Share This Page

Reform push off-target I

| Saturday, June 29, 2013, 9:00 p.m.
AFP/Getty Images
(FILES)A US Border Patrol agent stands near a crossing to Mexico at the San Ysidro port of entry along the US-Mexico border near San Diego, California in this April 4, 2013 file photo. Twenty thousand new border patrol agents, hundreds of miles of fencing, billions of dollars in drones, radar and sensors: US lawmakers are proposing a militaristic remedy to staunch illegal immigrant flow from Mexico. The Senate is expected June 24, 2013 to green-light the most important amendment yet to the landmark immigration bill, but the measure -- designed to placate Republican concerns about security -- would ensure that the border region is one of the most highly policed zones in the Western Hemisphere. AFP PHOTO/Frederic J. BROWNFREDERIC J. BROWN/AFP/Getty Images

Here's one to ponder. Give illegal aliens amnesty, right? But they couldn't vote for 10 years, couldn't get federal aid and so forth, correct?

Check the 14th and 15th amendments to the Constitution. That's right, it would be unconstitutional to do so.

So, what happens? Liberal groups file suit, saying it is unconstitutional to deny them these rights, and guess what? It's a slam-dunk win and now you have 12 million more Democrat voters. Game, set, match.

It's not about the illegals and what's best for them — or, more importantly, what's best for this country in any way, shape or form. It's all about securing the additional 12 million votes and making this a one-party country.

Bud Brannagan

North Huntingdon

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.