2007-08-13 04:39:26 · 26 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Immigration
He knows where we stand but he chooses to ignore it. He deserves to be impeached and we, the people, should all start proceedings to ensure that when the government doesn't do its job, it and it's employees don't get paid. I think that would be a great incentive to ensure that they uphold their oaths of office and the laws of the land. When you take away their pay and their jobs and make them "just like us", they'll improve performance PDQ. If Bush was faced with daily fines or possible imprisonment for failure to do his job, maybe he'd stop being so cocky and stubborn.
2007-08-13 04:53:51 · answer #1 · answered by Mindbender 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Bush has to look at every side of the equation about immigration and he thinks he is right. The libs want the border opened the conservatives want it fenced tightly shut(YEAH!!!) and the in betweens don't know the difference. If lettuce went up to 4 bucks a head because of no foreign pickers how many people would that make mad? The cost of a big mac could go up a dollar. The answer is difficult but I wish to high heaven they'd build a super fence north and south and if you happen to talk to the President anytime soon please tell him I suggested that about the fences. Tell him to call me, get together and have lunch.
2007-08-13 05:47:15 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Tea occasion's shameless declare is a fallacy. as a rely of actuality 95% of human beings will earnings with Obama's proposed taxation schemes. the rustic will nevertheless choose extra taxes to run the government. The so talked approximately as tax cuts for the damaging is a sham however. In California the government. needs to assemble extra taxes in each and every which way. The Federal government. needs to spend extra money to get the financial equipment shifting interior the nicely suited course. Many economist have jumped into this bandwagon. If we could desire to spend extra, then we could desire to tax extra. right this moment who could have sufficient money to pay extra? basically the rich. 95% of the inhabitants is stricken by the end results of the fall down of the inventory marketplace, finance and authentic assets sector. Rampant unemployment weakened, stymied maximum if no longer the completed of worldwide financial equipment. No I'n no longer troubled by ability of Obama's disinterest with the tax/tea occasion. increasing the tax burden of the different 5% of the inhabitants is amazingly American.
2016-10-10 03:26:31 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. Enforcement is paramount. Not new policies. A fence is a band-aid. The band-aid would stop the bleeding but is no cure. Illegals by definition are breaking the law. Anyone who tells you different is lying or selling something. What is his stance this week anyway?
By the way, just because you want strict immigration does not make you racist. Half of my family orininated in Mexico but,are not Mexicans THEY ARE AMERICANS. They did it legally. To allow anything else would be a slap in the face to them and would cheapen meaning of CITIZEN.
2007-08-13 04:51:41 · answer #4 · answered by loki3232 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No because if he was, then he wouldn't be trying to build a super highway from Mexico all the way to the center of the nation. He also wouldn't be giving amnesty to anyone who enters in our great nation. Many years ago the US made a law stating that if you had children within these borders, then that child had instant citizenship. That was back when this country was trying to populate itself. I think we've reached a healthy number and we can stop the influx of criminals into the country. When I say criminals, I mean ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS. Here's to electing someone with balls to do the things necessary in '08.
2007-08-13 05:43:50 · answer #5 · answered by Big Willie 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No, but then, he's out of touch with the citizens on many issues, just like his father. He's now aware of our stance against the illegal aliens, and is projecting a facade of enforcement while probably trying to make more back room deals to shove shamnesty down our throats again.
2007-08-13 05:33:41 · answer #6 · answered by NoAmnesty4U 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Don't even get me started on this one. Bush has sold my state (California) and other western states down the river with his stubborn refusal to deal with the problem. Instead he talks of comprehensive reform, which to him only means make everyone legal. That is not reform. Reform is going to require making employers responsible to not hire illegal immigrants, the government to seal the border, before any the millions of immigrants can be dealt with. I believe eventually we can give those who are here illegally legal status but this must be the last time we do this, so lets do it right.
2007-08-13 04:46:29 · answer #7 · answered by scottjones61 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
No, I don't think he is. The American people calling their Reps. in Washington is the only thing that stopped it when it was revived. Clearly the American people did not want the Amnesty bill passed and Bush continued to push it.
2007-08-13 04:46:09 · answer #8 · answered by booman17 7 · 4⤊ 0⤋
No,I don't think Bush is in touch with reality much less citizens or issues.
2007-08-13 05:47:54 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
I think so his plan was to document all illegals tax their wages and then after their work visa expired deport them and placing them last in line for citizenship, but the house and senate blocked that bill.
Perhaps you should be asking why the house and senate didn't support the enforcement of illegal immigrant laws?
2007-08-13 04:43:58 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋