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.

 

Nancy Pelosi: House Republicans Will Pass Immigration Reform ‘If They Ever Want to Win a President

page: 3
9
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 1 2013 @ 04:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo5
 





Uh-huh? And? I am confused why you think that should be otherwise?


Confused about Democrats putting their own party above this country, or it's laws?

Yeah I can see why that would confuse some.




posted on Jul, 1 2013 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by olaru12
reply to post by neo96
 


The GOP could easily take back the White House if they would nominate a credible candidate.

Who's fault is that?

First the Republicans need to win back the women's vote and at least try to appeal to minorities.



edit on 30-6-2013 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)


No, they need to stop nominating establishment, big-government, fiscal progressives which alienate the Conservatives in the electorate.


The way the Republicans are going at the moment, they'll have Santorum as the nominee in 2016. Which would be a disaster of the first magnitude.



posted on Jul, 1 2013 @ 04:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by AngryCymraeg




The way the Republicans are going at the moment, they'll have Santorum as the nominee in 2016. Which would be a disaster of the first magnitude.


I don't think it will be Santorum or any Caucasian. The GOP does have a Black Outreach program and they very possibly might try the dembs tactic that they used with Obama.

www.bet.com...
www.christianpost.com...

But the GOP fully realizes the importance of the Hispanic vote so my money is on Marc Rubio with Paul Ryan as vp to keep the Christian right happy; Of course the Hispanics will see thru this obvious pandering and vote for Hillary anyway.

www.policymic.com...

I would personally like to see Palin give it another try. That was the most entertaining campaign I've ever seen.
edit on 1-7-2013 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 1 2013 @ 05:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by olaru12

Originally posted by AngryCymraeg




The way the Republicans are going at the moment, they'll have Santorum as the nominee in 2016. Which would be a disaster of the first magnitude.


I don't think it will be Santorum or any Caucasian.

The GOP fully realizes the importance of the Hispanic vote so my money is on Marc Rubio with Paul Ryan as vp to keep the Christian right happy; Of course the Hispanics will see thru this obvious pandering and vote for Hillary anyway.

www.policymic.com...

I would personally like to see Palin give it another try. That was the most entertaining campaign I've ever seen.
edit on 1-7-2013 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)


I would be very, very surprised if it was Rubio. There's an odd pattern that has made its way through the Republican nominations over the past 35 years. With the exception of Dubya the runner-up for the nomination in one presidential election has been the nominee for the election after that. Ronnie was the runner-up to Ford. Bush I was the runner-up to Ronnie. Dole was the runner-up to Bush I. McCain was the runner-up to Dubya (Bush II). The Romney Unit was the runner-up to McCain. And Santorum was the runner-up to The Romney Unit.
It does make a kind of sense - runner-ups get a sort of kudos, a surge of respectability as it were. They can then build on it, visiting states in the years between presidential elections and building up their ground game.



posted on Jul, 1 2013 @ 05:42 PM
link   
She's likely right too.
Because the latino voters/voting block, isn't going to go away, and their numbers will rise.
I also do not see the GOP making any friends with the woman voters either.
Nor has the GOP made any in roads with the younger voters.

I'm hoping that with in the next 8 years to see the GOP existing only in political history books.

Now if we could just get rid of _all_ the parties currently in existence, including the Libertarians, we'd be better off.

M.



posted on Jul, 1 2013 @ 05:50 PM
link   
Essentially the GOP is dependent on the Christian right as its core and it has already been proven that is not enough to win. The Republican Party refuses to accept any libertarian values so they are eliminating millions of young voters......they will keep on losing elections.

Now the Democrats approach is simply "bring in more illegals, get them hooked to social programs" - got to say it is brilliant - well, that is till the money train stops.

reply to post by Moshpet
 


So are you going to enlighten us with what is going to replace it?


edit on 1-7-2013 by MidnightTide because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 1 2013 @ 06:05 PM
link   
reply to post by MidnightTide
 


How about something like Norway's vast array of political parties.

en.wikipedia.org...

Also, if you dig a bit you can see that 'anyone' can create and become a political party.
With stronger regulations on political funding.
We'd still have the House, Senate and Presidency.

M.



posted on Jul, 1 2013 @ 11:58 PM
link   
reply to post by DAVID64
 


She just basically said that Hispanic votes are more important than an American citizen's.

Hispanic voters are American citizens.



posted on Jul, 2 2013 @ 12:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96

Confused about Democrats putting their own party above this country, or it's laws?

Yeah I can see why that would confuse some.


Above laws??? Both Dems and GOP agree immigration law needs REFORM.

How is immigration law working out thus far? Geez...
edit on 2-7-2013 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 2 2013 @ 12:49 PM
link   
As much as I know this will 'anger' some people, I'm going to put it out there anyways.

Immigration Reform, as how I see it should be ran.

Amnesty for working illegal laborers, who have been in country and working for several months, with a follow on path to nationalization. Amnesty should include an inexpensive to obtain ID (if not paid for by the employers using illegal labor), and a form of social Security Identification for tax purposes / medical care.

Face it, one of the largest potential threats is some person entering the United States without documentation, carrying an infectious disease or pandemic flu bug. So rather than not having that path to pandemic unmonitored, this helps to cut down on that threat as well.

Children born into the United States, while their parents have been here and working for several months should be allowed to be citizens; working parents (and spouses) of these children should be afforded the opportunity to be nationalized. (SSN, Taxes yada yada.)

Establish real and Stiff penalties for companies and industries that use illegal labor, with those fees going right into the fund that pays for the amnesty program, ID program and medical care system. Because if there is no demand for inexpensive illegal laborers, there will not be such a drive for people to cross the boarder into America to seek jobs.

North and South Korea, had the right idea of creating a 'Trade City' right on the border of their country. We should do the same with Mexico, as another way to cut down on illegal laborers being brought over. We should also make some of the money generated there, be used for medical care, free clinics, schools and trade schools to train people in how to make a better life for themselves in Mexico, or to be better employees and then citizens in America.

Establish a real 'Migrant Work Permit' and Work Center.
A place at the border where customs and immigration officers, work in conjunction with corporations and agri business, to find willing workers who, are willing to be documented, immunised and are protected from abuse via monitoring programs, funded by taxes places on the business that use those laborers.

Boarder Security.
Legalise marijuana, set up a market where it can be monitored, regulated and taxed. Feeding those funds back to the Immigration plan above. This has several benefits, it funds our own immigration system, cuts down on useless prison cases, and helps to stabilize Mexico too.

Establish clinics in 'Border safe zones' where real hospital and medical care are affordable to everyone.

Border fence & regulated check points with NBC detection and the like.

M.



posted on Jul, 2 2013 @ 04:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Moshpet
 


Really wish people would stop using Norway, Sweden and other Baltic countries as examples. Yes many things work there, essentially it is easier because there are less people. What works there are highly unlikely to work in large populations like the United States.


reply to post by Moshpet
 


Not going to anger me at all - but perhaps my response might.

It is all well and good to say that, but at the end of the day it is about cost.....and essentially the US doesn't have the money to do all of that. The US is already in the difficult situation with its spending, and dealing with the mandatory spending of social entitlements in the near future. So who is going to pay for all of that? Going to get the FED to buy up some more bonds?

Essentially yes, if illegals are employed and have viable skills, then let them stay. The rest - well they will have to be deported. Yes, companies will have to be fined if caught employing illegals.....and some of those companies may say "We can't find anyone to work" well - you have millions on welfare, perhaps this is the time to get them to work.....and perhaps while doing that they can learn a trade.



posted on Jul, 2 2013 @ 04:50 PM
link   
reply to post by MidnightTide
 


Well that's all well and good, but it'd cost more to deport every single one of them; which would as likely as not have zero net effect... as the companies would just either bring them back over or use different ones.

Then there is the whole issue of imprisoning them to get them deported, and any medical conditions they might incur in an over crowded prison/transportation hub. Not to mention the cost in documenting them that would happen any ways, in the deportation process. So some of the costs are pretty much balanced out in that department.

Also we'd not be the ones having to feed them, they'd be supporting themselves with their own money, and their taxes would be added into the US Treasury as well.

As for the medical centers, stopping one Typhoid Mary or the next walking plague/pandemic host would balance the books in my opinion. Add in the fact that people from Mexico deliberately come into America to give birth due to our medical facilities, (and other bits,) having a 'free zone' hospital to supply that care, with out creating 'anchor babies' would not hurt either.

Legalising Marijuana, would pay for itself, and a great number of other things in border security. Taxed, regulated, and so on. Add in the fact that harder drugs would become the major focus of the DEA, Police etc, rather than just pot, it'd save money and legal costs. We could also then remove a lot of people from behind bars that are just burning up tax dollars with no net gain; and put them back in society as working citizens.

(Ironically, we may see a major shift DEA focus to heroin as it stands... because I saw an RSOE alert about how some woman died from Anthrax, that her heroin was laced with. Seeing Anthrax + Cocaine, or some other bio-war agent would not surprise me.)

Corporations could also pay into fee's for the Free Zones, for hiring and educating workers, and the like.

M.



posted on Jul, 2 2013 @ 11:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Moshpet
 

That would be a sensible way to tackle the immediate issues.


Ultimately, the goal should be a world in which all people are free to move at will across international borders. In order to realise this, the distinction between the rich and poor world needs to be erased. That seems to be happening, though at the expense of greater economic divisions within countries.


edit on 2/7/13 by Astyanax because: of visa restrictions.



posted on Jul, 8 2013 @ 11:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by Moshpet
 

That would be a sensible way to tackle the immediate issues.


Ultimately, the goal should be a world in which all people are free to move at will across international borders. In order to realise this, the distinction between the rich and poor world needs to be erased. That seems to be happening, though at the expense of greater economic divisions within countries.


edit on 2/7/13 by Astyanax because: of visa restrictions.


All people should be free to move at will across international borders? Without a health and background check, you are inviting disaster. You would be inviting murderers, pedophiles, thieves, gang members etc. NO! We need our laws enforced.



posted on Jul, 9 2013 @ 12:58 AM
link   
I have to ask what the democrats have really done for minorities
All i have ever seen are a few breadcrumbs in exchange for votes.
The democrats are also know for pitting blacks against Hispanics in jobs programs



posted on Jul, 9 2013 @ 01:03 AM
link   
reply to post by ANNED
 


When you have so many hispanics at the workplace that speaking spanish is required to get a job in many places...there's a problem! We have always had immigrants who learned the language and came here legally with great respect. After years of unchecked illegal immigration into our country, we now have to change for them.



posted on Jul, 9 2013 @ 01:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Night Star
 


All people should be free to move at will across international borders? Without a health and background check, you are inviting disaster.

Obviously the usual epidemiological precautions would continue to apply.


You would be inviting murderers, pedophiles, thieves, gang members etc.

Every country has its own murderers, thieves, and people who like feet. You would not add to their number by opening your borders.


NO! We need our laws enforced.

In a world where goods and capital move with increasing freedom from country to country, why should an exception be made for people? It is unfair and dangerous.

Opening international borders would be good for the whole world in the long run. All would prosper. Obviously people in the rich world want to hang on to their wealth and their lifestyles, but that is really no longer an option. You had better open your borders and deal with the influx sensibly, or there will be megadeaths soon.



posted on Jul, 9 2013 @ 11:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


There have already been deaths, thousands of them caused by illegals and our laws not being enforced. Ask any of the thousands of family members and friends who have lost precious loved ones in the blink of an eye.



posted on Jul, 10 2013 @ 10:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Night Star
 

No, that's just hysterical tall tales xenophobic people swap to justify their prejudices. Crime doesn't rise in high immigration areas – it falls.

That's for Europe. In the US, too, studies have found lower crime rates among immigrants than among non-immigrants.

It is immigrants who suffer disproportionately at the hands of natives. It has always been so.

If borders are not opened within a generation, the deaths I predict will be on both sides, but it is people from poor countries who will die in larger numbers. They will be killed by your compatriots for no other crime than trying to find better lives for themselves. The motive for their killing will be that of the dog in the manger.



posted on Jul, 15 2013 @ 06:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


We are talking about two different issues. Legal and illegal immigrants. Thousands of people have lost their lives because of an illegal immigrant being here when they wern't supposed to be here in the first place.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join