It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Rush Limbaugh : Agree to amnesty if it comes with no voting rights for 15-25 years. Any takers?

page: 4
18
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 19 2018 @ 12:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: scraedtosleep
a reply to: nwtrucker

But it should be. The poor of the world deserve our help.
If we as americans don't step up and do what is right, no one else will.




"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!".
Statue of Liberty.





We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government
The Declaration of Independence



Help, yes. Open door, no.

No longer give me your time and poor. Those days are long gone. As are the jobs, the room for a hugely increased world population.

Go ahead and try. We're changing it back to it's original.Deal with it.

Felons shouldn't vote....ever.
edit on 19-2-2018 by nwtrucker because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 19 2018 @ 07:00 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

15 to 25 years?

Seems excessive, especially for those who have managed, despite being undocumented, to actually pay their taxes, some of them for decades, which is something that many very well documented companies fail to do on a regular basis.



posted on Feb, 19 2018 @ 07:05 AM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit

If you understood democrats, you'd understand why it was necessary. I'm ok with speeding it up once the border security measures are complete and immigration has been overhauled.



posted on Feb, 19 2018 @ 07:07 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

Its the right idea, but the wrong solution.

Don't grant them citizenship at all. Simply grant them the amnesty to stay and continue to work and live in the country as they currently do, provided that they have a clean criminal history. If they want to go through the normal citizenship process, they're welcome to do so, at the back of the line.



posted on Feb, 19 2018 @ 07:13 AM
link   
a reply to: vor78

Yes, that's the ideal solution. But the point of what limbaugh suggests (and what trump did with the 12 year wait) is to expose to the dreamers that the democrats aren't interested in their not living in fear of deportation, they're interested in getting their votes.



posted on Feb, 19 2018 @ 07:37 AM
link   
This 'disenfranchisement' pass-through to citizenship is a really ugly idea. The Republican's (like Limbaugh) are terrified that a wave of liberal voters could potentially upset the numbers here stateside, but the idea that we would have a class of citizens who's most heinous crime is fleeing for a better life (you know, the kind of crime that should be punishable by death /sarcasm) aren't deserving of representation is pretty un-American.

Is it so hard to rationalize that if Republican's are terrified of non-white voters, that perhaps they could adjust their policies to not be so detrimental to said non-white voters?

I suspect that the terror ultra-conservatives and anti-immigration politicians feel over the idea of giving full citizenship to illegals is more rooted in their regressive policies and their inability to adapt their platform to garner votes from that block. It is asinine to think that all illegals are born Democrats, and very likely could be Republican voters if only the Republican politicians actually tried to help them.



posted on Feb, 19 2018 @ 08:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Wayfarer

I think its a deeper problem than that Wayfarer.

You see, the Republican approach to governance, inspires governments to place vital public services of all sorts, in the hands of private companies. This includes the construction and running of prisons, development of tools for the armed services, as well as involve themselves with other aspects of the armed forces, and a whole host of other, more arguably mundane and understandable applications of the private-government partnerships that occur throughout the states.

These companies, these agreements, often come with specific benefits to individual politicians and administration figures, especially when those figures are instrumental in sealing these lucrative contracts. Its more than just a case of being unwilling to change their platform to appeal to a changing population, its the fact that without full prisons, without a war to fight and an enemy to repel, the Republican approach of the last forty years or more, just simply does not provide the backhanders and profiteering opportunities, that those operating Republican policy at government level, want to get hold of.

The War on Drugs, for example, is deeply unpopular with those who know anything at all about either drugs, or the war on them, because they know that the entire basis for that battle was constructed by the CIA, who as far as anyone can prove, are still involved in double dealing, saying on the one hand that they are combating the influx of drugs and guns, while at the very same moment, operating proxy armies in South America, in the form of narco terrorist groups. That war on drugs means that people in America are as we speak, sitting in jails that they should not be in, jails with artificially high numbers of convicts inside them, where prison gangs make criminals out of otherwise innocent people on a daily basis.

Then, those who were locked up over what amounts to nothing but a personal choice they had every actual right to make (regardless of the law on the matter, which, as previously mentioned, is designed to keep prisons full, has to say about it), come out of jail hardened by abuse, at at best have to overcome PTSD like symptoms, and at worst are press ganged into joining an outfit for survival inside, which bleeds over into their life on the outside, making it APPEAR as if there is a larger crime problem than there actually is, making things look worse than they are. This is a deliberate ploy on the part of those who benefit from the continuing of things as they have been, those who wish to make money from the misery of the innocent, and turn punishment of the guilty, into an excuse to terrorise an entire demographic into silence and obscurity. It is a deliberate effect, which makes small problems look large, which means that the private prisons people and their beneficiaries, can appear to offer solutions, at cost to the taxpayer of course.

If the Republican party actually got behind efforts to close the private prisons, got behind the legalisation of things like marijuana, fought to make marijuana growers and sellers capable of using banking services without impediment, if they were willing to argue for a greater amount of citizen (that is regular citizen, not elected citizen) oversight over the operations of the intelligence agencies, if they were willing to start a roundup of everyone who had ever benefited from the private prisons angle, or the private military angle, and kick them out of whatever power they might have in government or politics, THEN you would see a great deal of motion in the ocean.

But you would also see Republicans being unable to out spend their rivals for office as often as they do. You would see Republicans unable to buy off those who have dirt on them, you would see the Republican party unable to continue to exist in its current format, or rely on any of the things it does well, in order to succeed. I guess what I am saying, is that it is not just about votes, or even mostly about votes. Its actually about how much money they would have to leave, on how many tables, rather than pocketing it, in order to be acceptable to the people they would then be asking to support them at the ballot box.



posted on Feb, 19 2018 @ 09:23 AM
link   
It’s funny that some on the right say the left only care about the votes, yet the idea proposed by Rush is one that has voting rights in mind. The right fears the votes of the illegals, but the fact is even if you gave the illegals the right to vote the elections wouldn’t change.

-Most illegals live in Urban areas who already vote with the left.
-Mexicans show up to vote at the same rate as Americans, meaning only about half of the illegals who could vote likely would
-The illegals would not solely vote for the democrats

It’s also funny that Rush Limbaugh has agreed with the Presidents assertion that 3 million illegals voted in this last election, yet it didn’t change the result. That 3 million number is roughly the amount of illegals that would vote if voter turnout numbers remained the same.

So those worried about the illegal vote claim they already do vote and it obviously doesn’t matter in terms of results as we have a Rebuplican House and President.



posted on Feb, 19 2018 @ 10:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: aethertek
a reply to: Wardaddy454

www.cbsnews.com...
www.dailykos.com...
www.alternet.org...
www.politicususa.com...
www.tysto.com...

K~

So, Viagra, and a circumstantial trip.

Based on that evidence its fair to say that Jennifer Lopez, Alex Rodriguez, Drake, Jay-Z, Beyonce and Rihanna go there for the sex romps as well. In fact, many well known names go down there.

Oh and Hillary Clinton along with the Kissingers were down there in 2012 vacationing. "child molester in prison for the crimes he commits on his sexual holidays in the Dominican Republic".

Hmmmmmmmmm, you may be on to something after all. Pizza anyone?



posted on Feb, 19 2018 @ 12:01 PM
link   
a reply to: vor78

That is actually how it is done. The get resident alien status (green card) and then 5 years later they can start the naturalization process.



posted on Feb, 19 2018 @ 12:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

Actually, they are also interested in being able to get their family members to the US legally. That was probably a bigger deal breaker than any waiting period, since there already is one anyway.



posted on Feb, 20 2018 @ 03:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: Wayfarer
This 'disenfranchisement' pass-through to citizenship is a really ugly idea. The Republican's (like Limbaugh) are terrified that a wave of liberal voters could potentially upset the numbers here stateside, but the idea that we would have a class of citizens who's most heinous crime is fleeing for a better life (you know, the kind of crime that should be punishable by death /sarcasm) aren't deserving of representation is pretty un-American.

Is it so hard to rationalize that if Republican's are terrified of non-white voters, that perhaps they could adjust their policies to not be so detrimental to said non-white voters?

I suspect that the terror ultra-conservatives and anti-immigration politicians feel over the idea of giving full citizenship to illegals is more rooted in their regressive policies and their inability to adapt their platform to garner votes from that block. It is asinine to think that all illegals are born Democrats, and very likely could be Republican voters if only the Republican politicians actually tried to help them.


these accusations of conservatives/Republicans as racist/bigots is unfair and untrue.

nobody wants to kick out the ones who work. the problem is when one person comes and works and brings in multiple family members who get 'public assistance', clog the emergency rooms, etc.
not to mention the gangbangers.
and thugs like the one that shot Karen Steinle.
easy for democrats in gated communities and private health care to ignore what the rest of us deal with.



posted on Feb, 20 2018 @ 04:21 AM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

Well yes, so they will vote democrat. Dems need to import an underclass that they can lord over. It's just their new form of slavery.
edit on 20-2-2018 by Dfairlite because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 20 2018 @ 07:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: ElGoobero

originally posted by: Wayfarer
This 'disenfranchisement' pass-through to citizenship is a really ugly idea. The Republican's (like Limbaugh) are terrified that a wave of liberal voters could potentially upset the numbers here stateside, but the idea that we would have a class of citizens who's most heinous crime is fleeing for a better life (you know, the kind of crime that should be punishable by death /sarcasm) aren't deserving of representation is pretty un-American.

Is it so hard to rationalize that if Republican's are terrified of non-white voters, that perhaps they could adjust their policies to not be so detrimental to said non-white voters?

I suspect that the terror ultra-conservatives and anti-immigration politicians feel over the idea of giving full citizenship to illegals is more rooted in their regressive policies and their inability to adapt their platform to garner votes from that block. It is asinine to think that all illegals are born Democrats, and very likely could be Republican voters if only the Republican politicians actually tried to help them.


these accusations of conservatives/Republicans as racist/bigots is unfair and untrue.

nobody wants to kick out the ones who work. the problem is when one person comes and works and brings in multiple family members who get 'public assistance', clog the emergency rooms, etc.
not to mention the gangbangers.
and thugs like the one that shot Karen Steinle.
easy for democrats in gated communities and private health care to ignore what the rest of us deal with.


You misunderstood my post. I'm suggesting that it is the fear of 'additional democratic voters' that the Republicans mentioned in the OP are against, rather than just because they are immigrants. I agree with you that assuming as fact that Republicans/Conservatives are racist/bigots because of their resistance to immigration is wrong and in almost all cases a mischaracterization/oversimplification of the situation.

My point was immigrants aren't born Democrat, and its likely the Republican resistance and harsh policies toward them that drive them to vote against Republicans. I imagine that if Republican's embrace immigrants and adjust policies toward helping them out they can be just as likely to receive their votes as Democrats.



posted on Feb, 20 2018 @ 07:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: Ursushorribilis
a reply to: UKTruth

15 to 25 year path? Now that's just ridiculous. What does an older person do? Just die waiting?


The entire assertion is laughable.

First off, voting is a vital part of any democratic system of government. To say that one group or another can become citizens but cannot take part in that process could also raise some constitutional issues.

Secondly, I've seen it posted that this shows how the Left is not concerned about the immigrants. They are only concerned about the votes. Well, that could be true but at the same time it appears that those that support this idea are also guilty of that.

They do not care about the law or anything other than the potential votes these people may be for democrats.

So while they think they have exposed the Left's hypocrisy, they have actually exposed their own.
edit on 20-2-2018 by introvert because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 20 2018 @ 10:16 AM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

When I said they, I meant the people getting the amnesty but don't kid yourself both sides are lording every everyone.



posted on Feb, 20 2018 @ 01:13 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

I assume this post all tongue in cheek.

You and everyone else knows the only reason Democrats want more illegals and then to pass amnesty to them is because they will be poor and needy forever and in their eyes hopefully vote Democrat. They support no programs to actually pull them out of poverty and help them become self sufficient contributing members of society.



posted on Feb, 20 2018 @ 01:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth
Limbaugh was talking on Fox News Sunday and came up with the idea that he would support an amnesty bill if it meant that illegal immigrants, who were given citizenship, could not vote for 15-25 years.

I think this is a great idea. It is humane, something all democrats will love, and removes the excuse from the Republicans that this is all about votes.

So what do people think? It's certainly one way to find out if the Democrats REALLY care and also if the Republicans are REALLY only concerned about this being a voting issue.

www.washingtonexaminer.com... 49418

Limbaugh seems to think that not a single Democrat would vote for it.


Terrible idea.

Citizenship should mean all the rights that come with it.


HOWEVER

I would propose a Amnesty visa. It entitles you to the right to stay BUT:

You can not gain any public welfare.

If you break the law in anyway no matter how minor you are deported.

You can not vote.

You must have a roof over your head.

All taxes must be paid in full.



After 10 years you can apply for citizenship.



posted on Feb, 20 2018 @ 01:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aallanon
a reply to: underwerks

they are NOT Americans


Anyone born on the American land mass is "American" not just those from the USA.

A lot of south Americans get pissed at the term American just being used to describe the USA.



posted on Feb, 20 2018 @ 03:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Reydelsol

Sounds reasonable, actually.
The only real difference is Limbaugh is saying 15-25 years as opposed to 10.



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join