Mike Huckabee finally gets the message...

[LaL 418]

So they do jump ahead of the line...don't they. Of course, Teddy Kennedy and company don't see it that way. 'Nuff said!

Its way more than just "Ted Kennedy and company" who support the idea that "sending them all home" just isnt feasible. It's the majority of lawmakers. They just cannot agree on the details.

[natty bumppo 297]

So they do jump ahead of the line...don't they. Of course, Teddy Kennedy and company don't see it that way. 'Nuff said!

Its way more than just "Ted Kennedy and company" who support the idea that "sending them all home" just isnt feasible. It's the majority of lawmakers. They just cannot agree on the details.

maybe Ted kennedy etal can use the same method of transportation the illegals used to get here ... to send them back. after all ... it was acceptable to the illegals once before ...

[rebeccajo 14]

But I don't know of anyone that thinks a guest worker program that must be applied for from their home country as amnesty.

Some do. I've heard talking heads parrot that line on the various cable news networks.

A quick google reveals this hit: http://www.fairus.org/site/PageServer?page...t_facts_jan2006

"A guest worker program is an amnesty"

Disclaimer: I am unfamiliar with fairus.org.

It certainly is an amnesty if the illegal alien that broke into the USA illegally and used counterfeit / stolen documentation to illegally work is allowed to "touchback" for a brief amount of time and return back into the USA from their little vacation to keep what they stole in the first place. Which is to say they stole something they were not entitled to (work & residency), jumped ahead of people waiting going through legal channels, and in the end are rewarded for doing so with guestworker status.

The employer also gets an amnesty for hiring illegal workers. In many cases knowing they were doing so.

This whole corrupt stinking mess needs to stop without rewarding the perpetrators.

IF they have to get back in line behind everyone else, then I fail to see how that is amnesty in any way, shape or form.

But that isn't what has ever been proposed. The big lie is the brief touchback where they go back home (just to the border) briefly, but still get to keep what they stole. Which is residency and and work privleges they never were entitled to and jumping ahead of everyone else by breaking numerous laws. But, of course, there are those that don't even feel the illegal aliens should even have to go through that brief inconvenience to get their reward for breaking our laws.

The "back of the line" lie was just for citizenship. They still get to keep their ill gotten residency and work privleges. They have to pay a small fine and wait in line for citizenship while being rewarded for illegal entry, document fraud, and illegal work with retroactive legal residency and work privileges after the fact. If that isn't amnesty...the definition is being twisted beyond the limit.

So they do jump ahead of the line...don't they. Of course, Teddy Kennedy and company don't see it that way. 'Nuff said!

It's not 'nuff said'. And that's why the issue isn't resolved.

Because the 'bars' you want can't just be changed for 'amnesty seekers' and not for other immigrant categories as well. The PAC's on the Hill representing family-based immigration will make sure any such proposals benefit our loved ones' immigrant category as well.

Or is that what you are afraid of?

[peejay 327]

But I don't know of anyone that thinks a guest worker program that must be applied for from their home country as amnesty.

Some do. I've heard talking heads parrot that line on the various cable news networks.

A quick google reveals this hit: http://www.fairus.org/site/PageServer?page...t_facts_jan2006

"A guest worker program is an amnesty"

Disclaimer: I am unfamiliar with fairus.org.

It certainly is an amnesty if the illegal alien that broke into the USA illegally and used counterfeit / stolen documentation to illegally work is allowed to "touchback" for a brief amount of time and return back into the USA from their little vacation to keep what they stole in the first place. Which is to say they stole something they were not entitled to (work & residency), jumped ahead of people waiting going through legal channels, and in the end are rewarded for doing so with guestworker status.

The employer also gets an amnesty for hiring illegal workers. In many cases knowing they were doing so.

This whole corrupt stinking mess needs to stop without rewarding the perpetrators.

IF they have to get back in line behind everyone else, then I fail to see how that is amnesty in any way, shape or form.

But that isn't what has ever been proposed. The big lie is the brief touchback where they go back home (just to the border) briefly, but still get to keep what they stole. Which is residency and and work privleges they never were entitled to and jumping ahead of everyone else by breaking numerous laws. But, of course, there are those that don't even feel the illegal aliens should even have to go through that brief inconvenience to get their reward for breaking our laws.

The "back of the line" lie was just for citizenship. They still get to keep their ill gotten residency and work privleges. They have to pay a small fine and wait in line for citizenship while being rewarded for illegal entry, document fraud, and illegal work with retroactive legal residency and work privileges after the fact. If that isn't amnesty...the definition is being twisted beyond the limit.

So they do jump ahead of the line...don't they. Of course, Teddy Kennedy and company don't see it that way. 'Nuff said!

It's not 'nuff said'. And that's why the issue isn't resolved.

Because the 'bars' you want can't just be changed for 'amnesty seekers' and not for other immigrant categories as well. The PAC's on the Hill representing family-based immigration will make sure any such proposals benefit our loved ones' immigrant category as well.

Or is that what you are afraid of?

First of all...I don't understand your question. Second of all...fear or lack of it has nothing to do with sound and prudent US public policy.

[athena_ny 1]

So the fact Huckabee signed this pledge excuses the fact he's TOTALLY EFFING CRAZY about, oh, just about everything else?

Like his desire to change the Constitution to reflect God/the Bible? Or his views on women's/gay's rights? Or just about everything there is in the world to be crazy about!?

Immigration is not the only issue at hand, people.

[rebeccajo 14]

But I don't know of anyone that thinks a guest worker program that must be applied for from their home country as amnesty.

Some do. I've heard talking heads parrot that line on the various cable news networks.

A quick google reveals this hit: http://www.fairus.org/site/PageServer?page...t_facts_jan2006

"A guest worker program is an amnesty"

Disclaimer: I am unfamiliar with fairus.org.

It certainly is an amnesty if the illegal alien that broke into the USA illegally and used counterfeit / stolen documentation to illegally work is allowed to "touchback" for a brief amount of time and return back into the USA from their little vacation to keep what they stole in the first place. Which is to say they stole something they were not entitled to (work & residency), jumped ahead of people waiting going through legal channels, and in the end are rewarded for doing so with guestworker status.

The employer also gets an amnesty for hiring illegal workers. In many cases knowing they were doing so.

This whole corrupt stinking mess needs to stop without rewarding the perpetrators.

IF they have to get back in line behind everyone else, then I fail to see how that is amnesty in any way, shape or form.

But that isn't what has ever been proposed. The big lie is the brief touchback where they go back home (just to the border) briefly, but still get to keep what they stole. Which is residency and and work privleges they never were entitled to and jumping ahead of everyone else by breaking numerous laws. But, of course, there are those that don't even feel the illegal aliens should even have to go through that brief inconvenience to get their reward for breaking our laws.

The "back of the line" lie was just for citizenship. They still get to keep their ill gotten residency and work privleges. They have to pay a small fine and wait in line for citizenship while being rewarded for illegal entry, document fraud, and illegal work with retroactive legal residency and work privileges after the fact. If that isn't amnesty...the definition is being twisted beyond the limit.

So they do jump ahead of the line...don't they. Of course, Teddy Kennedy and company don't see it that way. 'Nuff said!

It's not 'nuff said'. And that's why the issue isn't resolved.

Because the 'bars' you want can't just be changed for 'amnesty seekers' and not for other immigrant categories as well. The PAC's on the Hill representing family-based immigration will make sure any such proposals benefit our loved ones' immigrant category as well.

Or is that what you are afraid of?

First of all...I don't understand your question. Second of all...fear or lack of it has nothing to do with sound and prudent US public policy.

Are you afraid that changes made regarding amnesty toward illegal entrants will also lead to changes which could make it easier for others to enter legally?

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

rebecca,

anyone who sets aside "immigrants who entered since 1970 and their descendants" has a race-based agenda. as everyone knows, the primary change in immigration post-1970 was the racial background of the immigrants. the only reason anyone would single out 1970 is race.

[Frank+Jocelyn 1]

I like his thoughts on immigration but as much as I would like to changes in that area, I would never vote for a religions freak.

[rebeccajo 14]

rebecca,

anyone who sets aside "immigrants who entered since 1970 and their descendants" has a race-based agenda. as everyone knows, the primary change in immigration post-1970 was the racial background of the immigrants. the only reason anyone would single out 1970 is race.

But it's a hidden agenda that a lot of good people are getting sucked in by.

[peejay 327]

rebecca,

anyone who sets aside "immigrants who entered since 1970 and their descendants" has a race-based agenda. as everyone knows, the primary change in immigration post-1970 was the racial background of the immigrants. the only reason anyone would single out 1970 is race.

But it's a hidden agenda that a lot of good people are getting sucked in by.

That's total bullshit. Look at the numbers and where we are going. Why is it that people that whine about race love to play the race card when all else fails? US immigration policy is not about racial engineering to create your vision of what America should be. A lot of prosperous countries have little or no immigration. Immigration is not mandatory. It is a privilege...not a right. The USA does not have to accomodate the world and should not have an open border. Maybe you think it does...a lot of Americans do not. It's our country isn't it? Or do we just let the corporations, illegal aliens, and foreign governments decide US immigration policy?

Immigration numbers are way too high and illegal immigration is out of control. So what if 80+% of the illegal aliens are your so called "Brown people"? Their skin color does not give them the right to break our laws and to be rewarded for doing it. Are we supposed to let it slide just for appearances and continue on a course that is not in the best interests of the USA? I don't see it that way. A whole lot of Americans don't see it that way either.

BTW...the USA severely cut immigration in 1924. It needs to happen again.

Speaking of agendas...why don't you spell out yours? Rather than taking cheap shots, making accuasations, or tossing around innuendo.

Edited January 20, 2008 by peejay

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

With the economy hitting the skids, a moratorium on immigration, in general, is probably the last thing we need.

[natty bumppo 297]

With the economy hitting the skids, a moratorium on immigration, in general, is probably the last thing we need.

why ?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

With the economy hitting the skids, a moratorium on immigration, in general, is probably the last thing we need.

why ?

Why what why why why?

How?

Who?

...Where?

[GaryC 7]

With the economy hitting the skids, a moratorium on immigration, in general, is probably the last thing we need.

why ?

Why what why why why?

How?

Who?

...Where?

huh?

[rebeccajo 14]

rebecca,

anyone who sets aside "immigrants who entered since 1970 and their descendants" has a race-based agenda. as everyone knows, the primary change in immigration post-1970 was the racial background of the immigrants. the only reason anyone would single out 1970 is race.

But it's a hidden agenda that a lot of good people are getting sucked in by.

That's total bullshit. Look at the numbers and where we are going. Why is it that people that whine about race love to play the race card when all else fails? US immigration policy is not about racial engineering to create your vision of what America should be. A lot of prosperous countries have little or no immigration. Immigration is not mandatory. It is a privilege...not a right. The USA does not have to accomodate the world and should not have an open border. Maybe you think it does...a lot of Americans do not. It's our country isn't it? Or do we just let the corporations, illegal aliens, and foreign governments decide US immigration policy?

Immigration numbers are way too high and illegal immigration is out of control. So what if 80+% of the illegal aliens are your so called "Brown people"? Their skin color does not give them the right to break our laws and to be rewarded for doing it. Are we supposed to let it slide just for appearances and continue on a course that is not in the best interests of the USA? I don't see it that way. A whole lot of Americans don't see it that way either.

BTW...the USA severely cut immigration in 1924. It needs to happen again.

Speaking of agendas...why don't you spell out yours? Rather than taking cheap shots, making accuasations, or tossing around innuendo.

AJ has his beliefs and I have mine. I would say they are slightly different. He appears to be more convinced the issue is race-based than I do. After some enlightened discussions and thinking about it, my personal opinion is much of the anti-illegal rhetoric is more nativist than racist. So I don't necessarily think you are 'skeered of brown people' but I do think your beliefs are bigoted towards anyone who isn't born here - perhaps even those whose parents were not. And frankly I can't abide that.

My only agenda is to expose the foundation of your beliefs for where they come from. If they come from an organization that basically is opposed to immigration of any kind, then I believe the readers here need to know that. This is, after all, a website full of people who either are immigrants or are married to one. If those same organizations are lead or were created by people who have (at the heart of their agenda) a true racist bent, then that is relevant also in my opinion.

You posted the graphs and you posted the links, Peejay. If you didn't want people to follow them then you shouldn't have put them up.