Posted on 02/09/2005 9:00:18 AM PST by JustAnotherSavage
BUSH BACKPEDALING ON AMNESTY? By Michelle Malkin · February 09, 2005 04:31 AM
At The Tar Pit, Sabertooth thinks President Bush may be backing down on amnesty. That speculation is based on Rep. Tom DeLay's statement in this New York Times article:
WASHINGTON, Feb. 8 - Representative Tom DeLay of Texas, the House majority leader, said Tuesday that conservatives might be able to compromise with President Bush on his proposal allowing illegal immigrants to work in the United States legally.
Such a compromise could entail, for example, requiring illegal immigrants to return to their native countries to apply for the program, Mr. DeLay said.
Mr. DeLay said he talked recently with the president, who has advocated a guest worker program that would be open to workers who are currently in the country illegally as well as to newcomers.
"He doesn't discount the notion, for instance, that you have to apply for it in your country of origin," Mr. DeLay said of the president. "He thought that was a great idea."
Lots of other good stuff at The Tar Pit, including this post about an effort by Sens. John McCain and Larry Craig to thwart Rep. James Sensenbrenner's proposed legislation for federal standards for state drivers licenses. http://thetarpit.blogspot.com/2005/02/could-bush-blink-on-amnesty.html
When did start? More like "where" does this start. It starts with the corruption and social injustice in Mexico. THAT is the real driving force behind the massive levels of immigration from that country. People who 15 years ago were working their own lands, tending their own little ranches and farms are now landless desperate peasants their government wants to be rid of. How many Mexicans would prefer living in their own homeland, working their own few acres versus coming north to be someone's cheap toilet cleaner? Or cheap live in nanny or yard boy?
And WHEN does it stop? It stops when our government leaders get the nerve to stand up to the corrupt but very wealthy Mexican oligarchs and tell them it's going to stop --- that the USA is not the dumping ground for their endless social problems --- that HOY is the time they will start the reform "HOY HOY HOY" like our famous Vicente Fox is well known for saying --- but he's done zilch --- zero, nada to improve life for the Mexican people. And when our leaders dare stand up and tell them the people dumping is over --- they corrupt Mexican elite know that they either pack their bags or start reforms.
Mexico after the return of the braceros was not in the bad shape it is today. The exodus of millions of it's citizens is not making any stability. Mexico was far more stable in the 70's --- there existed far more hope for the future there. Neither the USA nor Mexico suffered in the least for the return of Mexico's citizens to Mexico.
If you're really worried about "militarization" of the border --- you ought to be worried about the militarization going on on the other side:
Mass Kidnappings and Murders Strike Tamaulipas Town and Prison
....
Osiel Cárdenas, the alleged leader of the Gulf Cartel which has traditionally controlled Matamoros, is in one of the Mexico City-area prisons, La Palma. A group of enforcers said to be under his control, Los Zetas, which is comprised of deserted Mexican special forces soldiers, has in the past used large numbers of men to carry out daring prison rescues and lethal operations against competing drug traffickers.
Call to Militarize the Border
Between the time of the Soto La Marina and Matamoros killings the state of Tamaulipas had already called on Mexican defense forces to take over anti-crime vigilance in the state.
http://www.nmsu.edu/~frontera/
The border already is heavily militarized ---that's a fact --- but not with an honest military run by a non-corrupt government.
So --- cattle cars, train box cars, and unventilated semi trailers fill with Mexicans stuffed in like sardines is a wonderful thing as long as they're coming from Mexico that way. Air-conditioned comfortable Grayhound style buses headed the other way is inhumane.
Military on the border is only bad if it's America's military, military on the border if it's Mexican military --- Los Zetas for example --- no problem.
Just like when he wanted $6 trillion for something yet asked for $12 trillion and finally got Congress to settle for $6 trillion.
Yep I wouldn't play poker against him.
Which explains why so many folks seem to take onanistic glee in that prospect.
He could declare martial law and create a dead zone on our border in 12 hours.
Absent the condition you set forth above, he'd only do so if he wanted to be impeached in 13.
Hey bayourod, if you don't mind answering a personal question, are you a Latino? The only reason that I ask is that you seem to get very upset whenever FReepers post any kind of derogatory comment about Mexicans. If you are a Latino, then I'd understand you wanting to defend "your people" on this forum.
"The Delay plan must say the illegals have to live in their home country for one full year before they can apply for a guest worker visa".
____________________________________
A full two years would be even better.
So when are these guys going home???
When Congress moves its rear on Imm. reform. Could be awhile.
I don't think that congress will act. They are afraid of Mr. Fox.
No, I'm as about as WASP as a Texan can be and my roots go beck to pre-revolutionary war times. I don't hire illegals, don't know any illegals that I know of, am not an immigration attorney or lobbyist; I and don't have any financial or personal interests in any Hispanics, immigrants or Mexico
I've stated my agenda several times.
I am a very conservative, loyal Republican and Bush supporter who believes that a small but vocal assortment of individuals and groups with divergent motives and agendas has independently converged to exploit the legitimate issue of immigration reform for their own purposes; and that the avalanche of emotional hysteria created by them is threatening the relationship between Republicans and Hispanic voters; and that unless stopped right now, could keep the Republicans out of the White House for many decades.
First among that group is the Buchanan gang that has been exploiting racism for almost twenty years, originally in an attempt by Buchanan to advance his own political career, then as spoiler to extract revenge on Republicans for rejecting him in favor of "that Bush boy", and finally as a profit making venture. He has formed a partnership with another experienced fund raiser, Tom Tancredo, to exploit the immigration issue for personal financial gain. I suspect that they will follow the Buchanan 2000 model using Tancredo as the "candidate" this time instead of Buchanan, who has lost his credibility as a candidate. There are millions of dollars profit that can be made off of a presidential campaign using federal matching funds, not the least of which is development of valuable mailing lists. The proof will be if Tancredo ends up running as an independent or third party candidate who, unlike the Dem/Rep candidates, will continue to receive matching funds all the way thru the general election.
A second group is the liberal, zero population growth/environmentalist/anti-immigrant/eugenics complex that is behind such "respected" organizations as FAIR, CIS, NumbersUSA and their affiliates who have tacked from opposing all immigration to talking mainly about "illegal" immigration in order to fuel the flames.
A third, and probably the least significant group is the racist organizations such as StormFront, KKK etc... who also have jumped on the bandwagon of exploiting the "illegal" issue.
A fourth factor is the Internet cottage industry of anti-immigrant fundraising sites. Some have even used FR to recruit contributors. One specializes in stories about Hispanic surnamed people accused of rape. They search to nation for such news items and then claim to have reason to believe that the Hispanic perp is an illegal immigrant.
Another group is talk show hosts and columnists who have glumed onto the mob hysteria in an effort to increasevratings and readership. Rush has been flirting with it, but carefully avoids anything negative about Hispanics that could come back on him in the anti-racist backlash purge that will follow. He even slips in a few statement about favoring amnesty or increasing immigration.
Another group is the Immigration Reform Caucus of Congress composed of mainly dead end House members who see a cheap way to distract their constituents whom they view as necessary nuances to the induldgment of their vanities. "Demagogues" is an appropriate description.
Labor unions are an another obvious group that has always fought immigrant labor and now sees an opportunity to co-opt the anti-illegals movement.
Then there is the liberal media that is fanning the flames because they see the issue as a way to divide the Republicans and disrupt the Bush agenda.
Minor players include Municipal Leagues, Hospital associations, social service providers' organizations and government employees' groups whose lobbyists are the ones commissioning the "scientific" studies showing that illegals have an adverse financial impact necessitating increased government funding for their institutions/communities/organizations etc...
But the facts are that our economy is dependent on immigrant labor; not enough are being admitted legally and it is impossible to prevent foreign laborers from entering America as long as we need their labor and they need the money to feed their families.
In other words, you're arguing that most Americans were mouth-breathing morons who ignored the debate completely, and that excuses your refusal to discuss the mission honestly.
You're going to amazing lengths to avoid talking about the issues I've raised.
Please say yes, you'll make my job a whole lot easier.
Yeah, it's so much easier to detour into irrelevant tangents than to answer questions you've been asked.
Let's get one thing straight: you believe the majority of Americans to be ignorant mouth-breathing goobers. That may or may not be true. However, that is irrelevant to the questions I raised. Your desire to avoid answering them is also irrelevant to me.
How many troops?
What CONOPS?
Where will we get those troops?
I eagerly await your answers.
Wrong. I'm showing you the logic of the "issues" you've raised. You're saying that in order for citizens to be justified in demanding that government do its job, they must inform it of exactly how it's to do its job. But for some reason, you don't want to apply that logic to Iraq. Now why might that be?
Thanks for your very well expressed comments in your post #395. I admire the fact that you are very passionate about the issues that you believe in. You and I may not agree 100% on the issue of immigration, but I always find your comments on this subject interesting to read.
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.