Folk's please read this and call your senators,Cornyn and Hutchison

Posted in the Wylie Forum

Ralph Murphy

Denton, TX

#1 May 27, 2007
Our View: If enforcement is not ensured, senators must kill immigration bill

Advertisement


Memorial Day Weekend is typically a time for congressmen and women to return to their districts and reconnect with their constituents.
We hope they do more than reconnect this weekend: we hope they get an earful of outrage from their constituents over the proposed immigration reform.
As currently proposed, the bill offers amnesty to current illegal immigrants and does nothing, realistically, to curb the flow of future illegal immigration. It is a repeat of the 1986 amnesty, and if it is signed into law it will be a disaster for this country, triggering another massive wave of illegal immigrants who will overwhelm what is left of our broken system and place an unsustainable burden on our social safety net and economy.
There are many different pieces to this bill, some good, some bad. But frankly, even the worst provisions in the bill pale in comparison to the utter bankruptcy of the bill's enforcement provisions.
U.S. Rep. Kevin Brady, R-The Woodlands, said his constituents already are calling to let him know their views. Brady has been a consistent supporter of an enforcement-first approach toward immigration reform.
"We've had a flood of calls and e-mails; anywhere I go, people want to talk to me about this," Brady told The Courier Friday.
He shares his constituents' frustrations with the legislation.
"I really think this is the 1986 amnesty bill all over again; I don't think we'll see enforcement, especially in the interior, because any efforts to do it now are so roundly criticized."
Supporters of the bill say the key immigration reform components and legalization of illegal immigrants won't kick in unless the president certifies the country has met certain goals and benchmarks on immigration.
But instead of certifying that the government actually has reduced and even stopped the flow of illegal immigration, the bill focuses on "triggers" - increasing the number of border patrol agents, installing high-tech sensors, and building just half - yes, half - of the roughly 700 miles of border fencing Congress approved just last year, among other things. Once the president certifies these "triggers" have been met, all of the amnesty provisions in the bill can be put in place - and some of them can be done immediately regardless.
John Keeley, director of communications for the Center for Immigration Studies, a conservative think tank on immigration, said the "triggers" are pointless.
"The government has built up a record over the last 30 year of aptly demonstrating its inability and disinterest in enforcing the law," Keeley said. "So triggers are meaningless. That's why there's so much outrage and so much skepticism all across the country."
Instead, he said, the government must certify that illegal immigration actually has been stopped before moving ahead with any reform. Brady favors giving the measurement of that goal to an outside group independent of the government. "In the end, you have to measure whether you are actually securing the borders," Brady said.
There will be considerable pressure on Texas Sens. John Cornyn and Kay Bailey Hutchison to give President Bush what he wants and pass this bill.
That would be a mistake. It's time to insist that the government prove it can enforce the law. We don't need a repeat of 1986. We urge residents to call our senators and tell them to kill this bill unless true, measurable
Karli Sanders

Denton, TX

#2 May 29, 2007
America doesn't need an immigration reform bill – America needs immigration enforcement. The "Secure Borders, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Reform Act of 2007" is, in the words of University of Virginia professor Martha Derthick, commenting on the Clinton administration's proposed national health care reform proposal in 1993, "… suffused with coercion and political naiveté."

The McCain-Kennedy bill, regardless of how the Trent Lotts, et al., try to spin it, is an amnesty bill. It is a reward to those who have blatantly broken the sovereign laws of our country under the pretext of wanting "only" a better life. While I am at no shortage of monosyllabic words to respond to such nonsense, the only one permissible on the pages of this paper is "poppycock."

America doesn't need an influx of illegal criminals breaking into our country under the guise of being hard workers, willing to do work our people won't; America needs Americans to stop whining, begging, blaming and making excuses, and go to work.
Karli Sanders

Denton, TX

#3 May 29, 2007
There is no acceptable reason that justifies the president and Congress in rewarding illegal criminals with the boundless rights of full citizenship, even if they could be viewed as assets to our way of life. Few of the 20 million-plus illegals are proficient in English, but Congress has found a way around that detail by recognizing English as the common language, not our country's official language. Accordingly, American taxpayers will be burdened with the expense of mandated bilingualism in every facet of life, from street signs to Burger King.

Americans recognize our rich history by observing certain specific days, dates and traditions. Which of these will illegals embrace? How long before employers are legislated into observing dates that have nothing to do with American history or tradition? How long before more of our history is filtered through the prism of political correctness so as not to offend someone who has no vested interest nor regard for our culture? Are we to believe the criminal activity carried on by many illegals will stop because they are granted amnesty? Are we to believe this proposed legislation will encourage illegals that broke our sovereign laws in coming here to now embrace our culture and system of jurisprudence?

The 20 million-plus illegals are not scholars and scientists (not that that would make a difference); they are unskilled criminals. Drug dealers and bank robbers might argue they were only breaking the law to feed their families or pay for a child's operation – but we all know such arguments would fall on deaf ears. Yet these same arguments are deemed acceptable for illegal aliens.

McCain-Kennedy does nothing to address an influx of tens of millions who would immediately seek out and qualify for welfare programs. Robert E. Rector and Christine Kim of the Heritage Foundation point out that American taxpayers spent $564 billion on welfare programs in Fiscal Year 2004 ("The Fiscal Cost of Low-Skilled Immigrants to the U.S. Taxpayer; Special Report #14"; May 22, 2007).
all American

Carrollton, TX

#4 Jun 1, 2007
Karli Sanders wrote:
There is no acceptable reason that justifies the president and Congress in rewarding illegal criminals with the boundless rights of full citizenship, even if they could be viewed as assets to our way of life. Few of the 20 million-plus illegals are proficient in English, but Congress has found a way around that detail by recognizing English as the common language, not our country's official language. Accordingly, American taxpayers will be burdened with the expense of mandated bilingualism in every facet of life, from street signs to Burger King.
Americans recognize our rich history by observing certain specific days, dates and traditions. Which of these will illegals embrace? How long before employers are legislated into observing dates that have nothing to do with American history or tradition? How long before more of our history is filtered through the prism of political correctness so as not to offend someone who has no vested interest nor regard for our culture? Are we to believe the criminal activity carried on by many illegals will stop because they are granted amnesty? Are we to believe this proposed legislation will encourage illegals that broke our sovereign laws in coming here to now embrace our culture and system of jurisprudence?
The 20 million-plus illegals are not scholars and scientists (not that that would make a difference); they are unskilled criminals. Drug dealers and bank robbers might argue they were only breaking the law to feed their families or pay for a child's operation – but we all know such arguments would fall on deaf ears. Yet these same arguments are deemed acceptable for illegal aliens.
McCain-Kennedy does nothing to address an influx of tens of millions who would immediately seek out and qualify for welfare programs. Robert E. Rector and Christine Kim of the Heritage Foundation point out that American taxpayers spent $564 billion on welfare programs in Fiscal Year 2004 ("The Fiscal Cost of Low-Skilled Immigrants to the U.S. Taxpayer; Special Report #14"; May 22, 2007).
I believe in what you are saying, We now as citizens of Wylie have a chance to stop this on a local level. Can we get a petition going or something, is there one already started, I dont know, but we need to conform and get together as a community and make a statement that says " were not gonna put up with illegal immigrant planting roots here". We are a small community and cannot afford that kind of tax burden! We have to act now.
Worried Grandmother

Denton, TX

#5 Jun 2, 2007
President Bush is wrong that those who "want to kill the bill" are not doing "what's right for America." He's got it exactly backward when he says opponents are looking "at a narrow slice" of the bill because they are "determined to find fault" with it. The only things that appear redeeming about this monstrosity are insignificant "narrow slices" that are wholly outweighed by the bill's noxious provisions. If we must use the term "narrow slices" in connection with this legislation, we should do so to describe that narrow slice of border fence that has been built or is likely to be built in the reasonably near future as opposed to the hundreds of miles that were promised.

Certain supporters of the bill are also egregiously out of line in ascribing racist or nativist motives to opponents, who at worst can be accused of striving to preserve the unique American culture, which, by the way, prides itself in being color blind and guaranteeing equal protection under the law irrespective of race or ethnicity.

Proponents are wrong and grossly irresponsible for downplaying the fiscal burden this bill will place on an already entitlement-beleaguered federal budget. While proponents are busy quibbling over the semantic appropriateness of the opponents' use of the term "amnesty," they are conveniently sidestepping the assaults on the rule of law the bill will entail. And while proponents are accusing opponents of mischaracterizing the bill, it is the opponents who are pretending the bill will reduce family-based, assimilation-unfriendly immigration and increase merit-based, assimilation-friendly immigration, when it will do precisely the opposite.

Proponents are firing epithets at opponents and accusing them of emotionalizing the issue, but again, the reverse is true. The proponents are the ones avoiding the facts and the very real concerns voiced by opponents. Many conservative proponents are blinded to real dangers in the bill by their monomaniacal attachment to economic growth at any cost. Others seem to have a romantic fixation with our heritage of immigration and wrongly interpret opposition to illegal and anarchically unregulated immigration as a betrayal of our national compact.

Opponents of this bill are not anti-immigrant, nativists, enemies of business or backwoods restrictionists. They are Americans who are fighting to preserve the unique American culture and will not be intimidated by the politically correct tactics and race baiting of many of the proponents. At the very least they are fighting to preserve: 1) a cultural commitment to the principles embodied in the greatest constitution ever written and adopted by man and 2) a societal consensus in the absolute moral values undergirding that instrument, which are inspired by a belief in God and the dignity of human beings created in His image.

Opponents are acting in good faith, and they deserve better – and so does America.
Satin-oops-Satan

Dallas, TX

#6 Jun 3, 2007
Oh no, the brown people are coming. This must be how the NATIVE AMERICANS felt when your cracker ancestors came here illegally.
Worried Grandmother

Denton, TX

#7 Jun 3, 2007
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp...

Illegals DUI'S are turning American's into roadkill ...And they just don't give a damn..
Cherie in Wylie

Keller, TX

#8 Sep 19, 2007
If any of the people from Wylie who have posted on the illegal alien problem happen to come back to this forum and read this, PLEASE contact me. I was involved, at the onset, of the Farmers Branch battle and would like to start NOW to ensure that Wylie does not end up with the same problem of being overrun by illegals. I've noticed the names Karli Sanders, Ralph Murphy, James Dailey, Rosie Jones, all American, et al. We Wylieites need to band together NOW, before the May 2008 election, and get our forces together. Please contact me at imasahm@verizon.net asap. You can also go to NumbersUSA and check the community board! Thanks

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Wylie Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Sheriff honors Andrew Hatch (Apr '07) Mar 25 Charlie Ransom 4
Garland Soccer Mar 23 Former Director 2
I was arrested in Wylie for having Pepper Spray! (Aug '09) Mar 22 sue 34
Liable lies (Feb '14) Mar 10 Tip 3
1968-69, good Shepard school : red headed Sharon Mar 4 Anastaciav 1
News Police ID bullet-riddled body in creek (Jul '06) Mar 1 Michael Young 13
new in town looking for decent job (Jun '14) Mar 1 Michael Young 3
Wylie Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Wylie People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]