Is it true ?
2007-01-26 06:35:02 · 20 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Immigration
The Dems voted overwhelmingly against HR 4437, the bill approved by the House of Representatives. This was the enforcement only bill which is what the American people wanted.
The bill passed 239 to 182, with 36 Democrats joining 203 Republicans to vote yes. Seventeen Republicans, 164 Democrats and one independent opposed the measure.
The Senate "Amnesty Bill" S-2611 is not what the people want. It is ill conceived and grants amnesty to millions although, in our politically correct environment, they call it "path to citizenship"
Most members of the GOP majority in the Senate voted against the measure, with 23 backing it and 32 opposing. Among Democrats voting, 38 supported the bill and four did not. The chamber's independent Senator voted in favor.
It is clear that the Dems SUPPORT an amnesty plan and would not consider legislation without it. Considering that the Dems broadcast the State of the Union in SPANISH should give a clear indication of who the Dems are pandering to.
Poster above mentioned costs of deportation but did not mention the savings of deportation. The study did not include the costs of doing the paperwork to legalize them or the savings to social services. After 4 years the costs would be recovered and then it is money in the bank after that.
2007-01-26 08:01:03 · answer #1 · answered by Bob G 3 · 3⤊ 1⤋
I am voting for Tom Tancredo for President!!!
True, Democrats are dead wrong on this Immigration issue just look for votes in 2008?
Hillary Clinton is yes, maybe, no!!! anything to fit her politic dreams
Barack Obama is for compromise amnesty
Kennedy is all out for blanket Amnesty
Lieberman is on with bush plans
2007-01-26 06:40:16 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 7⤊ 2⤋
Most of the Dems who I have heard state a position have supported amnesty. I am unsure of Lieberman's position but if he runs for president I will check it out. I will not vote for anyone who supports amnesty because I do not believe in reward programs for committing a crime. I may support a program for allowing workers to come in with the proper documentation so long as they are given the same wages as an American is entitled and so long as the US citizens have first shot at the jobs.
2007-01-26 07:09:22 · answer #3 · answered by joevette 6 · 4⤊ 2⤋
HUH.... Both parties support it.... maybe it transends politics!
It makes sense to support Amnesty... if you look at studies on this it would cost over 200 Billion thats Billion with a "B" over 5 years to try to round up the close to 10 million illegals in the country that is figuring that 2 million will leave on their own. By offering resident alien or guest worker status we would have an idea of the location of these people.
Amnesty has happened 7 times in the last 10 years.
I am not a Democrat.... I do not support illegal activities... and I do believe that these people are here illegally... but we cant undo the past. This does need to be met with a stronger border and other measures and that is happening with the new passport regulations but more will need to be done.
Stop believing the nonsense a few people spout and research this yourself...
looking forward to see how many thumbs down this gets from all the mental midgets around this site! especially from those that didnt even read this
2007-01-26 06:52:27 · answer #4 · answered by Rutroh 6 · 4⤊ 5⤋
Yes, very true. That is why we need a man like Tancredo, or Hunter, they want whats good for working class Americans, and could care less what big business wants. We here in Iowa also have a good man for either ones team in Steve King.
2007-01-26 07:45:52 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
To expand their voting base, they will provide amnesty to as many illegals as possible regardless of their backgrounds and activities. Those people only care about hanging onto their office or getting a higher one to get more money and cover their own selves.
2007-01-26 07:56:09 · answer #6 · answered by icehoundxx 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Democrats support immigration reform such as allowing those millions of undocumented workers a chance to become documented residents (not automatic citizens) but it will not come without a penalty. They support familuy unity and allowing spouses of american citizens to adjust status in country without the use of the I-601 waiver, but they will also have to pay a penalty. No one will be given automatic citzenship, they will be offered an easier but expensive path.
2007-01-26 06:47:09 · answer #7 · answered by whoareyou 3 · 3⤊ 3⤋
Tom Tancredo is running for the Presidency in 2008. I was ELATED to say the very least. Guess who's getting MY vote?
2007-01-26 06:49:08 · answer #8 · answered by Rebel-X 2 · 5⤊ 1⤋
Yes, they are all for amnesty ... seems to be t he only thing they're siding with Bush and his business cronies on ... so, like a few other respondents have mentioned already, vote for Tom Tancredo! At least HE is interested in securing our borders ....
2007-01-26 07:05:01 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 2⤋
it is a quite warm topic, yet i am going to respond to besides. i imagine it is note play to state that there is a huge difference between "professional-abortion" and "professional-selection". it form of feels to me that you're going to't be for and adverse to at least some thing jointly, and for this reason the time period "professional-selection" has no which ability. that is what I propose: all and sundry is professional-selection. i do not imagine any lifelike human being ought to declare that a woman don't have a precise to do jointly with her body what she pleases. it is a query of timing. In immediately's day and age, in case you do not go with to have a infant - don't have one. Get sterilised, or don't have sex. parent out what motives being pregnant and stay away from it or take care of adverse to it. the authentic difficulty is that many females go with to have an abortion when they grow to be pregnant. it is form of like operating a red mild, getting stuck, and then explaining to the officer that you're extremely professional-selection, no longer professional-operating red lights, and someway that ought to allow you to off the hook. females do have the alternative, it is even as they go with to act on that selection that motives the priority. i'm no longer speaking about incest or rape - those situations are less than a million% of abortions in this usa, and are used through those that do not have any difficulty with abortion as a smoke demonstrate. i'm speaking about the over ninety 8% of abortions being performed in this usa each and every 3 hundred and sixty 5 days as a kind of birth control. so a concepts as Clinton and Obama? they only don't have the heart to inform females (and adult adult males) that there in many cases comes a time to settle for duty for ones movements. immediately all of us recognize (a minimum of people which have received more desirable than a 0.33 grade preparation) that a infant is more desirable than a "fetus" or blob of jelly coming up interior the womb. Intentinal abortion performed as a fashion of birth control is homicide, and once you've one for that reason, you're unavoidably "professional-abortion." Why else ought to you do some thing that you at the on the spot are not in go with of? all and sundry is professional-selection - it is only a count number number of once you go with to exercising that selection that concerns. through the way - believing in God has no longer some thing to do with it. devil believes in God - yet he continues to be devil.
2016-10-16 03:39:48 · answer #10 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋