• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Immigration Bill (Poll)

Do You Support the Bush/Kennedy Bill Allowing Illegal Immigrants to Remain in the Country

  • Yes

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • No

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0
A

Anonymous

Guest
Again I'm going to plagarize from a poll the Great Falls Tribune had today....

Since this bill will begin debate tomorrow in the US Senate (even before it has totally been written :roll: )

Their readers were voting 91.6% No the last I saw....
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
One of the issues of this bill that is not even being addressed or mentioned by any of the promoters of it-WHAT WILL IT COST? What will John Doe, you and me taxpayer, have to pay to fund it?

It appears they (Administration/Democrats) want to slip it thru before anyone finds out.... :mad: :mad: $2.2 to $3+ TRILLION seems like an excessive expense for the corporate world to get cheap labor and the rich and elite to have poolboys and nannies... And that doesn't account for the increased border security costs, new national ID's, extra thousands of folks coming in under the Guestworker Program, increased cost of tracking all the "guestworkers" so they don't become illegal aliens, etc. etc....Just a big pile of worms....


A Heritage Foundation study found a household headed by an individual without a high school education, including about two-thirds of these illegal aliens, costs U.S. taxpayers more than $32,000 in federal, state and local benefits. That same family contributes an average of $9,000 a year in taxes, resulting in a net tax burden of $22,449 each year.
Over the course of the household's lifetime that tax burden translates to $1.1 million. If the lower figure of 12 million illegal aliens is used for estimation purposes, the total tax burden translates to $2.2 trillion.

It is estimated their are between 12 and 20 million illegal aliens already in the country.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
This is from today's normally quite conservative Washington Times:



Immigration debacle
TODAY'S EDITORIAL
May 21, 2007


The bipartisan immigration "reform" legislation pushed by Sens. Edward M. Kennedy and Jon Kyl and others, applauded by Michael Chertoff, the secretary of Homeland Security, and Carlos Gutierrez, the secretary of Commerce, is a disaster in the making. That is not so slowly becoming abundantly clear.

It's a disaster for national security, for keeping Islamist jihadists out of the country, for exploding the costs of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, for preserving the rule of law, and for that quaint principle called national sovereignty. From the details that have leaked out thus far, the legislation, which provides amnesty for nearly all of the 12 million (or maybe even 20 million) illegal aliens already here, would swell the size of the welfare state in a way we haven't seen since Lyndon Johnson imposed his Great Society on us four decades ago. Sen. Jeff Sessions, the Alabama Republican who is likely to lead the fight to save the nation from this disaster, and Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation will reveal at a press conference this morning the details of just how expensive it will be. We're talking trillions of dollars -- that's not millions or even billions -- over the next several decades.

Senate floor debate on the bill begins today, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid clearly wants to force it through before Memorial Day, before senators and everyone else can become familiar with even a fraction of what is in this massive bill, which could run to 800 pages. It was still being written over the weekend. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, who is said to lean in favor of the bill, yesterday said that at least two weeks would be required for a serious Senate debate on such a complex piece of legislation. We hope he means it when he says "serious debate." To win the support of conservatives who opposed last year's immigration bill, the administration agreed that provisions enabling illegals to remain here could only become effective after new border-control measures are in place.

These include the hiring, training and deployment of 5,000 to 6,000 additional Border Patrol agents, increasing the total to approximately 18,000 agents. (Assuming there are 12 million illegals here, this amounts to 2,000 of them getting amnesty for every new Border Patrol agent hired to keep illegals out).

The legislation calls for erecting 370 miles of additional fencing along the U.S.-Mexican border. To put that number in perspective, in October, the Senate passed legislation sponsored by Rep. Duncan Hunter, California Republican, calling for 854 miles of fencing. Mr. Hunter protests that the Senate bill in effect "cuts my fence in half." (Actually, it's closer to 55 percent.) That assumes of course, that Congress actually keeps its word and appropriates money for the fence. Counting on Congress is always a very big "if." Another "trigger" requires that the Department of Homeland Security -- not a model of bureaucratic efficiency -- develop and implement by the end of next year a system to enable employers to quickly verify that job applicants are in the country legally. In exchange for such very modest achievements, the administration and the Senate propose to make enormous and in some cases unacceptable concessions to illegal aliens and their political patrons. Here are some of them:

m Amnesty, document fraud and terrorism: There is good reason to be skeptical of the notion that United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) -- the Homeland Security bureaucracy that will be charged with verifying whether tens of millions of illegals are terrorists and/or criminals, and therefore ineligible to receive amnesty -- is up to the job. Over the past four years, the ineptitude of the immigration services bureaucracy has been severely criticized by the Office of Inspector General and the Government Accountability Office and other investigators. This, according to Michael Cutler, who spent more than 25 years as an immigration agent, would "provide millions of illegal aliens who have violated our nation's borders" with "official identity documents that would enable terrorists to embed themselves in communities around our country as they await instructions to launch the next terrorist attack against against our nation and the people who live in the United States." Mr. Cutler says the Senate bill should be named the "Terrorist Assistance and Facilitation Act of 2007."

m Staggering increases in federal, state and local spending, with attendant pressure for tax increases. Mr. Rector of the Heritage Foundation says one major effect of the Senate amnesty bill will be to make approximately 9 million additional persons -- many of them low-skilled immigrants -- legal permanent residents of the United States who could lawfully benefit from a variety of social programs, including Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Supplemental Security Income and public housing. Over the course of their lifetimes, these people will utilize $2.5 trillion more in government services than they will pay in taxes. American welfare and social services were designed for poor Americans; as a result of amnesty legislation, this legislation would expand the American welfare state to include a significant portion of the population of Mexico. Instead of going home to Mexico at the end of their working years, these elderly beneficiaries of amnesty would remain in this country "and collect public funds for the rest of their lives," Mr. Rector says.

m The Senate immigration bill includes legislation called the DREAM act, legislation subsidizing college education for illegal aliens. And what a dream it is.

m Illegal aliens who worked using fraudulently obtained Social Security numbers will be able to collect Social Security Disability Insurance.

The Bush administration deludes itself if it believes that the measure can be improved during Senate debate. Right now, the toughest criticism of the bill is coming from labor unions who argue that the amnesty/guest-worker provisions are too strict, and from senators like Mel Martinez of Florida, a Republican who talks of waiving the much-ballyhooed $5,000 fine illegals are meant to pay. If the administration wants to preserve what's left of its credibility on immigration, it would spare us Mr. Chertoff's hyperbolic rhetoric that critics of the administration regard anything short of capital punishment to be "amnesty." The only "capital punishment" coming is what's likely to happen to the careers of those determined to inflict this disaster on us.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
One monkey wrench in the deal is what do we do with illegals who have kids that are U.S. citizens?


Another thought is what do we do in our society when the lawmakers/courts don't even allow laws to make companies pay the full costs of their workers on society? The Maryland Walmart deal to make them pay for societal costs of insurance was struck down. Why let businesses use "cheap" labor and not pay the full costs that are put on society? We end up paying for it through higher taxes either in the increased costs of health care or direct taxes.
 

rider

Well-known member
That's right.

Who is going to enforce the laws? Why even create them just for the corporates to break?

Bias here, bias there, here a bias, there a bias,...

Old MacDonald had a farm e-i-e-i-o
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
I gotta give my Junior Senator a big ATTA BOY for not bowing down to GW and Teddy.......

-----------------------------------------

The price tag for this bill is expected to be extremely high, but sources told FOX News that the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office will not have an estimate ready until after Memorial Day, something that could fracture the bill's already fragile support.

The Heritage Foundation's Rector warned that CBO will give only a 10-year estimate, "but on year 15, it starts to cost a fortune. On year 30, it will bankrupt the Social Security system. It is a disaster, it's a sham, and it's a deception."

Republican critics like Sessions are expected to filibuster the bill, and he could receive support from a number of Democrats, like freshman Sen. Jon Tester of Montana, who on Monday, voted against allowing debate to start on the bill. The Senate permitted the beginning of a multi-week debate on a 69-23 vote to proceed with amendments.

It is very much unclear if supporters can muster the 60 votes needed for final passage, expected to come sometime around June 8, 2007. And yet another hurdle will come when the House attempts to pass a product that Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., has already signaled will look quite a bit different from the Senate product.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,274607,00.html
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
There is a lot of similarities to this bill and the one passed under Reagan. After Amnesty was given then, none of the laws were enforced. Just as now none will be enforced.

All they are doing is tying up the American peoples outrage for 5 years or more. It will take so long to get it all going that Washington will get a bunch of years to just get the plan going that they can remove Heat off them for a while. As nothing is truly being done.

Washington will never truly do anything about Illegal immigration, and in 50 years we will see a population rise of 100,000,000 -200,000,000 more people in the U.S. as a result of it.

Funny how one day we have an unemployment problem and then another day we need more guest workers :roll:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
So far these two Dems can see who butters their bread---State polls are running 90+% against any "amnesty bill".....

---------------------------------------------

Senators fight immigration bill
By NOELLE STRAUB
Gazette Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON - Montana Sens. Max Baucus and Jon Tester were two of just four Democrats to vote this week against moving forward with debate on immigration legislation.

"I thought it was a flawed bill, too flawed to proceed, essentially," Baucus said in a brief interview.

Baucus described the measure as being too "jammed together" and said he opposed two main provisions.

"One, it smacks too much of amnesty for me, and second, the guest worker program is not a good idea," Baucus said. Tester shared some of the same concerns, spokesman Matt McKenna said. "There's no question we need immigration reform, but we need an immigration policy that does not have amnesty and is fair to taxpayers," McKenna said. "He does not believe this bill is fair to taxpayers, and he believes supporting this bill is supporting amnesty."

The Senate voted 69-23 late Monday in favor of a motion to proceed with debate on the bill. The only other Democrats to vote no were Sens. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., and Byron Dorgan, D-N.D.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
NY Times/CBS Poll Finds that 69% Believe Illegal Immigrants Should Be Prosecuted
Friday, May 25, 2007

A New York Times/CBS News poll released yesterday found that 69% of American adults believe illegal immigrants should “be prosecuted and deported for being in the U.S. illegally.” Just 24% disagree and say they should not. The survey of 1,125 adults was conducted May 18-23, 2007.

Ultimately, while supporting prosecution, the poll shows that just 33% of Americans believe that most illegal aliens should actually be deported. Sixty-two percent (62%) say that most illegal aliens who have been here at least two years should be “given a chance to keep their jobs and eventually apply for legal status.” Giving them a chance to keep their jobs is a continuation of the status quo requiring no change in policy.

Eighty-two percent (82%) of those surveyed believe the federal government could be doing more to “keep illegal immigrants from crossing into this country.” Only 14% said “the U.S. is doing all it can reasonably be expected to do along its borders.” Sixty-one percent (61%) consider illegal immigration a Very Serious problem for the United States. Seventy-five percent (75%) favor higher fines and increased enforcement of employers who knowingly hire illegal aliens.

The attitudes are consistent with virtually all other polling on the issue. Rasmussen Reports data released Wednesday showing that 72% of Americans say it’s Very Important for the U.S. to “improve border enforcement and reduce illegal immigration.” By a 2-to-1 margin (60% to 28%), Americans believe it is more important to gain control of the nation’s borders than to “legalize the status of undocumented workers already living in the United States.”

Underlying these attitudes, the New York Times/CBS News survey found that 53% of American adults believe most recent immigrants to the United States “cause problems.” Just 32% say they contribute to this country. Sixty-two percent (62%) believe the immigrants don’t make enough of an effort to learn English (that’s one reason most Americans support making English the nation’s official language).

Like Rasmussen Reports, the New York Times/CBS News survey found that concerns about illegal immigration do not dampen enthusiasm for legal immigration. According to the Times, 24% believe all immigrants should be welcomed while 48% believe “some” should be welcomed. Rasmussen Reports has consistently found majority support for an immigration policy that welcomes all except national security threats, criminals, and those seeking to live off the U.S. welfare system. In fact, even among those who favor enforcement-first reforms, a majority ultimately supports a welcoming immigration policy.

The New York Times/CBS News did not specifically ask about the immigration bill currently being considered in the Senate. However, in the article written about the poll, the Times states “large majorities expressed support for measures contained in the legislation.”

The survey found, for example, that 67% would allow illegal immigrants to “apply for a four-year visa… as long as they pay a $5,000 fine, a fee, show a clean work record, and pass a criminal background check.” That, too, is similar to a Rasmussen Reports survey which found 65% support for a compromise proposal allowing illegal aliens a “very long path to citizenship” provided that “the proposal required the aliens to pay fines and learn English” and that the compromise “would truly reduce the number of illegal aliens entering the country.” The proposal, specifically described as a compromise, was said to include “strict employer penalties for hiring illegal aliens, building a barrier along the Mexican border and other steps to significantly reduce the number of illegal aliens entering the United States.”

However, while 65% were willing to support such a compromise, only 26% support the legislation currently before the Senate.

The gap between the 65% potential support for a compromise and the 26% actual support for the Senate bill is due to two factors. First, the debate in the Senate has focused on how to legalize the status of illegal aliens. For most Americans, that’s missing the point (just 29% of American voters see legalizing the status of illegal aliens as a Very Important issue).

Second, there is enormous skepticism about the government commitment to enforcing the borders (as the Times survey noted, only 14% believe the government is doing all it can at this time). To most voters, immigration reform is all about border control. Until voters are convinced that the enforcement is both real and effective, there will be no popular support for reform.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/ny_times_cbs_poll_finds_that_69_believe_illegal_immigrants_should_be_prosecuted
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
Sure glad to see the bill is having a hard time getting passed. As more and more come out about it, it is astounding that are elected officials will not do the will of the people. America is not that split on this issue of illegal immigration, but Washington will not do what it takes to solve this problem.

They are more worried about the amnesty of the illegals than the stopping of more illegals from coming here. And to argue, debate over things like rather illegals with felony records should be be allowed citizenship :roll:

Sad thing is we need no new bill, no new laws, just enforce the ones that were passed back in Reagan's term.

I honestly think I am living in Bizarro World of the Comics. Where everything is backward from the way it should be.
 

jigs

Well-known member
if the illegals have a kid born here, then it is tough. the kid is actually a legal citizen, but only legal due to criminal parents.

so ship them all back!once the kid turns 18, he can come back. piss on them. I have NO need for a group of people who barge in, take up space, won't learn the language, demand bi-lingual education, health care, get govt. foodstamps, and pay no taxes, or add anything to society. hell, we even have a friggin parade every year to celebrate it!


then we need to start in on the gang bangers...only one way to deport them, and that is in a body bag. Mexico is a big country, so we will send the asian gang, and the crips and bloods right along with the mexican gang bangers. no sence in being prejudice!

only way these people will get a clue, is if we get serious, get tough, and do it NOW. landmines and machine gun nests along the border is the answer. or coat the friggin border with toxic waste, then if they get here, they won't stay long.
 

hopalong

Well-known member
"You old white people. It is your duty to die."
HISPANIC LEADERS SPEAK OUT!


"Go back to Boston! Go back to Plymouth Rock, Pilgrims! Get out! We are the future. You are old and tired. Go on. We have beaten you. Leave like beaten rats. You old white people. It is your duty to die . . Through love of having children, we are going to take over. Augustin Cebada, Brown Berets

"They're afraid we're going to take over the governmental institutions and other institutions. They're right. We will take them over . . . We are here to stay." Richard Alatorre, Los Angeles City Council.

"The American Southwest seems to be slowly returning to the jurisdiction of Mexico without firing a single shot." Excelsior, the national newspaper of Mexico.

"We have an aging white America. They are not making babies. They are dying. The explosion is in our population . .. I love it. They are shitting in their pants with fear. I love it." Professor Jose Angel Gutierrez, University of Texas


"Remember 187--proposition to deny taxpayer funds for services to non-citizens--was the last gasp of white America in California ." Art Torres, Chairman of the California Democratic Party,


"We are politicizing every single one of these new citizens that are becoming citizens of this country . . I gotta tell you that a lot of people are saying, "I'm going to go out there and vote because I want to pay them back." Gloria Molina, Los Angeles County Supervisor,"

California is going to be a Hispanic state. Anyone who doesn't like it should leave." Mario Obledo, California Coalition of Hispanic Organizations and California State Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare under Governor Jerry Brown, also awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom by President Bill Clinton.

"We are practicing 'La Reconquista' in California ." Jose Pescador Osuna, Mexican Consul General ,

"We need to avoid a white backlash by using codes understood by Latinos . . . " Professor Fernando Guerra, Loyola Marymount University

Are these just the words of a few extremists? Consider that we could fill up many pages with such quotes. Also, consider that these are mainstream Mexican leaders.

THE U.S. VS MEXICO : On February 15, 1998, the U.S. and Mexican soccer teams met at the Los Angeles Coliseum. The crowd was overwhelmingly pro-Mexican even though most lived in this country. They booed during the National Anthem and U.S. flags were held upside down. As the match progressed, supporters of the U.S. team were insulted, pelted with projectiles, punched and spat upon. Beer and trash were thrown at the U.S. players before and after the match. The coach of the U.S. team, Steve Sampson said, "This was the most painful experience I have ever had in this profession."

Did you know that immigrants from Mexico and other non-European countries can come to this country and get preferences in jobs, education, and government contracts?

Corporate America has signed on to the idea that minorities and third world immigrants should get special, privileged status. Some examples are Exxon,Texaco, Merrill Lynch, Boeing, Paine Weber, Starbucks and many more.


DID YOU KNOW?: Did you know that Mexico regularly intercedes on the side of the defense in criminal cases involving Mexican nationals? Did you know that California is home to 275 gangs with 17,000 members; 98% of which are Mexican and Asian. How's your county doing?

Is education important to you? Here are the words of a teacher who spent over 20 years in the Los Angeles School system. "Imagine teachers in classes containing 30-40 students of widely varying attention spans and motivation, many of whom aren't fluent in English. Educators seek learning materials likely to reach the majority of students and that means fewer words and math problems and more pictures and multicultural references."

WHEN I WAS YOUNG: When I was young, I remember hearing about the immigrants that came through Ellis Island . They wanted to learn English. They wanted to breath free. They wanted to become Americans. Now many immigrants come here with demands. They demand to be taught in their own language. They demand special privileges--affirmative action. They demand ethnic studies that glorify their culture.
 

Steve

Well-known member
Is there any differance between outsourceing jobs to take advantage of cheap labor, or importing illigals to take advantage of cheap labor?

the net result is the same ...an unemployed American...
 

MN Farm Girl

Well-known member
There are plenty of jobs for them. The reason is that our society has become lazy. Us, as American citizens could have some of those jobs, but we are too lazy to do them. For example, we live near a packing plant, and most of the people who work there are muslims. It is a hard job to work in a packing plant, but American citizens should be working in there. There is no reason why NOT!!!! I am not supporting the bill to let them stay in the country.


MN Farm Girl
 

Steve

Well-known member
MN Farm Girl
It is a hard job to work in a packing plant, but American citizens should be working in there. There is no reason why NOT!!!!

in many cases the pay is a reason....that coupled with lay offs and instability in the job..and crappy working conditions.

If the cheap foriegn labor was not available the employer would have to make the job available and the pay would increase,..or the job conditions would get better....or both.
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
Steve said:
MN Farm Girl
It is a hard job to work in a packing plant, but American citizens should be working in there. There is no reason why NOT!!!!

in many cases the pay is a reason....that coupled with lay offs and instability in the job..and crappy working conditions.

If the cheap foriegn labor was not available the employer would have to make the job available and the pay would increase,..or the job conditions would get better....or both.

Exactly! Illegals do not do jobs that Americans will not do, they do them cheaper than they will.

I do not exactly want to pick tomato's for a living but for the right price and right benefits I will pick them. That does not make me lazy, it just makes me have more choices than picking tomatoes at the current pay scale.

Illegal immigration is like slavery was. Why would anyone pay a higher wage when they could buy a slave?

Wages increase based on supply and demand.
 
Top