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.
Nonsense. The House was and still is controlled by the Republicans so no it wouldn't pass. It has nothing to do with not wanting to work with the Democrats but objection to what was in the bill and desiring a piece meal approach that puts border security first.
They don't want anything to do with "immigration"? Um no, they don't want anything to do with amnestying millions of illegal aliens. So yes they to do complain about illegal immigration. The Democrats are just as guilty of not wanting to work with the Republicans. Who do you think you are kidding? Funny that as you admitted that the Senate bill was a bi-partisan one so how can you make the claim that they don't want to work with the Democrats? There is no need for the House Republicans to work with the Democrats on this issue as it is all about amnesty. So it is being childish to not desire that? IMO, it is being an anti-American traitor to desire amnesty which will be a detriment to our own citizens.
Yes, the specific bill *is* a bipartisan bill. A group of Rs and Ds hammered out something that would give each side something of what they wanted, they counted the votes, and they got enough support for it that it would pass. In a sane world, it would have been acted upon and likely passed, and my guess is that obama would have signed it.
But we don't live in a sane world, we live in a world with the hastert rule. So getting a majority of the house to vote for it is insufficient. That majority must include a majority of Rs.
The idea behind the bill was to do at least the things that both side could agree needed to be done, and to discuss the more contentious issues separately. But those who are adamantly opposed to anything they can call amnesty don't want that. Because they know that if that issue is discussed on its own, they will lose.
All the lame idiot has to do is have a televised speech in which he orders all illegal aliens to leave the US within 30 days, and if they do, they'll only get a 10-year interdiction instead of having a DNA sample taken and their entire blood-line banned for 7 generations.
Optionally...
Mircea
That to the new law Congress is going to pass? Or should he do it by EO?
Yes, the specific bill *is* a bipartisan bill. A group of Rs and Ds hammered out something that would give each side something of what they wanted, they counted the votes, and they got enough support for it that it would pass. In a sane world, it would have been acted upon and likely passed, and my guess is that obama would have signed it.
But we don't live in a sane world, we live in a world with the hastert rule. So getting a majority of the house to vote for it is insufficient. That majority must include a majority of Rs.
The idea behind the bill was to do at least the things that both side could agree needed to be done, and to discuss the more contentious issues separately. But those who are adamantly opposed to anything they can call amnesty don't want that. Because they know that if that issue is discussed on its own, they will lose.
Exactly. That is the definition of bipartisan--both sides compromise, which means neither side gets everything they want, but both sides get something. It's how things used to get done in this country.
But compromise has become a dirty word to Conservatives, as has the mere thought of sending anything to Obama which he might actually sign. Something that will pass with a majority of the House will not even be considered unless it also has the support of the majority of their party. It shows the insincerity of the GOP when they claim they want bipartisanship.
And then they whine and whine and whine about how the other side won't work across the aisle.
The document reveals that the 36,007 convicted criminal aliens freed from ICE custody in many instances had multiple convictions. Among them, the 36,007 had nearly 88,000 convictions.
That one has been dealt with extensively. It deals with immigration law and its interaction with ICE.
There is nothing in it that in fact indicates which of these immigrants are illegal. There are also restraints on holding aliens from certain countries and the general discretion on which of the aliens in custody are to be held until deported or not.
Take a whole lot more work to determine which of these are actually bad releases and which are reasonable. It is also likely that some good portion is the local authorities getting rid of convicts they do not wish to hold.
The document reveals that the 36,007 convicted criminal aliens freed from ICE custody in many instances had multiple convictions. Among them, the 36,007 had nearly 88,000 convictions.
Maybe you could provide a link to the chart you posted from the ICE.gov website regarding the release of criminals from ICE custody. Posting a link from the right wing Center for Immigration Studies doesn't convince me, why didn't they just post the link from the ICE.gov website, should be easy.
Not substantial amounts. K-12 is pretty much universally a local tax and is offset by taxes paid by the illegals. If anything the Feds make money off the illegals. Overall it is close to break even.
The federal government spends about 2Billion per state (130 billion a year)
You are just making things up. A lot of illegals that file taxes do so in order to claim EITC's and get refunds..
The federal government spends about 2Billion per state (130 billion a year)
You are just making things up. A lot of illegals that file taxes do so in order to claim EITC's and get refunds..
Feds pay 12.7%, States pay 43.5%, Local pays 43.8%
It is well known that FICA picks up some billions every year from illegals.
The benefits paid to illegals have been known to the Congress for some years who declines to change the law. They did go to the point of now requiring that the children have valid SS numbers in at least some programs. The program was initiated in the Bush Administration and has continued under Obama.
Yes, the specific bill *is* a bipartisan bill. A group of Rs and Ds hammered out something that would give each side something of what they wanted, they counted the votes, and they got enough support for it that it would pass. In a sane world, it would have been acted upon and likely passed, and my guess is that obama would have signed it.
But we don't live in a sane world, we live in a world with the hastert rule. So getting a majority of the house to vote for it is insufficient. That majority must include a majority of Rs.
The idea behind the bill was to do at least the things that both side could agree needed to be done, and to discuss the more contentious issues separately. But those who are adamantly opposed to anything they can call amnesty don't want that. Because they know that if that issue is discussed on its own, they will lose.
Where are you getting this notion? Amnesty has been discussed for years now and it has never passed the scrutiny of the majority of congress.
Feds pay 12.7%, States pay 43.5%, Local pays 43.8%
Yes, I know.. to proclaim the feds are paying for the illegals is ridiculous..
Quote:
Originally Posted by lvoc
It is well known that FICA picks up some billions every year from illegals.
yes, "some" billions, but they also give out "some" billions.. Furthermore, these jobs would be taken up by non illegals anyways, who of course would be taxpayers..
To proclaim that the federal government is getting some "surplus" they wouldnt otherwise be getting is nonsese.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lvoc
The benefits paid to illegals have been known to the Congress for some years who declines to change the law. They did go to the point of now requiring that the children have valid SS numbers in at least some programs. The program was initiated in the Bush Administration and has continued under Obama.
So you admit the government does give these people money...
Exactly. That is the definition of bipartisan--both sides compromise, which means neither side gets everything they want, but both sides get something. It's how things used to get done in this country.
But compromise has become a dirty word to Conservatives, as has the mere thought of sending anything to Obama which he might actually sign. Something that will pass with a majority of the House will not even be considered unless it also has the support of the majority of their party. It shows the insincerity of the GOP when they claim they want bipartisanship.
And then they whine and whine and whine about how the other side won't work across the aisle.
Funny how you liberals use words like "whine", "hate", etc. When the word should be simply objection. Why should the GOP compromise on the best interests of the American people? Just whom are they supposed to represent? That kind of comprise is what is "dirty". Since when should either party be on board for a bill that is a detriment to our own citizens just so they can say they expressed bipartisanship?
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.
