Posted on 01/11/2004 5:36:57 PM PST by kellynla
As you've probably heard by now, President Bush has called for a major overhaul of America's immigration system, to grant legal status to millions of illegal-alien workers in the United States.
While Pres. Bush was quoted saying that, "I oppose amnesty, placing undocumented workers on the automatic path to citizenship," many conservative groups like the Federation for American Immigration Reform (fairus.org) insist that his "proposals for a massive new 'guestworker' program" would threaten homeland security, grant amnesty for law-breakers (a step overwhelmingly opposed by the American public), establish a backdoor immigration program, and threaten the jobs and wages of American workers.
In fact, three dozen House Republicans had already sent a letter to Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge, "strongly and unequivocally" opposing mass amnesty for illegal immigrants; this letter becomes particularly important now with Pres. Bush's announcement. Today, we're asking you to sign on to that letter to Sec. Ridge, with copies to President Bush, your two Senators and your Congressman.
As proud Americans, we must strongly and unequivocally oppose mass amnesty for people who violate our immigration laws. Mere discussion of the possibility of amnesty encourages illegal immigration. We must enforce the immigration laws currently on our books rather than dangle the prospect of citizenship in front of potential immigration lawbreakers. We must increase immigration law enforcement, not only at borders but in the interior, making it more costly for lawbreakers to disregard our immigration laws.
Since 1986, Congress has passed seven amnesties for illegal aliens. Clearly this is a short-term "fix" to a long-term problem. Rewarding people who violate our immigration laws sends the wrong message, and encourages more illegal aliens to violate our borders and enter the United States illegally. Americans will have to pay increased taxes as a consequence of the burden amnesty would place on our school systems, welfare and social service systems, roads and transportation systems, the sprawl and environmental degradation, the health care system, Medicaid, Social Security, and other programs.
It is unfair to reward people who break our immigrations laws with immigration status, while many potential immigrants outside the United States are waiting to be admitted to the United States lawfully. If we allow the people who break the rules by entering the United States illegally to go to the front of the immigration line, it is a slap in the face to law-abiding immigrants.
And of course, we must be concerned that amnesty by any name, be it earned amnesty or legalization, jeopardizes our national security. Mahmud Abouhalima was granted amnesty in 1986... and was subsequently one of the terrorists that bombed the World Trade Center in 1993.
We MUST stop this now, while we can.
ACTION ITEM: According to Newsmax.com, Pres. Bush said his proposals, IF ENACTED BY CONGRESS, "would provide a more compassionate system for those who now live in the shadows of American society." We need to let Sec. Ridge, Pres. Bush, and our legislators know how we feel on this issue, BEFORE it's too late. Click "Go!" above to send a message to ALL of them at once!
NOTE: Sec. Ridge doesn't have a public email address, and our form isn't integrated with his department's form yet, so if you want to send your comments to him directly, you'll have to go to http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/contactus.
But crimes against humanity are also deemed to be part of jus cogens-the highest standing in international legal norms. [The highest of the fictions] Thus, they constitute a non-derogable rule of international law. The implication of this standing is that they are subject to universal jurisdiction, [Universal jurisdiction is a socialist law professor's dream.]meaning that all States can exercise their jurisdiction in prosecuting a perpetrator irrespective of where the crime was committed. It also means that all States have the duty to prosecute or extradite, [rhetorical posturing] that no person charged with that crime can claim the "political offense exception" to extradition, and that States have the duty to assist each other in securing evidence needed to prosecute. [No such duty exists.] But of greater importance is the fact that no perpetrator can claim the "defense of obedience to superior orders" [More Nuremberg nonsense caused by the U.S. If such rules were truly followed, a nation's military would have to cease operations.] and that no statute of limitation contained in the laws of any State can apply. Lastly, no one is immune from prosecution for such crimes, even a head of State. [Giving nations yet one more reason to refuse to cooperate with foreign prosecutors.]
These international law fabulists took things that were born of treaties between specific states under very specific conditions, like the Geneva Conventions, ignored their conditional nature, and universalized them. Their dishonesty about the law is approached only by their moral hubris.
Are you calling Lou Dobbs a leftist?
Knowing that the final guest worker bill, if any, will be vastly different than what is being touted these day, Pres. Bush has set the Left's agenda. This seems rather clever to me. On the one hand, the left espouses the diversity/one-world/borderless mantra to the nth degree, but now, because Pres. Bush appears to somewhat agree, now the Left is asking for more secured borders, which is really what the conservative base wants. Bravo, Pres. Bush! Just the fact that Lou Dobbs of CNN has a graphic up that reads "Broken Borders" is a major step in the right direction.
Please cite the leftists who seek more secure borders. All the leftists I've read or heard, say that Pres. Bush offered too little. Perhaps they exist in the same parallel universe, in which Lou Dobbs is a leftist, and a president who eliminates his own nation's borders while fighting foreign wars to secure them, is a "genius."
Crossing the U.S. border without a visa is a felony, period, not a matter of a "govt. definition." You sound like Bill Clinton on the meaning of "is."
I believe you are scapegoating the minorities and illegals and giving them far too much of the blame for society's ills.
For example, I think you left out the teacher's union, the trial lawyers, the environmental wackos, but probably most importantly is societal values epitomized by mtv, reality tv, jerry springer, almost every recent movie ever made, ophra winfrey, monica lewinsky, etc. Finally, you left out blaming the biggest minority of all, white women who have adopted attitudes and behavior that are perplexing at best.
I'm sure you and the captain would never have sailed together again.
I can't believe you didn't read the series of posts, leading to my posting of the legal and technical definitions of a "crime against humanity."
I don't know what you think you're saying, or proving... Because your statement is so torturous to read, so utterly absent of structure or direction, that you have posted babble.
A piece of advice to you- before you exhibit such moral outrage again, read the thread, and understand what is being said, and why.
If you do, you'll avoid looking foolish in the future.
Pathetic. You can't win an argument, so you misrepresent what your critic said. the fact that you want our immigration laws abolished does not give you the right to misrepresent them.
P.S. I saw more than enough of your argument with staytrue.
I have no idea. I don't like the vitriolic posturing of the anti immigrant crowd. If you read Capitalist eric's posts, you can understand what I mean. This stuff about rape being as bad as INS violations is ridiculous.
I would like to see the welfare state cut back, a sales tax replacing the income tax, tort reform, school vouchers, conservative judges, honesty in govt.
10 million illegal immigrants are not a big issue to me. Most of these are concentrated in a few areas, probably your area which is why it is a big issue to you. 10 million illegals in a population of 300 million is not a big deal. But if the 10 million are all more or less in one place, it is a big deal for that place.
I would like to change the constitution to eliminate the anchor babies. I would like the border controlled better. I like the guest worker idea. I would eliminate most welfare for guest workers and citizens alike.
I think most americans can trace their roots back to immigration of less than 4-5 generations or less which is not a lot.
Selling alchohol in this country used to be not a crime, then it was a crime, then it was not a crime. Now it is a crime in certain counties, and in certain states, it is a crime on sunday but not m-s, and is a crime if a bar sells it after a certain time. Immigration from mexico used to be not a crime, but now it is for some and not for others who get the proper papers, and if the guest worker proposals become law, it will not be a crime for 3 years.
This is the quote from that post which was claimed to have been sent to POTUS.
Why not put a proposal out there, to grant amnesty to all rapists? They, too, are criminals. Plus, you would guarantee that all rapists (those who are no longer criminals) will now vote for YOU...
There is no fundamental difference in the comparison, you see... A criminal is a criminal.
And a middle class that cannot control who enters their home no longer owns their own home.
We can control who enters our home as GWB has proven with the detainment and deportation of thousands of people from Islamist countries since 9/11. We just don't care that much about people coming in from Mexico to work.
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.