“Try Reuters.”

Level 8

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#317 Feb 18, 2013
Married wrote:
<quoted text>
I do agree with a more laws but not e verify I think mandatory finger printing is better for all as for amnesty I do think if they wait for a 10 years to get citizenship plus pay fines and such the money would go back in the system background checks plus they would not be able to get government help besides wic I think it would help if the fines were hefty 10,000 in total for each person they can go on a monthly payment plan this would help buy the scanners they are not that expensive we have them where we work to clock in and the church my son goes to has them to sign in and out the children think about how much money the government could get 10 years no citizenship it would be a lot but if you want to go with just the guest worker plan without plan to citizenship they could be here for 30 years pay in to the system and never get to use it so If we are going to go that route then there had to be different rules such as they don't pay taxes and are not eligible for any benefits if they have kids 1,000 dollars per kid to go to school per year and a monthly fee that will go to police firefighters. If we are going to do the reform it needs to be fair on both sides don't you think or do you think it's ok to tax someone until they retire and not let them get any of the benefits I just want to be fair
You need to read the FIRST FOUR POSTS here again. They answer your questions.
Married

Little Rock, AR

#318 Feb 18, 2013
Yes the e verify has finger printing at first but not when you go for a job interview. It does cover ss but not Medicare welfare food stamps .... that they would not get but pay into I only saw about housing for a parent of an USA citzen child also a question it says if someone is staying with family that they have 90 days to move so do you mean family can't live together please explain it to me also here is a good read about low birthrate in the USA http://m.usatoday.com/article/news/1880231...
what do you think of the fine for illegals how much should it be

“Try Reuters.”

Level 8

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#319 Feb 18, 2013
Married wrote:
Yes the e verify has finger printing at first but not when you go for a job interview. It does cover ss but not Medicare welfare food stamps .... that they would not get but pay into I only saw about housing for a parent of an USA citzen child also a question it says if someone is staying with family that they have 90 days to move so do you mean family can't live together please explain it to me also here is a good read about low birthrate in the USA http://m.usatoday.com/article/news/1880231...
what do you think of the fine for illegals how much should it be
Yes. You cannot live with anybody in your family who resides in PUBLIC HOUSING paid by taxpayers unless you are the parent/legal guardian of the American born child(children) who qualify the family for assistance. For example, if your sister has two American born children and lives in Section 8. housing, you cannot live with her on the public dole. Get your own place or share with others out in the private sector. We won't subsidize your living arrangements. I hope that clarifies for you.

I'm not concerned about low birthrate in America in relationship to CIR. I've read that story also - from The Economist. I've posted it here on the threads as well. That's a different issue than what we do to settle illegally immigrating to this country. Population shortfall can be handled by more legal immigration IF Americans feel they want to pursue direct competition with China and India and don't mind looking like China and India and stressing natural resources and infrastructure. That's a whole different kettle of fish.

Mandatory E-Verify is essential to ANY CIR being able to make it through Congress. Americans have signaled that they want a solution. A solution means an "end" to the problem - not exacerbating it.

Fingerprinting applicants puts an identity with those fingerprints, even if it turns out down the road not to be your true identity. Whoever your are, your fingerprints are entered into a National Database available to law enforcement, and if your fingerprint ties into a crime, it won't matter what name you used then or now, it's your fingerprints that define who you are. If you're not a criminal, you have nothing to fear.

One point. If you qualify as a TGW and you work for a company that affords a pension, you would be eligible to earn that pension just like any other worker. If you want to hang around the rest of your life, you could earn enough to retire here, but you won't get your Social Security contributions back. To receive that back, you must exist the country, and you will be fully vested with your contributions and the interest you earned during that time. If you want to then apply to come back legally, save that money and if admitted, you can reinvest in your social security benefits fund and go from there to earn the money necessary to receive the benefit when you qualify as a LPR.
DWG

Everett, MA

#320 Feb 18, 2013
NTRPRNR1 wrote:
<quoted text>I understand your POV. Mine is different. You want all who came in violation of the law forgiven and provided the opportunity to become Americans. I disagree with you. I've explained that my concerns are also for American and legal immigrant workers who have lost jobs to illegal workers. I'd like to help them, and I'd like to improve life for those current illegals who are permitted to stay. We just have different points of view. I also want to stop more people from entering this nation and setting up housekeeping and driving down wages. Apparently, you don't care about that. I do. Just because you WANT to do something doesn't make it okay. I don't have to surrender part of my property to somebody who pitches a tent and decides they like the place and want amnesty to stay living on my property. I don't care that the local farmer wants them on my property so they can work for him cheap. Understand? At any rate, I think you've expressed yourself and your POV.
dwg wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
........ also want to stop more people from entering this nation and setting up housekeeping and driving down wages. Apparently, you don't care about that. I do. Just because
<quoted text>
Hi NTRPRNR1,
Thank you so much for your attention, and we WILL BE with you soon to explain our POV.
GOD BLESS YOU
DWG
http://www.youtube.com/watch ...
Hi NTRPRNR1,

".....We are back, and in a few words we can say, many people know how to make a metal nail but they do not know how to hammer a metal nail in the soap.........DWG"

1986 for sure at that age 27 yčars ago , we did not have fast computers just old computer with obsolet system operational ( rust metal nails ), that is why many people ( our legislative ) did not have interested or knowledge to hammer it forever.

Today our tecnology is much more better, and we can not use it against 11 million undocumented people already in USA, because USA IS NOT GERMANY, here the words are " PEOPLE FIRST PLACE , NO MATTER WHAT "

After amnesty, everybody will play the same rules, and companies will not hiring people without documents to work.

Other things in the future are:

a) less real money in circulation.
b) many people pay by plastic money.
c) many people buy and pay by their cellphone, or just for his or her name.

After amnesty 2013 will be dificult to be undocumented in this country, but it is not the end.

It is just the start, then:

a) the first illegals or criminals of our future will not be here physically , but inside your computers, computers companies, news papers computers, bank account, security computers,..etc.

This guys not look for amnesty but for destroy or invade your private life, take care because it will be the future.

COMPUTERS, INVADERS, COMPUTERS, INVADERS, COMPUTERS INVADERS
COMPUTERS, INVADERS, COMPUTERS, INVADERS, COMPUTERS INVADERS
COMPUTERS, INVADERS, COMPUTERS, INVADERS, COMPUTERS INVADERS
COMPUTERS, INVADERS, COMPUTERS, INVADERS, COMPUTERS INVADERS

Thanks
DISPATCHER WALTER GARBE
Dee Dee Dee

Emmaus, PA

#321 Feb 19, 2013
NTRPRNR1 wrote:
<quoted text>Please read the FIRST FOUR POSTS of the thread which answers most of your questions. But, to start, you have to have a database in order for the technology to work. That is addressed at the beginning of the thread.
Should not, could not, would not.......They're here. They aren't all going home. That ship has sailed. There is no discussion anywhere in the halls of Congress about deporting 11-12-20 million people. We can, however, deport 400,000 a year under the existing budget and court system. Nothing works without mandatory E-Verify and a tamper proof ID system and secure borders. Identification starts with application and continues over time via fingerprints of applicants entered into a national database. Tax filings confirm residence status.
I have read the first four posts but I was not responding to them I was responding to DWGs post. He seems to think that throwing money and technology at the problem of tracking illegal aliens is the solution but between the pro-illegals blocking any effort to identify and track illegal aliens or deport those who do not qualify as well as true civil rights concerns any system will take years and possibly decades to develop and implement. I am sure the court challenges alone will take years and boat loads of money to resolve.
Your plan is a decent compromise but sadly it is one that will never be accepted by the pro-illegal crowd because it will only allow a very small percentage of all illegal aliens to remain legally. The only criticism I have and it is has not been addressed by any proposal is how do we pay for the huge bureaucracy required? You plan would require much less money and be more controllable with easier oversight but still it is going to cost the taxpayer and having to pay to reduce your wages and standard of living is not something most of us want to do. We hear about fines and back taxes but the truth is that it is impossible to collect and any effort to do so will cost more than the money it brings in.
No legalization plan can be successful for the U.S. without the elimination of birthright citizenship, mandatory e-verify, a cross check of all ITN against immigration status, mandatory immigration status verification for any person arrested for any crime, and an expedited deportation procedures for any person caught here illegally or found to be in violation of the terms of their “amnesty”.

I do find it interesting that a person who is such a fan of Obama actually comes out in opposition to the “mandate of the voters” that amnesty should be passed. After all according to the pro-illegals that makes you a racist, wealthy, old, white, ignorant, redneck. LOL I am glad to see that not all Obama supporters follow him blindly.
Married

Little Rock, AR

#322 Feb 19, 2013
NTRPRNR1 wrote:
<quoted text>Yes. You cannot live with anybody in your family who resides in PUBLIC HOUSING paid by taxpayers unless you are the parent/legal guardian of the American born child(children) who qualify the family for assistance. For example, if your sister has two American born children and lives in Section 8. housing, you cannot live with her on the public dole. Get your own place or share with others out in the private sector. We won't subsidize your living arrangements. I hope that clarifies for you.
I'm not concerned about low birthrate in America in relationship to CIR. I've read that story also - from The Economist. I've posted it here on the threads as well. That's a different issue than what we do to settle illegally immigrating to this country. Population shortfall can be handled by more legal immigration IF Americans feel they want to pursue direct competition with China and India and don't mind looking like China and India and stressing natural resources and infrastructure. That's a whole different kettle of fish.
Mandatory E-Verify is essential to ANY CIR being able to make it through Congress. Americans have signaled that they want a solution. A solution means an "end" to the problem - not exacerbating it.
Fingerprinting applicants puts an identity with those fingerprints, even if it turns out down the road not to be your true identity. Whoever your are, your fingerprints are entered into a National Database available to law enforcement, and if your fingerprint ties into a crime, it won't matter what name you used then or now, it's your fingerprints that define who you are. If you're not a criminal, you have nothing to fear.
One point. If you qualify as a TGW and you work for a company that affords a pension, you would be eligible to earn that pension just like any other worker. If you want to hang around the rest of your life, you could earn enough to retire here, but you won't get your Social Security contributions back. To receive that back, you must exist the country, and you will be fully vested with your contributions and the interest you earned during that time. If you want to then apply to come back legally, save that money and if admitted, you can reinvest in your social security benefits fund and go from there to earn the money necessary to receive the benefit when you qualify as a LPR.
Thank that helps a lot I do agree with the housing when need to close loop holes in the system so do you think finger printering just once is good enough I don't but maybe just paranoid one question if the person goes back to apply for LPR if they have children could they leave them in state custody while the apply as to not disrupt the kids schooling if that is case then I agree

“Try Reuters.”

Level 8

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#323 Feb 19, 2013
Married wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank that helps a lot I do agree with the housing when need to close loop holes in the system so do you think finger printering just once is good enough I don't but maybe just paranoid one question if the person goes back to apply for LPR if they have children could they leave them in state custody while the apply as to not disrupt the kids schooling if that is case then I agree
There is an option to leave American born children with legal relatives or close friends who agree to take legal custody. Otherwise, they can turn the children over to the state and would have two months reprieve in which to have a change of heart. Thereafter, the state can place these children in foster homes and/or put them up for adoption. So, there are options. another point in the Proposal is that mothers with minor children would be afforded a stipend that would be sufficient to resettle that family in their homeland if they come forward during the "Temporary Amnesty" period. Thereafter, they would be subject to ongoing deporation efforts without subsidy. Yes, that does cost taxpayers, but it would cost us far less than if they continued to reside here and we continued supplying public assistance, education and health care.

“Try Reuters.”

Level 8

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#324 Feb 19, 2013
Dee Dee Dee wrote:
<quoted text>
I have read the first four posts but I was not responding to them I was responding to DWGs post. He seems to think that throwing money and technology at the problem of tracking illegal aliens is the solution but between the pro-illegals blocking any effort to identify and track illegal aliens or deport those who do not qualify as well as true civil rights concerns any system will take years and possibly decades to develop and implement. I am sure the court challenges alone will take years and boat loads of money to resolve.
Your plan is a decent compromise but sadly it is one that will never be accepted by the pro-illegal crowd because it will only allow a very small percentage of all illegal aliens to remain legally. The only criticism I have and it is has not been addressed by any proposal is how do we pay for the huge bureaucracy required? You plan would require much less money and be more controllable with easier oversight but still it is going to cost the taxpayer and having to pay to reduce your wages and standard of living is not something most of us want to do. We hear about fines and back taxes but the truth is that it is impossible to collect and any effort to do so will cost more than the money it brings in.
No legalization plan can be successful for the U.S. without the elimination of birthright citizenship, mandatory e-verify, a cross check of all ITN against immigration status, mandatory immigration status verification for any person arrested for any crime, and an expedited deportation procedures for any person caught here illegally or found to be in violation of the terms of their “amnesty”.
I do find it interesting that a person who is such a fan of Obama actually comes out in opposition to the “mandate of the voters” that amnesty should be passed. After all according to the pro-illegals that makes you a racist, wealthy, old, white, ignorant, redneck. LOL I am glad to see that not all Obama supporters follow him blindly.
I don't think I qualify as a "fan" of Obama. I supported Obama as being the better of the options before us. I believe that he certainly was, and I had majority voter company who also reached that conclusion.

In terms of illegal immigration, neither party has come up with a plan that I think is is good or fair for Americans and legal immigrants. Both seem to only be focused on what business interests want. So, immigration wasn't a determining factor in how I cast my vote. Nothing has changed much since George Bush floated an Amnesty proposal. I didn't like his plan either.

“Try Reuters.”

Level 8

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#325 Feb 19, 2013
Dee Dee Dee wrote:
<quoted text>
I have read the first four posts but I was not responding to them I was responding to DWGs post. He seems to think that throwing money and technology at the problem of tracking illegal aliens is the solution but between the pro-illegals blocking any effort to identify and track illegal aliens or deport those who do not qualify as well as true civil rights concerns any system will take years and possibly decades to develop and implement. I am sure the court challenges alone will take years and boat loads of money to resolve.
Your plan is a decent compromise but sadly it is one that will never be accepted by the pro-illegal crowd because it will only allow a very small percentage of all illegal aliens to remain legally. The only criticism I have and it is has not been addressed by any proposal is how do we pay for the huge bureaucracy required? You plan would require much less money and be more controllable with easier oversight but still it is going to cost the taxpayer and having to pay to reduce your wages and standard of living is not something most of us want to do. We hear about fines and back taxes but the truth is that it is impossible to collect and any effort to do so will cost more than the money it brings in.
No legalization plan can be successful for the U.S. without the elimination of birthright citizenship, mandatory e-verify, a cross check of all ITN against immigration status, mandatory immigration status verification for any person arrested for any crime, and an expedited deportation procedures for any person caught here illegally or found to be in violation of the terms of their “amnesty”.
I do find it interesting that a person who is such a fan of Obama actually comes out in opposition to the “mandate of the voters” that amnesty should be passed. After all according to the pro-illegals that makes you a racist, wealthy, old, white, ignorant, redneck. LOL I am glad to see that not all Obama supporters follow him blindly.
Wages. Reduce the glut of available labor, and the laws of supply and demand will create wage increases. By making distinctions, I still estimate 5 million will make the cut, but that opens up as many as 5 million jobs for American workers, but probably more like 3 million. Still, that's a big help in terms of the unemployed that we are currently funding with taxpayer dollars. There are about 7 million of the 14 million unemployed who work in the same income sectors as do most illegals.

If we don't invest in the technology to provide employers a database they MUST access during hires, they will continue to have legal excuses (custom crafted by law firms for a fee) not to have "knowingly" hired illegal workers. Without that description in the filings against them, they pay nothing more than a hand slap fine (already factored into the cost of doing business) and reap a nice profit the longer they go before being busted for illegal labor. The odds of being busted today? Low and well worth the risk for the profit factor. If we want a level playing field and Americans to earn living wages, there's no other way to go about it than mandatory E-Verify as the law of the land.

Mandatory E-Verify makes border enforcement much easier and guts the visa overstay program as well. If you cannot get a job, your reason to enter illegally is pretty much gone unless you're fleeing a cartel or seeking political asylum. After news gets out that you cannot get a good paying job, far fewer will bother to make the effort. It will cost less to enforce the borders which will see primarily drug dealers, terrorists and family reunification seekers attempting to cross in.
Married

Little Rock, AR

#326 Feb 19, 2013
NTRPRNR1 wrote:
<quoted text>Wages. Reduce the glut of available labor, and the laws of supply and demand will create wage increases. By making distinctions, I still estimate 5 million will make the cut, but that opens up as many as 5 million jobs for American workers, but probably more like 3 million. Still, that's a big help in terms of the unemployed that we are currently funding with taxpayer dollars. There are about 7 million of the 14 million unemployed who work in the same income sectors as do most illegals.
If we don't invest in the technology to provide employers a database they MUST access during hires, they will continue to have legal excuses (custom crafted by law firms for a fee) not to have "knowingly" hired illegal workers. Without that description in the filings against them, they pay nothing more than a hand slap fine (already factored into the cost of doing business) and reap a nice profit the longer they go before being busted for illegal labor. The odds of being busted today? Low and well worth the risk for the profit factor. If we want a level playing field and Americans to earn living wages, there's no other way to go about it than mandatory E-Verify as the law of the land.
Mandatory E-Verify makes border enforcement much easier and guts the visa overstay program as well. If you cannot get a job, your reason to enter illegally is pretty much gone unless you're fleeing a cartel or seeking political asylum. After news gets out that you cannot get a good paying job, far fewer will bother to make the effort. It will cost less to enforce the borders which will see primarily drug dealers, terrorists and family reunification seekers attempting to cross in.
How would you make e verify almost fraud proff and what about fees I think there should be big fee

“Try Reuters.”

Level 8

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#327 Feb 19, 2013
Married wrote:
<quoted text>
How would you make e verify almost fraud proff and what about fees I think there should be big fee
I didn't go into the technology that would be required, because I'm not up to speed on how that is best handled. We have experts who have proposals and a plan. However, there is a push now toward a National Identification Program, and here's a good article from the Washington Post:

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-02-02...

The case for a national ID card
By Editorial Board,February 02, 2013
Married

Little Rock, AR

#328 Feb 19, 2013
NTRPRNR1 wrote:
<quoted text>I didn't go into the technology that would be required, because I'm not up to speed on how that is best handled. We have experts who have proposals and a plan. However, there is a push now toward a National Identification Program, and here's a good article from the Washington Post:
http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-02-02...
The case for a national ID card
By Editorial Board,February 02, 2013
Wow that's cool I guess that's part of the data base my husband is a part of and why they have him look into this machine as well scan all fingers before he boards the plane back to the USA I have seen people try to fool it at the air port but as far as they get is the fingerprinting and here comes security ha ha yes I like that it sounds good
Dee Dee Dee

Emmaus, PA

#329 Feb 19, 2013
NTRPRNR1 wrote:
<quoted text>I didn't go into the technology that would be required, because I'm not up to speed on how that is best handled. We have experts who have proposals and a plan. However, there is a push now toward a National Identification Program, and here's a good article from the Washington Post:
http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-02-02...
The case for a national ID card
By Editorial Board,February 02, 2013
The biggest concern with making e-verify fraud resistant is the privacy of American citizens. Right now the system does not notify people when their SS# is submitted to e-verify or even when fraud is detected and there is no provision for even common sense checks such as how can a person work in two states at the same time or 10 jobs at the same time. Just a few common sense changes could make it more effective.
I can see that this may be an excuse for a national I.D. which I do object to.

Level 6

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#330 Feb 19, 2013
Dee Dee Dee wrote:
<quoted text>
The biggest concern with making e-verify fraud resistant is the privacy of American citizens. Right now the system does not notify people when their SS# is submitted to e-verify or even when fraud is detected and there is no provision for even common sense checks such as how can a person work in two states at the same time or 10 jobs at the same time. Just a few common sense changes could make it more effective.
I can see that this may be an excuse for a national I.D. which I do object to.
Just out of curiosity and not taking a position pro or con, what are your objections to a "national I.D."?

Isn't a passport along the lines of a national I.D.?

“Try Reuters.”

Level 8

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#331 Feb 21, 2013
Dee Dee Dee wrote:
<quoted text>
The biggest concern with making e-verify fraud resistant is the privacy of American citizens. Right now the system does not notify people when their SS# is submitted to e-verify or even when fraud is detected and there is no provision for even common sense checks such as how can a person work in two states at the same time or 10 jobs at the same time. Just a few common sense changes could make it more effective.
I can see that this may be an excuse for a national I.D. which I do object to.
You might find this article interesting:

POLITICS February 20, 2013

Senators in Immigration Talks Mull Federal IDs for All Workers

.....The Senate group, in a statement guiding their work on a new law, called for workers to prove their legal status and identities through "non-forgeable electronic means." Senate aides said the language was intentionally broad because of the sensitivity of the issue. It leaves open several possibilities for how new hires would be required to prove they can legally work.(cont.)

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142412788...

Personally, I'm of the opinion that anybody who uses a credit or debit card in their lives doesn't have much, if any, anonymity in the first place. We have become very adept at obtaining personal information on almost every American citizen to the extent I'm not as concerned as I once was since I believe there is a greater benefit to knowing who is here than in relying on systems that permit fraudulent use of Americans' social security cards and stealing their identities in order to obtain tax refunds and leaving Americans to explain to the IRS how it wasn't them working at a hotel in NYC while living and residing in another state far far away. Been there, done that, as have millions of other Americans whose identities were stolen and used by criminals and illegals.
Quirky

Denver, CO

#333 Dec 20, 2013
Stupid! Period!

“Gloria Ad Caput Venire”

Level 9

Since: Jan 08

Yellowknife NT

#334 Dec 20, 2013
NTRPRNR1 wrote:
<quoted text>You might find this article interesting:
POLITICS February 20, 2013
Senators in Immigration Talks Mull Federal IDs for All Workers
.....The Senate group, in a statement guiding their work on a new law, called for workers to prove their legal status and identities through "non-forgeable electronic means." Senate aides said the language was intentionally broad because of the sensitivity of the issue. It leaves open several possibilities for how new hires would be required to prove they can legally work.(cont.)
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142412788...
Personally, I'm of the opinion that anybody who uses a credit or debit card in their lives doesn't have much, if any, anonymity in the first place. We have become very adept at obtaining personal information on almost every American citizen to the extent I'm not as concerned as I once was since I believe there is a greater benefit to knowing who is here than in relying on systems that permit fraudulent use of Americans' social security cards and stealing their identities in order to obtain tax refunds and leaving Americans to explain to the IRS how it wasn't them working at a hotel in NYC while living and residing in another state far far away. Been there, done that, as have millions of other Americans whose identities were stolen and used by criminals and illegals.
Those who steal the identities of others should be put to death in a way chosen by the person who's identity was stolen from.
Then it all would stop immediately. Plain and simple.

Level 6

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#335 Jan 15, 2014
I had almost forgot there was a thread on the immigration reform forums that was actually about immigration reform.

Just thought I would give this one another look and a little "bump"
Dee Dee Dee

Emmaus, PA

#336 Jan 15, 2014
It always comes down to the same thing. The amnesty people have prevented any true immigration reform. People who immigrate legally should not have to wait as long as they do and there are many immigration laws and policies that could be streamlined but granting amnesty to millions of people who chose to break the law should not be a prerequisite for changing laws to help those who are trying to immigrate legally.
Immigration laws should be fair and benefit this country and its people as well as those who immigrate. Rewarding those who violate the law while penalizing those who obey the law is not fair and does not benefit this country or its people and it does not benefit those who immigrate legally.

“Club Fed or Camp Cupcake?”

Since: Oct 10

White-Collar Minimum-Security

#337 Jan 15, 2014
Illegal alien amnesty will not bring a happy new year
http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighb...
When it comes to illegal immigration, kicking the can down the road has long been a favored strategy of politicians. The road does not go on forever, though, so in the event of illegal alien amnesty, what should America expect for the future?

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.

Immigration Reform Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Illegal immigrant children surge across border 2 min Memo From Turner 9
News Panel to hear appeal on Obama immigration actions 4 min Memo From Turner 55
News Is Jeb Bush Too Enthusiastic About Immigration? 57 min vib_ram 3
News No tax credits for illegal immigrants 1 hr ima-Ilis Myka Ash... 3
News Non-citizen voter case goes to Supreme Court 1 hr ima-Ilis Myka Ash... 1
News Is President Obama the Worst President in History? (Jun '10) 2 hr Who Guessed it 4,619
News Court chilly to BarackObama immigration moves 2 hr sandy1 2
More from around the web