Quantcast

Comments about ‘Advocates criticize Senate immigration bill’

Return to article »

Published: Tuesday, April 30 2013 1:38 p.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Tators
Hyrum, UT

It's a little bit ironic that these advocates are complaining that the bill in question is too harsh, while polls are showing a substantial part of Americans feel the bill is not harsh enough and too much like amnesty.

How can these people complain that this bill excludes illegal aliens who have received felony records since arriving here? That's ludicrous. Excluding any felons or people with multiple misdemeanors should be a common sense no-brainer... especially considering they actually broke our laws just to be here in the first place.

They are also complaining about the $2k fine. That's actually much too low, considering most have received multiple times that amount in welfare and/or free "entitlements" since arriving here... often by gaming the system without paying into it.

Also, they complain the submitted process will take too long. Try telling that to the millions of people who are in the time consuming process of doing things legally, while these illegals are trying to jump ahead of them. They will have a hard time receiving much sympathy for that one, at least from anyone who believes in following lawful and legal processes.

Say No to BO
Mapleton, UT

Did you notice the entitlement mentality of these advocacy groups. They can't be serious about some of these demands.

Let's hope they are trying a little psychology to make the amnesty plan more palatable for the rest of us.

Personally, I advocate for enforcement of the existing laws and a ban on pandering to special interest groups like the Chamber, the unions, and La Raza.

m.g. scott
clearfield, UT

The thing I worry about with this bill, as with other bills that are passed, is whether or not they will actually be enforced by a President and his administration. We have seen with this particular President that when they don't like a law, they just ignore it. That should be unconstitutional and in and of itself grounds for impeachment. After all when the President and all government officials take an oath of office, they swear to uphold and defend the Constitution. That includes all laws passed by the Congress and signed into law. If this administration can ignore law and not enforce them, what's to prevent a future President from doing the same thing. In 1986 an imigration law passed with border security in it, but that part never really got enforced. Obama has said with this law he does not like the border enforcement part. I suspect that he will, if passed, just have Holder and Napeolotano ignore the parts he doesn't like and go on with business as usual. As I said, Presidents should be held accountable for laws they refuse to enforce. Until then, be wary of any new laws passed with this President.

to comment

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