Video: Two GOP reps announce support for legalizing illegals

posted at 4:01 pm on April 22, 2014 by Allahpundit

No surprise in either case. They’re both from the blue state of Illinois (albeit from reliably Republican districts) and have broken with conservatives before. Kinzinger opposed the “defund” effort last fall as a futile exercise and scrapped with Ted Cruz over Syria. Schock, a member of Kevin McCarthy’s team, once told a town-hall crowd that he expected Eric Cantor’s version of the DREAM Act would pass with bipartisan support. The significance of the clips isn’t that they were thought to hold different positions but that they’re willing to put these video pitches online, for easy circulation to the media, not long after Boehner told a group of donors that he was “hellbent” on passing some sort of amnesty this year. Makes me wonder if Republican leaders are starting to nudge their allies in the caucus to speak up for the cause, hoping that having young stars like Schock and Kinzinger out in front might make other pro-amnesty backbenchers find their courage and back Boehner too.

The statements from Illinois GOP Reps. Aaron Schock and Adam Kinzinger come in twin video testimonials that will be aired during an event this afternoon in Chicago with former House Speaker Dennis Hastert – a rally meant to push fellow Republicans toward an immigration overhaul. The videos were provided to POLITICO in advance of Tuesday’s event, hosted by the Illinois Business Immigration Coalition…

Schock, who has expressed support for a pathway to citizenship before, made the economic case for reforming the immigration system, arguing that various industries throughout Illinois – such as agriculture – face serious hurdles in trying to hire immigrant workers legally.

And though Kinzinger doesn’t explicitly endorse a shot at citizenship for those in the United States illegally, he called for a way to find a legal status for them.

Coincidentally, more than two weeks after Jeb Bush’s “act of love” comments and the ensuing uproar, Gang of Eight member Jeff Flake decided yesterday would be a fine time to issue a statement of support:

Truth is, I agree with Jeb, and I applaud him for having the guts to say it. Growing up here in Arizona, I’ve seen what motivates those who come here illegally. Sure, some come with the intent to do harm or simply to take advantage of our generosity. But many come to find work to feed their families. To lump everyone who crosses the border illegally into the same class is unfair and unproductive.

Recognizing motivations does not change the fact that we need a secure border. We need to give employers the tools to determine who is here illegally and who is not. We need more robust temporary worker programs that account for our labor needs. We need to reform our legal immigration program to better reflect our economic needs going forward, and we need a mechanism to deal with those who are already here illegally in a rational manner.

I hold no brief for Jeb Bush, but having such a prominent Republican speak so humanely and unapologetically about the motivations behind many of those who have come to reside in this country is good for all of us.

Jeb himself reportedly endorsed a “tough but fair path to legalized status” at an education summit yesterday in Flake’s home state of Arizona, which may or may not have been the catalyst for Flake’s statement. Maybe this is as simple as random Republican amnesty fans speaking up independently at the same time, but given the grief Boehner got for his “hellbent” comment last week, I wonder if the word went out that comprehensive reform is in trouble unless he starts getting some back-up, pronto. Here’s a start.



Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

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: 1 2 3

Walls will come into play one way or another.

Murphy9 on April 22, 2014 at 7:20 PM

I just find rounding millions of people up and shipping them out no matter what is never going to happen, and brings up far too many horrible images. It’s not only bad press for anyone who sticks their approval on it, it’s political suicide.

It will never happen.

JetBoy

It’s been happening for over 40 years, and is the official immigration policy of the United States of America. Furthermore, the Obama administration brags about doing it more than any other president.

Oops.

xblade on April 22, 2014 at 7:21 PM

I’d be more than happy to answer any of your questions…

JetBoy on April 22, 2014 at 6:43 PM

DinaRehn on April 22, 2014 at 7:02 PM

I’m waiting……..

DinaRehn on April 22, 2014 at 7:21 PM

The Irish were on welfare? Irish were sneaking across the southern border? Government documents were printed in Gaelic? Second and third generation Irish were not assimilating?

bw222

Of course they did all that. That’s why we have to press 1 for Irish so often these days, lol.

xblade on April 22, 2014 at 7:26 PM

WHY IS THE GOP HELLBENT ON DOING THIS NOW??? I really don’t understand this suicide run they’re on.

Charlemagne on April 22, 2014 at 4:11 PM

I think you do, it’s about power and money. Economic fascism, the combining of big-gov and big-business. Our government has been so corrupted over the years that America is now ruled by an oligarchy, and the elites of the modern age are not patriotic Americans from the greatest generation but rather the worst fascist/socialist creeps from the baby boomers.

But the thing to keep in mind is that if the fascist oligarchy betrays the American people, there are ways that the American people can fight back, and there are a lot more of us than there are of them.

FloatingRock on April 22, 2014 at 7:30 PM

You do realize that you’re comparing non-action with a massive police action?

I was not. I was only asking a question. You spin as well as a liberal.

NOW, answer my question instead of dodging it:

Who is actually talking about that?

Please be prepared to provide exerpts and links to credible reference sources , and don’t expect to skate on the wild goose chase scam.

DinaRehn on April 22, 2014 at 7:02 PM

I’m not dodging anything. I’m right here…no need to get snide. It’s not very adult, you know?

Who is talking about that? Me! I’m talking about it. Right here, in the comments. All it was, was a question. One that took a few tries to get an answer…which yours was, after three tries, “no”…anything short of roundups and immediate deportation would not be amnesty of any sort.

But…that’s the law, no? If you’re here illegally, you are to be deported, no? If not…it sure sounds like “amnesty” to me. So when does “amnesty” become…”amnesty”? At what point?

JetBoy on April 22, 2014 at 7:36 PM

Why doesn’t anyone ever talk about birthright citizenship? Section 5 of the 14th ammendment allows congress to clarify it. That is a huge magnet for illegals and for birth tourism. It’s the elephat in the room.

Doester on April 22, 2014 at 7:36 PM

It’s been happening for over 40 years, and is the official immigration policy of the United States of America. Furthermore, the Obama administration brags about doing it more than any other president.

Oops.

xblade on April 22, 2014 at 7:21 PM

I try to deep up with these things…maybe I missed something. If what you said is true, then…what’s the problem? Enforcement? That should be an easy fix.

JetBoy on April 22, 2014 at 7:39 PM

It is not rocket science. If you are caught being an illegal, you get deported. What is so hard about that?

birdwatcher on April 22, 2014 at 7:42 PM

Is Hot Air going to do a piece on the start of US troop movements to Eastern Europe?

Another Libertarian on April 22, 2014 at 7:46 PM

I’m not dodging anything. I’m right here…no need to get snide. It’s not very adult, you know?

Who is talking about that? Me! I’m talking about it. Right here, in the comments. All it was, was a question. One that took a few tries to get an answer…which yours was, after three tries, “no”…anything short of roundups and immediate deportation would not be amnesty of any sort.

But…that’s the law, no? If you’re here illegally, you are to be deported, no? If not…it sure sounds like “amnesty” to me. So when does “amnesty” become…”amnesty”? At what point?

JetBoy on April 22, 2014 at 7:36 PM

Given your previous response – that’s a pretty surprising for you thing to say.

Remember You said:

I’d be more than happy to answer any of your questions…

JetBoy on April 22, 2014 at 6:43 PM

Now please answer it instead of dodging it.

DinaRehn on April 22, 2014 at 7:47 PM

NOW, answer my question instead of dodging it:

Who is actually talking about that?

DinaRehn on April 22, 2014 at 7:02 PM

Well, for one:

It is not rocket science. If you are caught being an illegal, you get deported. What is so hard about that?

birdwatcher on April 22, 2014 at 7:42 PM

Amongst many, many others with the same opinion.

PS: I’m not ragging on you personally, birdwatcher…if anything, I applaud your directness and honesty. Some others seem to have some difficulty with that kind of thing.

JetBoy on April 22, 2014 at 7:48 PM

Natural Blues…

Murphy9 on April 22, 2014 at 7:51 PM

Now please answer it instead of dodging it.

DinaRehn on April 22, 2014 at 7:47 PM

Perhaps you’re having issues with reading comprehension, so I’ll repeat:

You asked:

Who is actually talking about that?

DinaRehn on April 22, 2014 at 7:02 PM

I replied:

Me! I’m talking about it. Right here, in the comments.

JetBoy on April 22, 2014 at 7:36 PM

Capiche?

JetBoy on April 22, 2014 at 7:52 PM

Hope at last that commonsense will prevail and we will really see the real Americans who keep the economy running of their underpaid hard work.

reddmistt on April 22, 2014 at 7:52 PM

JetBoy on April 22, 2014 at 7:52 PM

Feigning ignorance now?
I guess I have spell it out for you:

What is a Straw Man Argument?

The straw man argument is regarded as a logical fallacy, because at its core, the person using the device misrepresents the other person’s argument. The person does this because it then becomes easier to knock down the weaker version of the opposing argument.
The straw man argument deliberately misrepresents and weakens the argument of the opposing side.
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-straw-man-argument.htm

Your words are irrelevant.

Who on the right has been talking about that?

Capiche?

DinaRehn on April 22, 2014 at 8:03 PM

I must be a radical, I believe in following the law.

birdwatcher on April 22, 2014 at 8:06 PM

Your words are irrelevant.

Who on the right has been talking about that?

Capiche?

DinaRehn on April 22, 2014 at 8:03 PM

One last time….ME. I’M TALKING ABOUT IT.

I’M.

TALKING.

ABOUT.

IT.

Me…JetBoy…on HotAir…am talking about it.

I can’t be any more clear than that.

JetBoy on April 22, 2014 at 8:07 PM

One last time: Your words are irrelevant.

Again: Who on the right in a prominent position has been talking about that?

You kept on dodging the question and now you have to resort to a Lame ‘I’M TALKING ABOUT IT’ line of BS.

It should be clear you cannot find a Prominent person on right talking about that, hence you’re using a strawman argument.

Thank you for proving that to everyone.

DinaRehn on April 22, 2014 at 8:14 PM

Me…JetBoy…on HotAir…am talking about it.

I can’t be any more clear than that.

JetBoy on April 22, 2014 at 8:07 PM

So you’re… disturbed at the premise that people would be suggesting such a thing, and when asked who, the answer is… you?

Midas on April 22, 2014 at 8:14 PM

Moist illegals…

Charlemagne on April 22, 2014 at 4:15 PM

I nominate it to Typo of the Year.

Rix on April 22, 2014 at 5:27 PM

…someone save this ^ for twerp…it could have saved her from being banned…. for that moistback comment!

KOOLAID2 on April 22, 2014 at 8:16 PM

The bureaucrats in the US Federal Government does not have the power to deport all those people even if they wanted to. The state and local police do not have the power to round everyone up and ship them out even if they wanted to, to say nothing of the money it would cost the local authorities with their already strained budgets.

It is not physically possible to accomplish this mass deportation, so the people who manage expectations, those who currently own the brand name “conservative” and tell people what to think, have decided that demanding intrusive laws that further erode OUR OWN civil liberties is the official “conservative” position.

Deporting all the people who don’t have their proper government-issued dog papers is a distraction. Deportation is a trip into magical thinking, and those who support it know this.

Another Libertarian on April 22, 2014 at 8:19 PM

One last time: Your words are irrelevant.

Again: Who on the right in a prominent position has been talking about that?

You kept on dodging the question and now you have to resort to a Lame ‘I’M TALKING ABOUT IT’ line of BS.

It should be clear you cannot find a Prominent person on right talking about that, hence you’re using a strawman argument.

Thank you for proving that to everyone.

DinaRehn on April 22, 2014 at 8:14 PM

Gee, I don’t recall making the claim that any “prominent person” talks about that. Your ineptness at reading comprehension isn’t my problem. I stated my opinion, you make a claim that I said it someone elses opinions, which if you actually READ WHAT I WROTE you would know that.

But you’re apparently too dense to figure that out. Cheers.

JetBoy on April 22, 2014 at 8:20 PM

Me…JetBoy…on HotAir…am talking about it.

I can’t be any more clear than that.

JetBoy on April 22, 2014 at 8:07 PM

So you’re… disturbed at the premise that people would be suggesting such a thing, and when asked who, the answer is… you?

Midas on April 22, 2014 at 8:14 PM

That talking point has been used so often that there are some that expect to use it with impunity.

Fact is there are only certain folks are using it to try and push for GOP suicide.

DinaRehn on April 22, 2014 at 8:23 PM

JetBoy on April 22, 2014 at 8:20 PM

Ah yes, and now we get into this part of the debate.

You could simply be adult about the matter and admit that prominent people on the right aren’t really talking this way and acknowledge this fact.

DinaRehn on April 22, 2014 at 8:29 PM

“We must work hard to come to an agreement on how to bring undocumented workers out of the shadows…”

Put ‘em on a non-stop Amtrak to L.A. where the sun always shines.

Willys on April 22, 2014 at 8:29 PM

You want to make an impact on illegal immigration?

Do it two ways.

1. SECURE the border.

2. ENFORCE existing immigration law.

Self deportation will happen as the grapevine disseminates the situation–a huge plus.

Revisit in a year or so and evaluate.

Amnesty is an unnecessary sham.

irongrampa on April 22, 2014 at 8:34 PM

You could simply be adult about the matter and admit that prominent people on the right aren’t really talking this way and acknowledge this fact.

DinaRehn on April 22, 2014 at 8:29 PM

Show me exactly where I made that claim.

JetBoy on April 22, 2014 at 8:37 PM

We’re still yapping about “amnesty” and nothing has changed since 2008. Some sort of “path to citizenship” is inevitable. And that in no way means “amnesty”. There is no way on God’s green Earth that families will be torn apart, illegals rounded up, weeded out, and sent packing…all 12-20 million of them. It’s not logistically possible, or even probable. And no politician want even images of this happening to be associated with them.
I’m all for a 50 foot high wall on our borders. That’s only half the problem, tho. Just as many illegals come here legally, and when their visas expire, they stay. So it’s a battle on many fronts…not just the borders.
JetBoy on April 22, 2014 at 5:27 PM

E-verify & employer fines/shut down.

Easy & effective. Anything else is just a steaming pile of BS from weak politicians.

kim roy on April 22, 2014 at 8:44 PM

the fact that they call themselves republicans sickens me even more.

can’t bear to watch.

their relatives should be forced to speak spanish for the rest of their lives and clean walmart toilets at night.

renalin on April 22, 2014 at 8:48 PM

I am astonished by the Republican Party’s drive for amnesty. Read the comments after any article on the subject on Yahoo, for example, and the comments are overwhelmingly in favor of enforcing the current law, without any change. I think this is a winning issue if the GOP leadership had the guts to do the right thing.

I work in a welfare office and encounter the hand-outs to illegal aliens on an almost daily basis. Did you know that even adults who are here illegally can receive Medicaid? If the hospital deems the care to be an emergency, the state will take care of the costs…and the patient doesn’t even need to worry about being reported to the authorities. I remember one case in which an entire family of illegal aliens was living here, with a sick child whose Medicaid was going to continue indefinitely, because it was considered “an emergency.” No one wants sick children to be at risk…but are we really ready to pay for all of them in the entire world? (Oh, and by the way, this family came from Asia.) Is there another country anywhere who does this? Each person on Medicaid on an ongoing basis costs the state somewhere around $900/month in capitation fees, last I heard, and that was a couple of years ago.

Clemence on April 22, 2014 at 8:57 PM

The smart thing to do would be to try and pass a bill increasing legal immigration significantly, with special attention given to Asian immigrants (mostly from China), and all illegals would have to go home and get in line. The benefits would be:

(1) It would be a way to go after Asian voters who are now starting to find the democrats and their love of affirmative action distasteful.

(2) It should satisfy at least some in big business.

(3) It should make independents happy because it says to them…see we are for immigration, we are not “racist”, but we should follow the law…plus it would be unfair to give citizenship to illegals when so many want to immigrate here legally.

(4) It should satisfy border hawks, no amnesty to illegals, no legal status to illegals.

(5) Last we can blame democrats when the bill fails to pass the Senate. We can say…”Democrats hate Asians”. Two can play the immigration game.

I know it is too hard for Weeping John to pull off…

William Eaton on April 22, 2014 at 9:01 PM

Got to love it when northern RINOs come out in support of amnesty. Move them to a border state like Arizona or New Mexico, make their kids attend a public school where English is a 2nd language and make their wives wait in line at the ER behind dozens of illegals and then see where they stand on the issue.

PaddyORyan on April 22, 2014 at 9:16 PM

E-verify & employer fines/shut down.

Easy & effective. Anything else is just a steaming pile of BS from weak politicians.

kim roy on April 22, 2014 at 8:44 PM

As I’ve said, I’m totally on board with enforcing laws on the books…and E-verify with penalties for knowingly hiring a non-citizen. But it’s the weak politicians, like you say, blocking up the system.

Politicians…most of them, I suspect…are in politics for themselves first. Most won’t want to “rock the boat” with large employers of Hispanics by constantly fining them or shutting them down. It’s not a great way to “make friends” so to speak, that they need on their side.

JetBoy on April 22, 2014 at 9:16 PM

JetBoy on April 22, 2014 at 8:37 PM

*sigh*

We’re still yapping about “amnesty” and nothing has changed since 2008. Some sort of “path to citizenship” is inevitable. And that in no way means “amnesty”. There is no way on God’s green Earth that families will be torn apart, illegals rounded up, weeded out, and sent packing…all 12-20 million of them. It’s not logistically possible, or even probable. And no politician want even images of this happening to be associated with them.

I’m all for a 50 foot high wall on our borders. That’s only half the problem, tho. Just as many illegals come here legally, and when their visas expire, they stay. So it’s a battle on many fronts…not just the borders.

JetBoy on April 22, 2014 at 5:27 PM

I just find rounding millions of people up and shipping them out no matter what is never going to happen, and brings up far too many horrible images. It’s not only bad press for anyone who sticks their approval on it, it’s political suicide.

It will never happen.

JetBoy on April 22, 2014 at 6:01 PM

You kept on dodging the question and now you have to resort to a Lame ‘I’M TALKING ABOUT IT’ line of BS.

It should be clear you cannot find a Prominent person on right talking about that, hence you’re using a strawman argument.

Thank you for proving that to everyone.

DinaRehn on April 22, 2014 at 9:18 PM

Show me exactly where I made that claim.

JetBoy on April 22, 2014 at 8:37 PM

Sorry, I like ya man, but right now, you’re simply being a dumbshit. I really don’t know what you’re getting at.

You completely setup a strawman argument to the effect that people shouldn’t be pushing for deportation with all of the horrific images it would convey, and when asked who it was that was suggesting such a thing, your answer is a) that you, yourself, are the one talking about it (and unable/unwilling to submit that anyone else was – eg: defacto ‘straw man’), or b) getting into douchetastic territory about the exact and precise words you used in doing so.

Sorry – f*ck off with that noise.

Midas on April 22, 2014 at 9:19 PM

I just find rounding millions of people up and shipping them out no matter what is never going to happen, and brings up far too many horrible images. It’s not only bad press for anyone who sticks their approval on it, it’s political suicide.

It will never happen.

JetBoy on April 22, 2014 at 6:01 PM

You kept on dodging the question and now you have to resort to a Lame ‘I’M TALKING ABOUT IT’ line of BS.

It should be clear you cannot find a Prominent person on right talking about that, hence you’re using a strawman argument.

Thank you for proving that to everyone.

DinaRehn on April 22, 2014 at 9:18 PM

Which part of “I just find rounding millions of people up…..” can’t you understand?

JetBoy on April 22, 2014 at 9:24 PM

Democratics could have done Amnesty in a snap when they had a Supermajority in Congress in 2009. They would not have needed a single Republican vote. They could have done it while taking a breather between rounds of Obamacare votes. They didn’t. Why not?

slickwillie2001 on April 22, 2014 at 9:27 PM

Why did ‘comprehensive immigration reform’ become an issue this year? Why this year? Who makes these decisions? Why is there such a push behind this in a year when we are still far from full employment and Democratics are pushing for unemployment ‘insurance’ extensions?

What is so bad about the existing situation? Because millions of people are breaking a law, does that mean that the law must be changed?

slickwillie2001 on April 22, 2014 at 9:31 PM

Show me exactly where I made that claim.

JetBoy on April 22, 2014 at 8:37 PM

Sorry, I like ya man, but right now, you’re simply being a dumbshit. I really don’t know what you’re getting at.

You completely setup a strawman argument to the effect that people shouldn’t be pushing for deportation with all of the horrific images it would convey, and when asked who it was that was suggesting such a thing, your answer is a) that you, yourself, are the one talking about it (and unable/unwilling to submit that anyone else was – eg: defacto ‘straw man’), or b) getting into douchetastic territory about the exact and precise words you used in doing so.

Sorry – f*ck off with that noise.

Midas on April 22, 2014 at 9:19 PM

Yes, he could just be adult about it and move on.. but..

DinaRehn on April 22, 2014 at 9:34 PM

They come here for a reason or reasons, reverse that reason or those reasons and they will deport themselves. It works every time it is tried.

Knott Buyinit on April 22, 2014 at 10:05 PM

Democratics could have done Amnesty in a snap when they had a Supermajority in Congress in 2009. They would not have needed a single Republican vote. They could have done it while taking a breather between rounds of Obamacare votes. They didn’t. Why not?

slickwillie2001 on April 22, 2014 at 9:27 PM

Because they want to destroy the competition…..
They know amnesty is suicide for the Republican party…
They want to assist the suicide.

Remember the Alamo MO FO’s…..

redguy on April 22, 2014 at 10:54 PM

These RINOS are idiots. Nobody in Chicago or Los Angeles is living in the shadows…..What a load of crap.

Realdemocrat1 on April 22, 2014 at 11:11 PM

Well, I sure hope a lot of Spanish people vote for them, because if they do this I’m done. I’m never going to vote for a Republican again.

Jocon307 on April 22, 2014 at 11:42 PM

I don’t mind bringing them out of the shadows. That way we can know who and where they are. However, no citizenship ever, no voting rights ever! Learn English. And if you are from am Islamic country, you need to go back home until you can stand up and denounce the terrorists. Harsh, I don’t care. Being a US Citizen is a privilege and an honor. Please don’t cheapen it by continually giving these law breakers amnesty.

yathink on April 23, 2014 at 12:43 AM

I heard Cantor saw his shadow the other day, too. And Boehner wore a pocket kerchief on his left side.

Reading the tea leaves from what two already-disposed-to-it members say in their districts, which presumably hold much the same view, won’t work. You want to see the future? Get a goat. Goat entrails are the only way to read the future.

If you’re not willing to get your hands dirty, quit trying to predict the future.

►◊◄

But the House works a certain way. Bills don’t waft down from the gallery for a floor vote. There are committee meetings over time, hearings, drafts circulated, a mark-up session, and only then is a bill reported to the floor. Of course the Speaker sets the voting schedule, so even then nothing happens until he says so.

As poorly as most laws are drafted, they aren’t all cobbled together in the middle of the night like ObamaCare. The wording and provisions are argued over. It’s a process.

When there is a bill, that’s the time to worry – and act.

Until then, you’re just rattling the monkey cages. Better to barbecue a goat – and don’t forget the entrails!

Adjoran on April 23, 2014 at 1:37 AM

Democrats………..Given Loving Attention here….by guess who?

williamg on April 23, 2014 at 1:39 AM

There is an article at Politico about “moderate” democrats in the House opposing any more executive action by Obama on immigration. They say they expect to be punished in Nov if Obama does anything more. This tells me it not just Republican voters who do not want amnesty.

Hera on April 23, 2014 at 1:46 AM

The bureaucrats in the US Federal Government does not have the power to deport all those people even if they wanted to. The state and local police do not have the power to round everyone up and ship them out even if they wanted to, to say nothing of the money it would cost the local authorities with their already strained budgets.
It is not physically possible to accomplish this mass deportation, so the people who manage expectations, those who currently own the brand name “conservative” and tell people what to think, have decided that demanding intrusive laws that further erode OUR OWN civil liberties is the official “conservative” position.
Deporting all the people who don’t have their proper government-issued dog papers is a distraction. Deportation is a trip into magical thinking, and those who support it know this.

And yet somehow the states with their strained budgets have the resources to provide food, housing, spending money, legal aid, education with special services, medical care etc etc for the Majority of these illegals for decades…. They never support themselves or their families… At least their American ones… They don’t have to… They know WE will which is why they flood here. Supporting the population of what amounts to an entire country forever sure seems like a lot harder than deporting them… It’s not like we don’t know where they are… Just show up at where the checks are mailed. You know damn well if American citizens were involved in such mass ignoring of laws they would send swat teams in

Caseoftheblues on April 23, 2014 at 5:35 AM

TRAITORS

TX-96 on April 23, 2014 at 6:21 AM

My liberal friends have nothing to do with this…I am thinking for myself. My position on this topic hasn’t changed since I discussed it on HotAir back in 2007 when John McCain was the GOP nominee…and he was hammered incessantly over “amnesty”.

JetBoy on April 22, 2014 at 6:26 PM

Had to cut out last night. If you re-surface, note that my comment isn’t about your position on immigration, but your stated false dichotomy of amnesty vs a mass roundup and deportation.

The whole Charlie Crist thing is starting to make more sense.

Jaibones on April 23, 2014 at 6:30 AM

I just find rounding millions of people up and shipping them out no matter what is never going to happen, and brings up far too many horrible images. It’s not only bad press for anyone who sticks their approval on it, it’s political suicide.

It will never happen.

JetBoy

total ridiculous straw-man.

Why can’t amnesty shills ever be honest? Why must they always resort to nothing but lies and straw-men?

Nobody proposes rounding up millions of people. Nobody of note (I’m sure a few cranks at places like Hotair argue for it) has ever, ever, ever proposed doing this.

So, stating this – like you are just soooo concerned about it, is absolutely dishonest. It is called “concern trolling”, which is typically where a liberal pretends to be a conservative and comes to a conservative site and says “as a conservative I don’t agree with “x” but I am concerned about how we are perceived by taking this position – maybe we should just give in on this one thing . . ” or some-such.

I’m not saying you are a liberal – I’ve seen you commenting here for a long time and you are somewhat conservative (I remember your undying support for Charlie Christ versus Rubio), I would say you are a little right of center. But, the amnesty shills have completely endorsed all leftist tactics in the amnesty debate:

1. Call opponents racists or “haters”

2. only argue straw-men (“we can’t deport them all” or “they come for good reasons” or “they do jobs Americans won’t do”)

3. lie constantly (“I am not in favor of amnesty” [while defining "amnesty" so narrowly as to be completely disingenuous] or doing concern trolling on the subject)

4. claim that being anti amnesty is “extreme”

5. attempt to appeal to emotion (“America is an immigrant nation”)

. . . and finally . . .

6. While doing some or all of the above, never, in more than 10 years of my debating this at places like HotAir, has an amnesty shill ever put forth a single fact-based, logical argument as to why amnesty is in the interest of America. I’ve heard tons of explanations as to why amnesty would be good for illegals – but never a single one as to why it would be good for America.

That is the left playbook above. Which is why conservatives are so angry with amnesty shills – it is frustrating to go round-and-round the same mulberry bush and know that both sides realize there is no logical argument for Amnesty from an American interest perspective – that in fact amnesty is terrible policy for America for a plethora of reasons, but the amnesty shills keep pretending otherwise and engaging in the above behavior, as if that is at all persuasive.

it is agonizingly frustrating. More so when otherwise right-of-center people, who can comment honestly and intelligently on other topics, engage in such behavior. It’s like having a friend stab you in the back. Not because we disagree, but because of the conduct around the disagreement.

Monkeytoe on April 23, 2014 at 8:03 AM


Kuck Finzinger.

Schuck Fock.

Buck Farack.

Nutstuyu on April 23, 2014 at 8:06 AM

There is a tough but fair path to citizenship now. Otherwise, how do illegal aliens get legal? And I know that happens because I’ve seen it myself and talked to them myself. But apparently, it’s too tough and too fair. Any law that passes will have its “tough” features disregarded and it’s “fair” features supplemented.

Fred 2 on April 23, 2014 at 8:34 AM

So I guess the deadline to enter a primary race against these two has just been passed?

slickwillie2001 on April 22, 2014 at 4:10 PM

You could run as a write-in.

Nutstuyu on April 23, 2014 at 8:47 AM

Moist illegals who came here to work don’t want citizenship. They just want to work and then go home someday.

It’s the Democrats who want to legalize them for the votes.

The GOP is just doing the bidding of greedy businesses who want cheap labor. They don’t care a bit about the citizenship aspect.

Charlemagne on April 22, 2014 at 4:15 PM

Nice Freudian slip.

Nutstuyu on April 23, 2014 at 8:50 AM

After, the Irish were the “Mexican’s” of their day.

Our history is full of “illegals” who came here for a better life, this is just another chapter.

right2bright on April 22, 2014 at 4:59 PM

Are you really so stupid to not understand there was no United States for them to enter “illegally” during the Revolutionary War?

Nutstuyu on April 23, 2014 at 9:05 AM

Had to cut out last night. If you re-surface, note that my comment isn’t about your position on immigration, but your stated false dichotomy of amnesty vs a mass roundup and deportation.

The whole Charlie Crist thing is starting to make more sense.

Jaibones on April 23, 2014 at 6:30 AM

The whole Crist thing should show that when I’m wrong, I will fully admit to it. And boy, was I ever wrong there. But with just a little schadenfreud, it’s a bit funny to see how his GOP opponent at the time, Marco Rubio, has since been thrown under the bus for proposing even the slightest “path to citizenship”. So it does seem, to me, that anything short of deportation would be considered “amnesty” by a lot of people. Am I wrong?

My entire point…which seems to have gotten totally twisted around, or at least misunderstood…is the definition of “amnesty”. I didn’t say any politician or anyone else proposed roundups and mass deportation. I only said that anything short of that would be considered “amnesty” of some sort.

I asked at what point in non-enforcement of immigration law does not rounding up and deporting illegals would it be called “amnesty”…and haven’t gotten any answer from Dina or anyone else. Like I said, I’ve been arguing this since McCain was the GOP nominee…where so many here called him “Shamnesty” or “McAmnesty” and the like. Or my favorite…”McQueeg”.

Again, it seems even the most arduous of “paths to citizenship” would be considered “amnesty” of some sort. The whole illegal immigrant issue isn’t some cut-and-dry issue…it’s complicated, and there’s no easy decisions. That’s what I’m saying.

Moist illegals who came here to work…

Charlemagne on April 22, 2014 at 4:15 PM

Nice Freudian slip.

Nutstuyu on April 23, 2014 at 8:50 AM

omg…they probably heard me laughing down the block :)

JetBoy on April 23, 2014 at 9:23 AM

Some by sin do rise and others by virtue fall.

It’s Talk Like Shakespeare Day in Chicago today.

Fallon on April 23, 2014 at 9:36 AM

Sorry, late to the party…

various industries throughout Illinois – such as agriculture – face serious hurdles in trying to hire immigrant workers legally.

Yeah, getting a w4 form filled out sure is a tough hurdle. Really, if someone can’t provide docs to complete a w4, they probably aren’t here legally.

To lump everyone who crosses the border illegally into the same class is unfair and unproductive.

Here’s the class I would use to lump them all… criminal.

Until these clowns can admit we have to enforce what laws we have before we attempt any type of reformation, there can be no progress.

Effay5 on April 23, 2014 at 9:44 AM

Cotton-pickin’ Vichy Republicans.

kingsjester on April 23, 2014 at 10:35 AM

Monkeytoe on April 23, 2014 at 8:03 AM

Many excellent points – too many in fact to do it just in trying to excerpt them in reasonably short quote.

DinaRehn on April 23, 2014 at 10:36 AM

JetBoy on April 23, 2014 at 9:23 AM

You know, I really don’t have time to wrangle around with strawmen and nitpicking arguments..

Let’s just cut to the chase:

Why do you seek an end to our Representative Republic?

Sorry to be so blunt with you, but if you are in favor of Amnesty, that is what in essence what you seek.

It’s been already shown that the estimate 30 Million illegal invaders lean left [Why else would the national socialist left be advocating it]

And as Benjamin Franklin [amongst others] once said:

“When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.”

Sure as God made little green apples, as soon as Amnesty is passed, the national socialist left will be advocating for full citizenship and once you have 30 Million illegal invaders voting for loot the game is over.

So why do you seek this end?

DinaRehn on April 23, 2014 at 10:38 AM

it’s a bit funny to see how his GOP opponent at the time, Marco Rubio, has since been thrown under the bus for proposing even the slightest “path to citizenship”.

JetBoy on April 23, 2014 at 9:23 AM

First, I disagree with this statement and the sentiment behind it. He didn’t propose the slightest path to citizenship … he allowed his name to be nearly destroyed by acting as Poster Boy for the wholly deceptive, full-blown amnesty Gang of Eight bill, led by the vermin Durbin-Schumer.

Don’t understate how bad that bill is. It is crap.

Having said that, know that I am no hard-liner on illegals. Most of us here simply demand a cure for the problem before even discussing what to do with those who come here illegally. And with the lawless liar Obama in office, no legal solution is workable — he ignores the law. Fix the problem — then we can deal with the illegals. Citizenship should be ruled out, but work permits or limited residency are almost certainly inevitable.

Jaibones on April 23, 2014 at 10:41 AM

You don’t give the country over to the invaders without a fight!These people are not “immigrants,” they are invaders pure and simple — loyal a foreign country, not the USA.

polarglen on April 23, 2014 at 10:43 AM

Got to love it when northern RINOs come out in support of amnesty. Move them to a border state like Arizona or New Mexico, make their kids attend a public school where English is a 2nd language and make their wives wait in line at the ER behind dozens of illegals and then see where they stand on the issue.

PaddyORyan on April 22, 2014 at 9:16 PM

The congressmen don’t even have to visit a border state. All they have to do is visit downtown Chicago and try to order a cup of black coffee in McDonald’s in a midwest accent and see how much trouble the are in! The clerks, for the most part, do not speak/understand English very well. Wonder where they were born?

polarglen on April 23, 2014 at 10:54 AM

You don’t give the country over to the invaders without a fight! These people are not “immigrants,” they are invaders pure and simple — loyal a foreign country, not the USA.

polarglen on April 23, 2014 at 10:43 AM

Exactly.

And I cannot understand why some people would want to destroy the country this way.

DinaRehn on April 23, 2014 at 10:55 AM

Why do you seek an end to our Representative Republic?

Sorry to be so blunt with you, but if you are in favor of Amnesty, that is what in essence what you seek.

It’s been already shown that the estimate 30 Million illegal invaders lean left [Why else would the national socialist left be advocating it]

DinaRehn on April 23, 2014 at 10:38 AM

Oh please, stop with the theatrics and grow up.

And stop putting words in my mouth, too. If you bothered to actually read my comments in this thread, and all my comments going back seven years on HotAir, you’d know I’m all for sealing the borders and enforcing the laws. Again, that’s only half the problem.

Heck, I’m still waiting for you to tell me what exactly “amnesty” is! According to you, enforcement of existing laws that would deport illegals is not “amnesty”.

Would anything short of roundups and immediate deportation of illegals be considered “amnesty” of some sort?

JetBoy on April 22, 2014 at 6:43 PM

No

DinaRehn on April 22, 2014 at 7:02 PM

So then…what is “amnesty”?

JetBoy on April 23, 2014 at 11:03 AM

JetBoy on April 23, 2014 at 11:03 AM

It is when you pardon a LAWBREAKER for committing a crime.

kingsjester on April 23, 2014 at 11:07 AM

As far as I’m concerned (and I’m only speaking for myself), Amnesty is not everything it’s the ONLY thing. In the past , I have always held my nose and voted for the lesser of two evils (always a “progressive” Republican) but no more. I am only interested in ONE THING , how the pelitician will vote on Amnesty (and this includes back door cop outs ‘we already have ‘de facto’ amnesty.). This is because, I feel, if Amnesty goes through, we not only lose our party but the country as well.

Thus if a Republican candidate supports Amnesty in any form and I have the legal authority to vote for him/her I will stay at home–even if the Democratic opponent is Major Hasan himself.

MaiDee on April 23, 2014 at 11:14 AM

JetBoy on April 23, 2014 at 11:03 AM

It is when you pardon a LAWBREAKER for committing a crime.

kingsjester on April 23, 2014 at 11:07 AM

Thank you for a direct answer.

To clarify, if an illegal is not actively sought and not deported after being caught, would that qualify as a “pardon” or “amnesty”…since that would be what the law states?

JetBoy on April 23, 2014 at 11:20 AM

So then…what is “amnesty”?

JetBoy on April 23, 2014 at 11:03 AM

Funny you should complain about not answering questions, given that you have yet to furnish one to the question I asked Yesterday.

Definition of amnesty
Pronunciation: /ˈamnɪsti
noun
1An official pardon for people who have been convicted of political offences: an amnesty for political prisoners
pardon, pardoning, reprieve; release, discharge, liberty, freedom; absolution, forgiveness, dispensation, remission, indulgence, clemency, mercy
• informal let-off, letting off
1.1An undertaking by the authorities to take no action against specified offences during a fixed period
verb (amnesties, amnestying, amnestied)
Grant an official pardon to: the guerrillas would be amnestied and allowed to return to civilian life
Synonyms
pardon, grant an amnesty to, reprieve; release, discharge, liberate, free; forgive, excuse, exempt, spare, deliver; deal leniently with, be lenient on/to, be merciful to, show mercy to, have mercy on
• informal let off, let off the hook, go easy on
Origin
late 16th century: via Latin from Greek amnēstia ‘forgetfulness’.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/amnesty?

But lets try this again – no dissembling, no strawman, no dodging..

Are you in favor of amnesty?

Yes or No

DinaRehn on April 23, 2014 at 11:26 AM

JetBoy on April 23, 2014 at 11:20 AM

If you stand there and watch a murder take place, and it never gets reported, is it still a murder?

kingsjester on April 23, 2014 at 11:26 AM

Exactly.

And I cannot understand why some people would want to destroy the country this way.

DinaRehn on April 23, 2014 at 10:55 AM

Bear with me for a minute or two and I am just asking your opinion. Are you saying that if we stop amnesty and any resulting increase in the voter roll, that America’s current slide will then either stop, slow down, or stay the same? In my thinking, the problem is that very important conservative ideas are no longer followed or believed by a large amount of the folks. Is that not the bigger problem?

Just for some background, I do believe the following quotes by Alexis de Tocqueville to be true.

“The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.”

“Democracy extends the sphere of individual freedom, socialism restricts it. Democracy attaches all possible value to each man; socialism makes each man a mere agent, a mere number. Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word: equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude.”

“Americans are so enamored of equality, they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.”

HonestLib on April 23, 2014 at 11:42 AM

If you stand there and watch a murder take place, and it never gets reported, is it still a murder?

kingsjester on April 23, 2014 at 11:26 AM

Of course it is still a murder. I don’t understand what that has to do with anything. If murderers aren’t actively perused and jailed, then it seems to me that would be equivalent to a “pardon” or “amnesty”, no?

Are you in favor of amnesty?

Yes or No

DinaRehn on April 23, 2014 at 11:26 AM

The only thing I’ve ever said is that some sort of “amnesty” is inevitably going to be part of the solution to the illegals issue. But I’m certainly not in favor of immediate deportation of everyone here illegally simply because of being here…because it’s logistically improbable, with a host of other issues to consider case-by-case.

So by that, then yes…I support a certain level of “amnesty” by that definition. And so do you…you’ve already said complete non-enforcement of laws isn’t “amnesty”. So by any definition of “amnesty” you provided there, seems we’re in the same boat.

JetBoy on April 23, 2014 at 11:43 AM

Are you in favor of amnesty?

Yes or No

DinaRehn on April 23, 2014 at 11:26 AM

That is a fair and tough question. No need to discuss why that is a fair question, but I have some thoughts on the tough part. First, yes we are talking about illegal aliens and not undocumented workers in my line of thinking. With that said I also have to weigh in that a lot of entities in the US wanted some of the illegals to enter, either directly or in a round about way. Be it the Agriculture sector, the hospitality industry, the Chamber of Commerce, the Federal Government, State Governments, Public Sector Unions, and the list goes on and on.

I worked in construction many moons ago when Hispanics started replacing black workers and good ole’ dyed in the wool conservatives looked the other way; while knowing that they were illegal. The current administration now has an outreach in Mexico to market welfare for illegals who come to the states. We have sanctuary cities set up for illegals. A major religion has an outreach program for illegals. Anchor babies are legal and welcomed. I could give many more examples, but I hope you get my point.

In many ways some of the illegals were promoted to come here illegally and that gives me some pause and opens up the discussion. I am not advocating amnesty, but I want to be honest to myself while having the debate. Of course all I want what is best for American first and foremost.

Again, I am terrible at explaining my view points and have been blasted on this issue in the past.

HonestLib on April 23, 2014 at 12:03 PM

Are you in favor of amnesty?

Yes or No

DinaRehn on April 23, 2014 at 11:26 AM

yes…
JetBoy on April 23, 2014 at 11:43 AM

Okay, then we can move on to my original assertions of this morning:

Let’s just cut to the chase:

Why do you seek an end to our Representative Republic?

Sorry to be so blunt with you, but if you are in favor of Amnesty, that is what in essence what you seek.

It’s been already shown that the estimate 30 Million illegal invaders lean left [Why else would the national socialist left be advocating it]

And as Benjamin Franklin [amongst others] once said:

“When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.”

Sure as God made little green apples, as soon as Amnesty is passed, the national socialist left will be advocating for full citizenship and once you have 30 Million illegal invaders voting for loot the game is over.

So why do you seek this end?

DinaRehn on April 23, 2014 at 12:24 PM

Simple! either recall them and never elect them again for anything, including as a dog catcher! If they ignore what We, the People want, then they need to be out of Congress or any other legislative pronto! s This is OUR country and the majority do not want amnesty in any way, shape or form, just deportation of the illegals, families and all. We need the money saved for OUR people and not for supporting some other country’s residents! Enough is enough. Be sure and get candidates to sign contracts that support OUR wants and needs or don’t run for office! We need to check on them every couple of weeks to see they are not giving in to the great lifestyle and riches offered by those who hate America!

Roselle on April 23, 2014 at 12:38 PM

The only thing I’ve ever said is that some sort of “amnesty” is inevitably going to be part of the solution to the illegals issue. But I’m certainly not in favor of immediate deportation of everyone here illegally simply because of being here…because it’s logistically improbable, with a host of other issues to consider case-by-case.

So by that, then yes…I support a certain level of “amnesty” by that definition. And so do you…you’ve already said complete non-enforcement of laws isn’t “amnesty”. So by any definition of “amnesty” you provided there, seems we’re in the same boat.

JetBoy on April 23, 2014 at 11:43 AM

You are in favor of it because you believe it is inevitable? How is that logic? Do you think it is a good idea – regardless of your belief about its inevitability? That is the question. You should support something because it is good for America – not because you believe it is going to happen anyway. Otherwise – why do you bother coming here?

Your next line goes right back to the stupid (yes stupid) and repeated ad nauseum straw man = we have to provide amnesty because we can’t round them all up!!! 11!! C’mon. Stop with the nonsense. That “argument” has been debunked and refuted so many times the use of it screams “I refuse to debate this issue honestly no matter what!!! I simply refuse to debate in good faith and instead am going to say stupid shit like ‘well, can’t round em all up’” You, usually, are better than that.

Finally, what “crisis” requires that we provide any legal status to any illegal alien? Every amnesty shill starts from the assumed proposition that we have to either deport each and every illegal or we have to give each and every illegal some form of legal status.

that is not even remotely correct. the illegals came here knowing the status they would live in, and remain here despite that status. Thus, their choice. Thus, no crisis for America that requires we “round them all up” or “give them all legal status.” We can do nothing but routinely enforce laws and let them sort themselves out.

So, you start from a completely unsupported assumption – which is “we have to do something about the illegals”. No we don’t. We don’t have to do anything. And, if the DNC hates America so much that they refuse to allow any reform of the immigration laws without “doing something” about illegals – that is on their heads.

Because, we both know, that we are getting nothing of value in any “comprehensive immigration reform” – it is a shell game designed to accomplish one goal and only one goal – amnesty. Pretending otherwise is simply dishonest. E-verify and better tracking of visas is not even remotely worth the cost to the U.S. of amnesty. Thus, selling us on those silly little programs in order to pass amnesty is 1986 all over again.

If you believe amnesty is a good in and of itself – somehow benefits the U.S. – explain and argue that. Saying you support it because it is “inevitable” is not an argument. Nor is saying “can’t deport them all”.

I have yet to hear from any amnesty supporter a single argument in favor of amnesty. And this is after over 10 years of debating this issue.

Monkeytoe on April 23, 2014 at 1:27 PM

Monkeytoe on April 23, 2014 at 1:27 PM

And before some amnesty shill starts with the argument that you “have” to do something about illegals because we can’t have a permanent underclass or different classes of citizens -

What????

Of course you can. 1) they chose their status and continue to chose that status every day they remain in America illegally.

and, they are not citizens. We can most certainly have a class of people that are “citizens” and a class of people that are not citizens but legal residents and a further class of people who entered the U.S. illegally and remain here illegally.

Simply stating we “can’t” have this or that is not an argument. Why can’t we? What is the downside to the U.S.?

Monkeytoe on April 23, 2014 at 1:34 PM

Monkeytoe on April 23, 2014 at 1:27 PM

What she/he said.

A mind reader you are.
:-)

DinaRehn on April 23, 2014 at 1:37 PM

Let’s just cut to the chase:

Why do you seek an end to our Representative Republic?

Sorry to be so blunt with you, but if you are in favor of Amnesty, that is what in essence what you seek.

DinaRehn on April 23, 2014 at 12:24 PM

Hey, if I’m “looking to end our Representative Republic”…than so are you. You support “amnesty” as well, according to your own answer. If you do not support active roundups of illegals, and immediate deportation regardless of circumstance, then you support “amnesty”.

So tell me, why do you seek an end to our Representative Republic”?

JetBoy on April 23, 2014 at 2:12 PM

Let’s just cut to the chase:

Why do you seek an end to our Representative Republic?

Sorry to be so blunt with you, but if you are in favor of Amnesty, that is what in essence what you seek.

DinaRehn on April 23, 2014 at 12:24 PM

Hey, if I’m “looking to end our Representative Republic”…than so are you. You support “amnesty” as well, according to your own answer. If you do not support active roundups of illegals, and immediate deportation regardless of circumstance, then you support “amnesty”.

So tell me, why do you seek an end to our Representative Republic”?

JetBoy on April 23, 2014 at 2:12 PM

Ahh yes, I can feel your desperation… how sad for you.

Is pretzel logic you’re specialty?

If you do not support active roundups of illegals, and immediate deportation regardless of circumstance, then you support “amnesty”.

Where did you get that ‘logic’ from?

Try re-reading the definition I posted – was there anything in that even gets close to your convoluted opinion?

DinaRehn on April 23, 2014 at 3:17 PM

Where did you get that ‘logic’ from?

Try re-reading the definition I posted – was there anything in that even gets close to your convoluted opinion?

DinaRehn on April 23, 2014 at 3:17 PM

Then you are for actively searching out illegals and immediate deportation? Either you are, or you aren’t. So which is it?

JetBoy on April 23, 2014 at 3:46 PM

JetBoy on April 23, 2014 at 3:46 PM

*Sigh* do you understand the difference between active and passive measures or do I have to post those definitions as well?

Now please answer a question for once:

Why do you seek an end to our Representative Republic?

Sorry to be so blunt with you, but if you are in favor of Amnesty, that is what in essence what you seek.

It’s been already shown that the estimate 30 Million illegal invaders lean left [Why else would the national socialist left be advocating it]

And as Benjamin Franklin [amongst others] once said:

“When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.”

Sure as God made little green apples, as soon as Amnesty is passed, the national socialist left will be advocating for full citizenship and once you have 30 Million illegal invaders voting for loot the game is over.

So why do you seek this end?

DinaRehn on April 23, 2014 at 4:11 PM

Then you are for actively searching out illegals and immediate deportation? Either you are, or you aren’t. So which is it?

JetBoy on April 23, 2014 at 3:46 PM

*Sigh* do you understand the difference between active and passive measures or do I have to post those definitions as well?

DinaRehn on April 23, 2014 at 4:11 PM

*sigh* do understand a “yes” or “no” question?

Are you, or aren’t you, for active search and prompt deportation of all illegals? (Hint: Your answer should be a “yes” or a “no”)

Now please answer a question for once

dat epic irony.

JetBoy on April 23, 2014 at 4:31 PM

JetBoy on April 23, 2014 at 4:31 PM

I take it that you have a distorted sense of morality.

You get to demand answers to myriad questions while dodging mine.

Why do you seek an end to our Representative Republic?

Sorry to be so blunt with you, but if you are in favor of Amnesty, that is what in essence what you seek.

It’s been already shown that the estimate 30 Million illegal invaders lean left [Why else would the national socialist left be advocating it]

And as Benjamin Franklin [amongst others] once said:

“When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.”

Sure as God made little green apples, as soon as Amnesty is passed, the national socialist left will be advocating for full citizenship and once you have 30 Million illegal invaders voting for loot the game is over.

So why do you seek this end?

DinaRehn on April 23, 2014 at 5:18 PM

It would be quite easy to get rid of all illegal aliens, regardless of nationality or origin: Force business owners and management to pay stiff fines and have minimum prison sentences based on how many you’ve hired.

If you’ve hired 1-5 illegals, it’ll be a $5000 fine and 2 months in jail/prison per illegal. If you’re found to have hired 6 or more the fines double and there will be a 3 month minimum jail/prison sentence per illegal. When the illegals realize they can’t find a job anywhere, then they’ll have 6 months to show up for their deportation at federal deportation centers in every major city in the country. It probably wouldn’t cost more than a couple hundred million either. I’m sure we could work out the details but the idea is solid. :)

ManWithNoName on April 23, 2014 at 5:26 PM

DinaRehn on April 23, 2014 at 5:18 PM

Honestly, you’re an idiot. A brick wall has a better comprehensive understanding than you ever will. Cheers, have a nice evening.

JetBoy on April 23, 2014 at 6:04 PM

“out of the shadows…” in our country, or their country?

KyserS on April 23, 2014 at 8:17 PM

JetBoy on April 23, 2014 at 6:04 PM

Really, and you’re the one who can’t answer a simple question.

BTW, those kinds of leftist tactics don’t work on me.

They are a great indicator that you’re out of intellectual arguments and thought.

DinaRehn on April 23, 2014 at 8:20 PM

I keep hearing how we must bring the illegals out of the shadows by legalizing them. They’re not in the shadows. They’re working at the onion farm down the road. How about we go there, arrest them and their employer? The existing laws will cure this problem if we use them.

randy on April 23, 2014 at 9:59 PM

JetBoy on April 23, 2014 at 6:04 PM

I could go on and on about your malicious mendacity, but the venerable George F. Will encapsulated it better in his take down of Obama’s “stinkburger” speech:

Barack Obama, the adolescent president
Anyone who has tried to engage a member of that age cohort in an argument probably recognizes the four basic teenage tropes, which also are the only arrows in Obama’s overrated rhetorical quiver.

First came the invocation of a straw man.

Adolescents also try to truncate arguments by saying that nothing remains of any arguments against their arguments.

A third rhetorical move by argumentative adolescents is to declare that there is nothing to argue about because everything is going along swimmingly.

Finally, the real discussion-stopper for the righteous — and there is no righteousness like an adolescent’s — is an assertion that has always been an Obama specialty. It is that there cannot be honorable and intelligent disagreement with him. So last week, less than two minutes after saying that the argument about the ACA “isn’t about me,” Obama said some important opposition to the ACA is about him, citing “states that have chosen not to expand Medicaid for no other reason than political spite.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/george-f-will-barack-obama-the-adolescent-president/2014/04/23/a835f872-ca3e-11e3-a75e-463587891b57_story.html

DinaRehn on April 24, 2014 at 11:07 AM

How to do the border:

Google: Pakistain / India border operation.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on April 24, 2014 at 11:23 AM

Mexico is our “Pakistain”

We are under attack.

The two party evil money cult in Washington D.C. work aginst U.S. out in the open.

Stand up, defend ourselves, they will not.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on April 24, 2014 at 11:38 AM

Another Illinois POS disguised as a Republican.

RdLake on April 24, 2014 at 11:59 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3