If everything in this bill would be enforced as stated I think there would be a great majority of the country supporting it. However, we went through this before in 1986 when the Simpson-Mazzoli bill was supposed to help the country deal with the 2.5 million illegals in the country. All the enforcement in that bill was never enforced, illegal immigration exploded by at least 5 fold. Now another 'comprehensive' bill is here 20 years later and we are supposed to trust these guys?

 

 

So, the correct alternative is to do nothing because the attempt in 1986 didn't work out the way we thought it should? The 1986 bill really did nothing more than add penalties to employers for hiring illegals. It did not even attempt to address beefed up border security.

 

If Thomas Edison had been so quick to give up after a disappointing setback, we'd probably still be lighting our houses with kerosene lamps.

Please point out to me where in my post I ever said deport them. Excuse me for thinking that when I said I could favor worker visas (meaning they could stay) but not citizenship that what I really meant was deport them all. How stupid of me.

 

And let me VERY clear about this, I really don't care how expensive it is to follow the rules to citizenship legally. That is not, nor should it be part of this debate. This bills basically pushes those from all over the world that have followed the rules to the back and that is wrong.

 

 

I guess I misunderstood your post. But if you give them workers visas (allowing them to stay), what does that accomplish other than giving 12 million people a piece of paper that says "worker visa"? They are not official U.S. citizens, yet they are allowed to stay just like before. What are you proposing to do when these visas expire? Renew the visas or deport them? If you simply renew the visas continually, isn't that the same thing as letting these people stay indefinitely? And if you say deport them at that point, aren't we back to square one here?

I guess I misunderstood your post. But if you give them workers visas (allowing them to stay), what does that accomplish other than giving 12 million people a piece of paper that says "worker visa"? They are not official U.S. citizens, yet they are allowed to stay just like before. What are you proposing to do when these visas expire? Renew the visas or deport them? If you simply renew the visas continually, isn't that the same thing as letting these people stay indefinitely? And if you say deport them at that point, aren't we back to square one here?

Continue to renew them as long as they show proof of real employment and they stay out of legal trouble. Make them register as resident aliens annually. Break any of the rules and then get deported regardless of how many children you may have produced that are now US citizens.

 

Citizenship has a few perks that legal resident status doesn't have, including the right to vote. People who entered the country illegally should never get those benefits. After all if the reason they are here is better jobs, why do they need to be citizens if they can stay on a permanant resident visa?

 

BUT none of this should happen UNTIL there is real proof that the border has been secured. I would say that 5 years would be good to see if the tide has been stopped.

This just goes to show you how worthless conservative talk radio is. They hold their tongues when disasterously anti-conservative legislation and policy is foisted on the American people (Medicare drug entitlement, steel tariffs, shameless Federal spending, tax cuts during "wartime"). And they throw an absolute hissy fit when a reasonable compromise to the problem of illegal immigration is proposed. What do these bloody idiots think we're going to do--literally round up and deport 12 million people (many of whom now have children who are American citizens by birth?).

 

I honestly think so-called conservative gasbags like Limbaugh deep down want this bill to fail because they want to keep the status quo--an inexhaustible supply of cheap, unregulated labor from south of the border for business interests.

 

You obviously don't listen to Limbaugh because if you did you wouldn't be so wrong on what legislation Limbaugh has supported. He was vehemently against the Medicare drug entitlement, opposed the steel tariffs, and railled against Federal spending, (like the Education Bill which Limbaugh sarcastically claims was written by Ted Kennedy). The only legislation that Limbaugh actually supported as you claimed was tax cuts but unlike as you claimed support for tax cuts is a traditionally conservative position. It would be difficult to mischaracterize Limbaugh's positions on these issues more that you just did.

 

Is that any more naive than believing slanted poll after slanted poll conducted by a biased media? Or for that matter, believing what the so-called "mainstream media" have to report on much of anything?

 

:

 

In your desire to take shots, you've missed the point. I'll try again.

 

You said that Rush and friends represent the majority of folks . Besides using faulty logic (radio ratings), you then compound it by blaming the "biased media."

 

So Rush represents the majority yet they're not smart enough to know how the "biased media" works and they then vote for Nancy's gang?

 

Please.

 

Talk radio does not represent the majority on either side.

In your desire to take shots, you've missed the point. I'll try again.

You took the first shot by calling me naive... :lol:

 

Maybe if you type really slowly us less gifted folks can keep up with you.

 

In all fairness to us dimwits however, your desire to be the smartest guy in this thread has seemingly prevented you from recalling some of the points you’re making.

 

You drew me in with this gem…

Talk radio does not represent American views - right or left.

I pointed out that they represent my views, and yes I am an American.

 

I pointed out that if Rush and company did not represent the views of at least some Americans they could not succeed on commercially supported stations.

 

You then shifted gears by appealing to the extreme by stating:

You cannot be so naive as to believe that ratings in a prime ADVERTISING demographic equate to the viewpoints of the majority of Americans.

 

Secondly, if you think Rush and friends represent the majority of Americans, how do you explain the last election?

I never said anything about the majority of Americans… you did.

You said that Rush and friends represent the majority of folks. Besides using faulty logic (radio ratings), you then compound it by blaming the "biased media."

I never once said anything about, “Rush and friends represent(ing) the majority of folks.”

 

I simply refuted your assertion that “Talk radio does not represent American views.” Conservative talk radio does represent the views of more Americans than Air America does, or Air America would be thriving and Rush and the boys would be sucking air.

 

And yes, the media is biased… :lol:

Aren't we all, at least at some point on our family tree, here because this was a better place???

I am not sure that those who came over here to be slaves and had their family ripped apart would agree with your "all" assumption.

I realize that.

 

Lott has just jumped on the talk radio bashing because most host don't agree with the immigration amnisty bill.

 

Leftys have been tryinr to diminish it's influence for years.

 

My question was addressed to Ram54.

And I gotta say, it leaves me scratching my head since I said that I don't think it should be a legislative issue.

I am not sure that those who came over here to be slaves and had their family ripped apart would agree with your "all" assumption.

So the white European/American immigrants that have the biggest problem with illegal immigrants stand alone. Gotcha...

Then in the Utopian world of 02Ram54 what would you do to address the menace of conservative talk radio?

 

Maybe it doesn't represent the views of a majority of Americans but it does represent enough of them to make it commercially successful.

So the white European/American immigrants that have the biggest problem with illegal immigrants stand alone. Gotcha...

Never addressed who had a problem with the illegal immigrants just addressing that not all came to the USA because it was better for them here.

Never addressed who had a problem with the illegal immigrants just addressing that not all came to the USA because it was better for them here.

So there is one segment of the melting pot that didn't get a fair shake. And that segment doesn't seem to have much of a problem with the topic at hand. I was slightly off with my post, but the point I made is very valid...

So there is one segment of the melting pot that didn't get a fair shake. And that segment doesn't seem to have much of a problem with the topic at hand. I was slightly off with my post, but the point I made is very valid...

I don't have a problem with the validity of your point.

 

In fact, I don't blame those wanting to come to this country to better the life of their family. Over the history of this country, you are right in your point, that it is what most have done. And for most of that time, there was no immigration policy in place.

 

And my understanding, the legal way of immigrating into this country is not realistic in it's cost and time constraints.

 

This country have set up guidelines that have exasperrated the problem we have today.

You took the first shot by calling me naive... :lol:

 

No shot taken. I meant it in its literal definition. We're all naive at some time,correct?

 

 

You drew me in with this gem…

I pointed out that they represent my views, and yes I am an American.

 

I pointed out that if Rush and company did not represent the views of at least some Americans they could not succeed on commercially supported stations.

 

You then shifted gears by appealing to the extreme by stating:

I never said anything about the majority of Americans… you did.

 

I never once said anything about, “Rush and friends represent(ing) the majority of folks.”

 

I simply refuted your assertion that “Talk radio does not represent American views.” Conservative talk radio does represent the views of more Americans than Air America does, or Air America would be thriving and Rush and the boys would be sucking air.

 

And yes, the media is biased… :lol:

 

OK. You got me. I read into your post the word "majority."

 

So, we're in agreement then that neither side of talk radio represents the majority, correct?

So, we're in agreement then that neither side of talk radio represents the majority, correct?

Now you're throwing me off by playing nice...

 

:lol: :lol: :lol:

 

 

I will agree that it would be difficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that talk radio represents a majority on either side, but I do stick to my original assertion that Conservative talk radio represents the views of more Americans than Liberal talk radio does. :thumb: