HTH 95 Posted May 5, 2006 The Senate wants to increase legal immigration; only two percent of Americans agree. http://www.cis.org/articles/2006/2006poll.html Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
torridjoe 48 Posted May 5, 2006 That headline is utter BS; it's backwards. The House approach is to make being an undocumented alien a felony, and make anyone who helps one a felon as well. Surveys show Americans thoroughly reject that idea. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
What is the deal? 1 Posted May 5, 2006 That headline is utter BS; it's backwards. The House approach is to make being an undocumented alien a felony, and make anyone who helps one a felon as well. Surveys show Americans thoroughly reject that idea. yeah it's almost as much BS as the polls you bring up Support for the House approach was widespread, with 81 percent of Republicans, 72 percent of independents, 57 percent of Democrats, and 53 percent of Hispanics saying it was good or very good idea Are they talking about the Senate Bill that Harry Reid killed? When offered by itself, there is also some support for the Senate approach, thought not as much as for the House bill: 42 percent said the Senate approach was a good or very good idea when told it would allow illegal immigrants to apply for legal status provided they met certain criteria, and it would significantly increase legal immigration and increase enforcement of immigration laws; 50 percent said it was a bad or very bad idea. That was the closes the Dems were going to get to amnesty. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
torridjoe 48 Posted May 5, 2006 Are they talking about the Senate Bill that Harry Reid killed? How many times do you need it pointed out that the Senate bill NEVER contained the House provisions? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Snuff 10 Posted May 5, 2006 Torrid, I missed it. What's your stance on illegal immigrants? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
What is the deal? 1 Posted May 5, 2006 How many times do you need it pointed out that the Senate bill NEVER contained the House provisions? It didn't have to. They can negotiate later as long as they get something passed. They needed it to pass in order to enforce the border which needs to happen before any of the other crap goes down anyways. At the least, the House and Senate can agree on that. Wall built by illegals or National Guard backing up border patrol, whatever. Just stop the flow, NOW! Torrid, I missed it. What's your stance on illegal immigrants? He supports Harry Reid's lets just kill the legislation and not do a damn thing. It makes Bush look bad. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Strike 5,553 Posted May 5, 2006 New poll comes up with same results as EVERY other poll. Polls on Illegal Immigration consistently show that people from all political affiliations want better enforcement and no amnesty. This isn't anything new. Hopefully the election in Herndon opened some politicians eyes..... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
torridjoe 48 Posted May 5, 2006 New poll comes up with same results as EVERY other poll. Polls on Illegal Immigration consistently show that people from all political affiliations want better enforcement and no amnesty. This isn't anything new. Hopefully the election in Herndon opened some politicians eyes..... EVERY other poll is obviously false, and you'll have to prove "consistently," even. I show 53% support for earned citizenship, which certainly most conservatives consider amnesty. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
What is the deal? 1 Posted May 5, 2006 EVERY other poll is obviously false, and you'll have to prove "consistently," even. I show 53% support for earned citizenship, which certainly most conservatives consider amnesty. what's the point of a guest worker program or anything like that without enforcing the border? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
D_House 0 Posted May 5, 2006 what's the point of a guest worker program or anything like that without enforcing the border? ask Bush that question. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
HTH 95 Posted May 5, 2006 Question: What do you call liberals who hate immigrants? Seems like there's a cross section of conservatives and liberals who hate the immigrant. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Strike 5,553 Posted May 5, 2006 EVERY other poll is obviously false, and you'll have to prove "consistently," even. I show 53% support for earned citizenship, which certainly most conservatives consider amnesty. Talk to the former councilpeople Herndon about your B.S. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
torridjoe 48 Posted May 5, 2006 Torrid, I missed it. What's your stance on illegal immigrants? I favor a fair bit of the President's proposal. I like the idea of earned citizenship for 5-year "vets." I totally disagree with the idea of guest workers. I am against a wall as it would be pointless and largely ineffective. Obviously deporting en masse or making felons out of immigrants and the people who help them is preposterous to me. To the extent that the overarching problem needs to be solved, living wages and unionization are strong paths towards reducing the impact of undocumented workers. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Snuff 10 Posted May 5, 2006 Torrid, I missed it. What's your stance on illegal immigrants? Waiting.... Just curious. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
What is the deal? 1 Posted May 5, 2006 ask Bush that question. Harry Reid tied up the Senate bill that would have been the start of the enforcement of the border. You can't blame bush for the Senate and House not being able to come up/agree with/on something. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
torridjoe 48 Posted May 5, 2006 what's the point of a guest worker program or anything like that without enforcing the border? who said anything about a guest worker program? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Snuff 10 Posted May 5, 2006 I favor a fair bit of the President's proposal. I like the idea of earned citizenship for 5-year "vets." I totally disagree with the idea of guest workers. I am against a wall as it would be pointless and largely ineffective. Obviously deporting en masse or making felons out of immigrants and the people who help them is preposterous to me. To the extent that the overarching problem needs to be solved, living wages and unionization are strong paths towards reducing the impact of undocumented workers. Thanks. Wow, something you and I can kind of agree on. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
torridjoe 48 Posted May 5, 2006 Talk to the former councilpeople Herndon about your B.S. I have no idea what you are talking about, but given the crap you spout, that's not surprising. You made a false statement; I was correcting you. Harry Reid tied up the Senate bill that would have been the start of the enforcement of the border. You can't blame bush for the Senate and House not being able to come up/agree with/on something. You are so reliable. Do you work for Fox? Harry Reid could have been Tim Reid, and it wasn't going to change the fact that the Senate and House weren't going to pass anything nearly similar--and there were strong disagreements between Republicans that were the difference. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
What is the deal? 1 Posted May 5, 2006 who said anything about a guest worker program? or earned citizenship, whatever.... pretty much the same thing. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Snuff 10 Posted May 5, 2006 or earned citizenship, whatever.... pretty much the same thing. Whats wrong with earned citizenship? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
torridjoe 48 Posted May 5, 2006 or earned citizenship, whatever.... pretty much the same thing. You might as well just back out of the conversation now, quietly so as not to bring any more scorn upon you. Guest workers NEVER earn citizenship. Hence the term "guest." Earned citizenship means you pay a fine, learn English and pass a civics test. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
What is the deal? 1 Posted May 5, 2006 I have no idea what you are talking about, but given the crap you spout, that's not surprising. You made a false statement; I was correcting you.You are so reliable. Do you work for Fox? Harry Reid could have been Tim Reid, and it wasn't going to change the fact that the Senate and House weren't going to pass anything nearly similar--and there were strong disagreements between Republicans that were the difference. What Republicans were in disagreement? I am sure the Republicans that wanted Felony convictions would compromise to just get a bill out there that penalized illegal aliens. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Strike 5,553 Posted May 5, 2006 I have no idea what you are talking about, but given the crap you spout, that's not surprising. You made a false statement; I was correcting you. No, you didn't. But I'm not debating this with you. I've proven you wrong before and all you ever do is deny the proof so what's the point? Like the other day when I clearly showed the economic impact of illegals that you then said "uh duh no that's not right". You can spout all the B.S. you want but most people see through it. That's why, in just about every thread you get involved in, 95% of the people oppose your B.S. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
What is the deal? 1 Posted May 5, 2006 No, you didn't. But I'm not debating this with you. I've proven you wrong before and all you ever do is deny the proof so what's the point? Like the other day when I clearly showed the economic impact of illegals that you then said "uh duh no that's not right". You can spout all the B.S. you want but most people see through it. That's why, in just about every thread you get involved in, 95% of the people oppose your B.S. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
torridjoe 48 Posted May 5, 2006 What Republicans were in disagreement? The ones in the House with the ones in the Senate. The House was never going to accept guest workers and eventual amnesty; the Senate wasn't going to buy immigrants as felons. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
What is the deal? 1 Posted May 5, 2006 The ones in the House with the ones in the Senate. The House was never going to accept guest workers and eventual amnesty; the Senate wasn't going to buy immigrants as felons. so that justifies Harry Reid killing the Senate bill in your eyes. That makes no sense. They would have agreed on getting tough on the borders... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
torridjoe 48 Posted May 5, 2006 No, you didn't. But I'm not debating this with you. I've proven you wrong before and all you ever do is deny the proof so what's the point? Like the other day when I clearly showed the economic impact of illegals that you then said "uh duh no that's not right". You can spout all the B.S. you want but most people see through it. That's why, in just about every thread you get involved in, 95% of the people oppose your B.S. Who's denying the proof? You said ALL OTHER polls indicate no support for amnesty. I just showed you a reliable, right-leaning poll that shows a MAJORITY support amnesty in some fashion. Fock you. You didn't show crap on the economic impact of illegals. You showed exactly what I predicted you would show: no clear data. All you could come up with was anti-immigrant sources and an 11-year old Urban Institute study that did not fully address the point you thought you were making. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
D_House 0 Posted May 5, 2006 pfft. i believe this poll as much as i believe the one about people not liking Bush. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
torridjoe 48 Posted May 5, 2006 so that justifies Harry Reid killing the Senate bill in your eyes. That makes no sense. They would have agreed on getting tough on the borders... Harry Reid killed the bill because he knew he was getting lied to again. He forced Frist to promise that he would keep his word on the Senate compromise, and get his caucus in line. Frist weaseled out, because he knew the plan was to appoint dolts to the conference committee and let House negotiators weaken the bill while Democrats had no access to the process--like they've done dozens of times before. The Democrats held up their end, every single Democrat voted for Frist's offered compromise bill. It was his own caucus that didn't hold up the bargain. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
What is the deal? 1 Posted May 5, 2006 Harry Reid killed the bill because he knew he was getting lied to again. He forced Frist to promise that he would keep his word on the Senate compromise, and get his caucus in line. Frist weaseled out, because he knew the plan was to appoint dolts to the conference committee and let House negotiators weaken the bill while Democrats had no access to the process--like they've done dozens of times before. The Democrats held up their end, every single Democrat voted for Frist's offered compromise bill. It was his own caucus that didn't hold up the bargain. Immigration reform has become a political tightrope upon which Congress must continue to wrestle after returning from a two-week Easter recess. Through uncertain footing, a compromise immigration bill was brokered by Senators Chuck Hagel (R–NE) and Mel Martinez (R–FL), which was derailed by Democrats led by Minority leader Harry Reid (D–NV), who refused to vote on this compromise bill, simply because it offered little relief to too few prospective immigrants in need of legal reform. http://www.ilw.com/articles/2006,0508-garde.shtm Debate collapsed two weeks ago, after Reid and his fellow Democrats used the Senate's parliamentary rules to insist that only three amendments be considered for the immigration bill. At the time, the Democrats said they were trying to prevent GOP delaying tactics, which included dozens of amendments proposed by opponents like Sessions. Republicans responded that Reid simply wanted to let the issue linger for a few more weeks. On Tuesday, though, Reid said Democrats were willing to let each party propose 10 amendments. That could add up to 40 separate votes, because of how amendments can in turn be amended. "I am willing to have that many votes if that is what it takes to move this legislation forward," Reid said. "But this bill will take many days to finish." http://www.knoxstudio.com/shns/story.cfm?p...05-02-06&cat=WW Sounds like ol' Harry is changing is tune though. Maybe they will finally get something done. A bipartisan consensus on the Senate measure crumbled last month after Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada rejected Republican attempts to offer amendments, believing the changes could weaken the bill. http://www.lowellsun.com/front/ci_3789569 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
torridjoe 48 Posted May 5, 2006 http://www.ilw.com/articles/2006,0508-garde.shtmhttp://www.knoxstudio.com/shns/story.cfm?p...05-02-06&cat=WW Sounds like ol' Harry is changing is tune though. Maybe they will finally get something done. http://www.lowellsun.com/front/ci_3789569 why are you still here? You don't even know the difference between amnesty and guest worker. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
What is the deal? 1 Posted May 5, 2006 why are you still here? You don't even know the difference between amnesty and guest worker. I know the difference. Why you trying to change the subject after I just posted link after link that refers to Harry Reid jacking up the bill. IN addition, I watched C-Span on April 6th and saw him hold up the bill. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
torridjoe 48 Posted May 5, 2006 I know the difference. Why you trying to change the subject after I just posted link after link that refers to Harry Reid jacking up the bill. IN addition, I watched C-Span on April 6th and saw him hold up the bill. You don't know the difference, or you wouldn't have claimed they were the same thing. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
What is the deal? 1 Posted May 5, 2006 You don't know the difference, or you wouldn't have claimed they were the same thing. I didn't claim they were the same thing. My quote was "pretty much" the same thing. Both give in to illegal immigrants who have violated our laws. I am all for a guest worker program for people who apply for it from their own country. It's absolutely ridiculous for people to be able to break our laws with no punishment. I don't think the people who are here now would even adhere to the requirements of a guest worker program and we would basically be giving them amnesty cause they are just going to stay anyways... I guess you didn't want to talk about Harry Reid anymore after I provided all that evidence? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
torridjoe 48 Posted May 5, 2006 I didn't claim they were the same thing. My quote was "pretty much" the same thing. Both give in to illegal immigrants who have violated our laws. I am all for a guest worker program for people who apply for it from their own country. It's absolutely ridiculous for people to be able to break our laws with no punishment. I don't think the people who are here now would even adhere to the requirements of a guest worker program and we would basically be giving them amnesty cause they are just going to stay anyways... I guess you didn't want to talk about Harry Reid anymore after I provided all that evidence? They're not pretty much the same thing; they are mutually exclusive. Earned citizenship leads to being a citizen, after which you cannot be a guest worker. Guest workers cannot become citizens. Talking about Harry Reid is pointless with you, because all you do is regurgitate places like the Moonie Times and World Net Daily. Nothing you've posted refutes the plain fact that the House bill was NEVER going to be passed by the Senate, and vice versa--and that's all because of Republicans. 38 Senators voted for the Senate compromise. All of them were Democrats. Where was the GOP? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rusty Syringes 478 Posted May 5, 2006 They're not pretty much the same thing; they are mutually exclusive. Earned citizenship leads to being a citizen, after which you cannot be a guest worker. Guest workers cannot become citizens. Talking about Harry Reid is pointless with you, because all you do is regurgitate places like the Moonie Times and World Net Daily. Nothing you've posted refutes the plain fact that the House bill was NEVER going to be passed by the Senate, and vice versa--and that's all because of Republicans. 38 Senators voted for the Senate compromise. All of them were Democrats. Where was the GOP? Are you really this obtuse? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
What is the deal? 1 Posted May 5, 2006 They're not pretty much the same thing; they are mutually exclusive. Earned citizenship leads to being a citizen, after which you cannot be a guest worker. Guest workers cannot become citizens. Regardless, if either is granted to illegal immigrants they still write them a get out of jail free card and allow them to cut in line in front of all the people that have been waiting legally. So they are pretty much the same thing to me in the current context. Although, granting guest worker programs to people that go through the correct process without breaking US laws is worth it. I have violated some laws, and had to pay my dues. Illegal aliens should not have more rights than me!! Talking about Harry Reid is pointless with you, because all you do is regurgitate places like the Moonie Times and World Net Daily. Nothing you've posted refutes the plain fact that the House bill was NEVER going to be passed by the Senate, and vice versa--and that's all because of Republicans. 38 Senators voted for the Senate compromise. All of them were Democrats. Where was the GOP? Every place I look says Harry Reid is at fault for holding up the bill. I watched him cry on the Senate floor with my own eyes. You just keep reciting your nonsense without providing any evidence except for the almighty TJ's opinion. Had the Senate passed a border security bill (or when they do), the House Will Endorse it.. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
torridjoe 48 Posted May 5, 2006 Are you really this obtuse? is that rhetorical, or do you have some kind of point to make? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rusty Syringes 478 Posted May 5, 2006 is that rhetorical, or do you have some kind of point to make? I think you know what I'm talking about. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rude Rick 0 Posted May 5, 2006 I think you know what I'm talking about. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites