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

It was just another Bush policy

Help Support Ranchers.net:

Steve

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
16,547
Reaction score
0
Location
Wildwood New Jersey
By law, you have to be a legal resident of the US in order to enlist in the military. Once you have done that as a legal alien you are eligible to apply for naturalization as soon as you are sworn in, thanks to President Bush, who signed an executive order in July 2002 allowing immigrants with green cards to become citizens as soon as they are sworn in.

The U.S. military has provided legal immigrants a fast track to citizenship, and they are taking advantage of it in record numbers, even if it means facing the risk of death or injury in Iraq or Afghanistan.

Interest surged after President Bush signed an executive order in July 2002 allowing immigrants with green cards to become citizens as soon as they are sworn in, according to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS).

Since then, more than 25,000 immigrant members of the armed services have become U.S. citizens and another 40,000 are eligible to request naturalization, USCIS said in a statement.

well now I heard some say they support illegals who join getting permanent residence status.. Obama's latest political trick....

but,..
Technically you cannot enlist in the military without a green card but there are a number of examples of people who have enlisted with fradulent green cards. These folks are supposed to be discharged as soon as they are discovered to have perpetrated fraud and are to be deported
http://askville.amazon.com/true-illegal-alien-gain-citizenship-serving-years-military/AnswerViewer.do?requestId=3916032

so what really changed.. obama's need to get re-elected...
 

Faster horses

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
28,940
Reaction score
168
Location
NE WY at the foot of the Big Horn mountains
The government can't seem to do anything else right, so how on earth
are they going to do a background check to substantiate the
800,000 immigrants that supposedly came here with their parents
along with all the other criteria Obama supposedly stipulated?

Think there might be a problem there? :???:

Today on Fox News Huckabee said before we do anything about
illegal immigration, we need to close the border. With what Obama
is doing, we'll have a big influx of illegals again...why not, now
they will be rewarded more so than in the past.

Must be terrible to be Obama and have to come up with these schemes
to keep a job that is way over his head, and most US citizens know
it now. Hannity had an interview with the "Obama girl" that sang a
song in 2008 about how glad she was that Obama got elected. She's sure
singing a different tune now.
And she even admitted she was caught up in the frenzy.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, approaches immigration policy with a libertarian philosophy that makes him one of the favorites of the Tea Party.

Paul has a simple, straightforward plan for securing U.S. borders: Bring all the nation’s military troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan, and then station as many as needed along the U.S.-Mexico border.

“A nation without borders is no nation at all,” he says. “It doesn’t make sense to fight terrorists abroad while leaving our front door unlocked.”

During a 2011 debate in Iowa, Paul said the government should “pay a lot less attention to the borders between Iraq and Pakistan and bring our troops home and protect our borders. Why do we protect our borders overseas when we don’t protect our borders at home?”
--------------------------



Paul has opposed the Obama administration’s plan for comprehensive immigration reform because he believes it includes an amnesty provision that would allow illegal immigrants a path to legal residency. He says, “Granting amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants will only encourage more lawbreaking.”

In his book, Liberty Defined, however, Paul concedes that the government might need to grant some sort of provisional status because deporting 11 million illegal immigrants is not feasible. He suggested a “green card with an asterisk” as a better alternative than granting citizenship or deportation.

Like his Republican primary opponent Newt Gingrich, Paul has said he opposes splitting up the families and deporting illegal immigrants who have lived in the country for many years. “It would be incompatible with human rights,” he wrote in his book.

For many years, Paul has been an outspoken critic of birthright citizenship, the provision in the U.S. Constitution that gives automatic citizenship to children born in the United States, no matter how they came here or what the status of their parents is. He says he is willing to consider amending the Constitution to stop turning infants into citizens.

“As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be granted U.S. citizenship,” he says, “we’ll never be able to control our immigration problem.”

Obama is essentially doing what Paul has advocated- issuing a green card with an asterik to a portion of the illegal immigrants....
 

hopalong

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 12, 2006
Messages
8,019
Reaction score
0
Location
Az.
So oldtimer we just let more and more illegals, more and more babies being born???
Just where in the he!! does it stop???
Send them all to oldtimer's place let him support them I am tired of doing it.
 

Tam

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
12,759
Reaction score
0
Location
Sask
This is one reason I like the Canadian election system. Once the election date has been called everyone goes home and campaigns for the right to return to Ottawa once the NEW government is decided on by the voters. They don't get the chance to continuely pass bills to buy votes if they don't like what is happening on the campaign trail. They run on their record before the election was called.

The US has a stupid system that allows the President to buy elections by making announcements like the immigration announcement that bought the latino vote. If he sees his poll rating slipping in another sector you can guarantee he will sign another executive order to appease that sector. :roll:
The other thing that is stupid about the US system is that after the election the old government that contains Congressmen and a President that no longer have the support of the voters go back to Washington to "FINISH UP" business IE screwing up the government by making laws they knew the voters would never support before the election. How friggin smart is it to send somebody that you just fired back to Washington to continue doing what you just fired him/her for. :roll: The US would be better off if they just locked the doors and gave everyone a nice long vacation and when the government comes back in Jan the newly elected Congressman clean out their new offices and box up the old guys papers and ships them to them. That way the old guy/gal wouldn't have two months to shred documents to cover up what they have been up to.
 

Tam

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
12,759
Reaction score
0
Location
Sask
Oldtimer said:
U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, approaches immigration policy with a libertarian philosophy that makes him one of the favorites of the Tea Party.

Paul has a simple, straightforward plan for securing U.S. borders: Bring all the nation’s military troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan, and then station as many as needed along the U.S.-Mexico border.

“A nation without borders is no nation at all,” he says. “It doesn’t make sense to fight terrorists abroad while leaving our front door unlocked.”

During a 2011 debate in Iowa, Paul said the government should “pay a lot less attention to the borders between Iraq and Pakistan and bring our troops home and protect our borders. Why do we protect our borders overseas when we don’t protect our borders at home?”
--------------------------



Paul has opposed the Obama administration’s plan for comprehensive immigration reform because he believes it includes an amnesty provision that would allow illegal immigrants a path to legal residency. He says, “Granting amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants will only encourage more lawbreaking.”

In his book, Liberty Defined, however, Paul concedes that the government might need to grant some sort of provisional status because deporting 11 million illegal immigrants is not feasible. He suggested a “green card with an asterisk” as a better alternative than granting citizenship or deportation.

Like his Republican primary opponent Newt Gingrich, Paul has said he opposes splitting up the families and deporting illegal immigrants who have lived in the country for many years. “It would be incompatible with human rights,” he wrote in his book.

For many years, Paul has been an outspoken critic of birthright citizenship, the provision in the U.S. Constitution that gives automatic citizenship to children born in the United States, no matter how they came here or what the status of their parents is. He says he is willing to consider amending the Constitution to stop turning infants into citizens.

“As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be granted U.S. citizenship,” he says, “we’ll never be able to control our immigration problem.”

Obama is essentially doing what Paul has advocated- issuing a green card with an asterik to a portion of the illegal immigrants....

So what you are saying is Obama is doing essentially what a guy that just LOST the Republican primaries would do.

Who cares, Ron Paul LOST which means a very large majority of his own party didn't support his ideas. Your comment is about as bad as your continued blaming of Bush for Obama failures. :roll:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Obama's Action on Immigration Opens Fissure within Republican Party


Yesterday President Obama announced that his administration would no longer deport illegal aliens who were brought to the United States as children and who had graduated from high school or served in the Armed Forces. This instantly brought howls from the Republican Party--mostly because it creates a real predicament for them. On the one hand, their natural reaction is to condemn anything Obama does, so what some Republicans are saying is that people who broke the law and came to the U.S. illegally should be punished by being deported. From a legal point of view, that is a completely defensible argument. The trouble is that such a statement plays extremely poorly with Latino citizens (=voters), who strongly support what Obama did and want him and Congress to go further in that direction.

On the other hand, supporting Obama would be admitting he did something right and would bring howls of protest from many conservative Republicans who want the government to deport all the illegals. Mitt Romney said they should be denied work so they will self deport.

When Republicans like Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) say the executive order implementing the new policy is "welcome news" and Republicans like Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) call it "possibly illegal," you begin to see that Obama has succeeded in tying the Republicans in knots.


Romney, especially, is in a real pickle. If he attacks the decision, he loses the Latino vote (which probably means losing Nevada, Colorado, and New Mexico). If he supports the decision, those voices in the Republican Party who said he isn't a real conservative are going to be yelling "I told you so." So what is he doing? He is trying to avoid the content of the decision by making a process argument: it is up to Congress to set immigration policy, not the President. The trouble with that argument is it is unlikely to satisfy the Latino community and the question he is going to have to face very soon is "Do you want Congress to pass a law allowing children brought illegally into the country to stay if they have been good citizens or should they be deported?" It is doubtful he can avoid addressing this underlying issue for long. No matter which side he picks, he alienates some people. If he refuses to pick sides, Obama is going to attack him as gutless, saying we need leaders who can make tough decisions, not ones who pass the buck to a fractious Congress.

All in all, it was a very smart move for Obama. This very clearly shows why incumbent Presidents since WWII have won reelection about 70% of the time. They have the power to set the agenda to topics that favor them. In an instant, Obama changed the national discussion and put him on the side of the fastest growing minority in the country at the same time it boxed Romney in. Of course, as soon as the Supreme Court rules on the ACA, this topic will be pushed off the front pages, but Latinos are not going to forget who is on which side. Romney's window to show Latinos that he cares about them and show independents that he is willing to stand up to the right wing of his party will only last a week or so at most. Then the chance will be gone.

Yep Tam- its a good thing you moved to Canada... :wink:
 

hopalong

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 12, 2006
Messages
8,019
Reaction score
0
Location
Az.
But oldtimer she has dual citizen ship
:wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink:
Something you are dead against, will all the illegals have that as well?
:roll:
Or we just let them suck all of the benefits that belong to tax paying CITIZENS.
:mad:
Oh yes that includes Tam too, even you oldtimer.
 

Faster horses

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
28,940
Reaction score
168
Location
NE WY at the foot of the Big Horn mountains
Oldtimer said:
Obama's Action on Immigration Opens Fissure within Republican Party


Yesterday President Obama announced that his administration would no longer deport illegal aliens who were brought to the United States as children and who had graduated from high school or served in the Armed Forces. This instantly brought howls from the Republican Party--mostly because it creates a real predicament for them. On the one hand, their natural reaction is to condemn anything Obama does, so what some Republicans are saying is that people who broke the law and came to the U.S. illegally should be punished by being deported. From a legal point of view, that is a completely defensible argument. The trouble is that such a statement plays extremely poorly with Latino citizens (=voters), who strongly support what Obama did and want him and Congress to go further in that direction.

On the other hand, supporting Obama would be admitting he did something right and would bring howls of protest from many conservative Republicans who want the government to deport all the illegals. Mitt Romney said they should be denied work so they will self deport.

When Republicans like Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) say the executive order implementing the new policy is "welcome news" and Republicans like Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) call it "possibly illegal," you begin to see that Obama has succeeded in tying the Republicans in knots.


Romney, especially, is in a real pickle. If he attacks the decision, he loses the Latino vote (which probably means losing Nevada, Colorado, and New Mexico). If he supports the decision, those voices in the Republican Party who said he isn't a real conservative are going to be yelling "I told you so." So what is he doing? He is trying to avoid the content of the decision by making a process argument: it is up to Congress to set immigration policy, not the President. The trouble with that argument is it is unlikely to satisfy the Latino community and the question he is going to have to face very soon is "Do you want Congress to pass a law allowing children brought illegally into the country to stay if they have been good citizens or should they be deported?" It is doubtful he can avoid addressing this underlying issue for long. No matter which side he picks, he alienates some people. If he refuses to pick sides, Obama is going to attack him as gutless, saying we need leaders who can make tough decisions, not ones who pass the buck to a fractious Congress.

All in all, it was a very smart move for Obama. This very clearly shows why incumbent Presidents since WWII have won reelection about 70% of the time. They have the power to set the agenda to topics that favor them. In an instant, Obama changed the national discussion and put him on the side of the fastest growing minority in the country at the same time it boxed Romney in. Of course, as soon as the Supreme Court rules on the ACA, this topic will be pushed off the front pages, but Latinos are not going to forget who is on which side. Romney's window to show Latinos that he cares about them and show independents that he is willing to stand up to the right wing of his party will only last a week or so at most. Then the chance will be gone.

Yep Tam- its a good thing you moved to Canada... :wink:

OT, you always want sources identified, so where did this quote come
from??
 

hopalong

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 12, 2006
Messages
8,019
Reaction score
0
Location
Az.
From one of his UNNAMED sources,,, kinda like that other website that he claomed was laughing at us on ranchers Never did prove that one!!!
Or like the harrassment that SUPPOSEDLY happened here on ranchers,,,,The only one who knows about that is oldtimer!!!

Hook him up to a hot air balloon you could go around the world in 80 minutes or less
:D
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Faster horses said:
Oldtimer said:
Obama's Action on Immigration Opens Fissure within Republican Party


Yesterday President Obama announced that his administration would no longer deport illegal aliens who were brought to the United States as children and who had graduated from high school or served in the Armed Forces. This instantly brought howls from the Republican Party--mostly because it creates a real predicament for them. On the one hand, their natural reaction is to condemn anything Obama does, so what some Republicans are saying is that people who broke the law and came to the U.S. illegally should be punished by being deported. From a legal point of view, that is a completely defensible argument. The trouble is that such a statement plays extremely poorly with Latino citizens (=voters), who strongly support what Obama did and want him and Congress to go further in that direction.

On the other hand, supporting Obama would be admitting he did something right and would bring howls of protest from many conservative Republicans who want the government to deport all the illegals. Mitt Romney said they should be denied work so they will self deport.

When Republicans like Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) say the executive order implementing the new policy is "welcome news" and Republicans like Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) call it "possibly illegal," you begin to see that Obama has succeeded in tying the Republicans in knots.


Romney, especially, is in a real pickle. If he attacks the decision, he loses the Latino vote (which probably means losing Nevada, Colorado, and New Mexico). If he supports the decision, those voices in the Republican Party who said he isn't a real conservative are going to be yelling "I told you so." So what is he doing? He is trying to avoid the content of the decision by making a process argument: it is up to Congress to set immigration policy, not the President. The trouble with that argument is it is unlikely to satisfy the Latino community and the question he is going to have to face very soon is "Do you want Congress to pass a law allowing children brought illegally into the country to stay if they have been good citizens or should they be deported?" It is doubtful he can avoid addressing this underlying issue for long. No matter which side he picks, he alienates some people. If he refuses to pick sides, Obama is going to attack him as gutless, saying we need leaders who can make tough decisions, not ones who pass the buck to a fractious Congress.

All in all, it was a very smart move for Obama. This very clearly shows why incumbent Presidents since WWII have won reelection about 70% of the time. They have the power to set the agenda to topics that favor them. In an instant, Obama changed the national discussion and put him on the side of the fastest growing minority in the country at the same time it boxed Romney in. Of course, as soon as the Supreme Court rules on the ACA, this topic will be pushed off the front pages, but Latinos are not going to forget who is on which side. Romney's window to show Latinos that he cares about them and show independents that he is willing to stand up to the right wing of his party will only last a week or so at most. Then the chance will be gone.

Yep Tam- its a good thing you moved to Canada... :wink:

OT, you always want sources identified, so where did this quote come
from??

http://electoral-vote.com/
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Rep. Rivera Introduces a Bill Giving Military-Serving Illegal Immigrants Legal Status

Friday, January 27, 2012, 10:55 AM EDT - posted on NumbersUSA



Rep. David Rivera (R-Florida) introduced a bill that would give a path to citizenship exclusively to young people who served in the military.

Rivera's plan, Adjusted Residency for Military Service Act-the ARMS Act, is a military-only variation of the DREAM Act. The DREAM Act, which failed to pass the Senate last year, would grant legal status to some children of illegal immigrants who were brought here illegally by their parents.

Two presidential candidates- Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney- support the military-only aspect of the DREAM Act.

Romney had previously said he’d veto the DREAM Act, but has recently endorsed the portion of the legislation that gives young people a path to citizenship in return for military service.


Rivera said he did add some measures to the ARMS Act, including a provision that requires applicants to have been in the country since before they turned 16 and to live in the U.S. for five consecutive years.

The ARMS Act does not ensure automatic residency, Rivera told The Miami Herald. To be considered for the program, applicants would need to meet a set of preliminary criteria such as demonstrate good moral conduct and a record of service in the United States military.

For the full story, read The Miami Herald .

Looks like the Repub party is actually more divided on this issue than I thought...This Repub Congressman supports exactly what Obama did- and according to the article back then Romney supported it too...
But that was 4 months ago- hard telling what his policy is today- or how it will "evolve" AFTER he gets the nomination... :roll: :wink:

But whatever way he "evolves" in the general election- Obama beat him to the draw for the Latino vote..
 

Tam

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
12,759
Reaction score
0
Location
Sask
Oldtimer said:
Obama's Action on Immigration Opens Fissure within Republican Party
:

Oldtimer you should be more worried about the fissure Obama is putting in the COUNTRY than you are about the fissure he is putting in the Republican party. :roll:

I remember when Obama was elected in 2008 everyone thought it was over for the Republican party but all it took to reunite and strength the GOP was two years of Democrats having full control with Hopey Changey Obama in the White House. By 2010 the voters had had enough and served up Obama's head on a platter proving they were not as STUPID as Obama thought they were. HISTORICAL ELECTION LOSSES FOR THE DEMOCRATS REMEMBER THAT OLDTIMER. :roll:

Let's take a look at Obama record Oldtimer

Obama wins the Nobel Peace Prize then steps up drone attacks that kill innocent bystanders while he goes after reported terrorist targets and he steps up war efforts in Afganistan and enters a war in Lybia without congressional approval. He writes a executive order to close Gitmo and calls of terror trials only to keep it open and holds trials there anyway after a long delay. :roll:

Obamacare his SIGNATURE GOVERNMENT ACHIEVEMENT got him a historical loss in 2010 due to voters wanting it repealed and countless law suits over Constitutionality. That is so bad he isn't even using the Big F\ing deal as part of his re-election campaign is he Oldtimer :wink:

He mandated free Birth Control and claimed the GOP has a War on Women but that lead to a drop in poll ratings with women and countless law suits for violating the 1st Amendment.

He goes after the animal activist vote by claiming Romney had his dog on top his car during a vacation years ago BUT that turned bad when the knowledge of Obama eating dog hit the news cycle (oops someone should have read Obama own book. :oops: )

His campaign tries to tag Romney as a High School bully for cutting a classmates hair but that went bad when the family of the supposed victim claimed it never happened AND when the knowledge of Obama bullying a girl in his class hit the news cycle. (OOPS Again hint read his book :wink: )

At least His campaign was smart enough to avoid the drug use allegations as Thanks a great snip from his book we all know Obama proudly did drugs in High School and College. (FINALLY somebody in his campaign read his book :wink:)

Now He writes an executive order telling his administration to avoid upholding US immigration laws which not only violates his pledge to uphold the laws of the United States of America but it also adds 800,000 to 1 million people to an already historical high unemployment rate.
The reporter was right in asking him why he favored illegals having the right to get jobs in the US over US citizens that are having a tough time finding jobs.

I hope anyone looking for a job realizes Obama just limited their prospects by adding 800,000 illegals to those seeking jobs. :roll:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Tam said:
Oldtimer said:
Obama's Action on Immigration Opens Fissure within Republican Party
:

Oldtimer you should be more worried about the fissure Obama is putting in the COUNTRY than you are about the fissure he is putting in the Republican party. :roll:

That fissure over the immigration issue was there long before Obama... Remember all the controversy over the Kennedy/Bush/McCain Amnesty Bill?
And with the multi divided (both Repubs and Dem cults are split in several directions) totally dysfunctional congress we now have- that seems to have totally lost the ability to legislate thru compromise--- the administration may have to do much more leading thru the use of executive orders-- no matter who ends up as President......
 

Tam

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
12,759
Reaction score
0
Location
Sask
Oldtimer said:
Tam said:
Oldtimer said:
Oldtimer you should be more worried about the fissure Obama is putting in the COUNTRY than you are about the fissure he is putting in the Republican party. :roll:

That fissure over the immigration issue was there long before Obama... Remember all the controversy over the Kennedy/Bush/McCain Amnesty Bill?
And with the multi divided (both Repubs and Dem cults are split in several directions) totally dysfunctional congress we now have- that seems to have totally lost the ability to legislate thru compromise--- the administration may have to do much more leading thru the use of executive orders-- no matter who ends up as President......


Wrong a good leader, which from the record of the last 3 1/2 years proves OBAMA IS NOT. might have been able to get the two parties to compromise. BUT Obama was more worried about his golf score than he was the US Economy. Right from day one he had the attitude that WE WON WE WRITE THE BILLS. He had no intention of a bipartisan effort when it came to HIS ADMINISTRATION. He wanted it his way or the highway. When his own party members wouldn't vote for his crap bills be blamed the Republicans and wrote a executive order to go around HARRY RIED and those that wouldn't support him.

Anyone with a half a brain, which I realize that leaves you out, can see Obama is the most incompetent partisan man that has ever occupied the Oval Office. He cares more about his Hollywood Rock Star Reputation than he does about any poor out of work US citizen. He proved that by appeasing the Hollyweirds by blocking the Pipeline that would have provided thousands of jobs. He and his Administration has done more to DESTORY the US than anyone in History.

The leaks coming out of the White House that are meant to make Obama look good are endangering peoples lives and he and Holder could care less. As long as that twit looks good who cares how many lives it cost. AND PLEASE DON"T EXCUSE HIS LEAKS BY SAYING EVERYONE DOES IT. I doubt the Doc in Pakistan that will be sitting in prison for the next 33 years could care less what Bush did :x
Even Diane Feinstein has said these leaks are the worse that she has ever witnessed and are damaging the US's reputation as no nation can now trust the US to KEEP A SECRET and not endanger those willing to help them out in TOP SECRET MISSIONS. If Obama thinks those TOP SECRET MISSIONS are fair game to make him LOOK GOOD in his re-election bid, the liberal left rag, New York Times are given access. If actions of his administration make him look bad ie the Fast and Furious mess, the Congress has to threaten to hold the AG in Contempt of Congress to get the slightest information that has been scrubbed of any important info. Do you really think Holder is the one that should be in charge of investigating his boss Obama and the leaks that are RISKING INNOCENT LIVES. I sure don't and his horrid record of side stepping laws that he doesn't want to enforce and sueing states because they want to enforce the law of the land are very good reasons he should NOT be trusted. He should resign like countless Congressmen have asked him to do but he won't as he has the power to help his boss Obama to weaken if not destroy the US from WITHIN. :mad:

And they have idiots like you drinking the koolaid and defending their UNCONSTITUTIONAL actions daily. :roll:
 

Steve

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
16,547
Reaction score
0
Location
Wildwood New Jersey
Oldtimer said:
Rep. Rivera Introduces a Bill Giving Military-Serving Illegal Immigrants Legal Status

Friday, January 27, 2012, 10:55 AM EDT - posted on NumbersUSA



Rep. David Rivera (R-Florida) introduced a bill that would give a path to citizenship exclusively to young people who served in the military.

Rivera's plan, Adjusted Residency for Military Service Act-the ARMS Act, is a military-only variation of the DREAM Act. The DREAM Act, which failed to pass the Senate last year, would grant legal status to some children of illegal immigrants who were brought here illegally by their parents.

Two presidential candidates- Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney- support the military-only aspect of the DREAM Act.

Romney had previously said he’d veto the DREAM Act, but has recently endorsed the portion of the legislation that gives young people a path to citizenship in return for military service.


Rivera said he did add some measures to the ARMS Act, including a provision that requires applicants to have been in the country since before they turned 16 and to live in the U.S. for five consecutive years.

The ARMS Act does not ensure automatic residency, Rivera told The Miami Herald. To be considered for the program, applicants would need to meet a set of preliminary criteria such as demonstrate good moral conduct and a record of service in the United States military.

For the full story, read The Miami Herald .

Looks like the Repub party is actually more divided on this issue than I thought...This Repub Congressman supports exactly what Obama did- and according to the article back then Romney supported it too...
But that was 4 months ago- hard telling what his policy is today- or how it will "evolve" AFTER he gets the nomination... :roll: :wink:

But whatever way he "evolves" in the general election- Obama beat him to the draw for the Latino vote..

the headline is a complete and total lie.. illegals can not join by US law.. and those legal immigrants already serving are already eligible to become citizens..

but then if you read my first post you already knew this... .

the fact is Obama's move is an idealistic politically calculated move... and did nothing... to help legal immigrants who serve...

but then the only thing Obama has done right is to follow existing Bush policy... again....

they should be calling him Obushi3

so OT can you really vote for a forth term for Bush?
 
Top