Wasn't it Reagan who first gave "amnesty"?

[Anonymous]

Let us not forget Reagan. At that time, I thought it was wrong and I still feel that way, he set the tone, and called it Amnesty.
Only now they are using this term, Immigration Reform, as though we have done something wrong, when it is really the undocumented people who have done something wrong. Now let us expand on that:

First, they should have to admit that they committed a crime by coming here illegally. Many of these people come from cultures where the rules and laws mean nothing. They came here disregarding a rule from the get go, and they need to be reminded of that. This country can not work if they continue with those attitudes.

Second, they must take an intensive course in civics and learn why we want them to follow the rules (they should pay for the course).

Third, pay a fine.

Fourth, be finger printed and DNA collection, yes, DNA. Compare with FBI and State data....

Fifth, Wait for 5 years with a green card, and if the tiniest crime is committed, you're out, just like all the other green card holders.

Signed, a non white immigrant.

[Anonymous]

How about you read up on the details and report back?

[Anonymous]

Im the pp and agree with you. I don't want liberals to use that sorry excuse. Reagan was wrong

[Anonymous]

OP here. This is really the first thing that Obama has done that angers me. This will make me think about voting Republican. I voted Republican in MD because of the passage of the "dream" tuition deal, and to me, this is no different.

[Anonymous]

The Immigration and Nationality Act dates to 1952.

As far as amnesty, the "registry" program dates to 1971.

[Anonymous]

Suggest you read up. Reagan did an EO AFTER the bill was passed to clean up the vague parts. Big difference.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP here. This is really the first thing that Obama has done that angers me. This will make me think about voting Republican. I voted Republican in MD because of the passage of the "dream" tuition deal, and to me, this is no different.

I'm a liberal, but the fact that this is the first thing Obama has done that angers you makes you sound totally unbelievable. Please, go vote Republican.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. This is really the first thing that Obama has done that angers me. This will make me think about voting Republican. I voted Republican in MD because of the passage of the "dream" tuition deal, and to me, this is no different.

I'm a liberal, but the fact that this is the first thing Obama has done that angers you makes you sound totally unbelievable. Please, go vote Republican.

It truly is. I am not as riled up as everyone else is about health care or the middle east. This is the deal breaker. Bush and Clinton drove me to anger much earlier in their terms.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. This is really the first thing that Obama has done that angers me. This will make me think about voting Republican. I voted Republican in MD because of the passage of the "dream" tuition deal, and to me, this is no different.

I'm a liberal, but the fact that this is the first thing Obama has done that angers you makes you sound totally unbelievable. Please, go vote Republican.

I'm a liberal-leaning independent, and while this action doesn't bother me for a lot of reasons (mostly that I think it's an economically rational choice regardless of the politics - my economic analysis is here http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/15/425423.page at 21:25), there are a number of other things Obama has (or hasn't) done that have bothered me, including a number of policies of the Bush Administration that he continued. However, I won't let those actions influence my voting in 2016 because Obama isn't running in 2016.

When I vote I will look at the totality of the results and, so far, the policies/ideas floated by the Republican party, particularly as they are influenced by the far right Tea Party voters, are not something I want to support and certainly don't want implemented (or continued if they are the things Obama has continued from the Bush Administration).

When I look at what Sam Brownback has done to the Kansas economy as a "model" of implementing Republican fiscal ideas, I see an economic catastrophe.

When I look at what Republican legislatures and governors have done regarding women's health and birth control, I see policies I vehemently disagree with.

When I look at what Republican-dominated school boards have done regarding science education and the way they are attempting to revise history to suit their political and theological leanings, I have no desire to have people like that influencing our textbooks and how our children learn. And when Republican presidential and Congressional candidates pander to their base by denying accepted science regarding evolution and global warming, I see a party that is more interested in denying science for political (and economic) gain rather than governing based on science. (If Inhofe said, for example, that he accepts that human activity is causing global warming, but that he thinks the economic cost to our country of dealing with it would be too damaging, we could disagree, but that would enable a science-based discussion. Instead, he and others like him follow the model created by the tobacco industry of sowing doubt at every stage of the process, fighting a rearguard action against the science to protect the economic interests of their major donors.)

When I look at Republican resistance to gay marriage, I see a party that is tied to a vision of exclusion.

So no one issue is going to cause me to vote for Republicans, in general, and the overall prospect of Republicans enacting the policies they have implemented at all levels of government is going to cause me to think twice before voting for any Republican.

That doesn't mean in a particular race I wouldn't vote for a particular Republican over a particular Democrat, but the Republican has a bigger hurdle to get over because he or she carries the baggage of so much of the whole current party platform that I disagree with.

[Anonymous]

What would have been cool would have been if Obama bumped up five million people waiting on a legal.list. That would have sent a message on how to get in to this country the right way.

[Anonymous]

Reagan signed into law the amnesty bill passed by Congress. Reagan signed it because Congress promised to tighten border security and clamp down on illegal hiring practices. Congress reneged and Reagan then said signing the bill was the worse thing he had done as President.

[Anonymous]

Well, yes, but they didn't call it amnesty. They called it "morning in America."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP here. This is really the first thing that Obama has done that angers me. This will make me think about voting Republican. I voted Republican in MD because of the passage of the "dream" tuition deal, and to me, this is no different.

Yeah, let's keep everyone uneducated so they can never be more than cheap labor for us. How dare they have a shot at becoming middle class.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. This is really the first thing that Obama has done that angers me. This will make me think about voting Republican. I voted Republican in MD because of the passage of the "dream" tuition deal, and to me, this is no different.

Yeah, let's keep everyone uneducated so they can never be more than cheap labor for us. How dare they have a shot at becoming middle class.

Oh, please. For middle class families who are trying to get their kids in school, college admission has become so darn competitive that giving illegals any kind of tuition deal is really a slap in the face to the citizens.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Reagan signed into law the amnesty bill passed by Congress. Reagan signed it because Congress promised to tighten border security and clamp down on illegal hiring practices. Congress reneged and Reagan then said signing the bill was the worse thing he had done as President.

Reagan signed the amnesty bill in 1986. That bill expressly excluded spouses and children of those eligible for amnesty. But in 1987 Reagan issued an executive order, in spite of the law, that allowed illegal/undocumented family members of those granted or eligible for amnesty to also stay. It was significant because many men had come here illegally to work and then brought their wives and children "later." The wives and children didn't qualify for amnesty, and faced deportation.