Question - Are there too many immigrants...???
17% said Yes;
11% said No;
72% said "I am not understanding question please..."
Ron Paul on immigration reform
A nation without borders is no nation at all. After decades of misguided policies America has now become a free-for-all. Our leaders betrayed the middle class which is forced to compete with welfare-receiving illegal immigrants who will work for almost anything, just because the standards in their home countries are even lower.
If these policies are not reversed, the future is grim. A poor, dependent and divided population is much easier to rule than a nation of self-confident individuals who can make a living on their own and who share the traditions and values that this country was founded upon.
Ron Paul’s six point plan puts a stop to illegal immigration:
- Physically secure our borders and coastlines. We must do whatever it takes to control entry into our country before we undertake complicated immigration reform proposals.
- Enforce visa rules. Immigration officials must track visa holders and deport anyone who overstays their visa or otherwise violates U.S. law. This is especially important when we recall that a number of 9/11 terrorists had expired visas.
- No amnesty. Estimates suggest that 10 to 20 million people are in our country illegally. That’s a lot of people to reward for breaking our laws.
- No welfare for illegal aliens. Americans have welcomed immigrants who seek opportunity, work hard, and play by the rules. But taxpayers should not pay for illegal immigrants who use hospitals, clinics, schools, roads, and social services.
- End birthright citizenship. As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be citizens, the incentive to enter the U.S. illegally will remain strong.
- Pass true immigration reform. The current system is incoherent and unfair. But current reform proposals would allow up to 60 million more immigrants into our country, according to the Heritage Foundation. This is insanity. Legal immigrants from all countries should face the same rules and waiting periods.
http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/border-security/
Rick Santorum on immigration reform
Senator Santorum has been a consistent supporter of US immigration laws. He opposes benefits for illegal aliens, comprehensive immigration reform, and supports a border fence and making English the national language. However, he has hinted at providing some method of "dealing with" those already in the US.
In a losing 2006 re-election campaign, Senator Santorum promoted his support of border security and touted his opponent's views as amnesty. Senator Santorum opposed the 2006 attempt to achieve comprehensive immigration reform and cited that position often in the election cycle. Senator Santorum also cited his opposition to plans to grant social security and other benefits to illegal aliens who have lived in the US throughout the election.
In the 2012 Presidential election, Senator Santorum has expressed support for a border fence, and english as the national language. He was also critical of discussion hinting at granting amnesty to illegal aliens in exchange for border security in the future. However, when directly asked what he would do with the illegal aliens already in the US, Senator Santorum stated that we would have to "deal with" those people seperately.
http://www.thepoliticalguide.com/Pro...s/Immigration/
Newt Gingrich on Immigration Reform
There are at least three key immigration problems facing the U.S.:
- A porous southern border;
- Creating a legal and efficient way for U.S. employers to hire both skilled and unskilled immigrants who want to work, and for foreign entrepreneurs to work, invest and create jobs; and,
- Determining what to do about the 10 million to 12 million people who are already in the U.S illegally.
The U.S. desperately needs a system in which millions of immigrants—highly skilled, low skilled, and entrepreneurs—can temporarily work and invest in the U.S. The
limits we arbitrarily impose on current H1-B and EB-5 visas (highly skilled and investors, respectively) are a joke.
To implement the program, Newt suggests turning to companies such as Visa or Mastercard to process and track incoming workers. Those workers should be required to pay a fee to enter to work—many illegals already pay thousands of dollars for help illegally crossing the border—and they should be required to periodically report in and renew their permit. In short, it would be a widely available temporary green card program that allows aliens to work, pay taxes, and even enter into contracts.
These temporary workers should not be able to receive welfare or Social Security benefits. Those with children should be able to enroll them into public schools—they can do so anyway—perhaps with an up-front charge. But since they would be here legally, they would be paying federal, state and local taxes to help cover the public costs. They could also be required to have a very basic health insurance policy to minimize dependence on the health care system.
There are, of course, several other significant issues that would have to be resolved. One is the problem of “anchor babies,” the practice of intentionally having a baby in the U.S., who becomes an American citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment. Family members then claim they must stay to provide for the child. A guest worker program has little chance of passing if it is seen as exacerbating the anchor-baby problem.
There is also the problem of workers who want to bring their families. We should allow dependents in most cases, as long as the worker(s) could demonstrate the ability to meet the family’s needs.
And then there is the most vexing problem: What to do with those who have been living in the U.S. illegally for years? There is no political will or consensus to either deport some 10 million to 12 million illegals or allow those who broke the law by coming here to become citizens.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/merrillm...ration-reform/
Mitt Romney on illegal immigration reform
By NBC's Mark Murray
Romney: “Those people that are here illegally today should have the opportunity to register and to have their status identified. And those individuals should get in line with everyone else that’s in line legally. They should not be placed ahead of the line. They should instead go at the back of the line. And they should not be allowed to stay in this country and be given permanent residency or citizenship merely because they’ve come here illegally.”
Baier: Isn't that what Gingrich is saying?
Romney: “My view’s pretty straightforward: For those people who’ve come here illegally, they should have the opportunity to get in line with everybody else who wants come into this country. But they go to the back of the line. And they should be given no special pathway to citizenship or permanent residency merely because they’ve come here illegally.”
Later, Romney said, “The right course: Secure the border and then we can determine what’s the right way we can deal with the 11 million [illegal immigrants]. And to make it as clear as I possibly can: Let those people apply just like everybody else that wants to come to this country. But they have to apply at the back of the line as opposed to jumping into the front because they’ve come here illegally.”
What's striking to some supporters of comprehensive immigration reform is Romney saying that illegal immigrants must "apply at the back of the line," or that they must "get in line with everyone else that's in line legally." The reason: Advocates of comprehensive immigration reform maintain that illegal immigrants must pay back taxes, learn English, not have a criminal record, and
go to the back of the line before obtaining legal status in the United States.
As
President Obama said at his town hall at Facebook headquarters back in April, "I think most Americans feel there should be an orderly process to do it. People shouldn't just be coming here and cutting in front of the line essentially and staying without having gone through the proper channels."
So one advocate of comprehensive immigration reform tells First Read that Romney's line -- "For those people who’ve come here illegally, they should have the opportunity to get in line with everybody else who wants come into this country. But they got to the back of the line" -- is consistent with what they're calling for.
"He was for comprehensive immigration reform before he was against it," this advocate says, referring to past statements Romney made in 2006 and 2007 that appeared to endorse this reform. "And now he's trying to get back there."
Eliseo Medina, the SEIU's secretary-treasurer, piles on: "With the Latino vote up for grabs and with pressure from his GOP rival, Romney's wavering position on immigration is being forced out of the shadows sooner than he expected."
But Mark Krikorian, the executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, which opposes comprehensive immigration reform, believes that Romney's "back of the line" remark means that illegal immigrants must return to their home countries first. That's different, he says, than "the deceptive use of 'back of the line' used by amnesty advocates, where the illegals would get some sort of provisional legal status to stay in the U.S."
Sharry adds that Romney's stance -- according to yesterday FOX interview, as well as other statements -- "seems to be that the 11 million should go home, get in line, apply and be given no special pathway." In other words, it isn't a pro-comprehensive-immigration-reform view. (A Romney aide says to First Read that a "special pathway" refers to any advantage or privilege over those who are waiting in line by virtue of their having come to the United States illegally.)
Indeed, Romney seemed to tell
Tim Russert on "Meet the Press" back in late 2007 that illegal immigrants should return to their home countries before obtaining legal status. "Well, whether they go home--they should go home eventually. There's a set per--in my view they should be--they should have a set period during which period they, they sign up for application for permanent residency or, or for citizenship. But there's a set period where upon they should return home. And if they've been approved for citizenship or for a permanent residency, well, they would be a different matter. But for the great majority, they'll be going home."
Romney also said in that "Meet the Press" interview: "My own view is consistent with what you saw in the Lowell Sun, that those people who had come here illegally and are in this country--the 12 million or so that are here illegally--should be able to stay sign up for permanent residency or citizenship, but they should not be given a special pathway, a special guarantee that all of them get to say here for the rest of their lives merely by virtue of having come here illegally."
Is that clear?
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news...al-immigration
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by old Grump
Bookmarks