Giuliani cites Glasgow attack in call for immigration policy

[Dan J 277]

Amnesty would not be something that would be ongoing. It would only be a one time thing, to grandfather in those already here.

That's what they said in 1986.

Yup, but that act didn't really fix the problem. It granted amnesty with very no immigration options, and limited temporary work visa options. Are you surprised it didn't work? There were no legal options to deal with the demand, and there are people willing to risk their lives in immigrating illegally to the US.

The only way amnesty will work is allowing legal immigration by itself or through a work visa, and creating a general temporary work visa that isn't limited to one industry (Should also give the person the ability to switch employers if the employer wants to take advantage of them).

So we didn't get it right in 1986, whats wrong with trying again? The fact that we tried it once before is a pretty poor argument against trying it again. Many things don't come out right on the first try.

[GaryC 7]

Amnesty would not be something that would be ongoing. It would only be a one time thing, to grandfather in those already here.

That's what they said in 1986.

Thats all right ET. Every 20 years or so we will have a new amnesty. That is what these guys want. Instead of dealing with the problem they will just legalize them. Have lawbreakers? Legalize them! No problem then!!

[GaryC 7]

Amnesty would not be something that would be ongoing. It would only be a one time thing, to grandfather in those already here.

That's what they said in 1986.

Yup, but that act didn't really fix the problem. It granted amnesty with very no immigration options, and limited temporary work visa options. Are you surprised it didn't work? There were no legal options to deal with the demand, and there are people willing to risk their lives in immigrating illegally to the US.

The only way amnesty will work is allowing legal immigration by itself or through a work visa, and creating a general temporary work visa that isn't limited to one industry (Should also give the person the ability to switch employers if the employer wants to take advantage of them).

So we didn't get it right in 1986, whats wrong with trying again? The fact that we tried it once before is a pretty poor argument against trying it again. Many things don't come out right on the first try.

Yeah right, just keep trying over and over.

The first one had provisions for closing the border. That is why Reagan signed it. But the idiot dems in congress allowed the amnesty and didn't enforce the border. I for one do not trust either side to keep their word. Close the border now, enforce our laws and prove to me that they will keep their promises.

[Dan J 277]

Amnesty would not be something that would be ongoing. It would only be a one time thing, to grandfather in those already here.

That's what they said in 1986.

Yup, but that act didn't really fix the problem. It granted amnesty with very no immigration options, and limited temporary work visa options. Are you surprised it didn't work? There were no legal options to deal with the demand, and there are people willing to risk their lives in immigrating illegally to the US.

The only way amnesty will work is allowing legal immigration by itself or through a work visa, and creating a general temporary work visa that isn't limited to one industry (Should also give the person the ability to switch employers if the employer wants to take advantage of them).

So we didn't get it right in 1986, whats wrong with trying again? The fact that we tried it once before is a pretty poor argument against trying it again. Many things don't come out right on the first try.

Yeah right, just keep trying over and over.

The first one had provisions for closing the border. That is why Reagan signed it. But the idiot dems in congress allowed the amnesty and didn't enforce the border. I for one do not trust either side to keep their word. Close the border now, enforce our laws and prove to me that they will keep their promises.

No it didn't, but it did have money to increase enforcement, and also created the I-9 form. It dealt with enforcement at the borders and enforcement through employment. So to use your argument, enforcement, we did that in 1986 and it didn't work why try it again?

[GaryC 7]

Amnesty would not be something that would be ongoing. It would only be a one time thing, to grandfather in those already here.

That's what they said in 1986.

Yup, but that act didn't really fix the problem. It granted amnesty with very no immigration options, and limited temporary work visa options. Are you surprised it didn't work? There were no legal options to deal with the demand, and there are people willing to risk their lives in immigrating illegally to the US.

The only way amnesty will work is allowing legal immigration by itself or through a work visa, and creating a general temporary work visa that isn't limited to one industry (Should also give the person the ability to switch employers if the employer wants to take advantage of them).

So we didn't get it right in 1986, whats wrong with trying again? The fact that we tried it once before is a pretty poor argument against trying it again. Many things don't come out right on the first try.

Yeah right, just keep trying over and over.

The first one had provisions for closing the border. That is why Reagan signed it. But the idiot dems in congress allowed the amnesty and didn't enforce the border. I for one do not trust either side to keep their word. Close the border now, enforce our laws and prove to me that they will keep their promises.

No it didn't, but it did have money to increase enforcement, and also created the I-9 form. It dealt with enforcement at the borders and enforcement through employment. So to use your argument, enforcement, we did that in 1986 and it didn't work why try it again?

We tried amnesty and it didn't work. We didn't do the enforcement. If you think we did your delusional. That is what we need to do now. No more amnesty!

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Amnesty would not be something that would be ongoing. It would only be a one time thing, to grandfather in those already here.

That's what they said in 1986.

Yup, but that act didn't really fix the problem. It granted amnesty with very no immigration options, and limited temporary work visa options. Are you surprised it didn't work? There were no legal options to deal with the demand, and there are people willing to risk their lives in immigrating illegally to the US.

The only way amnesty will work is allowing legal immigration by itself or through a work visa, and creating a general temporary work visa that isn't limited to one industry (Should also give the person the ability to switch employers if the employer wants to take advantage of them).

There never will be. Always remember that there are upwards of a billion people that are wanting to come to the US. There are never ever going to be enough visa available to deal with the demand. Hence, based on that fail reason, any amnesty will fail.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The poll is bogus. Push polling is a dishonest thing and that is what you are sighting. Most Americans don't want amnesty for illegals. Spin it all you want, your in the minority.

Where's the spin, Gary? Look at the questions Americans were asked? What's your criteria for how you decide a poll is bogus or not? What question should they have asked?

[Dan J 277]

Amnesty would not be something that would be ongoing. It would only be a one time thing, to grandfather in those already here.

That's what they said in 1986.

Yup, but that act didn't really fix the problem. It granted amnesty with very no immigration options, and limited temporary work visa options. Are you surprised it didn't work? There were no legal options to deal with the demand, and there are people willing to risk their lives in immigrating illegally to the US.

The only way amnesty will work is allowing legal immigration by itself or through a work visa, and creating a general temporary work visa that isn't limited to one industry (Should also give the person the ability to switch employers if the employer wants to take advantage of them).

So we didn't get it right in 1986, whats wrong with trying again? The fact that we tried it once before is a pretty poor argument against trying it again. Many things don't come out right on the first try.

Yeah right, just keep trying over and over.

The first one had provisions for closing the border. That is why Reagan signed it. But the idiot dems in congress allowed the amnesty and didn't enforce the border. I for one do not trust either side to keep their word. Close the border now, enforce our laws and prove to me that they will keep their promises.

No it didn't, but it did have money to increase enforcement, and also created the I-9 form. It dealt with enforcement at the borders and enforcement through employment. So to use your argument, enforcement, we did that in 1986 and it didn't work why try it again?

We tried amnesty and it didn't work. We didn't do the enforcement. If you think we did your delusional. That is what we need to do now. No more amnesty!

Really?

Here is the 1986 bill your talking about, Part B: Improvement of Enforcement and Services

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d0...d099query.html|

We also have the act from 1996 that changed how deportations are handled, and how immigration status plays into other crimes

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_Immig...ity_Act_of_1996

I think you mean to say, we haven't done enforcement to the way you want it ( And we haven't done amnesty the way I want it). But we have certainly done and increased enforcement before.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Amnesty would not be something that would be ongoing. It would only be a one time thing, to grandfather in those already here.

That's what they said in 1986.

Yup, but that act didn't really fix the problem. It granted amnesty with very no immigration options, and limited temporary work visa options. Are you surprised it didn't work? There were no legal options to deal with the demand, and there are people willing to risk their lives in immigrating illegally to the US.

The only way amnesty will work is allowing legal immigration by itself or through a work visa, and creating a general temporary work visa that isn't limited to one industry (Should also give the person the ability to switch employers if the employer wants to take advantage of them).

So we didn't get it right in 1986, whats wrong with trying again? The fact that we tried it once before is a pretty poor argument against trying it again. Many things don't come out right on the first try.

Yeah right, just keep trying over and over.

The first one had provisions for closing the border. That is why Reagan signed it. But the idiot dems in congress allowed the amnesty and didn't enforce the border. I for one do not trust either side to keep their word. Close the border now, enforce our laws and prove to me that they will keep their promises.

No it didn't, but it did have money to increase enforcement, and also created the I-9 form. It dealt with enforcement at the borders and enforcement through employment. So to use your argument, enforcement, we did that in 1986 and it didn't work why try it again?

We tried amnesty and it didn't work. We didn't do the enforcement. If you think we did your delusional. That is what we need to do now. No more amnesty!

Really?

Here is the 1986 bill your talking about, Part B: Improvement of Enforcement and Services

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d0...d099query.html|

We also have the act from 1996 that changed how deportations are handled, and how immigration status plays into other crimes

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_Immig...ity_Act_of_1996

I think you mean to say, we haven't done enforcement to the way you want it ( And we haven't done amnesty the way I want it). But we have certainly done and increased enforcement before.

[Dan J 277]

The poll is bogus. Push polling is a dishonest thing and that is what you are sighting. Most Americans don't want amnesty for illegals. Spin it all you want, your in the minority.

Where's the spin, Gary? Look at the questions Americans were asked? What's your criteria for how you decide a poll is bogus or not? What question should they have asked?

Its not bogus if it supports his point. No matter how flawed it is.

[GaryC 7]

Amnesty would not be something that would be ongoing. It would only be a one time thing, to grandfather in those already here.

That's what they said in 1986.

Yup, but that act didn't really fix the problem. It granted amnesty with very no immigration options, and limited temporary work visa options. Are you surprised it didn't work? There were no legal options to deal with the demand, and there are people willing to risk their lives in immigrating illegally to the US.

The only way amnesty will work is allowing legal immigration by itself or through a work visa, and creating a general temporary work visa that isn't limited to one industry (Should also give the person the ability to switch employers if the employer wants to take advantage of them).

So we didn't get it right in 1986, whats wrong with trying again? The fact that we tried it once before is a pretty poor argument against trying it again. Many things don't come out right on the first try.

Yeah right, just keep trying over and over.

The first one had provisions for closing the border. That is why Reagan signed it. But the idiot dems in congress allowed the amnesty and didn't enforce the border. I for one do not trust either side to keep their word. Close the border now, enforce our laws and prove to me that they will keep their promises.

No it didn't, but it did have money to increase enforcement, and also created the I-9 form. It dealt with enforcement at the borders and enforcement through employment. So to use your argument, enforcement, we did that in 1986 and it didn't work why try it again?

We tried amnesty and it didn't work. We didn't do the enforcement. If you think we did your delusional. That is what we need to do now. No more amnesty!

Really?

Here is the 1986 bill your talking about, Part B: Improvement of Enforcement and Services

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d0...d099query.html|

We also have the act from 1996 that changed how deportations are handled, and how immigration status plays into other crimes

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_Immig...ity_Act_of_1996

I think you mean to say, we haven't done enforcement to the way you want it ( And we haven't done amnesty the way I want it). But we have certainly done and increased enforcement before.

We didn't do any of the enforcement. If we did we wouldn't have 20 million people here working illegally. How does it feel walking around with your eyes closed? No more amnesty!!

[natty bumppo 297]

The poll is bogus. Push polling is a dishonest thing and that is what you are sighting. Most Americans don't want amnesty for illegals. Spin it all you want, your in the minority.

Where's the spin, Gary? Look at the questions Americans were asked? What's your criteria for how you decide a poll is bogus or not? What question should they have asked?

the questions left a lot to be desired. very misleading and not informative in the query.

1st question ...

would you favor or oppose a guest worker program?

Isn't there a program like this already? Is this for an additional program? Was this mentioned in the query?

see post:

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...t&p=1021612

[GaryC 7]

First Zogby gives us a poll showing the vast majority does not want amnesty now we have Rasmussen.

Just 20% of American voters want Congress to try and pass the immigration reform bill that failed in the Senate last week. A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 51% would like their legislators to “take smaller steps towards reform” while 16% believe they should wait until next year. The survey was conducted on Monday and Tuesday night as the President was publicly attempting to rally support for the legislation.

Sixty-nine percent (69%) of voters would favor an approach that focuses exclusively on “exclusively on securing the border and reducing illegal immigration.” Support for the enforcement only approach comes from 84% of Republicans, 55% of Democrats, and 69% of those not affiliated with either major party.

Overall, just 21% are opposed to the enforcement-only approach.

Just 30% would favor legislation that focused “exclusively on legalizing the status of undocumented workers already living in the United States.” Fifty-seven percent (57%) oppose that strategy, including 63% of Republicans, 52% of Democrats, and 55% of unaffiliated voters.

Fifty-seven percent (57%) favor a proposal giving “all illegal aliens up to three years to leave the United States. After leaving, the illegal aliens would have to get in line and wait their turn for legal entry into the United States.” Support for that concept comes from 67% of Republicans, 49% of Democrats, and 56% of unaffiliated voters. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_con..._on_enforcement

Edited July 2, 2007 by Iniibig ko si Luz forever

[GaryC 7]

Even a dem poll can't even find support for amnesty. This is from the SF Chronicle.

San Francisco Chronicle

Dem poll finds tepid support for immigration bill

(06-20) 04:00 PDT Washington -- A new Democratic poll released Tuesday could spell trouble for the big Senate immigration bill scheduled for another key procedural vote later this week.

With even Democratic voters feeling lukewarm about the compromise legislation, conservatives ratcheted up their attacks on Tuesday, and supporters countered with rallies and prayer breakfasts in what both sides believe will be the last attempt to change the nation's immigration laws until after a new president is elected.

A Democracy Corps poll by Stan Greenberg and James Carville, former advisors to Democratic President Bill Clinton, showed intense voter concern about immigration in battleground congressional districts. Voters were far more likely to support proposals that would tighten the border and stop illegal immigrants from getting government benefits than efforts to legalize the estimated 12 million people living in the country illegally, the poll found.

The bipartisan Senate bill attempts to combine both ideas, along with many other controversial provisions such as a guest-worker program and a new merit-based point system for legal immigrants.

"We do not find very much voter support for the comprehensive Senate bill," the pollsters wrote. Even Democratic voters split -- with 47 percent for and 47 percent against -- after hearing a description of the Senate bill, while most independents and Republicans opposed it.

Testing what they called "demagogic attacks" on the compromise -- labels of amnesty and proposals to make English the official national language -- the pollsters called them "not ineffective." They warned Democrats to find a way to address immigration "in ways that offset the attacks."

The attacks are only increasing -- along with counter moves by immigrant rights and business groups -- as the Senate plans to resuscitate the mammoth legislation after its collapse June 7.

Even though many business and immigrant groups are unhappy with major elements of the Senate compromise, they were even unhappier when it collapsed. While a number of Bay Area immigrant rights groups -- the Asian Law Caucus in San Francisco, the Mexican American Political Association and others -- have denounced the Senate compromise, other national groups want the process to move forward, hoping that a Democratic-controlled House can change the legislation to their liking.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...MNGSLQI0VR1.DTL

[mawilson 2,133]

But do you accept the results of those polls?

NO!