offer the Z visa to that illegal, including preparation assistance. Of course since almost all illegals are technically eligible for a Z visa, immigration courts will become visa preparation shops.
Technically and in practice this meets the formal and legal definition of amnesty. Why?
(1) Local LOEs and immigration judges are prohibited from investigating or prosecuting what was formerly a crime, just as if our illegal entry laws never existed. (2) The law applies to an entire class of people, which is those who have committed the crime of illegal entry, illegal employment, and possibly other crimes (document fraud, etc).
The two foregoing conditions constitute "amnesty" by even the most formal and rigid legal definitions., since those conditions precede any application for a Z visa, and precede the payment of the $1,000 fine (that fine being the sole technical reason proponents can cling to the dubious argument that "it's not an amnesty").
Again, technical and legal amnesty conditions are met when (1) an act that was formerly a crime is nullified, and (b) that nullification applies to a definite class of people.
Thus the conditions for amnesty are met the moment the bill is signed into law, when it immediately nullifes our laws of illegal entry and prevents judicial prosecution of that crime for the entire class of illegal entrants in the United States.
Plain and simple, that's an amnesty.
And you will be flailed by them for not calling him "Mr. President George Dubya Bush."
OK, I guess I was just trying to warn you that it's an unrequited civility. This morning on MTP (Russert), Mary Matalin called all of the conservative opponents "myopic".
>>And if an illegal is somehow caught and brought before a deportation hearing, the immigration judge must offer the Z visa to that illegal, including preparation assistance. Of course since almost all illegals are technically eligible for a Z visa, immigration courts will become visa preparation shops.<<
Good point. Tony Snow’s argument for amnesty is that if we tried to deport millions of people, the courts, prosecutors, and law enforcement would grind to a halt. But the amnesty bill would keep them busy too.
Looks like if the amnesty bill passed, immigration officers would not even bother to do their jobs.
The Bushbots are getting pretty scarce now that they realize that their "decider" has made all the wrong decisions as he dances to the globalist tunes.
Disaster, thy name is George W. Bush.
“Decider”, I thought he changed his name to “Commander Guy”?
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.