“I rather imagine he was following a biblical injunction.”
Thats what BLU said that got me to mention it to begin with. While I believe in god, I am not a church going person and I don’t believe that “biblical” is a good justification for allowing anyone in the world who can make it here to come. There were a lot of real catastrophes that were biblical. As a matter of fact, if you read the bible, there are all sorts of stories about the laws of unintended consequences where good faith is concerned.

Just so we’re clear, I have nothing against the catholic church, I think they have done a lot of great things. I do have a lot of justified anger against some of the people who have soiled it’s name through their own personal behaviour or use it to justify their own ends.

I doubt the LA cardinal ( not Law) was motivated by money. Remember, your camp insists the immigrants are all poor, uneducated and in need of services. I rather imagine he was following a biblical injunction.

Finally, it needs to be said that if the GOP survives, and it will, we can thank GWB for not alienating the legal Hispanic population. That is part of the big picture.

By Lloyd Billingsley
June 21, 2007

The 12 million or more who entered the United States illegally, and would gain United States citizenship under the current immigration proposal, Senate Bill 1348, will qualify for race preferences and privileges for which the majority of Americans are not eligible. This is not fair.

That is the view of Ward Connerly of the Sacramento-based American Civil Rights Institute, a veteran of battles against racial preferences in California, Washington and Michigan, and who believes that “race and ethnic preferences ought to be wrong under any circumstances.” The current immigration measure, Connerly believes, would constitute a massive endowment of such preferences.

“This is huge,” Connerly told Frontpage. “All this talk of going to the back of the line is B.S.. They would go to the front of the line. The minute they are Americans, they move in front of white males and in some cases white women.” Legalized Hispanic immigrants, Connerly says, would also gain privileges over immigrants from nations such as Russia because they would be part of an officially sanctioned “underrepresented minority.”

“We have to somehow make the American public aware of this. We are, right now, the Paul Revere on this. There is a problem here.”

The problem, according to Connerly, lies in “the nexus between illegal immigration and preferences.” That issue had not been part of the immigration debate until last Friday, when Connerly published an open letter in the Washington Times, signed by various individuals, some of whom disagree with him on immigration policy per se. Signatories include Grover Norquist, Linda Chavez, and civil-rights advocate Joe Hicks.

“This is one of those things that people have not thought through.” Connerly said. “A group that has never had the historic discrimination of blacks would be given the status of an underrepresented minority in this country.” …

Just another of the many unheralded benefits of the amnesty bill.

If true, then why would these people come forward?? Why wouldn’t they just stay in the “shadows”?

What if a wanna be terrorist, who hasn’t committed his act of terror yet, wanted a nice pretty federal ID. He has a real dilemma then. Should he use his real name or a fake name? Decisions. Decisions.

I admit I have a problem with leading people to what I consider to be the obvious conclusion and then not “saying” it. My problem is that I consider it to be so obvious, I don’t see the point in saying it.

The article I cited represents 9 million FELONIES!

Will those names be in your precious IAFIS database????????

And yes, Cheung did fall through the cracks.

“I see the deniers still looking for perfection (and probably the tooth fairy). IAFIS is massive and is the largest criminal ID system in the world. It will find a criminal record. But no one can find a criminal without a record.

One last reminder: “Innocent Until Proven Guilty”. Remember our cultural foundations. Only the Europeans assume guilty until proven innocent.”

SSA is not the FBI and a Social Security Card does not invoke a backround check. I know it is tough for you, but try and stay on the subject.

For the rest, IAFIS has been expanded. I will point you here for some information on the current state of the art. It ain\’t GIGO.

Not my fault you developed GIGO. Unless you worked IAFIS you have nothing to say except since nothing is foolproof we should do nothing.

It is always the last desperate bastion of the hypochondriacs. It won’t work on a small fraction so forget the 99% it does work on.

Like I said, you and your ilk have shutdown the neurons on this subject. The backgroubnd checks can be processed as promised. We keep reminding you there is no tooth fairy and no perfection and you keep wishing it were so.

I don’t have time to read all the comments and do not have to. Some people are sooooo predictable.

But thank you for hanging in there. And sooner or later the people doing the bitching over there on the hard right are either going to have to come up with something better or they are going to start looking even more ridiculous than they already do..

Nonstop bitching is not a solution folks.

You forgot one TINY little caveat. If they were CAUGHT committing any half way serious crime…..AND that still doesn’t address the problem of clearing foreingers through their home countries. You are so hell bent on being for this legislation because the catholic church is in desperate need of millions of new parisheners, and we all know why, that you would make a deal with the devil himself to make it happen, which is exactly what you are doing.

http://www.fbi.gov/hq/cjisd/faqs.html

How long does it take to get a background check once the FBI receives the request? ”

Good greif this is completly different. THe do this in 24 hours they are not going to be mailing stuff to the FBI. They will almost immediate access. If you know someone at your local Police station go down there and see how quick its done

I’m not saying to let up on the facts. Hammer away!! I know I intend to keep it up. Just don’t expect any results with the proponents who argue here on AJ’s blog. They couldn’t care less about facts. The most we can do is influence a casual reader. ”

Good Grief Apache you think alot of yourself. If someone doesnt agree with you it s because they are not interested in facts? I find in the real world people can come to different conclusions based on t he same facts and influenced by various other personal experinces, education all of which the facts are filtered through