Bush cancels visit to Denver

Lets see, harry reid for one..schumer, and others..that's a start archer, so read on reid.. lol

two....out of how many libs? wow, yeah I'm convinced that libs are supporting illegal immigration....but you're going to need to find me a source that says Harry Reid stated he favors illegal immigrants coming to this country, same with Schumer.

in the immortal words of trouble

I'm waiting

:pop

archer wrote: two....out of how many libs? wow, yeah I'm convinced that libs are supporting illegal immigration....but you're going to need to find me a source that says Harry Reid stated he favors illegal immigrants coming to this country, same with Schumer.

in the immortal words of trouble

I'm waiting

:pop

Sometimes deeds are more telling than words. How do we know Republicans & Democrats politicians want illegal laborers here? They don't go after employers enough for hiring abuses.

archer wrote: .I don't here liberal leaders saying we want more illegals......please show us where liberals are backing the illegals, inquiring minds want to know.

We can start with their refusal to provide the funds the law stipulated to build the fence along the border. We can cite the Dream Act. We can also look at the federal response to the laws in Arizona. I haven't seen them introduce a bill that would put an end to the bastardization of the 14th Amendment that allows access to the social welfare programs of the nation by illegal immigrants via anchor babies that are, but should not be, considered as citizens of the nation.

On a local level we can look at the sanctuary policies of Governor Hickenlooper when he was major of Denver as well as former Governor Ritter's willingness to plea felony violations of the law down to misdemeanor ones that fell below the threshold of deportation procedures being required. San Francisco has openly declared that they will give sanctuary to those who immigrated in violation of the law, and it you want to try to convince me that San Francisco is not run by liberals you would be fighting an uphill battle I can all but promise you will lose. Why is it that Obama is not directing Holder to attack the sanctuary laws of San Francisco but instead directing him to oppose the state of Arizona's attempts to empower their state and local law enforcement officers to aid and assist in enforcing federal laws? I would think adding more manpower would be more effective trying to limit or reduce it. It would be the same as going after the state and local governments for enacting illicit drug laws and making them stand on the sidelines while drugs restricted under federal law were imported, transported and sold with the states and cities.

It seems to me that under the police powers that the states have as sovereign entities they are just as free to legislate laws that are intended to reduce the incidences of illegal migration in their state as they are to reduce the incidences of prescription drugs being sold to those who don't have a prescription or to incarcerate those who are peddling other illegal substances on the street corners of the cities. The only sovereignty that was surrendered to the federal government was the ability to allow migration they desired without the consent of the national government and to disallow migration to one who was a citizen of another state that belonged to the union or one whom the national government had allowed to immigrate. I see nothing in the compact that restricts the state when neither the state nor the national government has deemed it proper to allow the migration of a foreign national into this nation.

hmmmm....when libs fail to act on immigration they are supporting illegals.....we can then assume that when republicans failed to act on immigration, they too are supporting the illegals. Ok, got it.

Why didn't Outdoor say the both libs and cons support illegals? Wasn't the problem of illegals brought up early in Bush's term? What did we get from that?

BTW....nothing in Arizona's laws confront the problem of the border crossing, they are concentrating on moving illegals out of Arizona into neighboring states.....yeah, that makes everyone happy.

Congress....both Republicans and Democrats, has to get serious on this issue, but they refuse to touch it. Doesn't mean they support illegals, just that they are a bunch of wussies trying to keep from being the first to actually tackle it.

I'll agree with you here archer, the Bush administration was no better than the current on with regards to supporting, or allowing, the illegal migration of people into this nation.

That said, however, we learned the price of compromise on the issue in the face of the Reagan amnesty in 1986. That amnesty was granted with the understanding that the problems that led to the necessity of that amnesty being declared would be addressed. When they were not addressed, the problem, and it was a problem, became not better, but worse. Continuing the current appeasement policies will only result in the even larger problem that grew from the failure to address the issue after the '86 amnesty growing larger still.

We do have very large problems in this nation that need to be addressed and solved. The solutions are actually not all that difficult, but the will to do what is hard instead of that which is easy is where the difficulty seems to lie currently.