Post by: Desertdog on October 23, 2007, 02:54:03 PM
Reid reviving 'amnesty' for illegals
'DREAM' grant of legality to millions on fast track for vote tomorrow
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58290
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., is reviving and fast-tracking plans to grant amnesty to millions of illegal aliens already within U.S. boundaries, and a vote is expected as early as tomorrow, according to opponents.
Just a few months after intense pressure from U.S. citizens triggered the rejection of President Bush's comprehensive immigration plan, a compromise supported by Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass. the DREAM Act proposal by Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill. is being rushed through the Senate.
Durbin's office refused to return a WND call requesting comment.
"In many ways this bill is worse than Bush-Kennedy because this is blatant deception on the part of the Senate to get a massive amnesty passed," asserted Steve Elliott, president of Grassfire.org.
Some of the provisions of the plan, called DREAM for Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors, include:
Conditional legal status for any illegal alien who claims to have arrived in the U.S. prior to age 16.
Any illegal alien can apply for the program.
Those who gain legal status then can sponsor any family members, allowing additional millions to access the program.
There would be a ban on deportation for anyone who applies.
Illegals would be granted taxpayer-funded in-state tuition rates for college.
Elliott's organization and others, including Numbers USA, have launched telephone, online and fax petitions for voters to contact their senators and let them know their opinions on the plan.
"This is not a drill. This is the real thing," Numbers USA warned in an alert to constituents. "Our Capitol Hill Team just contacted me and reported that Senate Majority Leader Reid has just filed for 'cloture' on S. 2205 (the DREAM ACT amnesty.)"
"Reid is hell-bent on getting this amnesty through the Senate as fast as possible and before we can fully mobilize the country as happened when we defeated his Comprehensive Amnesty bill in June," the group said. "He is using the Rule 14 & to avoid any committee debate, hearings or deliberations. Filing for cloture means that he can bring the amnesty up on Wednesday."
An estimated 12-20 million illegal aliens are already in the U.S., but Numbers USA warned the legislation would "entice millions more people to become illegal aliens here."
Further, the plan includes "no extra enforcement" to provide any stability or security to national borders, the group said.
In a commentary, Eagle Forum founder Phyllis Schlafly said it creates the circumstances where the violation of U.S. immigration law is rewarded.
"The illegal immigrant who applies for the DREAM Act can count his years under conditional green card status toward the five years needed to attain citizenship. That's a fast track to citizenship that is not available to aliens who are lawfully present in the United States," she said. "Giving in-state college tuition to illegal immigrants is so unpopular with many Americans that the only way a congressman could support this bill is by hoping it passes before the public discovers how bad it is. Arizona's Proposition 300, which specifically bars Arizona universities from giving in-state tuition rates to illegal immigrants, passed in 2006 with a majority of 71.4 percent."
As WND reported, Durbin brought up the DREAM Act after Bush's comprehensive plan died in June.
Post by: Manedwolf on October 24, 2007, 04:19:26 AM
Post by: longeyes on October 24, 2007, 07:09:42 AM
Post by: HankB on October 24, 2007, 07:52:24 AM
Post by: Desertdog on October 24, 2007, 11:57:50 AM
By Klaus Marre
October 24, 2007
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/dream-act-fails-to-clear-cloture-hurdle-2007-10-24.html
A bill that would allow some children of illegal immigrants to embark on a path toward legal status stalled in the Senate Wednesday, likely ending the hopes of immigration reformers to pass major legislation on the issue this year.
Supporters of the DREAM Act fell well short of the 60 votes needed to end debate on the legislation. In the end, 52 senators, including Democratic presidential candidates Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.), Barack Obama (Ill.) and Joseph Biden (Del.), voted in favor of the DREAM Act, while 44 senators opposed the measure.
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who has received a lot of criticism from his partys base for his work on comprehensive immigration reform, did not vote. Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), who is also running for president, likewise did not vote.
The DREAM Act would allow some children of illegal immigrants to go to college or join the military. The measure was part of broader immigration legislation that stalled in the Senate earlier this year.
Until we can once again move forward on comprehensive reform, we should at the very least enact the DREAM Act, said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) ahead of the vote.
The DREAM Act recognizes that children should not be penalized for the actions of their parents.
Reid noted that he had met students from his home state whose future would be limitless with the DREAM Act.
Without it, their hope is diminished, Reid said. What a waste it is to make it more difficult for children to go to college or get jobs, when they could be making meaningful contributions to their communities and to our country.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said he opposed the bill because it would reward illegal behavior.
He criticized Democrats for bringing up a divisive issue when much other work remains to be done before the end of the year. McConnell also argued that immigration should not be addressed without also promoting border and interior security.
While some Republicans opposed the DREAM Act because they view it as a step toward amnesty, others voted against cloture because they object to addressing immigration piece by piece.
Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) argued that cherry-picking some immigration provisions would not be useful and would only contribute to a patchwork of national, state and local immigration laws.
I believe that the DREAM Act is a good act and I believe its purposes are beneficial and I think it ought to be enacted, Specter said. But I have grave reservations about seeing a part of comprehensive immigration reform go forward because it weakens our position to get a comprehensive bill.
The White House echoed Specters concerns in a Statement of Administrative Policy.
Immigration is one of the top concerns of the American people and of this administration but it needs to be addressed in a comprehensive and balanced way that avoids creating incentives for problems in the future, the statement said.
Post by: longeyes on October 24, 2007, 02:05:22 PM
The DREAM Act recognizes that children should not be penalized for the actions of their parents.
And children should not be rewarded for the illegal actions of their parents either. Nor should American citizens be penalized.
Post by: CAnnoneer on October 24, 2007, 08:13:43 PM
Post by: LAK on October 25, 2007, 03:08:25 AM
----------------------------
http://searchronpaul.com
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org
Post by: Manedwolf on October 25, 2007, 04:11:57 AM
Or a Libertarian party candidate; in which case they won't need an amnesty. Should anyone wearing a republican suit other than Ron Paul be nominated and elected the border will dissappear with the NAU regardless.
----------------------------
http://searchronpaul.com
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org
----------------------------
http://searchronpaul.com
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org
Please stop hijacking every thread to promote your political messiah. This is something that Paulians do on every forum from guns to vehicles to recipes to YouTube home videos, and it's...
REALLY ANNOYING.
and makes everyone NOT want to vote for him.
kthnx.
Post by: Sindawe on October 25, 2007, 05:25:19 AM
I'm glad that the
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on October 25, 2007, 09:42:21 AM
With EVERY poll showing 70%-85% opposition to amnesty for illegals, the fact that politicians still keep pushing this makes me wonder how much of the money that's flowing to the land of Vincente Fox Philippe Calderon is making its way back under the table to our <expletive> "leaders" . . .
i realize that accuracy is secondary to rhetoric but..
Attitudes Toward Amnesty
Zogby Poll Examines Support Among
Different Constituencies
September 2001
by Steven A. Camarota
Download the pdf version
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
During their summit in early September, presidents Vicente Fox of Mexico and George W. Bush of United States discussed an amnesty for illegal Mexican immigrants in the United States. While at first both presidents indicated that giving legal status to illegals would be a long process that might take years to implement, in the course of their summit they both indicated that they wanted things to move quickly. Moreover, on September 7 the Senate judiciary committee held a hearing on Mexican immigration. Senators from both parties indicated their support for granting amnesty in some fashion to illegals from Mexico.
The Zogby poll reported on in this Backgrounder was one of the first to examine in detail how various segments of the population would view an amnesty. Using neutral language, the Zogby International poll of likely voters also explores how supporting an amnesty might affect votes for President Bush and members of Congress in the future among different groups of constituents. While overall the poll finds little support for an amnesty, it does show some significant differences among groups. The strongest opposition is found among conservatives, moderates, union households, and voters with lower incomes. Among the findings:
Consistent with other polls, the Zogby poll finds that the majority of Americans (55 percent) think that an amnesty is a bad or very bad idea compared to 34 percent who think it is a good or very good idea.
The strongest opposition to amnesty can be found among conservatives, with 60 percent thinking it is a bad or very bad idea compared to 26 percent who think it is a good or very good idea. Perhaps most troubling for the president, almost one-third of all conservatives (32 percent) indicated that they would be less likely to vote for Bush if he supported an amnesty, while only 10 percent said they would be more likely to vote for him.
Among Democrats, 55 percent said they thought an amnesty would be a bad idea and 36 percent thought it was a good idea. Some of the strongest opposition was found among voters in union households, a key Democratic consistency. Sixty percent of voters in union households thought it was a bad idea compared to 32 percent who thought it was a good idea. An amnesty splits the partys liberal base right down the middle, with 46 percent of liberals thinking it was a good idea and 45 percent thinking it was a bad idea.
An amnesty does not appear to be a way of winning Hispanic votes for either party, with 51 percent of respondents identifying it is a bad idea and 49 percent thinking its a good idea. When asked how it might affect their vote, twice as many Hispanics in the survey (33 percent) said they would be less likely to vote for Bush in 2004 if he supported an amnesty compared to 15 percent who said they would be more likely to vote for him. The same basic pattern exists for Democratic candidates, with 36 percent of Hispanics saying they would be less likely to vote for a Democrat in Congress who supports an amnesty and 20 percent indicating they would be more likely to vote for a Democrat who supports amnesty.
Those who oppose an amnesty seem to be much stronger in their opposition than are supporters in their support of an amnesty. While 20 percent of voters said that they thought it was a very bad idea, only 6 percent said it was a very good idea. Moreover, of those who said it was a bad or very bad idea, 51 percent said they would be less likely to vote for President Bush if he supported an amnesty. In contrast, of those who thought an amnesty was a good or very good idea, only 22 percent said they would be more likely to vote for Bush if he supported it. Very similar proportions exist when asked about Congressional Republicans and Democrats.
Not only does the president risk alienating his own conservative base, but he also risks alienating self-identified moderates, who are critical to his winning reelection in 2004. Moderates thought an amnesty was a bad or very bad idea by a margin of 59 percent to 32 percent. Moreover, 38 percent of moderates indicated that they would be less likely to vote for Bush if he supported an amnesty, compared to 8 percent who indicated that they would be more likely to vote for him if he supported an amnesty.
http://www.cis.org/articles/2001/back1201.html
and its not like cis hasn't got an agenda
Post by: Waitone on October 25, 2007, 11:57:04 AM
Post by: LAK on October 26, 2007, 02:39:08 AM
Hijacking? Pray tell; which other "republican" candidate will not keep us on a fast track into the NAU, which will mean a a defacto amnesty? Very much on topic.
Is there one? I'd like to know who it is.
--------------------------------
http://searchronpaul.com
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org
Post by: Sergeant Bob on October 26, 2007, 08:05:09 AM
Post by: CAnnoneer on October 26, 2007, 08:53:59 AM
Hijacking? Pray tell; which other "republican" candidate will not keep us on a fast track into the NAU, which will mean a a defacto amnesty? Very much on topic.
Is there one? I'd like to know who it is.
Is there one? I'd like to know who it is.
I will give you two: Tancredo and Hunter. Did you watch any of the "debates"?
Post by: longeyes on October 26, 2007, 04:02:23 PM
As for amnesty, the pro-amnesty side is sneaky, like the illegals themselves. They will look for any crack of daylight to get their agenda through. All of this is just stirring up a huge pot of future strife and dissension.
Post by: LAK on October 26, 2007, 05:21:18 PM
I do not watch much TV. Tancredo might throw a big wrench in the NAU - so might Hunter.
In some contrast though, Ron Paul is certain to send the NAU to the ocean bed where it belongs, and tell the U.N. they are not welcome here anymore - outside perhaps any "helpful suggestions" they may want to voice once in awhile.
Ron Paul is also certain to decisely address some other crucial items. The problem with the subject of illegals, immigration, amnesty etc is that it is simply part of an agenda, and difficult to treat in isolation, as the people driving it have been the driving force behind much else that ails us. Call it whatever you like; this has been rammed down our throats one step and piece at a time over a period of decades. Ron Paul is well aware of who he is up against and what is likely to happen if/when someone in the WH begins to rock their boat - and sink it entirely. I am not so sure about Tancredo and Hunter.
Post by: Manedwolf on October 26, 2007, 07:59:07 PM
Post by: CAnnoneer on October 26, 2007, 08:23:00 PM
Post by: LAK on October 28, 2007, 12:11:00 AM
Anyone whose political hopes are tied to any other (so far) "republican" or "democrat" nominated candidate may as well really believe that WWF is a real fight as far as I am concerned; they are both working for and getting paid by the same people.
Manedwolf,
No - I did not see it. What precisely did he "whine" about?
Post by: Manedwolf on October 28, 2007, 05:13:45 AM
CAnnoneer,
Anyone whose political hopes are tied to any other (so far) "republican" or "democrat" nominated candidate may as well really believe that WWF is a real fight as far as I am concerned; they are both working for and getting paid by the same people.
Manedwolf,
No - I did not see it. What precisely did he "whine" about?
Anyone whose political hopes are tied to any other (so far) "republican" or "democrat" nominated candidate may as well really believe that WWF is a real fight as far as I am concerned; they are both working for and getting paid by the same people.
Manedwolf,
No - I did not see it. What precisely did he "whine" about?
Just watch it. It's up multiple places. You'll lose all confidence in him as a candidate. His rising voice, shrillness and agitation while the other candidates were composed made him look like a wild-eyed bearded street doomsayer, like a total nut...and he got boos. Lots of boos. I think it was his "Dean Scream" moment, honestly.
Post by: Sindawe on October 28, 2007, 11:35:17 AM
Post by: CAnnoneer on October 28, 2007, 12:49:06 PM
Post by: Manedwolf on October 28, 2007, 03:13:34 PM
Manedwolf. You've made the assertion that Ron Paul "whined" about stuff, so the onus is on you to provide the links to his alleged "whining".
EVERY answer went higher and higher in pitch, even his answer to the "single questions" later. It became an out and out whine, every single time. Shrill, and increasingly desparate.
Just watch it?
Post by: Sindawe on October 28, 2007, 05:31:09 PM
Quote
Just watch it?
Quote
Watch the damn debates...
All I find online are snippets and analysis. None of which show "whining". A link/and time index would be nice support of your arguments.
Post by: CAnnoneer on October 28, 2007, 08:05:04 PM
Post by: LAK on October 29, 2007, 03:17:33 AM
If you can not articulate precisely what you claim he was "whining" about you have no point. You are doing basically what you accuse him of. If you dislike his tone alone, why not say so?
I am not interested in style, presentation and tone so much as clear positions on subject matter. Ron Paul has this on some of the most destructive and oppressive afflictions that have proceeded unchecked for decades in this country and some more recent ones.
When one of your calm and composed frontmen for the ruling oligarchy decides to break ranks with his masters; will pole ax the NAU, get the illegals out of our country, get us out of the U.N., abolish the IRS, and put a stop to our blood and money being spread around the globe - among other things - I'll be all ears.
Post by: Sergeant Bob on October 29, 2007, 09:09:54 AM
Quote
Just watch it?
Quote
Watch the damn debates...
All I find online are snippets and analysis. None of which show "whining". A link/and time index would be nice support of your arguments.
I'm interested in seeing all this whining too. I've done a good bit of searching and I was not able to find any of it. I did a search on the "Damn Debates" and could not not find the whining which was referred to.
Post by: Manedwolf on October 29, 2007, 09:21:31 AM
And here, this user put the whole thing up in pieces.
He whines right away about halfway through this statement:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zq3hJxXxx94
Earlier, he declared that 70% of Americans wanted us out of Iraq, and got loud boos.
Post by: Len Budney on October 29, 2007, 09:44:29 AM
He whines right away about halfway through this statement: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zq3hJxXxx94
Not a trace of whining. Paul's voice is slightly nasal and somewhat higher-pitched for a man, and apparently that's what's driving Maned's almost pathological animosity. I'm not the first to suggest it on this thread, but Maned's specific example here proves it.
Quote
Earlier, he declared that 70% of Americans wanted us out of Iraq, and got loud boos.
Unsurprising when Fox News stacked the audience with a hand-picked crowd and Frank Luntz's sleazy tactics. Nevertheless, Paul was quite right (plus or minus margin-of-error, yadda yadda).
--Len.
Post by: Manedwolf on October 29, 2007, 09:55:20 AM
No black helicopter sites as well? I'm disappointed.
Post by: Sergeant Bob on October 29, 2007, 09:55:49 AM
His claim of 70% being opposed to the war in Iraq is not really off the mark. There are several polls which place the disapproval of the war, its handling and increased funding in the 65 to 67% range and one at 70%.
Here is a link to several recent polls.http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm
Post by: Len Budney on October 29, 2007, 09:58:29 AM
Len, your cited sources for that allegation are a Ron Paul devotee site and Lew Rockwell.
I admit it was hard to find Rudi Giuliani devotee sites that discussed Fox's tactics against Ron Paul.
But their evidence stands on its own merits. Attacking the source is the one cheesy debate tactic that everyone has heard of. (Hint: two words; the second being "hominem.") It was to avoid the (mis)impression of using the tactic myself that I neglected to mention how silly it is to attach any significance to an audience's reaction. A Fox audience is bound to like Rudy McRomney better, just as a CNN audience is bound to lean toward Billary. An audience is certainly not a scientific statistical sample of anything.
--Len.
Post by: Manedwolf on October 29, 2007, 10:00:30 AM
Gee, why would that cause doubt?
Post by: Len Budney on October 29, 2007, 10:02:11 AM
When you cite a supporter site as "facts", and then use a conspiracy theorist loon as your other source? Gee, why would that cause doubt?
It doesn't cause any doubt; intelligent readers are capable of forming their own opinions--despite whatever personal biases they may have, and despite your shrill ad homina. Unlike your posts, these sites offer specific evidence, such as the testimony of an extremely anti-RP Freeper. Contrary to your insinuations, they aren't making unsubstantiated allegations. Give it up. Try rational discourse, or take up knitting.
--Len.
Post by: Manedwolf on October 29, 2007, 10:12:20 AM
It's like being assaulted with a crazy mix of moonies and black-helicopter conspiracy nuts, but on the political stage, and here in my state as well.
And they want to bring 1000 more to annoy NH citizens right before the primaries. Freaking GREAT.
The only thing that would be even more "fun" is if the white-supremacy and other nasty groups that have attached to him show up, too.
I really, really, really understand why RedState just banned the Paulians...
Post by: Len Budney on October 29, 2007, 10:14:52 AM
I so cannot wait for the primaries to be OVER...
Yup! 'Cuz when RP isn't nominated--as he likely won't be--you can start worrying about Hillary's presidency in earnest.
--Len.
Post by: Manedwolf on October 29, 2007, 10:16:31 AM
Post by: Len Budney on October 29, 2007, 10:27:18 AM
I'll deal with whomever the candidates are that point. Right now, I just want the Paulians to shut UP and go back their sites where they babble about zionists and freemasons, out of sight and out of mind.
I know you're just baiting me at this point--and I'dve ignored you completely if you hadn't dragged Zionists into it. There may be antisemitic supporters of Ron Paul, but I've never met one. Meanwhile, it's quite safe to say that my Hebrew is better than yours. (I never claim fluency, but I'm reading הארי פוטר והנסיך חצוי–הדם, AKA Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, comfortably enough in Hebrew.) Jew-baiting a hard-core philosemite happens to be one of my hot buttons. Snarl.
--Len.
Post by: Manedwolf on October 29, 2007, 10:31:28 AM
Well!
Tinfoil hat a bit tight, there?
Post by: Len Budney on October 29, 2007, 10:33:24 AM
Pointing out that a number of Paulians do indeed go on about the secret zionist neocon agenda is Jew-baiting?
OK, enough with the stupidity. You suggested that they're all like that, when in fact very few (in my experience, none) actually are. Howsabout getting back to the topic--or at least back to the tangent already in progress.
--Len.
Post by: Manedwolf on October 29, 2007, 10:40:04 AM
Pointing out that a number of Paulians do indeed go on about the secret zionist neocon agenda is Jew-baiting?
OK, enough with the stupidity. You suggested that they're all like that, when in fact very few (in my experience, none) actually are. Howsabout getting back to the topic--or at least back to the tangent already in progress.
--Len.
Here, Len. Here's a quote for you:
Quote
What I mean by this can clearly be seen by looking at Congressman Ron Pauls recent trouncing of his opponents in every single televised Republican debate this year. MSNBC conducted a poll immediately following the last debate in New Hampshire; Paul literally destroyed every other candidate,[2] just as he did in California [3] a month ago. Despite his obvious popularity the Zionist media continues to ignore him, suggesting that his polling popularity was related to his supporters spamming the polls. Ridiculous but nonetheless thats what the Zionist media said.
That's from David Duke's website.
I think you need to look around at who your bedfellows are. They've got fleas.
Post by: LAK on October 30, 2007, 12:13:37 AM
Len brought up a good point; Ron Paul's voice is charactaristically higher pitched than some.
And It is creeping out here and there in your posts that it is down to the fact that you simply do not agree with him on some important points. More objective to address these head on.
------------------------------------
http://searchronpaul.com
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org
Post by: Ben on October 30, 2007, 04:56:49 AM
Post by: Sindawe on October 30, 2007, 05:12:25 AM
Wait, did I just hear Fred Thompson admit on national TV that he's a perpetrator/victim of child sexual abuse? "...I was a father of 17, I was a husband at 17.."
Back on topic (or trying at least): We'll need to watch for this kind of crap with increasing vigilance in the coming months. Certain factions on both sides of the the political landscape NEED the vote of the invaders.