Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 3/20/2002 4:44:00 AM EDT
Isn't this another sign of the end of times? I find myself agreeing with Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV), that the present time is not the proper time for considering amnesty for approx. 600,000 illegal aliens! [size=4]Byrd to delay Senate vote[/size=4] By Stephen Dinan THE WASHINGTON TIMES Sen. Robert C. Byrd, West Virginia Democrat, yesterday said he will delay passage of border-security legislation because it now contains a provision of amnesty for hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants. "It is lunacy — sheer lunacy — that the president would request, and the House would pass, such an amnesty at this time. That point seems obvious to the American people, if not to the administration," Mr. Byrd said on the Senate floor. His objections could delay consideration of the legislation for some time, since the Senate's calendar is full and the bill's best chance would have been to move through the chamber by unanimous consent — something a lone senator can stop. President Bush had sought the amnesty provision as part of his outreach to Hispanics and had urged the House to pass it before his meeting this week with Mexican President Vicente Fox. The House last week approved the amnesty 275-137 — a single vote more than the two-thirds required by the procedural rules under which the bill was considered. Amnesty would allow those in the United States illegally to remain here while their paperwork for residency is processed, rather than return home and have to restart the process. Backers defended the measure as a pro-family policy. House Majority Leader Dick Armey, Texas Republican, said it meant spouses and parents applying for residency wouldn't have to go back home and be separated from their families while waiting for the Immigration and Naturalization Service to process their applications. Mr. Byrd held up action in December on the legislation to increase border security, a measure taken in response to the September 11 attacks. The administration and House leaders had hoped attaching the amnesty provision would push the Democrat-controlled Senate to act, but instead it just fed Mr. Byrd's demand for a full debate on the bill. The border-security provisions would reduce the number of visas issued to visitors from countries that sponsor terrorism, tighten the requirements on those entering on student visas and require federal agencies to share information through a common computer system so they can better track immigrants' movements. Three of the 19 air pirates in the attacks had overstayed their visas. House members have voted twice to pass the border-security provisions, and Greg Crist, a spokesman for Mr. Armey, said it is time for the Senate to act. "We're not sure why the senator would oppose something that builds on the existing network of security since [September 11]," Mr. Crist said. "It boggles our minds in the House, and we'll keep trying." The bill provides a temporary extension to a program — known as Section 245(i) — that allows some illegal aliens to stay in the United States while their residency applications are processed. The program, requiring each foreigner to pay a $1,000 penalty to remain in the country, expired in April. - continued -
Link Posted: 3/20/2002 4:45:17 AM EDT
The House approved an extension in May by a vote of 336-43. The Senate approved its own version on Sept. 6 and sent it back to the House. The House vote was closer this time around because of a strong effort from immigration reform groups who said amnesty would reward lawbreakers and encourage more illegal immigration by holding out the promise of future amnesties. Mr. Byrd said last week's revelation that student visas were approved and sent to two of the suspected September 11 terrorist hijackers showed how poorly equipped the INS was to handle its current caseload, much less new cases under the amnesty provision. "If the American people went to bed last Tuesday night in dismay over this latest INS debacle, they must have been absolutely dumbfounded when they awoke Wednesday morning to learn that the House of Representatives had passed, at the request of the president, what amounts to an amnesty for hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens, [u]many of whom have not undergone any background or security check[/u]," he said. "This senator from West Virginia will not be pressured into passing legislation," he said. "Senators have a responsibility to consider and to thoroughly debate legislation that comes before it, especially legislation that raises as many concerns as Section 245(i). And I intend to raise those concerns that the administration chose not to address last week when the House acted on the 245(i) provision." See article at:[url]http://www.washtimes.com/national/20020319-300183.htm[/url] Well shave my head and dress me in sackcloth and ashes! Eric The(Jeremiah'ed)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 3/20/2002 6:47:43 AM EDT
I'm with the Hun on this one. If someone can explain to me why G. W. Bush and Ron Paul supported this disgrace, I'd appreciate it.
Link Posted: 3/20/2002 6:59:21 AM EDT
Here's an editorial from last year about a month before the WTC attack, that explains [u]why[/u] it's a stupid move: [size=4]No: Clearing lawbreakers only attracts more illegal aliens into America[/size=4] By Georgie Anne Geyer / Special to The Detroit News There is one philosophical and practical snare in this like pairing of President Bush and Mexico President Vicente Fox. That snare is the Mexican administration's persistent pushing of another amnesty program for the 4 million to 7 million Mexicans living illegally in the United States. Haven't we, first of all, heard the word "amnesty" somewhere before? As a matter of fact, the United States extended a first amnesty 15 years ago. About 2.7 million people, the largest percentage coming from Mexico, received lawful permanent residence, or automatic and magical, "green cards" in the late 1980s and early '90s, as a result of the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) of 1986. But that action was to be a singular one. It was meant not to ameliorate, but to solve, the entire problem. All it really did was provide for the world an illustration of how willingly America rewards this type of law-breaking. Only last October, a comprehensive report by the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) came to a gloomy conclusion that highlighted the profound and unintended consequences of illegal alien amnesties: By 1997, those amnestied illegal aliens of 11 years earlier had been replaced by new ones -- from 5 million illegals in 1986 to 5 million 15 years later. The increase after the amnesty was the direct result of relatives coming illegally to join their amnestied family members. In short, the 1986 amnesty turned out, by the INS' own findings, to have been simply a giveaway of American legitimacy. Meanwhile, the message clearly went out across the world, but particularly to the close-knit communities of Mexico: All you need to do is to get to America, stay there long enough, and another amnesty will come along and reward you. Today, the hopes of some of the more extreme members of the Fox team, in particular Foreign Minister Jorge Castaneda, reach far beyond simple amnesty. In his notable 1995 book, The Mexican Shock: Its Meaning for the U.S., the leftish political scientist called on the United States to give illegals the right to vote in California elections. California, he argued, was going through a process of "de-democratization" because such a large proportion of California's Mexican residents, not being citizens, could not vote. This was not only "de-democratizing"; it was "electoral apartheid." In the end, the "logic" is: Impose yourself illegally upon another country, demoralize and even destroy parts of that society, and finally demand more privileges in order to remedy the problems that you yourself have caused. - continued -
Link Posted: 3/20/2002 6:59:55 AM EDT
The linguistic roots for the word "amnesty" (literally the overlooking of an offense) have to do with "amnesia" -- and thus with forgetting and forgiving. Before the 1986 amnesty for illegal aliens, the United States had had only three official amnesties: in 1865 and 1868 after the Civil War for supporters of the Confederacy, and in 1977 for draft resistors who had gone abroad. The 1986 measure, on the other hand, was the first wholly politicized amnesty, which was intended not to heal internal conflicts, but essentially to excuse American officials who for years had neglected their duty to protect our borders and citizenship. (The philosophical and theological aspect of how you can "forgive" someone you don't even know never seems to be a factor.) On the other side of the coin, President Bush has been inspiring in his words on citizenship. In his inauguration address, he said eloquently that we must be "citizens, not spectators; citizens, not subjects." These political amnesties run contrary to everything that George W. Bush says he believes in: personal responsibility, ethical behavior, and honorable and earned citizenship. Let's hope he will realize this. See article at:[url]http://detnews.com/2001/editorial/0108/07/a13-261418.htm[/url] Hun to Geyer: Bush will [u]not[/u] realize this! Eric The(GodBlessSenByrd,Yuck!)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 3/20/2002 7:10:33 AM EDT
Definite sign of the pending Apocalypse - me agreeing with ETH AND Robert Byrd [b]at the same time.[/b] [;D] [}:D] And I'll second Jarhead's notion - what can Dubya AND Ron Paul possibly be thinking?? There MUST be more going on that what we being told. I'm for putting a provision in the law PROSECUTING illegal aliens, NOT granting them amnesty.
Link Posted: 3/20/2002 8:06:56 AM EDT
Originally Posted By garandman: ...what can Dubya AND Ron Paul possibly be thinking?? There MUST be more going on that what we being told.
View Quote
I have to agree... tinfoil hat or not. "SOMETHING" is going on with this bill. I don't think it's just pandering to the fastest -growing swing vote in the nation. It's certainly that, but it's got to be more. [b]Do the Republicans really think they can reclaim California's 54 Electoral votes by this absurd surrender of our national sovereignty and culture to the "Hispanic Vote"?[/b]
Link Posted: 3/20/2002 8:07:21 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/20/2002 8:10:16 AM EDT by shooter69]
You have to understand that in the United States the tail wags the dog. Some people's prospective votes have more influence than others. Majority will on such issues has been thwarted for decades now. Of course there are no security provisions in the bill... because you see 9-11 never really happened. It's back to business as usual. (If there were any accountability in this country half the INS and CIA/FBI would have been fired, starting with George "The Oblivious" Tenet... but as ETH pointed out in another post we live in a different era now... where nobody is ever at fault.)
Link Posted: 3/20/2002 8:12:25 AM EDT
The Wall Street Journal had a rather different take on it on Monday. http://[url]http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=105001782[/url] [b]Immigrants and Terrorists[/b] [i]So Atta got his visa. That's no reason to kick out Mexican workers. Monday, March 18, 2002 12:01 a.m.[/i] The delayed mailings of visa approvals for two September 11 terrorists has the Immigration and Naturalization Service in dutch with everyone from President Bush on down. We won't waste your time piling on. The need for serious reform at the INS is obvious, but so is the need for lawmakers to distinguish between immigrants who bus tables and those who hijack airplanes. Last week the House debated a sensible bill on immigrant residency that recognizes such a distinction. The measure ultimately passed in a 275 to 137 vote, despite strong objections from some in the GOP. It would allow mostly Mexican aliens who have entered the U.S. legally to remain here while they seek residency. An earlier version easily passed the House in a preliminary 336-43 vote last May. Last week's debate and lower margin are signs that a large clutch of Republicans are now bent on exploiting the terror attacks to advance their anti-immigrant agenda. Leading this brigade is Colorado's Tom Tancredo, who warned his colleagues that "people will be given amnesty under this plan who may in fact even be terrorists." Congressman Dana Rohrabacher of California agrees. Last week he told House Members that to "extend amnesty to these illegal aliens is unworthy of this body." To stop the next Mohammed Atta, this thinking goes, it is necessary to upend the lives of Mexican nannies in San Diego. Never mind that Atta and the other hijackers had all entered the U.S. legally. The House bill, which Mr. Bush backs, would temporarily reauthorize a program that drew some 400,000 applicants before it expired on April 30. The program targets noncitizens who entered the U.S. on a valid visa that has now expired or is about to. These individuals are eligible for a permanent resident visa, but under existing law they must return to their country of origin to reapply, a process that could keep them out of the U.S. for up to 10 years. Extending the program allows these immigrants to remain in the U.S. while they reapply. It's the humane course to take. Seventy percent of those eligible are children or spouses of American citizens or permanent residents. It also makes economic sense. Many of these workers are now settled in companies and communities where they make a large contribution. There's always a chance that terrorist cells lie dormant among these folks, but it's hardly likely. There's also a chance that every person who enters the U.S. legally is a security risk, which is why the better way to enhance border security is to improve intelligence and information sharing among the INS, CIA and FBI. Republican immigration opponents surely know this, but scapegoating our hard-working neighbors to the south seems to matter most to them. This is politically short-sighted, considering large immigrant voting populations. But it's also not likely to help the war effort. Sending Mexicans away now with the intention of readmitting them later needlessly burdens already overworked U.S. consular officials whose time would be better spent tracking down more legitimate threats.
Link Posted: 3/20/2002 8:13:00 AM EDT
The Senate will now consider the President's residency proposals, and Republicans must decide whether Mr. Bush or Mr. Tancredo is the voice of the party on immigration. The realities of migration in a global economy should make the choice obvious. Until Mexican wages reach a point where people don't see more opportunity here, nothing short of a Berlin Wall along the Rio Grande will break the human tide. For now, Mexico's loss is our gain.
Link Posted: 3/20/2002 8:21:07 AM EDT
I only have two major disagreements that with the Libertarians, and the main one is their unbelievable support of 'unrestricted immigration.' If you dare mention your opposition to such an absurd idea, the answer you'll most likely get back is: 'Are you simply afraid that someone more able will take your job from you?' Well, they [u]should[/u] be concerned that native Americans might well lose out to foreigners that will come and work for considerably less wages. They've been rather quite since Sept 11, since many of the terrorists that participated in that evil deed were in fact working as jobs here in the US! What's the matter with you guys, are you simply afraid that someone more able than you will take your job as a security guard at some American airport? Maybe with a little flight instruction, might take your job as an airline pilot? Yes, we are. Eric The(Mystified)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 3/20/2002 8:26:43 AM EDT
I'm with you fellas, no amnesty. This is pure 'get re-elected' politics by Bush.
Link Posted: 3/20/2002 8:42:50 AM EDT
How about this for a novel solution. Take every illegal in the country and send them to California then give California back to Mexico. That way we could get rid of Feinstein and Boxer at the same time. I wonder if we could interest Holland in taking back New York so we could rid ourselves of Schumer and Clinton too?
Link Posted: 3/20/2002 8:52:58 AM EDT
Link Posted: 3/20/2002 9:01:56 AM EDT
This bill is not a general amnesty for illegal aliens. It does not apply to people who entered the country illegally. It applies to people who took the trouble to get a visa and enter legally, the sort of immigrants most of you usually say you welcome--the hard-working, law-abiding kind. Why do you suddenly have something against this kind of immigrant?
Link Posted: 3/20/2002 9:16:30 AM EDT
The only longshot benefit of doing this that I could see would be to get a better swing in the CA electoral next time around for Bush.
Link Posted: 3/20/2002 9:21:49 AM EDT
Originally Posted By ECS: I'm with you fellas, no amnesty. This is pure 'get re-elected' politics by Bush.
View Quote
Yup. Vote bribing. This is as bad as the Emilio Gonzales fiasco. That little kid's dad was back in Cuba (like it or not), and most conservatives argued that he should be kept from him simply because it. Castro/Cuba/communism was not the [u]real[/u] issue, but they tried to spin it. BS. This sends the absolute wrong message: persist in flirting immigration laws long enough, in significant enough #'s, & the rules will be bent to grant amnesty and accomodate your violation. So, let me clarify this logic. If a mob tries to have at my home, I'm supposed to roll over and let them have their way??? Q: What happens when you leave it up to the gov't??? A: It gets dropped. If I were a Border Patrol agent who'd been busting my butt out on the line for so many days &/or nights, I'd be pretty pissed right about now. And what about engaging the military along the Southern border? Where's my defense from "...all enemies, foreign & domestic"? Oh, that's right - I forgot: Can't police the world. Certainly not your own portion of it. A significant military force could shut down this border problem in about a month, if not sooner. Too bad the chief is out pissing on the "lawn" they are supposed to protect from "trampling" or other forms of violation. I think you get the point.
Link Posted: 3/20/2002 10:51:03 AM EDT
Originally Posted By BostonTeaParty: This bill is not a general amnesty for illegal aliens. It does not apply to people who entered the country illegally. It applies to people who took the trouble to get a visa and enter legally, the sort of immigrants most of you usually say you welcome--the hard-working, law-abiding kind. Why do you suddenly have something against this kind of immigrant?
View Quote
BTP: This "amnesty" applies to those who are in this country illegally, whether they entered legally or not. They overstayed their tourist, student or work visas, and should be sent back to their home countries to sort it all out, just like they'd do to an American in their home countries, in the best of all possible outcomes. Why reward them for breaking American law by allowing them to pay a $1000 bribe and "clear up their paperwork?" Do you know what the Mexican authorities do to Hondurans and Guatemalans they find in their country with no/improper/expired paperwork? They steal everything they have of value, kick the crap out of them and dump them south of the border with clear instructions on the consequences should they return. Why should the Mexicans then hold the US to a higher standard? It's hypocrisy, as is your implication that we somehow owe them some kind of break.
Link Posted: 3/20/2002 10:52:54 AM EDT
Originally Posted By 71-Hour_Achmed: The Senate will now consider the President's residency proposals, and Republicans must decide whether Mr. Bush or Mr. Tancredo is the voice of the party on immigration. The realities of migration in a global economy should make the choice obvious.
View Quote
You know, it has been proven that immigration is not necessary for economic growth to occur. This entire "realities of migration in a global economy" spiel has been used ad nauseam whenever objections come up and politicans with popular support (yes, even in liberal, multiculti, socialist la-la land: Europe) raise roadblocks to the neverending stream of migrants. It usually wins out too, because money talks and people walk. These proponents use such rhetoric to play developed countries off against each other, using phony scare tactics about competitiveness, etc. "The Americans are taking in X immigrants, Germany will be left behind." "The Germans are raising the number of visas for computer programmers, and unless the U.S. replies in kind we will be at a competitive disadvantage." What a racket! BTW - Did the WSJ editorial surprise you or something? Of course they are advocates of illegal aliens. They keep wages low.
Link Posted: 3/20/2002 11:04:40 AM EDT
Originally Posted By ilikelegs: I do not want them here. I do not want them with ham. I do not want them with green eggs and ham. I do not want them, I will not take them. I do not want them in my 7-11's. I do not want them cleanning my house. I do not want them programming my computers, I do not want them driving my Taxis.
View Quote
[NI]
Originally Posted By Master_Blaster: If I were a Border Patrol agent who'd been busting my butt out on the line for so many days &/or nights, I'd be pretty pissed right about now.
View Quote
That's why they have so much turnover. Would you want to do such a thankless job with little in the way of real results?
Link Posted: 3/20/2002 11:13:55 AM EDT
As a libertarian, I have been struggling with the immigration issue. I want to accept outsiders and believe in open borders, but the number of illegals in my town has gone beyond ridiculous. You can have open borders and not have people totally abusing the system. I see groups of Mexicans in the grocery store that have to be right over the border like yesterday and they've already moved in to North Carolina and gotten construction jobs. I think Bush is a globalist and there is an agenda that these people have for America. They want to bring this country into the fold of world socialism and the only way to do it is to create "diversity" in the population that minimizes the majority and undermines our system of government (as if it hasn't been undermined enough of late). I no longer buy Bush's folksy act, I think he's faking us out. Bush is talking out of both sides of his mouth--fighting the war on terror yet undermining the country in a subtle, insidious and determined fashion. The only way to reconcile the two goals is to look at what quasi-fascist corporatists want--social control, cheap labor, and cheap oil. Aha! Now the two seeming incongruities make sense. I'm glad someone in Congress stands opposed to the bill, but I doubt that it will have much effect either way. The fix is in as far as immigration is concerned.
Link Posted: 3/20/2002 11:27:10 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/20/2002 11:31:22 AM EDT by hound]
Eric Hunny.....please don't let your disagreement with the Lib's pull you off track here. Shrub etc are just showing you how they feel about your votes in the last election. They would rather have more mexican's voting for them.....and you still think that there is a shred of difference between rep and dem? As for the "unrestricted immigration" I answered that one days ago....no handouts and punishment for crimes not coddling....
Link Posted: 3/20/2002 11:52:14 AM EDT
Originally Posted By hound: As for the "unrestricted immigration" I answered that one days ago....no handouts and punishment for crimes not coddling....
View Quote
Answered, but not solved. Lets have an end to handouts and real punishment [b]before[/b] we open the floodgates.
Link Posted: 3/20/2002 11:54:08 AM EDT
yep but it is a pipe dream....shrub just wants more voters....and he will whore to get them..
Link Posted: 3/20/2002 12:19:00 PM EDT
Originally Posted By hound: yep but it is a pipe dream....shrub just wants more voters....and he will whore to get them..
View Quote
All politicians = Vote whores Well, tell me something I don't know.
Link Posted: 3/20/2002 12:20:03 PM EDT
Post from hound -
yep but it is a pipe dream....shrub just wants more voters....and he will whore to get them..
View Quote
So tell me how many percentage points Bush won by in California? Wait, he didn't win California in 2000? Why? He's been 'whoring' for votes with the Hispanic community for years! So when's he gonna learn? Or maybe it's just cause he thinks it's the right thing to do? Eric The(WhoKnows?)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 3/20/2002 12:34:58 PM EDT
Jarhead, ETH and hound - Your discussion highlights a related issue. [b]Politics will ALWAYS be about compromise, and getting re-elected.[/b] And unless you have a commanding majority, there will NEVER be such a thing as a pure idealist that can survive in Washington. Bush's compromises and "vote whoring" are the reality of politics. I don't like it, and never will. I'm not even really looking to make excuses for Bush. He's a big boy, and had BETTER take into account that my vote is NOT guaranteed to him. The greater point here is that I just have to chuckle when I hear these Libertarians claim "If we were in power, things would be different." Yeah, right. Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. The ONLY reason Libertarians aren't as dirty as ALL the rest of Washington is that they haven't been provided sufficient opportunity to become so. Anyone for a "Washington Tea Party?"
Link Posted: 3/20/2002 12:36:16 PM EDT
There is one thing about the immigration issue you can count on in America - public sentiment goes in cycles , alternating between pro and con. I think we are in or are entering a era where most are opposed to immigration. Another such time period was the 1920s. That’s when my illegal immigrant grandfather came to America. He left England in his late teens for Canada because America would not let him in. He served in the Canadian army as a battlefield medic, on the front lines, in WW1. After the war he became a physician, and taught medical students at McDill Univ. Canada didn’t suit him, he wanted to be an American, but he still could not get a visa. He came anyway in the early ‘20's. Without a green card he could not work as a MD. He was able, with the help of a sympathetic citizen, to work as a research assistant at the Univ.of Penn. medical college. He had a son born in America. My father was a Marine. He served as a NCO during Korea. After the war he went to collage and received a BS. He re-entered the Marines under no obligation to do so, attended OCS, and was commissioned in the USMCR. He retired as a Major. He also had a successful career in business. Was America hurt by that? You decide. Do I sometimes think poorly of immigrants? Yep, but then I thank God for my grandfather and what he did. Mike
Link Posted: 3/20/2002 1:56:06 PM EDT
Originally Posted By flashman: Was America hurt by that? You decide.
View Quote
By 1960 JFK said that we didn't need immigration anymore as there were no more frontiers to settle - but the rules of the game are different from even then and when your grandfather came in the 20s. People paid their own way then and the country was less populated as a whole. The cost of the social programs of the 60s and 70s have as clinton said, "exploded the deficit" in the budgets of high immigration states (and federal government), which is a major factor in why state sales taxes have risen so much over the past couple decades. More people also means a higher trade deficit (considering that most everything is now made in China...), increased dependence on foreign energy imports and straining the power grid (we may see blackouts become more common like in Brazil), over burdoned schools with larger class sizes, more crime and prisons, more pollution and poorer water quality, competition for jobs (in the remaining high tech industries we are still competitive in), cars on the road, urban and suburban sprawl in general (which also affects quality of life and reduces farmland every year harming our trade deficit). Could go on and on. In the end it will lead to higher property prices, inflation and interest rates, with attendent malaise and social strife. More calls for "living wages" and rent controlled apartments (not to mention affirmative action). Should foreigners stop buying our securities then the outflows of capital to support our trade deficit will finally catch up to the value of the dollar on the foreign exchange markets, making the above scenario worse. (Another concern is that the gun control laws may start to spread from the coasts, and we'll all end up like New York and Californistan.)
Link Posted: 3/20/2002 2:37:11 PM EDT
Originally Posted By flashman: That’s when my illegal immigrant grandfather came to America. He left England in his late teens for Canada because America would not let him in. He served in the Canadian army as a battlefield medic, on the front lines, in WW1. After the war he became a physician, and taught medical students at McDill Univ. Canada didn’t suit him, he wanted to be an American, but he still could not get a visa. He came anyway in the early ‘20's. Without a green card he could not work as a MD. He was able, with the help of a sympathetic citizen, to work as a research assistant at the Univ.of Penn. medical college. He had a son born in America. My father was a Marine. He served as a NCO during Korea. After the war he went to collage and received a BS. He re-entered the Marines under no obligation to do so, attended OCS, and was commissioned in the USMCR. He retired as a Major. He also had a successful career in business. Was America hurt by that? You decide. Do I sometimes think poorly of immigrants? Yep, but then I thank God for my grandfather and what he did.Mike
View Quote
Did your grandfather arrive here illegally from England and start demanding we change the laws to accomodate him? Did he illegally cast votes in our elections? Did he demand that we all start driving in the left side of the road because that's how he learned to drive in England? Did he insist that Banks and Gov't offices change their signs from "Line Forms Here" to "Que Forms Here"? Did he make a beeline for the Gov't assistance offices for foodstamps, subsidized housing, free utilities, free daycare and free schooling? I'll bet not. Your grandfather sounds like a man of honor - something that's alien to most of the lazy, uneducable, parasitic barbarians invading our country from the south.
Top Top