Immigration bill

[PieIsAwesome]

Originally posted by: kapoww

Originally posted by: PieIsAwesome

Which brings me to my next point, being that wherever the parents of an individual are born or even wherever that individual is born along with being "legal" or "illegal" are not definitive or even necessarily relevant in deciding whether someone is or isn't American. If a person is raised in the U.S., in American culture, and has lived there the vast majority of their lives, then they are American, regardless of wherever they or their parents were born, and regardless of whether they are illegal or not. They may not even know Spanish.

Sure.. but you're probably describing 5% of their population. mexicans raised on American culture. Good one.

I know plenty, including myself.

But I am aware of what you mean, and it's too bad there hasn't been much effort to differentiate.

 

[ProfJohn]

Why does it seem that congress and the President have such a different view on this that most of the people in the country?

I know the right is very much against this.
What about the ?left?? Can someone tell me how most liberals view this bill?

 

[kapoww]

Update your title.

PHEW!

 

[BoomerD]

I'm not particularly liberal, but I am 100% Democrat, and I'm totally against this bill. I'm one of the hard-liners who believe that if these people want to start a life in this country, they first need to start it legally. Starting it ILLEGALLY doesn't show good faith on their part. I don't care if they're just trying to have a better life, (but I do understand why they would) if they want to come here, they need to do so legally. IMO, ALL illegals need to return (or be returned) to their native countries and apply for entry. MAYBE give the ones who have establised some roots here a bit of preference, (but is that fair to the ones who have waited legally...often for years?) then, IF they pass a background check and their employment skills are needed, give them a 3 year green card.

During that time, they have to apply for citizenship. IF they do so, and have no criminal problems, then they can apply for a 5 year card.

Somewhere along the line, (maybe after the 5 year card, maybe after a second 5 year card) they HAVE to apply for and be granted citizenship, or go back home.

If this country is good enough to live in for more than 5 years, it should be good enough to become a citizen of.

The "Anchor Baby" provision needs to be clarified to state that ONLY children born here of LEGALLY immigrated parents are citizens, and then, ONLY if the parents ask for it.

Any illegal immigrant who is caught here illegally gets sent back home at his/her expense. They can still apply for entry, but at the bottom of the list. If they sneak back in, and get caught, they are banned from applying for 10 years. A 3rd offense is a permanent ban on entry, and they can be subject to criminal prosecution.

Needless to say, this will never happen. The Latino lobbies will kill anything that even sounds hard-line, and they will press for open borders and amnesty for their people.

 

[kapoww]

Originally posted by: PieIsAwesome

Which brings me to my next point, being that wherever the parents of an individual are born or even wherever that individual is born along with being "legal" or "illegal" are not definitive or even necessarily relevant in deciding whether someone is or isn't American. If a person is raised in the U.S., in American culture, and has lived there the vast majority of their lives, then they are American, regardless of wherever they or their parents were born, and regardless of whether they are illegal or not. They may not even know Spanish.

Sure.. but you're probably describing 5% of their population. mexicans raised on American culture. Good one.

 

[Blackjack200]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Why does it seem that congress and the President have such a different view on this that most of the people in the country?

I know the right is very much against this.
What about the ?left?? Can someone tell me how most liberals view this bill?

I don't know why this needs to be turned into a liberal vs conservative issue.

My view, living in NJ, is going to be very different from someone living in California or Texas. I've worked with people here illegally (expired Visas); and everyday I drive past a huge crowd of day workers hoping to be picked up so they can perform manual labor.

It disgusts me that they have to live in constant anxiety and uncertainty because of where they were born vs. where I was born; that they can't visit their families; they can't do many of the things that we take for granted. I'm a big believer in the principle of universality. If it's okay to send someone back to Mexico, or Russia, or wherever - it should be okay to send you there as well.

You can talk about the law all you want, but where is the morality question? How do you justify morally, not legally, sending someone back to a life of poverty? A place that was so bad they ran from it.

 

[ericlp]

What? Bush supports this? Then I don't!!! hahaha, j/k!

I think the bill has more loop holes in it. I personally don't see any other country selling immigration status. I say if we gonna sell off citizenship then it should be more then $$ how about 10,000?

Even now, what was it 5000 to get citizenship? Your gonna have ever immigrant robbing houses, jacking cars doing what ever it takes to get $$...

 

[Siddhartha]

OP,

Why do you think "the liberal media" would want to fool "law-abiding US citizens"?

 

[trenchfoot]

Originally posted by: kapoww
Update your title.

PHEW!

welcome news to me. thanks for the link. however, this does not change the fact that the supporters of granting amnesty to all illegals currently residing in the USA have not changed their minds. the only thing they are concentrating on now is how they're going to try to put a new face on the same ugly pig of a plan. seems to me the final legislation for "reforming immigration policy" will be quite like the current tax code in complexity with a myraid of deceptive language meant to hide the true nature of its intent: amnesty for the current crop of illegals and to maintain porous borders to allow the flow of the next crop of illegals to continue unabated.

 

[Sinsear]

Originally posted by: BoomerD

The "Anchor Baby" provision needs to be clarified to state that ONLY children born here of LEGALLY immigrated parents are citizens, and then, ONLY if the parents ask for it.

Yep; the anchor baby thing needs to go, preferably sooner than later.

 

[kapoww]

Guess we'll find out in '08.

 

[Jaskalas]

We should enforce our current laws, and brutally punish employers who hire illegals. Let there be no wage earned in America that Americans won?t do.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Socio

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Yes, that would be troubling...if the specific things were all the bill banned. But it's not just banning terrorists or violent criminals, there are more mundane actions as well. If Cornyn was really all that concerned, the amendment could have singled out violent offenders. This, however, is just political BS.

It makes perfect sense to me; if you come in to this illegally and commit crimes, any crimes you should not be allowed the privilege of staying here let alone becoming a citizen.

Whether or not it makes sense to you is not really the point...the amendment was presented as "ban terrorists", which is not quite accurate. Now we can debate the amendment based on what it actually does, but that's not what this topic was about.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
ya, unfortunately, Cornyn included too many vague qualifiers in the amendment. So seeing it shot down is no surprise...

I think the bottom line here is that the entire Congress is out of touch with what the citizens want with regards to illegal immigration.... sad that.

We don't often see eye to eye, but I'm 100% with you on this post

I would like to see a more focused, clearly-worded version of this bill pass.

 

[Kwaipie]

OMG run for the hills. It's the terrorists!!!!!

meh.

fear mongers.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
ya, unfortunately, Cornyn included too many vague qualifiers in the amendment. So seeing it shot down is no surprise...

I think the bottom line here is that the entire Congress is out of touch with what the citizens want with regards to illegal immigration.... sad that.

While I certainly like the way Congress is approaching the illegal immigration issue (and Bush's approach, for that matter), I do think it's rather strange that they are taking this path. Like I said, they might have MY support, but I freely admit I'm the minority among the voters.

 

[wetech]

Originally posted by: Kwaipie
OMG run for the hills. It's the terrorists!!!!!

meh.

fear mongers.

You don't think it makes sense to exclude people who are suspected violent criminals / terrorists from the privileges offered by this bill?

Funny how some people immediately think that any mention of the word terrorist by any Republican is just fear mongering.

 

[Socio]

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: palehorse74
ya, unfortunately, Cornyn included too many vague qualifiers in the amendment. So seeing it shot down is no surprise...

I think the bottom line here is that the entire Congress is out of touch with what the citizens want with regards to illegal immigration.... sad that.

We don't often see eye to eye, but I'm 100% with you on this post

I would like to see a more focused, clearly-worded version of this bill pass.

I just read the whole Amendment, I think it needs to be more encompassing and some things like only after a third DUI conviction need to be changed. It should be one and you?re done.

However it is a hell of a lot better than passing a bill with out anything regarding criminals other than gives them Amnesty.

 

[babylon5]

Originally posted by: Kwaipie
OMG run for the hills. It's the terrorists!!!!!

meh.

fear mongers.

How about MS-13? Gangs? I don't think most people like them for some strange reason.

 

[Socio]

This bill just gets worse and worse the more they debate it, the more what is being debated in the bill gets revealed.

Senate Votes to Grant Amnesty to Terrorists and Criminals

WASHINGTON, June 6 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- In one of the crucial tests of the Senate immigration bill, 51 senators voted to grant amnesty to illegal alien terrorists and criminals. By a 46-51 vote, the Senate rejected an amendment offered by Sen. John Cornyn (news, bio, voting record) (R-Tex.) that would have barred illegal aliens who have been determined to have committed terrorist acts, or who have been convicted of a variety of criminal offenses, including gang activity, from eligibility for the proposed Z visa amnesty that would allow them to remain in this country indefinitely.

I can?t believe one Senator let alone fifty-one Senators thinks is ok to give criminals and terrorists here illegally what amounts to Amnesty and permanent residence in the US.

This action by the fifty-one Senators completely disregards all levels of human intelligence and common sense. To willfully subject citizens of the US, their constituents who depend on them to do what is in the their best interest and that interest includes their safety and well being to an untold number of thugs, criminals and terrorists is just insane!

 

[Rainsford]

Yes, that would be troubling...if the specific things were all the bill banned. But it's not just banning terrorists or violent criminals, there are more mundane actions as well. If Cornyn was really all that concerned, the amendment could have singled out violent offenders. This, however, is just political BS.

 

[palehorse]

ya, unfortunately, Cornyn included too many vague qualifiers in the amendment. So seeing it shot down is no surprise...

I think the bottom line here is that the entire Congress is out of touch with what the citizens want with regards to illegal immigration.... sad that.

 

[Socio]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Yes, that would be troubling...if the specific things were all the bill banned. But it's not just banning terrorists or violent criminals, there are more mundane actions as well. If Cornyn was really all that concerned, the amendment could have singled out violent offenders. This, however, is just political BS.

Well it makes perfect sense to me; if you come in to this illegally and commit crimes, any crimes you should not be allowed the privilege of staying here let alone becoming a citizen.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Socio
This bill just gets worse and worse the more they debate it, the more what is being debated in the bill gets revealed.

Senate Votes to Grant Amnesty to Terrorists and Criminals

WASHINGTON, June 6 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- In one of the crucial tests of the Senate immigration bill, 51 senators voted to grant amnesty to illegal alien terrorists and criminals. By a 46-51 vote, the Senate rejected an amendment offered by Sen. John Cornyn (news, bio, voting record) (R-Tex.) that would have barred illegal aliens who have been determined to have committed terrorist acts, or who have been convicted of a variety of criminal offenses, including gang activity, from eligibility for the proposed Z visa amnesty that would allow them to remain in this country indefinitely.

I can?t believe one Senator let alone fifty-one Senators thinks is ok to give criminals and terrorists here illegally what amounts to Amnesty and permanent residence in the US.Most, if not all, DON'T. This is done by teh bills opponents and they are sabotaging the bill.

This action by the fifty-one Senators completely disregards all levels of human intelligence and common sense. To willfully subject citizens of the US, their constituents who depend on them to do what is in the their best interest and that interest includes their safety and well being to an untold number of thugs, criminals and terrorists is just insane! (See below. What's insane is the way Washington works. Things aren't often what they seem

Hehe, relax Bro.

That's just an old Washington DC "game". Those who oppose the bill vote to add crazy amendments in an effort to torpedo the whole thing. And it worked

Fern

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Why does it seem that congress and the President have such a different view on this that most of the people in the country?

I know the right is very much against this.
What about the ?left?? Can someone tell me how most liberals view this bill?

Complaints from the Left that I've heard:

1. The "Points System" awards education, skills & language proficiency. But it dominishes the importance of family ties, not many points for that. Hence, many on the left decry this lack of priority in reuniting familes.

2. The "Guest Worker Program" The left complains that the guest workers will take away jobs from the unemployed citizen. I'm pretty sure the unions opposed this, while the big companies wanted it. First, the left got the number cut in half, really pised off Bush & big Biz. Then Obama 'screwed the pooch" (help kill the bill) by getting an amendment passed last night (or Wednesday?) completely eliminating it. Lindsey Graham was going ballistic about it

3. Paying the $5K, etc is not "nice"....

Fern