Posted on 07/11/2010 9:32:45 AM PDT by GonzoII
You don't understand the language of the pro-amnesty supporters. Why would an illegal register? So he/she could be denied employment or deported?
The next step could be to fine the employers who are hiring them.
There are already laws doing exactly that. They were part of the 1986 amnesty bill. We just aren't enforcing them. It is also against the law for someone who is here illegally to work.
Right. The Dems controlled Congress. This was supposed to be a one time amnesty, i.e., never again. It didn’t work and even Ed Meese admits it was a mistake.
Ain't gonna happen. You're deluding yourselves if you even entertain the thought. I'm as principled as any of you, but sometimes you have to be pragmatic. This is politics.
If we have an amnesty, it is game, set, and match for this country. Everything else that follows is just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. Rolling over and accepting it means that you are resigned to the destruction of this nation. I am not going down without a fight.
Definition: Amnesty, from the same Greek root as “amnesia,” forgives past crimes and removes them from the record for future purposes. In the context of immigration, amnesty is commonly defined as granting legal status to a group of individuals unlawfully present in a country. It overlooks the alien’s illegal entry and ongoing illegal presence and creates a new legal status that allows the recipient to live and work in the country.
The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986: The textbook example of an amnesty. The 1986 law’s path to citizenship was not automatic. The legislation stipulated several requirements to receive amnesty, including payment of application fees, acquisition of English-language skills, understanding of American civics, a medical exam, and registration for military service. Individuals convicted of a felony or three misdemeanors were ineligible. No one disputes that this act provided amnesty. Supporters said it would be a “one-time” amnesty. It was estimated that one million would apply, but the true number turned out to be 2.7 million.
Forcefully relocating 12 million people is not going to happen. You have no idea what a logistical nightmare that would be. You need for 12 million people to decide that it isn't worth it to be here anymore. That means forcing them to prove they want to be citizens and curtailing the opportunity to them to change the cost/benefit ratio.
Anyone who just wants to toss them back across the border is delusional.
As governor, how do you deal with them? Do you think they all should be deported?
Palin: There is no way that in the US we would roundup every illegal immigrant -there are about 12 million of the illegal immigrants- not only economically is that just an impossibility but that's not a humane way anyway to deal with the issue that we face with illegal immigration.
Do you then favor an amnesty for the 12 or 13 million undocumented immigrants?
Palin No, I do not. I do not. Not total amnesty. You know, people have got to follow the rules. They've got to follow the bar, and we have got to make sure that there is equal opportunity and those who are here legally should be first in line for services being provided and those opportunities that this great country provides.
To clarify, so you support a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants?
Palin I do because I understand why people would want to be in America. To seek the safety and prosperity, the opportunities, the health that is here. It is so important that yes, people follow the rules so that people can be treated equally and fairly in this country.
Palin statement on O'Reilly:
“We won’t complicate it any more. Let’s keep it simple and let’s say, ‘No, if you are here illegally and you don’t follow the steps that at some point through immigration reform we’re going to be able to provide, and that is to somehow allow you to work. If you’re not going to do that, you will be deported you will be gone.”
The Van Sustern interview does nothing to refute those comments above.
We need a pro-immigrant, low immigration policy that contains the following elements:
A merit based immigration system that brings in the skills and talents to keep us competitive in the global economy;
Reduced immigration levels based on need and more closely approximating 500,000 immigrants a year recommended by the Jordan Commission;
Elimination of extended chain migration, i.e., family reunification, limiting it to the nuclear family;
Enforcement of existing immigration laws to reduce the current illegal alien population and limit future illegal immigration, i.e., attrition thru enforcement. Enforcement would include: (1) ending the job magnet; (2) increasing coordination at the federal level by eliminating barriers to information sharing among agencies; (3) leveraging state and local enforcement resources; (4) fully implementing the US-VISIT Program to track and deport visa overstays; and (5) make mandatory and improve such programs as E-Verify and 287 [g] authority to assist employers and law enforcement in identifying illegal aliens;
Elimination of birthright citizenship;
Ensure that anyone who enters this nation illegally is not rewarded by being permitted to stay and work here; i.e., no amnesty;
Streamline the processing and adjudication of immigration cases; and
Promote pro-immigrant measures that help newcomers assimilate and embrace the values and principles of our Founders and the Constitution.
Mirriam-Webster: ": the act of an authority (as a government) by which pardon is granted to a large group of individuals"
When I, and many others, think of amnesty I think of something like that granted by Carter to vets who had skipped to Canada. No hoops to jump through.
Those illegals who would go through a process (pay a fine, learn english, work for several years to get a green card, then work several years beyond that according to one Senate plan) would be granted citizenship; those who didn't would be denied...thus, no instant pardon...far from it.
I see this as having to WORK to achieve citizenship. I see that as a pragmatic solution to the mess.
The 1986 Immigration Act was an amnesty and so were the Hagel-MartineZ and McCain-Kennedy bills. BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 93 (8th ed. 2004) (defining the term “amnesty” using IRCA as the quintessential example).
A rose is a rose is a rose. No matter how you might define what is or is not amnesty, the results don't change. We legalize the status of 10s of millions and allow them to bring in tens of millions more resulting in the destruction of this country.
. Conferring rights and privileges upon illegal aliens has a corrosive effect on the Rule of Law, the very foundation of our Republic. It is also a slap in the face to legal immigrants who have followed the rules and obeyed the laws. There are millions of immigrants waiting their turn overseas to enter the U.S. legally and approximately 40 million immigrants living in the U.S., most of whom followed the law.
I see this as having to WORK to achieve citizenship. I see that as a pragmatic solution to the mess.
Citizenship is a privilege, not a right. We don't allow people who have violated and flaunted our laws to become citizens. The process of becoming a US citizen starts in their home countries. We bring in 1.2 million LEGAL IMMIGRANTS annually. We don't need 12 to 20 million illegal aliens to get preferred treatment by virtue of their illegal entry, working illegally, identity theft, failure to pay taxes, etc.
Excellent post that nails the issue in every way.
Great description.
Ping!
That was also the year they reformed the tax code taking away major deductions in exchange for lower tax rates. Democrats bent us over on that one too.
They did the same to George H.W. Bush, too. George Mitchell cajoled him into violating his no new taxes pledge by calling him too rigid and inflexible, that if he wanted to really work with the Democrats and get things done he had to be more flexible.
Good Bye Bush, Hello Slick Willie.
Deception and duplicity are Democrat trademarks.
Dreaming
That is not the issue. You and I covered all this before, several times. You're argument remains specious.
The real issue is that Fat Teddy and the new Democrat controlled Senate gutted the border enforcement and employer sanction provisions of the 1986 IRCA, not Reagan! If the GOP had held onto the Senate, those provisions would have been properly funded and implemented, and today we wouldn't have the serious problems with 15 million illegals stealing from the US taxpayers.
The IRCA of 1986 was not a blanket amnesty and Reagan did not support a blanket amnesty. The legalization/amnesty provision was for 300K illegals, not 2.7 million and was the compromise Reagan made to get tougher border enforcement and stricter employer sanctions for the long term. At least that is what he believed.
"Future generations of Americans will be thankful for our efforts to humanely regain control of our borders and thereby preserve the value of one of the most sacred possessions of our people: American citizenship." The Reagan Presidential Library : Remarks on Signing the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 : November 6, 1986
If anyone deserves blame for the failure of the IRCA of 1986, its Senator Kennedy and the Democrat Senate majority. Not President Reagan. Also, Ed Meese has publicly stated, Reagan would not have make the same mistake again. Reagan would never have supported the McCain-Kennedy comprehensive immigration reform act, or any of its subsequent offshoots.
A comprehensive Proposal for US Southern Border Enforcement
http://www.jeffhead.com/secureborder/
Legalization of status is the issue. It is amnesty no matter how you try to disguise or cloak it. "We used the word 'legalization,' " former Wyoming Sen. Alan K. Simpson tells NPR's Guy Raz. "And everybody fell asleep lightly for a while, and we were able to do legalization. The 1986 bill was an amnesty.
The real issue is that Fat Teddy and the new Democrat controlled Senate gutted the border enforcement and employer sanction provisions of the 1986 IRCA, not Reagan! If the GOP had held onto the Senate, those provisions would have been properly funded and implemented, and today we wouldn't have the serious problems with 15 million illegals stealing from the US taxpayers.
Sorry, but Reagan signed the bill. He supported amnesty. Most of his own party did not. Even John McCain voted against it when he was in the House. The Chamber of Commerce did/does not want to see those laws enforced. And I don't see how Rep control over the Senate, which was 53-47 in the 98th Congress, would have made any difference since the Dems overwhelmingly controlled the House in the 99th Congress 253-182 and in the 100th 258-177. In case you may not know, the House has a major say in the appropriation process.
The IRCA of 1986 was not a blanket amnesty and Reagan did not support a blanket amnesty. The legalization/amnesty provision was for 300K illegals, not 2.7 million and was the compromise Reagan made to get tougher border enforcement and stricter employer sanctions for the long term. At least that is what he believed.
Come on. You can do better than that. By your definition, the Hagel-Martinez and McCain-Kennedy bills were not blanket amnesties either. That is pure nonsense worthy of Clintonian parsing. FYI: The government estimated 1 million would apply. The true number turned out to be 2.7 million. And it is worth noting that the number of apprehensions soared prior to the implementation of the act. The all-time apprehension record was 1,693,000 in 1986 immediately preceding passage of the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA). And fraud abounded with fraudulent papers being handed out just blocks from immigration offices. And INS just pushed through the applications with little or no review. It was a travesty and I know that from firsthand information from the people involved in it.
If anyone deserves blame for the failure of the IRCA of 1986, its Senator Kennedy and the Democrat Senate majority. Not President Reagan. Also, Ed Meese has publicly stated, Reagan would not have make the same mistake again. Reagan would never have supported the McCain-Kennedy comprehensive immigration reform act, or any of its subsequent offshoots.
Reagan was President. The buck stops there. He made the decision to do it with the best of intentions as the signing statement indicates. Ed Meese says without any qualification that the amnesty was a mistake. It just encouraged future attempted amnesties and more people to enter this country illegally in anticipation of the next amnesty. We are being fed the same garbage today using the same arguments. FYI: The Rep controlled Senate passed an amnesty in 2006 (Hagel-Martinez) and it was only due to the Rep controlled House and Sensenbrenner that it wasn't passed. An amnesty will destroy this country with the stroke of a pen.
Legalization of status is the issue. It is amnesty no matter how you try to disguise or cloak it. "We used the word 'legalization,' " former Wyoming Sen. Alan K. Simpson tells NPR's Guy Raz. "And everybody fell asleep lightly for a while, and we were able to do legalization. The 1986 bill was an amnesty.
The real issue is that Fat Teddy and the new Democrat controlled Senate gutted the border enforcement and employer sanction provisions of the 1986 IRCA, not Reagan! If the GOP had held onto the Senate, those provisions would have been properly funded and implemented, and today we wouldn't have the serious problems with 15 million illegals stealing from the US taxpayers.
Sorry, but Reagan signed the bill. He supported amnesty. Most of his own party did not. Even John McCain voted against it when he was in the House. The Chamber of Commerce did/does not want to see those laws enforced. And I don't see how Rep control over the Senate, which was 53-47 in the 98th Congress, would have made any difference since the Dems overwhelmingly controlled the House in the 99th Congress 253-182 and in the 100th 258-177. In case you may not know, the House has a major say in the appropriation process.
The IRCA of 1986 was not a blanket amnesty and Reagan did not support a blanket amnesty. The legalization/amnesty provision was for 300K illegals, not 2.7 million and was the compromise Reagan made to get tougher border enforcement and stricter employer sanctions for the long term. At least that is what he believed.
Come on. You can do better than that. By your definition, the Hagel-Martinez and McCain-Kennedy bills were not blanket amnesties either. That is pure nonsense worthy of Clintonian parsing. FYI: The government estimated 1 million would apply. The true number turned out to be 2.7 million. And it is worth noting that the number of apprehensions soared prior to the implementation of the act. The all-time apprehension record was 1,693,000 in 1986 immediately preceding passage of the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA). And fraud abounded with fraudulent papers being handed out just blocks from immigration offices. And INS just pushed through the applications with little or no review. It was a travesty and I know that from firsthand information from the people involved in it.
If anyone deserves blame for the failure of the IRCA of 1986, its Senator Kennedy and the Democrat Senate majority. Not President Reagan. Also, Ed Meese has publicly stated, Reagan would not have make the same mistake again. Reagan would never have supported the McCain-Kennedy comprehensive immigration reform act, or any of its subsequent offshoots.
Reagan was President. The buck stops there. He made the decision to do it with the best of intentions as the signing statement indicates. Ed Meese says without any qualification that the amnesty was a mistake. It just encouraged future attempted amnesties and more people to enter this country illegally in anticipation of the next amnesty. We are being fed the same garbage today using the same arguments. FYI: The Rep controlled Senate passed an amnesty in 2006 (Hagel-Martinez) and it was only due to the Rep controlled House and Sensenbrenner that it wasn't passed. An amnesty will destroy this country with the stroke of a pen.
That is what Palin's position sounded like to me.
The case that republicans need to make is that the pro-amnesty folks are trying to create a permanent, dependent underclass they can count on for votes.
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.