The great big immigration bill debate

[CARLHAYDEN]

SB,

I've got to admit that I have seen more deceit and dishonesty by the proponents of S. 1348 than on any matter coming before Congress in my lifetime.

First they bypass the Judiciary committee, then they try to ram it through the Senate.

When someone objects to some provision of the bill, loonies like Lindsey Graham go mincing around engaging in name calling.

Now Trent Lott is promising that he will make sure that any amendments to the bill will be stripped out in conference.

 

[CARLHAYDEN]

The fix is in.  It's over.  Here's what will happen.  The Republican elites will continue to talk tough about how tough this bill will be on border enforcement.  No one believes it.  No one.  Within the next two weeks the bill will be stuffed down our throat.

Bush and all his hacks on immigration  - Graham, Hagel, McCain, Lott, Tony Snow will then continue to insult our intellegence and blather on and on about how wonderful the bill is.

We're screwed.  Screw them.

So what do we do to show displeasure that will have a lasting impact?

I'm all for rioting Capitol Hill with Kalashnikovs. It might be the only thing that will work. Who's with me?

...

...ok, that might not be a good idea.

Look, the Senators largely believe that by the time most of the come up for election (three or five years from now) we stupid creatures will foget their treachery.

So, work on your Congresscitter.  Explain to them if the bill goes through and they vote for it, they' re toast (they are all up for election next year)

[CARLHAYDEN]

So what do we do to show displeasure that will have a lasting impact?

I'm all for rioting Capitol Hill with Kalashnikovs. It might be the only thing that will work. Who's with me?

...

...ok, that might not be a good idea.

Look, the Senators largely believe that by the time most of the come up for election (three or five years from now) we stupid creatures will foget their treachery.

So, work on your Congresscitter.  Explain to them if the bill goes through and they vote for it, they' re toast (they are all up for election next year)

In an ideal world, what you say is what will occur.

However, supporting third-party efforts because I absolutely abhor the two parties has made me cynical. If a representative does something that his district does not want, does anyone think he's seriously going to get voted out? Maybe if our country's citizenry wasn't so f***ing apathetic toward politics we wouldn't have these issues where our opinions are ignored, but look at the facts.

No one votes in primaries and the people that do are party members who vote for the establishment candidates. And when the general rolls around in November 2008, if a person is a Republican and is upset on how their Republican representative voted, you think they're going to vote Democrat? Pardon me for not thinking that will happen. Besides, districts are so gerrymandered only 10% at best could change hands in a landslide year within our current two-party system. 90% of 435 = 392 representatives that can cruise to re-election cause they only face token major party opposition (if any at all) and the populace in general will not consider a third party candidate.

That's why these representatives stay in power despite unpopular bills that favor the elite of this country it's cause voters are upset about policies but they don't have the balls to take a stand against it when they can.


(For the record: I live in Bob Etheridge's solid Democrat district that has voted for a Republican for Congress a grand total of once since the year 1900.)

First, you are quite incorrect the "nobody votes in primaries."  I have taken part in primaries where incumbents have been defeated. 

Second, you are quite incorrect in believing that incumbents don't lose primaries. 

Third, the reason most incumbents do not lose in primaries is that they take great care not to anger their base.

Fourth, you overstate gerrymandering.  While it is true that approximately three quarters of the seats are highly unlikely to go to the opposing party's candidates, that still leaves slighly over a hunndred seats up for contest.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Gets labeled unreasonable?  Uh, it kind of is.  I had to take my wife to the emergency room last month.  It was packed.  I don't think anyone else in the waiting room spoke English.   It was being used as their primary care.  Hooray, we get to pay for their healthcare.  Lovely.  Just what we need, more dependents --  and they're not even supposed to be here.  What's wrong with this picture?

Interesting.

Its nice the Mesu admits that he supports "open borders," and opposes border security.  Now, it we could just get Bush, Kennedy, McCain et al to tell the truth.

Also, its kind of interesting in that about three weeks ago I took my son to the nearest hospital emergency room (he got hit in a traffic accident) and yes, the other patients were mostly non-English speakings illegals, using it for primary care.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Immigration bills do nothing but feed on the elatorate out of the need to find a reason to hate someone.  Worked in the south with blacks and now works the same way with Mexicans. 

This business about their being a security problem is garbage.  Thousands come accross the border every day, and no bombs yet.  Where are the terrorists?  Right now the borders are wide open and guess what!......not one suicide bomber to date.

As long as there is someone to be scared of, there is always someone to vote for.

Well, lets take the two assertions.

First, are you categorically stating that there are not now, and never will be any aliens illegally entering this country who will commit terrorists acts here?

Second, can you conceive of the idea that someone might disagree with you that isn't motivated by hate?

[CARLHAYDEN]

First, are you categorically stating that there are not now, and never will be any aliens illegally entering this country who will commit terrorists acts here?

Well, perfection is NOT the objective, but reasonable security levels are.

I agree that we shouldn't scare ourselves with the idea of 1 terrorist crossing the border at some point in the future because we didn't go to extreme measures(like alot people want) with security.

Interesting.

Its nice the Mesu admits that he supports "open borders," and opposes border security.  Now, it we could just get Bush, Kennedy, McCain et al to tell the truth.

I've indicted this before however I was still learning my position on immigration when I came to this site. My natural bias was that amnesty was good but still I've read just about every article you posted for the last 2 months(even that so called "excellent" one) and there wasn't anything very compelling.

As far as Bush, Kennedy, and McCain I won't pretend to know what they're thinking but it is interesting how the anti-immigration sentiment has a chilling effect on what senators can say they support.

Gets labeled unreasonable?  Uh, it kind of is.  I had to take my wife to the emergency room last month.  It was packed.  I don't think anyone else in the waiting room spoke English.   It was being used as their primary care.  Hooray, we get to pay for their healthcare.  Lovely.  Just what we need, more dependents --  and they're not even supposed to be here.  What's wrong with this picture?

What's wrong with the picture is they are classified as not supposed to be here. Pretending like we don't to account for them in emerency room funding isn't going to change the situtation(it can only make it worse).

First, its too bad you are incapable of understanding the articles I have posted.

Second, it may have something to do with you inability to communicate effectively in English and your dedication to irrationality.

I'm putting you on the ignore list until you learn English, stop making things up, and try thinking rather than emoting.