U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Illegal Immigration
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-09-2007, 08:26 AM
 
Location: San Diego North County
4,800 posts, read 7,687,743 times
Reputation: 3010

Advertisements

From Roy Beck-NumbersUSA -

I don't think we've ever seen an effort like this to stop illegal immigration -- 90 politicians putting Party politics aside to finally try to resolve a terrible problem. The tough SAVE Act (H.R. 4088) that we've been preparing you for was finally made public this week. This email will show you a number of ways that this represents a special opportunity.

For starters, here's what the nation saw revealed at the press conference:

TRULY BI-PARTISAN

44 Democratic signers
46 Republican signers
Main author: A Democrat

Standing with him at press conference & on TV shows:

Republican chairman of Immigration Reform Caucus,
COMMITTEE LEADERS FROM BOTH PARTIES (committees and subcommittees)
17 Democrats who are House committee chairmen
22 Republicans who are Ranking committee Members

FROM ALL REGIONS

12 from the East
17 from the Midwest
20 from the West
41 from the South

FRESHMEN DEMS AND GOP RUSH TO BE ORIGINALS ON THIS BILL

Most bills are introduced with only a handful of original co-sponsors. The splash of co-sponsors on H.R. 4088 is really quite extraordinary. Of the 435 Members of the U.S. House, 20% were original signers.

NEWLY ELECTED FRESHMEN ESPECIALLY EAGER TO BE SEEN AS LEADERS AGAINST ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION

42.5% of freshman Democrats signed
41.6% of freshman Republicans signed

It is clear that doing something about illegal immigration was a promise made to voters by most candidates a year ago who defeated incumbents or who won seats vacated by retiring Congressmen.

This crop of freshmen from both Parties has a much greater sense of urgency about the immigration issue than do the top leaders of their Parties.

These freshman Representatives want to become SOPHOMORE Representatives after next fall's elections.

And they know that means they at least have to be seen as having done what it takes to get some immigration enforcement passed.

52% of Democrats who defeated a Republican incumbent last year are original co-sponsors, and remember that this is just the beginning.

Now that the bill and its original signers have been made public, we can expect to see many more Members co-sponsoring -- especially if the users of NumbersUSA continue to fax and phone to pressure them.

Those of you responding to our Alerts the last two weeks have sent tens of thousands of faxes and made thousands of phone calls to Members informing them of the details of H.R. 4088. Please don't stop faxing/phoning if your Representative isn't on the list of original co-sponsors.

FASCINATING CONTRASTS AMONG THE ORIGINAL CO-SPONSORS

If anybody thinks that Members of Congress who support our goals of Attrition Through Enforcement are of one kind, take a look at this:
THE ORIGINAL CO-SPONSORS OF THIS BILL INCLUDE:

2 Members of the Congressional Black Caucus -- Rep. Davis (D-Ala.) and Rep. Bishop (D-Ga.).

A Member of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus -- Rep. Rodriguez (D-Texas).

2 GOP Presidential Candidates -- Rep. Tancredo (R-Colo.) and Rep. Hunter (R-Calif.)

Environmentalist favorite, Rep. Udall (D-Colo.)

Target of environmentalists, Rep. Doolittle (R-Calif.)

Anti-war champion, Rep. Murtha (D-Pa.)

Bush anti-terrorism supporter, Rep. Rohrabacher (R-Calif.)

Sponsor of bill to end chain migration, Rep. Gringrey (R-Ga.)

Sponsor of bill to end anchor baby policies, Rep. Deal (R-Ga.)

Rep. Kanjorski (D-Pa.) with an F in NumbersUSA's amnesty grading

Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) with an A amnesty grade, and a 20-year leader against amnesties

6 of 11 Democrats from Pennsylvania

4 of 5 Democrats from Tennessee

3 of 5 Democrats from Indiana, 3 of 6 from Georgia and 3 from New York

7 Republicans from California

5 of 6 Republicans from North Carolina, 5 of 6 from Georgia and 5 of 19 from Texas

All 4 Republicans from Tennessee

See the S.A.V.E. Act Here: (Save America with Verification and Enforcement Act of 2007)

http://www.numbersusa.com/PDFs/SAVEActSBS.pdf

Go to NumbersUSA: NumbersUSA (http://www.numbersusa.com/index - broken link)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-09-2007, 10:43 AM
 
1,861 posts, read 2,967,537 times
Reputation: 559
HIP, HIP, HURRAY!!

Thanks for posting that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-09-2007, 10:52 AM
 
Location: Sacramento
13,755 posts, read 23,217,198 times
Reputation: 6092
As I said in another thread yesterday, the illegal immigration problem does not have a political split (Democrat vs Republican).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-09-2007, 10:54 AM
 
Location: Maine
7,728 posts, read 10,811,809 times
Reputation: 8310
thank You Kele for the information and link.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-09-2007, 12:18 PM
 
Location: San Diego North County
4,800 posts, read 7,687,743 times
Reputation: 3010
Default Here's some more info--not as positive though.

The Senate passed its version of the Department of Defense (DoD) Appropriations bill (H.R. 3222), which included a provision by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) to set aside $3 billion for border security, but the House-Senate negotiators, under guidance from the House Democratic leadership, removed the $3 billion in conference.

Please call your Democratic representative and decry the removal of the $3 billion in border security funds. Let your representative know that House Democratic leadership is leading them astray and against the desire of his/her constituents that Congress adequately fund the border security measures that have been promised.

Background

Sen. Graham sponsored the amendment to the DoD bill with Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), which would:

1. Provide funding to construct 700 miles of fencing;

2. Provide funding to procure Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV), ground sensors, and vehicle barriers;

3. Increase the ability to detain illegal aliens who overstay their visas and commit other crimes; and

4. Provide funding for states and localities that undergo training to assist the Federal government in enforcing immigration law.

The Senate voted in October to attach the $3 billion in funding to the DoD bill by a vote of 95 to 1.

Senators Graham, Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.), Jim Demint (R-S.C.), Judd Gregg (R-N.H.), Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.), Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), Mel Martinez (R-Fla.), Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), and Elizabeth Dole (R-N.C.) held a press conference on November 7 to decry the removal of the border security funding from the DoD bill.

“It is outrageous that the leadership yanked this critical funding from the final bill,” Senator Dole said, “The Senate spoke loud and clear on this issue, and now a select few have decided to ignore the number one lesson learned from the Senate’s failed immigration bill – that Americans simply don’t have confidence that their government is serious about securing our borders and enforcing our laws.”

Go here for phone numbers and free faxes and contact your Democratic Senators. Let them know that you're not happy about the vote to remove Border Security from this Bill.

https://www.numbersusa.com/register
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-09-2007, 12:23 PM
 
1,510 posts, read 709,122 times
Reputation: 32
the patriot act was passed with bi-partisan support. it doesnt make it a good decision.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-09-2007, 12:25 PM
 
9,742 posts, read 9,059,856 times
Reputation: 2049
Quote:
Originally Posted by GH0ST.. View Post
the patriot act was passed with bi-partisan support. it doesnt make it a good decision.
Which has absolutely nothing to do with the point made by the OP and other members.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-09-2007, 12:27 PM
 
Location: San Diego North County
4,800 posts, read 7,687,743 times
Reputation: 3010
Quote:
Originally Posted by GH0ST.. View Post
the patriot act was passed with bi-partisan support. it doesnt make it a good decision.
The American people, with their staunch opposition to every Shamnesty Bill that has come down the pike for the last several years, have spoken.

Like it or not--the majority of the American people are against illegal immigration. This is not about the Patriot Act, this is about the sovereignty of the United States borders. Now I know you'd be pleased as punch if we just through them wide open (more so than they already are) and just let every Tom, Dick and Jose to waltz in here as they please, but unless Bush is able to push through his global idea of the N.A.U., it just ain't gonna happen.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-09-2007, 12:43 PM
 
1,510 posts, read 709,122 times
Reputation: 32
this is just a display of media influence on the general public, and subsequently, our representatives. we voted in bush twice before we realized he was a screw-up. we voted to go into iraq before we realized that was a mistake. we voted in the patriot act, and many are finally realizing its unconstitutional and not helping anyone but the federal government (and it actually hurts our general population). illegal immigrants are the new communists, and this is mccarthyism all over again.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-09-2007, 12:47 PM
 
8,973 posts, read 14,612,395 times
Reputation: 2983
Quote:
Originally Posted by GH0ST.. View Post
this is just a display of media influence on the general public, and subsequently, our representatives. we voted in bush twice before we realized he was a screw-up. we voted to go into iraq before we realized that was a mistake. we voted in the patriot act, and many are finally realizing its unconstitutional and not helping anyone but the federal government (and it actually hurts our general population). illegal immigrants are the new communists, and this is mccarthyism all over again.
Can you offer proof of your statements? How. exactly. are ilegals the "new communists"?....and how, exactly, is this "mccarthyism all over again"?....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Illegal Immigration
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top