Posted on 06/24/2007 6:25:34 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
American politics is usually a zero-sum game: When one side gains, the other loses.
An exception is the current battle to overhaul immigration laws. The bipartisan effort is led by the unlikely duo of President George W. Bush and Senator Edward Kennedy. The fate of the legislation, which would grant a pathway for citizenship to 12 million illegal aliens and toughen enforcement of the borders, will be decided by the U.S. Senate this week.
If it passes, there is plenty of credit to share; if it fails both Bush and the Republicans and the Democratic-controlled Congress will be big losers.
Although a majority of the public is in favor of changing a chaotic system that makes a mockery of the law, it won't be easy.
The immigration bashers are winning the demagoguery war. Representative Tom Tancredo of Colorado, a Republican presidential candidate, has suggested that immigrants arrive in the country to commit crimes and called Miami a third world city. Lou Dobbs, host of a program on Cable News Network, has raised the specter of thousands of illegal immigrants spreading leprosy - demonstrably untrue.
The roots are historic: nativism, or a fear that new arrivals will debase and threaten the American way of life.
"We've been down this road before," says Senator Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican and a leading supporter of the comprehensive immigration measure. "No Catholics, no Jews; the Irish need not apply."
This intimidation has produced profiles in cowardice. Senators Saxby Chambliss and Johnny Isakson, two Georgia Republicans, originally backed the compromise immigration measure. After taking heat at home, they retreated.
(Excerpt) Read more at iht.com ...
Albert certainly isn’t all that intelligent.
Everyone who opposes amnesty is a racist, sexist, homophobic Nazi who wants to gas minorities.
You’re not in that camp are you?
(/sarcasm)
What a crock. The proper term is ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION. Intimidation? Oh yeah, you mean like the kind from the administration that called patriotic American citizens, “vigilantes”. The kind of intimidation that put a gag order on the Border Patrol. Oh yes, that kind of intimidation....we get it. “Overhaul immigration laws”? No, you mean IGNORE immigration law, and support criminal lawbreakers with amnesty and TRILLIONS in tax dollars — yes, we get it. Yes, these nasty patriotic Americans that expect their government to support THEM, by closing our borders, and addressing the ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION situation, should be lambasted, impuned, and criticized. Yes, these horrible people called American citizens who care about their country, its soverignty and its rule of law.
The need for cheap labor no more justifies illegal immigration than it did slavery in times past.
Did I miss anything?
Congressman Billybob
Can't curse. Shouldn't curse. Won't curse.
Graham needs to go.
What do they mean we are in favor of changing a chaotic system blah blah blah?
Idiots, we want our current laws ENFORCED. We want a fence built and we want all illegals returned to their countries.
Don’t you just love the way they twist the truth. It’s them who want to change our chaotic system and make it even more chaotic without even saying a thing to the American people. How’s that for knowing what they are trying to do is wrong, by doing it undercover.
I Like Ike.
The Fiscal Cost of Low-Skill Immigrants to the U.S. Taxpayer
Take the Pledge: "I pledge to never, ever vote for anyone, for any office, who votes in favor of the Mexican Invasion Surrender Bill."
Model letter to your Senator:
To: Your Senator
From: A concerned citizen and constituent
Subject: Urge that you oppose S.1639--vote no on cloture
I urge that you vote no on S.1639 (Immigration Reform,) and vote no on cloture.
Reasons:
1) Granting any form of legal residency to those who illegally crossed our borders is drastically unfair to all those in the wider world who cannot so easily get the same deal for themselves, because they happen to be geographically disadvantaged relative to most of the illegal immigrants who come here. What about those from Asia, Africa and Europe? Should not legal residency in the US be fairly rationed among all the world's peoples?
2) To reward illegal immigrants with the very thing they were trying to achieve when they broke the law is unconscionable: It encourages law breaking in general, and yet more illegal immigration in particular. Criminals must never be granted that which they were seeking when they broke the law--in this case, any form of legal residency in the United States.
3) S. 1639 would have the effect of creating a peasant class of cheap laborers. Although not as bad as our failed experiment with slavery that ultimately ended in a civil war, the moral argument against it is analogous.
4) "Guest worker" programs of the form proposed by S. 1639 are nothing more than an attempt by business to avoid having to pay a living wage to legal US residents.
5) Eisenhower solved the problem much more simply, and for far less money. His solution also exposed the extent to which the problem is corruption in our government, and among our businesspeople. [Reference: http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0706/p09s01-coop.html]
6) Illegal immigrants are a net financial drain on our economy. The benefits of cheap labor (and cheap food prices) are more than offset by the increased costs for social services and infrastructure. [Reference: http://www.heritage.org/Research/Immigration/sr14.cfm]
7) Current law is not the problem. The problem is lack of enforcement. If the current law cannot be enforced, why would things be any different under S. 1639?
You summed up the low life Al Hunt perfectly! ;)
Just say NO to Illegal Alien Amnesty!! Keep calling!! It’s NOT OVER!!
U.S. Senate switchboard: (202) 224-3121
U.S. House switchboard: (202) 225-3121
White House comments: (202) 456-1111
Find your House Rep.: http://www.house.gov/writerep
Find your US Senators: http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
I stand 100% by that post!! Please illuminate me and everyone else on what part of that is not factual...
I fail to see how that can be construed to mean "no Catholics".
In any case, there were French Catholics in adjacent Quebec and Upper Canada, and there were Spanish Catholics in adjacent New Spain. It's not at all like they were an endangered species or something!
I kinda like expecting others being required to follow the same laws I have to, don’t you Albert?
Welcome To FR...Troll...IBTZ ???...
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.