Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a troll by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldnt be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill, is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

Gang of Eight Amnesty Bill

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Gang of Eight Amnesty Bill

    After a lot of hoopla on the gang of eight amnesty bill and the supposed border security that was supposed to precede any amnesty program, it seems that Democrats are already reneging on the border protection portion of the bill. Kind of like, raise taxes now and we'll develop some cuts later. Will Republicans never learn that Democrats are all about dishonesty and shell games?

    Reid Blocks Senate Vote on Border Security Amendment to Immigration Bill

    On Wednesday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) blocked a vote on the border security amendment to the Gang of Eight immigration bill offered by Senate Judiciary Committee ranking member Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA).
    Reid Blocks Senate Vote on Border Security Amendment to Immigration Bill

  • #2
    Re: Gang of Eight Amnesty Bill

    With 0bama's Superconstitutional power of chosing which laws to enforce or ignore, why should we vote for any new laws. He isn't brave enough to make immigration legal with a royal declaration, so we shouldn't give him anything to sign. He'll impliment what he wants and ignore what the people want anyway.

    ?


    • #3
      Re: Gang of Eight Amnesty Bill

      Originally posted by Texan View Post
      With 0bama's Superconstitutional power of chosing which laws to enforce or ignore, why should we vote for any new laws. He isn't brave enough to make immigration legal with a royal declaration, so we shouldn't give him anything to sign. He'll impliment what he wants and ignore what the people want anyway.
      It's time for a wholesale change of our elected officials, regardless of party.

      ?


      • #4
        Re: Gang of Eight Amnesty Bill

        All this activity in the Senate... really means nothing, odds are whatever they produced would have be dead on arrival in the House. This will end up being a campaign issue for 2016.

        ?


        • #5
          Re: Gang of Eight Amnesty Bill

          SO Senator Reid doesn't like the Grassley amendment (to secure the borders first, THEN look at amnesty issues). Did anyone (or everyone) expect Hairless Reid to do anything different? He talks out of both sides of his mouth, like ALWAYS, so we should not be surprised at his doing so now.

          As for the bill itself, pieces I like and pieces I don't like. But bottom line for me is it is something that is being done after decades of nothing being done.

          ?


          • #6
            Re: Gang of Eight Amnesty Bill

            The gov't has to prove to me they will enforce the existing law before I will even give this any serious consideration. I think it is all 'show' such as it is.

            To appease some citizens for awhile longer, in hopes they forget the gov't refuses to do its job.

            This is just another joke, but not the laughing kind. Like the jokes that says, "the check is in the mail".

            ?


            • #7
              Re: Gang of Eight Amnesty Bill

              Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post
              The gov't has to prove to me they will enforce the existing law before I will even give this any serious consideration. I think it is all 'show' such as it is.

              To appease some citizens for awhile longer, in hopes they forget the gov't refuses to do its job.

              This is just another joke, but not the laughing kind. Like the jokes that says, "the check is in the mail".
              I don't disagree with the sentiment, except that "enforce existing laws" is part of that great "nothing" that has existed for decades. Each of the last four administrations have made a feeble effort to enforce existing laws: It was all for show and didn't last more than a few months. Personally, I believe if we would ever enforce existing laws, that would be sufficient to deal with the problem effectively and it would only take a year or less to do it.

              But that is not happening.

              Granted, this bill might well be just another effort doomed to a back shelf and, even if signed into law, could be no more adhered to than any of the other laws... but it is a step.

              ?


              • #8
                Re: Gang of Eight Amnesty Bill

                The fact is, if existing law had been enforced in the same way we go after drug dealers, we wouldn't have to write some new laws.

                That sticks in my craw, and so I don't believe anything that comes out of DC today. I question their integrity, their honesty and their will to address such important issues. None of that is present, IMO. And that makes this new talk a farce.

                ?


                • #9
                  Re: Gang of Eight Amnesty Bill

                  Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post
                  The fact is, if existing law had been enforced in the same way we go after drug dealers, we wouldn't have to write some new laws.

                  That sticks in my craw, and so I don't believe anything that comes out of DC today. I question their integrity, their honesty and their will to address such important issues. None of that is present, IMO. And that makes this new talk a farce.
                  I whole heartily agree.

                  ?


                  • #10
                    Re: Gang of Eight Amnesty Bill

                    Originally posted by Good1 View Post
                    SO Senator Reid doesn't like the Grassley amendment (to secure the borders first, THEN look at amnesty issues). Did anyone (or everyone) expect Hairless Reid to do anything different? He talks out of both sides of his mouth, like ALWAYS, so we should not be surprised at his doing so now.

                    As for the bill itself, pieces I like and pieces I don't like. But bottom line for me is it is something that is being done after decades of nothing being done.
                    That's the trouble with this administration and "pieces" of bills. He enforces the parts he likes and chooses to not enforce parts he doesn't like. We shouldn't be giving 0bama anything he wants, because he will ignore what the people want, like enforcing laws already on the books. As already said, until all current laws are enforced, they don't need any new laws.

                    ?


                    • #11
                      Re: Gang of Eight Amnesty Bill

                      Originally posted by Texan View Post
                      That's the trouble with this administration and "pieces" of bills. He enforces the parts he likes and chooses to not enforce parts he doesn't like. We shouldn't be giving 0bama anything he wants, because he will ignore what the people want, like enforcing laws already on the books. As already said, until all current laws are enforced, they don't need any new laws.
                      Again, I do agree with the sentiment, Texan... and those of you in Texas (or anyplace in the SW) would be more understanding of the impact of illegal immigration than the rest of us (which I assert based on having been born and raised in Southern California).

                      But our congress has done pretty much nothing about the issue for decades. Personally, as I told BD above, I do believe if we would ONLY enforce existing laws, we wouldn't have an illegal immigration problem. Look at what happened when Arizona decided to get serious about checking ID's (a simple thing like checking ID's) or when Joe Arpaio decided to start holding illegals in jail and, then, deporting them ... illegals fled the state. It is not possible, in my mind, that other states don't see the effectiveness of that (well, other than they don't want to incur the wrath of Holder and Obama for doing the Fed's job for them).

                      So, what if this new legislation is ONLY a way to strengthen our borders: Make it persuasively harder for someone to get in?

                      That is one of the pieces in the legislation I like... and that is the reason I was disappointed to hear Marco Rubio tell the Hispanic news station he intended to put "amnesty" ahead of securing the border.

                      ?


                      • #12
                        Re: Gang of Eight Amnesty Bill

                        attention ...... attention ...... attention ..... attention
                        policelight.gif
                        Position Change imminent

                        Heard the tail end of this yesterday: Didn't understand until I read article today:

                        Sen. Marco Rubio said Thursday that if Democrats expand his immigration bill to extend benefits to gay spouses, hell have to scuttle the legislation.

                        If this bill has something in it that gives gay couples immigration rights and so forth, it kills the bill. Im done, Mr. Rubio said Thursday during an interview on the Andrea Tantaros Show, according to Yahoo News. Im off it, and Ive said that repeatedly. I dont think thats going to happen and it shouldnt happen. This is already a difficult enough issue as it is.
                        This is what Rubio was referring to:

                        Leahy filed the amendment on Tuesday, the same day the Senate approved a motion to proceed on the Border Security, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Modernization Act.

                        The amendment gives equal protection to immigrants who are in same-sex marriages. Specifically, the amendment makes the immigration bill recognize "any marriage entered into full compliance with the laws of the State or foreign country within which such marriage was performed."


                        Leahy's an idiot.

                        ?


                        • #13
                          Re: Gang of Eight Amnesty Bill

                          Originally posted by Good1 View Post
                          I don't disagree with the sentiment, except that "enforce existing laws" is part of that great "nothing" that has existed for decades. Each of the last four administrations have made a feeble effort to enforce existing laws: It was all for show and didn't last more than a few months. Personally, I believe if we would ever enforce existing laws, that would be sufficient to deal with the problem effectively and it would only take a year or less to do it.

                          But that is not happening.

                          Granted, this bill might well be just another effort doomed to a back shelf and, even if signed into law, could be no more adhered to than any of the other laws... but it is a step.
                          A very bad step, first nothing in it will deter future illegal immigration, instead makes it easer, gutting E-Verify which will allow new illegals to be hired without repercussion for the employers for example. It even allows deportees to come back and be legalized.

                          Second, the whole Border Security thing is a fallacy, it is the biggest con ever played on the American people. No matter what they do or how much they spend they will still get in as our border. It is simply an obstacle one they have been circumventing for decades, not to mention does nothing to prevent overstaying of visas, yet we are all lead to believe it is the end all solution.

                          Fact is this Immigration reform bill is the most anti-America piece of legislation ever drafted here are some highlights'

                          Immigration 2013 Reports and Research

                          ?


                          • #14
                            Re: Gang of Eight Amnesty Bill

                            Originally posted by Good1 View Post
                            Again, I do agree with the sentiment, Texan... and those of you in Texas (or anyplace in the SW) would be more understanding of the impact of illegal immigration than the rest of us (which I assert based on having been born and raised in Southern California).

                            But our congress has done pretty much nothing about the issue for decades. Personally, as I told BD above, I do believe if we would ONLY enforce existing laws, we wouldn't have an illegal immigration problem. Look at what happened when Arizona decided to get serious about checking ID's (a simple thing like checking ID's) or when Joe Arpaio decided to start holding illegals in jail and, then, deporting them ... illegals fled the state. It is not possible, in my mind, that other states don't see the effectiveness of that (well, other than they don't want to incur the wrath of Holder and Obama for doing the Fed's job for them).

                            So, what if this new legislation is ONLY a way to strengthen our borders: Make it persuasively harder for someone to get in?

                            That is one of the pieces in the legislation I like... and that is the reason I was disappointed to hear Marco Rubio tell the Hispanic news station he intended to put "amnesty" ahead of securing the border.
                            Wow, Rubio actually said that?

                            So neither the repubs nor the dems actually want to secure those borders. I am not surprised. Afterall, they have refused to do it since Reagan.

                            Someone, some special interest, on both sides obviously do not want that border secured as much as it is possible to secure it. That means they want the influx of illegals to continue. Most americans seem to want it secured, yet what the people want is apparently not important, but what special interests want is very important. What other explanation is there? If you got one, say it.

                            If you give amnesty, make the illegals legal, and business could not get that labor as cheaply as before, I guess you need to not secure the border so these people could still sneak in. And if you are a dem, you want more to come in as those are perhaps future voters when 20 years from now we give amnesty once again with a new immigration bill that was needed because this new one if it ever comes to fruition was not enforced as the one created under Reagan. My fellow forum members, this is just another confidence game being played on the American people.

                            ?


                            • #15
                              Re: Gang of Eight Amnesty Bill

                              The border isn't secure because those that pay wages need an expoitable underclass that serves to keep wages down. Its all about having enough workers on hand that will work for less. Amensty is just a sop to buy votes for noow as they know more will come and aid in keeping wages down.

                              ?

                              Working...
                              X