Why does a comprehensive immigration policy include amnesty, protecting Mexicans from Mexico, but not?

Question

protecting the American people against any Jihadis coming their way? Is this some kind of special code that only politicians understand?

Answer 1

i am a legal mexican american and i am offended by this question.are you smoking dope or something? illegal immigration is bad if not worse than terrorist jihads.it just takes longer to sink in.

Answer 2

Comprehensive immigration policy? A legal term implying all inclusive, all encompassing and official:
Amnesty: sparing friends from punishment, a clause which may or may not include a fine.
Protecting: An attitude of caring measures to protect the borders of the United States entailing making sure no terrorists enter the Land.

Lawmakers must understand that anyone can enter from any side of the country to do harm if they want. Building walls and going on a rampage against people who have worked here harder than most locals for much less pay, will not make allies out of poor workers or protect us against extremists of any sort.

The better course of action is to encourage the hard workers and their families to continue to do well. Collect small fines to be paid over the next year. And to treat new immigrants as well as we would like to be treated by others.
This non invasive policy would avoid antagonism. Fines would fund the necessary paperwork and furnish us with legal recourse to keep the productive allies, and expel the ones who weigh down the system.

Answer 3

Because 'comprehensive immigration policy' = 'amnesty bill.' There is no desire for real reform. The American people - some 70+% of them, want the impractical laws on the books enforced - and all the politicians, Democrat & Republican, want to leave those laws unenforced (to bring in cheap labor), and invoke periodic amnesty (to buy votes from the newly-created citizens).

Answer 4

Yes, it's called keeping your campaign coffers full, from money from the business lobby, then pretending that the amnesty 1986 didn't solve the problem, not because it was not enforced, but because then we owe it to the illegals to let them come out of the shadows because we need to know who they are. Then with a straight face pretending they have the best interest of the Americans at heart and we are doing all this for them. I heard the two congressmen say on Lou Dobs that this was the best do can do. My question is, the best for whom

Answer 5

HUH? Amnesty will destroy our country. It rewards 20+ million criminals by letting them go ahead of the people that have been following the rules.

Closing the border is a way to protest our country from the bad guys because they can't come in as easily. Amnesty/open borders is dangerous!

Answer 6

I know you all like to complain about illegal immigration and all but why do you not take a real hard look at the trade agreements your great government has with other nations. Ironically, immigration from Mexico (we have a free trade agreement with them NAFTA) has increased since NAFTA went into affect. Stop looking for simple minded and racist solutions to the issue. Tancredo is a racist, plain and simple. Take a hard look at the kind of free trade that the US supports. You will see that most people are hurt by it, people like you who claim immigrants take your tax dollars and people like the immigrants who leave their coutries to come here and listen to racist rants by ignorant, simple minded White Nationalists like Lou Dobs.

It is not as simple as you all make it out to be. Simple answers come from simple minds.