Thread: Grassley: No amnesty for illegal aliens

Grassley: No amnesty for illegal aliens

http://www.globegazette.com/articles/20 ... 799278.txt

By JOHN SKIPPER, Of The Globe Gazette
May 16, 2007

MASON CITY — U.S. Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Ia., said today he’s against unrestricted amnesty for illegal aliens and will vote against any immigration bill that includes it.

“I voted for amnesty 20 years ago and I won’t do it again,â€

"That plan would have immigration "triggers" including requiring certain border security and work-site enforcement measures."

It's STILL amnesty. The problem with "triggers" such as border security is that they can be relaxed once the heat it off and more illegals will show up. "Work-site enforcement measure"? Why should we believe that? It's ALREADY supposed to be happening, and we can see what a good job they are doing.

[quote]The so-called “Z visaâ€

[quote]MASON CITY — U.S. Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Ia., said today he’s against unrestricted amnesty for illegal aliens and will vote against any immigration bill that includes it.

“I voted for amnesty 20 years ago and I won’t do it again,â€

2ndamendsis wrote:

Damn, I knew he was going to cave!

I almost moved him on the list from 'standing firm' to 'straddling the fence' today when I was updating the lists.

Should have listened to my instincts!
Moving the creep now

My perception of Grassley's words don't coincide with yours. I don't think he'll vote on any bill that has amnesty (by any name) included.

Hope I'm right and you're wrong, don't you?

Sorry, MW...........you're wrong but I sure wish you were right.

Check out the bugger's voting record and dig a little deeper.
That picture is all you'll need to UNDERSTAND the senator in traitorship's words.

It saddens me to say it, but I think sis is right.

2ndamendsis wrote:

Sorry, MW...........you're wrong but I sure wish you were right.

Check out the bugger's voting record and dig a little deeper.
That picture is all you'll need to UNDERSTAND the senator in traitorship's words.

I think you're being a little presumptuous, but we'll see. If he votes on amnesty, I'll eat my crow like a man.

Oh, I have checked out his voting record and he hasn't voted on an amnesty since the 1986 fiasco. We'll see if he's talk or show in the near future (if he really learned his lesson after 1986).

I don't pin all my hopes on the following, but it does a give me a small (okay, tiny) degree of comfort:

http://grades.betterimmigration.com/tes ... &VIPID=235

Saying you're going to scrutinize something doesn't necessarily mean you're going to support it. Regardless of how he feels, he's obligated to look over the legislation. I see no problem with being cautious, but I'm not going to presume to know what everyone is thinking based on a simple sentence that could go either way in meaning.