Have you written your representative about the amnesty bill?

T

Tomsriv

New member
To tell them that you don't support it and that we need stronger borders and better enforcement of the law before we give any amnesty. To tell them that the southern part of the country is turning into a third world country due to the influx of unskilled and poor immigrants. Both parties are afraid of losing votes, they need to hear from us. I've written my reps, whos with me?
 
Turning into?

I just watched Blade Runner again the other day, and realized that that view of a future LA was optimistic, with all the high-tech culture, the street-stall biotechnology vendors and all. LA is more likely to become a second Tijuana.

Don't drink the water!
 
LOL, the funny thing about blade runner is that they thought the Japanese were going to take over the world in the 80's. So the street toughs spoke a mix of Japanese, English and Spanish.
 
I've emailed my Senators and Congresswoman, senior party officials and contacted local staffers. Given the fact that EVERYTHING in the bill is subordinate to the fact that the "Z" visa will grant immediate legal working status and prevent deportation to basically anyone who applies, NOTHING ELSE really matters...

My reading of the bill is that the "so called" background checks must be completed within 24 hours to deny a "Z Visa"?? :confused: I work for the Federal Gov't and my personal experience is that for the HIGHEST clearances, we're months behind. For routine clearances, it's already years behind. I worked in a job that required a background investigation and "sensative" clearance for nearly 5 YEARS before the process was finally completed. By then, I not only needed the clearance initially applied for, but the highest civilian clearance = top secret. Subsequent renewals have taken months. Folks, regardless of one's stance on legal immigration, we're being sold a bill of goods that the Federal Government is proposing legislation that they cannot possibly enforce!

I will be actively working to support candidates that OPPOSE this bill and to DEFEAT those that do.

I truly view border security as first and foremost a SECURITY issue and oppose anything other than a focus on security first bill.

:mad:
 
Here is what one of my reps wrote and was printed in the local paper. Looks like he has a good understanding of the problem. I plan on phoning his office tomorrow (my day off) and voicing my support, then calling my other two reps and telling them both I agree with Dorgan.

VIEWPOINT: Immigration bill poises to do what failed in past

By Byron Dorgan,

Few issues cause more passion than the subject of immigration, and the U.S. Senate is right in the middle of debating this issue.

Unfortunately, the proposal the Senate is considering was cooked up by a small group of senators negotiating with the White House. It's being sold as a “great compromise.” But it is not that at all.

I don't support this immigration bill. I'll explain why.

The first responsibility we have is to provide real border security so we don't have massive illegal immigration coming across our borders. With 12 million people who have entered our country illegally, it's clear we're not yet doing that.

This bill's solution is to give the 12 million people who came here illegally - up through Dec. 31 of last year - legal status and a work card. In addition, it provides for a temporary worker program that will bring in additional millions of guest workers who don't now live in this country but who will be permitted to come here and assume American jobs.

I oppose this bill. It will flood the U.S. job market with millions of workers who will compete, at low wages, for jobs Americans are doing. I believe it will drive down American wages and living standards.

Simply put, this bill fails to stand up for hard-working American citizens.

America is a great country. Many people from throughout the world would like to come here and take part in the American Dream. I understand that.

But if we had no restrictions on immigration and just threw open the doors and welcomed everyone from everywhere, we'd be overrun by people wanting to move to the U.S.

So, we try to manage immigration through quotas. Nearly 1.5 million people come to our country legally every year through this process. In addition, another million-plus come here each year to work legally at agricultural jobs.

Now, I'm sensitive to the fact that some immigrants who have come here illegally have worked hard for decades and even raised their families here. We need to take that into account as we try to resolve their status.

But I don't think we should decide that anybody who showed up here illegally as of last Dec. 31 should be given a green light to stay here and work here permanently.

Our laws need to be enforced, both at the border and at the workplace. Just as someone sneaking across the border illegally should be punished, so, too, should employers who break the law and hire illegal immigrants for low wages.

Once we've secured the border and taken away the market for illegal labor, then will be the time to consider the best way to address the status of illegal immigrants in our country.

When my amendment to remove the guest worker provision in the bill was debated earlier this week, the supporters of this legislation argued that we need the guest worker provision because “otherwise, people will just come across illegally.”

I replied, “I thought you told us your bill would fix the border security problem. But you're now telling us you won't have enough border security to stop illegal immigration!” That doesn't add up to me.

Twenty years ago, Congress passed an immigration reform bill providing amnesty for illegal immigrants already in the country. That legislation promised to tighten up border security. But nothing changed. Illegal immigration continued. Now, we are presented with new legislation that makes the same promises and provides the same amnesty.

In my view, this legislation simply accommodates the big business interests that have demonstrated their eagerness to ship American jobs overseas in search of cheap labor even while they want to bring cheap labor into this country through the back door.

I don't buy that strategy, and I don't buy this immigration bill.

Proposing to do what has failed in the past is no solution at all. Let's enforce the laws - provide real border security, stand up for decent wages for American jobs.

When we've done that, then it will be time to resolve the status of the 12 million people who have come here without legal authorization.

Dorgan, a Democrat, represents North Dakota in the U.S. Senate.
Click to expand...

Grand Forks Herald
 
I am a Georgia resident, and have written Senators Chambliss and Isakson, as well as my congressman, Jim Marshall.

All three of them promptly sent back responses saying they opposed the amnesty bill.
 
Barbara Boxer wrote me back and told me she opposes it because of the guest worker program. :rolleyes:
I hope we can get somewhere and stop the gridlock.
 
My senator, Lindsey Graham, called me a bigot in front of an audience of members of LaRaza. Oh, the irony.

I've written Lindsey 4 times over the last week. I intend to unload over his latest blast.

Lindsey has done something highly unsanitary to his mess kit.
 
Blade Runner.

The Blade Runner observation is pretty intersting. I think that at this point, many of us are thinking that it is a bit optimistic, not just for LA, but for much of the rest of the US as well.

As far as the bill, I've sent my emails and have pretty much received the standard line about how it's not "amnesty" because it doesn't have the word "amnesty" in it:rolleyes: That's what happens when your mail is answered by staffers I guess:barf:
 
As promised, I wrote Senator Graham. . . . . again.

Senator Lindsey Graham
United States Senate
290 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510

Dear Senator Graham;

RE:I’m a Bigot

Imagine my surprise when I learned I was a bigot. I learned of my racial prejudice from my senator representing me in Washington. I now find because of your astute observations my opposition to the senate’s amnesty bill is the result of the color of my skin and not because of principled disagreement with the provisions of the legislation. It came as a shock to learn that a stand for the rule of law makes me a racist. I am furthermore shocked to learn that my concern for the actual economic cost of the senate’s legislation is really caused by my underlying hatred of those who aren’t of my skin color. And what really surprised me is that I learned all the above from you while addressing a group of people who are by their own admission racial absolutists. Deeply ironic, is it not?

Senator Graham, you are capable of more edifying rhetoric. We are debating a contentious issue loaded with profound implications for the well being of the republic. Your comment did nothing to further the debate and instead contributes to polarizing attitudes. I think you owe your constituents who oppose the senate immigration legislation an apology.

I base my opposition to the legislation in an abiding respect for the rule of law. If that makes me a bigot, then so be it. I will proudly wear the label “bigot” if it means I expect the law to apply equally to all inside the borders of this country.


Best wishes,
Click to expand...
 
Here is an overview of the bill from Graham's web site:

Backgrounder on immigration reform (pdf format)

There is much other material on the main page

Sen. Lindsay Graham (SC-R)

I am finding that a lot of the spouting off about this legislation demonstrates little knowledge of what it actually contains. I wasn't so sure myself.

I am in favor of what some call "amnesty", because nothing else is practical. But anyone who says it is immediate, unconditional, and despicable is not reading the material.

I am not a big fan of Lindsay Graham. I pay a lot more attention to Jeff Sessions and Jim DeMint. Graham is okay, but as a member of the gang of 14 and now the informal fraternity of 12, he seems to be fond of the camera time and being mentioned along with Senators much more senior than he is. It is also apparent that he has to be pretty moderate to be part of that league of bipartisan deal making. "Moderate" is okay, but you don't really know what to expect when he doesn't have a definite philosophical compass.

Graham is better than most re RKBA, so I am not trading him in, being careful what I wish for.
 
Here`s what my Representative had to say about these Criminal illegals. I agree with this 100%.

IMMIGRATION



The Secure Fence Act (H.R. 6061) was signed into law on October 26. I voted in favor of that bill. I also voted in favor of three other stringent immigration bills that came up for a vote on September 21: the Immigration Law Enforcement Act (H.R. 6095), the Community Protection Act of 2006 (H.R. 6094) and the Border Tunnel Prevention Act (H.R. 4830).

11 to 12 million illegal aliens have crossed our borders.


The fact is that our borders are being actively compromised, our sovereignty is challenged and our national security is at risk.


Our national immigration policy is one of the most important issues in America, and we need an aggressive and effective policy.


Ineffective immigration policy means more than a loss of jobs and lower wages for American workers and drastically increased costs to government. With fictitious identities, terrorists enjoy an open invitation to our country.


FBI Assistant Director Steven McCraw called fictitious identities “an opportunity for terrorists to move freely in the United States.”


How do we stop the influx of illegal aliens into our country?


First, we have to secure American’s borders. I have voted for and support installing an effective barrier along the U.S.-Mexico border and making every effort to prevent illegal immigration through other points of entry. I have voted to put troops on the border (as long as it is consistent with the Posse Comitatus Act), and I have voted to put a wall on the border.


Second, no matter how long they have been here, illegal means illegal. Illegal aliens are criminals. We can not reward illegal behavior and preserve respect for the Rule of Law in our country. That is why I oppose amnesty for illegal immigrants. Disguising amnesty as some sort of guest worker program is a distinction without a difference. I have voted against every attempt to directly or indirectly grant amnesty.


Third, we must enforce our existing laws against illegal immigration.


Fourth, we must prosecute those responsible for facilitating illegal immigration to the fullest extent of the law. The U.S. Government must imprison anyone involved in producing false documentation of any kind.


Fifth, I support establishing by law that English is our country’s official language.


Lastly, we must enforce the Real ID Act. This new federal law that I supported establishes standards of proof of citizenship or legal residence for federal acceptance of any state or local government-issued form of identification cards.


I am proud to be a member of the Congressional Immigration Reform Caucus, and I will keep working to protect our borders.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top