Posted on 07/03/2013 11:14:35 AM PDT by GIdget2004
Edited on 07/03/2013 11:16:33 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
Truth in advertising, and all that.
Ray76: “Enforce existing law.”
Exactly! Politicians must think we’re all a bunch of fools. They’ve done amnesty before, and they simply refuse to do the enforcement part. They have absolutely ZERO credibility—none at all.
Border security, workplace enforcement, and deportations FIRST. Then maybe we can discuss changes to LEGAL immigration policy.
Why would a budget hawk like Walker endorse a turbo-charged budget busting policy like amnesty for illegals?
Yeppers on that, but Rubio and now Walker were two I thought had great promise. Rubio has become just another liar, stick a fork in the guy.
We can't forget there are still some good ones. Palin, Cruz, some good house members, the occasional Senator......
If there were none, we would ALL go insane.
I'm half way there..........
No, not for lawbreakers. But, people shouldn’t have to wait 10-20 years to come here either, if they really want to be part of this nation.
” In an email, a spokesman for Mr. Walker said the governor hasn’t endorsed the Senate bill, nor any other “specific policy or legislation.” He said: ”Governor Walker recognizes that we have a broken immigration system, and while he hasn’t endorsed a specific policy,
How about endorsing the rule of law? “
Rule of law? No money in it....
I was never banking on Walker and I have to admit, I’m not surprised.
Are you saying there should be no limits to the number of immigrants who enter this country as long as they have a sponsor? And why should we continue to have a kinship based system versus a merit-based system?
Exactly when did the "sponsorship" system start and end?
Hold on thar Bobaluey, interesting info in this post: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3038715/posts?page=43#43
I read that.
What? Me grouse?
At this point, until the invaders are removed from the US, there shouldn’t be any sponsorship or exceptions at all. The Cheap Labor contingent will just change them or misuse them to their advantage.
Just another Cheap Labor RINO.
There are literally billions of people who want to come here. We can't take everyone who wants to come. An immigration policy should be first and foremost based on the national interests of this country. It is not a right to immigrate to this country--it is a privilege offered to a relatively few.
Do you have any idea as to why people have to wait that long? Do you know how our immigration system works? Do you know that there are various categories of immigration and priorities are assigned to them in terms of who can enter?
These lawbreakers have jumped the line and thumbed their noses at our laws. They are self-selected immigrants. The fact is that many of them would never even qualify for a tourist visa let alone an immigrant visa.
Buckeye McFrog: “Strange bedfellows.”
Actually, no. I’ve believed for some time that conservatives and liberals have common ground on many issues. The parties like to play us against each other, but both left and right generally oppose illegal alien amnesty (takes jobs from poor Americans), NSA spying on Americans, illegal searches, militarized police, drone strikes, acting like the world’s police, strong arming foreign governments, corporate welfare, bank bailouts, etc.
We disagree on some pretty serious social issues, like abortion and homosexual rights, but we actually have common cause against our out of control American government. I think a lot of politically moderate and socially liberal folks are aghast at recent events in the news. America looks like a police state these days. I’m not sure the left is entirely on board with the direction Obamao is taking things.
I like the way you put it. I'm not anti-Mexican and it's not anti-Mexican to recognize the difference between legal immigration and illegal invasion.
we already have a path.... for non-criminal invaders
I did not say there should be no limits. FGS, I wish people on this forum would stop putting words in my mouth (or keyboard). Limit comments to exactly what I have written. Don’t make up stuff between lines.
I don’t know when “sponsorship” began, or ended. I know it was the pratice during the 1940s and 1950s — even into the 1970s. Many refugees from Europe came here during that period, often sponsored by a church, or a family member. It didn’t have to be familial, either.
Businesses could sponsor people. Business sponsorships were common in Houston during the 1970s to get people for the oil industry. And the companies often were very generous when the worker was fired, or wanted to leave, and would allow them time to convert their visas. I knew a lot of people who came here that way from the UK and Australia. Immigration put them through great tests to stay, while they waived folks from Honduras and other Latin coutries right through.
I remember a family from Poland sponsored in the 1980s by my church during the Solidarity movement. Church members found them jobs and taught them English. The wife worked for me for a while. She left me to work for Kimberly Clark after she knew enough English to get along.
When I was in college, my sorority sponsored a Hungarian Freedom Fighter and provided tuition and housing for her.
All of these people came here legally and relied for a time on the kindness of businesses and current citizens. What is wrong with that?
“Report: Wisconsin’s Scott Walker Endorses Path to Citizenship”
Scratch him. Ryan must’ve gotten to him.
Let's be clear. If the senate amnesty bill passed, then the people who are "lawbreakers" today, but can show papers that seem to prove employment/residence for some number of year, would be "legal" after the law passed. (Bear in mind, they have been anticipating another amnesty for years, and I guarantee Obama/Nappy/Holder want them to qualify, and if the bureaucrats let in some who don't really qualify, there is always the excuse that they just didn't have the resources to process 30 million applicants so quickly.)
So are you saying the the senate bill would be OK if they added/changed some border enforcement language?
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.