The bill calls for a 90% rate of border interdiction. Plus the institution of an entry/exit system which should make us 100% effective in preventing people from overstaying their visas.
So Democrats are on record supporting some pretty extreme enforcement. They wouldn’t be lying, would they? So it should be no problem to just make sure these things get done by requiring them to be done, rather than leaving it to Presidential discretion.
No, that point is just weaseling out of what you claimed, you were not referring to interdiction:
2 things: if it was indeed about the **interdiction **part, you are very creative on what you are trying to pull here, the overall tenor is to imply that Democrats are **not ** supporting the bill that **already **includes the 90% interdiction. All along the overall point for the Democrats is to legalize the status of most of the ones who are here, reaching for the “interdiction” bit is a **deceptive **point as that is not the focus now, the only thing this shows is that it is a **mockery **to tell others that Democrats are being deceptive when Democrats are for interdiction part as it is.
Conclusion: you are trying to tell others that the very dumb point was referring to interdiction when it was not.
Second: Indeed that enforcement you have making points about does refer to the ones already here, specially the part of “sending them back” and unless you also want to dismiss what you said early regarding the mass deportations you claim Democrats want, that is not the case, they are, by your own words, being deceptive on interdiction and to claim that NOW when it is already in the bill and the democrats support the bill as it is, is really asinine, you need a big fat cite to continue to claim that the democrats are being deceptive on the interdiction bit.
So yeah, so much for the 5% deportation mockery and the “deception of the democrats”.
Does anyone have a handle on how to decide if “90%” of an unknown number has been achieved?
They can’t, so at least to one degree or another, the “interdiction” rate is a shuck. Probably the Dems go along with putting it in to give the cooperative sane Republicans something to look tough about. The sane Pubbies get to look tough about immigration while doing what needs to be done, and the Dems solemnly swear to something that they will get to define later on, or amend as need be.
But whatever we do, some form of the Dream Act is necessary. We simply cannot deport young people who essentially grew up in America back to the streets of Mexico, Guatemala or Nicaragua. They are utterly unequipped to deal. God alone knows what kind of welcome they might receive in their “homeland”. Good news is that they are likely to be comparatively well educated. Bad news is that its in English.
Democrats hate enforcement so much they keep doing a better job of it republicans ever have.
Yet they still suck at it, intentionally. So intentionally, that unlike every other federal law, they demand that states not help out with its enforcement.
Sure, we need a DREAM Act. Sure, we can’t deport 11 million people. But enforcement first is not a radical position. It’s simply enforcing the laws that have been on the books for decades. Making the simple enforcement of existing law contingent on anything is dishonest.
It is when there is an active denial of the middle, it is radical when the option is to enforce and legalize at the same time, the logical and human thing is to legalize the vast majority that are looking to work and to improve their communities.
And I already posted what the Republicans are doing right now regarding the people affected by the DREAM act, point being that at the same time some Republicans still insist clumsily that the Democrats are being deceptive, the Republicans can not even put a fig leaf on what they really think about the most capable immigrants we should be allowing to stay.
Do not tell us that it is raining when the Republicans are peeing on us.
Well, I mean, “peons”, you know?
Right now, the amendment process is resulting in attempts to force the government to meet some enforcement measures before legalization. I don’t think it even passes the Senate without border security improving first.
Legalization advocates should support that, if only because the bill has a deadline for illegal immigrants entering the country: Dec. 2011. Anyone who entered after that point or enters in the future is ineligible. If border security remains lax ,we’re just going to add more illegals who will be deported when the bill goes into effect.
Sure, ignore what they are doing with the dream act, as I pointed before securing the border and legalization can be done simultaneously, once again, the dream act move only shows why they are doing the delay, by putting very extreme levels of enforcement the purpose is to prevent the legalization part.
More naked anti-immigration moves.
Enforcement has always been what was supposed to be done. It can be done at any time, without a bill. Promising to do in the future what should already have been done in exchange for an immediate boon now is not going to trick many people. The public is going to mobilize against this bill just like they did the last one unless it’s fixed. Red state Dems will scurry for cover.
Piffle, you obviously are not aware of the levels of support of the dream act, and you are also ignoring what many also see about the bill itself.
So, only among Republicans one can see a **narrow **majority opposing the bill, but feel free to once again pretend that the public will mobilize just for the Republicans, their actions speak volumes to the Hispanics and independents that will not support either the Republicans in the future, nor your narrow views.
With 58 percent of all Americans supporting a so-called “path to citizenship”, finding that in reality the amendments will scuttle that is not really a winning point for most Americans, and even less so for Democrats, Hispanics and Independents.
Americans favor a tough path to citizenship. And the current one is an amnesty, because it completely forgives those immigrants who used identify theft to get jobs. They don’t even have to pay taxes for those years.
Americans don’t get forgiven for that.
Just keep on using creative definitions, you are not fooling anyone.
So illegals who resorted to fake identities will be prosecuted? Because if they aren’t, that’s an amnesty. Illegals WILL be required to pay back taxes while working under the table? If not, that’s a tax amnesty, one not available to American citizens.
That is really going for the bottom of the barrel of bad retorts, Americans are also paid under the table.
And really? Using fake identities were and are prosecuted as even a close relive was during the years of the real amnesty from saint Reagan.
So once again, just continue to throw Rubio and Rand Paul under the bus, it is really funny that you think that I would be having a fit.
Not only are fake identities not being prosecuted, but they won’t have to pay taxes during that time period. Schumer’s excuse is that they can’t be expected to keep track of all the lies they told, all the documents they faked.
Well, too bad. The path to citizenship Americans favor isn’t supposed to be easy. It requires a full accounting of all the laws they broke and a full payment of all the taxes they owe.
There’s also the learning English part, another thing Americans overwhelmingly favor, but which the bill evades.
Again, the experience of the few relatives and friends that resorted to fake documentation shows that you are once again just resorting to ignorant hyperbole.
And here you still continue to rely with ignorance, I never got any of my taxes back of all the years I was an illegal, it is clear that many that did not resort to fake identities but fake documents (there is a sea of difference on using fake identities and fake documents under your name, the former implies also identity theft) will also not see a penny of any returns they should had gotten back.
And here is evidence that in reality you have no clue about what was in the bill.
That’s the loophole. Being enrolled in English classes does not demonstrate proficiency in English anymore than enrolling in medical school makes me a doctor.
At every turn, they try to deceive the public. The public demands a tough path to citizenship, they aren’t getting it.
Give it up, you got cough on an ignorant point, and that is not what the bill says. it actually refers to actual tests scores to pass the hurdle.
:rolleyes:
Sad really, the deception is coming from whoever told you was the information regarding the English requirement in the bill.
No need then to trust anything of what you claim.
The 1986 bill also included an English requirement. It was watered down administratively. And identify theft is specifically not considered serious enough of a crime to deny an application for permanent residency under the bill. In addition, even if an immigrant fails the background check, INS is not required to initiate deportation proceedings. No matter how serious the crime. There’s no real fine, because the fine can be waived by the administration.
Now of course, all of these problems with the bill have been acknowledged by Rubio and/or Paul. and they will be fixed. Who could oppose that?