May 15, 200620 yr One of the things that I hate about the democrats they cater to illegals more then they do their own citizens often. Anything for a vote.
May 15, 200620 yr One of the things that I hate about the democrats they cater to illegals more then they do their own citizens often. Anything for a vote. I think bush's current bill though is catering to the same thing.
May 15, 200620 yr What orders would I give? Shoot to kill. I'm sorry to sound harsh, but that's the way it is. What should someone who is trespassing on foreign soil expect? Murderers don't even get the death penalty... But you are so quick to condemn people searching for a better life in the land of opportunity? Yeah, there's this thing called the law. Not to mention this would end up being more of a deterent than anything else. So we kill them? wtf Dodge.
May 15, 200620 yr One of the things that I hate about the democrats they cater to illegals more then they do their own citizens often. Anything for a vote. I think bush's current bill though is catering to the same thing. Democrats are not in favor of the programs that Bush is proposing. Right now Bush is standing virtually alone on his immigration stance. Democrats have nothing to do with the current immigration problem. Bush is supposed to take care of these things, and get his legislation passed through Congress. However, until now, Bush has not done a thing to fix the border security problem. I guess only now is the public outrage loud enough for him to hear in the White House.
May 16, 200620 yr However, until now, Bush has not done a thing to fix the border security problem. I guess only now is the public outrage loud enough for him to hear in the White House. Why do you feel the need to talk out of your ass? 4,000 new border patrol agents have been hired under Bush significantly increasing it's size and capabilities, and this was all before the crap which has been going on in recent months.
May 16, 200620 yr Author However, until now, Bush has not done a thing to fix the border security problem. I guess only now is the public outrage loud enough for him to hear in the White House. Why do you feel the need to talk out of your ass? 4,000 new border patrol agents have been hired under Bush significantly increasing it's size and capabilities, and this was all before the crap which has been going on in recent months. good so he threw money at the problem. -truth of the matter is the border patrol has averaged less and less arrests than the Clinton years -fines against companies who hired illegals has taken a STEEP decline since the 1990s -arrests pertaining to the smuggling/employment of illegals is also down significantly since the 1990s and all of this is costing us more what a bargain! here in america we tend not to celebrate effort but rather we celebrate results. i can't speak for you but you seem satisfied that we are spending more money and have more "size". that's good and all but we have less results. Why do you feel the need to talk out of your ass? to quote myself from another thread: # of fines: 1999: 417 2000:178 --------------- bush takes over --------------- 2001 100 2002 53 2003 162 2004 3 # of arrests: 1999: 2,849 2000: 953 --------------- bush takes over --------------- 2001 795 2002 495 2003 445 2004 n/a http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05822t.pdf # of arrests by border patrol 1996: 1,549,876 1997:1,412,953 1998:1,555,776 1999:1,579,010 2000:1,676,438 ------------------ bush ------------------ 2001:1,266,214 2002:955,310 2003:931,557 2004: n/a 2005:~1,100,000 http://www.migrationinformation.org/Featur...play.cfm?id=370 so i guess you are right bush is trying, he just can't get results. yaaay for trying!
May 16, 200620 yr The big thing that will stop the illegals staying is that ID card. If you have it so that only legals have it, then illegals could be easily spotted, detained, and deported.
May 16, 200620 yr Author The level of racism in a country founded on legal immigration and laws is beyond belief. fixed that for ya
May 16, 200620 yr It's funny that everyone tries to say immigrants that came here 100 years ago were 'legal' :lol :lol :lol :lol All they had to do was pay for passage across the ocean, and sign a few documents. In fact, in some areas, they were greeted by politicians and lobbyists the moment they got off the boats. Give me a break. The standards for legalization present day is much more harsh..
May 16, 200620 yr Author It's funny that everyone tries to say immigrants that came here 100 years ago were 'legal' :lol :lol :lol :lol All they had to do was pay for passage across the ocean, and sign a few documents. In fact, in some areas, they were greeted by politicians and lobbyists the moment they got off the boats. Give me a break. The standards for legalization present day is much more harsh.. yeah laws and ways of living change over time. shocking i know. progressive thinking and progessive society blows.
May 16, 200620 yr ^_^ )-->QUOTE( ^_^ @ May 16 2006, 2:40 PM) 1149259[/snapback] It's funny that everyone tries to say immigrants that came here 100 years ago were 'legal' :lol :lol :lol :lol All they had to do was pay for passage across the ocean, and sign a few documents. In fact, in some areas, they were greeted by politicians and lobbyists the moment they got off the boats. Give me a break. The standards for legalization present day is much more harsh.. yeah laws and ways of living change over time. shocking i know. progressive thinking and progessive society blows. Yes I'm ignorant to that fact. :lol The point remains, my man. The point remains.
May 16, 200620 yr What about the millions of italians that landed in New York 'without papers'? The irish? Oh wait, lets go back some more....the pilgrims, were they immigrating 'legally'? What about the Cinese that worked on the first transcontinental railroad? Did all these people consult the American Embassy in their respective countries before leaving?
May 16, 200620 yr Author What about the millions of italians that landed in New York 'without papers'? The irish? Oh wait, lets go back some more....the pilgrims, were they immigrating 'legally'? What about the Cinese that worked on the first transcontinental railroad? Did all these people consult the American Embassy in their respective countries before leaving? ^_^ )-->QUOTE( ^_^ @ May 16 2006, 2:40 PM) 1149259[/snapback] yeah laws and ways of living change over time. shocking i know. progressive thinking and progessive society blows. Yes I'm ignorant to that fact. :lol The point remains, my man. The point remains. what point? at the time the laws were different and we couldn't enforce the laws we have today back then. and we do not judge the past by the laws and ideals today because that is not fair to the past.
May 16, 200620 yr It's just a matter of agreeing or not with 'the laws' then. Not everybody agrees that 'the laws' are what they should be, and you can't say that they will be the same in the future so what's wrong in fighting to change them? Isn't that progress?
May 16, 200620 yr What about the millions of italians that landed in New York 'without papers'? The irish? Oh wait, lets go back some more....the pilgrims, were they immigrating 'legally'? What about the Cinese that worked on the first transcontinental railroad? Did all these people consult the American Embassy in their respective countries before leaving? ^_^ )-->QUOTE( ^_^ @ May 16 2006, 2:40 PM) 1149259[/snapback] yeah laws and ways of living change over time. shocking i know. progressive thinking and progessive society blows. Yes I'm ignorant to that fact. :lol The point remains, my man. The point remains. what point? at the time the laws were different and we couldn't enforce the laws we have today back then. and we do not judge the past by the laws and ideals today because that is not fair to the past. Don't dig yourself a hole, eyebrow. You're basically calling my entire family illegal, even though we've been paying taxes, voting, and contributing to the economy and society for over 100 years.
May 16, 200620 yr Author It's just a matter of agreeing or not with 'the laws' then. Not everybody agrees that 'the laws' are what they should be, and you can't say that they will be the same in the future so what's wrong in fighting to change them? Isn't that progress? that's fine and all but pointing backwards isn't going to help matters. progessive means looking forward and moving forward. you can't make laws because that is how things were in the past. today the US has a lot more ability to protect it's borders than it ever did. and it is not wise to think they will not use their new abilities because they used to not protect their borders and had no way of enforcing it or no way of returning people who showed up.
May 16, 200620 yr What about the millions of italians that landed in New York 'without papers'? The irish? Oh wait, lets go back some more....the pilgrims, were they immigrating 'legally'? What about the Cinese that worked on the first transcontinental railroad? Did all these people consult the American Embassy in their respective countries before leaving? The Department of immigration allows more immigrants from spanish countries, more visas for living and work then anywhere else in the world. It is close to 10 to 1 vs places where people are of black Decent like Africa and the Haiti. I dont see people standing up and saying that is wrong and unjust. :blink: Nobody has said people shouldnt be allowed to come to the country. Nobody is going to say that. People are merely saying there is a right way and wrong way to handle this situation. It needs to be done the right way. Not rushed and forced through to appease a portion of the population. Personally I am all for opening up immigration to a much larger number from outside of the US. All I am saying is do it legally, make sure that individuals follow the proper procedure and dont jump over others already there waiting in line. Does that make me a raciest now?
May 16, 200620 yr Author Don't dig yourself a hole, eyebrow. You're basically calling my entire family illegal, even though we've been paying taxes, voting, and contributing to the economy and society for over 100 years. if they are here legally and gained entrance legally then they are here legally. if they came past the border and never bothered to become naturalized then they are illegal. my point is what was legal in the past was legal then and all the people who came through legally in the past are legal citizens. but what was legal then is not legal now thus people trying the same thing now are not deemed legal. it would be wrong to look back and deem people who were legal at one point illegals. but we can't use the laws of the past, which are different now, to deem someone who crosses now legal or illegal, we need to use the laws of today.
May 16, 200620 yr One of the things that I hate about the democrats they cater to illegals more then they do their own citizens often. Oh, come on. That's ridiculous.
May 16, 200620 yr Author However, until now, Bush has not done a thing to fix the border security problem. I guess only now is the public outrage loud enough for him to hear in the White House. Why do you feel the need to talk out of your ass? 4,000 new border patrol agents have been hired under Bush significantly increasing it's size and capabilities, and this was all before the crap which has been going on in recent months. i found this interesting: Bush budget scraps 9,790 border patrol agents President uses law's escape clause to drop funding for new homeland security force Michael Hedges, Houston Chronicle Wednesday, February 9, 2005 Bush's Budget Washington -- The law signed by President Bush less than two months ago to add thousands of border patrol agents along the U.S.-Mexico border has crashed into the reality of Bush's austere federal budget proposal, officials said Tuesday. Officially approved by Bush on Dec. 17 after extensive bickering in Congress, the National Intelligence Reform Act included the requirement to add 10,000 border patrol agents in the five years beginning with 2006. Roughly 80 percent of the agents were to patrol the southern U.S. border from Texas to California, along which thousands of people cross into the United States illegally every year. But Bush's proposed 2006 budget, revealed Monday, funds only 210 new border agents. The shrunken increase reflects the lack of money for an army of border guards and the capacity to train them, officials said. Retired Adm. James Loy, acting head of the Department of Homeland Security until nominee Michael Chertoff takes over, said funding only 210 new agents was a "recognition that we need to balance those things as we go on down the road with other priorities." The White House referred questions about the border agents to the Homeland Security Department. The law signed by Bush had a caveat that went virtually unreported at the time. A summary, published by the Senate Government Affairs Committee, required the government to increase the number of border patrol agents by at least 2,000 per year, "subject to available appropriations." Democrats were unhappy that the proposed budget used the escape clause so soon after the president approved the huge boost in border agents. "We know we must do more to shore up security along our borders," said Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, top Democrat on the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee. "The president's budget does not even attempt to meet this challenge." Some Republicans also were displeased. "This is an area of homeland security that needs to be ramped up in order to increase surveillance and patrols of our nation's vast and often remote borders," said Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, chair of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. A Jan. 24 letter signed by leading Republican lawmakers implored the president to fully fund the new law "in order to secure our borders against infiltration by terrorists." The lead signer was Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., chairman of the House Judiciary Committee and a leader of GOP efforts to toughen immigration laws and anti-terrorism statutes. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...MNGOKB837T1.DTL i would like it if you would show proof of these additional troops you speak of. because last year the border issue didn't seem to bother him.
May 16, 200620 yr 100 years ago the American government was also not assisting the people on a subsistence level by and large, aside from education really and that was often hit or miss. You also have to factor in that we were a nation trying to grow our populations in all our new lands we were just realizing. That's not really the case anymore. In many ways its like comparing apples to oranges when comparing immigration from 100 years go to immigration today. Sucks for immigrants now. That's pretty much how life is, you just gotta deal with it.
May 16, 200620 yr The spinning on this thread is unbelievable. passionate subject the extreme right might have a winner to win the spanish vote in america
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.