Did you see that Bush, Pelosi and Hoyer are already talking about immigration?

Question

"Bush and Pelosi see an opportunity for compromise on immigration, said Hoyer, 67, a Maryland Democrat. House and Senate Republicans were unable to agree on a Bush-backed proposal for a guest worker program and giving undocumented immigrants a path toward citizenship.

``The president's observation was, and our observation was, that we are probably going to have an easier time with the Democratic majority in the House of Representatives than he had with the Republican majority in the House of Representatives,'' on that issue, Hoyer said."

So, what do those who voted Democrat think will come out of this?

Actually, I think they are both globalists and want the same thing on this issue, for different reasons. Pelosi would be selling out the populist anti-free-trade-agreement voters that just voted the Dems into power, and Bush would be selling out the Republican 'base'. (Nothing new, there, though.) Do you think she would need to compromise, or do you think she would 'bill it' as a compromise 'accomplishment' the Repubilican controlled house couldn't accomplish while actually getting something she would have voted for in any event had Hastert allowed her to vote?

Answer 1

I have a tendency to think right now that the democrats are just flexing their new found muscles.The New York Times this morning was all talk about how the democrats were only in a hurry about getting the Iraqi war situation in hand and establishing a withdrawal date.
Politics are all about compromise,both party's do it all the time.Neither will get all of what they want,its a trade off.There were a lot of moderate Democrats that were elected,not all are of the "lets give away the farm"attitude.
I keep saying that each side of this issue are getting in too big a hurry to claim victory.After all what have the pro illegals won,yet? Nothing,the anti war /anti Bush faction won.I personally will take a wait and see stance on this.
Time will tell the whole story.In the mean time,I'm contacting my states government,and this nations government officials and letting them know my views on immigration.The fights not over,its only just started.
No to blanket amnesty,
secure our borders

Answer 2

I think the Democrats are going to come down pro-enforcement,
Democrat /= liberal-globalist, necessarily. I think the dems tend to be more effective in getting people's views, and speaking to many different points and perspectives on any given issue.

Immigration's not an easy thing, it's HUGE, and the business peeps out there are all about being pro-growth. Unfortunately
their pro-growth enthusiasm is rolling over the interests of some people, the 'eminent domain' business was a great example of that, and I think the democrats are a little closer to the peoples' interests than the GOP ended up proving out to be.

There is a component of good politician/bad politician, here.
Badgering the public to get acceptance/support for policies they want to push through is their business. They're really good at it, or the country wouldn't be awash in red ink. But, leadership and coercion are not synonymous, and those policies that are deemed to be against the interest of the public, including 'laissez faire' on immigration, should be openly challenged and discussed thoroughly to ensure that the facts are examined,
and that businesses whose lobbyists have been really active in promoting the best interest of their business still take a minute to realize that there's the Public to be considered in all of this, and that they disregard the public at their peril, in the instance of illegal hiring practices, at the expense of their business licenses.

Other countries are MUCH more strict on immigration, hiring, and so forth, and they maintain their policies in such fashion due to the fact that they recognize the potential problems involved.
Bottom line, the world has changed, in many ways, not for the better. They estimate that some 2 billion people, a full third of the world's population, live WELL below anything we'd consider the 'poverty line' in america. We just crossed the 300 million mark, the world total is estimated north of 6.5 billion. 6.5 billion people can't all move to the United States, period. Ergo, we need immigration and border enforcement. I don't care who's uncle's brother's cousin in the legislature's got friends in the fruit packing industry(insert name of other business/industry here____), the law needs to be followed. There's no reason businesses can't expand to other countries and have everybody profit by it without messing with our immigration laws. Maybe a good 'sell' would be to show how modernization and global commerce have benefited other countries and helped lift people out of poverty etc.
Rather than move to America, emulate some of our successes back home, where it'll really count. Better that than smuggling etc.

Answer 3

I am more optimistic I think. The democrats wanted immigration reform, which included better border security but also the very long and difficult "path to citizenship" (which includes paying all backed taxes, learning English, not committing any (other) crimes and livfing and working in America for something like 7 years). This was Bush's idea. The heartless GOP members in the House wouldn't do it (even though Reagan signed a true, unconditional immigrant Amnesty in the 1980s). WIth the dems in charge, we'll see essentially that plan, probably without the significant increase in sentences for immigration crimes.

Answer 4

do you honestly think this woman has ANY intention of compromise...oh man have i got a bridge in brooklyn for you.

Answer 5

i dunno, sounds helpful in terms of opening the border. Gosh, I'm gonna have to learn spanish again if we don't hurry up and pick a national language... (pssst - american english! american english!)

lol, bridge in brooklyn.... some land in florida for ya

Answer 6

yes I do and they are going make imination refrim but one thing for sure is this women will make sure our county is run right.