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

2006-07-18 19:26:32 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Immigration

foxnews: Thanks for pointing that out, but why stop in 86 there were more amnesties before that and there are going to be more as well...

2006-07-18 19:34:33 · update #1

11 answers

Problem can similarly be solved with a simple handgun.

2006-07-18 19:28:20 · answer #1 · answered by good knower 3 · 0 0

A British news source is reporting
that this weekend at the G-8 summit
President Bush told Mexico’s Fox
that amnesty is dead, at least this year

According to the source
Fox told a Mexican radio station
that Bush told him the time is very short
before Congress goes home for election campaigning.

“So the chance of the immigration issue reaching approval
in the House of Representatives
and reaching joint approval isn't very high."

We did it

We stopped amnesty at least for this year

Your calls and visits and bricks
all our efforts paid off.
We made it clear to Washington
that illegal immigration is a voting issue
and that amnesty was absolutely unacceptable.

That Translates To YOU, The VOTER
Having A Direct Impact On Whether There Is An Amnesty
Or If An Enforcement Only Policy Is Initiated

We made our voice so loud
That Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite (R-FL) even held up a brick
sent her by Team America to emphasize
how serious America is about border security
that Republicans had to listen.

And they did!

Republican Majority Leader Boehner was quoted last week
as saying the movement in Washington
is now toward the House’s enforcement only bill

Only a few weeks ago
the President was hard at work on a compromise agreement—
with border security and enforcement first,
then guest worker programs—

It went no where

Instead House Republicans decided
to take the show on the road
and held a few hearings in Middle America.

They came back more determined than ever

They have called for seven more hearings
and they are setting up an immigration war room
to push their new found enforcement–first strategy.

The Senate, however, is still playing games.
That traitorous bill they passed in April
called for 370 miles of fence along our southern border
but this week the Senate voted against
funding the very fence they voted to build.
They never intended to build a fence or secure our border.

And there are those in the House that are nothing but talk.

Border security hero Rep Steve King (R-IA)
introduced an amendment to the Voting Rights Act
that would have stripped a requirement
for multi-lingual ballots.

Both the House and Senate voted
to make English the official language
and even the amnesty crowd support
an English proficiency test for citizenship.

While we have stopped the Senate and Pence sell-outs
for the moment
my concern is that after the November elections
the President will call a lame duck session of Congress
and try to pass a huge amnesty.

In the meantime
he will do nothing to secure our borders or enforce our laws.

Anything you read to the contrary is all for show.

We must make use of this time—
between now and the election--
to make certain that immigration
is the issue on which Americans vote.

Otherwise we will lose the nation some time after November—
count on it.



Keep Up The GREAT Work. Fellow Patriots

Were Gaining ALOT Of Ground In This Fight


Lets show them how serious we are.

As President John F. Kennedy once said,
"Ask not what your country can do for you -
ask what you can do for your country."

“It is the greatest of all mistakes
to do nothing because you can only do little -
do what you can.”
-Sydney Smith

UNITED WE WILL STAND

2006-07-19 23:35:12 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

There has been amnesty 8 times since 1986. Wow, it really stopped the flow. It is linked all over on this forum too.

2006-07-19 02:29:40 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

A "simple" amnesty huh? So, why don't we just simply let all of the criminals by with whatever they want to do. If we have no laws then there would be no criminals, right? Is that your logic?

2006-07-19 08:38:45 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

An amnesty is a reward for criminals.
It's not going to happen.

2006-07-19 22:42:33 · answer #5 · answered by ProudAmerican 1 · 0 0

AMNESTY IS STUPID!!!!! WE DO NOT NEED TO BE REWARDING CRIMINALS!

Proud member of the Minutemen!

ARTHUR HAGLUND for President '08
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AhU8nSNdeCnAhYV4HemoOZ7sy6IX?qid=20060708113758AAY6CAB

DEPORT ILLEGAL ALIENS!

ENGLISH ONLY IN AMERICA!

2006-07-19 10:10:59 · answer #6 · answered by Julie 5 · 0 0

Yes, and if we give amnesty to all murderers they won't be murderers anymore!

Good reasoning.

2006-07-19 02:31:29 · answer #7 · answered by mckenziecalhoun 7 · 0 0

Do you realize that if you keep feeding a stray it's going to keep coming back for more?

2006-07-19 03:33:33 · answer #8 · answered by Mr. Bojangles 5 · 0 0

There is nothing simple about this issue at all.

2006-07-19 02:33:04 · answer #9 · answered by Kate 2 · 0 0

Your point again? You have a VERY flawed view on issues....

2006-07-19 02:44:54 · answer #10 · answered by Ricky 5 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers