3rdnlng Posted January 30, 2013 Share Posted January 30, 2013 Wrong seeing most of the financial benefits that heterosexual couples enjoy are based on federal tax laws. Where have you been? Since when has same sex marriage been legal everywhere? Do you think that federal law should usurp state law in an area that they haven't been granted authority in? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted January 30, 2013 Share Posted January 30, 2013 I think we should abandon any kind of fast track to citizenship for the people who have violated our borders by entering illegally or by overstaying their visas. They could be allowed to stay in the country and work as long as they registered (DMV, courthouse, firehouse, police station, library, Walmart - whatever, it can be done and quickly). I'd give them three months to register as a Non American Resident, the government could issue an ID card that would serve as their required permit to work. Then, all employers would have to register their workers (let's stop the burgeoning black market in workers). Any employer who has workers who are not documented get fines, and those workers - sorry, get thrown out of the country. No deportations unless they don't register. Furthermore, no fast track to citizenship, and employers have to take regular payroll taxes out of their paychecks. No deductions allowed and the NARs get nothing in return for paying their taxes except they get to stay in the country and earn a living. If they want to become a citizen - they go through the regular process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted January 30, 2013 Share Posted January 30, 2013 I heard last night on "the evil Fox News" that about 40% of the illegal aliens in this Country are not border jumpers, but people overstaying their Visas. Thats amazing. Either way, I really am bullish on the Senate's plan. It seems like if written and executed as intended, its a very common sense approach to the issue of immigration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted January 30, 2013 Share Posted January 30, 2013 I heard last night on "the evil Fox News" that about 40% of the illegal aliens in this Country are not border jumpers, but people overstaying their Visas. Thats amazing. Either way, I really am bullish on the Senate's plan. It seems like if written and executed as intended, its a very common sense approach to the issue of immigration. I'm so glad Obama introduced it yesterday! That's some leader! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted January 30, 2013 Author Share Posted January 30, 2013 (edited) I think we should abandon any kind of fast track to citizenship for the people who have violated our borders by entering illegally or by overstaying their visas. They could be allowed to stay in the country and work as long as they registered (DMV, courthouse, firehouse, police station, library, Walmart - whatever, it can be done and quickly). I'd give them three months to register as a Non American Resident, the government could issue an ID card that would serve as their required permit to work. Then, all employers would have to register their workers (let's stop the burgeoning black market in workers). Any employer who has workers who are not documented get fines, and those workers - sorry, get thrown out of the country. No deportations unless they don't register. Furthermore, no fast track to citizenship, and employers have to take regular payroll taxes out of their paychecks. No deductions allowed and the NARs get nothing in return for paying their taxes except they get to stay in the country and earn a living. If they want to become a citizen - they go through the regular process. I mean, there isn't an official plan/no official language yet but general speaking that's basically the plan. Nobody is talking about a fast track...except maybe for the kids (and even that isn't clear) Edited January 30, 2013 by SameOldBills Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fjl2nd Posted January 30, 2013 Share Posted January 30, 2013 Where have you been? Since when has same sex marriage been legal everywhere? Do you think that federal law should usurp state law in an area that they haven't been granted authority in? Replace "same sex" with "interracial" and give me your answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted January 30, 2013 Share Posted January 30, 2013 Replace "same sex" with "interracial" and give me your answer. That's not pertinent to the discussion. It's obvious you don't understand the issue, so why don't you just go back to reading up on the redistibution of wealth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fjl2nd Posted January 30, 2013 Share Posted January 30, 2013 That's not pertinent to the discussion. It's obvious you don't understand the issue, so why don't you just go back to reading up on the redistibution of wealth. It is the exact same issue. Explain to me how it isn't? I'll give you another chance to answer it. I'm enjoying making you look silly this morning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted January 30, 2013 Share Posted January 30, 2013 I'm so glad Obama introduced it yesterday! That's some leader! Thats the problem. Obama's plan is different from the Senate Compromise, thus putting in danger of failing. It seems Mr Obama wants the issue, not the solution. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted January 30, 2013 Share Posted January 30, 2013 It is the exact same issue. Explain to me how it isn't? I'll give you another chance to answer it. I'm enjoying making you look silly this morning. No, you brought the subject up, you explain why it is exactly the same issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted January 30, 2013 Share Posted January 30, 2013 Thats the problem. Obama's plan is different from the Senate Compromise, thus putting in danger of failing. It seems Mr Obama wants the issue, not the solution. But he tries to give the perception that the Senate bill is his doing. The minute he heard a bipartisan bill was coming, he scheduled a speech. That's our president. Leading from behind until something gets done, and then he elbows to the front to take credit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fjl2nd Posted January 30, 2013 Share Posted January 30, 2013 No, you brought the subject up, you explain why it is exactly the same issue. Gay marriage should be looked at in the same light as interracial marriage once. States outlawed it for many years until the federal government stepped in and ruled it unconstitutional to ban it. As was pointed out earlier in the thread, marriage applies directly to federal taxation which gives the federal government a say in this matter. Just legalize it and move on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted January 30, 2013 Share Posted January 30, 2013 (edited) Obama wants to do what Reagan did to the Democrats, which was destroy them both on policy and in rhetoric. Of course there is one little difference between the two, Reagan had effective policy accomplishments that produced tangible results, Obama on the other hand doesn't really have much to show for other than winning a couple of elections. So I wouldn't be surprised that Obama tries to demagogue part of the Bipartisan agreement by doing what he does best which is to create these strawmen's and vilify them by playing on the emotions of his constituents. Hopefully I'm wrong, we'll see. To expand on this point and what B man was just talking about, I was reading an article in Politico today Barack Obama is the world’s greatest pitchman when it comes to selling one particular product — himself — but he’s been far less successful, and sometimes a downright failure, at selling his policy prescriptions to the public. Obama has always struggled at sales, at least during years when his name isn’t on a bumper sticker. His personal approval rating, now in the 50s, has always far outpaced the popularity of his policies, in part because he did such a poor job of selling controversial first-term proposals on health care reform, the stimulus, Wall Street reform and environmental proposals. “The political capital he gained during the campaign will begin to depreciate as fights over the continuing [budget] resolution drag on, as all these new crises pop up ahead of the midterms,” Madden said. “This electorate that he feels he has a connection with has voted for Barack Obama for the last time,” Madden adds. “What OFA and the White House will try to ensure is that, in some way, he’s always still on the ballot. The further he gets from 2012, the harder and harder and harder that becomes. Hill Republicans are going to reorient how they deal with President Obama — every indication is they are going to focus less and less on negotiating with him, more with Hill Democrats, who are also up for reelection. He may find himself left out.” But it’s an uphill battle. If Reagan’s success in 1985-86 is a lodestar of sorts, there are critical differences — namely, the fact that the 40th president enjoyed much better personal relationships with Congress than the 44th president does. “Reagan didn’t just sell the tax plan by going around the country, he called like 300 congressmen and senators, he had relationships with people like [former Democratic Speaker] Tip O’Neill,” said a senior aide to a veteran Republican senator. “Look, I know we are nasty. But all jugular, all the time, doesn’t work either. A president needs to be a human being also.” Still, history weighs heavily on Obama’s team. They remember the shellacking he took after failing to back up his big deals with big marketing campaigns. They hope to make up for lost opportunities during the stimulus and health reform debates when they largely ceded the messaging stage to Republicans and the tea party, which staged a small-government counter-revolt in 2010 based on a portrait of Obama as reckless, big-spending liberal. Read more: http://www.politico....l#ixzz2JU4AAmQS Edited January 30, 2013 by Magox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted January 30, 2013 Share Posted January 30, 2013 Gay marriage should be looked at in the same light as interracial marriage once. States outlawed it for many years until the federal government stepped in and ruled it unconstitutional to ban it. As was pointed out earlier in the thread, marriage applies directly to federal taxation which gives the federal government a say in this matter. Just legalize it and move on. So, Obama can dictate to the states how they treat gay marriage? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted January 30, 2013 Share Posted January 30, 2013 I would say let's just leave the gay marriage fight between the churches and the government. It's a losing argument and a reason why R's aren't able to attract young voters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted January 30, 2013 Share Posted January 30, 2013 I would say let's just leave the gay marriage fight between the churches and the government. It's a losing argument and a reason why R's aren't able to attract young voters. One of the differences with Obama's "plan" and the one the Senate has come up with is allowing any gay or lesbian foreign partner to automatically gain citizenship. This is in effect usurping states rights by legitimatizing gay marriage across the country. I'm not arguing for or against gay marriage. I'm sticking up for states rights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted January 30, 2013 Author Share Posted January 30, 2013 One of the differences with Obama's "plan" and the one the Senate has come up with is allowing any gay or lesbian foreign partner to automatically gain citizenship. This is in effect usurping states rights by legitimatizing gay marriage across the country. I'm not arguing for or against gay marriage. I'm sticking up for states rights. States don't address citizenship ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted January 30, 2013 Share Posted January 30, 2013 States don't address citizenship ... Thats not what he said. To no one's surprise. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted January 30, 2013 Author Share Posted January 30, 2013 not too many people are all that worried about a few homophobic states...marriage/relationships factor into federal policy...blah blah blah.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted January 30, 2013 Share Posted January 30, 2013 SOB, I suggest you change your name to SOS. When will this crusade to make the federal government the end all end? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts