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.
Amnesty means legal residency - which means no voting rights. After 'x' many years in this status they will be able to apply for citizenship which will give them voting rights.
If those who were to get amnesty were not allowed to vote,would Democrats be championing it?
It's not about the potential votes of those who will get amnesty. It's about maintaining the votes of their current sympathisers (which there are many millions of, sadly).
Amnesty means legal residency - which means no voting rights. After 'x' many years in this status they will be able to apply for citizenship which will give them voting rights.
I think for this discussion to go anywhere the OP needs to be translated out of Gotcha Rightwingerese. He is basically asking would Democrats support some sort of legal status w/o a path to citizenship which is difficult to answer because Democrats likely disagree and what exactly such a legal status would look like is very fluid at the moment so it is hard to say what people would think. Obviously some Democrats are against any form of amnesty and some only support a straightforward path to citizenship.
A pathway to citizenship is fine but it should be at least as long as the wait time for those who immigrate legally. Currently in Category 4 (brothers and sisters of adult U.S. citizens) US Immigration is processing Mexican applications made in 1996. So the pathway to citizenship should be about 15 years not the 5 years for legal immigrants.
Legal residents in the US have the same rights as citizens except they can't vote, can't get called for jury, can be expelled if they get into serious trouble with the law, and some gov't/military jobs are off limits. For many illegal Mexicans being allowed to stay in the country legally is good enough - no need to become citizens.
Well, as a democrat, I can say, I am not particularly happy about amnesty. It seems like we are being buffaloed by the hispanic voters. Sorry, I don't think an illegal Mexican "deserves" to be a citizen, when someone from Nigeria or China has to follow a legal process. However, it is a complex problem, and it is pretty unlikely that we will be able to deport them. Our immigration system has failed.
Bascially that are proposing that they get wrok visa then in time a path to citizenship. Its a sneeky way of giving amnesty just like in the 80's which solved nothing they said it would. Amnesty just encourages others to come illegally nits a path to citizenship.They are trying this since the one under Bush which was clearly stated as amnesty caused huge protest. Amnesty and path to citizenship for people who enter illegally is the samething ;its all politcal spinBr prepared to wite;call or e-mailo your presentative when it comes to the floot like last time..
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.
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.
