Bombtrack
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jan-07-04 07:03 PM
Original message |
Does anybody here like the administrations new illegal alien policy? |
|
I think that it's healthy to not automatically apposed 100 percent of what your opposition does because they're your opposition.
I need to read more about it myself, so I'm not ready to make a decision, but so far it seems like an improvement on what we have right now, giving them some labor protections
I consider myself a centrist on the issue of illegal immigration, and it's not among my top issues, so I haven't researched it as much as I should overall. But I think that people who are actually strong liberals on the issue might be inclined to think the new policy is progress, but are afraid to say.
|
KissMyAsscroft
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jan-07-04 07:08 PM
Response to Original message |
1. If Bush is doing it, you can be sure... |
|
it is for the wrong reasons.
He could have done this long ago. It is for California votes, and that is all.
|
auburnblu
(536 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jan-07-04 07:14 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
|
No doubt its for votes. Hadn't he planned to do this back in 2001/2002, but it got delayed by 9/11. But Bush could have recommended this a year ago.
|
Bombtrack
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jan-07-04 07:15 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
4. If it is, does that meant that democrats do it for votes as well? |
|
By it I mean illegal amnesty etc
I think that bloc politics is crappy, but both parties do it.
The reason I don't put myself as a liberal on this issue is that I think that familes who don't pay taxes other than sales taxes and use government services is an unconstitutional drain on citizens
|
conservdem
(880 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jan-07-04 07:10 PM
Response to Original message |
2. I have not read it or much about it, but I am leaning against most of it. |
|
I like the extension of employment rights to the workers, but I doubt I will favor much else in the changes at this point in time.
As I wrote on another thread a few minutes ago: CLARK COULD REALLY BENEFIT FROM THIS if he takes the position that this is a wrong way to go and that he is totally against it. Possible reasons to be against it are our unemployment levels are two high and that it may be bad for security. I bet there are many other legitimate reasons to be against it. From what I heard on somewhat conservative talk radio show today, many otherwise republican voters might support a dem for this issue alone. Clark would probably have the most credibility in coming out against this IMO.
|
Bombtrack
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jan-07-04 07:19 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
5. I agree with you on that |
|
that would be the ultimate backfire to people like O'Reilly.
I think that Clark needs to introduce a plan before the election to put new anti-corruption sanctions on Mexico, and take a bottom-up approach to the problem, as well as something close to Kerry's position of strengthening the borders while making sure less people die and are injured in the desert
|
Philosophy
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jan-07-04 07:30 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
7. I heard part of Hannity today |
|
His position was that conservatives should just let Bush have this even though the callers were almost unanimously against it, as a reward for all the other great stuff he has done.
|
Philosophy
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jan-07-04 07:26 PM
Response to Original message |
|
There will always be some illegals that won't register either through choice or ignorance and they will get preferentially hired over the registered ones because they won't have to be payed minumum wage.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Thu Apr 18th 2024, 10:50 PM
Response to Original message |