Guest Amnesty program a sure thing? - Political Forum

emptypepsi · #1 (**permalink**) 11-11-2006, 07:25 PM

Now that the Dems have all of Congress to themselves, does anybody but me think Guest Amnesty is all but signed into law? Or do you think, like what I've read, that most Dems in the House are moderate or conservative and won't go for it?

CHUQ · #2 (**permalink**) 11-12-2006, 05:48 AM

I think it will be an amusing session. Bush has veto and the Congress has override. We will see just how much they want to cooperate with each other.

emptypepsi · #3 (**permalink**) 11-12-2006, 05:55 AM

I don't know if Bush will veto, as he has made it pretty clear that this is what he wants. What I'm looking at is the House. I'm pretty sure the Senate will go for it. I think this will be the issue that shows whether we did get a bunch of moderate/conservative Dems in the House.

CHUQ · #4 (**permalink**) 11-13-2006, 06:18 AM

I would say we did get a bunch of mods/conservs, there is only a handful of actual liberals and I think they will go along with the majority so they can use that cooperation when they put forth their agenda.

CHUQ · #5 (**permalink**) 11-13-2006, 09:24 AM

I found this opinion piece and thought it would spark some debate.

LatinAmerican Post

emptypepsi · #6 (**permalink**) 11-14-2006, 06:46 PM

Excellent news. I'm glad the locals are taking steps to enforce laws now that it is apparent our federal government is unsurprisingly inept at it. The English as the official language is just butter on the bread.

I've read a study recently that asserts that simple law enforcement through attrition would be much lest costly than an overhaul like Guest Amnesty or some other huge mass deportation and fence idea.

The way I see the current government and immigration reform is this --
A person is given a job to do. The person fails miserably at this job, and yet people demand that he be given more priorities than the ones he has already been assigned. And it's not that he has been given duties he hasn't been educated on or has not been privy to the terms of this work. He just hasn't been delivering. Why give a person more things to do when it has been proven that he is inept at accomplishing the former ones? Why not work with him to make sure he can get the original responsibilities taken care of the right way? In a sense, why throw a baby who can't walk yet onto a track for a 100 yard dash?

emptypepsi · #7 (**permalink**) 11-15-2006, 06:15 AM

They seek a resolution in Mexico to keep her here? Nice, when does Mexico have the right to dictate which illegals stay or go within our sovereign borders? This whole situation is so ridiculous. The woman in the church is a perfect example of what is emboldening people here illegally to think they have some sort of "right" to stay. At the same time, she is claiming that she is somewhat akin to Rosa Parks a la The Civil Rights movement (source: CNN).

If this movement were anything like that, which is pure rubbish to compare, wouldn't dogs and firehoses have been unleashed at those demonstrations? Wouldn't people of hispanic origin be entering buildings at alternate entrances?

WRT the new head of Republicans being Cuban descent, yeah it's got to do with this whole ordeal I'm sure.

CHUQ · #8 (**permalink**) 11-17-2006, 06:08 AM

Has anyone read some of the shit that was said in the early 1900's about the influx of Irish and Italians? The words then sound alot like the words now. They were a little more candid in their bigotry shit, than they are now.

emptypepsi · #9 (**permalink**) 11-17-2006, 01:13 PM

This is an issue where I become pretty right wing - anchor babies. I hope I don't become labeled an unsympathetic asshole by anybody, but...

If a person who comes here knowing good and well he could be caught at any time and sent back home decides to have a child (knowing that it would become a citizen), then gets caught and forced to be split from his child -- who is blame for all of that? He/she is. The illegal component of that family (the parents and others) should not be allowed to stay - PERIOD. If he/she wants to take their child (their responsibility, mind you) to the country of origin where he/she belongs, that person should be able to (and usually are, from what I know). That way the family is not seperated. The person can then go about coming here the right way and his child can still enjoy life in the US under legal means.

You see, for me the focal point of this subject may have the anchor children in the name, but the cause of this condition was brought about through people here illegally. I didn't make the guy have that kid when he knows he would be put in a tough situation through implementation of the law. I don't feel it's my place as a citizen to have the Govt. raise spending/taxes to help provide for that child. Do we not hold the illegal responsible for his action? They are still the primary issue here. I say the anchor baby go back to the original country with his/her folks, as it is the responsibility of the parents first to provide for that child.

If the family knows of a legal means of adoption they can use to keep their child here, to go to school here, etc. - they should be able to. If the illegal family has a legal family here in the states, there should be a system of allowing that child to stay with them, under the consent of the parents. This way the parents at least have a choice of their child's future (as they are legally responsible for the kid until he/she is 18).

Trust me, contrary to what I've been accused of, I'm not as polarized on this as that spiel may make me out to be.

I'm very open to discussion on the topic, but this is one where I do see a line drawn and it being flagrantly crossed - not so much on me as a citizen, but on the side of the child, with the parents making a conscious choice on having a kid they know good and well would be put into jeopardy in a situation like this. It's downright shameful in some regards.

FRYandBENDER · #10 (**permalink**) 11-17-2006, 01:54 PM

Yeah, the anchor baby thing is just a way for them to take advantage of our laws. I find it highly hipocritical, and insulting, for these people to break our laws by coming over here and then throw this law in our face. It's a bunch of bullshit, send them all packing. I bet if they knew they were going to get sent back, they wouldn't be making another mouth to feed. I know I would be pissed to find out that my parents didn't have me because they wanted to, but instead had me so they could use me to help them break the law. "Sorry Pedro, we don't really love you, we just wanted to stay in America."