A Lott of outrage
posted at 10:30 am on June 27, 2007 by Michelle
Share on Facebook | regular view
Feel the love, Sen. Lott:
Senate Minority Whip Trent Lott, R-Miss., has been inundated with so many phone calls in his Washington office over his support for the immigration bill that he has taken to picking up the phone himself.
“Some people were pretty startled,” said Lott spokesman Lee Youngblood.
Lott’s position on the immigration bill has angered some radio talk show hosts who have publicized the office numbers of his Washington and Jackson offices, leading to jammed lines that often ring “busy” and e-mail servers that fill up.
“The problem has been that when lines are tied up, people with concerns about Social Security or veterans’ benefits can’t get through,” said Youngblood. “That’s what has posed the greatest challenge.”
Lott on Tuesday was one of 24 Senate Republicans who helped break a stalemate and move the bill forward. Its final passage remains uncertain.
Lott has expressed concern that some people who call use profanity and inappropriate language…
…As to the volume of calls, which number in the thousands, Youngblood said, “It’s safe to say that it’s the most phone traffic we’ve had in a number of years.”
Keep it coming:
DC Office:
487 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510-2403
Phone: 202-224-6253
Fax: 202-224-2262
Email: senatorlott @ lott.senate.gov
District Office – Gulfport:
2012 Fifteenth Street, Suite 451
Gulfport, MS 39501
Phone: 228-863-1988
Fax: 228-863-9960
District Office – Jackson:
245 East Capitol Street, Suite 226
Jackson, MS 39201
Phone: 601-965-4644
Fax: 601-965-4007
District Office – Oxford:
911 Jackson Avenue, Suite 127
Oxford, MS 38655
Phone: 662-234-3774
Fax: 662-234-1744
District Office – Pascagoula:
3100 South Pascagoula Street
Pascagoula, MS 39567
Phone: 228-762-5400
Fax: 228-762-0137
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
Thanks, Bad Candy. I thought it had to be in reference to Moby (the rip off artist – he doesn’t even SING, so you can’t call him a singer.)
It’s just another word for idiot lefty troll. I’m with the program now!
Chip, Honey…Go play your video games, and let the adults talk.
tickleddragon on June 27, 2007 at 12:32 PM
Is there anyone on this site that would be opposed to a path way to citizenship if the border was proven secured for say a period of 3 years?
That is of course for those that have no criminal record are not under order for deportation and do not get welfare.
unseen on June 27, 2007 at 12:32 PM
Sen. Lott needs to be NOT!
DANEgerus on June 27, 2007 at 12:33 PM
Me…..1-secure the border
2-set up quotas
3-all else is negotiable
Limerick on June 27, 2007 at 12:34 PM
False and inherently flawed question.
How can an ILLEGAL immigrant, ie one who came here illegaly, and is using document fraud or working on the black market (not paying taxes)… NOT have a criminal record?
Only way they WON’T have a criminal record is if they have not been caught, because our law enformcement higher ups do not WANT them to be caught.
A simple record search with tax rolls against SSN rolls, will bring to light MILLIONS of people using document fraud…
Romeo13 on June 27, 2007 at 12:38 PM
tickleddragon on June 27, 2007 at 12:32 PM
I have to disagree with you. I think it is great that Chip is engaged with the discussion. He will be the most impacted with this bill. When he is 30 or 40 and SS crumbles under the weight of this bill, or medicare is bankrupt, or his taxes approach 70% he will understand the impact of this bill.
Chip,
It is good to see you engaged but at 15 you do not have the life experience to understand the far reaching ramifications of this bill. I understand your fear of ripping the GOP apart but you have to have an understanding of History, Civics, and geopolitical events to understand why this bill is so bad.
unseen on June 27, 2007 at 12:38 PM
Actually, I would argue that we’re moving into the dependence stage already. Domestically, look at how resistant the public is to killing entitlements like Social Security and Medicare before they kill our economy. Our people are becoming more and more dependent on the government. Globally, look at how dependent we are on foreign oil, foreign workers, and foreign economies. Some of us even seem to be dependent on other countries liking us and approving of how we choose to defend ourselves.
We’re obviously still quite strong and independent, but it’s a slow, comfortable, subtle slide into dependence. Most people won’t even notice.
aero on June 27, 2007 at 12:38 PM
Little does he realize that retired veterans are calling to complain about this amnesty crock.
The real question is, has Lott gotten the message yet?
taznar on June 27, 2007 at 12:40 PM
Romeo13 on June 27, 2007 at 12:38 PM
Your right, Sorry the question wasn’t clear. Those that have no violent crimnal record should have been the question. Also would it help if the amnesty was for all the population. Both Citizens and immigrants.
unseen on June 27, 2007 at 12:41 PM
Plus, with repeated uses of “our” when he means “are”, he isn’t really helping himself by calling her dumb. He just doesn’t get it, which is too bad. We need more young conservatives.
Esthier on June 27, 2007 at 12:41 PM
Esthier on June 27, 2007 at 12:41 PM
Being on the wrong end of that problem on occasion I’m will to cut him some slack with grammer and spelling. It is his arguement that is flawed. The flaw is not his intelligence it is his wisdom.
unseen on June 27, 2007 at 12:45 PM
I’m
willwilling to cut him some slack withsee I write too fast at times…sorry.
unseen on June 27, 2007 at 12:48 PM
Lott’s line (and the rest of the shameless Shamnestiests):
“We must have new laws to enforce seriously to take care of all of those old laws that we weren’t enforcing seriously.”
Seriously?
I’d accidentally swallow a dromedary before I swallow this b.s.
profitsbeard on June 27, 2007 at 12:49 PM
Give chip91 a break. At least he’s politically savvy and on the Conservative path. Not to mention that he, as opposed to most 15 year olds on the internet, is not punctuating his comments with ZOMG 2 kewl!!!11!!1 and STFU.
Keep it up Chip.
SouthernDem on June 27, 2007 at 12:50 PM
Nobody but nobody has fatter fingers then me….
back on topic…
Chip91….welcome aboard. I don’t want everyone to agree with me. That said, being loyal is great, being played for a fool and not speaking up is another. Loyalty has brought my country this bill, the military ROE’s that are dangerous, and my party to ruin. If we don’t speak up loudly then we deserve what we get.
Limerick on June 27, 2007 at 12:53 PM
I agree with Southern Dem about Chip chosing to use the internet for something other than improving his my space page, but “on the Conservative path”? Well, ok, if you consider that all the republicans who voted for cloture on this shamnesty bill are “on the conservative path,” I suppose that’s a fair statement. Fair, but wrong.
speed911 on June 27, 2007 at 12:58 PM
Limerick on June 27, 2007 at 12:53 PM
well said
unseen on June 27, 2007 at 12:58 PM
Of course there should be a pathway for citizenship for those whose only crime was succumbing to the coordinated immoral temptation of business and gov’t to get them working here illegally. But that can’t be done now, or else we would further magnify that very temptation. Stop the immoral temptation: secure the border and make sure businesses are being effectively penalized for hiring illegals. THEN a pathway.
G. Charles on June 27, 2007 at 1:01 PM
anyone have that 1800 amnesty hotline number? I’m tired of paying long distance for my Senator to tell me “thanks for your view but I know better than you”.
unseen on June 27, 2007 at 1:02 PM
G. Charles on June 27, 2007 at 1:01 PM
yeah that’s my thought too. If our politicians would just secure the border, and enforce labor laws this problem would go away in about 3 or 4 years. At that point, I don’t think many Americans would be adverse to offering a PATHWAY to citizenship. They would still have to earn it. No magic citizenship just a pathway if they really want it.
unseen on June 27, 2007 at 1:06 PM
And I wouldn’t need a three year track record. Once border crossing and hiring illegals is only a trickle, some pathway to citizenship for current illegals can be enacted, as long as there are benchmarks for immediately halting the process if illegal crossings or hirings increase.
G. Charles on June 27, 2007 at 1:06 PM
Well, OK, except for that part.
SouthernDem on June 27, 2007 at 1:07 PM
But you see, that IS the problem. There is no way that they are going to give normal citizens amnesty on taxes, and can’t under the Equal Protection clause.
There is no way they are going to give amnesty to anyone using document fraud, if they are a citizen… once again, equal protection problem.
I’ve said it before. I am a culturalist… I like the American culture that is based on the rule of law. Now most of these “immigrants” are coming from very corrupt cultures… and they broke the law to come here… and further corrupt the system by working for low wages (thus helping corrupt business owners who hire them)…
So we are now going to REWARD their coruption? thus reinforcing the idea that corruption works?
Enforce the existing laws, and just like in “Operation Wetback” way back when , they will leave on their own accord.
Romeo13 on June 27, 2007 at 1:07 PM
People have the government they deserve. Unfortunately, we have the government the illegals deserve.
Buckle up, it is going to be a bumpy flight.
saiga on June 27, 2007 at 1:11 PM
Romeo13 on June 27, 2007 at 1:07 PM
G. Charles on June 27, 2007 at 1:06 PM
Both good points.
I use the 3 or 4 year timeframe because I think that is how long it would take to build the wall, hire the BP, ICE etc.
Romeo,
I don’t understand this point. could you explain some more:
can’t under the Equal Protection clause.
thanks.
I could go for an operation to get some self deportation.
unseen on June 27, 2007 at 1:13 PM
I enjoy history, but not the repeat of history I see playing out here. It’s the kind of history one sees when a great empire is about to dissolve.
We have the monied, political claases trying to distract the populace with diversions while they feather their nests to soften the coming fall. There is something of the French revolution in this one. I expect any day to read of a major assassination, as frustrated, overworked people rage against their impotence. I’m guessing a Republican Senator, as they’re the ones that have most betrayed their constituents. And maybe that will be followed by a significant terrorist act within the USA. Any response or lack of response to it will totally unhinge the half of the population that disagrees with that response. A President with no credibility and a horde of liberal pacificists will insure that nothing is accomplished. That’s when future historians will mark the fall of the American Age. But looking at it today, I’d say the real reasons began in the New Deal and grew exponentially since by every administration. I think I’m glad that I won’t be around in 30 years to suffer the consequences. I feel sorry for our children. We frittered away a good civilization.
Mustafa Hemmroid on June 27, 2007 at 1:13 PM
G. Charles on June 27, 2007 at 1:01 PM
I say secure the border now, enforce the laws already on the books and start deporting anyone caught being here illegally. We can find a pathway for citizenship for any illegal with the courage to fight for the right to be a US citizen, but blanket amnesty…not a chance in hell.
Let them prove that they will be a benefit to this country, let them prove proficiency in English. Make them renounce all allegiances to the nation of their origin. Lets make sure they understand the constitution of the United States.
I am so damn sick and tired of seeing protests where they fly the Mexican flag, any illegal caught flying the Mexican flag should be deported and permanently bared from entry into the United States of America. And any US citizen of Mexican decent caught flying the Mexican flag should have their citizenship revoked and then deported to Mexico.
doriangrey on June 27, 2007 at 1:14 PM
Under the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution, you CAN’T take one class of citizen, or inhabitant, and enforce an existing law unequaly. All individuals are equal under the law.
If you give amnesty to illegals for past taxes, any citizen here, who owes taxes, will have a strong legal arguement that they do not owe back taxes either… ie… equal protection…
Same with document fraud.
The Government cannot selectivly enforce law, except under very strict circumstances (diplomats and such).
This Bill is ALL about selective enforcement…
Romeo13 on June 27, 2007 at 1:20 PM
doriangrey on June 27, 2007 at 1:14 PM
All good points. Symbolism is used to great effect on the left. On the right we are more concerned with facts and figures. We should learn from our enemies and use some symbolism ourselves.
unseen on June 27, 2007 at 1:20 PM
Limerick..I’m hoping your right.We will see soon enough. C-span2 is now. One ear on radio one eye on tv one on blog. And two on Empress Michelle!!
Legions on June 27, 2007 at 1:21 PM
On the lighter side Chris Muir takes it Day by Day
LakeRuins on June 27, 2007 at 1:21 PM
It’s getting bad now.
The 1-800-417-7666 amenesty line is busy. Not a good day to be a staffer I guess. Poor little tykes.
unseen on June 27, 2007 at 1:23 PM
Romeo13, I think it’s pragmatic and fair for a pathway to exist for those who would be legal execpt for responding to the economic temptation. The penalty (not amnesty) for their crimes could be a conviction that goes on their record and a fine of all back-taxes and a certain amount of money beyond that.
There is a parallel to Jean val Jean (sp?) of Les Miserables–stealing a loaf of bread to feed his family. Should he have been convicted? Sure, but better for all for him to be just fined, not imprisoned for years, and then allowed to contribute to society.
In other words, you break the law if you take another’s car for a joy-ride; but there should be something taken into account when the owner leaves it running and unlocked in Times Square, while some dufus writes “drive me” on the hood.
G. Charles on June 27, 2007 at 1:23 PM
1. Operation Wetback is not pc.
2.Immigrants are people that go through the system,
aliens are law breakers.
3.A war on terror with the barn door open for all these years G.W in office?
4. Chertoff of DHS ??? Making a deal with Chapp. boy Ted ???5.Bush for it ?????
6. Fuc!!ing crazy
7.Lord help us.
stoker on June 27, 2007 at 1:24 PM
Romeo13 on June 27, 2007 at 1:20 PM
Ok. That’s what I was saying. If the government gave amnesty to all the population both citizens and illegals on taxes and documnent fraud would that be ok with people?
unseen on June 27, 2007 at 1:25 PM
chip91, you were not born in 1986, the year in which Congress last passed “comprehensive immigration reform.” I don’t mean that as a putdown, or to condescend. It’s simply a fact.
If you really believe the system needs to be fixed now, you must necessarily admit that the 1986 “reform” effort failed, was not enforced, or both.
Folks older than you, who have lived through this cycle, see no evidence that would justify trusting Congress to get it right or enforce whatever new “reform” they pass now. Indeed, in just the past year, you will recall the promise to build the fencing that is not being built now.
That’s why so many conservatives are opposing the bill. At this point, the government has so squandered any trust it might have had on this issue, it needs to do things to rebuild that trust. If they actually built the fence, enforced employer sanctions, etc. and actually reduced the flow of illegal immigration, there would be a lot more support for getting the illegals already here on a “path to citizenship.” Not total support, but a lot more support than there is now.
That is the disconnect. You can write that the bill stengthens border security, but it even if I agreed (and I don’t think it will do much on that score), border security is not strengthened unless you actually enforce the law. For example, the border is not stengthened by passing a law providing for a fence — Congress then needs to pay to build the fence and the fence actually needs to get built. Not only has that not happened in the past, the Democrats in Congress are passing bills that will make it much more difficult to build the fence. And the Bush Admin. isn’t objecting.
BTW, you aren’t going to impress anyone here by claiming there’s some big group who wants all 12 million illegals deported now. Not even Rep. Tancredo wants that, and many would be satisfied if the USG would seal the border enough that we don’t have 12-20 million more illegals by 2017. Your strawman characterization of those who disagree with you is precisely the sort of thing the Bush Admin. has done. It doesn’t persuade those who disagree with you; it only gets them ticked off and — over time — erodes support for the Admin. generally.
Karl on June 27, 2007 at 1:26 PM
It’s never a good sign when a Republican uses a Democrat tactic. That douchebag just tried to use veterans and seniors to play the Absolute Moral Authority card and tell us to shut up. Weak.
ReubenJCogburn on June 27, 2007 at 1:26 PM
G. Charles on June 27, 2007 at 1:23 PM
Sorry just not buying that load of crap, here let me quote glen fry for you…….
Once you start down the path of saying it acceptable to excuse what people do for the lure of easy money you quickly find yourself asking ” Just where the hell are we going and why are we riding in a hand basket”…
doriangrey on June 27, 2007 at 1:31 PM
G. Charles on June 27, 2007 at 1:23 PM
I think there are too many laws myself. I can not go out my door without breaking some stupid law. Law and order is great in theory but when your government makes everything illegal everyone becomes a criminal. Who has never sped, or din’t wear a seatbelt or took a cash payment for something without paying sales tax etc.
unseen on June 27, 2007 at 1:31 PM
din’t
should be didn’t
unseen on June 27, 2007 at 1:32 PM
Jerk!
robman27 on June 27, 2007 at 1:36 PM
Ok… I have an economic temptation to rob a bank… or defraud people (Enron anyone?).
This is NOT a short term I’m hungry type of situation. These are people who have knowingly broken our laws for years. Every time they use a fake ID… or forged paper… or get paid under the table they are breaking the law. These are people who came long distances to break our laws.
Why should they be rewarded with staying when there are many others, who played by the rules, who are left outside?
Romeo13 on June 27, 2007 at 1:36 PM
Why should they be rewarded with staying when there are many others, who played by the rules, who are left outside?
Good point. So what type of punishment would it take to have them pay their debt to society?
unseen on June 27, 2007 at 1:39 PM
IMO? for me? NO…
You want to forgive lawbreaking on a wider scale?
This country is built on a foundation of aggreements… called laws. Its a pact between the citizens, and the government to allow everyone to know whats expected of them, and the consequence of bad action.
Just as the last amnesty led to FURTHER illegal immigration, I believe this one will do the same.
If your training a puppy, and it piddles on the carpet once… and you rub his nose in it then spank him… but the next time he piddles on the carpet you give him a cookie… do you think that dog will ever be housebroken?
Romeo13 on June 27, 2007 at 1:41 PM
Romeo13 on June 27, 2007 at 1:41 PM
All good points. I am on the fence when it comes to this part of the problem.
I agree with securing the border and enforcing internal security.
what bothers me is that it is the governments fault these laws are being broken. When you do not enforce a law it becomes irrelevant. In that circumstance who should pay. The people not enforcing the law or the ones not following it. Isn’t law and order a function of both? If both groups agree not to follow it is it still a law?
unseen on June 27, 2007 at 1:47 PM
If you look into past sham bills. I seen on u tube a 1986 speech/shrill of Chapa. Ted saying this is the last time to fix this problem. Sound faimlier????
How could anybody join this pos in trying to fix his f uppps in the past.
Oh buy the way it went back before that with this blue blood elistist.
stoker on June 27, 2007 at 1:48 PM
Sessions is my hero.
unseen on June 27, 2007 at 1:51 PM
unseen on June 27, 2007 at 1:39 PM
Deportation is a damn good start. If they can file the necessary applications for citizenship while avoiding being caught here illegally and jump through the necessary hoops to prove that US citizenship is more important to them than citizenship in the nation of their origin, you know, the little things like proficiency in English, understanding and knowing the US constitution, then I am willing to work with them.
But if they want to ignore US laws, parade around with the flag of their nation of origin, demand rights the only citizens have sponge off our social services then to hell with the bastards, deport them and permanently ban them from ever returning.
doriangrey on June 27, 2007 at 1:53 PM
Romeo’s border enforcment policy…
1. Militarize the border NOW!
2. Use eminent domain to Federalize 10 miles of border (except for towns) along the border, and make it a military reservation.
3. Troops, even with the Posse act CAN enforce Fed Law on Fed land. Use this “training excercise” to close the border to both illegal aliens, and drugs.
4. Don’t go looking BUT, anyone caught breaking a law who is not here legaly is up for immediate deportation.
5. Announce and set up, over the next two years, a system whereby all Tax records, and SSNs will be checked for fraud.
Initialy an employer will be warned that a fake SSN is being used, and this needs to be corrected… if it isn’t? The Employer will be fined $5000 for each occurence, and ICE will be informed.
6. Any illegal immigrant caught the SECOND time for deportation, goes into the Fed Prison system where they will be used to help build border fences for one year (also helps to train them so they have another trade when they go back to their home country….).
They come here because they do NOT fear our laws… they will leave once they do fear them.
If they leave NOW? Let them in line with the rest of the LEGAL immigrants…. don’t reward bad behaviour.
Romeo13 on June 27, 2007 at 1:56 PM
Deportation is a damn good start. If they can file the necessary applications for citizenship while avoiding being caught here illegally and jump through the necessary hoops to prove that US citizenship is more important to them than citizenship in the nation of their origin, you know, the little things like proficiency in English, understanding and knowing the US constitution, then I am willing to work with them.
doriangrey on June 27, 2007 at 1:53 PM
Yeah, I can be happy with that also. Those that want to be Americans need only apply.
unseen on June 27, 2007 at 1:57 PM
If this passes, I am going to dye my hair and act as a retarded alien. No habal, no comprend. give me card. I works here and am good men. No Mas
stoker on June 27, 2007 at 2:00 PM
Romeo13 on June 27, 2007 at 1:56 PM,
That one wont work unless it hurts their pocketbook and 5000 just aint going to do it, they will just right that amount into their cost of doing business figures.
doriangrey on June 27, 2007 at 2:03 PM
Romeo13 on June 27, 2007 at 1:56 PM
Ok I can get behind most of that list.
I would start with cutting off all aid and money transfers to Mexico until they control their side of the border.
Those that abject to the wall near their property should be on the hook for a percentage of all costs the illegals cause to the American citizens.
Not sure about military on the border. Would rather beef up the patrol and build a wall but if we must, we must.
unseen on June 27, 2007 at 2:04 PM
Question… what then is the social compact between government and citizens?
Right now, it is against company policy at Home Depot to even call the cops if they see someone shoplifting (in fact they fired a couple of guys over this policy)… I was in Home Depot day before yesterday… but I still didn’t steal… Why? basic respect for law and order, societal training, and basic idea of right and wrong…. getting caught was never part of the issue…
I aggree that our Federal government has really let us down on this issue… but these people are STILL knowingly breaking the law… and I for one don’t beleive they should be rewarded for it…
Romeo13 on June 27, 2007 at 2:04 PM
Romeo13 on June 27, 2007 at 2:04 PM
2. Use eminent domain to Federalize
101 mile of border (except for towns) along the border, and make it a military reservation.I could go for that……….
doriangrey on June 27, 2007 at 2:09 PM
Why is it so hard for pols to just say, “OK, step 1: stem the tide.”?
Everyone’s got their BVDs in a wad over steps 2-52, though.
Mephistefales on June 27, 2007 at 2:13 PM
I have been trying to call Senator Bond’s office all day and can’t get through. Keep the call coming!
Spacen on June 27, 2007 at 2:13 PM
I’ve had too much military training… A motiviated in shape person can get across 1 mile way too rapidly for anyone near to respond… I’m 48 years old and can still do a single mile in under 6 minutes… in military Ops, distance gives you the time you need to react… especially if you do NOT want to use lethal force.
It would actualy be interesting to find out how much of the land on the border the US government already owns… bet its a bunch…
Romeo13 on June 27, 2007 at 2:14 PM
Romeo13 on June 27, 2007 at 2:14 PM
And the problem with lethal force is………???
doriangrey on June 27, 2007 at 2:18 PM
Question… what then is the social compact between government and citizens?
It is different between different countries but for the USA. It starts here:
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
I read an article on Eject!EJect!Eject!.com that explained criminal game theory. It really explained what we have going on here. I would recommned the essay to all.
unseen on June 27, 2007 at 2:20 PM
Here is an part of the essay:
Now, if this game is played one time, the winning strategy invariably is to Screw the Other Guy. If he doesn’t screw you, you get off free. If he does, you serve two years. But if you didn’t, and he decided to screw you – ten years. No one wants to risk that. Screw the Other Guy is the only smart position, and when the game is run thousands of times on computers it comes out the very clear winner.
But! What happens if the game is played again and again, against the same person? Does Screw the Other Guy continue to be the best strategy?
It does not!
The best strategy for a repeating game (called the Iterated Prisoner’s Dilemma) is not Screw The Other Guy, and — surprisingly at first glance — it’s not Always Cooperate With The Other Guy, either.
The winning strategy is Tit-for-Tat. That is, you do to the guy what he did to you last turn. If he cooperated, you cooperate. If he screwed you, you screw him back. Over thousands and millions of computer runs, using every strategy from complete aggression to complete forgiveness, Tit-for-Tat “wins” every time – that is, it results in the least jail time for you.
http://www.ejectejecteject.com/
unseen on June 27, 2007 at 2:24 PM
Thanks… interesting read… I’d seen the Prisoner’s Dilema before…
Problem with the analogy is that there is STILL a set of rules set up to make your choices in…
In other words.. if I do A, and he does B, then this is the result… there is a higher authority enforcing the consequence (rules)…
Here we have a situation where the higher authority is not enforcing the rules evenly… in other words, I’m prisoner B, but no matter what I do (legal or illegal) I get to win… and prisoner A (the taxpayer?) still pays the price…
Romeo13 on June 27, 2007 at 2:34 PM
Tit-for-Tat
That is what the base is doing to the GOP right now. We are not irrational in our anger. We are in fact acting very rational.
unseen on June 27, 2007 at 2:35 PM
I have no problem cutting people slack for misspelling words. However, I tend to make an issue of it when those same people call others “dumb.”
Esthier on June 27, 2007 at 2:44 PM
Romeo13 on June 27, 2007 at 2:34 PM
There are 4 groups in this immigration dilema.
The illegals
the government
The legal immigrants
The citizens of the USA
But we can reduce it to two:
the government and illegals are group A
The citizens and legal immigrants in group B
When you do that you see what is needed to solve the problem.
This Bill wants to continue to have group A Screw the other guy.
Group B wants the Tit for Tat. If this is not given, it will soon be that Group B will require the Screw the other guy option and society as we know it will soon fall apart.
unseen on June 27, 2007 at 2:44 PM
Esthier on June 27, 2007 at 2:44 PM
Granted those that live in glass houses should not throw stones.
unseen on June 27, 2007 at 2:46 PM
chip91 on June 27, 2007 at 11:21 AM:
“This bill strengthens border security and creates a guest worker program.”
We already have laws on the books to build a border fence and hire more Border Guards. Our Gov’t hasn’t found the will to do it yet. Do you really think that a 700-plus-page bill, covering dozens of topics, is really going to bring us border security THIS TIME? The purpose of this bill, pure and simple, is to “fix” immigration by calling 12 million illegals “legal” after 24 hours. Pls note that illegal jihadists can just go to their nearest immigration center and swear they’re here as refugees and bingo, they’re in. The immigration system is YEARS backlogged as it is, now we’re going to properly “vet” 12 million people within 24 hours of application? This bill stinks to high heaven.
WHEN my government has shown good faith by securing our national borders and processing the masses of LEGAL immigrants, we can discuss WHETHER we need a guest worker program and how to implement it to maintain our national security. UNTIL we have reasonably secure borders, there’s no point in amnesty or registration or legalization, because there’s another 10-20 millions waiting to line up at the border and sneak across to force the NEXT amnesty. We gave a “one-time amnesty” back in 1986, we got assurances the border would be fixed, and now look: 20 years later, same-ol, same-ol’. I will NOT trust my government’s promises to fix border security again (”Hey! this time we’ve got triggers!”). We need to fix the borders NOW. PERIOD. NON-NEGOTIABLE.
A_Nonny_Mouse on June 27, 2007 at 2:51 PM
Tell me again why government WITH representation is better?
subbottomfeeder on June 27, 2007 at 2:59 PM
subbottomfeeder on June 27, 2007 at 2:59 PM
What?
unseen on June 27, 2007 at 3:00 PM
subbottomfeeder on June 27, 2007 at 2:59 PM
Hitler, Stalin, Saddam are three reasons…billions killed for thinking “wrong” are another
unseen on June 27, 2007 at 3:02 PM
unseen on June 27, 2007 at 12:30 PM wrote:
“Is there anyone on this site that would be opposed to a path way to citizenship if the border was proven secured for say a period of 3 years?”
As for me, nope, no opposition to citizenship. In the interim, I tend toward “Call attention to yourself (eg, domestic violence, drunk driving, robbery, etc) and get deported”. If you’re here a while, behave, learn English, support your family, then fine. Welcome, new Citizen!
A_Nonny_Mouse on June 27, 2007 at 3:09 PM
And you, are an idiot. What about all the people that have, and are currently, pursuing immigration legally? Gee, I guess it sucks to be them…huh? People like you are the first ones to squeal when someone cuts the line in from of them, or has 16 items in the express checkout. Doofus!
cmdrsubfleet on June 27, 2007 at 3:24 PM
cmdrsubfleet on June 27, 2007 at 3:24 PM
Why the name calling?
unseen on June 27, 2007 at 3:30 PM
cmdrsubfleet – You missed my post:
“WHEN my government has shown good faith by securing our national borders and processing the masses of LEGAL immigrants, we can discuss WHETHER we need a guest worker program and how to implement it to maintain our national security.”
I’m not opposed to a pathway to citizenship for illegals. The original question I was responding to suggested a time frame of about 3 years. I am not advocating anybody cutting to the front of the line.
Please take a deep breath, go to your “happy place” for a moment, then come back and be civil.
Thank you.
A_Nonny_Mouse on June 27, 2007 at 5:19 PM
There are differing opinion on what should be done with those illegal aliens already here and we can have that debate after we force our so called Representatives to vote with the overwhelming will of the people on this issue. To secure the borders and stop illegal immigration.
I believe my opinions, once the borders are secured, might change to the point that a guest worker program might set well with me if they don’t take any job a single American will do for an honest wage and are properly regulated, not any drain on our system and have to go home after a set period of time.
We MAY even be able to come to an agreement about a path to citizenship or residency status for those who have broken our laws and entered here illegally after the borders are secured and illegal immigration is stopped but never with permanent residency handed out after a stupidly short one business day background check or automatic pass.
In short, “We The People” will debate all of those things after our government makes good on their promises and duty to secure our nations borders. The job now is to show these Senators and the President that they work for the people not big business.
Buzzy on June 27, 2007 at 6:46 PM
This nonsense is what has come from the 17th Amendment. The really good original idea for Senators to be appointed by state government not elected by popular vote was better than having them continually raising campaign cash from dubious sources. Senators normally were picked by the state representatives and had to answer to them, which I believe actually made them closer to the electorate than statewide elections.
rrroark on June 28, 2007 at 10:01 AM
While noone should be using profane language on the phone, especially when calling a Senator’s office (Yes, many do deserve it), I think the greater profanity is when our Senators ignore the will of the American people (unless there is something blantantly wrong like people wanting to legalize murder),when our Senators view citizens voicing their concern about issues as a form of intimidation (like Vovonivitch suggested)and call us racists or The Loud People, and when talk radio is attacked because it is an outlet for conservative voice just like the MSM has been an outlet for liberal voice (like Trent “Empty” Lott did), and like the NY Slimes (aka The Grey Old Whore)is an outlet for treasonous voice.
The False Dervish on June 28, 2007 at 4:05 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2