Gr00vus
Footballguy
Tea?
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Obama can end all deportation of illegal immigrants by himself (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter timschochet
- Start date
drummer
Footballguy
tim's father's experience trumps all those who have immigrant family members as far as their experience.I think he's saying your dad's experience isn't completely relevant to today's immigrants.I've been to Chinatown (perhaps not the "real" Chinatown. ) I believe you, but I'm still not sure what your point is. Hope you feel better, though.In Oakland CA not too long ago, they seriously thought the notion of using Ebonics in classrooms because it was the language spoken at home. Your general anecdotal summation really doesn't have any meat here, just the usual tim anecdotal summation. I grew up in a Bilingual family, and I only speak one language fluently. But that didn't start in the classroom, it started at home.I know what I write makes people laugh now and then, but what was especially humorous about the above?
If you're ever in San Francisco, do me a favor and take the 30 Stockton Muni line. There you'll find the real Chinatown, where English is a total second language spoken by many generations, with most of the older generations not having much English speaking skills at all.
ETA: many edits due to the flu screwing with my English.
timschochet
Footballguy
Thats not what I wrote or implied. I'm just not a big believer in bilingual education and I used that as an example. I wasn't trying to make a big argument one way or another.tim's father's experience trumps all those who have immigrant family members as far as their experience.I think he's saying your dad's experience isn't completely relevant to today's immigrants.I've been to Chinatown (perhaps not the "real" Chinatown. ) I believe you, but I'm still not sure what your point is. Hope you feel better, though.In Oakland CA not too long ago, they seriously thought the notion of using Ebonics in classrooms because it was the language spoken at home. Your general anecdotal summation really doesn't have any meat here, just the usual tim anecdotal summation. I grew up in a Bilingual family, and I only speak one language fluently. But that didn't start in the classroom, it started at home.
If you're ever in San Francisco, do me a favor and take the 30 Stockton Muni line. There you'll find the real Chinatown, where English is a total second language spoken by many generations, with most of the older generations not having much English speaking skills at all.
ETA: many edits due to the flu screwing with my English.
drummer
Footballguy
Well, the Oakland thingy kinda throws a wrench in the that Bilingual education.Thats not what I wrote or implied. I'm just not a big believer in bilingual education and I used that as an example. I wasn't trying to make a big argument one way or another.tim's father's experience trumps all those who have immigrant family members as far as their experience.I think he's saying your dad's experience isn't completely relevant to today's immigrants.I've been to Chinatown (perhaps not the "real" Chinatown. ) I believe you, but I'm still not sure what your point is. Hope you feel better, though.In Oakland CA not too long ago, they seriously thought the notion of using Ebonics in classrooms because it was the language spoken at home. Your general anecdotal summation really doesn't have any meat here, just the usual tim anecdotal summation. I grew up in a Bilingual family, and I only speak one language fluently. But that didn't start in the classroom, it started at home.
If you're ever in San Francisco, do me a favor and take the 30 Stockton Muni line. There you'll find the real Chinatown, where English is a total second language spoken by many generations, with most of the older generations not having much English speaking skills at all.
ETA: many edits due to the flu screwing with my English.
timschochet
Footballguy
I'm trying to get a description of the plans that have been presented, but so far they're woefully short of specifics. Both plans offer a "path" to citizenship for illegal immigrants currently living in the United States. What the path is remains unstated at this point. However:1. Rubio says the path to citizenship will only happen if there is evidence that the borders are secured AND if Obamacare is changed to exclude anyone with a green card or the equivalent. The first point is rather ambiguous: at what point is anyone satisfied that the borders are "secured"? The second point makes sense to me, but I doubt it will fly with Democrats.2. Obama wants employers to use "e-verify" or a similar program, and once the current crop of illegals have a path to citzenship, future illegal hires would be penalized. I have a real problem with this. It seems to me that the price of everything good that Obama wants to do is more regulation, more collectivization of industry. I also regard this as impractical. However, it may just be rhetoric.As more specifics come in, I'll try to list them in this thread. It really does sound like there will be something taking place this year. Whether it has any real effect remains to be seen.
I like the idea of immigration reform, and I always felt that some sort of database should be in use so that these folks can help share the tax burden with the rest of us. As for those illegally, instead of outright deporting them, I say we garnish their wages for a time until they have paid a fine. However, if they commit a crime, they're deported and their road to citizenship (whatever that would be) starts back at square one.
NCCommish
Footballguy
Actually Rubio's plan also relies on E-Verify. The border security thing is going to be an issue if they make the board too powerful. Lots of folks on it more worried about making the President look bad then getting anything done. And since Obamacare applies to everyone but doesn't consist of giving any new free heatlhcare to anyone that is just a stupid thing to throw in so teabaggers have less to whine about.
timschochet
Footballguy
Yeah, I just really dislike E-Verify. I'm very uncomfortable with a government agency investigating who is a citizen and who is not, and who should be hired and who shouldn't. This is the sort of issue that made me a libertarian once, long ago. If libertarians still focused on issues like these, instead of Mayor Bloomberg's foolish regulations or gun control, I might still be a libertarian.
NCCommish
Footballguy
Well Tim you got do it somehow. I assume you have a social security number. I assume you know that means everything you use that number with is tracked by the feds. E-Verify just allows people to use the data being collected anyway. Kind of innocuous in the grand scheme.
timschochet
Footballguy
I'm not a fan of being told who I can hire or fire. I shouldn't admit this, but I do a lot of small property management work by paying cash. I'll call a guy I know, he'll go to Home Depot and grab a few guys, and the work will get done in a few hours. All cash, no receipts. I really don't want the government getting involved.
shader
Footballguy
Well there are a lot of business owners that do things legally. They'd like to not be penalized by competing against companies that hire illegals.
Uruk-Hai
Footballguy
I'd like to go a little more micro with this. I work for a mid-sized, multi-state construction company ($10-12 million a year with 50 employees). We vet our employees to the required level. Many of our employees are Hispanic. And I'd guess that one or two may have some docs that aren't theirs. We do a ton of government work where e-verification is required and, it just so happens, none of those one or two have had their names pulled out of a hat (entirely at random, I assure you) to e-verify.So, a couple of real-world comments/questions:1. We can't pay cash. What are those employees who are using fake SSNs to expect? I have to think they'd be petrified to come clean to switch to their own when getting legal.2. Those who say "deport 'em all" are either lying (business owners) or idiots. The construction industry would come to a screeching halt if INS could magically deport all illegals. You think 2008 til now was bad economically? Try not having ANY labor (and in our case, equipment operators). And I don't wanna hear "they work for so much less and there are 22 million legal Americans out of work". Every government job, which is 80% of big construction jobs these last 5 years, is union scale. This is another boat the GOP has missed on the issue.
Sinrman
Footballguy
Ok, so here's my problem. While I can't say I blame you for doing this, and I certainly can't blame someone wanting to cross the border and seek a better life for themselves, we are a nation of LAWS. Our law says that you cannot cross our borders without proper documentation, correct? Does our law say that you cannot hire someone who is without proper documentation? If those coming here illegally and those who hire them thumb their noses at the laws, what's the point of ever having laws? Why not just throw the doors open and let anyone come over, and you can hire anyone you want?
We certainly have a lot of laws. I have some bad news if you think they are all enforced equally though. There's a lot of monied interests in this country that have ensured our immigration laws are not well enforced.
timschochet
Footballguy
Regarding your first point- that is why I believe illegals should pay some sort of fine before being put on a path to citizenship. They did break the law, so they need to be punished. They should not be deported or jailed, however. Regarding your second point- yes, what I am doing is illegal. So is jaywalking, and I see this as about the same. If you catch me, write me a ticket. But don't spend a lot of time investigating me,
Regarding your last point- I am in favor of allowing open immigration (no felons, terrorists, or sick people) as we did before 1920. I would like to be able to hire anyone I want.
timschochet
Footballguy
It's a minor point. I don't agree with him on this specific issue, but you can tell his heart's in the right place.
In 1920 what were the laws regarding assault weapons and high capacity magazines?
timschochet
Footballguy
The technology was a little different, but they were legal. I think they should still be legal ( I've changed my mind on the magazines). What's your point?
Times change.
timschochet
Footballguy
Principles don't. The whole point of the USA, what separates us from the rest of the world, is that we are a nation of immigrants. There's a reason the Statue of Liberty says what it does.
We allow more legal immigration than any other country in the world. Sorry but it's idiotic to think we should just open up our borders to anyone. For a LOT of reasons. And many of those reasons have to do with changing times.
Last edited by a moderator:
jamny
Footballguy
Much like when a new bill implements new taxes immediately and the cuts never come, they need to make sure that any improved border security, eVerify system and the like are implemented at least at the same time as the path to citizenship agreements.
Last edited by a moderator:
JHuber77
Footballguy
http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_22372085/colorado-democrats-back-state-tuition-break-illegal-immigrants
Tuition break for illegals? Colorado is getting ridiculous
Tuition break for illegals? Colorado is getting ridiculous
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
Ridiculously awesome.
jamny
Footballguy
Have their been studies on what percentage of illegal immigrants come here to find a better life compared to those that come here to just take advantage of the system? I would like to believe that a vast majority come here for a better life and work hard and contribute to our society and give their kids a better future. I think a very small percentage do it for criminal reasons. How many come here just for the benefits?
timschochet
Footballguy
Things are starting to move forward at a rapid pace, but I have a fear that the Republicans are going to blow it. A compromise agreement has been reached between most of the Dems, and a group of Republican Senators led by Marco Rubio. But the backlash is already fierce: Rush Limbaugh, Ted Cruz, the Heritage Foundation, and the Tea Partiers in general are only focusing on one aspect of the agreement: a path to citizenship for illegals, which they refer to as amnesty. (Would that it were!)
The proposed bill, which is about to come out, will likely pass the Senate. But the big question is whether or not it will pass the House. That's going to be very close, as most of the Tea Partyish House Republicans are likely to rebel.
Using the analogy of the 1964 CIvil Rights Act- if this latest attempt at immigration reform either fails or barely passes with strong opposition from conservatives, that will cement the Hispanic vote for Democrats for decades to come, locking up the Presidency in future elections for all practical purposes. The only hope for the GOP is true bipartisan support for this bill. We'll see if it happens.
The proposed bill, which is about to come out, will likely pass the Senate. But the big question is whether or not it will pass the House. That's going to be very close, as most of the Tea Partyish House Republicans are likely to rebel.
Using the analogy of the 1964 CIvil Rights Act- if this latest attempt at immigration reform either fails or barely passes with strong opposition from conservatives, that will cement the Hispanic vote for Democrats for decades to come, locking up the Presidency in future elections for all practical purposes. The only hope for the GOP is true bipartisan support for this bill. We'll see if it happens.
timschochet
Footballguy
http://washingtonexaminer.com/rubio-hit-hard-after-inviting-comments-on-immigration-bill/article/2528284
Immigration continues to tear the GOP apart. The grass roots (read: Tea Party) are now calling Rubio a "RINO" and a "traitor", and those are the kind words. I think his Presidential ambitions are done.
Conservative voters will simply not accept any bill that gives a path to citizenship to illegal immigrants. And they are as determined on this issue as they are on defeating gun control measures, if not more so. The difference is that this one is going to be a death knell for the GOP, but they can't seem to help themselves.
Immigration continues to tear the GOP apart. The grass roots (read: Tea Party) are now calling Rubio a "RINO" and a "traitor", and those are the kind words. I think his Presidential ambitions are done.
Conservative voters will simply not accept any bill that gives a path to citizenship to illegal immigrants. And they are as determined on this issue as they are on defeating gun control measures, if not more so. The difference is that this one is going to be a death knell for the GOP, but they can't seem to help themselves.
timschochet
Footballguy
http://www.newsmax.com/US/gay-rights-immigration-bill/2013/04/30/id/502147
A push to include same-sex couples in the pending immigration bill could hurt its chances for passage, Sen. Marco Rubio says.
Politico reports that Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., has promised to offer an amendment to allow gay American citizens to sponsor their partners for green cards. The bill is expected to pass because it is being offered in committee and not on the Senate floor where it likely wouldn’t find the 60 votes needed for passage.
But Republicans warn that the amendment will likely end up killing the bill.
“It will virtually guarantee that it won’t pass,” Rubio, R-Fla., told Politico. “I respect everyone’s views on it. But ultimately, if that issue is injected into this bill, the bill will fail and the coalition that helped put it together will fall apart.”
The bill has broad support, including evangelical Christians, Catholic Bishops and labor unions.
Democrats believe Republicans won’t abandon the bill, pointing to similar threats when same-sex couples were included in the Violence Against Women Act that didn’t pan out.
“It’s not going to kill the bill,” Leahy told Politico.
A push to include same-sex couples in the pending immigration bill could hurt its chances for passage, Sen. Marco Rubio says.
Politico reports that Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., has promised to offer an amendment to allow gay American citizens to sponsor their partners for green cards. The bill is expected to pass because it is being offered in committee and not on the Senate floor where it likely wouldn’t find the 60 votes needed for passage.
But Republicans warn that the amendment will likely end up killing the bill.
“It will virtually guarantee that it won’t pass,” Rubio, R-Fla., told Politico. “I respect everyone’s views on it. But ultimately, if that issue is injected into this bill, the bill will fail and the coalition that helped put it together will fall apart.”
The bill has broad support, including evangelical Christians, Catholic Bishops and labor unions.
Democrats believe Republicans won’t abandon the bill, pointing to similar threats when same-sex couples were included in the Violence Against Women Act that didn’t pan out.
“It’s not going to kill the bill,” Leahy told Politico.
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet
Footballguy
Republicans couldn't be stupid enough to kill this bill over the issue of same-sex couples could they? Well, maybe they are...
Clifford
Footballguy
Can they still count on your vote, despite you being diametrically opposed to every single tenet of their platform?
Bogeys
Footballguy
Regarding the bolded I disagree. I know for myself it is more secure the border first (I know it will never be perfect but it is a joke now and everyone knows it) and heavily punish employers that hire illegals...then I will be all for a path to citizenship because it is the only practical thing to do. I would also be in favor of a lot more legal immigration and a guest worker program that is robust.
I just don't trust your side when you say that the border security will follow and the history backs me up on this. It is like the politicians that say just give us more taxes now and we promise we will cut spending sometime in the future.
Clifford
Footballguy
Neither side will ever build a fence or engage in any real policing of the border. It has been made into a racial issue that neither party will touch because of the sheer number advantage latinos enjoy. No one will ever secure the border unless its a completely grassroots thing done by state law enforcement.
glumpy
breeze
I would think so too. Why the hell would they try to tie the two together when either issue is too volatile to call even on its own? Going for broke?
timschochet
Footballguy
My vote doesn't matter, but to answer your question, free trade is my primary issue, followed by immigration, followed by slashing corporate tax rates and reducing burdensome red tape on industry. Whoever supports the majority of these issues gets my vote; right now that happens to be the Republicans, but it's close.Clifford said:
timschochet
Footballguy
Well, you shouldn't trust MY SIDE on this, because I am frankly against it. I would only be for border security if we allowed open immigration as we did before 1920. But I'm hardly representative.Bogeys said:
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet
Footballguy
It's an important issue. I will keep bumping it.Joe T said:
timschochet
Footballguy
Neither issue should be volatile. The Republicans will kill this at their own peril.glumpy said:
timschochet
Footballguy
It hasn't been "made into a racial issue"; it always was a racial issue. Otherwise there would be just as big a push to close the Canadian border.Clifford said:
Sure, because poor Canadians are streaming across the border illegally by the millions.
HellToupee
Footballguy
at first you don't succeed....Joe T said:
timschochet
Footballguy
If they were, it wouldnt be nearly as big an issue. And anyhow, the main rationale given these days for the fence is security in the age of terrorism. Yet somehow it's still our southern border that needs securing.
Good. So you admit you're just guessing. AND OUR SOUTHERN BORDER IS THE ONE WHERE PEOPLE ARE CROSSING ILLEGALLY. THAT IS WHY IT'S THE ONE THAT NEEDS SECURING.
timschochet
Footballguy
http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2013/06/03/130603taco_talk_finnegan
Debate on the immigration reform bill should begin in the Senate this week.
The bill's been watered down due to a whole lot of compromise, but the essentials are still there, including a path to citizenship for illegals: it's long and tough, but it's a path and it grants them legal recognition.
The bill is likely to pass the Senate, but the real battle will be in the House. Almost every Tea Party member is strongly opposed, as is the base of the Republican party. Part of their opposition, of course, is that they don't want to compromise with Obama on anything (especially in the wake of the scandals.) But they are also philosophically opposed just as they were in 2006, and, as the article notes, contemptuous of the argument by Republican leadership about Latinos becoming alienated from the GOP. They don't care.
The struggle is just beginning...
Debate on the immigration reform bill should begin in the Senate this week.
The bill's been watered down due to a whole lot of compromise, but the essentials are still there, including a path to citizenship for illegals: it's long and tough, but it's a path and it grants them legal recognition.
The bill is likely to pass the Senate, but the real battle will be in the House. Almost every Tea Party member is strongly opposed, as is the base of the Republican party. Part of their opposition, of course, is that they don't want to compromise with Obama on anything (especially in the wake of the scandals.) But they are also philosophically opposed just as they were in 2006, and, as the article notes, contemptuous of the argument by Republican leadership about Latinos becoming alienated from the GOP. They don't care.
The struggle is just beginning...
timschochet
Footballguy
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/06/12/senate-immigration-bill-clears-first-hurdles-still-faces-tough-republican/
he Senate passed preliminary but key votes Tuesday in its march to approval of sweeping, bipartisan immigration reform, but final passage remained uncertain as Republicans pushed for tighter border-security provisions and tougher rules for those seeking legal status.
The two procedural votes effectively put the bill formally before the Senate and open for amendments. Both drew more than 80 votes, reflecting a bipartisan desire to have the debate that now is expected to last three weeks.
However, Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky was among the Republicans who pointed out that the 60-vote majority his party is demanding for final passage is hardly assured.
"This bill has serious flaws," he said.
Florida Republican Sen. Marco Rubio, a member of the so-called bipartisan "Gang of Eight" that crafted the legislation, said changes to tighten control of the U.S.-Mexican border would result in about half of the Senate's 46 Republicans likely voting in favor of creating the pathway to citizenship, which is backed by most or all of the 55 chamber lawmakers aligned with the Democratic majority.
Texas Republican Sen. Ted Cruz said he “very much (wants) commonsense immigration reform to pass,” but voiced major concerns about border security upon voting against a preliminary motion to proceed.
“If this bill did become law, it would not solve the problem,” he said on the Senate floor. “Indeed, it would make the problem of illegal immigration that we have today worse rather than better.”
Earlier in the day, President Obama insisted the "moment is now" to give 11 million immigrants in the United States illegally a chance at citizenship.
At the White House, Obama said repeatedly the current immigration system is broken, for the foreign-born who live in the United State both legally and illegally.
Referring to the 11 million currently in the country unlawfully, he said, "Yes, they broke the rules; they didn't wait their turn. They shouldn't be let off easy. They shouldn't be allowed to game the system. But at the same time, the vast majority of these individuals aren't looking for any trouble. They're just looking to provide for their families, contribute to their communities. `'
The bill sets out a 13-year journey to citizenship for the millions of immigrants who arrived in the United States illegally through the end of 2011 or who overstayed their visas. That journey would include paying fines and back taxes and other measures. The bill also requires a tighter border to prevent future illegal immigration.
Other key provisions would create a new program for low-skilled workers to enter the country and expand the number of visas for highly-skilled workers, who are particularly in demand in technology firms. The bill also jettisons a decades-old system that favors family ties over education, job skills and other factors in prioritizing prospective legal immigrants.
Numerous Republicans hope to use the issue to repair their party's image among Hispanic voters -- a growing part of the electorate in key states and a group that polls show gave Obama 71 percent of its votes last year. But the GOP is divided, with Tea Party-backed lawmakers and other conservatives resisting anything that smacks of amnesty or otherwise seems to permit legalization without assuring the long border with Mexico, in particular, is virtually closed to future unlawful immigration.
Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., delivered his speech in Spanish.
He said it was appropriate to do so since the language "has been spoken in this country since Spanish missionaries founded St. Augustine, Florida in 1565. Spanish is also spoken by almost 40 million Americans who have a lot at stake in the outcome of this debate," he said in an English translation provided by his office.
An early skirmish took shape over a proposal by Texas Sen. John Cornyn to allow the legalization process to begin but require several changes before anyone now in the country illegally could receive a green card that confers permanent legal residence.
Those changes include apprehension of at least 90 percent of those seeking to cross into the United States at every segment of the southern border, implementation of a biometric exit system at all air and sea ports of entry and a nationwide E-Verify system to check the legal status of prospective employees.
Democratic supporters of the legislation have deemed Cornyn's plan a "poison pill," designed to wreck the bill's chances for passage instead of enhance them. But the Texan told reporters he had some leverage to force changes, if nothing else.
"I think if they had 60 votes to pass a bill out of the Senate they probably wouldn't be talking to me," Cornyn said of majority Democrats.
Meanwhile, House Speaker John Boehner said Tuesday he thinks there's a good chance the legislation can be signed into law "by the end of the year."
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/06/12/senate-immigration-bill-clears-first-hurdles-still-faces-tough-republican/#ixzz2W18lU2Jf
he Senate passed preliminary but key votes Tuesday in its march to approval of sweeping, bipartisan immigration reform, but final passage remained uncertain as Republicans pushed for tighter border-security provisions and tougher rules for those seeking legal status.
The two procedural votes effectively put the bill formally before the Senate and open for amendments. Both drew more than 80 votes, reflecting a bipartisan desire to have the debate that now is expected to last three weeks.
However, Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky was among the Republicans who pointed out that the 60-vote majority his party is demanding for final passage is hardly assured.
"This bill has serious flaws," he said.
Florida Republican Sen. Marco Rubio, a member of the so-called bipartisan "Gang of Eight" that crafted the legislation, said changes to tighten control of the U.S.-Mexican border would result in about half of the Senate's 46 Republicans likely voting in favor of creating the pathway to citizenship, which is backed by most or all of the 55 chamber lawmakers aligned with the Democratic majority.
Texas Republican Sen. Ted Cruz said he “very much (wants) commonsense immigration reform to pass,” but voiced major concerns about border security upon voting against a preliminary motion to proceed.
“If this bill did become law, it would not solve the problem,” he said on the Senate floor. “Indeed, it would make the problem of illegal immigration that we have today worse rather than better.”
Earlier in the day, President Obama insisted the "moment is now" to give 11 million immigrants in the United States illegally a chance at citizenship.
At the White House, Obama said repeatedly the current immigration system is broken, for the foreign-born who live in the United State both legally and illegally.
Referring to the 11 million currently in the country unlawfully, he said, "Yes, they broke the rules; they didn't wait their turn. They shouldn't be let off easy. They shouldn't be allowed to game the system. But at the same time, the vast majority of these individuals aren't looking for any trouble. They're just looking to provide for their families, contribute to their communities. `'
The bill sets out a 13-year journey to citizenship for the millions of immigrants who arrived in the United States illegally through the end of 2011 or who overstayed their visas. That journey would include paying fines and back taxes and other measures. The bill also requires a tighter border to prevent future illegal immigration.
Other key provisions would create a new program for low-skilled workers to enter the country and expand the number of visas for highly-skilled workers, who are particularly in demand in technology firms. The bill also jettisons a decades-old system that favors family ties over education, job skills and other factors in prioritizing prospective legal immigrants.
Numerous Republicans hope to use the issue to repair their party's image among Hispanic voters -- a growing part of the electorate in key states and a group that polls show gave Obama 71 percent of its votes last year. But the GOP is divided, with Tea Party-backed lawmakers and other conservatives resisting anything that smacks of amnesty or otherwise seems to permit legalization without assuring the long border with Mexico, in particular, is virtually closed to future unlawful immigration.
Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., delivered his speech in Spanish.
He said it was appropriate to do so since the language "has been spoken in this country since Spanish missionaries founded St. Augustine, Florida in 1565. Spanish is also spoken by almost 40 million Americans who have a lot at stake in the outcome of this debate," he said in an English translation provided by his office.
An early skirmish took shape over a proposal by Texas Sen. John Cornyn to allow the legalization process to begin but require several changes before anyone now in the country illegally could receive a green card that confers permanent legal residence.
Those changes include apprehension of at least 90 percent of those seeking to cross into the United States at every segment of the southern border, implementation of a biometric exit system at all air and sea ports of entry and a nationwide E-Verify system to check the legal status of prospective employees.
Democratic supporters of the legislation have deemed Cornyn's plan a "poison pill," designed to wreck the bill's chances for passage instead of enhance them. But the Texan told reporters he had some leverage to force changes, if nothing else.
"I think if they had 60 votes to pass a bill out of the Senate they probably wouldn't be talking to me," Cornyn said of majority Democrats.
Meanwhile, House Speaker John Boehner said Tuesday he thinks there's a good chance the legislation can be signed into law "by the end of the year."
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/06/12/senate-immigration-bill-clears-first-hurdles-still-faces-tough-republican/#ixzz2W18lU2Jf
timschochet
Footballguy
I have to laugh at Ted Cruz's idea of "commonsense immigration reform". He stated that he could get behind Obama's bill, if it only didn't have that "path to citizenship" part! (In other words, his idea of immigration reform is more border security.)
But anyhow, a good sign that it passed the first test. Now we'll see. I expect it to pass through the Senate- barely. The House is a different matter.
But anyhow, a good sign that it passed the first test. Now we'll see. I expect it to pass through the Senate- barely. The House is a different matter.
NCCommish
Footballguy
The whole border security thing is bull#### anyway. We spent 18 billion on border security last year. That is more than we spent on every other federal law enforcement entity combined. Border crossings are at a 40 year low. Yeah it hasn't been this few since the 70's. And lastly every single mile of the border is patrolled every single day by the 21,370 agents we have. it would be hard to get it much more secure than it is.
NCCommish
Footballguy
He got crucified in Spanish media for trying to insert an English only provision. Hope he didn't really want to be president.
