Your letter should not state that you are against amnesty, but that you are in fact against the position he is taking.
|
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.
Your letter should not state that you are against amnesty, but that you are in fact against the position he is taking.
|
Because he can. If it's politically motivated, in toto or in part, he can do it with the knowledge that conservatives have nowhere to go except not to vote. Of course, in sufficient numbers a conservative non-vote would throw the election to the Demonrats, most likely the Demonrat standard bearer, the mad...er angry Dr. Dean. So it's Bush in 2004.
Somebody please put the above in big red 20 pt type!
Then sit back and remember what the President said!
Match any willing employer with any willing employee!
That's a pretty wide opening there, isn't it?
Good luck with getting this dangerous "driver" out of our county. My guess is you'll have to ask to speak to a lot of people's supervisors as you navigate the Immigration Service's bureaucracy. Be persistent. Write down everyone's name, title and number.
Also, keep in mind that illegals use fistfuls of identities. Did you learn who her car was registered to?
If there is a possibility to come to the USA illegally, and suddenly get a pass to come and go as desired, then more people WILL try to get here by any means available.
Your knee-jerk reaction ignores group psychology... And therefore fails.
Perhps Bush decided that global wages needed equalizing and that the USA was as good as any other place to start.
I address this not to the president, since the president won't be bothered to read something like my letter, from a nobody out in the rest of the country... So to whoever DOES read this... please convey my feelings...
Illegal aliens are, by definition, law-breakers. They are not citizens, therefore, not subject to the Constitutional guarantees of the United States of America (contrary to popular opinion).
They are criminals.
The idea that my government would propose a plan to grant amnesty to such criminals is absurd. Not only is it a slap in the face for the people who came here LEGALLY, to become citizens, but it also **encourages** more illegal immigration, in the hopes that those who make it here will be granted a "get out of jail free" card.
Clearly, this proposition is being used to pander to the Hispanic voter. Of course, it also runs contrary to 64% of the public, which views the illegal immigration problem as a critical threat to national security. But of course, it's more important to pander to criminals, than the people who elected you... And such pandering is more important, than upholding and defending the Constitution of the United States of America, and upholding our LAWS.
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.
Either uphold the laws.... or step aside, and let Mr. Dick Cheny run for president. Maybe even Condoleeza Rice? And if they would uphold the laws, and stop this overwhelming tide of criminals, which are invading our country by the millions, I WOULD vote for them...
For years, I have had to defend your actions, Mr. President. On a daily basis, I've had to fight the good fight, and have faith that you and your administration would do the right thing. And most of the time, I've not been disappointed...
But your Immigration proposal, makes me question your loyalties... Are you loyal to your country, or loyal to Vincente Fox?
Mexico, you may want to consider, has very strict laws (and unpleasant punishment) for anyone who illegally crosses their Southern border. The reason they give, is that illegal immigration threatens their SOVEREIGNTY. In other words, Mexico recognizes the dangers of such an invasion. Why don't YOU?
If you continue to push for such amnesty for illegal alien criminals... I- and *millions* of other conservatives- will sit out the next election cycle. I will never give my vote to Howard Dean (or any other, in the "naive nine")...
But I would rather roast in Hell, before I support your dissolving the sovereignty of the United States of America.
Sincerely,
Capitalist Eric ______
Idiots might clamor to buy said stock, based on speculative information that is at best suspect. Wise investors don't change their portfolios based on wild rumors or because some Internet shill tries to browbeat or scare them into it. You pose a bad example and make my point for me.
The point is, to blame somebody for something bad merely because they discuss it flies in the face of every free speech right we enjoy in the US. Using that logic, a Dean administration could prohibit discussion of anti-abortion activists or techniques by using the rationale that a few idiots bomb abortion clinics or shoot abortionists, "and we don't want to encourage them." And while we're at it, let's shut down the NRA's website and ban publication of gun magazines because a firearm might be used in another Columbine shooting, "and we don't want to encourage them."
Be very careful what you wish for.
Your knee-jerk reaction ignores group psychology... And therefore fails.
Seriously suggesting the censorship of honest discussion of a topic is the real "knee-jerk" behavior here. And yours are twitching like you're suffering from St. Vitus' Dance.
Your arrogance is exceeded only by your ignorance. Which, of course, is why your examples fall flat. Consider yourself added to the list of "stupid newbies to ignore" list.
BTW, welcome to FR.
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.