Congratulations, you have pointed out a stupid comment from a conservative. He does not represent all conservatives or all Republicans. Have you ever been to a Tea Party meeting? I have been to a few, and never has anyone made insensitive or demeaning comments about immigrants. At every single one of them they have insisted on securing the border, and reforming the process. Just because they are against granting citizenship to those who broke our laws to get here in the first place, does not mean they are immigrant hating racist. Maybe Phil King is, but most of them are not. To add to that, I was at an event last night with Todd Staples (running for LT), he seems to support granting a path to citizenship for children who came here under no fault of their own. He says they are not responsible for their parents decisions, and should not be punished. To them this is their home, they know no other home but America, and many English is the only language they know. They went to our schools, they played with our kids. They are just as American as you and I. The audience agreed.
Yes, I suppose when an organism shoots itself in the foot, it is allowed to yelp, giving evidence that it realizes its mistake.
That's nice and all - but every time this has actually come up in Congress, the GOP is consistently and almost universally opposed to this idea.
Opposed to granting amnesty to the children? It's mixed. There is definitely a rift in the GOP regarding immigration, but many of them are just worried about getting reelected and presume their only chance is appeasing Hispanics with amnesty. Well the truth is most Hispanics don't give a crap about immigration, they are more concerned with unemployment, the economy, and health care. I for one think it is a joke to grant criminals amnesty. That's what they are, criminals. They are here illegally, and it disturbs me that my family struggled to get here, had members actually turned around, and where are they now? Well, they're dead, but they are dead in Lebanon! They didn't try to sneak in. If they don't respect our laws, they don't deserve to be here. Clean up the immigration system, encourage LEGAL immigration, and get rid of these arbitrary quotas and caps. That is what the conservative message has been, it's just not being displayed under Boehner's leadership, or lack thereof.
I don't know if it's fruitful at this point to quote Steve King. His apparent racism is a bit beyond the pale of the GOP. I don't think it's appropriate to say he represents the party given his statements. I do have to wonder about his constituency, but I think most of the embarrassing things he's said have come after his last election.
I just think its funny how all the posters you suspect of being wacky tea partiers confirm as much by talking about the meetings they've attended. Ho Ho Ho
Quite frankly, you don't know if our ancestors would have immigrated illegally if they had a river to cross rather than an ocean. It is difficult to sneak an entire ship of people into the country from the Atlantic. Sneaking a dozen people across the Rio Grande in the middle of the night is far easier. Criminals? Technically, sure, since they violated immigration law. However, when you use the term criminal, it conjures up visions of murderors and rapists.
I am not a Tea Party member, I attended their meetings a work related function to hear the Congressional speakers. Thank you.
What is your point? Illegal immigration is illegal immigration. My ancestors came here from Lebanon, they crossed the ocean, and then crossed it again when some of them were turned away. Just because it is easier for Mexicans and Canadians doesn't make it any less wrong. And I am not concerned with the connotation of criminal. They have broken the law, they continue to break the law, and they want a free pass. They are criminals. Just like a petty thief is a criminal, just like a anyone else who has been convicted of any crime is a criminal. I am sorry that it hurts their feelings, but the truth is the truth.
I'd like to readdress this comment. 1) Like I said, not a member, nor am I a member of the Republican party. 2) What exactly is wrong with agreeing with the Tea Party message?
It's reallly not mixed - it's been fairly universal. The DREAM act has come up in Congress multiple times and has been killed by the GOP. All it needed was a handful of GOP votes to pass the Senate, but it couldn't even get that.
Because they disagree with the strategy and do not trust the administration to stick to their promises for compromise on other aspects of immigration reform. The House is taking a different strategy of piece meal rather than an omnibus bill. This is to assure that the other aspects of immigration reform (E-Verify, Border Control being the biggest two) are actually passed as well. House leadership has already said there will be bipartisan support for the DREAM act when it is introduced as the KIDS act. Assuming they are sticking to the Hastert rule, that means the majority of Republicans DO support the DREAM act. They just don't support an omnibus approach, or one that grants amnesty before securing those other two prerogatives. - Rep. Schock - member of Majority Whip team.
My point isn't whether logistical possibility makes it less wrong. My point is that you set forth your ancestors as an example of rectitude. Had slipping across the border been available to them, do not be so quick the possibility that they wouldn't have done so, legality be damned. I assume that you wouldn't be so quick to brand them as criminals if you had directly benefitted from those actions. Also, if you want to classify thievery and murder in the same category as immigration...well you're a little warped and I cannot help you with that. Speeding is also against the law. Speeding generally does not classify you as a criminal. Jaywalking is against the law. That also does not cause you to be classified as a criminal. If immigrating illegally is a criminal act, tell me what the jail sentence is for it. Also, branding it as a criminal act would require there to be a trial. Such proceedings do not exist.
Again, what is your point? It would have been wrong for them to do it, and it is wrong for these people to do it. You want to come to our country? Come over the bridge. Yes, had my family come here illegally, I would have branded them criminals, but it would be useless to do so since they would be dead by now and my parents were born here. What is the definition of criminal? Someone who has broken a law, committed a crime. The nature of the crime is irrelevant, the title stands, if you break the law you are by definition a criminal. This is why we refer to some crimes as white-color or blue-color crimes, depending on the nature and violence of the crime, felony and misdemeanors, but regardless they are all criminals. If you think otherwise, you're a little warped and I cannot help you with that.
Huh? Yes, there are proceedings in Immigration Courts. If the court rules in favor of deportation, they are then moved to a deportation facility where they are imprisoned until they are deported. That is the sentence. Some have argued we should put them in jail, not deport them, depending on the nature of the crime they were originally apprehended for and the number of times they have been deported, I would be in favor of imprisonment, but I do not believe that is currently the law (would have to research that aspect).
