Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Rubio and bipartisan immigration bill

19 posts in this topic

Posted

I like what I hear from Rubio.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I like what I hear from Rubio.

Same here...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Interesting on first pass. Without numbers behind it, it's basically all puppies, unicorns, and rainbows.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Re-reading this, there are some serious red flags/ambiguities.

Creating a Path to Citizenship for Unauthorized Immigrants Already Here that is Contingent Upon Securing the Border and Combating Visa Overstays

Contingent upon? Contingent upon what exactly? And who decides this?

Give me numbers, definitions, exact goals. This kind of vagueness points to no good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

And while border security has improved significantly over the last two Administrations

But but Obummer and his illegal voters!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Contingent means...border security comes first

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

So of course the entire bill is bad if the immigration plan is contingent on border security.

I mean...what kind of moron stops the flooding before figuring out how redirect the water already busted through. Pffssh.

Way to tow the line Delhommey.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Contingent means...border security comes first

But defining border security is the hard part. We can increase the numbers of Border patrol agents, but that might not make a significant dent in the numbers of illegals crossing. Truth is that we could put 2-3 divisions of army troops along the border (40-60 thousand troops), and there would still be holes in security. Its a very long border.

If its contingent on adding 5000 new border patrol agents and building some fences, then fine, do it and proceed. But understand that may not achieve the desired effect. If its contingent on actual cuts in the numbers of illegal aliens, then we may never get past the contingent part.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

But defining border security is the hard part. We can increase the numbers of Border patrol agents, but that might not make a significant dent in the numbers of illegals crossing. Truth is that we could put 2-3 divisions of army troops along the border (40-60 thousand troops), and there would still be holes in security. Its a very long border.

If its contingent on adding 5000 new border patrol agents and building some fences, then fine, do it and proceed. But understand that may not achieve the desired effect. If its contingent on actual cuts in the numbers of illegal aliens, then we may never get past the contingent part.

Let's wait until we see what the legislation says is "secure".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Sounds dangerously like a carrot. As long as things aren't defined, it's real easy constantly dangle the idea of citizenship to the workers without every really going through any meaningful reform.

Then you can say "We tried reform and it just doesn't work" while continuing to go forward with the backwards, harmful, and lazy regulations we have today without ever really trying anything different at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I like what I hear from Rubio.

how far have you actually delved into his political views? i hear a lot of moderates saying they like Rubio, but don't seem to realize he's two steps to the right of Pat Robertson.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites