Really? Where have you seen statistics comparing illegal alien crossings in 2004 to 1994?
Posted on 12/31/2004 5:43:33 AM PST by white trash redneck
Wow. Now I more fully understand why the Bush proposal really fueled the increase in the illegal flow. The reward for having secured an illegal job in the US when "the future" hits, and one can't get a guest worker card anymore, simply by being employed illegally, is simply HUGE.
The plan is not as he presented it. It doesn't make sense that guest workers would have to leave to renew when illegals don't have to leave to apply, and a clear reading of the language from the White House site doesn't support the contention.
Consider that if there are 10 million illegal aliens and say half were to become guest workers. What happens to the other five million? We're already told that we can't find them, and the guest worker program would change nothing in that regard. If the Bush plan went through how would you enforce the law against the five million illegals who just saw half their number legalized?
The odds are that those other illegals would stay put while waiting for an amnesty of their own. Why would they leave?
Now consider foreign nationals in their home countries who are watching all of this... half the illegals get amnesty, and half go on as they were. If a foreign national can't get accepted into the guest worker program from their home country, what disincentive would they have from becoming the next batch of illegal aliens? Everything about the Bush plan would reward and condone illegal aliens.
Really? Where have you seen statistics comparing illegal alien crossings in 2004 to 1994?
You are incorrect. Furthermore, if the only way that you can argue is by making such outrageous mischaracterizations, then you must not be in the right.
If you can't make your point by telling the truth, then you aren't making an argument so much as a propaganda piece.
I have seen articles that the illegal flow rate has gone up 80% since Bush proposed his plan. Whether that is true or not I guess is open to debate. Do you think it untrue?
In any event, Frum must be a bit careful as a Canadian citizen and not favor too much exclusion before he is sworn in as a citizen. Frum cares most for foreign policy and economic policy. I care far more for social issues. The Mexicans are my friends on that. You are not going to change my mind until Roe vs. Wade is a humiliating national memory complete with American Holocaust museums, if ever.
We need not irrationally fear Hillary if we are ready to go right down her throat with her history, and her life and wedge issues of our own. We need only determine, recognize and have objective regard for her strengths and smash them and do the same for her weaknesses but expand them. When the public laughs at her, she will become apoplectic with rage and will weaken accordingly. Handing her the Hispanic vote and particularly the Mexican vote is not a very smart plan as the Planned Barrenhood Republicans of Pete Wilson should have learned by now.
As Patton might have said, use her guts to grease the treads of our tanks.
I don't have links to any of your posts. I don't expect to have them either.
You're wrong about this ... my grandfather immigrated to the U.S. in 1902 through Ellis Island - there were laws, rules, procedures, and policy in place, including a health exam and quarantine.
The 1920's immigration rule modifications dealt with the numbers allowed in, and established the nationality quotas that remained in place until the Ted Kennedy revisions in 1965.
I think that I would probably let an illegal move in my house before I went THAT far!
An 80% increase since this proposal was made in 2003 sounds like the sort of nonsensical hyperbole that gets spouted by clueless drunks at grimy bars.
All of that can be discovered without legalizing any illegal aliens through David Dreier's HR 5111, which would make the current workplace verification program mandatory.
You people oppose President Bush's plan. You oppose registering illegals and their employers. You want the status quo. You don't want anything to change. You don't really want the illegal immigration problem to be solved. It must just be a convenient hammer for you to bash away at Bush on by claiming that our borders are out of control...because you are opposing the very registration that would help bring back control of our borders.
LOL! Anything else?
HR 5111 is the status quo? HR 3534 (Tancredo's border enforcement and guest worker program) is the status quo?
Not only is the Bush plan not the only option on the table, it's the most prominent option that is a proven failure. Legalizing illegal aliens rewards them for breaking the law. Rewarding illegal aliens encourages future illegal aliens.
I think Fatalis and I are looking to see some actual language, ie words, in the president's proposal or statements, that lead one to the reasonable conclusion, that one must depart to renew. Frankly if the right to renew is automatic, it would be ludicrous to require that they take a holiday back in their coutry of origin, in order to get the paper work processed.
Laws, laws will save us!!!!
Well, if you have some links to contrary estimates from reliable sources, that would be great. The 80% figure had a big impact on my thinking. If the number is bogus, and there has been no change in the flow, I would find that reassuring.
The White House:
They already hold those jobs illegally. Only illegals could take those illegal jobs. Law-abiding applicants never had an opportunity to get those jobs.
The enemy/opponent sets the rules of engagement.
These are her "rules" straight out of her mentor's hand book, "Rules for Radicals":
"Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. One of the criteria for picking the target is the target’s vulnerability ... the other important point in the choosing of a target is that it must be a personification, not something general and abstract."
Tag! She's it.
"We could also profit from unsealing her sealed senior thesis at Wellesley, written when she was directly involved with Alinsky efforts...."
Apparently Barbara Olson got ahold of it. She wrote:
"A few weeks ago... I came into possession of Hillary's suppressed thesis."
Barbara Olson is the author of "Hell to Pay: The Unfolding Story of Hillary Rodham Clinton."
That's fantasyland talk. Illegals and their employers aren't going to submit to a mandatory workplace verification program anymore than they comply with the existing voluntary one.
On the other hand, plea bargains have worked for decades. You give a little; you take a little.
With the right incentive, illegals *will* register. The carrot will win what the stick will not. Mandatory workplace registrations won't work. Voluntary registrations will work. Choose one.
Rubbish. Many an American has taken many a construction job.
That's funny, because I could swear I remember him being president for eight years.
You don't need a popular majority to be elected. That's why it's notable that Bush '04 was the first candidate to get that majority since his dad back in '88. Clinton never got a popular-vote majority, but that was completely irrelevant. He did win far more electoral votes than Bush did, either time: 370 in '92, and 379 in '96.
Which illustrates the problems the Republicans face on the electoral map. The reason Clinton won the electoral vote by such huge margins both times, was because of those solid blue states with big electoral counts. Since Democratic presidential candidates already have those big, solid blue states and their guaranteed 183 electoral votes -- and though their counts were slightly different then, Clinton won every single one of those states, both times -- they start out in an excellent position to grab a huge electoral win, assuming they're strong enough candidates (John Kerry was a horrible candidate, and look how close he came!), by nailing down the big Democrat-leaning states and only a handful of swing states. In the absence of a strong Republican candidate -- as was the case in '92 and '96 -- the Democrat leaners are almost guaranteed to fall into line, and swing states like Ohio, Florida, Arizona, and Colorado -- four states, with a combined 66 EVs -- stand an excellent chance of tipping.
The result: Huge electoral margins for the Democrats, of the size Bill Clinton got, twice. And in '92, all he needed was a weak challenger, and a strong third-party candidate to draw from that weak challenger. Right now, the GOP does not have an obvious candidate for '08, and the immigration issue could potentially split the party.
Hillary is well aware of all of this. If she benefits from the same set of circumstances that Bill did, she's in.
-Dan
This is a generic, pre-written message, stored in my word processor, under the file name:
"Generic Note to OBL FReepers who post to me."
This post only took 15 seconds of my life to copy and paste to your comment to me.
Be advised, if you post to me again, you will get this same reply.
No, it has nothing to do with the thread. I just thought I'd mention dead puppies.
Dead puppies.
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.