On Oct. 17, 1986, the U.S. Senate approved an immigration bill prohibiting hiring of illegal aliens while offering amnesty to illegals who entered the U.S. prior to 1982. This law was enacted to stop the flow of illegals entering the U.S. In 2006, the huge inflow of illegal immigrants has grown and doubled in size -- in complete violation and disregard for the 1986 immigration bill. In 1986, there were approximately 5 million illegally in the U.S. versus 12+ million today. Obviously, amnesty is not the solution.Should Mexico be rewarded or punished [sanctioned] for not enforcing border control?
2006-08-19 06:22:16 · 4 answers · asked by Zoe 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Immigration
coragryph in the 80's they did just that. It was until later they discovered people we're turning in false documents that made them look like they were her 20 years document fraud was at an all time high. A person cannot be elected to be the President of the country, unless they are voted by the military and defense contractors.Therefore, If the President does not take the nation to war, he will not be able to stay President. This refers to the fact that Lyndon Johnson said, privately, he feared impeachment if he pulled out of Vietnam. Well, that's a hell of a statement.
2006-08-19 07:01:41 · update #1
Dang Zoe, good question!! Let's not forget that in order to make the 1986 amnesty acceptable to the American people, we were promised border control, penalty for companies who hired illegals, and proof of citizenship before benefits were doled out ... yeah right!!! Did you see that happening? Same **** as we're discussing today ... only MORE frickin illegals than in 1986 ....
2006-08-19 07:26:12 · answer #1 · answered by Sashie 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
How do you punish another independent country? Militarily?
As for the rest, look at the dates. Anyone who has been in the use since 1982 has been here for 24 years. If they haven't broken any other laws, it's obvious that they're not causing any real harm. So, let them come forward and start paying taxes without fear of prosecution.
Personally, I think a better solution is to deal with existing immigrants as follows. Anyone who has been here at least two years, has committed no other crimes, and who has job -- offer them a deal. They come forward, plead guilty to a misdemeanor for violation of immigration laws, pay the fine, pay their back taxes, and pay all future taxes. It's not amnesty, since it carries a criminal conviction. But it allows those who are already here and established to continue working and paying taxes.
But this deal would only be for those already here, and without any other criminal offenses. It would then free up law enforcement to go after those who have a criminal record, and those who come in after the cut-off date. Which drastically improves law enforcement effectiveness, and helps them do a better job keeping others out because they're not tracking down 20-30 years worth of people already in the country.
It's simple logistics.
2006-08-19 13:28:44 · answer #2 · answered by coragryph 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Clap Clap Clap Bravo Hear Hear (standing) Clap Clap Clap Clap.
Give me your name so I can vote for you in 08.
I LOVE YOU.
2006-08-19 13:46:02 · answer #3 · answered by pops 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Our laws need to be enforced.
2006-08-19 13:30:07 · answer #4 · answered by DAR 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋