Comments about ‘Source: Bipartisan immigration bill could exclude many’

Return to article »

Published: Friday, April 12 2013 7:32 a.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Bloodhound
Provo, UT

Why not allow anyone in the world who wants to come to the U.S. to immigrate. Legally, illegaly, it doesn't matter. Then, to help provide all the social services these people will need, all U.S. employers who benefit from cheap labor and mass immigration will be taxed at 90 percent. All churches that support mass immigration will also be taxed at 90 percent. Since all these organizations think so much of illegal immigrants, they should not complain but be willing to help pay for their needed services. Put up or shut up.

DN Subscriber
Cottonwood Heights, UT

So, it will NOT be total 100% amnesty for everyone, and that makes it unacceptable to the advocates for ignoring those laws they don't like!

Not having seen the actual bill yet (not some journalist's translation) I suspect that I will not like the bill because it give away too much to lawbreakers and punishes those of us who obey the laws and pay the bills.

Fitness Freak
Salt Lake City, UT

The "devil is in the details" - as they say!

Like most Americans who are opposed to amnesty for lawbreakers have thought all along:

The legislation is most probably LONG on giveaways for illegal trespassers; and SHORT on enforcement.

WHY is the Senate so afraid of hearings on the issue?

Could it be that the border patrol will testify? How about Jason Chaffetz who visited the border last week? (of which there was no coverage whatsoever in the DN)

Will Senate hearings reveal that the 11 million number they keep talking about is way low?

There's a whole lot of the proposed amnesty legislation that (I suspect)neither political party want us to see until its too late to oppose it.

Say No to BO
Mapleton, UT

It already seems to exclude anyone opposed to amnesty, like the ICE union.
Or American citizens.

prelax
Murray, UT

Anyone who worked here committed felonies that would exclude them. Something tells me that those criminal activities will be ignored also.

prelax
Murray, UT

The problem isn't reform, it's the lack of promised enforcement. Nothing should be done until we get several years of enforcement. Let the students on Obama's waivers stay, let the families on his other waiver stay.

E-verify with hard enforcement, and general enforcement of current laws should remove the rest. Then the two waived groups can apply for citizenship. If, in the 5 years, we do not enforce the laws, then they are deported also.

This shows compassion to families and young students, yet stops new waives of amnesty seekers with the enforcement.

We need to return to immediate family instead of extended family sponsorship. It makes the wait time in some countries over 20 years, and locks out those without family here.

Superfluous
Anaheim, CA

STOP SAYING: "...many tens of thousands still arrive each year"
It should read: "Our current border security ALLOWS tens of thousands to sneak in EVERY YEAR"!

If they KNOW this, WHY don't they STOP this?

The ones who get in have babies, the babies are citizens, the parents cry "why not us, the parents?" ..and around and around and around we go.

Nothing matters until you TURN OFF the faucet at the border NOW.

Say No to BO
Mapleton, UT

This is not only a border security issue but demonstrated political will to enforce immigration laws in the interior. If 40% are visa overstayers we must have adequate enforcement measures. We know Obama is playing fast-and-loose with detainees in the name of budget cuts.
Politicians never like to say NO, but they need to if we are going to prevent future unlawful presence.

BrentBot
Salt Lake City, UT

The entire border must be secured by the type of fence presently in the San Diego area. The Rio Grande river is not a sufficient deterrent. This must be accomplished prior to any applications for citizenship being submitted. E-verify must be enforced, and employers sanctioned.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments