that Reagan gave amnesty to 9 million illegal immigrants when he was President and was the last President to do so? It's about big business and cheap labor. Nothing less, nothing more.
2007-05-21 05:24:39 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
jazzreports.....zero
2007-05-21 05:27:53 · update #1
suthernly....people do not come here because of social programs..illegals cannot receive assistance unless they are documented as being in the country legally...they come her for a better life.
2007-05-21 05:34:23 · update #2
Not only that, the "true" Conservative argument also falis to accept the fact that America has had MANY well received and effective Liberal Democrats.
Its about big buisness and cheap labor. Exactly.
2007-05-21 05:27:57 · answer #1 · answered by Funbags 2 · 5⤊ 1⤋
I ought to declare you sound puzzled. That makes fairly some human beings offended, yet merely as a results of fact you do no longer pay interest does no longer propose you ought to lash out with out the data. a million. gay marriage is a state point concern, no longer a federal concern. The president does not have any say in it. And different than for that, the Repulican applicants this around are greater often than not professional gay marriage. Yay! no longer. 2. The conflict makes perfect sense. First bypass examine up approximately how the inventory industry works and then comprehend ways it relatively is extremely voiltile. Then learn the international economic equipment and comprehend ways dependant the international has grow to be on oil. you elect oil for plastic, KY Jelly, autos, boats, Vasaline, and so on... think of what number of human beings may well be out of artwork if the oil stopped flowing. each and every person. Then think of with regards to the chaos if there have been no oil. i'm no longer saying there should not be possibilities, yet you elect yet another international economic equipment, no longer basically gas. it relatively is complicated. 3. George Bush is at the instant being ridiculed for no longer deporting illegals in case you haven't any longer observed. He needs to naturalise them. That being suggested, maximum decrease type conservatives do no longer want illegals on account it relatively is taking a activity faraway from a criminal citizen and giving to somebody who's breaking the regulation. Is that honest? i think of they have an arguement. on the different hand, prosperous conservatives love illegals as they're going to artwork so low-value, so which you won't be able to declare around the board, conservatives hate illegals. 4. you ought to appear into bill Clintons previous and understand he pushed a bill approximately making marriage themes a federal regulation and making particular it became defined basically as between a guy and a woman. He additionally doubled the reformatory inhabitants over his 2 words from a million million to 2 million in 8 years! Sounds a sprint "conservative" that minimum sentencing bit.
2016-11-04 21:21:08 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, for the most part, they don't realize this....You cannot cheerlead globalization in one breath, then denounce illegal immigration in the next...yes, legal immigration polices may be needed, but in reality, this is a form of *protectionism* which is not compatible with free trade ideology.
2007-05-21 05:41:34 · answer #3 · answered by Pete Schwetty 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Conservatism is a failed ideology.They talk tough on immigration but do just the same or are even more lenient than Democrats.All their tough talk is only aimed at winning elections,cheap electoral rhetoric to cover up the fact that they have failed America and the world.
Bush brought the illegal disastrous Iraq war and bankrupted America.That's conservatism for you
2007-05-21 05:33:10 · answer #4 · answered by justgoodfolk 7 · 2⤊ 3⤋
Who said Reagan was a true conservative? He was as bad as Bush about pretending to be conservative while quietly tightening gov't control on people (though of course business gets less regulation....).
Saying youre conservative doesnt make it so. Business is not more important than people despite what many Repubs seem to think.
2007-05-21 05:36:50 · answer #5 · answered by Showtunes 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
you are only partially correct. the republicans are supporting amnesty for illegals for the reasons you stated, but the democrats want amnesty for votes and numbers on the social programs. and the church is involved because it needs bodies in its pews and dollars in its coffers...those of us truly opposed have no say in this whatsoever...we may as well all move to australia.
2007-05-21 05:29:40 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
The 1986 deal was a mistake. People make them.
The idea was to solve the problem by regularizing the people who were here and then stepping up enforcement to prevent it from happening again.
Part one was accomplished. Part two - enforcement - never was.
Why not learn from that, and not make the same mistake again?
2007-05-21 05:31:27 · answer #7 · answered by American citizen and taxpayer 7 · 4⤊ 2⤋
Has it every occurred to you folks that if people weren't taught to be so dependent on welfare and government handouts that we wouldn't even had the need for illegal immigrants?
Instead, you hold those people back because of your own codependency. Btw, are you an American Indian, the only people who came from this country?
2007-05-21 05:30:27 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 3⤋
No one has enforced our laws. Neither Republican nor Democrat. They've all failed!
We need to enforce our laws...no amnesty.
*The only way I would support this current legislation is if they actually closed our border. We know it'll never happen so it's all a waste of time and money.
2007-05-21 05:28:45 · answer #9 · answered by Jasmine 5 · 4⤊ 2⤋
I know what my choices are, and I will take the party that isn't trying to rob the middle class with higher taxes.
ADDED: If destroying the middle class means tax cuts, then I'll take the cuts.
ADDED2: If it is Conservatives who favor amnesty, then why is this bill being pushed by DEMOCRATS? Look for the Republicans to vote no. Further, the Republican Congress never put an amnesty bill forward. So are we being hypocritical, here?
2007-05-21 05:27:32 · answer #10 · answered by ? 7 · 4⤊ 6⤋