Published: Monday, Feb. 4 2013 12:00 a.m. MST
@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
' 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.
@donahoeI 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
@wrzYou 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
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.
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments