Would the republicans support amnesty for illegals?
368593
the republicans are busted for not doing their job for- how long now? at this point they're just trying to save face.\n\ndemocrats suck too.\n\nWE NEED A NEW PARTY
750472
Yup....they sure are!!\n\nDo you really think that granting amnesty for 12-20 million people is not going to have a negative effect on the US?\n\nWhat about the tax breaks and all the other breaks the rish get...\n\nthe rich get richer and the poor get poorer....this sucks too  because I am not rich.
689925
I sure hope they do if this happens. Illegals should be deported, not given amnesty.
672640
I posted this before but here goes again anyway.\n\nUnless the Republican Congress can align its border policy with conservative values and pass legislation that ends illegal immigration the Republicans will loose both houses in November and the Presidency in 2008.\n\nMany Americans will not vote for anyone that sells out on this issue and allows the illegal immigration of nearly 20 million Mexicans (depending on who you believe) into this country to stand.\n\nThe stakes are high and the issues fundamental to our nation’s security, economic well being and core belief in the sovereignty of our people, respect for the law and dignity of all immigrants looking to build a legitimate future in America.\n\nMake no mistake, this is a critical moment in America and the decisions made will have a lasting impact on our prosperity, culture and futures of our children.
1096344
NO!!\nAmnesty will only encourage future illegal immigration. THink.. If those people see that we give amnesty to illegals, then they too will think they can come here and get amnesty in the future as well. Your stealing a car example is dead on. Amnesty is no better then releasing all prisoners because they have been in there for a long time.
28201
I would have to say Yes.  If these folks would just listen to themselves and their severly skewed perceptions and ideas they too would wonder about themselves.  The thing I understand least is their refusal to admit truths when presented to them.  Take a look at how they they have acted over Iraq. No matter what form of good news that comes from that region they refuse to accept that this is possible. And Ramsey Clark should NEVER be allowed back into this country unless he tried for treason.
623373
He should, but he wont.\nHe works for big business, and it better for their profit to pay as little for labor as possible.  Thats why Republicans are against raising the minimum wage, against unions, against single payer health care, and want illegals to be able to get temporary work visas to come here.  Its also why they dont crack down on companies that hire illegals.
507683
As I understand it the compromise was that the pro-illegal immigrant sponsors of the Senate Bill would allow there to be a vote on amendments, which they were refusing to do before.  For example, they refused to allow a vote on an amendment which would restrict a guest worker program only to people who are not convicted felons.  In the face of that refusal to consider amendments, Republicans would have fillibustered the Bill to death.\n\nIn return for the agreement to consider amendments, the Republican Majority Leader agreed that a specific number of people whose biggest concern was relief for currently present illegal immigrants would be on the committee that negotiates the Senate Bill (whatever it turns out to be) with the House Bill (the strict one you have heard most about.)  The Senate Bill is expected to have a path to citizenship and guest worker program, whatever other amendments occur, but then it will need to be negotiated against the House Bill which has neither of these things.\n\nPersonally, I think that without SOME form of legalized path for current, qualified illegal immigrants, no bill will get out of Congress this year.  However, the exact shape of that is still on the table.\n\nOnce the two bills are 'conferenced' together, the whole congress needs to vote 'yes' or 'no', without amendments.\n\nThe deal so far just moves the status quo forward to the next step, as far as I can tell.  The big push will be over the next two weeks, so if you have something to say, you should be saying it to your representatives.
523145
The MAJORITY (if not ALL) of the Democrats are FOR amnesty. They don't GIVE A CRAP who they SCREW OVER as long as THEY GET SOME VOTES!!!!!!!
859039
Doubtful.  It's not something that would win them many votes, and would probably lose them a lot of 'values' voters to the GOP.\n\nBesides, even if they did pass it through the House and Senate, Bush would be sure to veto it.
843402
As the majority of Democrats voted DOWN the 'make English the official language" bill and voted DOWN the House bill on immigration and want to grant amnesty to everyone.....I'd say they are for illegal immigration.
886104
Gee I don't really believe that this is a straight line drawn on who this issue belongs too. The Democrat senator that's running for office in my state is for tighter boarders. ETC.  The Republican Incumbent is too busy swing mud for anyone to know where he stands on the issue. So I guess if the Mexican-Americans want to make legalize the illegals and keep them there then they need to be voting Republican.
725518
of course they will lose support. the only reason they won both houses is because lazy conservatives didnt vote. believe it or not the conservatives still outnumber the liberals... for now...  but as soon as they grant amnesty for the illegals,( which is exactly what they are going to do), they will raise our taxes to pay for them. and nothing pisses off conservatives more than higher taxes. trust me it will flip flop again in 2 yrs
937765
They want jobs here to jump on the gravy train and they think they're going to get amnesty.\n\nNo Compromise, No Amnesty!
652467
The Congress is to be the voice of the people that elected them. Problem being once elected they change their tune to stay elected. Right now they are more concerned over the hispanic vote than any other voting denomination.\nTHEN :\nWhen first elected Dem. Harry Reid was a firm believer in strict immigration laws. “In 1986, we granted amnesty--and I voted against that provision in law--we granted amnesty to 3.2 million illegal immigrants,”he said . “After being in this country for 10 years, the average amnesty recipient had a sixth-grade education, earned less than $6 an hour, and presently qualifies for the earned-income tax credit.” \nNOW:\nI have made clear that I will support the Hagel-Martinez compromise that was struck before the Easter recess, and, like most other Democrats, I have already voted in favor of that approach. \n\n\nHowever, this compromise is not perfect. Among other problems with the bill, I particularly want to highlight my concern with the division of the population of the 11-12 million undocumented immigrants into three groups. The middle group, immigrants who have been here for between 2-5 years, would be required to do what I have heard some refer to as “touch-base” or “touch-base return.” \n\n\nMr. President, I am prepared to support this compromise if this is what it takes to pass this bill, but this seems a little silly to me. And I also fear that it may deter participation in the program, as some immigrants will fear they won’t be allowed to come back in or will find it too much of a hardship with regard to their financial or childcare responsibilities, to be able to make that trip. \n\nIn addition, many tens of thousands of people in this group will be ineligible for the program because they have a prior deportation order, have failed to leave the country under a voluntary departure agreement, or – and this one is particularly disturbing – have failed to comply “with any request for information by the Secretary of Homeland Security.”
545924
A group of House Republicans wants to do away with bilingual ballots and translation assistance at the polls, a reflection of how tensions over immigration are pervading other issues. \n\nAs Congress readies to reauthorize the 1965 Voting Rights Act, the lawmakers are lobbying their colleagues to let the act's language assistance provisions expire. \n\nThere are 56 lawmakers who support the act but say the language assistance to voters -- provided throughout much of California -- undermines national unity, increases the risk of election fraud, and puts an undue burden on state and local governments. \n\n"We believe these ballot provisions encourage the linguistic division of our nation and contradict the 'melting pot' ideal that has made us the most successful multiethnic nation on Earth," the members said in a letter earlier this year. \n\nThe group's effort probably won't succeed, in part because of other Republicans' concerns that it could further offend Latino voters upset by the enforcement-only immigration legislation the House passed in December. \n\nPolicy analysts said the focus on bilingual ballots illustrated a hardening of positions within the GOP as the debate on illegal immigration evolved. \n\n"It's reflective of the broader divide in the Republican Party on the immigration issue and related cultural questions," said Marshall Wittmann, a former GOP Senate aide who is a senior fellow at the Democratic Leadership Council. "This division is now being reflected in collateral issues, like the Voting Rights Act." \n\nUnder President Bush, the GOP has emphasized courting Latino voters. But many Republican lawmakers also have spotlighted illegal immigration as a key concern, contending that the continuing flow of illegal immigrants into the United States is transforming the nation culturally and must be stemmed. Such attitudes led to the passage of the House bill that would significantly upgrade border security, make illegal presence in the United States a felony and make aiding illegal immigrants a felony. \n\nBush is urging Congress to pass a bill that, along with beefed-up border security, includes a guest-worker program and some legalization measures for illegal immigrants. He also is encouraging immigrants to learn English. \n\nThe Senate and House are to conduct committee hearings on reauthorizing the Voting Rights Act. Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, prime sponsor of allowing the language assistance provision expire, plans to submit his proposal as an amendment in the House Judiciary Committee this week. \n\nThe Voting Rights Act was designed to prevent discrimination from interfering with a citizen's ability to vote. When the act was extended in 1975, Congress added the section that requires some jurisdictions to provide bilingual ballots and translators. \n\nThe proposal's backers say that U.S.-born or naturalized citizens should know enough English to vote, particularly because a command of the language is a requirement for citizenship. \n\nKing said another provision of the Voting Rights Act allows voters who need help, including translation, to bring someone with them. \n\nBut Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., the main author of the enforcement-only House immigration bill, staunchly defended the language assistance provision in the Voting Rights Act. \n\n"If (immigrants) want to achieve the American dream, they better learn how to read and function in English," Sensenbrenner said. "But this deals with the right to vote, and these people are United States citizens; they are not illegal immigrants. It seems to me these people should not be confused because they don't have the proper instruction about how to vote on ballots for the candidates of their choice."
484219
Well, no... but to be honest the Republicans aren't spending the money to build a large wall to keep Mexicans out because they really believe it will do any good.\n\nThey are making a large fuss and show out of doing it because illegal immigration is a major concern for many Americans, and by taking a symbolic stand against it, however foolish, futile, or useless it may be, they hope to resonate with voters and re-capture a rapidly disintegrating base on an issue they might still be seen as not having completely and utterly screwed up.\n\nRepublicans, and indeed, politicians in general don't do more than they have to secure ports of call because in a country the size of America it's unrealistic to think you can.  There are too many ships, too many people, and far too many packages to do any more than just random inspections or investigate openly suspicious activity.\n\nCan things be smuggled into our country through our ports?  You betcha.  Can they be smuggled in through our borders?  Yup.\n\nCould we bust our butts trying to secure them?  Sure we could.  We could do a halfway decent job at the authorized checkpoints, too... but then it would dawn on a terrorist with money that there are a lot of private docks and moorages in this country, especially for the wealthy who live along the coast.  \n\nIf you have one wealthy individual with his own yacht and a moorage at his estate, all they have to do is sail it out into international waters (which isn't hard since that's ten miles out from our coast... or about an hour's leisurely cruise, and those are very common in yachts), pick up what you want to smuggle in, and sail right back to their estate.  Chances are even if the Coast Guard is on patrol, they won't be caught.  You could also do it with smaller boats dispatched from ships sailing in international waters which land at a pre-arranged stretch of coastline that no one uses, etc... etc... etc...\n\nThis, unfortunately, is a game of cat and mouse where the mouse has a definite advantage.  For everything we can think of to stop an attack, someone else can think of another way to start one.