Posted on 01/27/2005 7:15:50 PM PST by neverdem
WASHINGTON, Jan. 26 - The battle within the Republican Party over immigration policy was joined Wednesday as President Bush vigorously promoted his proposal for a guest worker program and conservatives in Congress introduced an alternative proposal to tighten immigration restrictions.
At a news conference, President Bush said again that he considered his guest worker proposal "a priority" even though Senate Republicans left it off their list of top goals. "A program that enables people to come into our country in a legal way to work for a period of time, for jobs that Americans won't do, will help make it easier for us to secure our borders," Mr. Bush said, adding: "I know there is a compassionate, humane way to deal with this issue. I want to remind people that family values do not end at the Rio Grande border."
Party conservatives, however, have strenuously opposed a guest worker plan since Mr. Bush introduced the idea in 2001, even staging a losing revolt over its inclusion in the party platform at the 2004 Republican convention. Many conservatives call the president's ideas "amnesty" - a term Mr. Bush disputes - because his plan includes ways for currently illegal immigrants to obtain temporary worker permits.
On Wednesday afternoon, Representative F. James Sensenbrenner Jr., the Wisconsin Republican who is chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, again introduced a measure to block illegal immigrants from obtaining driver's licenses.
At a news conference, he said the committee would not consider other immigration proposals, implicitly including the president's, until his own measure passed. A similar measure was removed from a bill to enact the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission last year. Senator Jon Kyl, Republican of Arizona, is expected to introduce a driver's license restriction this year.
Mr. Sensenbrenner said his bill was primarily directed at border security, distinguishing it from other changes in immigration policy. "Immigrants are not terrorists, except a few of them," he said. "The legislation that was introduced today is designed to get the bad apples out of the barrel before the barrel was spoiled."
He said a group of House Republicans had written a letter to Mr. Bush urging him to provide full financing for provisions in last year's antiterrorism bill doubling the number of border patrol agents and tripling the number of beds for detaining illegal immigrants over the next five years. The Department of Homeland Security said recently that it was planning a smaller increase in financing, drawing the ire of advocates of tighter immigration laws.
Asked about the president's proposal, Mr. Sensenbrenner said his committee was "going to be plenty busy with other priorities, a lot of which are the priorities of the White House."
In an interview, Representative Chris Cannon, a Utah Republican who supports the president's plan, said a guest worker program would not amount to an amnesty because it would include a monetary penalty for currently illegal immigrants. "The people who want to kick them all out are not reasonable people," he said.
But Representative Tom Tancredo, Republican of Colorado and chairman of the Congressional immigration caucus, vowed to defeat any program that in his view would reward lawbreakers, even questioning the president's motives. "Could it be just the corporate interests, the money interests that rely so heavily on cheap labor?" he asked
Ronald Reagan
Oct 30, 1984
Today we're part of a coalition of people who share some values that are traditional to America. Whether our forefathers and mothers came here from a Latin country, or from Africa, or from Asia, or from Europe -- in my case, I guess it's Europe, Ireland and England -- we hold dear those ideas that brought our forebears here. We're bound together by a love of family and neighborhood and a respect for God. We believe in hard work and peace through strength. And these are not Republican values, these are American.
Our opponents don't seem to see things this way. They view our country not as people of varied backgrounds who share common values and aspirations; instead, they see us as warring factions and interest groups. They try to divide us, using envy, and playing people off against each other by telling us we're competing for a piece of a pie that is ever getting smaller. Well, that's not our way. We don't see people as members of this group or that; we see them as Americans, with all the rights and opportunities that go with being American.
And about that pie -- we also believe that we should work together to make a bigger pie, so everyone can have a bigger slice.
We still believe in the dream that brought people here from every corner of the Earth. Today we're reaching out as never before to people from every background to draw them into our coalition for progress. Our message to America is clear and direct: The Grand Old Party now stands for the Great Opportunity Party. And there's plenty of room for everyone. We aren't writing any group off or taking any group for granted. We're asking all of you to come walk with us down a path of hope and opportunity.
Texas has about a 40% Hispanic population, no problems with social services or schools or hospitals or gangs. Texas has low taxes, low cost of living and a $6.5 Billion state surplus.
Instead of complaining about immigrants bringing down the academic achievement scores, Texas educates them to be labor force ready and lures companies away from California with lower taxes and a better labor market. Businesses pay the taxes that allow us to educate immigrants who then attract more businesses who pay more taxes .....
Oh, in all fairness to California I should give them credit for their Three Billion Dollar embryonic stem cell program.
I held positions in all three Reagan campaigns and was a strong supporter. Reagan was not the hard mean man that revisionist like Buchanan try to paint him to be.
Reagan was the epitome of compassion. In person the compassion and strong determination to make peoples' lives better was overwhelmingly apparent.
Those who know him only from history don't have the faintest clue about the man.
If you are talking about California's crime problem or the crime problem of certain other localities, those are not immigration problems, they are local crime problems that need to be addressed by local law enforcement officials. Other cities and states with just as many illeagls don't have the same crime problem. Cities with high ratyes of crimes by illegals will also have high rates of crime by legals. Some cities in California simply don't like cops or law enforcement. They'd rather send their tax dollars to Asia to flood victims.
Your posts consistently excuse the activities of illegal aliens and the businesses who hire them. Again I invite you to read post #262 on what Reagan felt about that.
Reagan granted all illegals amnesty.
In effect your saying: Smack down Hispanics and they'll behave? You've mentioned the staffing of LAPD vs. Houston PD, so I think that's what your stating? I personally think California is beyond hope, but plenty of people want to live there. That's OK with me, I still have a couple of First TD's there. The best thing Dubya could do for Mexico is seal the borders and let Mexico have their long over due revolution. Having a festering sore next door to our nation is not good for us in the long run. Forgive my faulty brain as I can't remember the name of the gang from Texas, but when they showed up in Cali, all the 'homeboys' would lay low.
Fine by me.
Not really, just some of the farmworkers. Or that's who it was intended for prior to the massive fraud. But even so it was a compromise that he agreed to in a bill which included massive numbers of new border control guards and tough employer sanctions. It was also supposed to be a one-time only deal.
It's very telling how you insist on ignoring his various statements on the need to control the borders for purposes of sovereignty with strong penalties against those who hire the illegals. Yours and the Wall St. Journals and Bush's position on this issue are 180 degrees different then his.
In Texas we believe in smacking down anyone who isn't behaving. Drugs and gangs are criminal problems, not immigration problems.
As long as California continues to treat them like immigration problems instead of crime problems they'll continue to exist.
I'm amazed at how many FReepers from California whine about gang crime problems and call Bush a traitor, but have never even thought about putting the blame where it belongs---on their own police.
Where did you get that? The only condition I remember was the time consideration.
Do you have a source or is that something you just made up?
And Reagan didn't do it as a compromise with Democrats, he did it because he thought it needed doing. You may have Bush Sr.'s tax increase in mind.
Ignore them? I've never heard them. Can you provide some of them?
Guest Worker Proposal Threatens the American Dream
"No doubt, as in the 1986 amnesty program for agriculture workers, Bush's Guest Worker program would rely on employers' self-serving attestations. Even that amnesty program's sponsor, Charles Schumer (D-NY) admitted that fraud occurred in at least 2/3 of the hires."
I'm still waiting patiently for you to comment on his belief employers should be penalized in the future, not rewarded for illegal activity as you obviously desire.
Post #262 for starters, it's only been pointed out to you 20 times now. Read it.
Ronald Reagan:
"This country has lost control of its borders..."
"A nation without borders is not a nation."
Can you point me to any quotes Bush or his father has said that even comes remotely close to that?
I did. If you didn't like my comment or don't think it was on point, please stop playing juvenile games and specify exactly what you are asking me.
Where is it, post #, proof please. I didn't see anything. Looks to me as if you're dancing around it in the usual bayourod way. Anything to find excuses for the criminal activity of millions of lawbreaking invaders and those who hire them.
There was a time limit of 1982, however it was a one-time only deal coupled with strong enforcement provisions in the future. I'm still waiting for Bush to enforce them. Neither he, his father or Clinton seem to believe it's very important.
"Some"? LOL.
This will be like CFR.
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.