PDA

View Full Version : Amnesty



reggie182
05-20-2007, 11:29 AM
I'm curious to know how Democrats who frequently post to this board feel about the Bush-Kennedy amnesty proposal. Personally I am outraged and being a life-long Republican have no reluctance in describing President Bush as disgraceful for supporting this assault on the middle class. Would any of you Dems care to openly criticize Senator Kennedy as such?

pooltchr
05-20-2007, 03:35 PM
You can add Nancy P and John McCain to the list as well, both of whom have been supporting this disaster for quite some time.
It's unfortunate that our grandchildren will never know what a great country this was before out government allowed the invasion.
Illegals continue to invade our country even today while our legislators sit around and come up with a plan to collect money from them rather than trying to stop them. It's disgusting!
Steve

reggie182
05-20-2007, 04:03 PM
One more to the list would be Senator Lindsey Graham, who when talking about "immigration reform" said the "bigots" should shut up. I hope the people of South Carolina have the good sense to support a real conservative in a primary challenge in 2008, the next time he is up for reelection.

reggie182
05-20-2007, 04:55 PM
Still waiting for a Dem to chime in. (cue Jeopardy music)

reggie182
05-20-2007, 05:41 PM
tap tap tap tap tap /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif

reggie182
05-20-2007, 05:44 PM
You would think that our Democratic friends who are supposed to represent working Americans would take interest in this subject, but apparently not. If it means criticizing Ted Kennedy or any other Democrat friends of the working man /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif I guess it's something they dont' want to be a part of /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif

reggie182
05-20-2007, 05:47 PM
99 bottles of beer on the wall, 99 bottles of beeeeer, take one down, pass it around, 98 bottles of beer on the wall.

Just passin time /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

BRussell
05-20-2007, 06:53 PM
Here's what I don't get about the folks who always cry "amnesty!" The fact is, we have amnesty now. It's easy to get in, easy to get a job, and few consequences. In my view, leaving them with the de facto amnesty we have now, with under-the-table pay, is what is unfair to other (US citizen) low-wage workers. Bringing them into the light, as this bill would do, would allow them to at least fairly compete, above-board, within our system. It's people who oppose this type of immigration reform with cries of "amnesty!" that are allowing undocumented immigrants to continue to compete unfairly with our low-wage citizens.

But, I will say that I don't like the guest-worker provisions. We don't need a second-class "worker bee" status in our country.

eg8r
05-20-2007, 07:29 PM
We all know what a piece of trash Kennedy is why beat a dead horse?

eg8r

eg8r
05-20-2007, 07:31 PM
[ QUOTE ]
One more to the list would be Senator Lindsey Graham <hr /></blockquote> Instead of picking and choosing names, just go down the list of every politcian who voted "yes" when the votes counted. It is a disgrace. Habla espanol? (could not figure out how to get the first question mark to flip upside down /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif )

eg8r

Drop1
05-20-2007, 07:56 PM
We need farm workers,not citizens. This proposal is not what either side wants,and it stinks of backroom politics.

Gayle in MD
05-21-2007, 05:39 AM
I agree with you. We can all thank Reagan for sending them the amnesty invitation, after which our illegal alien problem has gone through the roof. And, George Bush, who knowing damn well that the 9/11 attackers were here illegally, and it was the perfect time to address our open borders, address our failed immigration oversight, and tighten up our security, invaded Iraq, instead.

Both the Democrats, and the Republicans, and particularly Bush, are sucking up to the Corporate Fascist pigs, who are the only ones advantaged by the cheap labor, and competing for all the present and future Mexican votes from the Catholic baby machines.

The Bush administration actually asked that the provision requiring payment of back taxes be dropped from the bill, and it was taken out. Kennedy had it in! ...The White House spokesman said determining what they owed would be difficult and time consuming, ha ha ha, imagine, the IRS telling any of us that. /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif I'd love to know what taxpayers pay for Spanish speaking interpreters in the courts all over this country.


We have immigration laws, and neither party will impose them. Open borders, six years after 9/11, /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif...hard to believe. The health issues alone, are potentially devastating. Leprosy on the rise, among other diseases. We're losing our country to invaders, while we're throwing away billions in the desert sand that will do nothing to protect us. After the next attack, protectionism will be a campaign promise, instead of the BS twist Bush puts on the meaning of it. Both parties are refusing to support Americans on this issue, but there can be no doubt that Reagan's amnesty policy exascerbated the problem tremendously. Until we have public financed campaigns, and a civilian ethics oversight committee in the Congress and Senate, the Corporate fascists, and organized religion, will continue to destroy America from within.

Gayle in Md.

reggie182
05-21-2007, 11:02 AM
LOL Gayle, I had a feeling you wouldn't criticize any
Democrat by name /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif. By the way, Clinton did precious little about border security (I think he built forty miles of fence), while President Eisenhower (Republican) was perhaps the most effective President against illegal immigration. Read about "Operation Wetback" (Yes that is what it was called.)

As for "bringing these people into the light", all legitimizing their residency here will do is enable them in the future to raid Social Security and Medicare. Then that cheap head of lettuce won't look so appealing. I think I'll eat more hamburgers (cut the lettuce).

reggie182
05-21-2007, 11:10 AM
More info on Teddy "the swimmer" Kennedy regarding illegal immigration, courtesy of the book "Alien Naion":

"In Alien Nation, Peter Brimelow traces the collapse of American control over immigration to the 1965 legislation. With ironic glee he quotes Senator Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.), the Senate floor manager of the bill:

"First, our dries will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually. Under the proposed bill, the present level of immigration remains substantially the same. . . . Secondly, the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset. . . . Contrary to the charges in some quarters, [the bill] will not inundate America with immigrants from any one country or area, or the most populated and deprived nations of Africa and Asia. . . . In the final analysis, the ethnic pattern of immigration under the proposed measure is not expected to change as sharply as the critics seem to think" (pp. 76-77).

Brimelow then acidly notes:

Every one of Senator Kennedy's assurances has proven false. Immigration levels did surge upward. They are now running at around a million a year, not counting illegals."


Thanxapile Teddy!

Drop1
05-21-2007, 01:34 PM
Unlike George Walker Bush,who has been right on everything,right from the get go. I think his motto is "never tell the truth if a lie will do" Now if we could only find those weapons of mass destrution,that will explode. This my boys is a war for oil,and to hell with all else.

reggie182
05-21-2007, 02:45 PM
"Unlike George Walker Bush,who has been right on everything,right from the get go. I think his motto is "never tell the truth if a lie will do" Now if we could only find those weapons of mass destrution,that will explode. This my boys is a war for oil,and to hell with all else."

Harry, what does that post have to do with the topic of Amnesty? Are Haliburton and WMDs all you guys care about? Do you really think those things are going to be all that important twenty years from now? The issue of illegal immigration will, I can assure you.

reggie182
05-21-2007, 03:22 PM
Anyhoo, here is additional info that seems worthwhile. It goes a long way in discrediting the notion that produce prices will sky rocket without ample cheap illegal immigrant labor. A key excerpt:

"If a 40 percent farm-worker wage increase were fully passed on to consumers, and if there were no farm productivity improvements in response to higher farm wages, the 5-6 cent farm labor cost of a pound of apples or a head of lettuce would rise to 7-8 cents, and the retail price would rise from $1 to $1.02-$1.03."

The link is here: http://migration.ucdavis.edu/rmn/more.php?id=529_0_5_0

Gayle in MD
05-21-2007, 04:34 PM
Do you know what the numbers were back then? Stastics I've seen show that the huge rise in illegal aliens were directly related to Reagans amnesty program. After that, we got swamped. The numbers in the sixties couldn't light a candle to the increases after REagans amnesty program, in the eighties.

Gayle in Md.

Gayle in MD
05-21-2007, 04:45 PM
Illegal immigration will bring us huge problems. The very wealthy, won't be as affected as the average citizen who doesn't live in an Irovy Tower, surrounded by loads of land, kids in provate schools, and Daddy's money to support the social barrier. The crime will be awful. Then, after being here long enough, I suppose we'll have to go through the same kind of up-risings we went through in the sixties. I wonder how long before the massive number of illegals start demanding financial reparations for their cheap labor. Imagine, demonstrating in the streets demanding social services when their here illegally in the first place!

Unbelievable! Cheap labor always comes at a very high price.

Harry is right, though, there are many people who are already gone, and will never see twenty years from now. Their families can never get them back, and thousands more whose lives are destroyed due to their horrible medical conditions, and loss of limbs.

The illegal immigration problem makes me mad because we have laws which have been neglected for years, and of course, big business is behind that, but nothing makes me as mad as a president lying about the need to go to war, then following that up with total incompetence, lying about the so called progress for over three years, and then escalating and extending the war when it does nothing to make us safer. Everytime he talks about the safe haven, he never acknowledges that he is the dummy who created the safe haven in the first place. Carter is absolutely right! Bush is by far the worst ever. No one else even comes close.

Gayle in Md.

pooltchr
05-21-2007, 05:06 PM
Rather than complaining, why not do something about it? Take some of the time you spend repeating the same stuff over and over, and write your senators, write your representatives...write the republican or democratic senate election committee, the RNC or the DNC or both.
Tell them that if their people pass this bill, they will never see a dime of your money to support them again. Threaten them with something they understand...cutting off the money!! I can't do it myself, you can't do it yourself, but collectively, we can.
Try making a difference. Anything written here is useless since I doubt many senators visit this forum.
Take some of that anger you have and put it to good use!
(This is not addressed specifically to any one poster...it is addressed to EVERYONE on here.
It will take you a few minutes.
Do you want to explain to your grandchildren that you let their birthright get away because you didn't have the time to voice your opinion to the people who have the ability to do something about it????????????????

Get off your collective butts and get busy. We don't have much time!
Steve

Gayle in MD
05-21-2007, 05:16 PM
Steve,
Do you really think that someone like me wouldn't have already done that? In fact, I believe I posted a link for people to do just that long ago. I hope everyone would have been e-mailing, and writing their representatives over these last years. I can remember writing to Reagan about this. that was long ago.

Gayle in Md.

reggie182
05-21-2007, 05:48 PM
Ahem:

I wasn't aware that Jimmy Carter was an opponent of amnesty?!? Anyhow, I think it is important for demogogues on both sides of the aisle to find it within themselves to call their representatives out BY NAME on this issue, and let the world know what they think of them selling their country out. Yes Ronald Reagan made a mistake in signing the amnesty bill of 1986. He was assured that their would be both "stick" and "carrot". Sadly the stick never materialized. Bush's immigration policy is unmitigated insanity. I am not such a dyed in the wool partisan that I can't criticize members of my own party BY NAME.

Drop1
05-21-2007, 06:58 PM
Only to the extent,that they will all be voting,and no immigrants will be doing farm labor. And how they vote,in twenty five years will be a big issue. France announced today their immigration policy will be very strict,and not lead to citizenship...

Gayle in MD
05-22-2007, 04:14 PM
What does Jimmy Carter have to do with my post? Hey, you post your way, and I'll post my way. Just like a republican. Always trying to tell everyone else what to do and how to live.

Don't give me that Reagan BS. He is the one who diluted our immigration laws, and that action, more than any other since today, has exascerbated this entire problem, and yes, every President since, has failed to protect the immigration laws. Carter has nothing to do with this discussion as far as I'm concerned. /ccboard/images/graemlins/mad.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/crazy.gif:(

reggie182
05-23-2007, 10:30 AM
I must of gotten a post mixed up on that. Jimmy was a big fan of amnesty though, but you don't criticize Dems by name so I doubt you would ever mention it. As for Republicans telling people what to do, I suppose you agree with Democrats telling people they can't own guns to defend themselves (not all Dems, but a good many - see the city of Washington D.C.) or the social engineering wing of the Democrat party pushing extra taxes on people who smoke, imposing their form of health facism on them.

reggie182
05-23-2007, 10:31 AM
Wait a minute, you did mention Carter. I'm sorry, I retract my mea culpa. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

hondo
05-23-2007, 12:48 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote reggie182:</font><hr> I'm curious to know how Democrats who frequently post to this board feel about the Bush-Kennedy amnesty proposal. Personally I am outraged and being a life-long Republican have no reluctance in describing President Bush as disgraceful for supporting this assault on the middle class. Would any of you Dems care to openly criticize Senator Kennedy as such? <hr /></blockquote>

Just read this. I'm with youse guys. Bush,that,uh,(choke,
cough, sputter) other guy, any
who want to give our country to illegal immigrants, I say,
off with their heads.
Maybe you guys on here, both sides, will get away from
all this partisan B.S. , which is DESTROYING OUR COUNTRY.

reggie182
05-23-2007, 08:35 PM
Thanks hondo, that's what I like to hear. Working and middle-class Republicans and Democrats need to understand that they are in this thing together. There's nothing wrong with a little solidarity between the grass-roots of both parties on this issue.

nAz
05-23-2007, 08:40 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote hondo:</font><hr>
Maybe you guys on here, both sides, will get away from
all this partisan B.S. , which is DESTROYING OUR COUNTRY. <hr /></blockquote>

i am with you, but in this culture of "I Got YA!" I doubt it. /ccboard/images/graemlins/frown.gif

Gayle in MD
05-24-2007, 05:14 AM
Non of your posts make any sense, including the ones you write to yourself. My mention of Carter has nothing to do with this thread, another of your posting styles. Carter said Bush is the worst president, ever. Three quarters of Americans agree with him. Our critical amnesty problems are a direct result of Reagans amnesty program. Statistice prove that problem was greatly exascerbated after he gave them the free ride that has caused an on-going illegal occupation of our country, and Bush, has don'e everything but send buses to assist them in crossing the border. Republicans can say whatever they want to suck up to their base, but they've done nothing to address the problem. If they're so against it, why didn't they do a single thing to end the illegal occupation of our country in all the years they had the majority. They did NOTHING!

Gayle in Md.
It's not what you say, it's what you do that counts. Republicans will always be famous for supporting the mess the country is in right now, and spending us into the greatest debt we've ever faced in history. Congratulations on being part of a party who has put politics in fron of protecting our troops for six years, and being yes men to the worst president in history.

Gayle in Md.

Bobbyrx
05-24-2007, 07:27 AM
So far Reg, it looks like all you've gotten by name is defense of two Democrats more famous for their brothers than for anything good either one has done.......

eg8r
05-24-2007, 08:26 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Carter said Bush is the worst president, ever. Three quarters of Americans agree with him. <hr /></blockquote> Nothing has changed you are still making up your own little facts. Just because a group of people do not approve with the Presidents actions, that does not mean they all believe he is the worst, ever.

[ QUOTE ]
It's not what you say, it's what you do that counts. <hr /></blockquote> This is why Pelosi is no different than the guys that came before her.

[ QUOTE ]
Congratulations on being part of a party who has put politics in fron of protecting our troops for six years, <hr /></blockquote> Yes and your party tried to withhold funds from the troops recentely because they wanted to undermine all the good work our soldiers have been and call a retreat.

eg8r

pooltchr
05-24-2007, 07:16 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> Carter said Bush is the worst president, ever.
Gayle in Md. <hr /></blockquote>

Odd that Mr Carter is, himself, a strong contender for that title. Takes one to know one???????????

Steve

DickLeonard
05-25-2007, 06:49 AM
Gayle the Repubs spent us into a Great Mess but at least no poor person got the money. They are just playing to their base.####

Gayle in MD
05-25-2007, 08:44 AM
Reagan and Bush, the amnesty promoters, period! Bush, holds hands with the Saudi prince, even though the Saudis financed terrorism, and still do to this day. Bush tried to secretly give contracts to Dubai, even though they assisted terrorists financially. Truth is, we have no friends in the Middle East, and that includes Isreal, just as we have no friends in Mexico. Ministers and members of the Saudi royal family did knowingly support the global spread of Wahhabist Islam, jihads, and anti-Isreali activities. They ignored anti American teaching in and around mosques and schools where intolerance was indoctrinated. They replaced a technical Wertern-styled curriculum in Saudi schools with a Wahhabist religion-focused education. AS long as the royal family and its rule were not the obvious targets, some undoubtedly turned a blind eye to a host of things that made al Qaeda's life easier.

From Against All Enemies

"After the truck bomb attacks in Riyadh in 2003, the Saudi security services appear to have been ordered to root out al Qaeda in the Kingdom. Not surprisingly to American counterterrorist experts, the Saudi security services have become involved in gun battles and street chases. They have uncovered large arms caches, not intended for jihad elsewhere or attacks on U.S. facilities in the Kingdom, but almost certainly intended for guerrilla war in Saudi Arabis, a war intended to replace the House of Saud.

The fall of the House of Saud would not come as a shock to many senior American officials who have foollowed the Midle East for years. Many have long feared, without being able to prove it, that that House and its military and security services are riddled with termites. Stung by the fall of the Shah of Iran in 1979 and its replacement with an anti-American theocracy, many Americabn officials have feared a repeat perfrmance of that tragedy across the Gulf in Saudi Arabia. This fear probably played a role in the thinking of some in the bush Administration, including Dick Cheney, who wanted to go to war with Iraq. With Saddam gone, they believed, the U.S. could reduce its dependence on Saudi Arabil, cvould pull forces out of the Kingdom, and could open up an alternative source of oil.

Former CIA Director Jim Woolsey has talked publicly about the need for a new government in Riyadh. The risk that the United States runs is of creating a self-fulfilling prophecy, removing the American "mandate of heaven" from the House of Saud without a plan or any influence about what would happen next. Yet the U.S. military interrrvention in Iraq has, ironically, further reduced support for both the U.S. and the House of Saud among many of the discontented in the Kingdom. We are securing the wrong country, and making its neighbor more unstable in the process.

The future and stability of Saudi Arabia is of paramount importance to the United States; our policy cannot just be one of reducing our dpendence upon it. The American govern,ent sjhould be engaged at several levels to develop sources of information about what is really going on inside the Kingdom and to create the means of influencing the nation's future. Instead, President Bush has chosen to deliver a lecture in Washington about the importance of democracy for Arab states. Coming as it did from a President widely hated in the Arab world for his invasion to impose a U.S. - styled democracy in Iraq, the words of the President's lecture did little to stimulate a positive response. Indeed, because the U.S. apparently believes in imposing its ideology through the violence of war, many in the Arab world wonder how the United States can criticize the fundamentalists who also seek to impose their ideology through violence."

Instead of Iraq, Iran should have been our priority. When Bush lied about the threat of Iraq, he played right into Iran's hands. Iran is the country that funded and supported Hezb9llah that had killed hundreds of Americans in Lebanon, which Reagan did absolutely nothing about, but ran away from. Hexbollah is supported by Iran, and has also killed hundreds of Isrealis. Even if there had been minimal links between Iraq, and al Qaeda, which our NSE says there were not, al Qaeda regularly used Iranian territory for transit and sanctuary prior to September 11. Al Q's Egyptian branch, Egyptian Islamic Jihad, operated openly in Tehran, hence, many of the al Qaeda management team, or Shura Council, mover across the border into Iran after U.S. forces finally invaded Afghanistan. Although we found no WMD's in Iraq, the U.N.'s International Atomic energy Agency found evidence that Iran was secretly engaged in a nuclear weapons program. Iran was much more actively engaged with terrorism and WMD's than Iraq ever was. All evidence suggestesd that if we were going to focus on anything other than getting Al Q in Afghanistan, it should have been Tehran, not Baghdad. That doesn't suggest we should have invaded Iran, and Richard Clarke looked thoroughly into that, and says he has no desire to revisit the idea, but that we have focused on the wrong threat, in Iraq, but spent our time and atention in Afghanistan, and the other much more pressing threats, real threats, not manufactured threats.

Abd for those who bash Clarke, here is what he wrote years ago....

"If we do not shift attention back to where it should have been after 9/11, we face the prospect of the following scenario by 2007: a Taliban like government in Pakistan armed with nuclear weapons, supporting a similar satellite nation next door in Afghanistan and promoting al Qaeda like ideology and terror throughout the world; in the Gulf, a nuclear armed Iran, promoting its own version of Hezbollah-styled ideology, and Saudi Arabia after the fall of the House of Saud, creating its own version of a fourteenth-century theocratic republic. Under those circumstances, even if we had created a Jeffersonian democracy in Iraq, America and the world would still be vastly less secure. Moreover, it appeared early in 2004 that Iraq would be shaped more by the thoughts of Shi'a leadre Ayatollah Sistani than by Jefferson.

September 11 brought both tragedy all too painful and an opportunity unexpected. You could see it on the streets of Tehran, as tens of thousands rallied spontaneously to show their solidarity with America. You could see it on the streets of America, where flags sprouted from almost every house. there was an opportunity to unite people around the world around a set of shared values: religious tolerance, diversity, freedom, and security. With globalism rushing upon us, such a restatement of basic beliefs, akin to the U.N. Declarations after WWII, was much needed. it did not happen. We squandered the opportunity."


So what does this have to do with Amnesty? Nothing, other than the fact that although we suffered tremendous losses after 9/11, it presented the United States a great opportunity for both National

Security, by having the justification to close our borders, and stop this ridiculous occupation of our country by illegal aliens, and also, the opportunity to make huge progress in the Middle East. You can thank George Bush, and Dick Cheney, for their outdated ideology involving Iraq, which was no threat, and offneding and angering countries in the Middle East who for the first time were ready to enter into important alliances with the U.S.

Both here, and abroad, Bush has created division, anger, and hatred for himself, for our government, and heightened the dangers that all people face. He is not the Great dicider, he is the great divider.

Gayle in Md.

reggie182
05-25-2007, 10:03 AM
So sayeth Gayle: "Reagan and Bush, the amnesty promoters, period!"

B.S.

You've just proven the thesis of my original post. You can't criticize (BY NAME!) any of those in your own party for supporting this amnesty crap. More Democrats on capitol hill support amnesty than Republicans, that is reality, despite the fact that you aren't willing to admit it and excoriate them.

Deeman3
05-25-2007, 10:09 AM
Don't worry, the Demnocrats are now here and in power to protect our borders and will soon adopt that first 100 hours legislation to stop the flood of illegal immigration. I have faith in them to do this.

pooltchr
05-25-2007, 05:47 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote reggie182:</font><hr> So sayeth Gayle: "Reagan and Bush, the amnesty promoters, period!"

B.S.

You've just proven the thesis of my original post. You can't criticize (BY NAME!) any of those in your own party for supporting this amnesty crap. More Democrats on capitol hill support amnesty than Republicans, that is reality, despite the fact that you aren't willing to admit it and excoriate them. <hr /></blockquote>

I will say it for her. Teddy "The Swimmer" Kennedy is the real force behind this bill. GW is a wimp for joining forces with the likes of Kennedy and McCain and Pelosi to give away our children's birthright.
Steve

Gayle in MD
05-26-2007, 06:11 AM
[ QUOTE ]
The Bush administration actually asked that the provision requiring payment of back taxes be dropped from the bill, and it was taken out. Kennedy had it in! ... <hr /></blockquote>

Ted Kennedy voted against this war, and his address on the Senate floor, when he voted, was one of the most brilliant speeches I've ever heard any politician make in my lifetime. Everything he said, was correct, and has happened. Everything written by the many Government experts whose books I read, CIA, Generals, Former Pentagon Officials, Intelligence experts, AlQaeda experts, Joe Wilson, Colin Powell's warnings to Bush, Richard Clarke, David Corn and Michael Isakoff, many more, and which you righties made fun of, has happened. I never hear any of you acknowledge that.

The President of the United States, is for this amnesty, and inviting illegal workers into this country, to do what he calls, "Jobs Americans won't do" and IMO, Bush, Jr. and Sr., Reagan, Clinton, as Presidents, all failed to address the illegal occupation of our country by thousands of illegals, but only Reagan and the Bush's, pushed policy for amnesty, as far as I know. As Presidents, with veto power, and the opportunity to set national policy, I hold them more responsible than any others.

Republicans do a lot of yapping about the illegals. What have they done about it? They had six years of being the majority, a much greater majority than Democrats have, in fact, majority enough to override Bush, and end this illegal occupation of our country, close our borders, protect our ports, provide our troops with proper equipment, training, and Rest, did they do any of it? NO! Yet, your righties want to focus only on the Democrats....unbelievable.

[ QUOTE ]
Kennedy is the real force behind this bill. <hr /></blockquote>

Really? It's called the McCai- Kennedy bill, which Bush has applauded, yet you say Kennedy is the force behind the bill. A bit partisan, wouldn't you say?

pooltchr
05-26-2007, 04:11 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> Really? It's called the McCai- Kennedy bill, which Bush has applauded, yet you say Kennedy is the force behind the bill. A bit partisan, wouldn't you say? <hr /></blockquote>

I don't think much of McCain either...but I believe this is Kennedy's bill. McCain just hitched his wagon to it.
Steve

Gayle in MD
05-26-2007, 05:29 PM
I agree in that I don't think much of McCain, however, McCain's name is on it, although it may very convenient for you to blame the whole thing on IKennedy.

From where I sit, they are equally responsible.
/ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

pooltchr
05-27-2007, 08:11 AM
I don't blame the whole think on Kennedy...I just stated that I believe he is the driving force behind it. Add McCain, Bush, Pelosi, and a host of others who are all willing to sell out our country in hopes of building their voter base.

It's interesting to note that Mexico's constitution has absolutely no provision to provide citizenship to anyone not born in the country. Mexico has a strong force protecting their southern boarder from anyone trying to come in illegally. They stop them and turn them back. Anyone visiting Mexico can be arrested and deported for simply commenting on Mexican politics. In many ways, it would seem Mexico is way ahead of us when it comes to imigration. Maybe we should establish a reciprical policy where their citizens get the same treatment they offer to non-citizens.

I still find it hard to believe that ANY American can support a bill that could ultimately grant citizenship (and the right to vote) to anyone who would break our laws just to be here.

I'm mad as Hell, and I'm not going to take it anymore!!!

Steve

Gayle in MD
05-27-2007, 09:04 AM
[ QUOTE ]
I still find it hard to believe that ANY American can support a bill that could ultimately grant citizenship (and the right to vote) to anyone who would break our laws just to be here.
<hr /></blockquote>

<font color="red">I agree that our laws have been chipped away at for years. Also, everyone knows, Bush would never sign a bill that included sending illegals back. As I rant and complain about the illegals, for example, flooding our emergency rooms, and getting treatment for which (it has been written) they ultimately never pay, I know as well, were I present at a time when any ill child would be turned away without treatment, I'd be the first one, demanding to see the hospital administrator, insisting they provide medical treatment for that child.

While I rail against the dilution of our laws, I know as well, that these people want a better life, and that our country was founded on the principle of being a salvation to those who flee opression, hunger, exploitation, and search instead for their dream of a better life, opportunity for themselves and their children, and decent wages for their hard work.

These principles, as an American, and the recipient of citizenship in the greatest country in the world, through the brave efforts of my own ancestors, are dear to my heart. I am at once, angry that the laws of our country have not been enforced, but also compassionate towards those people whose dream of coming to America, is their only hope to live a decent life of liberty, freedom, and opportunity.

My feeling is that both we, as Americans, and they, as immigrants, illegal though they may be, are being exploited by our own Government, for the benefit of Corporate America, which in turn, is the greatest force in our political life, unfortunately, and the corrupt contributor to the dilution of the very laws which should stand to protect the citizens of our own country, insuring that government remains a function of the people, for the people and by the people, and its main obligation, continues to be the obligation of protecting the citizens of our country, by protecting the laws of our country, and also the borders of our country, from the outrageous illegal occupation which has been going on for decades.

When Corporate America exploits our democracy, without conscience, and without concern for the ultimate negative results to the citizens of our country, we all lose, both legal and illegal workers must recognize that what is truly happening is the take over of our Government, by Corporate Fascists, who seek to grow a population of workers who are little more than slaves to the very same corrupt Corporate influence which buys our representatives, buys our media, and buys the opportunity to create a false reality from which to promote their very unamerican, anti-democratic, fascist agenda, wrought with greed, and absent of civic duty. The communists said that they would take us from within. I think they have done so, although their official titles may be different, and think also that there is now much available statistical economic information, which suggests a country where the efforts of many, reward the bottom line of very few, and that those rewards, are extremely great, and show a very uneven scale, far, far out of kilter with American Principles of Democracy. </font color>

pooltchr
05-27-2007, 08:01 PM
I'm confused. Are you angry that we are allowing people to come and stay illegally, or do you think we should let them stay and fill our schools, jobs, and hospitals?

Here's another thought. Those who come here legally and go through the process required to gain citizenship are required to, among other things, learn OUR language, learn about our history, and how our government operates, and swear aligence to this country, even over their homeland. Does the amnesty bill hold the illegals to the same standard? Shouldn't EVERYONE who desires to become a citizen of this country meet the same standards?

Steve

Gayle in MD
05-28-2007, 08:23 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Poster: pooltchr
Subject: Re: Amnesty

I'm confused. Are you angry that we are allowing people to come and stay illegally, <font color="red">Yes. </font color> or do you think we should let them stay and fill our schools, jobs, and hospitals? <font color="red">NO. I'm just saying that many of the wrongs they commit, like using our emergency rooms, and then never paying for their treatment, which ends up running hospitals out of business, and/or being passed on to American Citizens, both in taxes and in health costs, make me very angry when reading the statistical information, but were I on the scene of a sick child in need of healther care, my human compassion would take over. It's one of those things, one of many, why the entire problem will never be solved through amnesty programs. After Reagan's amnesty, the illegals have since trippled, that's the official government count, but it's far from accurate, there are many many more than 12 million more added since the Reagan amnesty began.

They (Republicans, btw) made all the same promises back then, about how they were going to give Amnesty, but also close the borders, solve the bureaucratic red tape on keeping track of who the hell is here, fine employees who hire them, greatly increase funding for border patrols, and not allow them to bring all their relatives over here, or acess our social programs,.... They didn't do any of it, even after 9/11, and an administration who made a career of scaring everybody about terrorist threats using the fear mongering card non stop to justify their illegal activities and now they're making the same BS promises, all for naught.

As long as the Corporate Fascists own our Representatives, and particularly George Bush and Dick Cheney, who are mothing more than CEO's who are using the country, and the blood of our troops, to foment their secret business deals with the very countries who support terrorists, and the media is owned by this little handful of corporate Fascist billionaires, they own the country, and if they want people who are one step up from slave labor to exploit, our politicians, will see they are provided...it's all about the bottom line.

Numbers show three times as many have come since Reagans bright idea, amnesty, but other statistics insist, there are more like thirty million since then, not a mere twelve million. You might want to google all the statements the Republicans made praising Reagans plan, which made evrything much worse, back around 87, before you decide where the greatest blame lies in this matter.

</font color>

Here's another thought. Those who come here legally and go through the process required to gain citizenship are required to, among other things, learn OUR language, learn about our history, and how our government operates, and swear aligence to this country, even over their homeland. Does the amnesty bill hold the illegals to the same standard? <font color="red">No! </font color> Shouldn't EVERYONE who desires to become a citizen of this country meet the same standards? <font color="red">Yes! </font color>

<font color="red">And here's one for you. Shouldn't this president who yaps incessantly about protecting Americans, close the damn borders first? Shouldn't our represeentatives, and the president, protect and enforce our already exisitng laws, instead of just brushing them away in the interest of their crony Corporate Fascist Pigs?
We're getting screwed by both parties, but only the wealthy are benefitting from the knife in our backs. Cheap laborers have a way of turning into a damanding, violent element, after enough years of exploitation. Do you think those billionaire Corporate Fascists will be the ones living with the resutls, inside their gated compounds?
Gayle </font color>

Steve
<hr /></blockquote>

pooltchr
05-28-2007, 06:15 PM
I think the wealthy (corporate fascists, as you love to call successful business owners) will regret the passage of this bill as much as the rest of us. The bill is going to create a much larger lower income class who traditionally look to the government to provide them with the things they want. The only way the government can do it is to take it from the middle and upper class. If the new lower income group follows tradition and vote Democratic, that party will be more than happy to raise taxes to accomidate the wishes of the lower income majority.
Steve

Gayle in MD
05-29-2007, 07:03 AM
Regardless of the outcome, Reagan's policies brought this crises about. He's the grand-daddy of amnesty.

The wealthy Corporate Fascists are the ones who have pushed for it. They don't pay taxes, for one thing, and the cheap labor is all they care about. Cheap labor benefits their bottom line, then the poor and middle class suffer from the hardship of flat or lower wages, the crises in health care, the impact on education, the Social Security system, and the crime that always follows when criminals are allowed a get into America free card, not that they're all criminals, but some are. Anytime government is on the side of corporate exploitation of the poorest of the poor, social unrest is sure to rear it's ugly head eventually, when low wages get old. Of course that doesn't affect those who own six homes and their own personal jet.

Gayle in Md.

pooltchr
05-29-2007, 04:19 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> The wealthy Corporate Fascists are the ones who have pushed for it. They don't pay taxes,Gayle in Md.

<hr /></blockquote>

Would you care to clue us in on who pays 80% of the taxes the IRS collects?
Steve

cushioncrawler
05-29-2007, 05:04 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> Regardless of the outcome, Reagan's policies brought this crises about. He's the grand-daddy of amnesty. The wealthy Corporate Fascists are the ones who have pushed for it. They don't pay taxes, for one thing, and the cheap labor is all they care about. Cheap labor benefits their bottom line, then the poor and middle class suffer from the hardship of flat or lower wages, the crises in health care, the impact on education, the Social Security system, and the crime that always follows when criminals are allowed a get into America free card, not that they're all criminals, but some are. Anytime government is on the side of corporate exploitation of the poorest of the poor, social unrest is sure to rear it's ugly head eventually, when low wages get old. Of course that doesn't affect those who own six homes and their own personal jet....<hr /></blockquote>Gayle -- Yes, the next revolution will be to install a king or queen. Now, who might make an intelligent caring king/queen??? Hiz Royal Highness -- King Mike the First??? madMac.

.... "The peasants have no Arepa"...
.... "Then let them eat cake".

cushioncrawler
05-29-2007, 05:21 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote reggie182:</font><hr> Anyhoo, here is additional info that seems worthwhile. It goes a long way in discrediting the notion that produce prices will sky rocket without ample cheap illegal immigrant labor. A key excerpt:

"If a 40 percent farm-worker wage increase were fully passed on to consumers, and if there were no farm productivity improvements in response to higher farm wages, the 5-6 cent farm labor cost of a pound of apples or a head of lettuce would rise to 7-8 cents, and the retail price would rise from $1 to $1.02-$1.03."...<hr /></blockquote>Reggie -- Yep, i go along with that. By the way, my two boys mainly pick fruit around Ozz for a living. In the oldendays u could make enuff dough to pay for a house in 2 good years (here in Ozz), not now. By the way, one of my lads set a new record (of some sort) this year, for picking peaches -- 24 bins in a short day (previous woz 20 bins), could have done 26 bins if he wanted he sez. This orchard only haz 2 pickers eech year, him and another young guy (Ahmed i think) from Iraq (an asylum seeker i think -- a bit krazy actually). madMac.

Gayle in MD
05-30-2007, 07:13 PM
What they pay is a drop in the bucket for what they owe.

eg8r
05-31-2007, 01:33 PM
Wrong. They pay the legal amount of which they can get away with (if not in a short time they get caught, and if not lucky them). Since people like you want to rape their coffers as it is, they do everything they can to keep you out. I don't blame them and I am sure you take some exemptions yourself.

eg8r

pooltchr
05-31-2007, 05:32 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> What they pay is a drop in the bucket for what they owe. <hr /></blockquote>

As usual, you try to spin your way out of my question.

Let's try another one...

Do you itemize or take the standard deduction? Or do you send in a check with a note saying "Thanks, but I love Washington so much, I just don't feel right taking any deductions for my taxes. I would rather pay more, even though you kindly make laws that allow me to take some deductions."?

Don't bother...I don't expect a straight answer to this question either!

Steve