Re: Immigration talks rouse hate

"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:df417a35-5879-4783-8a13-edcfe99e6461@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Mar 4, 7:45 pm, "Jeff Strickland" <cr...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> "Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>
>
news:5ca6b0ba-6e4a-4d15-8f54-8d9b4245b29e@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Mar 4, 12:53 pm, "Jeff Strickland" <cr...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Jim E" <YD639...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>
> >news:6342auF24k22mU1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> > > "MasterChief" <1...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> > >news:Ffednbqv_91aMFHanZ2dnUVZ_u2mnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >> Immigration talks rouse hate
>
> > >> WA****NGTON (AP) - A national Hispanic advocacy organization said
> > >> Thursday
> > >> it is fighting back against what it considers to be "hate speech" 
> > >> that
> > >> has emerged from the debate over immigration.
>
> > Do not be swayed by any argument these people bring to the table UNTIL
> > they
> > recognize that the debate is about ILLEGAL immigration.
>
> Do you sup****t increasing the number of legal immigrants, so that
> these folks don't have to come here illegally?
>
> <JS>
> I'm not sure we can ever raise the quotas high enough so all immigrants 
> that
> want to come can come legally. Clearly there are people that know what 
> (how
> many) we can absorb, for more than I would ever know.

Congress sets the quotas, not so-called "officials" as you referred to
them in another post.  Legal immigration is a political issue.

> That is certainly one facet of the problem though.
>
> I like, in general terms -- the devil is in the details -- the guest 
> worker
> program that Bush has talked about. If a worker went home and applied
for 
> a
> guest worker visa, obtained one, and returned, then I'd be perfectly
okay
> with it.

It sounds like you do sup****t increasing the number of legal
immigrants we allow in from Mexico.



<JS>
I sup****t what it takes to make Mexicans apply for legal immigrant status 
before they pack the grocery bag and head north.

If we can take in the immigrants -- and it appears we can because there
are 
12M of them here already -- then we need to put a policy in place that
makes 
it possible to get legal status before they leave home and come here.

I flatly refuse granting amnesty for illegal immigrants that are here.
But, 
if whomever makes the quotas (I do not think it is Congress, but I accept 
they have to approve any change to the quotas) adjusts them so that people

wanting to come can get permission in a couple of years instead of the 
protracted process that's in place today, then I'm all for it. The issue 
first and foremost is the illegal status. We have to 1.) make it easier to

come here legally, and 2.) remove the magnets that make it desirable to
come 
here illegally. Once we get the status issue squared away, we can move on
to 
the security issues. Indeed, we can resolve the security and the legality
on 
parallel tracks, there is no reason to do one ahead of the other. They are

different and distinct issues, and each demands a different solution, but 
both can be solved at the same time. It would be a mistake address one and

ignore the other.

</JS>