PDA

View Full Version : Amnesty??



road kill
07-29-2010, 07:26 PM
Hey, Mr. Ken!

Remember you asked how illegals could get the vote??

Here it comes, like it or not!!!


http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NTk3Y2EwODQxMTBlOTE4MmI3MzUwZjBkNjkzODBhMGY==

http://www2.nationalreview.com/memo_UCIS_072910.html


Good by America............






rk:cry:

road kill
07-29-2010, 09:10 PM
Stunning!!!!

http://www.breitbart.tv/mexican-flag-flies-as-dozens-arrested-at-anti-immigration-law-protests/



rk

david gibson
07-29-2010, 10:02 PM
Stunning!!!!

http://www.breitbart.tv/mexican-flag-flies-as-dozens-arrested-at-anti-immigration-law-protests/



rk

SIGH......they truly see this as a victory from a foreign country.

i would venture to say that i have more "mexico time" than any other RTFer. i speak the language. i used to love to travel there solo. there is a kinda high you get when conversing in a different language and living deep within another culture. but no more.

and i truly wonder what real patriotic mexican could be proud of the compost and sewage heap that country has become. there are certainly the scum of the nation....

Ken Bora
07-29-2010, 10:18 PM
SIGH....

.........i would venture to say that i have more "mexico time" than any other RTFer. i speak the language. i....


I dont think so David, what about LONG TIME RTF member Oscar Chavez?

http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/showthread.php?t=16555

he speaks the language, he travels alone there. He seems like a very nice guy. click on his vid in that thread

Gerry Clinchy
07-29-2010, 10:21 PM
There were also protestors involved (from what I saw in Yahoo News photos) who are LEGAL Hispanic immigrants who also support the AZ law. Michael Medved also featured today a representative of a conservative Latino group.

I'm afraid that I am not going to be able to take much Breitbart stuff at face value without giving it some vetting.

Those supporting illegals "rights" did not come off very well in the Yahoo photos either.

Ken Bora
07-29-2010, 10:29 PM
Hey, Mr. Ken!

Remember you asked how illegals could get the vote??

........rk:cry:

Dude,
Did that line need a smillie or something?:):):):)
I know all about dead voters and vote early vote often,
It was a subtle reference to President Obama’s Illinoisan
Background. Gosh, sorry it was so far over your head.
Would you like a box?;-)


.

JDogger
07-29-2010, 10:39 PM
Hey, Mr. Ken!

Remember you asked how illegals could get the vote??

Here it comes, like it or not!!!


http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NTk3Y2EwODQxMTBlOTE4MmI3MzUwZjBkNjkzODBhMGY==

http://www2.nationalreview.com/memo_UCIS_072910.html


Good by America............






rk:cry:

That's Good-bye America, rk.
I hate to nit-pik on minutiae, but accuracy counts in the English language
as much as in bow-hunting.
If you're going to aim and shoot, do it right.
English is our common language, verdad?:p
JD

road kill
07-30-2010, 07:03 AM
Dude,
Did that line need a smillie or something?:):):):)
I know all about dead voters and vote early vote often,
It was a subtle reference to President Obama’s Illinoisan
Background. Gosh, sorry it was so far over your head.
Would you like a box?;-)


.

Yes, "WEY" (Mexican slang for DUDE), I understand that.
My post was cynical humor in response to your cynical humor.

Thank God JDogger is here to correct hyphens, it's all so much clearer now!!

Do as you see fit with your box.:rolleyes:



rk

road kill
07-30-2010, 07:05 AM
That's Good-bye America, rk.
I hate to nit-pik on minutiae, but accuracy counts in the English language
as much as in bow-hunting.
If you're going to aim and shoot, do it right.
English is our common language, verdad?:p
JD

Everybody should have something they are good at.





rk

Ken Bora
07-30-2010, 08:09 AM
Do as you see fit with your box.:rolleyes:
rk

it was for you to stand on ;-)

road kill
07-30-2010, 08:17 AM
it was for you to stand on ;-)

Very clever.........

Does it hold you?

If so, sounds safe.



rk

Eric Johnson
07-30-2010, 08:18 AM
With the polls running 80% or so in favor of AZ SB1070, if the Federales were to pursue the actions in this memo, it is likely to be the end of the national Democratic party.

Eric

YardleyLabs
07-30-2010, 08:29 AM
With the polls running 80% or so in favor of AZ SB1070, if the Federales were to pursue the actions in this memo, it is likely to be the end of the national Democratic party.

Eric
And a large majority (67%) also support permitting illegal immigrants to remain in the country if they have jobs, pay taxes, and do not commit other crimes.

road kill
07-30-2010, 08:34 AM
And a large majority (67%) also support permitting illegal immigrants to remain in the country if they have jobs, pay taxes, and do not commit other crimes.
Could you please show me that poll?
I have never seen anything even remotely near that assertion.




rk

BonMallari
07-30-2010, 08:46 AM
And a large majority (67%) also support permitting illegal immigrants to remain in the country if they have jobs, pay taxes, and do not commit other crimes.


Sorry Jeff , gotta call BS on that assertion...


Could you please show me that poll?
I have never seen anything even remotely near that assertion.

rk

That poll I have too see along with who commissioned it :rolleyes:

Hew
07-30-2010, 08:50 AM
I'm guessing that's a Yardley interpretation of what he thinks the question really asked. ;-)

david gibson
07-30-2010, 08:52 AM
There were also protestors involved (from what I saw in Yahoo News photos) who are LEGAL Hispanic immigrants who also support the AZ law. Michael Medved also featured today a representative of a conservative Latino group.

I'm afraid that I am not going to be able to take much Breitbart stuff at face value without giving it some vetting.

Those supporting illegals "rights" did not come off very well in the Yahoo photos either.

kinda like we have been doing all long with the MSM?

JDogger
07-30-2010, 08:55 AM
.
Thank God JDogger is here to correct hyphens, it's all so much clearer now!!
rk

It wasn't the hyphen. By and Bye, two different words, two different meanings, but I'm sure you knew that.:rolleyes:

road kill
07-30-2010, 09:33 AM
It wasn't the hyphen. By and Bye, two different words, two different meanings, but I'm sure you knew that.:rolleyes:

Thanks soooo much.

I did miss the hyphen you installed as well.

Keep up the good work!:D

Who knows what I might try to get away with next.
You know, like posting something relevant to the topic........OK, maybe you don't!!





stan b

Hoosier
07-30-2010, 09:49 AM
Well, let's not let JDog derail the conversation over grammar.

Nor_Cal_Angler
07-30-2010, 12:33 PM
Thanks soooo much.

I did miss the hyphen you installed as well.

Keep up the good work!:D

Who knows what I might try to get away with next.
You know, like posting something relevant to the topic........OK, maybe you don't!!





stan b

Stan B,

You need to capitalize your name regards, :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:;-);-)

It totally takes away from your entire message...

Jacob M. Conway...NCA

Franco
07-30-2010, 12:41 PM
Friday, July 30, 2010



A newly revealed memo, obtained by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) who is leading the fight against amnesty, shows Obama Administration officials offering a detailed plan that would offer actual or de facto amnesty to millions of illegal aliens without Congress ever taking a vote.

The 11-page memo, drafted by Chief of Policy and Strategy for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Denise Vanison, outlines the various ways to offer a mass amnesty to the nation's 11-18 million illegal aliens through the use of administrative actions. The stated purpose of the memo is to offer "administrative relief options to promote family unity, foster economic growth, achieve significant process improvements and reduce the threat of removal for certain individuals present in the United States without authorization.

"The memo proposes 18 different ways for the Obama Administration to essentially eliminate our borders through regulatory fiat and in clear violation of the letter and the spirit of U.S. immigration laws, which Obama swore an oath to faithfully execute," said NumbersUSA's Director of Government Relations Rosemary Jenks.

The memo is an alternative plan to amnesty. In addition to using deferred action and parole, which were previously identified in two separate letters drafted by Sen. Grassely, the memo outlines ways that USCIS can extend benefits and protections to individuals and groups of people by lessening the standards used in "extreme hardship" cases.

Item 4 in the memo outlines ways the Obama Administration can provide amnesty for millions of illegal aliens through the "extreme hardship" provision. It would "encourage many more spouses, sons, and daughters of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents to seek relief without fear of removal. It would also increase the likelihood that such relief would be granted." Section 4 reads:


[Lessen the Standard for Demonstrating "Extreme Hardship"


The Act at 212(a)(9)(B)(i)(I) and (II) renders inadmissible for 3 or 10 years individuals who have been unlawfully present in the U.S. for 180 days or one year respectively, and then depart. By statute, DHS has discretion to waive these grounds of inadmissibility for spouses, sons and daughters of U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents if the refusal to admit such individuals would result in extreme hardship to their qualifying relatives. Generally, the "extreme hardship" standard has been narrowly construed by USCIS.


To increase the number of individuals applying for waivers, and improve their chances of receiving them, CIS could issue guidance or a regulation specifying a lower evidentiary standard for "extreme hardship." This would promote family unity, and avoid the significant human and financial costs associated with waiver denial decisions born of an overly rigid standard. This revised standard would also complement expanded use of PIP as set forth in B.
In addition to lessening the standard for demonstrating "extreme hardship", the memo details many more options that "have the potential to result in meaningful immigration reform absent legislative action."

Other options include: allowing aliens in the United States under Temporary Protected Status to adjust their status to Legal Permanent Resident, extending "grace periods" to leave the country for aliens on temporary work visa, changing the distribution time line for temporary workers on the H-2B visa, and granting up to 240 additional days on applications for employment authorization when the application is filed before the work authorization expiration date.

Denise Vanison has been an immigration attorney for more than 18 years. She advised multi-national and domestic corporate clients on employment of foreign nationals in the United States, I-9 employment verification and procurement of passports, visas, green cards and U.S. citizenship.

The memo was drafted for Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Director Alejandro Mayorkas. In addition to Denise Vanison, Roxana Bacon from the Chief Councel's office, Debra Rogers from Field Operations, and Donald Neufield from Service Center Operations were also listed as authors of the memo.



This is all we need! We can just place the 11-18 million on Social Security!

YardleyLabs
07-30-2010, 12:50 PM
Could you please show me that poll?
I have never seen anything even remotely near that assertion.


rk


Sorry Jeff , gotta call BS on that assertion...



That poll I have too see along with who commissioned it :rolleyes:


I'm guessing that's a Yardley interpretation of what he thinks the question really asked. ;-)

Sorry, I misquoted the results. The approval rate was actually 81%. You can see the story at http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/07/29/cnn-poll-should-illegal-immigrants-be-allowed-to-stay/?fbid=7-UNeZhOEd5#more-115228http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/07/29/cnn-poll-should-illegal-immigrants-be-allowed-to-stay/?fbid=7-UNeZhOEd5#more-115228.

The question asked of a sample of 1018 adults was Do you favor or oppose


"Creating a program that would allow illegal immigrants
already living in the United States for a number of
years to stay here and apply to legally remain in this
country permanently if they had a job and
paid back taxes"

When a representative of FAIR, an anti-immigration group, was asked to comment, he said that the question didn't provide respondents with enough background to know how bad such a program would be. That's another way of saying that a more biased question would have produced a different result.

The study was commissioned by CNN and conducted by Opinion Research Corporation. Results in this survey are consistent with results for the same question in prior surveys.

Hew
07-30-2010, 01:16 PM
The question asked of a sample of 1018 adults was Do you favor or oppose


"Creating a program that would allow illegal immigrants
already living in the United States for a number of
years to stay here and apply to legally remain in this
country permanently if they had a job and
paid back taxes"As I suspected, what you characterized as the question in your initial post is not the actual question that was asked. Your initial characterization was,
"And a large majority (67%) also support permitting illegal immigrants to remain in the country if they have jobs, pay taxes, and do not commit other crimes." Your characterization was that a large % of Americans would be fine with Obama waving a magic wand and making any tax paying, employed illegal a citizen. The actual question had some significant qualifiers you left out:

1) "A number of years" - Americans are fair people and don't want people with roots laid down to be given the bum rush without due process and an opportunity to demonstrate their worth and committment. Just a hunch, but I'm guessing the poll respondents wouldn't be too keen on amnesty for people who just crossed the border when they sense that Obama is about to grant immunity.
2) "APPLY" - implies being given permission on an INDIVIDUAL basis; not blanket immunity with no background checks
3) "pay back taxes" - a punitive punishment/fine that your version did not include.

Your interpretation of the poll question and the actual poll question are worlds apart.

road kill
07-30-2010, 01:25 PM
As I suspected, what you characterized as the question in your initial post is not the actual question that was asked. Your initial characterization was, Your characterization was that a large % of Americans would be fine with Obama waving a magic wand and making any tax paying, employed illegal a citizen. The actual question had some significant qualifiers you left out:

1) "A number of years" - Americans are fair people and don't want people with roots laid down to be given the bum rush without due process and an opportunity to demonstrate their worth and committment. Just a hunch, but I'm guessing the poll respondents wouldn't be too keen on amnesty for people who just crossed the border when they sense that Obama is about to grant immunity.
2) "APPLY" - implies being given permission on an INDIVIDUAL basis; not blanket immunity with no background checks
3) "pay back taxes" - a punitive punishment/fine that your version did not include.

Your interpretation of the poll question and the actual poll question are worlds apart.

Your surprised?




rk

YardleyLabs
07-30-2010, 01:43 PM
As I suspected, what you characterized as the question in your initial post is not the actual question that was asked. Your initial characterization was, Your characterization was that a large % of Americans would be fine with Obama waving a magic wand and making any tax paying, employed illegal a citizen. The actual question had some significant qualifiers you left out:

1) "A number of years" - Americans are fair people and don't want people with roots laid down to be given the bum rush without due process and an opportunity to demonstrate their worth and committment. Just a hunch, but I'm guessing the poll respondents wouldn't be too keen on amnesty for people who just crossed the border when they sense that Obama is about to grant immunity.
2) "APPLY" - implies being given permission on an INDIVIDUAL basis; not blanket immunity with no background checks
3) "pay back taxes" - a punitive punishment/fine that your version did not include.

Your interpretation of the poll question and the actual poll question are worlds apart.
Talk about a lame BS response...You normally do better.

None of the amnesty programs that have been discussed would permit someone who just crossed the border to remain. None of the programs proposed provides blanket amnesty. Each requires individual applications, proof of having paid back taxes and any levied penalties, and proof of financial responsibility (i.e., a way to pay the bills that does not rely on public money). Not only that, but these same requirements had to be met for Reagan's amnesty program. At that time, the cut off was that you had to have been in the country for more than ten years and you had to have paid back taxes. The CNN question was written the way it was because that has been the outline for all amnesty proposals, evidencing that the objections that people have are to the use of the term "amnesty", not to the actual conditions of proposed amnesty programs.

The Bush proposals included a guest worker program, but that did not provide an avenue for citizenship or permanent residency. It was an alternative visa program.

road kill
07-30-2010, 01:46 PM
Talk about a lame BS response...You normally do better.

None of the amnesty programs that have been discussed would permit someone who just crossed the border to remain. None of the programs proposed provides blanket amnesty. Each requires individual applications, proof of having paid back taxes and any levied penalties, and proof of financial responsibility (i.e., a way to pay the bills that does not rely on public money). Not only that, but these same requirements had to be met for Reagan's amnesty program. At that time, the cut off was that you had to have been in the country for more than ten years and you had to have paid back taxes. The CNN question was written the way it was because that has been the outline for all amnesty proposals, evidencing that the objections that people have are to the use of the term "amnesty", not to the actual conditions of proposed amnesty programs.

The Bush proposals included a guest worker program, but that did not provide an avenue for citizenship or permanent residency. It was an alternative visa program.
Of course, conveniently lost in the conversation is the fact that when Reagan agreed to amnesty, the back end was never followed through on.

Why I wasted time trying to make this point is beyond me, but I did.:rolleyes:



stan b

Hew
07-31-2010, 05:27 AM
Talk about a lame BS response...You normally do better. LOL. Meow, kitty.

None of the amnesty programs that have been discussed would permit someone who just crossed the border to remain. None of the programs proposed provides blanket amnesty. Each requires individual applications, proof of having paid back taxes and any levied penalties, and proof of financial responsibility (i.e., a way to pay the bills that does not rely on public money). Now that's rich. In a thread dedicated to the Obama Administration's discussion of doing an end run around the legislative process you want to pretend that there's uniformity of opinion about what the pathway to amnesty will entail? If everybody agreed, as you pretend, on what the requirements for amnesty should consist of (or even if some form of amnesty is acceptable) then there be ZERO discussion about sidestepping Congress. The fact is there is NOT uniformity of opinion. You pretend that showing documentation of residing in the US for a number of years is a given. It's not. Last December when the Democrats introduced H.R.4321 - Comprehensive Immigration Reform for America's Security and Prosperity Act of 2009 do you know how long illegals had to prove they'd been living here? ONE DAY...as the bill applied to anyone living in the US before the bill was introduced. You also pretend that back taxes are to be paid. Well that same Democrat bill has ZERO provision for paying back taxes. Lastly, why would CNN have to insert all those qualifiers in their question (qualifiers that were left out of your interpretation of their question) if everyone knew/agreed what the amnesty provisions would be? So let's drop the charade that everyone agrees (and Obama agrees with them) on what the provisions for amnesty would entail. As a famous illegal immigrant, Tony Montana, once said, "Das a peeg dat doan fly straight." Not only that, but these same requirements had to be met for Reagan's amnesty program. As RK noted, how'd that work out for us? You think Americans today want the same lax, fraud-laden rubber stamping of amnesty that we got back in the 80's? At that time, the cut off was that you had to have been in the country for more than ten years (it was five years actually...contrasted with one day for the House Democrats' version)and you had to have paid back taxes. The CNN question was written the way it was because that has been the outline for all amnesty proposals (all, eh? Or all except the Democrats'?), evidencing that the objections that people have are to the use of the term "amnesty", not to the actual conditions of proposed amnesty programs.
.........................

YardleyLabs
07-31-2010, 06:27 AM
.None of the amnesty programs that have been discussed would permit someone who just crossed the border to remain. None of the programs proposed provides blanket amnesty. Each requires individual applications, proof of having paid back taxes and any levied penalties, and proof of financial responsibility (i.e., a way to pay the bills that does not rely on public money). Now that's rich. In a thread dedicated to the Obama Administration's discussion of doing an end run around the legislative process you want to pretend that there's uniformity of opinion about what the pathway to amnesty will entail? If everybody agreed, as you pretend, on what the requirements for amnesty should consist of (or even if some form of amnesty is acceptable) then there be ZERO discussion about sidestepping Congress. The fact is there is NOT uniformity of opinion. You pretend that showing documentation of residing in the US for a number of years is a given. It's not. Last December when the Democrats introduced H.R.4321 - Comprehensive Immigration Reform for America's Security and Prosperity Act of 2009 do you know how long illegals had to prove they'd been living here? ONE DAY...as the bill applied to anyone living in the US before the bill was introduced. You also pretend that back taxes are to be paid. Well that same Democrat bill has ZERO provision for paying back taxes. Lastly, why would CNN have to insert all those qualifiers in their question (qualifiers that were left out of your interpretation of their question) if everyone knew/agreed what the amnesty provisions would be? So let's drop the charade that everyone agrees (and Obama agrees with them) on what the provisions for amnesty would entail. As a famous illegal immigrant, Tony Montana, once said, "Das a peeg dat doan fly straight." Not only that, but these same requirements had to be met for Reagan's amnesty program. As RK noted, how'd that work out for us? You think Americans today want the same lax, fraud-laden rubber stamping of amnesty that we got back in the 80's? At that time, the cut off was that you had to have been in the country for more than ten years (it was five years actually...contrasted with one day for the House Democrats' version)and you had to have paid back taxes. The CNN question was written the way it was because that has been the outline for all amnesty proposals (all, eh? Or all except the Democrats'?), evidencing that the objections that people have are to the use of the term "amnesty", not to the actual conditions of proposed amnesty programs.
You are correct in part with respect to HR 4321. It creates a special non-immigrant visa class permitting illegals to remain in the country who arrived prior to introduction of the bill. The purpose of that class was to estabish an ability to identify illegals biometrically and track them over time. The only way to convert for a non-immigrant visa under the bill is to support yourself, pay taxes, etc.

With respect to the Reagan program, it was anything but rubber stamp and I have seen no evidence at all that somehow opened a floodgate for illegal immigration. While any estimates of the number of illegals are necessarily questionable, the generally used estimates suggest that illegal immigration remained a relatively minor issue throughout the 80's and only began to grow significantly toward the end of the 90's before skyrocketing in the period leading up to the economic collapse in 2006. Since 2006, numbers have been declining, presumably because of the lack of jobs.

With respect to the CNN survey, I fail to see how I misrepresented it. The question asked by CNN has been stable for years and there has been no significant change in the percentage of respondents favoring a path to legalization for stable, employed, tax-paying illegal immigrants. Eric made an imprecise, inaccurate assertion that 80% or so were in favor of AZ SB1070. Of course, the actual number is closer to 50% (see http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/07/29/fox-news-poll-percent-say-government-enforcing-immigration-laws/) and almost none of those could probably tell you anything detailed about the provision of the law they are theoretically supporting. I replied "And a large majority (67%) also support permitting illegal immigrants to remain in the country if they have jobs, pay taxes, and do not commit other crimes." This was basically to show that public opinion was by no means as one sided as suggested by Eric's comment. You, Bon, and RK all attacked my comment (yours was the mildest) as being an obvious misrepresentation (oddly, never questioning Eric's comment which was way off the mark). As the facts turn out, I understated the amount of support for providing illegals with a path to stay in the country.

Hew
07-31-2010, 06:51 AM
You, Bon, and RK all attacked my comment (yours was the mildest) as being an obvious misrepresentation (oddly, never questioning Eric's comment which was way off the mark). As the facts turn out, I understated the amount of support for providing illegals with a path to stay in the country.
I wasn't contending that you intentionally misrepresented the poll question, but that you'd interpreted the question to us as you saw it through your lib-tinted glasses. And you did. The poll question qualifies that illegals must:

1) prove they've lived here for years (the Dems bill doesn't reflect that)
2) must apply (with the implication that they will be thoroughly screened/vetted...which did NOT happen with Reagan's amnesty which was RIFE with forged documents and rubber stamping of 90% of all applicants by an overwhelmed INS...you think we'll do much better now with 15 million applicants? :rolleyes:)
3) pay back taxes (the Dems bill doesn't reflect that)

So what the Democrats have proposed doesn't mirror what the CNN poll question asked.

From what I've read of your previous comments, we both are likely in substantial agreement on the issue of illegal immigration. I don't delude myself and pretend that most Americans agree with me. You might want to try the same. ;-)

M&K's Retrievers
07-31-2010, 07:06 AM
Damn, it's awful early for this.:rolleyes:

YardleyLabs
07-31-2010, 07:19 AM
I wasn't contending that you intentionally misrepresented the poll question, but that you'd interpreted the question to us as you saw it through your lib-tinted glasses. And you did. The poll question qualifies that illegals must:

1) prove they've lived here for years (the Dems bill doesn't reflect that)
2) must apply (with the implication that they will be thoroughly screened/vetted...which did NOT happen with Reagan's amnesty which was RIFE with forged documents and rubber stamping of 90% of all applicants by an overwhelmed INS...you think we'll do much better now with 15 million applicants? :rolleyes:)
3) pay back taxes (the Dems bill doesn't reflect that)

So what the Democrats have proposed doesn't mirror what the CNN poll question asked.

From what I've read of your previous comments, we both are likely in substantial agreement on the issue of illegal immigration. I don't delude myself and pretend that most Americans agree with me. You might want to try the same. ;-)
And now who's misrepresenting the CNN question?

"Creating a program that would allow illegal immigrants already living in the United States for a number of years to stay here and apply to legally remain in this country permanently if they had a job and paid back taxes"It doesn't say how many years. It doesn't specify the application process, it says nothing about type of job or income level, and the comment on back taxes is pretty vague, particularly given that those in the lower half of oour country's income brackets generally do not earn enough to owe Federal income tax. It says nothing about the form of proof for continuous residency, and it says nothing whatsoever about background checking. The question is like any other survey question. It is read as is and respondents make their own judgments about meaning. Given the level of distrust in government, I doubt that respondents in this survey were assuming the institution of some radical change in procedures from what exists now. I think the results simply evidence that people aren't really interested in tossing illegal immigrants out of the country where they are living as responsible members of the community.

Hew
07-31-2010, 07:59 AM
And now who's misrepresenting the CNN question? Good grief dude, I graciously afforded you an out on your previous innacurate blather and instead you want to double down on your losing hand?!?
"Creating a program that would allow illegal immigrants already living in the United States for a number of years to stay here and apply to legally remain in this country permanently if they had a job and paid back taxes"It doesn't say how many years. So? The poll said "years". I wrote "years." You didn't mention a timeline at all. Who is more accurate? :rolleyes: It doesn't specify the application process Nor did I. I wrote that "apply" IMPLIES some form of background check. Are you trying to argue that it doesn't?, it says nothing about type of job or income level did I?, and the comment on back taxes is pretty vague, particularly given that those in the lower half of oour country's income brackets generally do not earn enough to owe Federal income tax well then cry to CNN that their question is stupid, but don't call me a liar by saying I misrepresented it. It says nothing about the form of proof for continuous residency, and it says nothing whatsoever about background checking. The question is like any other survey question. It is read as is and respondents make their own judgments about meaning. Given the level of distrust in government, I doubt that respondents in this survey were assuming the institution of some radical change in procedures from what exists now. I think the results simply evidence that people aren't really interested in tossing illegal immigrants out of the country where they are living as responsible members of the community. Intentionally or not, you misrepresented the poll question. That you choose not to cop to that is not surprising, but I won't be helping you chase your own tail anymore. Buh-bye. ;-)
...................

Gerry Clinchy
07-31-2010, 08:09 AM
And now who's misrepresenting the CNN question?

"Creating a program that would allow illegal immigrants already living in the United States for a number of years to stay here and apply to legally remain in this country permanently if they had a job and paid back taxes"

Becuse Americans are basically fair-minded (contrary to many comments made on this forum regarding how more recent legal immigrants would be the first to close the doors on new immigrants), I can understand how most Americans would respond positively to this question.

Unfortunately, it does not include some kind of qualifier regarding prospective immigrants who have been patiently "waiting in line" following the law. I personally believe that those people should have their paperwork expedited before those who decided to jump ahead in line.

Obviously someone from Italy would have a harder time walking across the border the way someone from Mexico can. So, there is surely some "discrimination" going on there based on "country of natural origin".

Second, in discussing the AZ law, Obama was quoted as the AZ law placing a "burden" on INS. Duh? Then how would they handle a situatioin of paperwork on (conservatively) 10 million illegals (if they couldn't handle the #s of the ones the AZ law could actually catch)?

If the Fed won't (or cannot) enforce the existing immigration laws, I would need some proof that there is a sincere, honest plan for how to enforce it. How many more employees would INS require, for example?

I often have been called to respond to various polls. In many cases I refuse to answer since the questions posed are deceptive in adequately reflecting my opinion. As with the poll question above, it did not provide for the additional qualifiers that I might feel need to be applied. The primary one, from a fairness standpoint, would be to address those people already in line for legal immigration ... showing their willingness to follow our laws ... starting with our laws for immigration.

YardleyLabs
07-31-2010, 08:27 AM
Becuse Americans are basically fair-minded (contrary to many comments made on this forum regarding how more recent legal immigrants would be the first to close the doors on new immigrants), I can understand how most Americans would respond positively to this question.

Unfortunately, it does not include some kind of qualifier regarding prospective immigrants who have been patiently "waiting in line" following the law. I personally believe that those people should have their paperwork expedited before those who decided to jump ahead in line.

Obviously someone from Italy would have a harder time walking across the border the way someone from Mexico can. So, there is surely some "discrimination" going on there based on "country of natural origin".

Second, in discussing the AZ law, Obama was quoted as the AZ law placing a "burden" on INS. Duh? Then how would they handle a situatioin of paperwork on (conservatively) 10 million illegals (if they couldn't handle the #s of the ones the AZ law could actually catch)?

If the Fed won't (or cannot) enforce the existing immigration laws, I would need some proof that there is a sincere, honest plan for how to enforce it. How many more employees would INS require, for example?

I often have been called to respond to various polls. In many cases I refuse to answer since the questions posed are deceptive in adequately reflecting my opinion. As with the poll question above, it did not provide for the additional qualifiers that I might feel need to be applied. The primary one, from a fairness standpoint, would be to address those people already in line for legal immigration ... showing their willingness to follow our laws ... starting with our laws for immigration.
[/indent]
Polls obviously cannot be used to write legislation. At best they can only capture general sentiments. Over and over again, it has been proven that they way you write the question has a dramatic impact on the respnses you receive. Thus, if you ask "Should taxes be cut?" you are likely to receive fairly broad support. If you frame the question as "Do you favor a tax cut that will increase our deficit over $1 trillion?" you are likely to see a much more negative response. If you ask "Should the government cut spending to eliminate the deficit?" the response will likely be positive. If you ask "Should the government cut the defense budget by 25% and all other government programs by 50% to balance the budget?" the response is likely to be more negative.

I agree completely with your statement that "Americans are basically fair-minded". I also think that, while Americans are happy to have a free ride if they can get it, that they are also willing to make choices about the services they want and to pay the bill for those services. Unfortunately, they are never offered that choice during campaigns. Instead, they are always told that they can have guns, butter and lower taxes and that it will all be paid for by eliminating fraud and waste, or by making someone else pay -- that is, a free lunch. Sadly, we seem to have lost our ability to resist the easy marketing pitch.

road kill
07-31-2010, 09:17 AM
Originally Posted by YardleyLabs
"You, Bon, and RK all attacked my comment (yours was the mildest) as being an obvious misrepresentation (oddly, never questioning Eric's comment which was way off the mark). As the facts turn out, I understated the amount of support for providing illegals with a path to stay in the country."

Mr. Yardley,
I did not attack your comment.
I merely stated that when Reagan agreed to amnesty, there were a number of back end caveats.
None of which were followed though on.
I would be cautious entering any such agreement again.




RK

YardleyLabs
07-31-2010, 09:23 AM
Originally Posted by YardleyLabs
"You, Bon, and RK all attacked my comment (yours was the mildest) as being an obvious misrepresentation (oddly, never questioning Eric's comment which was way off the mark). As the facts turn out, I understated the amount of support for providing illegals with a path to stay in the country."

Mr. Yardley,
I did not attack your comment.
I merely stated that when Reagan agreed to amnesty, there were a number of back end caveats.
None of which were followed though on.
I would be cautious entering any such agreement again.




RK

Characterize it as you wish. What you actually said is:


Could you please show me that poll?
I have never seen anything even remotely near that assertion.




rk

road kill
07-31-2010, 09:27 AM
Characterize it as you wish. What you actually said is:"Could you please show me that poll?
I have never seen anything even remotely near that assertion."






That was a request so I could read it, not an ATTACK......






RK

YardleyLabs
07-31-2010, 09:29 AM
That was a request so I could read it, not an ATTACK......






RK
Challenge would definitely have been a more accurate term. Interesting that no one (including me) challenged Eric's figure of 80% support for the Arizona bill.

ducknwork
07-31-2010, 12:07 PM
Second, in discussing the AZ law, Obama was quoted as the AZ law placing a "burden" on INS. Duh? Then how would they handle a situatioin of paperwork on (conservatively) 10 million illegals (if they couldn't handle the #s of the ones the AZ law could actually catch)?

More jobs created, baby! (in my best Dick Vitale voice)