U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [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 09-18-2015, 12:14 AM
 
10,830 posts, read 3,804,539 times
Reputation: 4696

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by workingclasshero View Post
well you start the thread with the false spin of 'reagans amnesty'


Reagan did NOT support amnesty. but was forced to sign it...amnesty bills have been done over 9 times...nine of those bills authored by very liberal ted kennedy

Reagans ideas on amnesty??? nope he was against it...amnesty has always been pushed by the freaking liberals


why do liberals constantly push amnesty for illegal actions of people being illegally here

to COMPLETE that picture...there have been 9 amnesty bills, 8 PASSED, since 1965....ALL authored by Ted Kennedy

In 1986 Senator Kennedy said, ‘This amnesty will give citizenship to only 1.1 to 1.3 million illegal aliens. We will secure the borders henceforth. We will never again bring forward another amnesty bill like this.’

Ronald Reagan was opposed to illegal immigration and amnesty. In fact, if you do a little research you will find that stopping illegal immigration was part of the Republican National Committee’s platform back then and Ronald Reagan ran on that platform.

The 1986 Immigration Reform Act that rewarded illegal aliens with amnesty was known as the Simpson-Massoli bill of 1986. When first drafted, the bill was suppose to make it a criminal offense for aliens who were not authorized to work in the United States a federal criminal act and that it would be a federal crime for employers to hire illegal aliens.

Here's what happened, the Democrats in Congress refused to sign on this bill unless the 1.5 million illegal aliens already thought to be in the country illegally and would qualify for amnesty were rewarded amnesty. (reason being, if these illegal’s were to become U.S. citizens, guess what party they would most likely vote for ? )

So the amnesty part was added on to the bill other wise the Democrats wouldn't sign on. And to muffle the out cry, the American people were told that this amnesty was a one time thing and would never be repeated again.

Well the bill passed both houses of Congress and President Reagan signed the bill. In the inner circles of the administration, Ronald Reagan was to have said he may have made a mistake by signing the bill.
Guess what ?, it wasn't 1.5 million illegal aliens who would have qualified for amnesty. It turns out that over 3 million were rewarded with amnesty, mostly because of the fraud that took place during the amnesty process. Phony rent receipts, phony pay check stubs, liberal judges expunging criminal records of illegal aliens!!!

And after the bill became law, you had Teddy Kennedy watering down the enforcement part of the bill that had to do with enforcing and prosecuting employers who hired illegal aliens.

--------------------------

Here is Ted Kennedy commenting on the 1965 immigration bill,Quote
“The bill will not flood our cities with immigrants. It will not upset the ethnic mix of our society. It will not relax the standards of admission.” End of Quote.

In 1994, Ted Kennedy’s Section 245(i) Amnesty gave legal residence and jobs to 578,000 illegal aliens. It was a temporary rolling amnesty primarily for extended family members of immigrants who instead of waiting in line, come on to the country illegally.

In 1997, Ted Kennedy’s extension of the Section 245(i) rolling amnesty was followed by an increasing flow of illegal immigration.

In 1997, Ted Kennedy also won an amnesty for close to one million illegal aliens from Central America. Illegal immigration sped up some more.

In 1998, Ted Kennedy won an amnesty for 125,000 illegal aliens from Haiti.

In 2000, Ted Kennedy got the so-called Late Amnesty, legalizing another 400,000 illegal aliens who claimed that they missed out on Kennedy’s 1986 amnesty.

In 2000, Ted Kennedy also won the LIFE Act Amnesty for an estimated 900,000 illegal aliens. It was another reinstatement of the rolling Section 245(i) amnesty...an estimated 900,000 illegal aliens. Illegal immigration accelerated.


why do liberals constantly push amnesty for illegal actions of people being illegally here.....
no more amnesty
A lot of people didn't want the Kennedys to have power because they were Catholics.

Listening to Pope Francis telling us we have to be nice to the illegals, give up capitalism and prosperity, and buy into the global warming nonsense tells me that they were right.

The Kennedys gave us Vietnam and the transformation of America into a Third World country (still ongoing.)

If the Catholic Church would do the right thing -- call for another crusade against the Muslim heretics, for example -- then my attitude might be different.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-18-2015, 12:23 AM
 
10,830 posts, read 3,804,539 times
Reputation: 4696
Quote:
Originally Posted by nicet4 View Post
Exactly, look at the spew coming forth from the hard right wing chamber of commerce.

As far as Muslims go not one should be allowed to step ever foot on American soil.

Muslims are alien beings and once they get here they will rob, rape and pillage because they are Muslims; it's simply what Muslims do such as being content to live on welfare their entire lives letting stupid non-believers support them by taxes.

In France:

80% des musulmans vivent de l'aide sociales - par Ali Abd al-Aal

(Translated from French by Google Translate)



Westerners are perplexed that Muslims show such contempt for people helping them. They don't understand that Muslims have a very alien set of values and morals. To Muslims, Allah towers above them, and he is often an arbitrary god. Everything flows from him to his chosen people, the Muslims. That goes for good things and bad things.

This is sometimes labeled "in'shallah fatalism". This fatalism means that Muslims are rewarded by Allah in return for being a "good Muslim", and punished by Allah, for lapses, but also facetiously,

In this dynamic, when we "infidels" (that's you and me - we are considered unworthy and even sub-human by Muslims), give Muslims charity, credit does not accrue to us - how could it - we are "unbelievers" - but all credit for our largesse redounds to Allah and Allah only.

Give a Muslim $1,000,000 and he will thank Allah for making the subhuman infidel reward a pious deserving Muslim.

Remember this as our fellow citizens inanely extend charity to thankless Muslims, and then are shamed by those same Muslims for somehow transgressing Islam... Being kind to Muslims only earns their complete contempt as European nations have already shown us. Such gestures reinforce to the Muslim's sense of superiority, and highlight the "infidel's" inferiority to the "good Muslim". We feed their worst supremacist notions by extending help and charity. This means all of our efforts have the exact opposite effect to what we expect or hope for.

They are enemies. All of them. Their ideology is more poisonous that Hitler, Hirohito, or Karl Marx's communism. Islam must be beggared and destroyed, or we will die.

So I think we should all bow down and commit mass suicide before the alter of diversity. Isn't it better to die in a diverse nation than to live in a non-diverse nation?

“Can you cite one speck of hard evidence of the benefits of "diversity" that we have heard gushed about for years? Evidence of its harm can be seen — written in blood — from Iraq to India, from Serbia to Sudan, from Fiji to the Philippines. It is scary how easily so many people can be brainwashed by sheer repetition of a word.”
Thomas Sowell
Well said.

But the liberals will never agree because it doesn't fit their "West bad/Third World good" narrative.

Even a lot of conservatives won't agree -- look at George W. Bush calling Islam "the religion of peace."

What a joke. "Islam" means "submission."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-18-2015, 12:29 AM
 
10,830 posts, read 3,804,539 times
Reputation: 4696
Quote:
Originally Posted by residinghere2007 View Post
Do you have info to back this up.

In the 1980s there were hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese refugees let into the country, also Cuban refugees, and other S. American countries, I'm sure it adds up to over 2 million. In the early 1990s there were also hundreds of thousands of muslim refugees from Iraq and Iran, which started in the 1980s.
People we let into this country -- e.g., refugees -- are here legally and do not need amnesty.

So saying that Reagan gave them amnesty is wrong.

Quote:
IMO, we should allow learned Syrian refugees to come here in an orderly process and send them to places that have been facing population declines in the Midwest and other parts of the country, same as what was done in the 1980s.
Once they're here, they are free to go anywhere they want. Which usually means Southern California.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-18-2015, 12:39 AM
 
10,830 posts, read 3,804,539 times
Reputation: 4696
Reagan was wrong to give the amnesty.

But you have to recognize the context of his decision: 3 million illegals then versus up to 20 million now.

Reagan's was the first big amnesty, given with the promise that the border would be secured and no further amnesties would ever be needed.

That promise was broken.

Reagan naively thought that anyone determined to come here -- legally or illegally -- would love America and obey and uphold its laws.

Now we know that is not true. Look at Kate Steinle and the many others murdered by illegal aliens.

To say that today's conservative Republicans are extremist "wingnuts" compared to Reagan completely ignores the context of his decision and the way things have changed.

But of course, that's the kind of dishonesty liberals always engage in.

Being liberal, they can't help themselves.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-18-2015, 02:05 AM
 
21,367 posts, read 10,646,603 times
Reputation: 8676
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluefly View Post
I have mixed feelings on the refugee situation but it's always interesting how moderate Reagan was in reality and how his actions ran counter to many of today's conservative positions.

GOP 2016ers collide with Reagan immigration policy - CNNPolitics.com
Big mistake then and certainly a big mistake now.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-18-2015, 07:37 AM
 
11,376 posts, read 3,689,978 times
Reputation: 5425
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluefly View Post
True, but that makes the point even further. Reagan offered amnesty to millions - both everyday illegals and refugees.

Again, I'm not taking Reagan's side on this because I think it's very complicated but it's interesting how the hero of conservatism acted on values that transfoemed our country but would get him rejected from the Republicans of today.
Oh just stop. The deal was he would sign the amnesty and the Democrats were supposed to seal the border. They reneged and never held up their end of the deal. It was a compromise that he got burned on. It wasn't his idea.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-18-2015, 08:37 AM
 
31,462 posts, read 14,559,147 times
Reputation: 8346
How can you grant amnesty to a refugee? Refugees aren't here in violation of our immigration laws. Amnesty means forgiveness for a crime. What do refugees need to be forgiven for and what crime are they guilty of?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-18-2015, 08:40 AM
 
11,376 posts, read 3,689,978 times
Reputation: 5425
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oldglory View Post
How can you grant amnesty to a refugee? Refugees aren't here in violation of our immigration laws. Amnesty means forgiveness for a crime. What do refugees need to be forgiven for and what crime are they guilty of?
They are just making **** up as they go along. Pay no mind to them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-18-2015, 09:20 AM
 
14,375 posts, read 7,085,168 times
Reputation: 7421
Quote:
Originally Posted by dechatelet View Post
People we let into this country -- e.g., refugees -- are here legally and do not need amnesty.

So saying that Reagan gave them amnesty is wrong.

Once they're here, they are free to go anywhere they want. Which usually means Southern California.

Reagan gave amnesty to illegal immigrants as well, it was over 12million illegals he gave amnesty to.

I mentioned refugees because the poster I was responding to stated that Reagan didn't let in any refugees. That is a lie. There were many Arab/Middle Eastern and SE Asian and S. American refugees that came to America from 1981 to 1989 during Reagan's tenure as president I would guestimate over 1.5 million. He also gave a path to citizenship for over 2 million illegal immigrants, see the OP link.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-18-2015, 09:25 AM
 
14,375 posts, read 7,085,168 times
Reputation: 7421
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oldglory View Post
How can you grant amnesty to a refugee? Refugees aren't here in violation of our immigration laws. Amnesty means forgiveness for a crime. What do refugees need to be forgiven for and what crime are they guilty of?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dbones View Post
They are just making **** up as they go along. Pay no mind to them.

Because the thread started off speaking of how Reagan granted amnesty to illegal aliens in the 1980s. From the OP link:

Quote:
In 1986, Reagan signed the Immigration Reform and Control Act, which granted amnesty to 2.7 million undocumented immigrants who had arrived in the U.S. before 1982, had a clean record and registered with the Selective Service. Critics of the law, however, have pointed out that it failed to crack down on future waves of illegal immigration.
Bold added by me.

The conversation drifted away from the initial focus (like it always does around here) and delved into "how can we absorb Syrian refugees" and "Reagan didn't let in hardly any refugees."

Reagan both granted amnesty to illegal immigrants via the above AND he left millions of refugees come to America from many war torn countries including SE Asian (Vietnam, Cambodia, etc) and Central S. American war torn countries, along with Cubans who were granted automatic asylum due to the Cold War. He also allowed political refugee status for many Middle Easterners.
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
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