Jun 26 2007

House GOP: We Don’t Know What It Is, But We Oppose It

Published by at 11:55 am under All General Discussions,Illegal Immigration

Let’s not assume sanity will reign over the GOP anytime soon when it comes to immigration. The amnesty hypochondriac wing of the GOP is still pumped up on panic, as we can tell from this telling House GOP statement:

House Republicans disapprove of the Senate immigration bill that is expected to go back to the floor for debate Tuesday afternoon, according to a resolution that was floated during a House GOP meeting Tuesday morning.

The one-line resolution, which simply reads, “resolved the House GOP Conference disapproves of the Senate immigration bill,” was offered by Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-Mich.). It is expected to pass the House Republican Conference by a large margin when the body meets again Tuesday evening at 5:30 p.m., despite the fact the Senate bill’s language has yet to be finalized.

They don’t know what is in the bill, since the bill faces votes on 24 amendments, but in classic knee-jerk action they disapprove of it. The GOP will have so little credibility left after this battle it won’t be funny.

34 responses so far

34 Responses to “House GOP: We Don’t Know What It Is, But We Oppose It”

  1. conservativered says:

    Up to 3/4 Marriages in Parts of Britain Revealed as ‘Sham’

    From the London Daily Mail:

    Three in every four register office weddings taking place in some parts of Britain may have been a “sham” to allow immigrants to live in the country, it has emerged

    The scale of the scandal, which Labour ignored for many years, has been revealed for the first time by a huge reduction in the number of ceremonies taking place…

    Gangs charge up to £10,000 to arrange sham weddings on behalf of migrants desperate to live here.

    You mean to tell me lots of immigrants lie to and deceive their host country?! I don’t believe it!

    Everyone knows the vast majority of them are “refugees” seeking “asylum” from “political persecution”.

  2. AJStrata says:

    FE,

    I know what is in the bill. I just did not piss my pants over it!

  3. biglsusportsfan says:

    I see on the net that the supoposed “base” is in a crying jag. They are pledging all out war against those conservatives and Republicans that vote for this bill. Wow that worked out great last time. Most of my emails and what I was seeing one the net were attacks on all the RINOS. They didnt realize that the Democrats actuyally were planning on running races till Spetemember. Oh well.

    If the bill passess some people should wonder if the should be laying the groundworks to go after these future citizens when they can vote in 12 to 15 years. Somehow attacking those that “let all those bad people stay” seems rather self defeating. I can see it now in 12 years. Please vote for me Jorge even thought 12 years ago I won a election on the basis that you were not worthy. YEp that is going to sell.

  4. For Enforcement says:

    Dale, yes I was going to say that, but forgot, thanks for pointing that out.

    LE: it also CONFIRMS that “THECENTERISABUNGHOLE”, is in fact, “KEN”.

  5. For Enforcement says:

    I know what is in the bill. I just did not piss my pants over it!

    Not one time in all of these posts on the immigration bill have you said you have read it.   Had you, knowing what is really in it, you might well have pissed in your pants over it. 

  6. MerlinOS2 says:

    Dale
    Per Thomas, just checked that bill number is titled as follows:
    Unaccompanied Alien Child Protection Act of 2007 (Placed on Calendar in Senate)

  7. For Enforcement says:

    BigSportsNut

    I see on the net that the supoposed “base” is in a crying jag.

     

    What a generalization,   name names.  who is in a crying jag?   You’re fulla schitt. 

  8. AJStrata says:

    No FE, I am not going to piss my pants over this bill. It is imperfect and has some holes, but overall it is a huge net gain in progress.

    I posted once already where my calculations and priorities are and it was national security (not hispanic votes). You folks keep ignoring all my posts on why I support the bill – apparently so you can make up stuff about me which is not true.

    Oh well, just more hits on your credibility – not mine.

  9. For Enforcement says:

    “I support the bill – apparently so you can make up stuff about me which is not true.”

    Just one example of ‘something made up about you that is not true’ would be?

    Or is that made up?

  10. For Enforcement says:

    By the way

    I posted once already where my calculations and priorities are and it was national security

    If your interest is national security, then there is no way in hell you would support this illegal alien bill,  anything involving National security in this bill is anti-national security.    

  11. Terrye says:

    The Heritage Foundation? I agree with Dafydd over at Big Lizards , the Heritage Foundation is so biased on the subject that their arguments are suspect.

    As for secrecy, please, we have been talking about this forever, there is nothing secret about it. Believe it or not there is nothing in our constitution that says pundits and radio talk show hosts have to be involved in the process before it is legal.

    And if it actually passes and we do not turn into Mexico, some people out there are going to look really stupid.

  12. AJStrata says:

    FE,

    The fact is if you are willing to tank this bill and keep the status quo for 2-10 more years you cannot serioulsy be for national security!

    But hey, as I said I posted my reasons and they are sound and pro-American. They hypochondriacs are the ones having troubles dealing with differences of opinion. They are screaming mad right now.

    Just as I predicted they would be. And they are showing a lot of people why they may not be the path to follow for serious, stable solutions.

  13. For Enforcement says:

    I guess that’s the Virgina two step, dance around the issue.

    What did you say was ‘made up’ about you?

  14. For Enforcement says:

    Terrye:

    the Heritage Foundation is so biased on the subject that their arguments are suspect.

    But you’re not?  what is your evidence of bias on the part of Heritage Foundation? 

    And if it actually passes and we do not turn into Mexico, some people out there are going to look really stupid.

    And you’re willing for us to turn into Mexico to prove a point?