Bush Amnesty Sparks Surge in Border Crossings

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,111818,00.html ^ | February 19, 2004 | Matt Hayes

[VU4G10]

On Jan. 27, the Copley News Service reported that shortly after President Bush announced

[rhombus]

Imagine yourself in a big room with all your family and friends. Slam! A bomb goes off. You look around to see lots of people dead and wounded. Then you see a bunch of people you don't know. You can do one of two things. First you can round them up and throw them out. Or as an alternative you can make them fill out a form. After all, they just made everyone breakfast and it was a whole lot cheaper than your spouse charges.

[Dane]

Ahhh, now the truth comes out. Seems you do stereotype, eh Daney? This from the person that stated that he judges a person/group based on a groups/persons actions

The author is an immigration lawyer for crying out loud. Am I supposed to now say for example that painters don't get paint splotches on thier clothes.

[k2blader]

Not sure what's more disgusting--the increase in illegals over the border due to the amnesty proposal, or the Republicans supporting it.

[The_Eaglet]

1. Stop all unconstitutional spending immediately

2. Move military or civil defense resources to public properties near borders (or private property with the owner's consent) to prevent further illegal immigration.

3. Promptly enforce visa expirations.

4. Veto any revenue legislation that calls for income taxation and support Congress in efforts to repeal it. It is past time to end the era of the income tax.

This would show that he means business and not just trying to get conservative votes to advance his liberal policies by running as a Republican.

[The_Eaglet]

Bush also needs to call for a repeal of the McCain-Feingold Bipartisan campaign finance reform bill which he opposed during his campaign.

[ought-six]

This amnesty thing is my biggest gripe about Bush, whom I happily supported in 2000. Does he not see that we are literally facing the Mexicanization of America?

[Dane]

See reply #8 and the information that was intentionally left out by VU4G10.

[looscnnn]

"The point is that this is an article written by someone who makes his living defending illegals"

Have you read any of his other articles? Seems that representing immigrants becomes illegals to you. He may represent them, but seems you overlooked that legals also need lawyers from time to time. If a doctor specializing in oncology were to write an article pointing out problems with a proposal by the President about cancer, would you also make that same statement?

"Because his motive is to divide conservatives so that someone like Kerry can win the election, his facts are suspect."

Really? I see it as pointing out problems with a proposal, problems that others have forseen when the proposal was made. Maybe that is because I am judging him on his other articles and not on his profession, of course that gives him an inside view of what is going on (like a specialist doctor).

"Dane is pointing out that the author of this may have other motives than calling our attention to the immigration problem."

He also stated that he is basing it on the writers profession (attorney), thus he is stereotyping.

[Miss Marple]

Well, I am very glad that you are not in charge of political strategy. I guess you are just going to have to remain disaffected.

[looscnnn]

"The party line doesn't get it in this situation. Bush's plan is a disaster. While the dems are worse, Bush's 'plan' only makes a terrible mess more terrible.The American people don't want this garbage. If the pubs had any sense and wanted Bush to win they would close the border and start deporting illegals."

Amen, preach on brother.

[Miss Marple]

Well, it is possible that he is against illegal immigration, although it seems to me most immigrants who get in trouble with the INS do so because they are illegal.

No numbers in the article. Quotes of unnamed agents. I don't believe things like this when the New York Times uses those techniques, either.

That's all I really have to say. Those who want to believe this without question are apparently going to anyway.

[Dane]

He also stated that he is basing it on the writers profession (attorney), thus he is stereotyping

He's an immigration attorney. He probably has represented illegals and people who have had trouble with the INS.

This guys article should be the new definition of the word irony, IMO.

[The_Eaglet]

"The party line doesn't get it in this situation. Bush's plan is a disaster. While the dems are worse, Bush's 'plan' only makes a terrible mess more terrible.The American people don't want this garbage. If the pubs had any sense and wanted Bush to win they would close the border and start deporting illegals."

Agreed.

[looscnnn]

"You cannot believe the facts in this article because the writer is NOT an opponent of illegal immigration."

Read his other articles, you will see otherwise. You are just stereotyping based on the fact that he specializes in defending IMMIGRANTS (legals included). He will still be able to specialize in defending IMMIGRANTS even if illegals were stopped at the borders. Legal IMMIGRANTS need defending from time to time also.

[Dane]

Read his other articles, you will see otherwise. You are just stereotyping based on the fact that he specializes in defending IMMIGRANTS (legals included). He will still be able to specialize in defending IMMIGRANTS even if illegals were stopped at the borders. Legal IMMIGRANTS need defending from time to time also

The irony continues.

[looscnnn]

"border agents = Federal union = anti-Bush = untrustworthy on this issue....I bet they would. They want a Dem in there to give them more of our money, early retirement, etc, like Davis did in bankrupting California."

Stereotyping again, ever think that just because someone is in a union (some are forced to just to work somewhere) that they do not think the same as the union. I know a lot of union members that are not dems. If wanting more money makes a person a dem, I guess that means that a most people are dems. Sorry, I don't buy any of it.

[The Toll]

Dane, I always run across you on border threads and you constantly defend illegals. I mean to ask you why everytime but I always get to mad. Why do you defend illegal immigration daily on FR?

[#3Fan]

Stereotyping again, ever think that just because someone is in a union (some are forced to just to work somewhere) that they do not think the same as the union.

Sure. But their union membership should be considered when listening to their opinions. Therefore they are untrustworthy in bashing the president, because it may be the union talking.

I know a lot of union members that are not dems. If wanting more money makes a person a dem, I guess that means that a most people are dems. Sorry, I don't buy any of it.

I was a union member and a devout Republican (I got threats for it too, unions are so tolerant of differing opinions...lol), but when a union member goes with the union line, there's no way to know if it's the truth or it's the union propaganda.

[looscnnn]

"The author is an immigration lawyer for crying out loud."

Yes, legal immigrants do need lawyers from time to time or did you think that they were above the law? Why not specialize, I see a lot of posts on FR that say that the unemployed should start their own businesses and carve their own niches. That is what this guy did, he carved his own niche by specializing in immigrants. Just like some lawyers specialize in bancruptcy, some in criminal defense, some in business law, etc. They all represent the bad, along with the good. Lawyers get the stereotyped by people like you, because of a few bad lawyers. I know a lot of lawyers, a couple do fit the stereotype, most don't fit the stereotype.

[looscnnn]

"This amnesty thing is my biggest gripe about Bush, whom I happily supported in 2000."

Same here, but his support for extending the AWB is right there also.