Posted on 11/10/2004 12:51:19 PM PST by VU4G10
(Washington, DC—November 10, 2004) It wasn't quite "Read my lips," but in the last presidential debate in Arizona, George W. Bush clearly stated that he would not support amnesty for illegal aliens. One week after being narrowly returned to office, the president has reneged on that pledge. Bush has dispatched Secretary of State Colin Powell to Mexico City to open discussions with the Mexican government about the size and scope of amnesty for illegal immigrants and for a massive new guest worker program.
"President Bush and Karl Rove have seemingly missed the message of their own, and the Republican Party's, success at the polls last week," said Dan Stein, president of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR). "In spite of a poor record on jobs, further erosion of the middle class, and staggering budget deficits, the people returned the GOP to office because they believed that the Republican Party was more in tune with them on values and respect for the law. One of those gut issues that led voters to ignore the administration's poor record in other areas was the belief that Bush and the Republicans would enforce laws against illegal immigration, not reward illegal immigrants and auction off every job in America to the lowest bidder."
The immigration plan being dusted off in Washington and Mexico City is essentially the same one the administration introduced last January, which proved to be so wildly unpopular among voters that they were forced to shelve it. "Who is the president seeking to reward by reintroducing his amnesty/guest worker proposal?" asked Stein. "Not middle class workers who made it very clear that they are feeling squeezed. Not the millions of families who have lost their health insurance benefits because their employers no longer feel that it is necessary to offer such benefits to attract American workers. Not Hispanic voters, whom polls indicate do not consider this to be high priority and who voted in significant numbers in favor of an Arizona ballot measure that bars illegal aliens from receiving most public benefits.
"The only interest group, besides the estimated 10 to 12 million illegal aliens and their families who could be in line for legal U.S. residency, are cheap labor employers who have come to believe that it is their right to have workers who will work at whatever wages they wish to pay," Stein said.
The latest White House announcement will touch off yet another surge in illegal immigration and further compromise homeland security, predicted FAIR. Last January, when the president first proposed this plan, the U.S. Border Patrol reported a marked increase in the number of people attempting to enter the U.S. illegally in order to benefit from the proposed amnesty. "Aside from betraying the interests of millions of people who voted for him because they believed the president shared their core values, this irresponsible renewal of talk of amnesty will betray those who voted for him because they believed the Republicans were the party that could be entrusted to protect homeland security. You cannot have homeland security and chaos at the border. You cannot have homeland security while granting amnesty to millions of people with only minimal background checks. And you certainly cannot have amnesty and unlimited guest workers, and preserve a solid middle class," asserted Stein.
1. Bigger problem. U.S. Attorneys are public servants. If they are ordered to prosecute and refuse, fire them.
2. So you are saying that the fact that there are no facts to back you up is proof that your assertion is correct?
Thanks!
Smart ass. You know that I am referring to stealing. If this is the best you have....
Okay. So, let's encourage the ones that are coming here to
work to stay, become citizens, learn English, pay taxes.
These people WILL work, rather than loafer. They do have
religion in common with the majority of Americans and
aren't members of a cult bent on killing us.
You tell me, you're the one saying it's so. How did you hear of it?
Given the frequent criticisms that the federal government has failed to enforce the '86 law against employers, it would be quite handy for defenders of the catch and release programs to be able to point to the cases of jury nullification you're claiming. Yet they haven't. Why not?
Have you turned them in to the INS? You can get them raided if that is indeed the case.
Fine. They prosecute. No convictions. And then they get fired anyway, because they have a low conviction rate. So you're going to have high turnover, low conviction rates, and you're less likely to get a competent lawyer into the US Attorney's office (nobody worth their pay will take a job that guarantees he'll be terminated with a black mark on his record).
If your goal is to create a US Attorney's office that can't win a single frickin' case, then your idea's a very good one.
2. So you are saying that the fact that there are no facts to back you up is proof that your assertion is correct?
The lack of cases being brought is proof that those cases are viewed within the US Attorney's office as being not likely to generate convictions.
I do know some people who were involved in prosecuting the first cases back in 1987-88. They laid out open-and-shut cases against the employers...and the juries refused to convict, period. You might find brief news tidbits in your library.
Personal acquaintances who were there for the one attempt made to enforce those laws.
Given the frequent criticisms that the federal government has failed to enforce the '86 law against employers, it would be quite handy for defenders of the catch and release programs to be able to point to the cases of jury nullification you're claiming. Yet they haven't. Why not?
What frequent criticisms? You mean here on FR? Guess what, sonny boy? Most of the world doesn't give a s**t about what's said on FR.
But they are paid off in future tax dollars and hopefully at that point in the future there is more tax money coming in from the growth in whatever it was the bonds were purchased for and those people will pay back the bond money -- not you.
Now THAT is a good idea!
How would that change if the Bush proposal passes?
I consider government confiscation of personal property from people who have not been convicted of anything to be stealing.
What about the 15 million who are already here, on welfare, using our medical services for free, filling our schools, filling our prisons? If the "guestworker" plan is granted to a few million, what happens to the other millions? Deportation, NAAHH!
Try to deal in reality.
Bush didn't even MENTION this in his press conference.
The only reason it's being discussed is because there was a scheduled meeting in Mexico.
Try reading and comprehending this:
"Powell cautioned Tuesday that it was unclear how the new Congress, which takes office in January, would deal with the issue. At a joint news conference with Mexican Foreign Minister Luis Ernesto Derbez, he promised that the Bush administration would meet with congressional leaders to assess "the pace at which we can proceed with a temporary-worker program and how fast and how far we can move in what period of time." "We don't want to over-promise," Powell said."
How would that change if the Bush proposal passes?
It brings the law into closer accord with the customs of the American Southwest regarding hiring of Mexican workers.
It was perfectly legal to hire Mexicans until 1965. And then the rules were arbitrarily changed to benefit one small special-interest group.
In 1994, the rules regarding firearms were changed to benefit one small interest group. We got outraged about it.
In 2001, the rules regarding political speech were changed to benefit one small interest group. We got outraged about it.
When the law violates long-standing (and harmless to others) custom, there's a case (which I don't subscribe to) that said law should be violated.
Laws regarding discretionary behavior (i.e., behavior that does not injure others) that are in accord with accepted social norms are more likely to be obeyed, and are a hell of a lot easier to enforce, because violations will be viewed by jurors as being more serious violations of the social compact.
In other words, you'd pay people for accomplishing nothing.
Here, send me all of your cash, and I'll accomplish exactly the same thing. There, will you feel better?
Okay, then we are both referring to stealing. The point remains the same.
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.