Should we have border security?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 05:51:34 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  Should we have border security?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6
Author Topic: Should we have border security?  (Read 11276 times)
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #75 on: April 06, 2011, 05:52:21 PM »

Could you two please get a room?  Roll Eyes   Ernest, surrender, CARL is not going to see it your way.....ever, ever, ever, ever.  Wink

Sorry.  I have no French ancestors. Wink
Logged
Grumpier Than Uncle Joe
GM3PRP
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 45,081
Greece
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #76 on: April 06, 2011, 08:25:56 PM »

Could you two please get a room?  Roll Eyes   Ernest, surrender, CARL is not going to see it your way.....ever, ever, ever, ever.  Wink

Sorry.  I have no French ancestors. Wink

Lmfao......brilliant.
Logged
memphis
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,959


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #77 on: April 06, 2011, 09:20:24 PM »

Absolutely. Protective tarriffs ftw Tongue
Logged
CARLHAYDEN
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,638


Political Matrix
E: 1.38, S: -0.51

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #78 on: April 07, 2011, 01:21:32 AM »

It would be nice if the Obama administration would enforce the laws on the books rather than granting administrative amnesties.

That will require an increase in funding so as to actually have places to put the people you want locked up until they are deported.  So, CARL, how much more do you want spent, and how do you propose it get paid for?

I realize that YOU are opposed to any and all funding for border security.

There are many existing expenditures that could be reduced to pay for such measures.

Lets start by defunding NPR, reduce the funding of EPA, and eliminate Obamacare.

Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,615


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #79 on: April 07, 2011, 01:26:36 AM »

So, it turns out that California does not have open borders......  And I'm not talking about Mexico.

http://www.johncletheroe.org/usa_can/ca/fruit.htm

Logged
memphis
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,959


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #80 on: April 07, 2011, 08:41:41 AM »

It would be nice if the Obama administration would enforce the laws on the books rather than granting administrative amnesties.

That will require an increase in funding so as to actually have places to put the people you want locked up until they are deported.  So, CARL, how much more do you want spent, and how do you propose it get paid for?

I realize that YOU are opposed to any and all funding for border security.

There are many existing expenditures that could be reduced to pay for such measures.

Lets start by defunding NPR, reduce the funding of EPA, and eliminate Obamacare.


Get a clue. NPR costs virtually nothing and "Obamacare" saves money.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #81 on: April 07, 2011, 10:45:12 AM »

It would be nice if the Obama administration would enforce the laws on the books rather than granting administrative amnesties.

That will require an increase in funding so as to actually have places to put the people you want locked up until they are deported.  So, CARL, how much more do you want spent, and how do you propose it get paid for?

There are many existing expenditures that could be reduced to pay for such measures.

Lets start by defunding NPR, reduce the funding of EPA, and eliminate Obamacare.

So to save us from toxic Mexicans, you would have us not worry so much about toxic chemicals.  However, that still doesn't put a dollar figure on what you think would be enough to give what you think would be adequate border security.
Logged
CARLHAYDEN
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,638


Political Matrix
E: 1.38, S: -0.51

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #82 on: April 07, 2011, 07:23:22 PM »

It would be nice if the Obama administration would enforce the laws on the books rather than granting administrative amnesties.

That will require an increase in funding so as to actually have places to put the people you want locked up until they are deported.  So, CARL, how much more do you want spent, and how do you propose it get paid for?

There are many existing expenditures that could be reduced to pay for such measures.

Lets start by defunding NPR, reduce the funding of EPA, and eliminate Obamacare.

So to save us from toxic Mexicans, you would have us not worry so much about toxic chemicals.  However, that still doesn't put a dollar figure on what you think would be enough to give what you think would be adequate border security.

I realize to you, any expenditure for border security is excessive.

Just be honest, like BRTD and admit you are opposed to border security.
Logged
CARLHAYDEN
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,638


Political Matrix
E: 1.38, S: -0.51

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #83 on: April 08, 2011, 02:42:30 AM »

As will become evident in the coming month, Jeffery Bell LIED!

You believe the most pathetic lies, as long as they come from Obama administration officials.

If you're going to rant, could you at least rant coherently?  I don't know who this Jeffery Bell is, nor did a quick google find anyone relevant.  As for Jeffrey Self (the article you linked to misspelled his name, which I discovered while googling to find out who he is in more detail) who I presume is who you meant to refer to, he's a 21-year veteran of the Border Patrol and while definitely a bureaucrat who had spent six years in Washington before being tapped late last year to head up the newly-formed Joint Field Command, he's not an Obama political appointee, but still in the civil service.

(link - Arizona Daily Star article about him taking command of the JFC which gives some good background info on Jeffrey Self.)

Here's more evidence (which you will reject out of hand):

Babeu backs Dever's apprehension claim in Senate hearing

April 7, 2011

During a Senate hearing Thursday in Washington D.C., Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu backed Cochise County Sheriff Larry Dever’s claim that Border Patrol agents are being instructed not to arrest all illegal border crossers to keep apprehension numbers down.

http://azstarnet.com/news/blogs/border-boletin/article_bf65c784-6169-11e0-924a-001cc4c002e0.html?mode=story
Logged
Verily
Cuivienen
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,663


Political Matrix
E: 1.81, S: -6.78

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #84 on: April 08, 2011, 08:09:15 AM »

Absolutely. Protective tarriffs ftw Tongue

CARL probably supports tariffs, actually.
Logged
CARLHAYDEN
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,638


Political Matrix
E: 1.38, S: -0.51

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #85 on: April 08, 2011, 08:28:25 AM »

Absolutely. Protective tarriffs ftw Tongue

CARL probably supports tariffs, actually.

You probably love making things up because you don't want to deal with what is actually posted.
Logged
ag
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,828


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #86 on: April 08, 2011, 10:35:24 AM »

I must say, nobody on this forum has done more for the advocacy of open borders than CarlHayden Smiley) Every time he posts, another person stops taking the arguments in favor of closing the border seriously Smiley))
Logged
CARLHAYDEN
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,638


Political Matrix
E: 1.38, S: -0.51

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #87 on: April 08, 2011, 11:41:35 AM »

Here's the full sentence you selectively quoted:

"The government is scuttling the long-used concept of operational control, and replacing it by counting apprehensions and seizures of drugs, weapons and currency."

Now what's so bad about dropping some nebulous concept that gives people no way to judge how well the Border Patrol is doing and replacing it by actual statistics?  One can argue if those statistics are the ones that should be measured, but hopefully you'll make your arguments without using misleading partial quotes.

CLUSIVE: Federal Agents Told to Reduce Border Arrests, Arizona Sheriff Says
By Jana Winter

Published April 01, 2011

An Arizona sheriff says U.S. Border Patrol officials have repeatedly told him they have been ordered to reduce -- at times even stop -- arrests of illegal immigrants caught trying to cross the U.S. border.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/04/01/exclusive-federal-agents-told-reduce-border-arrests-arizona-sheriff-says/


I presume you linked the story along with a quote of my earlier post because later on in the story, it had someone who did question the choice of statistics used. Reasonable questions, but ones that don't suggest what better statistics should be used instead.

However, since your quote from the story isn't about that, let me instead address that by including what you left out from that same article, since it once again shows your need to use selective quotes to reinforce your myopic point of view.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

So it appears that at the most we have an idiot mid-level bureaucrat in the Border Patrol trying to make things look good in the sector he or she is responsible for, not some nefarious scheme of the Obama administration to fudge overall results.  And that's if Dever is telling the whole truth.

Carl it is people like you who make Fox News look like they actually do live up to their slogan of "Fair & Balanced".  They certainly do a better job of it than you ever do.

More confirmation from the Border Patrol agents union.

http://www.local2544.org/

If you read carefully, its not just one management person telling the agents not to apprehend.
Logged
CARLHAYDEN
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,638


Political Matrix
E: 1.38, S: -0.51

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #88 on: April 08, 2011, 11:45:54 AM »

I must say, nobody on this forum has done more for the advocacy of open borders than CarlHayden Smiley) Every time he posts, another person stops taking the arguments in favor of closing the border seriously Smiley))

Ag,

Its entertaining to see the lefties fall all over themselves to disagree with me on everything.

Facts get cavalierly dismissed.

Terms get changed.

Dishonesty is rampant.

What would be nice to see people honestly state their support for open borders, amnesty, ect. like BRTD has done rather than lying.

Will you be so good as to admit that you take the same position as BRTD? 

If you check the opening post on this thread you will have some idea of the position of the voters.

If we can just end the dishonesty, we can resolve the situation.

Logged
ag
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,828


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #89 on: April 08, 2011, 12:00:02 PM »

Open US borders or not - this is an internal matter of the US, and I am not an American. I can only say that I'd prefer a much more liberal regime on Mexican borders: I find the current Mexican policy towards migrants and immigrants a lot tougher than I personally would want. Whether you'd call that "open borders" or not - is another matter. I do recognize that some control may be inevitable or even desirable. But I don't really see why can't a Guatemalan or Chinese citizen simply come to Mexico and start working, without bothering w/ the Migra (like a Pole in the UK). I'd welcome both wholeheartedly.

It is, of course, possible to discuss what is feasible (as distinct from desirable), and at what cost - though I don't think it is possible to discuss it seriously, say, with you, as you don't seem to be interested in that discussion.

But, overall, I am, perversely, quite grateful to you. You've done a lot to make immigrants much more accepted by other Americans on this forum. Keep up the good work, and, thanks to you and other s like you the comprehensive immigration reform in the US would become a popular reality.
Logged
Grumpier Than Uncle Joe
GM3PRP
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 45,081
Greece
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #90 on: April 08, 2011, 12:03:09 PM »

I must say, nobody on this forum has done more for the advocacy of open borders than CarlHayden Smiley) Every time he posts, another person stops taking the arguments in favor of closing the border seriously Smiley))

Ag,

Its entertaining to see the lefties fall all over themselves to disagree with me on everything.

Facts get cavalierly dismissed.

Terms get changed.

Dishonesty is rampant.

What would be nice to see people honestly state their support for open borders, amnesty, ect. like BRTD has done rather than lying.

Will you be so good as to admit that you take the same position as BRTD? 

If you check the opening post on this thread you will have some idea of the position of the voters.

If we can just end the dishonesty, we can resolve the situation.



Haven't several of us stated our support, CARL?  I know I have......
Logged
CARLHAYDEN
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,638


Political Matrix
E: 1.38, S: -0.51

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #91 on: April 08, 2011, 12:12:06 PM »
« Edited: April 08, 2011, 12:18:50 PM by CARLHAYDEN »

I must say, nobody on this forum has done more for the advocacy of open borders than CarlHayden Smiley) Every time he posts, another person stops taking the arguments in favor of closing the border seriously Smiley))

Ag,

Its entertaining to see the lefties fall all over themselves to disagree with me on everything.

Facts get cavalierly dismissed.

Terms get changed.

Dishonesty is rampant.

What would be nice to see people honestly state their support for open borders, amnesty, etc. like BRTD has done rather than lying.

Will you be so good as to admit that you take the same position as BRTD?  

If you check the opening post on this thread you will have some idea of the position of the voters.

If we can just end the dishonesty, we can resolve the situation.



Haven't several of us stated our support, CARL?  I know I have......

You couched your "reply" in ambiguous terms.

Specifically, here's what you said:

"Obviously we need some degree of border security, but if the only options are nothing and building another Iron Curtain, I'll go with nothing.

Especially on the Canadian side where I totally favor an open border."

-----

So, you will NOW, unambiguously state you are in favor of open borders, and not just "on the Canadian side"?
 
 
 
Logged
Grumpier Than Uncle Joe
GM3PRP
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 45,081
Greece
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #92 on: April 08, 2011, 12:26:09 PM »
« Edited: April 08, 2011, 12:28:29 PM by Gramps »

If your question is all or nothing on being open,  I'll take all sides open, yes.
Logged
CARLHAYDEN
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,638


Political Matrix
E: 1.38, S: -0.51

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #93 on: April 08, 2011, 12:31:26 PM »

If your question is all or nothing on being open,  I'll take all sides open, yes.

Thank you for being honest.
Logged
Grumpier Than Uncle Joe
GM3PRP
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 45,081
Greece
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #94 on: April 08, 2011, 12:34:53 PM »

If your question is all or nothing on being open,  I'll take all sides open, yes.

Thank you for being honest.

Well the subject keeps veering off, CARL......it's never going to be an all or nothing question, don't you agree? 
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #95 on: April 08, 2011, 01:31:57 PM »

Sheriff Babeu doesn't exactly have a stellar record when it comes to sticking to just the facts about what is going on at the border. (link - Arizona Daily Star)

More confirmation from the Border Patrol agents union.

http://www.local2544.org/

If you read carefully, its not just one management person telling the agents not to apprehend.

I read carefully, and all I saw was an echoing of the claims made by the Arizona sheriffs, not provide their own claims.  While they say they are sure that the claims are true and that there are multiple low-level executives who could back up the claims.  They are careful to not claim what any such people have said such things to the union.  I'll take those claims with a large grain of salt until someone actually comes forward to corroborate them.  So far all we have is people on both sides engaged in self-interested statements.

The Wall Street Journal had an interesting piece by James W. Ziglar And Edward Alden on its opinion page about the subject today: "The Real Price of Sealing the Border". (link - WSJ has a pay wall)

Back in 2002, Ziglar (then head of INS) had a study done on how much it would take to just carry out the mandates for border security on the books then.  The INS budget in 2002 was $6 billion, and the study concluded that to meet the mandates in 2010 would require a budget of $47 billion.  Since then, the budget for border enforcement has increased to around $17 billion while Congress has mandated additional things they expect done.  About the only one of the seven goals laid out then that is close to being accomplished is increasing the size of the Border Patrol, which has about doubled in the past five years to around 21,000.

I'll leave the pair's spin on the numbers out.  It is just spin, and I know CARL would disagree with it anyway.  What is useful about it is that does give a target budget number.

If you check the opening post on this thread you will have some idea of the position of the voters.

Opening post:
Recently I posted a government analysis in which it was acknowledged that the southern land border was not secured.  One of the posters on that thread suggested something to the effect that 'everyone knows that.'

So, the next question is, should we have border security.  In this context, two specific proposals, with survey results on public attitude.

So, do you agree with the public? 

Would you favor or oppose each of the following proposals: (RANDOM ORDER)

                                   Favor Oppose No opinion

Building a 700 mile long fence on the border with Mexico

May 21-23, 2010         54%     45%        1%
May 4-6, 2007             45%     53%        2%

Putting more Border Patrol and federal law
enforcement agents on the U.S. border with Mexico

May 21-23, 2010         88%     12%        1%
October 20-22, 2006   74%     25%        1%

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/05/26/cnn-poll-support-for-border-crackdown-grows/


So the voters support the doubling of the size of the Border Patrol that has been done, altho I have to wonder how many of those who were polled were even aware that had happened.

I also have to wonder how many of those supporting building a 700-mile fence on the Mexico border were aware of either how much it will cost or that the border is almost 2000-miles in length.

What I don't have to wonder about is why CARL chose to leave out the results in that poll you cited that aren't in accord with your positions.  I have yet to observe a situation in which a selective quote was possible that he did not make one.

Most notably CARL ignored this question:
Creating a program that would allow illegal immigrants already living in the United States for a number of years to stay here and apply to legally remain in this country permanently if they had a job and paid back taxes
DateFavorOpposeNo opinion
May 21-23, 201080%19%1%
May 4-6, 200780%19%1%

So 4 out of 5 Americans favor a program that would give what CARL would call amnesty to those illegal immigrants whose only crimes are due to their immigration status, considerably more than those who favor building an incomplete wall to nowhere.
Logged
CARLHAYDEN
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,638


Political Matrix
E: 1.38, S: -0.51

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #96 on: April 11, 2011, 10:34:30 AM »

Sheriff Babeu doesn't exactly have a stellar record when it comes to sticking to just the facts about what is going on at the border. (link - Arizona Daily Star)

More confirmation from the Border Patrol agents union.

http://www.local2544.org/

If you read carefully, its not just one management person telling the agents not to apprehend.

I read carefully, and all I saw was an echoing of the claims made by the Arizona sheriffs, not provide their own claims.  While they say they are sure that the claims are true and that there are multiple low-level executives who could back up the claims.  They are careful to not claim what any such people have said such things to the union.  I'll take those claims with a large grain of salt until someone actually comes forward to corroborate them.  So far all we have is people on both sides engaged in self-interested statements.

The Wall Street Journal had an interesting piece by James W. Ziglar And Edward Alden on its opinion page about the subject today: "The Real Price of Sealing the Border". (link - WSJ has a pay wall)

Back in 2002, Ziglar (then head of INS) had a study done on how much it would take to just carry out the mandates for border security on the books then.  The INS budget in 2002 was $6 billion, and the study concluded that to meet the mandates in 2010 would require a budget of $47 billion.  Since then, the budget for border enforcement has increased to around $17 billion while Congress has mandated additional things they expect done.  About the only one of the seven goals laid out then that is close to being accomplished is increasing the size of the Border Patrol, which has about doubled in the past five years to around 21,000.

I'll leave the pair's spin on the numbers out.  It is just spin, and I know CARL would disagree with it anyway.  What is useful about it is that does give a target budget number.

If you check the opening post on this thread you will have some idea of the position of the voters.

Opening post:
Recently I posted a government analysis in which it was acknowledged that the southern land border was not secured.  One of the posters on that thread suggested something to the effect that 'everyone knows that.'

So, the next question is, should we have border security.  In this context, two specific proposals, with survey results on public attitude.

So, do you agree with the public? 

Would you favor or oppose each of the following proposals: (RANDOM ORDER)

                                   Favor Oppose No opinion

Building a 700 mile long fence on the border with Mexico

May 21-23, 2010         54%     45%        1%
May 4-6, 2007             45%     53%        2%

Putting more Border Patrol and federal law
enforcement agents on the U.S. border with Mexico

May 21-23, 2010         88%     12%        1%
October 20-22, 2006   74%     25%        1%

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/05/26/cnn-poll-support-for-border-crackdown-grows/


So the voters support the doubling of the size of the Border Patrol that has been done, altho I have to wonder how many of those who were polled were even aware that had happened.

I also have to wonder how many of those supporting building a 700-mile fence on the Mexico border were aware of either how much it will cost or that the border is almost 2000-miles in length.

What I don't have to wonder about is why CARL chose to leave out the results in that poll you cited that aren't in accord with your positions.  I have yet to observe a situation in which a selective quote was possible that he did not make one.

Most notably CARL ignored this question:
Creating a program that would allow illegal immigrants already living in the United States for a number of years to stay here and apply to legally remain in this country permanently if they had a job and paid back taxes
DateFavorOpposeNo opinion
May 21-23, 201080%19%1%
May 4-6, 200780%19%1%

So 4 out of 5 Americans favor a program that would give what CARL would call amnesty to those illegal immigrants whose only crimes are due to their immigration status, considerably more than those who favor building an incomplete wall to nowhere.

Ernest,

Please stop the lying!!!

Just admit that the program you support is open borders and amnesty!

Logged
Grumpier Than Uncle Joe
GM3PRP
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 45,081
Greece
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #97 on: April 11, 2011, 10:57:47 AM »


Ernest,

Please stop the lying!!!

Just admit that the program you support is open borders and amnesty!



Do you get this angry on your radio show?  If so, I'm sure it makes for good ratings.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #98 on: April 11, 2011, 01:02:45 PM »

Ernest,

Please stop the lying!!!

Just admit that the program you support is open borders and amnesty!

I don't support open borders with Mexico at this time.  The economy of Mexico is too dissimilar from our own to allow for a North American version of Schengen to be put into place.  The necessary economic conditions to even begin considering whether an open border with Mexico might be desirable are at least twenty years away, and even that would require Mexico to progress far more rapidly than I expect it capable of.

The reasons I support an expansion of legal immigration have nothing to do with borders, and solely with what I think would be best for the United States.  Why should we stop people who wish to work hard and live in accordance with our laws and society from coming here?  This country has in the past successfully absorbed rates of non-English immigration that are much higher than is currently happening, and I have yet to hear anyone put forth a reason why we couldn't do that now.

As for amnesty, you can count me among the 80% of Americans who support "Creating a program that would allow illegal immigrants already living in the United States for a number of years to stay here and apply to legally remain in this country permanently if they had a job and paid back taxes", but I don't support a blanket amnesty for all illegals and specifically I feel there should be none at all for those who have committed any non-immigration related crimes while here.
Logged
CARLHAYDEN
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,638


Political Matrix
E: 1.38, S: -0.51

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #99 on: April 11, 2011, 07:22:09 PM »
« Edited: April 11, 2011, 07:27:16 PM by CARLHAYDEN »

Ernest,

Please stop the lying!!!

Just admit that the program you support is open borders and amnesty!

I don't support open borders with Mexico at this time.  The economy of Mexico is too dissimilar from our own to allow for a North American version of Schengen to be put into place.  The necessary economic conditions to even begin considering whether an open border with Mexico might be desirable are at least twenty years away, and even that would require Mexico to progress far more rapidly than I expect it capable of.

The reasons I support an expansion of legal immigration have nothing to do with borders, and solely with what I think would be best for the United States.  Why should we stop people who wish to work hard and live in accordance with our laws and society from coming here?  This country has in the past successfully absorbed rates of non-English immigration that are much higher than is currently happening, and I have yet to hear anyone put forth a reason why we couldn't do that now.

As for amnesty, you can count me among the 80% of Americans who support "Creating a program that would allow illegal immigrants already living in the United States for a number of years to stay here and apply to legally remain in this country permanently if they had a job and paid back taxes", but I don't support a blanket amnesty for all illegals and specifically I feel there should be none at all for those who have committed any non-immigration related crimes while here.

Again, please be honest.

First, you have opposed each and every measure to achieve border security.  So, please stop the lying!

Second, you know that there is NO way the condions contained in the question will be enforced.  Bush admitted as much when he exempted illegals from paying back taxes in the last amnesty bill.  

Third, I understand you favor amnesty, amnesty and amnesty.  But, let me further quote from the poll, where you pretend the American people favor amnesty by including conditions which you know will NOT be met:

What should be the main focus of the U.S. government in dealing with the issue of illegal
immigration -- developing a plan that would allow illegal immigrants who have jobs to become
legal U.S. residents, or developing a plan for stopping the flow of illegal immigrants into the U.S.
and for deporting those already here?

Allow to become legal residents 38%
Stop illegals/deport those here  60%
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.071 seconds with 12 queries.