Posted on 12/27/2004 9:23:23 AM PST by calcowgirl
WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush faces a major rebellion within his own party if he follows through on a promise to push legislation that would offer millions of illegal immigrants a path to U.S. citizenship. Almost no issue divides Republicans as deeply.
To get the guest-worker initiative through Congress, Bush will need to go against the wishes of many Republicans and forge bipartisan alliances. That's what President Clinton did in 1993 to win approval for a free trade agreement with Mexico and Canada, over objections of a large bloc of congressional Democrats.
The chance seems slim for finding common ground between those in favor of liberalized immigration laws - Bush, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger for example - and those who want fewer immigrants, tougher border controls and harsher penalties.
Opposition is strongest among House Republicans.
"In our party, this is a deep division that is growing deeper every minute," says Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo. He heads a group of 70 lawmakers who are against easing immigration laws.
Tancredo said Bush's guest-worker proposal is "a pig with lipstick" and will not pass.
Bush asserts that he won valuable "political capital" in the election and intends to spend it. It is not clear how much of that he is willing to spend on the immigration measure.
Higher on his list of priorities is overhauling the Social Security system, rewriting the tax laws, limiting lawsuit judgments, and making his first-term tax cuts permanent.
An estimated 10 million immigrants live in the United States illegally; the vast majority are from Mexico, with an additional million arriving every year.
A hint of the trouble ahead for Bush on immigration came this month when proposals to tighten - not ease - border restrictions nearly undermined a bill to restructure U.S. intelligence agencies.
The chairman of the House Judiciary Committee wanted the measure to bar states from giving a driver's license to illegal immigrants. Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., said some of the Sept. 11 hijackers gained access to U.S. aircraft by using a driver's license as identification.
Sensenbrenner ultimately backed down, but only after House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill, promised that the chairman's proposal would be considered in separate legislation in 2005.
Hastert also indicated he would not move ahead on major legislation unless it was supported by a majority of Republicans in the GOP-controlled House - and that he would not rely on Democratic support to pass a bill.
Immigration overhaul is "an issue that splits both parties, and given the new Hastert rule, may never go anywhere," said William A. Niskanen, chairman of the libertarian Cato Institute. Niskanen was a member of President Reagan's Council of Economic Advisers.
The president's plan would grant temporary-worker status, for three years to six years, to millions of undocumented workers. It also would it easier for those workers to get permanent U.S. citizenship.
As governor of Texas, Bush was committed to immigration changes. As president, he came close to making a deal with Mexican President Vicente Fox in the days before the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Those plans were put on hold as tighter borders took on a higher priority for the United States.
As a presidential candidate, both in 2000 and 2004, Bush eagerly courted Hispanics, the fastest-growing ethnic group in the electorate.
"We will keep working to make this nation a welcoming place for Hispanic people, a land of opportunity para todos (for all) who live here in America," Bush told the League of United Latin American Citizens last summer.
Bush claimed 35 percent of Hispanic voters in 2000 and at least 40 percent last Nov. 2, according to exit polls. That compares with the 21 percent won by Bob Dole in 1996 and the 25 percent that Bush's father got in 1992.
Republican consultants suggest Bush will not make a big push for his immigration bill until he has achieved his goals on Social Security and the tax laws. They also say the president may jettison the immigration bill if it would jeopardize other parts of his agenda.
Inside the administration, nobody is suggesting that passing the immigration plan would be anything other than extremely difficult.
"We don't want to overpromise," Secretary of State Colin Powell said during a visit last month to Mexico City.
EDITOR'S NOTE — Tom Raum has covered Washington for The Associated Press since 1973, including five presidencies.
That's exactly what happened.
Do you refuse to speak English and make demands on those that do?
Do you fly the Mexican, Puerto Rican, Ecudorian, Brazilian, etc etc flag without ever flying an American flag next to it?
If the answer to any of these is yes, than yes, you fit every derisive comment I could ever conjure up
Do you have anything else other than hillary/ickes blast faxes(e-mails).
I'm nowhere near the most prolific anti illegal immigration poster on FR, but if I were, It would not bother me one bit and if you find it inflammatory rhetoric, that’s just your opinion. Many more would disagree with you.
Yes, I am vitriol towards the Presidents proposal, because it will fail if implemented. If he wish’s to go back and propose a different and better bill, I may support it. It all depends on whether or not I think it would work.
Ping
IOW, HELP!!!!!
Yes, it is amazing that the Fox government in Mexico City can make all these demands/request on to us when in fact they treat their own citizens a lot worse. They certainly do have a lot of nerve in doing such.
I heard today on the radio Senator Jim Talent coming out against driver licenses for illegal aliens and he also voiced his concern how illegal immigration is putting a big burden on the states. I'm wondering if you've heard any of this.
Yeah right, and hillary doesn't pander, either. Sheesh you all are a hubristic lot, kinda of like hillary. A question, are you pounding on your keyboard in a pink dress.
Yes, I am vitriol towards the Presidents proposal, because it will fail if implemented. If he wish’s to go back and propose a different and better bill, I may support it. It all depends on whether or not I think it would work.
What you think? At least you are being somewhat honest, but you are also an admitted member of a FED govt. union.
In my experience, FED govt. unions are the last bastion of defying common sense, kinda of like the antics of PATCO(Fed Govt. air controllers union) back in 81, when they defied that evil Ronald Reagan and all for their selfish interests which slowed down the American airline industry, kinda of like the union which "represents" USAir workers is going to put that airline out of business.
I hadn't heard that about Talent today. This is great news. It is a shame that Mexico does not extend to US Citizens the same goodies that we give to theirs. It only goes to show that we need to round up the illegals and place them all back into Fox's little hands. Let's see how his economy does with more than a million more mouths to feed. Then we need some nice legislation that forbids any business from accepting those stupid consular cards.....big mistake to allow it to begin with if you ask me.
Fox is doing all the bitching, we need to demand more from them. Maybe something like an Oil for Illegals program. Or how about letting Americans own land on the border instead of having to go through a trust fund. Or how about repealing the limit of allowing only 49% of the land area to be owned by foreigners. Or demand that they teach English in their schools. The only way that shit hole is going to be fixed is if we buy it out and assimilate it into the US.
I love that plan!
The only way to prevent earned legalization is to support Bush's Guest Worker plan.
Senator Talent will be up for re-election in 2006 and its important that we keep him there. His victory over Carnahan in 2002 was very close. His support in rural Missouri is not as strong as it should be but since he is from an urban area this is not surprising. This and the democratic voter fraud cost him the governorship in 2000 in a very close race with Bob Holden. I hope that he'll carry rural Mo. like Matt Blunt did this November.
I believe it is critical that he is in the senate for years to come to counter-balance the nonsense that comes from the liked of McCain and Kennedy on the illegal immigration issue.
I believe that to be true, but IIRC, it is the United States that prohibits dual citizenship while Mexico endorses it. American law equally fails its citizenry in this area when it comes to immigration code...
"I'm curious as to how Mexico deals with immigration? Is Vicente Fox as generous in regards to this in his country?"
HERE YA GO:
Prop. 200-style system already law in Mexico
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/
Chris Hawley
Republic Mexico City Bureau
Oct. 19, 2004 12:00 AM
MEXICO CITY - The provisions of Proposition 200 have stirred up a storm of debate in Arizona. But here in Mexico, they're already the law.
Arizona's contentious ballot proposal would require proof of U.S. citizenship when registering to vote and proof of legal residency when applying for government benefits.
In Mexico, it has been that way for years. Only in hospitals are Mexico's laws more lenient about checking immigration documents.
To see if the requirements are being enforced, a Republic reporter (a U.S. citizen with legal residency in Mexico), went to six public agencies and two schools in Mexico City to inquire about services and registering to vote.
Almost every official asked to see proof of Mexican citizenship or an FM3 visa, the document that allows a person to live in Mexico. Often, it was the first question asked.
"Every agency has its own regulations, but generally, that's the rule. To receive these government services, you have to prove you are in the country legally," said Victoria Hernández, a spokeswoman for the Mexican Secretariat of Government, which oversees immigration.
Those same requirements have set off a furious debate in Arizona.
Opponents of Proposition 200, which will be on the Nov. 2 ballot, say it will turn state employees into immigration agents, build a culture of fear in government offices and create a public health risk by discouraging undocumented immigrants from seeking medical care.
Supporters say the measure will protect the election process and cut expenses by keeping undocumented immigrants from seeking benefits.
The Mexican government has been mostly silent on the issue. In one of the few public ---snip----
That is a great idea. It is common sense. It is good for America. It is not likely to be considered by Washington. Nice try, though.
As for the rest, mostly working ILLEGAL immigrants, I don't want to see them expelled immediately. Let attrition work. And we don't need new laws for business and government to ignore.
We need PRUCOL!
Expel the real criminals and in lieu of a new law let the "on the books" ILLEGAL immigrants be Permanently Residing Under Color of Law (PRUCOL).
[Excerpted from a website]
"PRUCOL was created not by the voter and legislation, but by the courts. When an alien is designated as PRUCOL, it means that they are illegal but can still stay. Because the illegal alien can stay they have the same rights as if they were legal. The real difference is that a PRUCOL cannot apply for U.S. citizenship.
"The good news is that a PRUCOL can't sponsor any family members.
"WHO IS GIVEN PRUCOL STATUS?
"Plainly put, illegal aliens are PRUCOLs if they are illegals and the INS allows them to stay in the U.S.".
[End of excerpt]
Technically, PRUCOL does not currently include a self-supporting, working but ILLEGAL immigrant as such, apparently. Allowing the self-supporting, working ILLEGAL immigrant to be PRUCOL is better than a new law. He's likely using a phony SSN but SSA handles that. I've described how elsewhere or google for Earnings Suspense File.
Regardless, new laws or not, handle the current crop of ILLEGALS then start enforcing the immigration laws, Mr. President!
So ?
The only way to prevent earned legalization is to support Bush's Guest Worker plan.
Two bad choices, IMO. I prefer a third way.
I would like to see every last on e of these illegals deported, however, we need to start somewhere. Deporting the dangeous illegals first, followed by the rest. Businesses who hire these people and refuse to pay taxes on them should be deported as well.
Its not what you prefer, its what the AFL-CIO and the growers prefer. They are the ones who negotiated the compromise that was enshrined in the ag worker reform bill of 03 and will be enshrined in the Immigration Reform Bill of 05.
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.