English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

9 answers

I agree with the House version of the immigration bill and strongly disagree with the Senate's bill and the President's proposal. This "comprehensive" immigration reform championed by the Senate and the President is really a code word for amnesty. Bush and the Senate care only about appeasing the big business interests that want a steady supply of cheap labor and the lawbreakers who are demanding that we allow their disregard for the laws of this country.

Illegal immigration strains our social services and our environment. Immigration driven population growth puts more cars on the road creating more pollution, contributes to the housing shortage as well as the paving over of open space and farmland to provide housing for the growing population. Perhaps most important to a lot of people is the fact that illegal immigrants depress wages and allow employers to pay low wages and give no benefits. I strongly believe the House should be steadfast in its opposition to those who want to give amnesty to the criminals who flagrantly disregard our immigration laws.

2006-06-13 08:09:13 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Which one, the Senate one that would give amnesty and more than double legal immigration on top of that, while delaying border security and creating a 10 year rolling amnesty going forward?

Or do you mean the House Bill that would increase border security and enforcement and not address the other issues?

I think we should have border security first, then look at how to deal with schools and the current people here. Then we can look at any future increase in immigration.

2006-06-13 15:07:52 · answer #2 · answered by DAR 7 · 0 0

Seems to me that it's just a way for us to take our attention off the real topic in this country which of course is the war in Iraq. When you really sit back and think about it why is it so important to do something about it now? Next time the goverment should act on something before they let the problem balloon over the course of a couple decades. Get our troops out of Iraq because immigrants sneaking over the border isn't the cause of them dying over seas.

2006-06-13 15:10:54 · answer #3 · answered by straiven 1 · 0 0

It is **** and needs to include closing the boarders and arresting illegals. Enforce the rule of law or else why should I not hold up a store, it is illegal but who cares right. If illegals don't have to folow the law, maybe they can make a new one for me so I can rob at will. Why the hell not?
Typical polticans pandering to the Illegals now.

2006-06-13 15:06:58 · answer #4 · answered by peter b 2 · 0 0

Creo que es bueno que cada país tome la responsabilidad que le corresponde. Estados Unidos debe de legislar positivamente para que los trabajadores extranjeros con estatus de ilegal, pueda considerarse como una persona con todos sus derechos humanos y que tenga que pagar impuestos para que pueda tener libre transito en ese pais. Pero lo más importante es que en este caso MEXICO resuelva sus problemas economicos para que su gento no tenga que ir a buscar ¿fortuna? una fuente de empleo, ya que en su propio país no la encuentra. es peoblema de MEXICO principalmente

2006-06-13 15:16:03 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

I think that if you want to live in this country, you should have to pay taxes like the rest of us. I don't think forcing English is key but it will help them to communicate in all facets of their lives.

2006-06-13 15:05:45 · answer #6 · answered by allyson71377 3 · 0 0

Maybe we'll (U.S.A.) get 11 of them who can play soccer! ;>)

2006-06-13 18:01:31 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

I think it's crap. It's WAY too lenient.

2006-06-13 15:04:05 · answer #8 · answered by cyanne2ak 7 · 0 0

it's great!

2006-06-13 15:26:20 · answer #9 · answered by ricardocobar 4 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers