Posted on 02/21/2004 2:29:21 AM PST by sarcasm
HICAGO, Feb. 20 — Amid the crowded field of Republicans vying for a seat in the Senate here, Jim Oberweis seems a most unlikely insurgent. He is a wealthy supporter of President Bush who favors pinstriped suits, tax cuts and a constitutional amendment blocking same-sex marriage.
But in recent weeks, Mr. Oberweis, a plainspoken dairy owner, has become a leader in a widening conservative revolt against the president's sweeping plan to grant temporary legal status to millions of illegal immigrants.
"The president's plan is just plain wrong," Mr. Oberweis says in a radio advertisement and at public appearances that have drawn hundreds of supporters to his campaign. "I want to be the voice for Illinois voters to tell the president we think illegal immigration cannot be rewarded with amnesty."
Mr. Oberweis is a symbol of a simmering conservative uprising against one of the president's biggest initiatives. One month after Mr. Bush promised the most comprehensive overhaul of immigration law in nearly two decades, opposition to his plan is mounting among conservative Republicans vying for votes in House and Senate races in Illinois, North Carolina, California, Kansas and elsewhere.
With his plan, Mr. Bush hopes to revamp an immigration system widely viewed as broken and to re-establish his credentials as a compassionate conservative — particularly with Hispanic and swing voters — at the start of an election year. But in debates, campaign stops and interviews, some Republican candidates have sharply criticized his position as they seek to tap into conservative anxiety over the proposal.
The plan has left the party divided, much like the growing deficit has. Some Republicans — backed by some Hispanic constituents — praise the president for trying to make it easier for businesses to employ illegal immigrants for low-wage jobs that Americans are reluctant to take. Others argue that the plan is tantamount to an amnesty for lawbreakers. The issue is so complicated and divisive that Republicans in Congress now say it is unlikely that legislation supporting the president's plan will be introduced this year.
Senator Saxby Chambliss, the Georgia Republican who is chairman of the Senate subcommittee on immigration, said he believed Congress would make headway this session on other proposals guiding the hiring of foreign farm workers. He said he hoped consensus on Mr. Bush's plan could be reached "within the next couple of calendar years."
But Mr. Chambliss, who supports Mr. Bush's broad proposal, acknowledged that the plan had already become a lightning rod in some Republican contests around the country. "I've seen it in the Georgia primary," he said in a telephone interview this week. "The candidates there are critical of the president on this issue.
"You've seen a lot of the Republican base has gotten all excited and all negative toward the president's proposal for the wrong reason," Mr. Chambliss said. "They really need to read what the president said. The president does not favor amnesty. He's been very clear on that."
In a Senate hearing last week, Bush administration officials said that illegal immigrants living in the country as of Jan. 7 — a group estimated at about eight million or more — would be eligible for temporary work permits for an initial period of three years, if they can show they have jobs and if their employers certify that Americans cannot be found for the jobs.
The officials said the permits could be renewed several times and that the workers could apply for permanent residency without leaving the United States. By legalizing the status of millions of immigrants who officials say are peaceful and hard working, immigration agents will be able to focus on foreigners who pose terrorist or criminal threats.
Mr. Bush has also promised to stiffen enforcement of immigration laws and to increase the number of people who can obtain permanent residency status.
Vernon Robinson, a Republican contender for a House seat in North Carolina, said that smelled like amnesty. He said his supporters wanted illegal immigrants deported and American troops stationed on the border with Mexico, particularly after the 9/11 attacks.
"There's a major disconnect between rank-and-file Walmart-Kmart Republicans and the party leadership on this issue," said Mr. Robinson, who has raised more money than any other Republican in his race.
Numbers USA, a policy group that favors reducing immigration, has identified about a dozen races where immigration is an important campaign issue among Republican contenders. Many Hispanic leaders have also criticized Mr. Bush's plan for not going far enough. It is unclear whether the issue will be a deciding factor for voters or whether it will dampen enthusiasm for Mr. Bush among conservatives.
Terry Holt, a spokesman for Mr. Bush's re-election campaign, said he believed conservatives would recognize that the president has remained faithful to his key beliefs. "Though there are debates about one issue or the other, on balance the president has stayed true to conservative principles and conservatives respect the president for leading on principle and attacking serious problems whatever they might be," he said.
Mark Krikorian, of the Center for Immigration Studies, which seeks to limit immigration, countered that conservative voters, already doubtful about the president's commitment to fiscal austerity, might stay home on Election Day or vote for lawmakers opposed to Mr. Bush's plan.
The debate is boiling in conservative circles. In January, National Review magazine ran a cover story on the president's plan titled: "Amnesty, Again."
This month, The Wall Street Journal published dueling pieces on its opinion pages. Fifteen Republicans including Grover Norquist, Newt Gingrich and Jack Kemp hailed the president's plan as "a humane, orderly, and economically sensible approach to migration."
Nine conservative stalwarts, including David Keene, Paul Weyrich and Phyllis Schlafly, responded, "Everyone with any common sense knows that it will only encourage a new wave of illegal aliens."
In California, where Republican candidates have opposed the plan in two races, the Republican Party chairman, Duf Sundheim, said he believed the president would ultimately bring people around.
Kris Kobach, a former Justice Department official campaigning for a House seat in Kansas, is doubtful. He says the 9/11 attacks left Republicans more concerned about immigration than in the 1990's when Patrick J. Buchanan criticized immigration to improve his presidential prospects. "When Buchanan was pushing this issue, it had a nativist and protectionist flavor," said Mr. Kobach, who developed the federal program that required Arab and Muslim visitors to register with the government. "Today it's about national security and law enforcement."
Here in Illinois, Mr. Oberweis is the only Republican candidate in his race who has made opposition to the president's plan a prominent part of his message. That stance, he says, has cost him some support.
In 2002, House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert, Republican of Illinois, supported Mr. Oberweis's unsuccessful bid for the Senate. This time around, Mr. Hastert declined to endorse him, saying he ran a poorly managed campaign two years ago. Mr. Hastert also criticized Mr. Oberweis's decision to challenge the immigration plan.
That has not stopped Mr. Oberweis from calling for a crackdown on illegal immigration. Next week, he plans to release a television advertisement on the subject.
"I've always had a tendency to say what's on my mind," he said.
This statement is tantamount to not ever cranking a car parked in the driveway and just saying it's broken. We need to enforce our existing laws first, then we'll see just how broken they AREN'T....
After all isn't it a sacrilege to criticize GW on FR?
Translation: We conservatives who are against Bush’s plan are stupid. We don't know how to read.
Maybe Mr. Chambliss could tell us what the right reason for getting "all excited and all negative" is.
Schlafly is right on. When President Bush gave this plan to the public, he didn't go far enough. He should have some kind of protected worker program, however he should have said the borders will be closed and soldiers put on the borders until we can deal with the massive influx of illegals already here. Had he done that, he would have had a lot of support from conservatives.
He didn't say he'd close the borders because he doesn't want to. He wants open borders and all the horror it entails for the American citizen.
I stand corrected.
Why do they always say this?
I'm just a working-class voter, but it seems to me that if businesses didn't have a bountiful supply of cheap, illegal workers, they would have to hire other folk to stay in business. We have a fairly large stock of unemployed Americans who want to work, as the media is always so loudly pointing out. So the businesses would have to raise the wages a bit to lure American workers, but their (and our) taxes would go down because we wouldn't be subsidizing the meals, medical care, education, housing and other costs of having been overrun by illegal workers!
Our borders could then be much better secured, our "entitlement costs" would be lowered, and we could be much closer to full employment of Americans. Makes sense to me.
The reality is that those that want to shoot down Bush, will be lending support to Daschale's plan. Have you read it?
NOTE the date.
In light of the importance of legitimate and transparent public institutions to world stability, peace, and development, and the serious negative effects that corruption of public insti-tutions has on the United States efforts to promote security and to strengthen democratic institutions and free market systems, and in light of the importance to the United States and the international community of fighting corruption, as evidenced by the Third Global Forum on Fighting Corruption and Safeguarding Integrity and other intergovernmental efforts, I have determined that it is in the interests of the United States to take action to restrict the international travel and to suspend the entry into the United States, as immigrants or nonimmigrants, of certain persons who have committed, participated in, or are beneficiaries of corruption in the performance of public functions where that corruption has serious adverse effects on international activity of U.S. businesses, U.S. foreign assistance goals, the security of the United States against transnational crime and terrorism, or the stability of democratic institutions and nations.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, by the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, including section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code, hereby find that the unrestricted immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States of persons described in section 1 of this proclamation would, except as provided in sections 2 and 3 of this proclamation, be detrimental to the interests of the United States.
I therefore hereby proclaim that:
Section 1. The entry into the United States, as immigrants or nonimmigrants, of the following persons is hereby suspended:
(a) Public officials or former public officials whose solicitation or acceptance of any article of monetary value, or other benefit, in exchange for any act or omission in the performance of their public functions has or had serious adverse effects on the national interests of the United States.
(b) Persons whose provision of or offer to provide any article of monetary value or other benefit to any public official in exchange for any act or omission in the performance of such official's public functions has or had serious adverse effects on the national interests of the United States.
(c) Public officials or former public officials whose misappropriation of public funds or interference with the judicial, electoral, or other public processes has or had serious adverse effects on the national interests of the United States.
(d) The spouses, children, and dependent household members of persons described in paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) above, who are beneficiaries of any articles of monetary value or other benefits obtained by such persons.
Sec. 2. Section 1 of this proclamation shall not apply with respect to any person otherwise covered by section 1 where entry of the person into the United States would not be contrary to the interests of the United States.
Sec. 3. Persons covered by sections 1 and 2 of this proclamation shall be identified by the Secretary of State or the Secretary's designee, in his or her sole discretion, pursuant to such standards and procedures as the Secretary may establish.
Sec. 4. For purposes of this proclamation, "serious adverse effects on the national interests of the United States" means serious adverse effects on the international economic activity of U.S. businesses, U.S. foreign assistance goals, the security of the United States against transnational crime and terrorism, or the stability of democratic institutions and nations.
Sec. 5. Nothing in this proclamation shall be construed to derogate from United States Government obligations under applicable international agreements.
Sec. 6. The Secretary of State shall have responsibility for implementing this proclamation pursuant to such procedures as the Secretary may, in the Secretary's discretion, establish.
Sec. 7. This proclamation is effective immediately.
Sec. 8. This proclamation is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party, against the United States, its departments, agencies, or other entities, its officers or employees, or any other person.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this twelfth day of January, in the year of our Lord two thousand four, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and twenty-eighth.
GEORGE W. BUSH
We need to make sure these politicians understand how upset we are about this issue (and others). As long as they don't feel the heat from the electorate, they will keep on being jellyfish.
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.