Comments about ‘Robert Bennett: Immigration a chance for Republicans and Democrats to compromise’

@MapleDon said, "There's no gain for the Republican Party by endorsing this."

Yes, and as I stated above, there is also everything to loose.

Sorry but this is NOT a conservative issue even though you may think it is.

@Pagan,

You still have me confused with someone who cares by continuously posting your statistics on the House Republicans. Look at it this way, as someone else previously posted, the Republicans are stopping 97% of bad legislation put up by the Democrats.

VST,

"....Look at it this way, as someone else previously posted, the Republicans are stopping 97% of bad legislation put up by the Democrats."
____________________________

Yes, but that means the Republican Party is defining itself by what it's against. If they don't want to go the way of the Whigs, they need to do more than play a totally reactive game. Republicans like Robert Bennett see that. If the GOP can reinvent itself as a proactive party with an visionary agenda that speaks to voters, it will be finding its way out of its current bleak situation.

@donahoe

"I oppose the extension of the H1-B visa in Senator Hatch’s S169. This visa mounts to an indentured servitude that allows businesses to exploit technical labor. The benefit of the H1-B is short term profits for a few. However, this visa program deflates wages by overcrowding scare jobs. Yes, there are too many workers already; the claims of shortages are, in fact, not true. When you wonder why American students are losing interest in STEM, the answer should be self-evident. The problem in STEM is not poor teaching or laziness or poor parenting or video games or moral decay. American students are smart, and they see the writing on the wall."

I agree completely. Having worked in technology for the past 20 years, I have seen the workforce of American workers go from 90% down to 60%. Your words are worth repeating.

' Look at it this way, as someone else previously posted, the Republicans are stopping 97% of bad legislation put up by the Democrats.' - VST

I could, but you didn't tell me WHY it was bad legislation.

You did not even tell me the names of those legislations, why it was bad, what date. The ONLY thing that made it 'bad' in your opinion was...

that it was legislation done by Democrats.

That is arguing from a place of ignorance. You don't KNOW what any of the legislation is, but it's 'bad'.

I agree with Craig Clark. The current Republican party is defining itself by that it is against. So it is not for, anything.

3% of legislation, is 3%.

If I only did 3% of my job? I would be fired.

And I certainly would not get paid $175,000 a year in tax payer funds, to do 3% of my job.

@Craig Clark said, "Yes, but that means the Republican Party is defining itself by what it's against."

Exactly! It is against runaway Government growth and spending which typically is that 97% legislation sponsored by the Senate Democrats.

Right now, we are on the road to become another Greece.

P.S. to Pagan: You still have me confused with someone who cares about your pet statistics. Go put a couple quarters in a pay phone and call someone who cares.

This thread illustrates beautifully why the Republican party is now two parties, neither of which will prevail anytime soon.

@donahoe

I appreciate your comments about my post. You bring a valid point to the table. "By importing professional labor, we export technology that we should keep at home for these reasons." I want to be clear that I understand the importance of immigration rules and I am by no means suggesting that we just open our borders. I'm just against making the argument that the reason we should be tighter on immigration is "because they will take 'our' jobs". We need to focus on valid reasons for our immigration policy and focus on those and maybe we can find a reasonable solution.

@wrz

You brought out two important points, but I guess my answers would be a little different.
"It's unfair to (those who come legally) that many come here illegally and demand amnesty/citizenship."
You are absolutely right that illegal immigration is wrong! I don't justify it. But, if you look at the legal process, it's hard to be motivated when the alternative is much easier. I found in the work place that if a process is over complicated, people always go around it no matter how good it is intended to be.

"unemployed Americans who lose their jobs to foreigners would ... go on unemployment" Now there is a problem we can agree on. I think unemployment is too easy to stay on and too enticing. I think our entitlement programs are excessive in what the provide. Necessary but bloated. As conservatives, let's focus on that!

The legal process brought 4 million people here last year on green cards and work visas. If people know they can get away with breaking the law, some do. But not everyone breaks laws, even when their is no deterrent. Many people realize that illegal immigration is not a viable alternative. It's dishonest.

Without extended benefits to those unemployed, the cry to end illegal immigration would be deafening. They were bought off. The open border business/government people recognized the need to quiet America, by lessening the impact.

Compromise on immigration would have been much more likely, Bob, had you not been Tea Partied by a reactionary right wing obstructionist.

I am sorry Utah, Mitt Romney's "self deportation" will not work, and breaking up families will never be acceptable. So we have a problem caused by a plethora of complications that we must resolve. The solution is complex, but the impractability of repatriation makes it imperitive that we find a way to stop the illegal influx and find a way to citizenship that is not "amnesty", and does not adversely affect those that are applying for citizenship legally. Hard, but it can be done. And it should be done or innocent citizens by birth will be disinfranchised.

Self deportation worked in Arizona. Make it impossible for business to hire them, or for them to make a profit. All we need are current laws (1996) enforced.

Immediate family have already been given waivers. That's not a relevant justification, never has been as families living in different countries are not broke. And the choice to be separated was made by the criminals. That applies also applies to citizens in jail.

We have had repatriation before, we have had amnesty before. Repatriation solves the problem better, longer, and easier. It does not give one party an advantage at the voting booths, and it stops a new wave of illegal aliens. It's a deterrent to future problems. Amnesty just encourages more of the same.