Being Right About Immigration

AOL Stump ^ | July 1, 2007

[2ndDivisionVet]

The alliance of talk radio, blogs and grassroots efforts was a winner when it came to defeating the "shamnesty" bill. Conservatives were enraged and showed just how much power we possess:

A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of 15,000 adults in June found that just 32.0% now say they're Republicans. That's up more than a full percentage point from a month ago and is within a tenth-of-a-point of the GOP's best showing in ten months.

This is purely because of the efforts put forth to defeat a bill that would've rewarded those who broke our laws. The Bush administration suffered its worst legislative defeat because of the actions of fellow Republicans.

This is interesting as it shows that immigration is an important issue and it shows that President Bush, Ted Kennedy and John McCain were on the absolute wrong side of it. The Democrats actually stayed out of the fray for the most part and the media portrayed it for what it was; a major disagreement between conservatives and the president. The president lost, conservatives won and the public went against the president. That should be telling to the Bush administration.

Note also that the people who identified themselves as Democrats decreased. That is telling as well since the Dems were associated with this bill largely by the presence of Teddy Kennedy.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: McCain lost the election on this issue and candidates such as Fred Thompson and Tom Tancredo stuck to their guns and ended up on the side of the American people. Others such as Lindsey Graham and Sam Brownback came out looking like fools and severely misjudged the public reaction to illegal immigration.

[2ndDivisionVet]

Fred ping

[samtheman]

Fred. The nomination is yours. Ask for it.

[bill1952]

President Bush did not suffer a legislative defeat. the legislature did. President Bush suffered an executive defeat. Alt least they could get the terms right before swinging.

I am 100% against amnesty in any form but this bill was not a creation of President Bush. - certainly he had a hand in it, and pushed it for all that he could, but in the end, this was a Senate bill, and I am not letting those Senators off the hook by pushing off all blame to the President.

They are to blame. Totally to blame, and I will not send them one peso, nor vote si for them.

We don't have any say with the left of center dems, but we all know who those left of center liberal RINOs are.

Defeat them in the primaries.

[Baladas]

Well, I think it boiled down even in a simpler way - us v. them, us = American citizens, both native and legal.

[Niteflyr]

Actually it is even more simple than that...right vs. wrong
(wrong = left) :o)

[2ndDivisionVet]

Demand a border fence! Build it NOW!! Beef up the border patrol and close our borders!

U.S. Senate switchboard: (202) 224-3121

U.S. House switchboard: (202) 225-3121

White House comments: (202) 456-1111

Find your House Rep.: http://www.house.gov/writerep

Find your US Senators: http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

Toll free to the US Senate:

1-800-882-2005. (Spanish number)
1-800-417-7666. (English number)

Courtesy of a pro-amnesty group, no less!!

Republican National Committee
310 First Street, SE Washington, D.C. 20003
phone: 202.863.8500 | fax: 202.863.8820 | e-mail: info@gop.com

Take a look at their hidden agenda: http://www.mexica-movement.org

[doctor jon w.]

A question of right vs. wrong in immigration can be extremely misleading. Sometimes the government is wrong and too stubborn to correct the mistakes of its staff.
In my case, I was a member of the U.S. Army when I received notification from the U.S.Consulate that I had lost my citizenship “due to applying for and accepting citizenship in a foreign state( eg Canada...a dual citizen due to birth)” I was incensed! How could the United States demand my service in the military on one hand and deny me my citizenship (acquired at birth in California)on the other hand? I was also young (24) and emotional...truly believing in the rule of law and justice in the United States of America! Upon being told of my loss of US Citizenship, in a fit of pride, I took the position “you can’t fire me, I QUIT!” On that basis I renounced my U.S. Citizenship with the U.S. Consulate in Vancouver B.C., Canada. The rules for the U.S. Foreign Service, at that time, specifically PROHIBITED accepting or processing a renunciation of citizenship AFTER a U.S. citizen being told of the loss of citizenship by a U.S. foreign service representative (eg US Consul).
I finally obtained a hearing by an immigration judge some years later while still in the Army, held at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. The hearing was never completed because the Immigration Judge demanded the U.S. Immigration Service establish the legality of the renunciation, which due to the regulations existent at the time, they could not do (the hearing was postponed at the request of the INS and never reopened). I was later posted to the U.S. Army, 176th Signal Bn., Fort Huachuca, Arizona where I served until discharge.
Upon discharge, the INS had a “Hold” on me and demanded I leave the United States voluntarily or be incarcerated for an indeterminate time, awaiting conclusion of another immigration hearing at some far point in the future. I of course left the United States and entered Canada for a few months, and then applied to and was accepted as a student at the University of Alaska (in Fairbanks). Approximately one year later I attempted to renter the United States by car with my wife and children at the Peace Arch Immigration station in Blaine Washington. I was rejected and was refused entry into the United States by the INS personnel on duty at that time. Reason given...I was “found guilty of more than one crime involving moral turpitude” they said. What is Moral turpitude I asked...crime of sex, rape or any other felony? No, was the response, “moral turpitude was not defined and could be interpreted anyway they wanted” was the response. They felt I was a Viet Nam war resister which was not in fashion at the time. They failed to take into account my volunteering for U.S. Army Airborne and Special Forces (guaranteeing assignment in Viet Nam) or my application to Helicopter pilot school which also guaranteed a Viet Nam assignment. I was not a war resister, but I did resist my loss of US Citizenship while a member of the U.S. military!
My position was basically...if the US didn’t want me, I didn’t have any obligation to serve in the US armed forces; especially when the military had not (and could not) fulfill the terms of my enlistment contract.
Immigration laws, like citizenship, must be fair and just if they are to be effective. It can not be left to Homeland Security, or Ins/State dept. personnel who enforce there own views without respect to the law as established by Congress and ruled Constitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court. Now at 69 years of age, I have been banished from the United States for 45 years. Disallowed to visit my dying mother while she was in hospital, and refused entry to attend her funeral. My 4 children (now adults) are all U.S. citizens, living and working in the United States. The “Rule of Law” doesn’t exist except as an ideal when it is not followed by those responsible for enforcing the law!
The United States should look after its own citizens first, before worrying about “illegal aliens”; or making its native born citizens illegal aliens if they stay in the U.S. Remember,the first rule of any responsible government is to protect its citizens! The INS, and others must clean their own house when dealing with immigration and deportation and citizenship. Remember, there was no visa requirements in the United States, prior to the 20th century or the passport act of 1918. With regard to the law:
Courts have long recognized the power to expel or exclude aliens as a fundamental sovereign attribute exercised by the Government’s political departments largely immune from judicial control. The Chinese Exclusion Case, 130 U.S. 581 (1889); Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U.S. 698 (1893); Knauff v. Shaughnessy, 338 U.S. 537 (1950); Harisiades v. Shaughnessy, 342 U.S. 580 (1952). In the exercise of these powers, Congress expressly authorized the President to impose additional restrictions on aliens entering or leaving the United States during periods of international tension and strife. That authorization, originally enacted in the Passport Act of 1918, continues in effect during the present emergency. Under it, the Attorney General, acting for the President, may shut out aliens whose “entry would be prejudicial to the interests of the United States.” 7 And he may exclude without a hearing when the exclusion is based on confidential information the [345 U.S. 206, 211] disclosure of which may be prejudicial to the public interest. 8 The Attorney General in this case proceeded in accord with these provisions; he made the necessary determinations and barred the alien from entering the United States. [345 U.S. 206, 212]. Does this mean the Pres can “exclude” any one who disagrees with him or his policies?
In my case, according to documents secured under FOI rules, The U.S. Consul in Vancouver only SUSPECTED and thought I was in violation of the Mann Act, (taking an under age female across state lines for immoral and/or illegal purposes); while the facts were that the person in question was my legal wife, aged 20) which is what apparently promulgated this whole issue in the first place.
Should the governments political departments be largely immune from judicial control? My experience says this is indeed dangerous, especially in times of stress within the United States, where individuals are allowed to interpret the law any way they desire. where virtually ANYTHING can be interpreted as moral turpitude! Think carefully about the simplicity of:right vs. wrong comments. I do agree there should be no general amnesty, but also I believe any resident of the United States should be required to pass a high school level test of the English language, as part of any legal immigration or change of status of a so-called illegal”,

[Liz]

Dems were associated with amnesty largely by the presence of Teddy Kennedy. Lindsey Graham and Sam Brownback came out looking like fools, severely misjudging public reaction to illegal immigration.

" Ole, amigos, let's go have a horchata and a churros in the Senate tacoteria....Viva Mexico."

[azhenfud]

Lindsey Graham! SHUT UP, you BIGOT!

[Jim Noble]

Fred. The nomination is yours. Ask for it.

He's not running. IMO.

[Liz]

Let's go over that again.

It was Karl Rove (Remember him? Works for GWB) who went to La Raza and reassured this racist organization that US laws would NOT be enforced--that invaders would go scot-free. It was Karl Rove who recently told the Aspen Institute that our resistance to the amnesty bill was driven mainly by "fear" about policing the border — so that “amnesty” for illegal workers already here would not be the last (any more than the 1986 amnesty had been).

Appears ol' Rove took too many Valium after we buried amnesty.

In fact, opposition to amnesty was driven by the citizenry's realization that our rights, our laws, the very essence of our precious US citizenship, is being held hostage by corrupt globalist governments looking to hoist themselves out of Third World hellholes on the backs of US citizens.

US citizens are being treated as yolked oxen, tied to the machinations of satanic cults of illegal invaders with no allegiance to US laws and institutions.

It is not an exaggeration to conclude that Third World Globalists-In-a-Rut would tax US citizens to death, decimate our rights, and bring the US government to its knees, in order to realize their craven global ambitions.

This madness must end.

The history of America is that the fight for freedom is always waged at the grassroots level.

Any lawmaker (or candidate) who does not perceive issues through the prism of the red, white, and blue, will get their walking papers.

[bill1952]

Nothing that you wrote changes the fact that this bill was a creation of the Senate.

Again, the President is on board this ship, but the ship is the USS Senate, not the USS Bush, okay?

[dforest]

Top of the morning to ya Liz. Attempts by some to take Bush out of the amnesty equation are disengenuous, the so-called bipartisan authors of Shamenasty, did so with full approval, at the behest of Bush.

And we know it.

[samtheman]

Why do you say that?

[Liz]

.....this bill was a creation of the Senate........

Lookit, I don't want to denigrate your defense of GWB-----that's quite commendable.

However, you must realize that when a bill the president has publicly supported is in the process of being written, the prez or his staff communicate with Senators, is briefed on the provisions, and can goad Senators into inserting certain provisions.

The amnesty bill was huge---over 300 pages. To suggest that GWB was not involved in the bill is nonsense.

[Guenevere]

bttt

[Liz]

Of course——as I posted above, it’s nonsense to suggest the president was not involved in writing a bill he publicly supported.

[Jim Noble]

It's a major hassle to run and lose, I think the probability of his being elected in 2008 is less than 20% and he knows it, and he and his wife are going to get beat up in the process.

A guy like Rudy NEEDS that stuff, like a drug.

I don't think an actor who took a few years off to be a Senator does need it, or wants it.

He has no executive experience, isn't in the politics game now, and has a reasonable life without it.

I just don't see it.

[bill1952]

Your position is becoming nonsense.

Nobody suggests Bush wasn’t involved and I’m not even defending him.
I’m pointing out facts and thats the way it is in America.

Everything that you just wrote supports exactly what I have written, but somewhere your mind makes a leap into kooko land.

Involved does not make it HIS bill. finito.