Posted on 07/08/2004 3:58:29 PM PDT by 4.1O dana super trac pak
SAN ANTONIO - President Bush told the nation's largest Hispanic rights group Thursday that America should make a place, albeit a temporary one, for a huge number of immigrants now working illegally in the country.
In a breif address via satellite from Washington, D.C., Bush also praised the fast-growing Hispanic population as a fertile ground for the creation of small businesses that are helping to fuel the U.S. economy.
"Our economy is stronger and our society is better off because Hispanic businesses are thriving and creating jobs across America," he told delegates to the League of United Latin American Citizens' annual convention.
John Kerry, the expected Democratic nominee for president, is scheduled to address LULAC on Saturday morning.
"snip"
Bush touted his tax cuts to Thursday's audience, saying they have helped Hispanic businesses and the rest of the economy.
With a population of nearly 40 million, Hispanics are the nation's largest minority group.
The research group HispanTelligence predicts that by 2010 the number of Hispanic-owned enterprises will grow from about 2 million to 3.2 million, and that their combined revenue will jump 70 percent to more than $450 billion.
But at the other end of the economy are Hispanics working in the United States illegally, and for them Bush said he will urge Congress to approve a temporary-worker program that would allow them to fill jobs unwanted by Americans.
"I know this proposal would be good for our economy," Bush said. "It will bring millions of hard-working people out of the shadows of American life. ...America is the nation of the open door, and it must stay that way.
Hector Flores, LULAC's national president, said afterward that he's glad the president is thinking about immigration, but said his plan doesn't go far enough.
"We need a fair and just immigration law," said Flores, who supports "earned legalization" for those undocumented workers--particularly those from Latin America--who have been in the country many years.
"They are no different than other immigrant groups coming to America through Ellis Island," Flores said, referring to past waves of U.S. workers from abroard. "I'm not advocating an amnesty (for all illegal immigrants), but I don't think a temporary guest-worker program is the answer, either.
Bush, who pleased the LULAC crowd by peppering his speech with a little Spanish, has led the Republican Party's efforts to gain stature among Hispanic voters, who have traditionally cast their ballots for Democrats.
He got 35 percent of the Hispanic vote in the 2000 presidential election, well up from the 21 percent received by GOP nominee Bob Dole in 1996.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailysentinel.com ...
I've maintained for a while that illegal immigration is nothing more than conditioning process to force us to accept the FTAA as it's jammed our throats by the useful idiots in the free trade movement. FTAA means no borders and if it goes through as planned we will see a new "American Union" ala the EU along with an attack on our Constitution/BOR as well as our legal system.
BTTT for the truth.
This is bad. Pure leftist speech.
What would you expect from a president whose policies are to the left of LBJ?
< S N I P >
Rep. Henry J. Hyde, chairman of the House International Relations Committee, plans to propose today that countries in the Western Hemisphere form a Commonwealth of the Americas with common political, security and economic policies.
The Bush capitulation
The Bush amnesty
Well, I guess its all over. Para todos.
Oh, it did indeed. Instead of indulging in another rant I wondered "What exactly are the President's duties toward preserving sovereignty?"
The Constitution is specific about his leading the Executive Branch, waging war with Congressional approval, veto powers, etc., but makes no directives toward HOW to lead. His oath of office is not about protecting and serving our country, just the Constitution itself. You and any other sane person would believe that all laws are de facto extensions of that Constitution as we're taught in school (probably not anymore but that's another issue).
Dubya seems, like his father, hellbent on placing treaties over the Constitution. According to Free Republic's linked Constitution Org, this is flatly denied:
"In addition to the written document and the Common Law, the Constitution also includes Treaties, which, although they are valid only insofar as they are not in conflict with the written Constitution, are superior to both the Common Law and to State constitutions and laws, to the extent that those might be in conflict with the Treaties. Thus, some of the Treaties that have been adopted extend and clarify some of the rights, powers, and duties provided in the written Constitution." Seems clear enough, doesn't it?
"I'll take "Things Government Doesn't Want Us To Know" for $200, Alex"
Back in 1914 Woodrow Wilson wanted to enact a treaty with England regarding migratory bird protections (it's always the small stuff). Congress challenged him over assuming powers that weren't his but the Supreme Court of the time went activist and backed him up. Later on Truman argued that invading Korea was his duty under the United Nations Charter. The Supreme Court justified a few of their own decisions after that on the same shaky ground. Opponents in the ABA (good guys back in the day) looked closely at the UN Charter and crapped their collective pants. They and riled conservative congressmen crafted the Bricker Amendment, named after the Ohio Senator who championed it (there you go, Ohioan). It was written to clear up ambiguities that had been abused and to clarify that no treaty will supersede the Constitution or the Bill of Rights under any circumstances. Furthermore, final approval of treaties would depend on Congressional approval. Nothing wrong with that, right?
Wrong. The Eisenhower Administration, or more specifically John Foster Dulles, bitterly resented any measure that would constrain the powers of the Executive Branch. Party loyalists along with New Deal Democrats barely defeated a weakened version of the amendment by one vote. Click here for the whole sordid story.
Ike was an exceptionally moral and wise leader on the world stage whom no one could doubt when it came to America's interests (Operation Wetback-Let's do it again!). Unfortunately for us succeeding presidents (with the possible exception of Reagan) have not been as diligent. Some seem to strive for our reduction to a mere state in a hemispheric coalition whose only commonality is unrestricted trade. The treaties leading to this fate depend on our virtual erasure of national borders and concepts of sovereignty. We need to revive and push the Bricker Amendment to counter this threat to our nation's survival and insure our progeny will inherit the America we grew up in.
Do you think they really support President Bush, and this may be an effort by the Washington Post to sabotage the Kerry Campaign?
I believe you. My thinking is what do you do about it. I don't have a knee-jerk reaction against rounding them up and shipping them out, I just don't think it's going to be done.
OK, I'm a little sympathetic in the sense if I were a Mexican I'd be trying to get in this country in whatever way, but I don't have a problem with shipping them back either.
But I doubt it's going to be done so what do you do about it?
What turned it around for me was hearing how big city mayors were giving orders to police to ignore illegal residency. At that point, I figured it was time for Plan B.
Also, my big concern is not the economics, but security. Our border is out of control. It makes sense to me to give the illegals who don't wish to cause us damage an incentive to become legal. It's reasonable to think this would shrink the pool of where to look for those who do want to harm us. This also should get local law enforcement back into the act of assisting INS or whatever it is they are calling it now.
And as noted, legals would be get the same wage & job protection & be subject to the same taxes as natives making them less competitive.
Yeah, but never mind we've a net loss of 1.5 million jobs since 2000 and the "restructured" jobs pay only a fraction of those lost.
Beyond that, what the Bush admin is telling our border enforcement is they are the obstructionists, they are the criminals, and the illegaliens are "owed" a legal status. Well, they have status - they are ILLEGAL.
I suppose Bush wants to lose 2004 and resign himself to be a one-termer like his dad. At this point, I'm apt to agree with him. I hate to have to admit it, but I won't be voting for Bush come November - not unless his attitude changes on this subject, which appears unlikely.
As a former soldier I have far harsher standards to impliment. The rules are simple: knock down everyone coming over the line. Double-tap the stubborn. Defend the nation against invasion. We're in a war that hasn't been declared. Center mass when distant, head shots when sure. Lawyers and agents of foreign governments need to be brought up on charges of treason while politicians clearing there way should be facing the rope. Disregard me for a loony for calling for old-fashioned hangings for traitors.
Not legally. But fake documents for illegal aliens is a growth industry in the US. With fake papers they can register to vote.
You don't think Kerry will be more liberal concerning illegals than Bush?
You're right that security is a big issue with illegal immigration........I just cannot fathom how under this Homeland Security initiative gray haired folks in airports are sometimes subject to intense scrutiny yet for all intents lack of protection along the border allows all sorts of murderers, rapists, drug dealers, diseased and possible terrorists to enter almost at will......it's mindboggling that the American public is not up in arms over this travesty.
Another aspect of this to consider is the fact that literally millions of legal and illegal immigrants depend on welfare style benefits for their very survival because they do not know the language and have no skills.....what happens if there's an economic emergency and the checks stop? How long would it take for numerous communities, large and small, to be swarmed by a tide of humanity that will most likely overwhelm any police force? Does anyone in the useful idiot/open border crowd ever stop to consider the implications of such a happening?
""I know this proposal would be good for our economy," Bush said. "It will bring millions of hard-working people out of the shadows of American life. ...America is the nation of the open door, and it must stay that way."
"America is the nation of the open door", I think he nailed it on this one. Close that door Mr. President! Protect our borders now.
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.