Has Delay blinked?
1 posted on
02/09/2005 9:01:35 AM PST by
kellynla
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-22 next last
To: gubamyster
2 posted on
02/09/2005 9:02:48 AM PST by
Marine Inspector
(Customs & Border Protection Officer)
To: kellynla
...."could entail"....
How 'bout SHALL
3 posted on
02/09/2005 9:04:46 AM PST by
moehoward
To: kellynla
requiring illegal immigrants to return to their native countries to apply for the program, Mr. DeLay said. That's one way to get them the heck out of this country to never return!
4 posted on
02/09/2005 9:07:30 AM PST by
stopem
To: kellynla
Such a compromise could entail, for example, requiring illegal immigrants to return to their native countries to apply for the program, Mr. DeLay said Excellent. Let's change the "could entail" to "shall entail", then it sounds like a plan.
5 posted on
02/09/2005 9:08:38 AM PST by
spodefly
(Yo, homey ... Is that my briefcase?)
To: kellynla
"Has Delay blinked?"
Not necessarily. I do believe this was one of the cornerstones of Tancredo's guest worker bill. This may be Delays way of pushing Tancredo's proposal as a 'compromise'.
What we DONT want is Cornyns guest worker bill proposal. He is the Senate manager of Bushs 'proposal', is this coincidence?
Awhile back, there was a link posted in a thread to a comparison chart on the various proposals. Somebody may remember who posted it.
6 posted on
02/09/2005 9:09:28 AM PST by
Dat Mon
(will work for clever tagline)
To: kellynla
The skids are greased for FTAA...
7 posted on
02/09/2005 9:10:08 AM PST by
NormsRevenge
(Semper Fi ...... The War on Terrorism is the ultimate 'faith-based' initiative.)
To: kellynla
So, dare we guess WHO was REALLY behind the
"return to country of origin to gain legal
access" as a guest worker? Come on...
think about it! <>g<>
9 posted on
02/09/2005 9:13:40 AM PST by
Grendel9
To: kellynla
How about this compromise?
W. shuts up about burying the nation in illegals and Delay promises not to impeach him.
To: kellynla
The source of much of our illigal immigration problems is the deplorable socio-economic conditions of much of Latin America. On paper, many of these countries have democratic governments. In reality, they are ruled by an elite aristocracy that comprises at most, 10% of the population. These governments don't oppress their people in ways that would risk military intervention by us; rather, they oppress them by depriving them of opportunities to improve their standard of living. Those in power down there know that if general economic conditions improve, they would be out of power. The sad thing is that this situation to our south isn't much different from the northeastern parts of our own nation.
11 posted on
02/09/2005 9:15:30 AM PST by
bobjam
To: kellynla
I believe that any guest worker program should have a stipulation that if a citizen applies for the job the non citizen loses it.
12 posted on
02/09/2005 9:19:01 AM PST by
CONSERVE
To: kellynla; All
Really interesting debate NOW on CSPAN on the house floor about the REAL ID ACT, HR. 418. It's apparent who is in the OBL pocket!
35 posted on
02/09/2005 11:07:29 AM PST by
JustAnotherSavage
("We are all sinners. But jerks revel in their sins." PJ O'Rourke)
To: kellynla
"Has Delay blinked?"
Not at all, if one applies from one's home country then they are not illegal. This is excellent, but I would like to hear more about Enforcement. Enforcement real emforcement is the key.
36 posted on
02/09/2005 11:13:03 AM PST by
jpsb
To: kellynla
It still doesn't penalize or punish people for entering and remaining illegally. It still rewards them for doing so. Do we enforce our laws or not? That is the question.
39 posted on
02/09/2005 11:37:40 AM PST by
KiloLima
(January 30, 2005: A date that will live in our hearts and minds . . .)
To: kellynla
Fine those who employ illegals $1000 per illegal, first time; $10,000 per illegal, second time; and progressively increase the fine.
Mandate that illegals caught will be conscripted and required to perform 2 years minimum of military service.
[Watch them scatter back to Mexico.]
50 posted on
02/09/2005 12:33:04 PM PST by
TomGuy
(America: Best friend or worst enemy. Choose wisely.)
To: kellynla
My suggestion for a compromise bill would be one requiring placement of troops on the southern border, three feet apart, and welcome "guest workers" who score 150 or more on a standard IQ test administered by the Border Patrol. Anyone hoping to enter scoring less than that would be turned back.
51 posted on
02/09/2005 12:33:18 PM PST by
reelfoot
To: kellynla
I couldn't get into the article you linked w/o registering... which I don't want to do. I have read several "versions" of this news story today. I am giving DeLay the benefit of the doubt here. Requiring illegals to go back to the native homeland to register is a good idea. Not that I think enough of them would do it. DeLay typically stands his ground on issues he believes and issues that are important to his constituents. I will be surprised if he buckles under on this... we will see.
53 posted on
02/09/2005 12:38:52 PM PST by
exhaustedmomma
(Calling illegal alien an undocumented immigrant is like calling a burglar an uninvited house guest)
To: kellynla
....sounds reasonable, they broke the law....so let the onus be on them.
Give the 6 months to return to their own country...find an employer here in the US who will hire them, and when matched with an employer, they can come (back) in. I still do not see why these lawbreakers should be granted the privilege of American citizenship.
59 posted on
02/09/2005 12:59:17 PM PST by
taxed2death
(A few billion here, a few trillion there...we're all friends right?)
To: kellynla
Hi-b has already proven what guest worker programs do, they displace Americans from their jobs. Matching "willing employer with employee" will mean the end of the middle class as we know it so Delay and the GOP better make their plans ahead of time to get future votes from all the guest workers they allow in.
To: kellynla; All
Heres another beef of mine.
Personally, I am opposed to all guest worker bills on general principle, as I feel that they can be misused by employers to distort and usurp natural labor market supply and demand.
We have already seen how this has been done in the tech sector using the H1b classification. Do some research, and discover how the IEEE-USA feels about H1b.
Although some try to advocate these policies from a libertarian viewpoint, I feel that they are actually contrary to libertarian principles, insofar as they allow the government to indirectly regulate the labor market, using legislative categories, exemptions and allocations, and thus give an unfair advantage to certain companies at the expense of the general public and other companies. This amounts to indirect government interference in private enterprise.
Now, immigration of desirable people with good job skills is another matter. I am not opposed to increasing immigration quotas, provided that strict criteria are met.
First and foremost, there has to be a demonstrated need for a certain labor classification, skill or aptitude.
Second, the applicant should express a desire to become a productive American citizen. They should also have some minimal facility with the English language, OR be willing to learn as part of their naturalization process.
Third, quotas should be assigned to countries across the board, not just one or two, with preference given to those who have stood by us as allies in the past.
Now, with all this talk of "family values" as they apply to immigrants, I say if we want that as part of our criteria, then we should also be assigning an equal number of slots to Poland, as well as to Mexico.
You will not find a more solid, Catholic country than Poland, with solid family values. Also, they have been a faithful ally in Iraq and elsewhere. I would also give preference to Britain and Ireland.
75 posted on
02/09/2005 2:28:52 PM PST by
Dat Mon
(will work for clever tagline)
To: kellynla
Immigration deal!? What deal? We need a deal to keep people from entering this country illegally.
If the Republicans do not get this issue in hand and quickly, they will find themselves in trouble starting with the next election. This one can not be ignorned. There is no deal to make.
111 posted on
02/09/2005 6:07:04 PM PST by
BJungNan
(Please stand by while I think up a new one...)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-22 next last
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson