I get what you are referring to – still right2bright was always referring to the actual “Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986″ and we can just leave it at that.

Also, often you demand intellectual and ‘civilized’ exchanges, and then you tend to name-call…Both gents ran their own companies or had very responsible jobs and I’m sure you do too. It’s just not necessary and complicates the substance of the topics, as you and I learned early on this board. Sincerely,

Karl Rove is sitting up Pelosi and the surrendercrats for failure. The libs voted for the war, now want to “run” the war. It dont work like that constitusionally. The prez is Commander-in-Chief, not the congress. They (the demorats) have to put up or shut up (i.e., cut funding or get out of stragegy). If cutting funding brings ire upon them pre-08,
they lose congress and the White House and if dictating brings a Contitutional challenge to the Commander-in-Chief, they lose.

gary on January 8, 2007 at 7:06 PM

I agree, sort of. But one part of me is starting to get this sneaking suspicion that if Bush insists on the surge and it fails and he still insists on stayint the course, you could start seeing not a Dem vs Rep move, but a legislative branch vs executive move.

Watching the news and news-ish last night. Amazing to see who is lining up against this–just about everyone except John McCain. How’s that for irony.

honora, repeat after me, someone who cares and learned the hard way “stubbornness.is.not.good”. Regards,

Entelechy on January 8, 2007 at 5:10 PM

Are you familiar with the Center for Immigration Studies? They are a think tank dedicated to restricting immigration, pretty high profile, very tied in with the hard liners on immigration

Check out this link.

http://www.cis.org/aboutcis.html

Pay particular attention to this paragraph:

Amnesties and Increased Legal Immigration Don’t Solve Problem. The 1986 amnesty legalized 2.7 million illegals. Partly as a result of the amnesty and partly because Congress increased legal immigration in 1990, legal immigration has nearly doubled since the mid-1980s. But we have two-and-half-times as many illegals as when IRCA was passed. In effect, we’ve already tried the key provisions of S2611 – amnesty plus increases in legal immigration. They simply don’t work. Amnesty spurs more illegal immigration, as does increasing legal immigration. A 1997 report from the INS found that there was a surge of new illegal immigration when the 1986 amnesty went into effect. The increase seems to have been the result of family members joining their newly legalized relatives. According to the 1997 INS report, the number of new illegal immigrants arriving increased by 44 percent between the start of the legalizations in 1987and the height of the legalizations in1989.1

This was part of their research director’s testimony on the hill this summer re immigration.

I do apologize for being bitchy with you. But facts is facts!! Saying the opposite doesn’t change that.

full story of how Reagan offered amnesty in 1986. Afraid you’re going on the ignore list, life is way too.
honora on January 8, 2007 at 4:45 PM

You got caught in a lie. You have searched and cannot find amnesty in his program. And then you reach into a conservatives blog and try to use their words to defend your mistatements? How shameful.

Typical, rather than admitting that you have wrongly accused someone, you hide. You are describing today’s liberal, when caught they deny.

There is no honor in honora. Here is one from your game book; whornora?

Same place it is in the McCain Kennedy bill.

honora on January 8, 2007 at 4:57 PM

Is this your apology?

It’s refered to as an amnesty but Mr. Reagan never lobbied for an amnesty, nor was it at the time labelled as such.

How hard is that to figure out, regardless of MM or others referencing it as ‘amnesty’, quite often?

Entelechy on January 8, 2007 at 5:04 PM

Ok, work with me here. The term “amnesty” does not appear in the McCain-Kennedy bill either. And the conclusion here would be:_______________________________________________.

(a) SHORT TITLE. — This Act may be cited as the “Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986“. “8 USC 1101 note”

It’s refered to as an amnesty but Mr. Reagan never lobbied for an amnesty, nor was it at the time labelled as such.

How hard is that to figure out, regardless of MM or others referencing it as ‘amnesty’, quite often?

I will try one more time. Where in the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 is the words amnesty

Same place it is in the McCain Kennedy bill.

No honey, I didn’t. This not2bright person…

honora on January 8, 2007 at 4:15 PM

Well, if you “didn’t”, and persist in not having…and on calling other intelligent commenters names, then the level of tolerance over there is incredible! Who can reach, or learn from, you? I’m reminded that you insisted repeatedly for civility in the past.

Just to follow up, Manchester related the emerging labor/socilist party in his second book. Churchill was busy winning a war, the labor party was not pressing for heating, but for social security and nationalization of unions and business. All the time undermining his war heroism. If you read book 2, you would have seen the emerging pattern.

right2bright on January 8, 2007 at 4:26 PM

Oh please, you got caught with your hand in the cookie jar. And I will not be going on a fool’s errand, as I told you before, link to Michelle’s site and get the full story of how Reagan offered amnesty in 1986. Afraid you’re going on the ignore list, life is way too.

You are wrong on the amnesty/Reagan thing, as was pointed out to you by both myself and a couple of others on that thread. Read it.
honora on January 8, 2007 at 2:18 PM

Back it up honora. Amnesty where are you.

If you make an accusation, back it up.

naliaka on January 8, 2007 at 4:12 PM

I would add one additional event that the moonbats hope will make this the orgasimic revisiting of the heady days of 60′s/70′s activism. The prayer that somehow, somewhere, they can get a sacrifice on the “Kent State” alter. They hope an armed US military will turn their weapons on US citizens protesting the war.

Boy, that’ll sure show us conservatives!

BTW, how about the amnesty apology.

I think we, the American public, should support Bush. Iraq is status quo right now. We are not losing and that is the reason to stay focused on completing the stated mission.

I believe the surge in troops (along with political discussion) will deal with the militias. I believe that will be the goal for escalating troop strength that Bush will set forth on Wednesday. Meanwhile the current troops will continue doing as they have been…..making the slow steady progress that the lefties and the MSM refuse to acknowledge.

Go here: http://www.usaid.gov/iraq/

and open up the link “success stories” for a pdf that enumerates much of the progress we have achieved in Iraq.

We do need to stay the course, but that course is defined as completing the mission to help establish an Iraq that can govern, sustain, and defend itself. And also be an ally in the war on terror. If you do have the curiosity to visit that site, you will see the progress we have made.

csdeven on January 8, 2007 at 4:14 PM

Thanks, very interesting. I hope you are right. I fear you are not.

honora on January 8, 2007 at 2:38 PM

Didn’t see your post:
Manchester died in 2004, he wrote about 250 pages of his third novel (can’t remember the title, kind of obscure), however his manuscript or notes were mostly complete. The two people that have been bantered about to finish his book is Edmund Morris (Teddy Rosevelt author) and Paul Reid, a journalist close friend that lived in Palm Beach near Manchester. Hoping to have it published this year by Reid. His manusript (finished and rough) has been around and some may be lucky to have a copy, though that would not sit well with the publisher. I would never say who has a copy, but I may have seen one pass by. I am certain that Manchester felt that Churchill was still living the war out in peace time. Calling some of his opponents Nazi’s, and stating that the socialist/labour party were only a stepping stone to communism, etc. The Country was war weary and wanted to rebuild homes, new jobs, social security, Churchill was pressing for food, jobs, and homes. The socialist party won well over 350 seats and devastated the conservatives (however he had formed his own party). The people could only view Churchill as some one on 10 Downing st. roof cursing at the Germans, they were tired of war. He felt the people had turned their back on him, the savior of Briton, and they had. The socialists/labour party were launching their campaign to win the election, while Bush Chruchill was fighting a war to keep Britan free. Sometimes you look back to see the future.
I am certain that there is no mention of central heating in Manchester’s last book.

honora, you crossed the line – not befitting HA, elitist and educated liberals and really, no one.

Entelechy on January 8, 2007 at 3:49 PM

No honey, I didn’t. This not2bright person countered my comment that Churchill lost in 1945 by suggesting I read the Last Lion. An interesting suggestion in that the 2nd volume of the LL covers Churchill til 1940. (Manchester died before he got to volume 3).

So clearly this guy has never read the book he is preaching to me about. It’s pretty funny when you think about it.

So what do you think we should do? Stay the course? (I’m not being sarcastic, I think that’s what you’re saying)

I am not a military tactician so bear with me: if we now have 150,000 troops in Iraq and are loosing or not winning, is it reasonable to expect an addition of 20,000 to make a big difference, minus a significant shift in strategy? Of course we haven’t heard from Bush, but history suggests the leaks will prove accurate. What we have heard from those sources is that the added troops will be concentrated in Baghdad to secure that area. Isn’t this a repeat of the summer initiative?

honora on January 8, 2007 at 11:02 AM

I think we, the American public, should support Bush. Iraq is status quo right now. We are not losing and that is the reason to stay focused on completing the stated mission.

I believe the surge in troops (along with political discussion) will deal with the militias. I believe that will be the goal for escalating troop strength that Bush will set forth on Wednesday. Meanwhile the current troops will continue doing as they have been…..making the slow steady progress that the lefties and the MSM refuse to acknowledge.

Go here: http://www.usaid.gov/iraq/

and open up the link “success stories” for a pdf that enumerates much of the progress we have achieved in Iraq.

We do need to stay the course, but that course is defined as completing the mission to help establish an Iraq that can govern, sustain, and defend itself. And also be an ally in the war on terror. If you do have the curiosity to visit that site, you will see the progress we have made.

I’ll handle this one: there’s no draft today. As someone in college during Vietnam, believe me, it’s a HUGE point of differentiation.
honora on January 8, 2007 at 12:51 PM

You’re exactly right honora. If a draft were instituted tomorrow, the same whining, spineless liberals would be out there burning draft cards, throwing rocks at police and running off to the safety of Canada. They aren’t interested in serving their country, and trust me, today’s military doesn’t want them.
Damn Kennedy and Johnson, getting us into that quagmire.
fogw on January 8, 2007 at 2:21 PM

The seething masses of irate humanity on the streets is the only element missing from the Left’s perfect retread of Vietnam. They miss being able to trash university offices, and distribute those soo soo ironic photos of hippies sticking flowers into the menancing rifle barrels of the National Guard. (Funny how the Boston Globe is flogging the very thing right now with a retrospective book – guess they felt they needed the images, even if they were the wrong war. Timing?) If Charles Rangel and Hillary Clinton get their way with HR 163, the proposed draft will be guaranteed to have even toddlers throwing rocks. They deliberately included women, not for any equal rights, but to make it hurt more, and to shut down America’s military efefctiveness.

Pearls to swine and all that.

honora on January 8, 2007 at 2:18 PM

honora, you crossed the line – not befitting HA, elitist and educated liberals and really, no one.