On May 15, 12:12=A0pm, ScottW <Scott...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On May 15, 8:27=A0am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> <artygu...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > On May 14, 2:39=A0pm, ScottW <Scott...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > >http://www.barackobama.com/issues/pdf/ImmigrationFactSheet.pdf
>
> > > Note the complete lack of detail on border security
>
> > Obama:
> > "He sup****ts additional personnel, infrastructure and technology on
> > the border and at our ****ts of entry. Obama believes we need
> > additional Customs and Border Protection agents equipped with better
> > technology and real-time intelligence."
>
> No mention of a fence?
Fences are stupid ideas, 2pid. I'd rather see more boots on the ground
and more high-tech solutions.
Fences, like ladders and shovels, are low-tech. Obstacles have to be
reinforced with things like minefields to be even slightly successful.
Fences are feel-good solutions for morons.
> McCain has repeatedly said he will complete the fence, secure the
> border, and have border states governors certify the result.
> Sadly, that means idiot Arnold will have to ask his wife what she
> thinks.
As I said, feel-good solutions.
> But I agree, this is pathetic policy definition upon which the
> American people must base their decision.
> Bring back Tancredo!
So let's not rip on one candidate without at least mentioning the
other. Obama's position outlined on his site is *far* more detailed
than McCain's.
> > McCain:
> > "As president, I will secure the border."
>
>
>http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/68db8157-d301-4e22-baf7-a7...
>
> > Now *there's* some detail!
>
> > > while the emphasis on anchor babies
>
> > Part of the US Constitution
>
> > > and keeping families intact
>
> > Aren't you a "family values" guy, 2pid? Are your fellow right-wingnuts
> > aware that you are for breaking up families?
>
> =A0I sup****t giving illegal immigrants in this country a path to a
> tem****ary legal status. =A0I don't think any illegal entry should
> provide a path to bringing the family along. If the illegal immigrant
> wants to unify his family left behind, go back.
> But before any of this policy can be addressed we need the border
> locked down.
> BTW, we no have about a boat a week showing up abondoned on San Diego
> shores.
The coast is a natural fence.
It, like boats, is low-tech. ;-)
> > > and reducing fees is quite a bit (though still not adequately)
> > > detailed.
>
> > Compared to McCain's detailed "plan", illustrated above?
>
> > > He also claims he wants to crack down on employers but also wants to
> > > discontinue raids.
>
> > I don't see that on the website you've cited. Where does it say that?
>
> http://www.barackobama.com/issues/immigration/#remove-incentives
I see nothing on "He also claims he wants to crack down on employers
but also wants to discontinue raids."
> Improve Our Immigration System
> Obama believes we must fix the dysfunctional immigration bureaucracy
> and increase the number of legal immigrants to keep families together
> and meet the demand for jobs that employers cannot fill.
>
> Remove Incentives to Enter Illegally
> Obama will remove incentives to enter the country illegally by
> cracking down on employers who hire undocumented immigrants.
>
> Bring People Out of the Shadows
> Obama sup****ts a system that allows undocumented immigrants who are in
> good standing to pay a fine, learn English, and go to the back of the
> line for the op****tunity to become citizens.
> =A0(the back of the line doesn't start inside the borders of the US)
>
> Can you reconcile these obviously conflicted statements?
What conflict? Increase the numbers of those legally admitted. Fine
employers who hire those not here legally (didn't Obama sponsor a
federal ID bill?). Have those here now illegally pay a fine and wait
their turn to become citizens under the increased quotas listed above.
They are only conflicted when viewed through a very biased filter,
2pid.
> > > His plan amounts to leaving 12 million+ unemployed illegal
immigrants
> > > in society to fend as best they can.
>
> > Isn't that what you've advocated all along, 2pid?
>
> Actually No. =A0 I advocate border security and de****tation of
> criminals.
> Employer enforcement on "new" hires is ok I suppose.
> Policies that result in millions unable to work is ludicrous.
> How about a enforcing permanent employment sanctions, but giving
> everyone an automatic 1 year guest worker permit.
> After that the employer is responsible for all costs associated with
> staying or leaving. =A0 Give people a fixed and reasonable time to come
> to deal with the reality, you don't get citizen****p or even permanent
> legal status.
What happened to "Go, Escondido!" as far as them passing a law
concerning housing?
|
