Cool. I guess that makes all illegal immigration to this country okay? My great-grandparents and grandparents came here legally as did most of the people they knew in the late 19th century and early 20th century. I am not a fan of illegal immigration and I never will be. It is not a good thing.
your perpetual snickering posture is tiresome NS, Stewart/Colbert has created a generation of insufferables can't have open borders in a welfare state
So why do you prefer no bill which would increase border security 0 percent, over a bill that would increase it by 25%?
Statement from the White House. The independent Congressional Budget Office released today their score of the Senate’s bipartisan immigration reform bill, and found that the bill would reduce the deficit over the next 10 years by $197 billion, and by about $700 billion over the following decade. This comes on the heels of a recent analysis by the independent Social Security Administration’s Chief Actuary last month, that the Senate bipartisan immigration bill will strengthen the long-term solvency of Social Security for future generations. The Congressional Budget Office also made clear that passage of the immigration bill would not only reduce the deficit, it would increase economic growth for years to come. By fixing our broken immigration system – and making sure that every worker in America is playing by the same set of rules and paying taxes like everyone else – we can grow the economy, strengthen the middle class, improve our fiscal outlook and create new opportunity for Americans everywhere.
I think Refman is getting so frustrated with the nut jobs claiming to be republicans he is just about to make the switch.
I don't prefer having no bill. I just prefer a different bill than this one. It's not even close to good enough.
It's not completely fixing this broken system, though? They are trying to paint this as a cure-all just like they did with the healthcare bill. It's not even close to that.
That's not what they're doing and it's not what they did with the health care bill. Both have been billed as a compromise that doesn't do what either party wants it to do entirely. However the idea of tossing out an improvement because it isn't perfect isn't a way to accomplish anything.
former doesn't give amnesty, latter always promises enforcement which never happens The correct path is to enact enforcement and visa reform as stand alone measures. Then revisit possible amnesty in future years if the government can prove it has control of the border. The idea of "compehensive" overhaul of anything is moronic. The prudent course is to find specific areas of agreement and political consensus, and enact incremental, measurable changes rather than 1000 page crap sandwiches written by lobbyists/corporations/unions no one has read before voting on.
Why can't they aim higher? Why just the 25 percent hit to illegal immigration? There is more that they can do on the border than what they are intending. I understand that it is expensive, but border security is paramount. Also, make becoming legal "easier" in a sense by cutting down how long it takes among other things. Then after making the process more palatable for potential immigrants, enforce the rule that anybody who comes in illegally after this will not be allowed to ever become a citizen. I like certain parts of the bill including the new merit system, but I still just feel like it's not even close to enough. Why not completely fix things as much as possible? This country's government always leaves loose ends in everything it does. It is tiring.
I agree that it be best to have a bill that fixes more. But that isn't what the two sides were able to come up with. That being said, I'd take something that's better than what we have instead of nothing and keeping things the same.
Ace has a great piece on the immorality of amnesty http://www.breitbart.com/InstaBlog/2013/06/17/The-Immoral-Consequences-of-Amnesty
If you don't want people to snicker, consider your positions more thoroughly, and don't declare your dogma without doing some research, and looking like a hypocrite or someone who cannot reason very well. Then assuming others' positions--- You can have open borders in a welfare state, the state just has to be international in nature rather than national. should welfare be distributed by borders? No. That is old thinking. Everybody deserves an equal crack at prosperity, no matter what nation they're born in. That is the basis of social democratic philosophy, and it is why social democratic countries are among the most welcoming to immigrants.
