Law Makers about to Strike a Deal on Immigration
- Thread starter UH1-D Rotorhead
- Start date
DonR101395
New member
Or by the last batch of congressmen and senators.
For all those who voted to show them damn Republicans whats what...........thanks
Last edited:
You hear correct they repeat that phrase over and over "we need more
people in the labor market" simply code words for slave labor, in time that
will simply defeat the system when wages are so low that we are competitive
because we will be a third world. Greed is an overwhelming force and that
will be our down fall. The current group of politicians have not a clue or
do not care for the future of this country.
According to an article appearing in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette a couple of days ago, this latest "compromise" proposal is some 380 pages in length. Re that, the writer wonders as to how many United States Senators who will shortly be voting on it, have read and digested the thing?
The writer also wonders as to how many "little noticed clauses", the sort of thing "inserted by senate/congressional staffers", staffers who usualy remain unnaned, will later turn out o have been inserted when nobody was looking or awake.
Lastly, Senator Arlen Specter made mention of "the impossibility of deporting illegals". How does he know about this alleged impossibility? When, if ever were there any real efforts made in the direction of the "impossible deportation" he speaks of.
The writer also wonders as to how many "little noticed clauses", the sort of thing "inserted by senate/congressional staffers", staffers who usualy remain unnaned, will later turn out o have been inserted when nobody was looking or awake.
Lastly, Senator Arlen Specter made mention of "the impossibility of deporting illegals". How does he know about this alleged impossibility? When, if ever were there any real efforts made in the direction of the "impossible deportation" he speaks of.
Edward429451
Moderator
Yeah how ironic. Our government postures so big and badd all around the globe, we can do anything, you can't thwart our resolve to see this through to victory and so on...but it's impossible to handle our own borders or our illegal immigrants.
Nice.:barf:
Nice.:barf:
LAK Supply
New member
Agreed. There's something amiss with a govermnent that has the capability of vaporizing the enitre planet and running complex bureaucracies like the IRS 
mad: ) where they can keep track of millions of Americans, yet "cannot" seal a border and remove illegal foreign invaders.
I'm starting to think someone in the government's lying to me......
mad: ) where they can keep track of millions of Americans, yet "cannot" seal a border and remove illegal foreign invaders. I'm starting to think someone in the government's lying to me......
JuanCarlos
New member
I know. It's almost as if building a nuclear arsenal and running a government agency with which law-abiding citizens (grudgingly) cooperate (more or less) is totally different from locking down a 2000 mile border (much of which is in barren desert) and tracking down millions of people who don't cooperate with the government.
Despite how it might appear on the surface, building a nuclear weapon may actually be a less daunting task than "sealing" 2000 miles of desert. And collecting taxes from hundreds of millions of people who willingly (well, not really) provide their employment information and contact info is easier than tracking down just a few million fugitives.
EDIT: Though I wouldn't categorize either task as "impossible," just prohibitively expensive.
Despite how it might appear on the surface, building a nuclear weapon may actually be a less daunting task than "sealing" 2000 miles of desert. And collecting taxes from hundreds of millions of people who willingly (well, not really) provide their employment information and contact info is easier than tracking down just a few million fugitives.
EDIT: Though I wouldn't categorize either task as "impossible," just prohibitively expensive.
There is no need to track down illegal aliens. Collecting withholding taxes looks easier because employers are held accountable and enforce the rules. If employers were held equally accountable for illegal aliens, there would be no jobs for illegal aliens and shortly there would be no illegal aliens. It would also require little effort to secure a border that few people wanted to cross.
TheBluesMan
Moderator Emeritus
SecDef said:
Tired cliches, no. But only by the guts it takes to get the Iranian hostages released, fire the striking PATCO workers, challenge Gorbachev to tear down the Berlin Wall and bring Communism to its knees.
Pelosi and the rest of her weak-kneed cohorts will have America back to where we were during Carter's bland administration. No thanks!
JuanCarlos
New member
Very true. Stricter enforcement on the "demand" end would dry the "supply" up pretty quickly. I'm guess I was just saying that the deportation would be incredibly difficult, not implying that that was the only way to solve the problem.
And actually this would go a long way towards sealing the border as well...ensure people have little reason to cross the border, and it takes a lot less effort to prevent them from doing so.
Of course, whether you like it or not allowing more people into the country legally has the latter effect as well...and combining the two may well be all it takes to get 12 million people to march back across the border and wait to come across legitimately (since it would be realistically possible). This would allow us to maintain some of the "benefits" of Mexican labor while reducing the drawbacks.
But obviously no plan, regardless of any other details or end goals, will do any good whatsoever without harsher and stricter enforcement against employers.
Guts? By your reckoning, W must be the president ever. Colbert had it right when he said Bush "believed in Thursday what he believed on Tuesday no matter what happened on Wednesday."
Oh if only we had an administration that had a foreign policy that wasn't a unilateral monologue.
Reagan played the role of President very well. But, he certainly didn't bankrupt communism in a mere 8 years. Gorby was running the show, not some spend on credit republicans!
Jaycoco, LAK Supply and others, it's happening in GA as well. My son was one of the few "token gringos" where he worked. He was warned that the (mostly illegal) Mexican workers would do all that they could to get him fired to make room for another Mexican. His work was sabotaged, his car was vandalized in the co. parking lot, and his life was threatened.
In a separate incident, a friend went looking for a second job after his divorce and one place he applied had to hunt for an application in English.
Anyway, it's about more than amnesty. Link:http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55787
PREMEDITATED MERGER
North America 'partnership' fast-tracked in border bill
Calls for speedier regional economic integration between U.S., Mexico
Posted: May 20, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com
WASHINGTON – The controversial "Secure Borders, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Reform Act of 2007," which would grant millions of illegal aliens the right to stay in the U.S. under certain conditions, contains provisions for the acceleration of the Security and Prosperity Partnership, a plan for North American economic and defense integration, WND has learned.
The bill, as worked out by Senate and White House negotiators, cites the SPP agreement signed by President Bush and his counterparts in Mexico and Canada March 23, 2005 – an agreement that has been criticized as a blueprint for building a European Union-style merger of the three countries of North America.
"It is the sense of Congress that the United States and Mexico should accelerate the implementation of the Partnership for Prosperity to help generate economic growth and improve the standard of living in Mexico, which will lead to reduced migration," the draft legislation states on page 211 on the version time-stamped May 18, 2007 11:58 p.m.
Since agreement on the major provisions of the bill was announced late last week, a firestorm of opposition has ignited across the country. Senators and representatives are reporting heavy volumes of phone calls and emails expressing outrage with the legislation they believe represents the largest "amnesty" program ever contemplated by the federal government.
President Bush yesterday attempted to tackle the concerns of those opposing the bill – denying again he would ever support an "amnesty" bill. The Senate is expected to begin debating the measure this week.
In its current form, the bill would offer probationary legal status to the estimated 15 million to 20 million illegal aliens who were in the U.S. before Jan. 1, 2007. Those who then met a series of requirements — including payment of a $5,000 fine and $2,000 in processing fees — could gain citizenship within an estimated 12 to 13 years.
In his weekly radio address, Bush said the plan "will help us resolve the status of millions of illegal immigrants who are here already, without animosity and without amnesty."
Bush said under the bill, those who "come out of the shadows" of illegal immigration will qualify for a special visa if they "pass a strict background check, pay a fine, hold a job, maintain a clean criminal record and eventually learn English."
To become citizens, he said, they must pay an additional fine, "go to the back of the line [of applications], pass a citizenship test, and return to their country to apply for their green card."
Among other provisions, including increased hiring of Border Patrol officers, the bill would establish a temporary worker program.
Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, called the deal "amnesty – a pardon and reward for lawbreakers."
"Many senators claim that their deal renews respect for the rule of law," King said. "Let me respond to that absurd statement by stating clearly, you cannot simultaneously tear down and rebuild one of our constitutional principles. I took an oath to uphold the Constitution and the rule of law. The price for amnesty is the sacrifice of the rule of law."
King, ranking Republican on the Immigration Subcommittee of the U.S. House Judiciary Committee, said each of the senators who struck the deal "should wear a scarlet letter 'A' for amnesty."
Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., also was quick to label the bill "amnesty."
The senator said it "rewards people who broke the law with permanent legal status and puts them ahead of millions of law-abiding immigrants waiting to come to America."
"I don't care how you try to spin it, this is amnesty," DeMint said.
"I hope we don't take a thousand page bill written in secret and try to ram it through the Senate in a few days," he added. "This is a very important issue for America and we need time to debate it."
In fact, while the draft bill is far from finished, it is 326 pages in its current form.
The House is not expected to act until the Senate passes a bill.
Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., called the deal "the best possible chance we will have in years to secure our borders and bring millions of people out of the shadows and into the sunshine of America."
Illegal immigrants would be allowed to come forward and obtain a "Z visa" that puts them on a track for permanent residency within eight to 13 years. Fees and a fine of $5,000 are required and heads of household first must return to their home countries.
The illegals would be able to obtain a probationary card right away to live and work in the U.S.
badbob
In a separate incident, a friend went looking for a second job after his divorce and one place he applied had to hunt for an application in English.
Anyway, it's about more than amnesty. Link:http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55787
PREMEDITATED MERGER
North America 'partnership' fast-tracked in border bill
Calls for speedier regional economic integration between U.S., Mexico
Posted: May 20, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com
WASHINGTON – The controversial "Secure Borders, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Reform Act of 2007," which would grant millions of illegal aliens the right to stay in the U.S. under certain conditions, contains provisions for the acceleration of the Security and Prosperity Partnership, a plan for North American economic and defense integration, WND has learned.
The bill, as worked out by Senate and White House negotiators, cites the SPP agreement signed by President Bush and his counterparts in Mexico and Canada March 23, 2005 – an agreement that has been criticized as a blueprint for building a European Union-style merger of the three countries of North America.
"It is the sense of Congress that the United States and Mexico should accelerate the implementation of the Partnership for Prosperity to help generate economic growth and improve the standard of living in Mexico, which will lead to reduced migration," the draft legislation states on page 211 on the version time-stamped May 18, 2007 11:58 p.m.
Since agreement on the major provisions of the bill was announced late last week, a firestorm of opposition has ignited across the country. Senators and representatives are reporting heavy volumes of phone calls and emails expressing outrage with the legislation they believe represents the largest "amnesty" program ever contemplated by the federal government.
President Bush yesterday attempted to tackle the concerns of those opposing the bill – denying again he would ever support an "amnesty" bill. The Senate is expected to begin debating the measure this week.
In its current form, the bill would offer probationary legal status to the estimated 15 million to 20 million illegal aliens who were in the U.S. before Jan. 1, 2007. Those who then met a series of requirements — including payment of a $5,000 fine and $2,000 in processing fees — could gain citizenship within an estimated 12 to 13 years.
In his weekly radio address, Bush said the plan "will help us resolve the status of millions of illegal immigrants who are here already, without animosity and without amnesty."
Bush said under the bill, those who "come out of the shadows" of illegal immigration will qualify for a special visa if they "pass a strict background check, pay a fine, hold a job, maintain a clean criminal record and eventually learn English."
To become citizens, he said, they must pay an additional fine, "go to the back of the line [of applications], pass a citizenship test, and return to their country to apply for their green card."
Among other provisions, including increased hiring of Border Patrol officers, the bill would establish a temporary worker program.
Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, called the deal "amnesty – a pardon and reward for lawbreakers."
"Many senators claim that their deal renews respect for the rule of law," King said. "Let me respond to that absurd statement by stating clearly, you cannot simultaneously tear down and rebuild one of our constitutional principles. I took an oath to uphold the Constitution and the rule of law. The price for amnesty is the sacrifice of the rule of law."
King, ranking Republican on the Immigration Subcommittee of the U.S. House Judiciary Committee, said each of the senators who struck the deal "should wear a scarlet letter 'A' for amnesty."
Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., also was quick to label the bill "amnesty."
The senator said it "rewards people who broke the law with permanent legal status and puts them ahead of millions of law-abiding immigrants waiting to come to America."
"I don't care how you try to spin it, this is amnesty," DeMint said.
"I hope we don't take a thousand page bill written in secret and try to ram it through the Senate in a few days," he added. "This is a very important issue for America and we need time to debate it."
In fact, while the draft bill is far from finished, it is 326 pages in its current form.
The House is not expected to act until the Senate passes a bill.
Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., called the deal "the best possible chance we will have in years to secure our borders and bring millions of people out of the shadows and into the sunshine of America."
Illegal immigrants would be allowed to come forward and obtain a "Z visa" that puts them on a track for permanent residency within eight to 13 years. Fees and a fine of $5,000 are required and heads of household first must return to their home countries.
The illegals would be able to obtain a probationary card right away to live and work in the U.S.
badbob
LAK Supply
New member
I'm aware of this. SPP.gov has all the information you ever did not want to see about this treason.
If this comes to fruition I will personally be willing to rebel with whatever force necessary to defend my country against foreign invaders and domestic saboteurs.
If this comes to fruition I will personally be willing to rebel with whatever force necessary to defend my country against foreign invaders and domestic saboteurs.
Slugthrower
New member
The time is coming. It is high time that the powers that be understand that the people of this Union haven't forgotten the sacrifices made to create this land of liberty. Nor are we ignorant of those things required to keep what has been earned. No foreign person or body thereof has the right to pillage this land through force of arms or by coercion. We hear the call, is there the will to act?
LAK Supply
New member
I think there are millions of Americans just like us. They are so fed up with the ruling elitists that drastic action is not far from their mind. However, I'm sure that many people feel like I do......
Any Constitutional action taken to correct this country at this time would involve tearing down 90% of the government, trying and hanging treasonous politicians (about a 90% there too), and many other things. This is what the Founders expected of the People. However, things have become so perverted that the politicians are insulated from the people they are supposed to be serving that there is no recourse other than voting for another crook.
This being said...... I'm not going to be the lone dog shot down in the street trying to start a revolution.
Any Constitutional action taken to correct this country at this time would involve tearing down 90% of the government, trying and hanging treasonous politicians (about a 90% there too), and many other things. This is what the Founders expected of the People. However, things have become so perverted that the politicians are insulated from the people they are supposed to be serving that there is no recourse other than voting for another crook.
This being said...... I'm not going to be the lone dog shot down in the street trying to start a revolution.
I think your correct, my concern is that corrective action of any manner is going to bring great sacfrice to all. I'm a big believer in preventive maintenance, in your home, family, work or personal behavior, fix it before it goes to far, I've lived my entire life in that manner however the major issues facing this country in the future,: well simply no easy fix in my opinion, but for certain we do need change.
Slugthrower
New member
What will it take? It seems that there is a great need to have a peaceful demonstration on a massive and historically unprecedented level. How do we get several million people to voice their displeasure in concert? What would it take to have all those folks to march upon Washington D.C.? We know that there are 80 million gun owners that most likely love this country. Organizing a rally of a few million seems possible. Could the NRA help in this and put out the word to converge on D.C. on a specified day? There are many birds that we could kill with a single stone if this is done. We the people could address many of the issues that are ruining the Republic.
LAK Supply
New member
I think the answer may be through the states. State-level offices are much more accessible and the states have more power in action against the feds than individuals do. Action in this manner offers more protection to the people as well.... I don't think anyone wants to be branded as a terrorist and thrown in jail for standing up for America. That does not do any good for anyone or any cause.
How do we force the states to stand up to the feds? The feds would sure be in a sorry position with a bunch of defiant states (fueled by the people) stopped abiding by federal regulation and cut off the $$ that goes into the treasury. The feds control the states now by taking $$ that rightfully belongs to the state and redistributing it based on cooperation. If they don't have the carrot on the string they lose 50% of their leverage.
There are other things that could be done in concert, but I will not talk about that in a public forum.
How do we force the states to stand up to the feds? The feds would sure be in a sorry position with a bunch of defiant states (fueled by the people) stopped abiding by federal regulation and cut off the $$ that goes into the treasury. The feds control the states now by taking $$ that rightfully belongs to the state and redistributing it based on cooperation. If they don't have the carrot on the string they lose 50% of their leverage.
There are other things that could be done in concert, but I will not talk about that in a public forum.