Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 14 of 14

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

  1. #11
    TimBinh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    Mexifornia
    Posts
    413
    This will go down in flames. Another part of the Constitution says only Congress can pass immigration laws. The states cannot. This would be an immigration accord, especially since these "migrants" would have children who right now are automatically granted US citizenship. That means it is immigration.

  2. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    1,021
    Senator Cornyn has turned out to be a sheep in wolves clothing. He was adamant that the otm's be deported since it was a pass to ms-13 gang members, bla, bla, bla. Well that was all posturing. He just stated today that his vote for the fence was symbolic. He said the fence will probably not be built and shouldn't be. He said a virtual fence would be just as good and would not inhibit trade. He is as bad as Kay Bailey Hutchison in my book. WHAT A JERK!!!! Virtual fence is another open borders buzz word that means more of the same.

  3. #13
    Senior Member Judy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    55,883
    I've been on to Cornyn for awhile. I didn't think we could trust him.

    A Nation Without Borders Is Not A Nation - Ronald Reagan
    Save America, Deport Congress! - Judy

    Support our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty by joining our E-mail Alerts at https://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  4. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,663
    Quote Originally Posted by Judy
    I've been on to Cornyn for awhile. I didn't think we could trust him.

    Yeah, I ripped him pretty good on the immigration issue in a letter earlier this year, and he sent me a personal response (very unusual) in which he claimed that I was attributing to him pro-illegal stances that he did not hold. He asked me to reserve judgment until he fully formulated and released his policy on the issue. The problem was that the policy statement he eventually released was so vague as to defy characterization. Let's just say that, judging by his votes, I have come around to the conclusion that my letter was fair and accurate. It's s a moot point for the moment given that he is not up for re-election for another couple of years.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •