Posted on 01/21/2007 9:18:29 AM PST by Brian_Baldwin
Bush has ALWAYS indicated that this was his preference. Those who thought that we were better off with a congressional minority (as imperfect as the majority was) need to spend a little time impeaching their own thinking.
bump
Exactly my point in post #14.
Impeachment for something that both democrats and republicans continue to do is foolish and I'm pretty far from being an open borders supporter.
I think this will be a case of 'everything is related to everything else." The more President Bush pushes this idea, the more he neuters himself, and the less able he will be able to withstand the democrats and cross over Republicans in prosecuting the WOT.
Shhh...flypaper thread.
"I am a Republican...and I want Bush impeached for treason....this border issue is huge....I send all the Republican begging letters back empty. With a note that says...when you get TOUGH on Border control..then I will come back....I am a one issue Republican"
They don't care what we think. Amnesty's good for business.
You are a moonbat if you believe in North American Union crap....
An Amnesty by Any Other Name ...
By EDWIN MEESE III
Washington
IN the debate over immigration, "amnesty" has become something of a dirty word. Some opponents of the immigration bill being debated in the Senate assert that it would grant amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants. Supporters claim it would do no such thing. Instead, they say, it lays out a road map by which illegal aliens can earn citizenship.
Perhaps I can shed some light. Two decades ago, while serving as attorney general under President Ronald Reagan, I was in the thick of things as Congress debated the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986. The situation today bears uncanny similarities to what we went through then.
In the mid-80's, many members of Congress — pushed by the Democratic majority in the House and the Select Commission on Immigration and Refugee Policy — advocated amnesty for long-settled illegal immigrants. President Reagan considered it reasonable to adjust the status of what was then a relatively small population, and I supported his decision.
In exchange for allowing aliens to stay, he decided, border security and enforcement of immigration laws would be greatly strengthened — in particular, through sanctions against employers who hired illegal immigrants. If jobs were the attraction for illegal immigrants, then cutting off that option was crucial.
Beyond this, most illegal immigrants who could establish that they had resided in America continuously for five years would be granted temporary resident status, which could be upgraded to permanent residency after 18 months and, after another five years, to citizenship.
Note that this path to citizenship was not automatic. Indeed, the legislation stipulated several conditions: immigrants had to pay application fees, learn to speak English, understand American civics, pass a medical exam and register for military selective service. Those with convictions for a felony or three misdemeanors were ineligible. Sound familiar? These are pretty much the same provisions included in the new Senate proposal and cited by its supporters as proof that they have eschewed amnesty in favor of earned citizenship.
The difference is that President Reagan called this what it was: amnesty. Indeed, look up the term "amnesty" in Black's Law Dictionary, and you'll find it says, "the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act provided amnesty for undocumented aliens already in the country."
Like the amnesty bill of 1986, the current Senate proposal would place those who have resided illegally in the United States on a path to citizenship, provided they meet a similar set of conditions and pay a fine and back taxes. The illegal immigrant does not go to the back of the line but gets immediate legalized status, while law-abiding applicants wait in their home countries for years to even get here. And that's the line that counts. In the end, slight differences in process do not change the overriding fact that the 1986 law and today's bill are both amnesties.
There is a practical problem as well: the 1986 act did not solve our illegal immigration problem. From the start, there was widespread document fraud by applicants. Unsurprisingly, the number of people applying for amnesty far exceeded projections. And there proved to be a failure of political will in enforcing new laws against employers.
After a six-month slowdown that followed passage of the legislation, illegal immigration returned to normal levels and continued unabated. Ultimately, some 2.7 million people were granted amnesty, and many who were not stayed anyway, forming the nucleus of today's unauthorized population.
So here we are, 20 years later, having much the same debate and being offered much the same deal in exchange for promises largely dependent on the will of future Congresses and presidents.
Will history repeat itself? I hope not. In the post-9/11 world, secure borders are vital. We have new tools — like biometric technology for identification, and cameras, sensors and satellites to monitor the border — that make enforcement and verification less onerous. And we can learn from the failed policies of the past.
President Bush and Congress would do better to start with securing the border and strengthening enforcement of existing immigration laws. We might also try improving on Ronald Reagan's idea of a pilot program for genuinely temporary workers.
The fair and sound policy is to give those who are here illegally the opportunity to correct their status by returning to their country of origin and getting in line with everyone else. This, along with serious enforcement and control of the illegal inflow at the border — a combination of incentives and disincentives — will significantly reduce over time our population of illegal immigrants.
America welcomes more immigrants than any other country. But in keeping open that door of opportunity, we also must uphold the rule of law and enhance a fair immigration process, as Ronald Reagan said, to "humanely regain control of our borders and thereby preserve the value of one of the most sacred possessions of our people: American citizenship."
Edwin Meese III, a fellow at the Heritage Foundation, was the attorney general of the United States from 1985 to 1988.
Looks like J_Baird and Youngman442002 both rode the lightning.
Thank you for posting that. I don't think too many people will be calling Ed Meese a "Bush-bashing border bot."
Gosh, you sure had me fooled! ; )
"President Ronald Reagan is no longer with us to defend himself. Neither did he have the benefit of hindsight, due to a failed, previous attempt at amnesty to guide him. Edwin Meese has repudiated the current efforts toward de facto amnesty; that's as close to hearing from Reagan on the matter as we're going to get."
President Reagan had 8 years to defend himself after 1986 until 1994 when he announced that he had Alzheimers.
They say they will and their approval ratings show that rhetoric trumps conviction any day when it comes to politics.
I'd have been surprised if they didn't.
If you think bashing one of the greatest, if not the greatest, presidents this country has ever had, is going to gain traction on yet another amnesty, 21 years after the first, you're badly mistaken. Did you even read the commentary posted above? Were the restrictions and requirements of this 1986 amnesty even followed? No, they were not. Do you think President Ronald Reagan approved of that? Carter and Clinton notwithstanding, some former presidents actually abstained from commenting on subsequent administrations. It's the honorable thing to do.
"..bringing together Mexico, Canada and the US into one union.."
Isn't that a globalists' dream?
He is working to secure Iraq's borders, I believe. His absolute refusal to secure our borders, however, no matter what the citizens want, is inexplicable--if you think he cares about American sovereignty. I no longer do.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.