Posted on 11/06/2014 3:31:00 PM PST by jimbo123
Your short posting history has you bashing only CONSERVATIVES.
What happened to his series of debates on a pathway to citizenship?
Paul Ryan and Rand Paul have been doing this act for 2 years.
Steve King and Jeff Sessions speak for the Tea Party on immigration.
My point was that if Ted Cruz used the words "immigration reform", many here would assume he meant blanket amnesty despite the fact that he has not expressed that in any of his statements/actions. Reform must happen but it must happen correctly - start with closing the borders then going your attrition route. Some here will not be satisfied with any solution that doesn't involve doing the impossible by purging our Nation of those already here en-masse. I would love to see it, but am pragmatic enough to know it will be a long-drawn process no matter how we go about it. The words "immigration reform" will be used widely, but it's the content of the plans/actions that define what it really is.
A novel idea, enforce the laws we have!
As you pointed out, immigration reform has become shorthand for amnesty. So the best thing for Reps is not to use the term to avoid the confusion.
Reform must happen but it must happen correctly - start with closing the borders then going your attrition route. Some here will not be satisfied with any solution that doesn't involve doing the impossible by purging our Nation of those already here en-masse.
Here is my plan for "immigration reform":
We need a pro-immigrant, low immigration policy with 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 300,000 immigrants a year vice the current 1.2 million annually;
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) secure the border and make mandatory such programs as E-Verify and 287 [g] authority to assist employers and law enforcement in identifying illegal aliens;
Elimination of birthright citizenship and the visa lottery program;
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.
I would love to see it, but am pragmatic enough to know it will be a long-drawn process no matter how we go about it. The words "immigration reform" will be used widely, but it's the content of the plans/actions that define what it really is.
Words have meanings. The Democrats and the mainstream media have hijacked the language surrounding the immigration issue to the point that we had Michael Chertoff, the Secretary of Homeland Security and our nation’s top immigration official at the time, testifying before Congress using the term “undocumented workers” to describe illegal aliens. John McCain and Barack Obama studiously avoided the term “amnesty” to describe their comprehensive immigration reform plans and despite the evidence, baldly declared that it was not an amnesty. Instead, they used such euphemisms as “getting to the back of the line,” “an earned path to citizenship,” and “coming out of the shadows.” The Democrats and pro-amnesty crowd know full well that the American people are against amnesty, hence the avoidance of the “A” word. Republicans need to develop their own immigration lexicon that cuts through this Orwellian use of language.
Immigration can be a winning issue for Reps if they link it to jobs and the defense of the American worker. Jeff Sessions has laid out the template, which should be required reading by every Republican in office or considering running for office: Becoming the Party of Work How the GOP can help struggling Americans, and itself.
Reform my ass! Enforce the laws as they are. Period. I used to love this guy. Now his makes me need a Tylenol.
Active Duty/Retiree ping.
Well, he’s not got my support, but I’m independent conservative by basic position and not gop except as a hopeful way to vote for a conservative.
The usual suspects spouting the same GOP amnesty agenda. Election’s over, now it back to the script.
I like the poster, and forgive me for forgetting who it was who basically said that “immigration reform” is the new “climate change” term used by many.
For example, if you think the country is going to bus all of the Mexicans and Central Americans to the borders and dump them, I really don’t think that is going to happen.
So, I guess it depends on the meaning of ‘immigration reform’ and it seems that each person has his or her own meaning to that term.
We elected a republican majority, I’m going to allow them to be sworn into office before I claim they’re doing anything so horribly wrong.
Sorry if you think I’m bashing anyone. My apologies if you think that’s the case. I’m not doing that at all.
I know that my posting history is going to get me bashed, it’s okay but once again, I’m not bashing anyone, simply asking questions.
The first words out of a sane congress would be an impeachment process due to these intentions. EO fiat immigration reform is a high crime and misdemeanor. Clear cut.
And yes, ebola-care [aka 0-care] should be another reason for impeachment.
” Sorry if you think I’m bashing anyone. My apologies if you think that’s the case. I’m not doing that at all.
I know that my posting history is going to get me bashed,”
Of course, because you came to FR to attack CONSERVATIVES. You answered your own question.
Amnesty was good enough for Reagan. Why not Paul Ryan?
and then democrats will rule congress again for 40 years like they did before 1994 Gingrich revolution.
Because Reagan later openly admitted publicly that it was his greatest mistake as President and Ryan is to stupid, as are his supporters, to learn the lessons of history.
Since we saw the results of that amnesty and the trouble it caused, only a liberal would bush for one that dwarfed it in scope and only an idiot would support such a person. Because that person would be supporting a man to destroy their country. That is idiocy.
Actually immigration reform is really very very very simple.
All that needs to be done is cut off the magnet which attracts illegals.
Pass a law which gives automatic prison sentence of 5 years to the CEO of any outfit which hires illegals.
90% of illegals will self deport. Tax payers won’t even have to pay for their return flight.
That will make the job of finding remaining illegals 10 times easier.
I agree completely. There is a ‘saying/whatever’ from an article that about 500 people run America. (DC). If a thing is or is not the way it is, it’s because they want it that way. Period. IE, it’s all that group.
They will not do your suggestion and have not done it solely because they want things just as they are.
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.