- Home
- Forums
- Immigrant Visas (Green Cards)
- I-485 Issues
- I-485 Issues Common to All Services Centers
- Visa Bulletin and Priority Dates Retrogression Iss
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Affect on Immigration process after 2006 Elections
- Thread starter sandiboy
- Start date
All bets are off ..
sandiboy,
It is really hard to predict the future of immigration reform based on the election results. Now that the elections are over we will most likely hear some "real" sentiments on immigration reform. I feel that prior to the election a lot of politicians were more guarded on immigration reform and took sides depending on their chances of winning in the Mid-Term election. Now that the elections are over we will surely know if politicians are really serious about immigration reform or if that was just an election year issue that fizzles out post election.
I am hopeful that some sort of positive legislation will get approved within the next year but its hard to tell at this point. If Dems take over the Senate (they already have the house) then their first priority will be to go after the President and his administrations "Iraq policy". Immigration will most likely take a backseat. Either way it will be interesting to see how all this shapes up. Its not comforting to know that our futures are so closely tangled with politics.
regards,
saras
sandiboy said:As per results from 2006 Midterm elections, looks like Democratic party will control both the House & Senate. This thread is to discuss how it will affect Immigration policy in future. Please post your thoughts
Thanks
sandiboy,
It is really hard to predict the future of immigration reform based on the election results. Now that the elections are over we will most likely hear some "real" sentiments on immigration reform. I feel that prior to the election a lot of politicians were more guarded on immigration reform and took sides depending on their chances of winning in the Mid-Term election. Now that the elections are over we will surely know if politicians are really serious about immigration reform or if that was just an election year issue that fizzles out post election.
I am hopeful that some sort of positive legislation will get approved within the next year but its hard to tell at this point. If Dems take over the Senate (they already have the house) then their first priority will be to go after the President and his administrations "Iraq policy". Immigration will most likely take a backseat. Either way it will be interesting to see how all this shapes up. Its not comforting to know that our futures are so closely tangled with politics.
regards,
saras
Last edited by a moderator:
macjoubert
Registered Users (C)
It's Complicated
Since the primary platform the Democrats have used to defeat the Reps in both the House and Senate was the Iraq War fiasco and since they obviously dont have a drastic solution you can expect them to divert to other areas where Bush got it wrong.Immigration is one of them.
The other side is not many democrats ran on a platform advocating Immigration reform and won, even so they are in the minority, to complicate it even further,for every pro-immigration democrat who won there is an opposing Tom Tancredo on the other side of the immigration debate.Tancredo has a special anathema towards H1-B and misuse of the system by small consultancies.
The Kennedy initiative for overhauling immigration is primarily directed towards illegal immigration not easing legal immigration hurdles.
Don't expect miracles, things will not improve suddenly if it does at all.
Since the primary platform the Democrats have used to defeat the Reps in both the House and Senate was the Iraq War fiasco and since they obviously dont have a drastic solution you can expect them to divert to other areas where Bush got it wrong.Immigration is one of them.
The other side is not many democrats ran on a platform advocating Immigration reform and won, even so they are in the minority, to complicate it even further,for every pro-immigration democrat who won there is an opposing Tom Tancredo on the other side of the immigration debate.Tancredo has a special anathema towards H1-B and misuse of the system by small consultancies.
The Kennedy initiative for overhauling immigration is primarily directed towards illegal immigration not easing legal immigration hurdles.
Don't expect miracles, things will not improve suddenly if it does at all.
Last edited by a moderator:
I heard in an interview(Can't recall who the Congressman was) in one of the Progressive Talk shows a month ago that the House of Reps would pass the Immigration Bill during the first session after the elections. According to him, even the republicans are not against it, but they did not wanted a issue to deal with during the election campaign.
any such discussions are pointless as they are filled with speculation and conjecture. they might make you feel good but it doesn't really matter what your opinion of "what might happen". the fact is that immigration is a very complex and emotive issue, and will require bi-partisan will to push this forward as the democrats are specifically very protectionist where the republicans are more likely to listen to big business - which means your little corner of the immigration spectrum, i.e. letting in more profesionals. also the real political prize in the immigration debate is not you, it's the tens of millions of illegals and their vote for all future elections - that's where the political arena will focus, you may get the crumbs of a comprehensive policy and you may not but because the prize is so large, this will be contentious to approve without claiming victory for both parties. my useless speculation - this is a long battle, don't look for anything under two years, in fact with the democrats smelling blood, they won't want to upset the voters two years out going for the presidential election and further securing the senate, then and only then with control of the senate, congress and the presidential office, look in the next year or two after that of complete immigration overhaul and a sweeping amenesty program
President Bush and Congress (now Democrat majority) will only have two issues that they can agree on: Immigration and tax reform. Remember, the president had already given CIR his go-ahead and it was a Republican house that stopped it.
However if CIR passes, I get this awful feeling that we will become collateral victims when 20 million ppl suddenly join our queue.
However if CIR passes, I get this awful feeling that we will become collateral victims when 20 million ppl suddenly join our queue.
macjoubert
Registered Users (C)
H2-B will just eat into our pie
The CIR (Comprehensive Immigration Reform) Bill that Bush wants passed is a red herring. There are greater far reaching consequences that are not always beneficial to all and sundry.
For starters the H2-B (Guest Worker Program Visa) which the vast majority of current illegals will be bundled into, in effect is just an extension of the seasonal worker program and their path to permanent residency will no doubt add strain to H1-B,L visa workers who have applied for permanent residency amongst others.
The USCIS cannot and will not suddenly add resources to deal with the additional processing of roughly 10 million applications.
With the number of immigrant visas remaining constant, readjustment is almost inevitable as witnessed when the bulk of this years immigrant visas from the EB2 and EB3 pool was siphoned off to help Hondurans get permanent residency in a totally unrelated category.Remember the number of immigrant visas available is constant and mandated by Federal Law.
Similarly the vast number of Mexicans with the help of the ACLU and the powerful Hispanic lobbies in the South and South West will no doubt try to usurp immigration procedures to benefit them.
Point is, don't place all your bets yet, CIR maybe be more detrimental than beneficial.
The CIR (Comprehensive Immigration Reform) Bill that Bush wants passed is a red herring. There are greater far reaching consequences that are not always beneficial to all and sundry.
For starters the H2-B (Guest Worker Program Visa) which the vast majority of current illegals will be bundled into, in effect is just an extension of the seasonal worker program and their path to permanent residency will no doubt add strain to H1-B,L visa workers who have applied for permanent residency amongst others.
The USCIS cannot and will not suddenly add resources to deal with the additional processing of roughly 10 million applications.
With the number of immigrant visas remaining constant, readjustment is almost inevitable as witnessed when the bulk of this years immigrant visas from the EB2 and EB3 pool was siphoned off to help Hondurans get permanent residency in a totally unrelated category.Remember the number of immigrant visas available is constant and mandated by Federal Law.
Similarly the vast number of Mexicans with the help of the ACLU and the powerful Hispanic lobbies in the South and South West will no doubt try to usurp immigration procedures to benefit them.
Point is, don't place all your bets yet, CIR maybe be more detrimental than beneficial.
Folks this is all bad news one after the other for immigration especially EB3.
1. Democrats now control both house and senate. Lately they have flip flopped and become anti immigration.
2. Schedule A workers no more have a separate plate to eat from.
3. No sign of correcting the Labor Substitution glitch.
Please dont talk about any immigration bill now, comprehensive or otherwise, there is not going to be any bill. mark my words.
neo
1. Democrats now control both house and senate. Lately they have flip flopped and become anti immigration.
2. Schedule A workers no more have a separate plate to eat from.
3. No sign of correcting the Labor Substitution glitch.
Please dont talk about any immigration bill now, comprehensive or otherwise, there is not going to be any bill. mark my words.
neo
ufo2002 However if CIR passes said:Legal immigrants already are suffering collateral damage from all the past amnesties. Go here for more info: http://www.fairimmigration.com/id1.html.
Another amnesty would make it even worse.
So please join us in making ending this current discrimination a high priority, as opposed to another freaking amnesty that LaRaza and the US Chamber wants.
The Council on Foreign Relations also wants amnesty, so that the North American Union can be formed. I bet all you people thought you were moving to the United States of America, when in reality in the near future it might turn into Meximerica. How does that prospect strike you?
Tim Binh said:ufo2002 However if CIR passes said:Legal immigrants already are suffering collateral damage from all the past amnesties. Go here for more info: http://www.fairimmigration.com/id1.html.
Another amnesty would make it even worse.
So please join us in making ending this current discrimination a high priority, as opposed to another freaking amnesty that LaRaza and the US Chamber wants.
The Council on Foreign Relations also wants amnesty, so that the North American Union can be formed. I bet all you people thought you were moving to the United States of America, when in reality in the near future it might turn into Meximerica. How does that prospect strike you?
You and your organisation have a credibility gap my friend. Everyone other than your members realises you are against ALL immigration and that your "support" of legal immigration is just farcical and based on the winds of the day. Why were you all so busy lobbying behind the scenes to block the immigration provisions in S1932 that would have been so helpful to law abiding, tax paying, long waiting and never a day in this country illegal immigrants last year.
Go and take your propoganda elsewhere. You will find very little audience here. Your actions speak much louder than your propoganda.
marlon2006
Registered Users (C)
Hi guys,
Just had a break and decided to stop by to say hello. The comment below might explain what some democrats have in mind.
Just a thinking:watch "piecemeal" legislations such as the Dream Act and see whether they may impact you. Don't buy the rethoric of immigration attorneys and others who are saying the legals should join forces with illegal folks. Let the Dream Act amnesty pass and I am afraid that has potential to hurt the honest, legal folks. Imagine that once millions of illegals get their Dream Act amnesty, for example, they would not be in a hurry to work on CIR for a while. That means that would just add millions of people to make USCIS way more overcrowded and potentially would hurt those who are in the queue. Honestly, I think this county is heading definitely to the wrong direction. And I care!
Good luck !
Marlon
"...The reporters summarized Democratic thinking thus:
"In the days after the election, Democratic leaders surprised pro-immigration groups by not including the issue on their list of immediate priorities. Experts said the issue is so complicated, so sensitive and so explosive that it could easily blow up in the Democrats' faces and give control of Congress back to Republicans in the next election two years from now. And a number of Democrats who took a hard line on immigration were also elected to Congress."
Just had a break and decided to stop by to say hello. The comment below might explain what some democrats have in mind.
Just a thinking:watch "piecemeal" legislations such as the Dream Act and see whether they may impact you. Don't buy the rethoric of immigration attorneys and others who are saying the legals should join forces with illegal folks. Let the Dream Act amnesty pass and I am afraid that has potential to hurt the honest, legal folks. Imagine that once millions of illegals get their Dream Act amnesty, for example, they would not be in a hurry to work on CIR for a while. That means that would just add millions of people to make USCIS way more overcrowded and potentially would hurt those who are in the queue. Honestly, I think this county is heading definitely to the wrong direction. And I care!
Good luck !
Marlon
"...The reporters summarized Democratic thinking thus:
"In the days after the election, Democratic leaders surprised pro-immigration groups by not including the issue on their list of immediate priorities. Experts said the issue is so complicated, so sensitive and so explosive that it could easily blow up in the Democrats' faces and give control of Congress back to Republicans in the next election two years from now. And a number of Democrats who took a hard line on immigration were also elected to Congress."
Tim Binh said:ufo2002 However if CIR passes said:Legal immigrants already are suffering collateral damage from all the past amnesties. Go here for more info: http://www.fairimmigration.com/id1.html.
Another amnesty would make it even worse.
So please join us in making ending this current discrimination a high priority, as opposed to another freaking amnesty that LaRaza and the US Chamber wants.
The Council on Foreign Relations also wants amnesty, so that the North American Union can be formed. I bet all you people thought you were moving to the United States of America, when in reality in the near future it might turn into Meximerica. How does that prospect strike you?
marlon2006
Registered Users (C)
Alterego2,
Is such organization working to stop the 1+ million/year current legal immigrants? If so, that makes that an anti-illegal immigration and I would be against it.
If not, so then your are not saying the truth about it. Going after illegal aliens is not anti-immigration.
Please think about it.
Regards,
Marlon
Is such organization working to stop the 1+ million/year current legal immigrants? If so, that makes that an anti-illegal immigration and I would be against it.
If not, so then your are not saying the truth about it. Going after illegal aliens is not anti-immigration.
Please think about it.
Regards,
Marlon
alterego2 said:You and your organisation have a credibility gap my friend. Everyone other than your members realises you are against ALL immigration and that your "support" of legal immigration is just farcical and based on the winds of the day. Why were you all so busy lobbying behind the scenes to block the immigration provisions in S1932 that would have been so helpful to law abiding, tax paying, long waiting and never a day in this country illegal immigrants last year.
Go and take your propoganda elsewhere. You will find very little audience here. Your actions speak much louder than your propoganda.
TheInquisitor
Registered Users (C)
Is such organization working to stop the 1+ million/year current legal immigrants? If so, that makes that an anti-illegal immigration and I would be against it.
is true. fair and others want a 10 year ban and all. they want to cut all sorts of immigration. they hate the lottery and other things. okay, hb1/hb2 is a disaster and doesn't work. what is the solution? end it. perhaps we have too many hb people. so let's have none. and unless you are from sweden or norway and will be the next bill gates, they want nothing with you.
immigration reformers have the upper hand right now if they play it right. if they say, "want funding for the fence, let's talk." they will win for sure. but if they hate the fence and want immigration reform and hate the verification system and want more guest workers, reform is better off under sensenbrenner.
the election results are clear. people want reform. and that has to include enforcement. 70% of the polulation want enforcement. and you saw that in AZ with the propositions. but 70% of the public are also open to amnesty. and the election results show that those that take an enforcement-only approach went down or were going to win anyway no matter what. republicans graf and hayworth from AZ went down to dems that were for enforcement, but are also open to some kind of amnesty. and even if they are clones of those whom they beat, their win gives pelosi power.
the xenophones have three options. get the best deal they can get in december or make a deal next year. or they could just get bs enforcement and stop amnesty for the next two years. and if they win in 2008, we will be in the same place for another two years. and who knows, the dems might win in 2010 and we will be where we are today. neither side is strong enough to truly win.
marlon2006
Registered Users (C)
As far as I know, NumbersUSA and FAIR advocate for the reduction of immigration numbers to 300K/year because it has been at 1 million for a while now. My question is, is 1 million or 300K/year not enough, or is it because we came from a nest of corruption where too many people want to get out of there ? Let's be sincere and realistic.
Personally I think that NumbersUSA and FAIR will face difficulties if they try to decrease this number. Leave it as is, at 1 million. That's likely what would happen. It is their wish, but reduction will be unlikely. I am against the reduction.
The lottery is no sense. It should be eliminated. I would vote to give those 50K visa numbes to the Employment Base greencard applicants who are stuck. Or at least give them to unskilled workers in certain sectors.
I would dispute the results of the elections though;sons and daughters of Americans are getting their heads blown in Iraq. Exit polls showed that the vast majority of Americans were disgusted with Bush position on the Iraq war and other generic issues. All results of exit polls I read indicated no correlation between defeat of Republicans due to their "tough" stance on immigration. Moreover, Graf had no support from the Republican party. People were also disgusted that Republicans lost their identity in general, and therefore kicked some Republicans out. It is true that Democrats who beat Hayworth and Graf also campaigned as if they were also tough on immigration. In addition as you mentioned, enforcement provisions passed and that means that theory that the fall out of GOP due to their position in immigration seems to be flawed.
Fact:11.5% of all Republican seats in Congress were lost as Democrats took back control of Congress
But only 6.7% of the Members of Tancredo's Immigration Reform Caucus lost their seats.
I totally agree with you that as is, the whole thing is stalled. God Forbidden we won't need another terrorist attack or disaster to wake up those irresponsible politicans.
I wish you good luck in this process. I am serious. I am just addicted to a good debate and I just wanted to post what I think.
Regards,
Marlon
Personally I think that NumbersUSA and FAIR will face difficulties if they try to decrease this number. Leave it as is, at 1 million. That's likely what would happen. It is their wish, but reduction will be unlikely. I am against the reduction.
The lottery is no sense. It should be eliminated. I would vote to give those 50K visa numbes to the Employment Base greencard applicants who are stuck. Or at least give them to unskilled workers in certain sectors.
I would dispute the results of the elections though;sons and daughters of Americans are getting their heads blown in Iraq. Exit polls showed that the vast majority of Americans were disgusted with Bush position on the Iraq war and other generic issues. All results of exit polls I read indicated no correlation between defeat of Republicans due to their "tough" stance on immigration. Moreover, Graf had no support from the Republican party. People were also disgusted that Republicans lost their identity in general, and therefore kicked some Republicans out. It is true that Democrats who beat Hayworth and Graf also campaigned as if they were also tough on immigration. In addition as you mentioned, enforcement provisions passed and that means that theory that the fall out of GOP due to their position in immigration seems to be flawed.
Fact:11.5% of all Republican seats in Congress were lost as Democrats took back control of Congress
But only 6.7% of the Members of Tancredo's Immigration Reform Caucus lost their seats.
I totally agree with you that as is, the whole thing is stalled. God Forbidden we won't need another terrorist attack or disaster to wake up those irresponsible politicans.
I wish you good luck in this process. I am serious. I am just addicted to a good debate and I just wanted to post what I think.
Regards,
Marlon
TheInquisitor said:is true. fair and others want a 10 year ban and all. they want to cut all sorts of immigration. they hate the lottery and other things. okay, hb1/hb2 is a disaster and doesn't work. what is the solution? end it. perhaps we have too many hb people. so let's have none. and unless you are from sweden or norway and will be the next bill gates, they want nothing with you.
immigration reformers have the upper hand right now if they play it right. if they say, "want funding for the fence, let's talk." they will win for sure. but if they hate the fence and want immigration reform and hate the verification system and want more guest workers, reform is better off under sensenbrenner.
the election results are clear. people want reform. and that has to include enforcement. 70% of the polulation want enforcement. and you saw that in AZ with the propositions. but 70% of the public are also open to amnesty. and the election results show that those that take an enforcement-only approach went down or were going to win anyway no matter what. republicans graf and hayworth from AZ went down to dems that were for enforcement, but are also open to some kind of amnesty. and even if they are clones of those whom they beat, their win gives pelosi power.
the xenophones have three options. get the best deal they can get in december or make a deal next year. or they could just get bs enforcement and stop amnesty for the next two years. and if they win in 2008, we will be in the same place for another two years. and who knows, the dems might win in 2010 and we will be where we are today. neither side is strong enough to truly win.
Last edited by a moderator:
TheInquisitor
Registered Users (C)
stop driking the koo-aid from fair. where it mattered, those who took an all or nothing attitude went down.
if you mean open broders and no enforcement, you are right. but if you mean enforcement and have some kind of legal status to individuals, you are wrong. look at kyl. do you know he is for amnesty? i bet you didn't know that. he would put 12 million people on temp legal status. they will have to leave and never be citizens, but for several years they will be legal. and do you know he is for an outright amnesty for those are high-skilled in those 12 million? people just like you. and he is also in favor of the DREAM Act with an age limit of 25 or 30. is true, look it up.
is clear you are you don't know about the elections results. just know this, reformers have the upper hand if they play their cards right.
as for fair and others, they want to kill the lottery. and unlike you, they don't want to see those 50k visas going to you. they want those 50k visas gone. people like lou dobbs and others say they are for legal immigration and they want more of it. but when is time to put up or shut up, they don't support it.
after the last train of illegals leave, they will get the next set of trains and come after you. like it or not, you are on the same boat. and if you want certain things, they will come together with other things. now you must decide, do you get nothing and have to leave or become an illegal, or do you see amnesty become reailty. and please stop listening FAIR and their election results. so in two races they are proven right. wow. awesome. they are right! but look at the forest.
In addition as you mentioned, enforcement provisions passed and that means that theory that the fall out of GOP due to their position in immigration seems to be flawed.
if you mean open broders and no enforcement, you are right. but if you mean enforcement and have some kind of legal status to individuals, you are wrong. look at kyl. do you know he is for amnesty? i bet you didn't know that. he would put 12 million people on temp legal status. they will have to leave and never be citizens, but for several years they will be legal. and do you know he is for an outright amnesty for those are high-skilled in those 12 million? people just like you. and he is also in favor of the DREAM Act with an age limit of 25 or 30. is true, look it up.
is clear you are you don't know about the elections results. just know this, reformers have the upper hand if they play their cards right.
as for fair and others, they want to kill the lottery. and unlike you, they don't want to see those 50k visas going to you. they want those 50k visas gone. people like lou dobbs and others say they are for legal immigration and they want more of it. but when is time to put up or shut up, they don't support it.
after the last train of illegals leave, they will get the next set of trains and come after you. like it or not, you are on the same boat. and if you want certain things, they will come together with other things. now you must decide, do you get nothing and have to leave or become an illegal, or do you see amnesty become reailty. and please stop listening FAIR and their election results. so in two races they are proven right. wow. awesome. they are right! but look at the forest.
marlon2006
Registered Users (C)
TheInquisitor,
I beg to differ. If I apply your rationale that "get tough" Sen. Graf or Hayworth lost, then I can turn around and tell you that Sen. Tancredo won and that proves my point. That doesn't seem to make sense. I understand we disagree in our interpretation and that is fine. Only time we will tell who is right.
As far as Sen. Kyl, I don't think he is for amnesty. At least his proposal looks more like a real compromise - at least on paper - since he wanted the illegal folks to get temporary "guest-worker" status and return home at the end of the temporary visas. In reality such guest-worker program would be a failure I think, but hey, at least on paper that looks more like a compromise and his proposal is not perceived as an amnesty at all. Sen. McCain is all for amnesty and let's see how he will do for the presidential elections.
I beg to differ. If I apply your rationale that "get tough" Sen. Graf or Hayworth lost, then I can turn around and tell you that Sen. Tancredo won and that proves my point. That doesn't seem to make sense. I understand we disagree in our interpretation and that is fine. Only time we will tell who is right.
As far as Sen. Kyl, I don't think he is for amnesty. At least his proposal looks more like a real compromise - at least on paper - since he wanted the illegal folks to get temporary "guest-worker" status and return home at the end of the temporary visas. In reality such guest-worker program would be a failure I think, but hey, at least on paper that looks more like a compromise and his proposal is not perceived as an amnesty at all. Sen. McCain is all for amnesty and let's see how he will do for the presidential elections.
TheInquisitor said:stop driking the koo-aid from fair. where it mattered, those who took an all or nothing attitude went down.
if you mean open broders and no enforcement, you are right. but if you mean enforcement and have some kind of legal status to individuals, you are wrong. look at kyl. do you know he is for amnesty? i bet you didn't know that. he would put 12 million people on temp legal status. they will have to leave and never be citizens, but for several years they will be legal. and do you know he is for an outright amnesty for those are high-skilled in those 12 million? people just like you. and he is also in favor of the DREAM Act with an age limit of 25 or 30. is true, look it up.
is clear you are you don't know about the elections results. just know this, reformers have the upper hand if they play their cards right.
as for fair and others, they want to kill the lottery. and unlike you, they don't want to see those 50k visas going to you. they want those 50k visas gone. people like lou dobbs and others say they are for legal immigration and they want more of it. but when is time to put up or shut up, they don't support it.
after the last train of illegals leave, they will get the next set of trains and come after you. like it or not, you are on the same boat. and if you want certain things, they will come together with other things. now you must decide, do you get nothing and have to leave or become an illegal, or do you see amnesty become reailty. and please stop listening FAIR and their election results. so in two races they are proven right. wow. awesome. they are right! but look at the forest.
TheInquisitor
Registered Users (C)
marlon, you are really a waste of humanity. truly i tell you. stop kissing up to people that hate you. your friends over at fair will start a civil war if kyl's plan passes.
i don't really know what the heck you work in, but stay away from politics. do you know that the immigration reform caucus has 101 members? and of those like 85/90 are in safe districts? iraq would have to be in an outright civil war and the number of us soldiers dead would would have to 60k before most of those 85 should have to worry about losing.
tancredo is in a very safe seat. point to me where a republican candidate that was going down by 2 points got 3 points just because of immigration? that sounding like xenophone got him 3 points? at most two.
your logic is garbage. always has been and always will be. after all, is coming from you. i bet you will cry like a little girl when you read that a new poll once again tells us what we already know. a poll that confirms dozens of polls from all over the country and from the last several years. go ahead. start crying like a bitch. the bitch that you really are.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/21/AR2006112100618.html
the public wants both. stop showing me the 71%. i already know it. and it is that 71% that got the AZ propositions. but look at the 69%. again, not even close. and again, this isn't the first poll that shows this, polls that has people from red states and from blue states.
and point to me one republican that went down just because of immigration? point to one that wasn't going down anyway. name one. just one. and if you can point to a few, the dem is just as liberal on immigration and by them winning the dems have power. so now senator durbin as whip will be able to bring the DREAM Act to the floor all the times he wants. before DREAM didn't even get a vote. now, all it needs to do is get a vote. the senate might have 60+ votes. the house wil lbe hard, but it wil pass by a few votes.
so you have two options. make a deal or get no skil bill. wait for retro to stop or hope that your visa doesn't run before your best friend tancredo takes over and then comes after you and your family.
i don't really know what the heck you work in, but stay away from politics. do you know that the immigration reform caucus has 101 members? and of those like 85/90 are in safe districts? iraq would have to be in an outright civil war and the number of us soldiers dead would would have to 60k before most of those 85 should have to worry about losing.
tancredo is in a very safe seat. point to me where a republican candidate that was going down by 2 points got 3 points just because of immigration? that sounding like xenophone got him 3 points? at most two.
your logic is garbage. always has been and always will be. after all, is coming from you. i bet you will cry like a little girl when you read that a new poll once again tells us what we already know. a poll that confirms dozens of polls from all over the country and from the last several years. go ahead. start crying like a bitch. the bitch that you really are.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/21/AR2006112100618.html
The nationwide poll, conducted by Quinnipiac University, found that by a margin of 69 percent to 27 percent, American voters say illegal immigrants should be allowed into a guest worker program with the ability to work toward citizenship over a period of several years. Such a guest worker program had wide support among voters of all political stripes.
But 71 percent of voters said Congress must do more to deal with illegal immigrants entering the country.
the public wants both. stop showing me the 71%. i already know it. and it is that 71% that got the AZ propositions. but look at the 69%. again, not even close. and again, this isn't the first poll that shows this, polls that has people from red states and from blue states.
and point to me one republican that went down just because of immigration? point to one that wasn't going down anyway. name one. just one. and if you can point to a few, the dem is just as liberal on immigration and by them winning the dems have power. so now senator durbin as whip will be able to bring the DREAM Act to the floor all the times he wants. before DREAM didn't even get a vote. now, all it needs to do is get a vote. the senate might have 60+ votes. the house wil lbe hard, but it wil pass by a few votes.
so you have two options. make a deal or get no skil bill. wait for retro to stop or hope that your visa doesn't run before your best friend tancredo takes over and then comes after you and your family.
marlon2006
Registered Users (C)
The Inquisitor,
The Dream Act amnesty betrays skilled workers and all legal citizens of this country. It is simply insane. Children of people who were brought here illegally should seek other remedies such as filing a child abuse claim against the respective father or mother who brought them here. If that doesn't solve the problem, go after the respective embassy for the country where you came from and put a Dream Act proposal there to repatriate them and find jobs in their home country. That is the real solution and you should be smart enough to know it. Ask yourself the question, how the Dream Act is going to impact skilled EB immigrants ?
We've seen results of polls before. I am not impressed. It depends on how you phrase them you can come up with results showing what you want. As far as I know last time I checked polls with true, neutral language, people were given viable choices and the majority selected enforcement. The Inquisitor, get real. Do you really think that Americans who are competing against cheap labor from abroad want more immigration ? That would be irrational. Let's admit that we want to stay and that is OK. See what the National Review tells about polling questions:
(...)
“ hilariously skewed polling questions, and those of the mainstream media, all larded with pro-amnesty codewords like “comprehensive reform” and “earned legalization,” and offering respondents the false choice of mass deportations or amnesty.
More responsible polling employing neutral language (avoiding accurate but potentially provocative terminology like “amnesty” and “illegal alien”) finds something very different. In a recent national survey by Kellyanne Conway, when told the level of immigration, 68 percent of likely voters said it was too high and only 2 percent said it was too low. Also, when offered the full range of choices of what to do about the existing illegal population, voters rejected both the extremes of legalization (“amnesty” to you and me) and mass deportations; instead, they preferred the approach of this year’s House bill, which sought attrition of the illegal population through consistent immigration law enforcement. Finally, three fourths of likely voters agreed that we have an illegal immigration problem because past enforcement efforts have been “grossly inadequate,” as opposed to the open-borders crowd’s contention that illegal immigration is caused by overly restrictive immigration rules.
(...)
The Dream Act amnesty betrays skilled workers and all legal citizens of this country. It is simply insane. Children of people who were brought here illegally should seek other remedies such as filing a child abuse claim against the respective father or mother who brought them here. If that doesn't solve the problem, go after the respective embassy for the country where you came from and put a Dream Act proposal there to repatriate them and find jobs in their home country. That is the real solution and you should be smart enough to know it. Ask yourself the question, how the Dream Act is going to impact skilled EB immigrants ?
We've seen results of polls before. I am not impressed. It depends on how you phrase them you can come up with results showing what you want. As far as I know last time I checked polls with true, neutral language, people were given viable choices and the majority selected enforcement. The Inquisitor, get real. Do you really think that Americans who are competing against cheap labor from abroad want more immigration ? That would be irrational. Let's admit that we want to stay and that is OK. See what the National Review tells about polling questions:
(...)
“ hilariously skewed polling questions, and those of the mainstream media, all larded with pro-amnesty codewords like “comprehensive reform” and “earned legalization,” and offering respondents the false choice of mass deportations or amnesty.
More responsible polling employing neutral language (avoiding accurate but potentially provocative terminology like “amnesty” and “illegal alien”) finds something very different. In a recent national survey by Kellyanne Conway, when told the level of immigration, 68 percent of likely voters said it was too high and only 2 percent said it was too low. Also, when offered the full range of choices of what to do about the existing illegal population, voters rejected both the extremes of legalization (“amnesty” to you and me) and mass deportations; instead, they preferred the approach of this year’s House bill, which sought attrition of the illegal population through consistent immigration law enforcement. Finally, three fourths of likely voters agreed that we have an illegal immigration problem because past enforcement efforts have been “grossly inadequate,” as opposed to the open-borders crowd’s contention that illegal immigration is caused by overly restrictive immigration rules.
(...)
TheInquisitor said:marlon, you are really a waste of humanity. truly i tell you. stop kissing up to people that hate you. your friends over at fair will start a civil war if kyl's plan passes.
i don't really know what the heck you work in, but stay away from politics. do you know that the immigration reform caucus has 101 members? and of those like 85/90 are in safe districts? iraq would have to be in an outright civil war and the number of us soldiers dead would would have to 60k before most of those 85 should have to worry about losing.
tancredo is in a very safe seat. point to me where a republican candidate that was going down by 2 points got 3 points just because of immigration? that sounding like xenophone got him 3 points? at most two.
your logic is garbage. always has been and always will be. after all, is coming from you. i bet you will cry like a little girl when you read that a new poll once again tells us what we already know. a poll that confirms dozens of polls from all over the country and from the last several years. go ahead. start crying like a bitch. the bitch that you really are.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/21/AR2006112100618.html
the public wants both. stop showing me the 71%. i already know it. and it is that 71% that got the AZ propositions. but look at the 69%. again, not even close. and again, this isn't the first poll that shows this, polls that has people from red states and from blue states.
and point to me one republican that went down just because of immigration? point to one that wasn't going down anyway. name one. just one. and if you can point to a few, the dem is just as liberal on immigration and by them winning the dems have power. so now senator durbin as whip will be able to bring the DREAM Act to the floor all the times he wants. before DREAM didn't even get a vote. now, all it needs to do is get a vote. the senate might have 60+ votes. the house wil lbe hard, but it wil pass by a few votes.
so you have two options. make a deal or get no skil bill. wait for retro to stop or hope that your visa doesn't run before your best friend tancredo takes over and then comes after you and your family.
Last edited by a moderator: