Why does this business have to be comprehensive? WHy can't pieces of this legislation be pushed through individually? I think both sides would have much better luck getting their issues pushed through one piece at a time...

Amnesty is such a buzzword. It's a joke. What isn't amnesty but picking up 12 million immigrants and tossing them into each individual country they came from (that's right, not just Mexico), which I would consider to be impossible. If anything, all we've ensured ourselves of is "amnesty" for at least another two years.

Why does this business have to be comprehensive? WHy can't pieces of this legislation be pushed through individually? I think both sides would have much better luck getting their issues pushed through one piece at a time...

Because a good portion of the requested pieces would never have a chance on their own. The only way to push 'em through is to join them at the hip with the good pieces. It's called deal making, and it stinks.

That is what stinks the most about this bill. Republican or Democrat, the rush to curry favor with an emerging voter block overrides the long term strain the passage of this amnesty bill would put on our shoulders.

 

Politicians stink... :irked:

 

 

What about the long term strain of doing nothing? That is what will happen now.

 

To use a Gilligan's Island analogy: We shunned Mary Ann because she wasn't Ginger. Now we get to live with Mrs. Howell.

What about the long term strain of doing nothing? That is what will happen now.

 

To use a Gilligan's Island analogy: We shunned Mary Ann because she wasn't Ginger. Now we get to live with Mrs. Howell.

Better than scoring with Ginger only to find out she has HIV from sleeping her way to the top in La-la-land before the shipwreck...

 

There are many who now seem to endorse "the long term strain of doing nothing" in regard to the U.S. invading Iraq.

 

What's the difference?

 

Why is one do nothing the better choice in retrospect, and this do nothing a bad choice before it can be proven incontrovertibly?

 

The old expression of "Let's do something, even if it's wrong" loses its appeal after enough wrong choices have been made.

 

The Amnesty Bill as proposed would have been a cluster of wrong choices.

 

 

The President has many "do something" options to secure our borders right now. Show me a little sumpin-sumpin by actually making our borders tighter, and then we can talk about why some think that 12 million law breakers deserve to become voters.

Show me that the borders can be secured BEFORE even considering any kind of amnesty for those here and I could support that. The borders have to be secured FIRST and as completely seperate legislation though otherwise we have just our every 20 year amnesty.

:lol: I know you don't really believe that.

Have you seen the approval rating for the Democratic congress? They're taking a pounding for lack of action on Iraq.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3242551

 

The Democrats in Congress have lost much of the leadership edge they carried out of the 2006 midterm election, with the lack of progress in Iraq being the leading cause. Their only solace: President Bush and the Republicans aren't doing any better.

Six weeks ago the Democrats held a 24-point lead over Bush as the stronger leadership force in Washington; today that's collapsed to a dead heat. The Democrats' overall job approval rating likewise has dropped, from a 54 percent majority to 44 percent now -- with the decline occurring almost exclusively among strong opponents of the Iraq War.

Dang... the Democrat led Congress took only six months to achieve what it took Bush nearly six years to accomplish... :creepy:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Better than scoring with Ginger only to find out she has HIV from sleeping her way to the top in La-la-land before the shipwreck...

 

I think you misunderstood my analogy. Badly.

 

There are many who now seem to endorse "the long term strain of doing nothing" in regard to the U.S. invading Iraq.

 

What's the difference?

 

Why is one do nothing the better choice in retrospect, and this do nothing a bad choice before it can be proven incontrovertibly?

 

Well, um, because Iraq was not an imminent threat to the U.S.--sanctions, weapons inspectors, and no-fly zones had all seen to that--and our investigative/intelligence agencies could find zero/zilch/nada corroborating evidence of Dick Cheney's Saddam Hussein/September 11 fantasy. And because the war's cost will ultimately exceed $1 trillion and we will be less safe from terrorism to boot than if we had not invaded.

 

This do nothing seems to be a bad choice because nobody is happy with the status quo on illegal immigration except business interests wanting dirt cheap labor.

 

The old expression of "Let's do something, even if it's wrong" loses its appeal after enough wrong choices have been made.

 

The Amnesty Bill as proposed would have been a cluster of wrong choices.

 

You must love the present state of illegal immigration considering how bitterly you fought to preserve it. We will have inadequate border enforcement resources and de facto amnesty for the foreseeable future. Congratulations.

 

The President has many "do something" options to secure our borders right now. Show me a little sumpin-sumpin by actually making our borders tighter, and then we can talk about why some think that 12 million law breakers deserve to become voters.

 

Well, your boy's had the past 6 years of Republican control to show you a little sumpin-sumpin. If W and his band of capitol hill rubberstampers couldn't figure out enough reasons to "make our borders tighter" in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, what makes you think it's going to happen now? It is truly ironic that this President has marketed himself as the only one capable of protecting the American homeland from bad guys and yet, 5 1/2 years after the towers fell, Osama bin Laden is still on the loose and our southern border is as wide open as ever. Tell me again why GWB is so great?

I think you misunderstood my analogy.

I understood your analogy perfectly. I simply thought it would be humorous to take it to the opposite extreme. I thought it was quite funny… sorry you didn’t.

 

We’ve bantered Iraq into the ground. Your entire summation is based upon hindsight. The vast majority of this country was all for kicking some butt following 9/11. We can debate all the shoulda, woulda, coulda’s… the fact is we got into this together.

 

Providing amnesty to over 12,000,000 people that broke our laws to invade/inhabit our country is 180 degrees out of phase with our immediate need to secure our borders. Even if 99% (a very generous allowance) of them are harmless and here with the best of intentions, the 1% who don’t fit the kind and gentle mold equal 120,000 genuine malefactors here to wreak havoc upon our society. That’s 2,500 additional genuine criminals for each of the 48 contiguous states.

 

The actual numbers are probably considerably higher.

 

For the record, I don’t give a rat’s sphincter about providing illegal cheap labor to American businessmen, and if we’d quit making it possible for healthy people not to work, have kids and live off the government you’d be amazed with the kind of jobs Americans will do.

 

One of my greatest disappointments with “my boy” has been his inability to lock down our borders. He already has all the budget and legislation in place to do what is necessary. The fact that he hasn’t—and may not— is an incredible failing on his part. The sad thing is, no one on either side seems terribly motivated to get the job done. The recently failed Amnesty Bill is proof of the fact that pompous political weasels in both parties are more concerned with their own political agendas and party politics than in doing what’s right for our nation. So let’s just say, I disagree with you.

 

I’m all for cleaning house and starting over with a fresh bunch of Mr. Smiths willing to go to Washington to honestly take care of the people’s business.

had the past 6 years of Republican control to show you a little sumpin-sumpin.

The only bit of your post that I agree with. President Bush SHOULD HAVE secured the borders. Instead he is now stuck trying to pass legislation that could eventually add millions of Democratic leaning voters to the rolls (And make no mistake that's the real reason that Dim Harry and Numb Nancy are so adamant that ANY immigration bill include a path to citizenship for these law breakers). He President Bush screwed this up immensely.

Providing amnesty to over 12,000,000 people that broke our laws to invade/inhabit our country is 180 degrees out of phase with our immediate need to secure our borders. Even if 99% (a very generous allowance) of them are harmless and here with the best of intentions, the 1% who don’t fit the kind and gentle mold equal 120,000 genuine malefactors here to wreak havoc upon our society. That’s 2,500 additional genuine criminals for each of the 48 contiguous states.

 

 

I hate to break this to you, but now absolutely nothing will be done about those 12,000,000 people (not even a formalized process of documenting them so we have some idea who they are). They won't be deported. Not going to happen. And we are now on track to do pretty much nothing to provide additional border reinforcement resources. So God knows who else and how many will be coming in over the next few years.

 

The "victory" of those who sought to defeat this bill is very hollow indeed.

H, I can't imagine you actually read the bill as proposed to make the statements you have throughout this thread.

 

I've made it clear I'm disappointed with everyone (republican, democrat, independent, etc.) that has failed to act to secure our borders. That includes "my boy" Bush.

 

If you actually think that a reasonable fraction of the 12 million illegals would have voluntarily "registered" much less been deported under the new bill, you need to re-read it, and reconsider the effectiveness of our government in enforcing the numerous ( more than adequate) laws we already have on the books.

 

I'd like to ask, "If our legislators actually expect us to believe that we will never be able to round up and deport 12 million illegals now, why should we trust them when they tell us they will voluntarily register under the new bill?"

 

I'm tired of being promised the moon and getting stale cheese.

 

We're stuck will 12 million illegals either way.

When you find yourself in a deep hole, the first thing that you do is stop digging.

 

We have started construction on a wall. Its coming along slowly. Its the simplest, most mundane, uncreative and slow idea anyone has had. It drives people like John McCain crazy because it requires almost no thought whatsoever, is too boring to garner headlines, and too simple to be worth the time of politicians and bureaucrats. Laborers can build a wall.

 

Ergo . . .

 

It is the best idea out there.