Compare this to what Bush said in his last address about illegal immigration. It sounded to me like he didn't want to do a thing about protecting our border, nor did he have much to say about curbing illegal immigration.
Now, we want to start checking people's Social Security cards against a national database? This is convenient considering the recent talks about a National ID card here and what the UK is doing, don't you think?
Something doesn't add up.
============================================
Feds may soon check all workers' IDs
Kathy Kiely, USA TODAY | March 3 2006
Congress is headed toward approving a plan that would require employers to check every worker's Social Security number or immigration work permit against a new federal computer database.
Critics see the move - aimed at stemming illegal immigration - as the beginning of a government information stockpile that could be used to track U.S. residents.
"We're getting closer and closer to a national ID card," says Tim Sparapani, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union.
Lawmakers such as conservative House Judiciary Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., and liberal Sen. Edward Kennedy (news, bio, voting record), D-Mass., have signed on to the verification plan, which is included in some form in every immigration bill currently before Congress. The goal is to make sure everyone working in the USA is doing so legally.
The Senate Judiciary Committee, which handles immigration, begins drafting its version of the bill today. The House bill passed in December.
The bills would require that a pilot program now used by 5,000 employers to check the legal status of job applicants be made mandatory. President Bush's 2007 budget includes $135 million to start expanding the verification system nationwide.
Proponents say new tools are needed to curb illegal immigration. There are now an estimated 11 million illegal immigrants in the USA. "If we're going to have any means of controlling our borders, you have to have a tamper-proof Social Security card and verification at the time of employment," says Rep. Dan Lungren, R-Calif.
Rep. Ken Calvert (news, bio, voting record), R-Calif., says "this is not a national ID system." But several bills authorize studies of "tamper proof" Social Security cards or their issuance. The cards would include some biometric data and would be harder to counterfeit.
During a debate in 1984, former representative Don Edwards, D-Calif., compared a proposed enhanced Social Security card to an "internal passport." Twelve years later, conservative GOP lobbyist Grover Norquist flooded Capitol Hill with activists wearing washable tattoos of an inventory bar code to show how a government clearinghouse could become a way to "track" Americans.
Both sides agree that Congress' willingness to consider such proposals represents a political shift. "They're talking about things that, if I had talked about, they would have burned my humble butt," says former GOP senator Alan Simpson, who helped write immigration laws passed in 1986 and 1996. He contends that Congress' past refusal to create a secure ID system to verify employment eligibility is a reason that neither law stemmed the flow of illegal immigrants.
Former Republican representative Bob Barr of Georgia, now on the ACLU's advisory board, agrees that attitudes have changed, but he doesn't think that is positive. "Far too many people have been swept into the post-9/11 system of fear that is the basis of all public policy these days," he says.
Posts: 856 | From Texas | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
Softballmom
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 6235
posted
Don't know much about any motives behind it. I just say it's about time!
I live in a community that is being flooded with illegal immagrants due to agricultural job oppertunity. Our schools are becoming more overcrouded each year with children that our school system is unprepared to educate. Drivers on the road with no driver education, no license and no insurance. Our community health department and Social services lobbies are running over. Our government assistance numbers are becoming staggering.
Not to minchen the number of arrests being made for drug trafficing by illigals just down the road. Something has got to be done.
Not only that but some of our American rights are put behind the rights of the visitors. For example, State money goes to fund pre-k education for non-english speaking students. This is in our public school systems. While american citizens have to pay for pre-k education unless they qualify for Government assistance but even then they have to drive their kids to another district because pre-k for english speakers are only at two designated school.
This is just one example. Again I don't know a specific motive and given the situation in my community I really don't care. Something needs to be done.
-------------------- It's not the Lyme, I just can't spell! Posts: 1331 | From North Carolina | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, 'something' needs to be done. I agree. But IMO, we need to be careful in choosing what that 'something' is.
If the government is SO concerned about the immigration issue, why do you think they have been and are letting them come across the border at record levels?
Why did Bush in his last speech make it quite clear that he didn't intend to stop it, or do ANYTHING for that matter? In fact, it sounded like he supported it.
Why now are we building detention facilities for illegal aliens, when we have done nothing to stem the tide?
Why is there a military operation called, ENDGAME, that supposedly, in the future, will roundup illegal aliens from all over the country?
If we think the aliens themselves are the source of all our problems, why haven't/aren't we stemming the tide now? Why haven't/aren't we doing something about our border now?
This is where I like to consider history. Remember that Hitler burned down his own capitol building called the Reichstag, and blamed it on the Communists. People were scared. He had a solution. The people were willing to accept 'anything' to feel safe and secure. We all know what happened then. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_Fire_Decree
It just makes me wonder... We are so used to being free here in America, I wonder ...
If history repeated, would we notice, until it was too late?
[ 03. March 2006, 01:31 PM: Message edited by: tequeslady ]
Posts: 856 | From Texas | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
Softballmom
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 6235
posted
Sorry tesque but your thinking is just a bit over the top for me.
Honestly I never remember a speech saying open the borders. I do know Bush wanted to give citizen rights to illegals who had jobs whith I did not agree with.
What you are saying here to me sounds like.
He's darned if he does and darned if he don't.
Maybe he just changed his mind and like I said before I really don't care about motive just
Get-EEEER-Done
-------------------- It's not the Lyme, I just can't spell! Posts: 1331 | From North Carolina | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
Softballmom
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 6235
posted
Tesque,
I am going to be a bit nosey. you don't have to answer if you don't want to.
Did I read right in another post that you are a conservative Republican?
If so what issues do feel put you in that category.
I was puzzeled when you said that because I have been getting the oppisite vibe from your posts.
Like I said you don't have to answer i was just curious.
-------------------- It's not the Lyme, I just can't spell! Posts: 1331 | From North Carolina | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I used to be. Republican all the way. Heck, when I was a kid, my parents had me handing out flyers for Barry Goldwater. I even went to the Republican convention with them.
Back then, Republicans used to be quite different. The definitions of right/left, conservative/liberal have all been twisted and turned now. What WAS is no longer.
Being conservative used to mean you understood we had a Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy, as you hear people saying all the times these days. I won't bore you by repeating it all here.
Here's what I posted in another thread: ------------------- I am conservative too, lymedad. I can't exactly say you and I agree.
But, then again, the definition seems to have changed over the past several years. Conservative used to mean someone who believed in following the Constitution, a limited government, free enterprise, hard work... not handouts, a moral society, etc.
We knew that we had to be willing to fight to protect our freedom. We didn't particularly want Socialists or Communists in our schools, media, or government. We watched vigilantly, as we were warned to by the Founding Fathers, anyone who would try to overthrow our Constitution.
Yes, the definition seems to have changed these days. ---------------------------
I most definitely am not a liberal. Actually, these days, I don't see a dime's worth of difference between the 2 parties. They have different rhetoric, yes, but they DO much the same. Have you ever noticed how plans seem to be continued even when President's change? One may spout something different about abortion, but when it comes to the larger picture... where our country is going, it's much the same. It's like a tag team.
Conservative Republicans use to be for a limited Constitutional federal government. As you know, one of the primary things that the Constitution does is to outline those things that the federal government can be involved in... the rest of the things were to be left with the states and the people. So, conservatives used to believe in states rights.
They believed in a fiscally responsible federal government that basically, did not interfere in their daily lives. Republicans believed that it was not government's job to CREATE employment; rather, it was their job to not INTERFERE by creating unfair laws, so that individuals could prosper through their own actions.
So, it used to be that Republicans did not want anyone that increased the span and control of the federal government. That used to be something that was more of a Democrat thing.
So now, I don't know how I would categorize myself, besides someone that loves their country and is very concerned.
I will vote for an individual, not a party. I will vote for the individual that has demonstrated through action, or their voting history, not just rhetoric, as many of the qualities I mentioned above as I can find.
Okay.. your turn. I am taking it that you consider yourself a conservative and a Republican. What issues for yourself do you feel that put you in that category?
quote:Originally posted by Softballmom: Tesque,
I am going to be a bit nosey. you don't have to answer if you don't want to.
Did I read right in another post that you are a conservative Republican?
If so what issues do feel put you in that category.
I was puzzeled when you said that because I have been getting the oppisite vibe from your posts.
Like I said you don't have to answer i was just curious.
[ 04. March 2006, 02:50 AM: Message edited by: tequeslady ]
Posts: 856 | From Texas | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
He is not darned if he does and darned if he doesn't.
Remember that I live in Texas. Texas and California have a ton of illegal aliens and it has been growing in the past years. There have been a lot of problems with the Mexican military helping the drug runners at the border, etc. The border folks are not even allowed to ask them if they are Mexican or American. Their hands have been pretty much tied.
I want Bush to stop illegal immigration, or at least not hamper states from doing it. It would probably stem it a lot if we would just stop giving them benefits. But NO... we don't do that. Why? IMO, we definitely should be protecting our border.
What I was pointing out was the dichotomy of his rhetoric.
So, ANY kind of action would be ok with you, as long as he got them out? You don't really believe that, do you? I suspect you just don't believe that anything that might happen could impact you personally in a negative way. That's a lot of trust. We just sold a lot of our Bill of Rights down the river with Patriot Act 2.
quote:Originally posted by Softballmom: Sorry tesque but your thinking is just a bit over the top for me.
Honestly I never remember a speech saying open the borders. I do know Bush wanted to give citizen rights to illegals who had jobs whith I did not agree with.
What you are saying here to me sounds like.
He's darned if he does and darned if he don't.
Maybe he just changed his mind and like I said before I really don't care about motive just
Softballmom
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 6235
posted
I vote primarily republican but I do look at the indivial as well at times.
Someone asked me once was i democrat or republican and I said I am a Christian.
Moral values are at the very top aside all other issues. I feel that this countries downfall has been that and all other problems branch off from there.
As far as how decisions made impact me as an individual I say this. I know what I would like to see done but at the end of the day Christ is who i put my ultimate trust in and no matter wether I am impacted individual good or bad I will make it through with the strength of the Lord.
My main interest aside morals is education. Our children are the future of this country. One we need to educate them and two with equiping our country with moral values the family structure holds stronger. Since the times that this country has been trying to seperate ourselves from God the family structure and this countries morals as a whole have taken a nose dive. Our family structures downfall is hurting our children the most.
How can we raise our children with good moral values when the world is telling them that imorality is ok. No matter how strong the family structure the influences outside of the home are becoming too great. Until we change that I believe that this country is doomed however I have my strength and will prevail no matter the outcome.
So I guess you could say i am basically all about morals. I feel that until we look at our nations moral values as becoming extinct then bettering social security, or closing our borders really isn't going to mean a hill of beans.
-------------------- It's not the Lyme, I just can't spell! Posts: 1331 | From North Carolina | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree wholeheartedly. Only thing is... if we lose our country (i'm not just talking about illegal aliens here), we won't have an opportunity to address these issues.
I've wondered .... perhaps the same force that is behind the destruction of our country, is also behind dumbing our children down in the school system, promoting violence in a variety of venues and introducing all kinds of filth in our media,etc.
Seems like they kind of go hand-in-hand. It's certainly working.
Posts: 856 | From Texas | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
The Lyme Disease Network is a non-profit organization funded by individual donations. If you would like to support the Network and the LymeNet system of Web services, please send your donations to:
The
Lyme Disease Network of New Jersey 907 Pebble Creek Court,
Pennington,
NJ08534USA http://www.lymenet.org/
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[woohoo]](graemlins/woohoo.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I am taking it that you consider yourself a conservative and a Republican. What issues for yourself do you feel that put you in that category?
Printer-friendly view of this topic