Posted on 02/11/2005 9:58:16 AM PST by GOPGuide
WASHINGTON, Feb. 10 - The House of Representatives voted on Thursday to approve a bill tightening immigration laws in the name of border security. The main provisions of the bill, which passed 261 to 161, block states from issuing standard drivers' licenses to illegal immigrants and make it easier for judges to expel asylum seekers.
Representative F. James Sensenbrenner Jr., Republican of Wisconsin and sponsor of the bill, said that the measures were necessary to fulfill recommendations of the commission that investigated the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
Noting that several of the men involved in those attacks were illegal immigrants who had American drivers' licenses, which they used as identification when boarding planes, Mr. Sensenbrenner said the bill "aims to prevent another 9/11-type attack by disrupting terrorist travel."
- [SNIP] -
But Senator Trent Lott, Republican of Mississippi, said, "The president's guest worker program is not going anywhere, period." Mr. Lott added: "He needs to go ahead and accept it. We are not going to do anything that looks like, smells like or in anyway resembles amnesty, period."
sw
And how 'bout this?:
The real reason cities prohibit their cops and other employees from immigration reporting and enforcement is, like nearly everything else in immigration policy, the numbers. The immigrant population has grown so large that public officials are terrified of alienating it, even at the expense of ignoring the law and tolerating violence.
Paging Mad Max...In a matter of time Kalifornia and the Southwest will be in utter chaos.
Irony of ironies, she may indeed...
Oh please. Do you really think Hillary cares about the border. Her only interest is to try and divide the Republican Party and win the White House in 2008. Anyone who thinks Hillary would do a dang thing about immigration is either very gullible or a closet Hillary supporter.
Your entire premise is wrong.
I am sick of folks assuming Dubya's got some high and noble "strategery" as an excuse for his screwing up the security of America...
However, one point is true -- Dubya Bush was indeed "pandering" -- at the expense of leaving America vulnerable to further invasion, and to the infestation of potential terrorists.
And if this IS the case, the President is CLEARLY derelict in his duty to protect those he swore to "protect" in his oath of Office.
"But, since the House has originated the new bill, Dubya is not involved, but the borders are safer."
Tell me you're NOT serious, my friend.
And if anyone thinks that Tancredo is going to get anything passed, they're dreaming. His so called "plan" (which isn't that dissimilar from the President's) is beyond DOA.
Maybe if Tancredo and his ilk would try and work with the President (instead of doing nothing but violating President Reagan's 11th Commandment) there would be a chance for real reform of the immigration system. Instead it will be business as usual which translates to not a dang thing being done about it.
We have a guest worker program. It is already there. It is just a question of whether congress is alert enough to stop it from being convertable to permanent status.
All of this hell-raising is just that. Does anybody see the American voter up in arms about immigration?
They don't like illegal immigration, but don't seem to want to do anything about the status quo.
There are two groups "up in arms" about immigration. On the left you have Hillary, the Democrats, and the media who are using the issue to try and damage President Bush and the Republican Party. Then there are those on the right, the Buchanan/Tancredo crowd, (about 1%-1.5% of voters) that also want to destroy President Bush and the Republican Party. The Democrats want their power back. The Buchanan crowd wants to punish the Republican Party for rejecting their ideas. If the American people were so "up in arms" over the President's immigration proposal, we'd be talking right now about President John F. Kerry's full amnesty plan.
For most people, they support reasonable immigration policies, not some of the irrational things we've heard suggested like millions of troops on the border, billions for a wall/fence, or vigilante groups roaming the desert looking for illegals. Do we need to control the border? Of course. Should we let people come here legally to work? Of course.
No support. Tancredo's plan won't get majority support, nor will anyone else's.
One thing that will not happen: eight million immigrants rounded up and herded back across the border.
If not, what's so objectionable about his plan that you'd prefer the status quo?
This is exactly why you're opinion on the subject isn't worth a d*mn.
I strongly suggest you consider there may be other good reasons to be up in arms about immigration.
Where is Kinky Friedman when we need him? "Knee-deep in tacos, smellimg like A-HOLES..."
He also has a one-year limit. If Tancredo's plan looks like it might pass, businesses will work to get the three-year limit passed.
But, if Lott is to be believed, no guest worker program will pass.
That means nothing will pass.
I disagree with Limbaugh. I don't think there is any great swell of emotion out there about illegal immigrants. Our service industry would be crippled if there was a severe disruption to the illegals who do most of the dirty work. And I truly believe most Americans recognize that.
I understand the passion of the ardent "antis" here. We have to figure out a way to control our borders. But, beyond that, I don't know what the answer is.
What you are about to read will stun you.
I look forward to your replies.
Best,
H2BME
======================================================
__Original Article_____________________________________________________________
In a message dated 2/5/05 7:54:46 PM, warnaudy@xxx.com writes:
<< Somehow, it (the migrant invasion from Mexico) must make sense to him and to his mentors.
Could he (President George W. Bush) know something that we don't know, nor did the millions know who recently put
him in office? Something, which if he had told them, he could never have been reelected? >>
Let me tell you what he knows that you don't know. Bush knows that 32 years of abortion rights have removed 65.5 million taxpayers AND consumers from this country. We are now talking about restructuring Social Security since the politicians since 1933 stole the money that was paid into the system, leaving behind only IOUs. While the liberals who stole the money from the trust fund think that replacing it when its needed covers everything. In reality, the funds that have been stolen, if left to accrue at regular passbook interest, would have quadrupled the money. Social security would not be in jeopardy if it had not been stolen. Second, had 49.3 million women not aborted their babies, and those babies had grown up to produce children of their own, we would have about 65 million more taxpayers and consumers in the United States. What does that mean? It means the transnational industrialists (that used to be American born and bred companies) would not have had to pull their companies from this nation because [a] there would have been sufficient consumers to buy the products, and [b] Uncle Sam would have had enough taxpayers to pay the taxes to keep the Treasury solvent and we might still have about ten taxpayers supporting each retiree instead of three taxpayers supporting each retiree.
Now, this brings us back to Bush. What does the president know that you don't know? Bush knows that if something is not done DURING THIS GENERATION to place more taxpayers on the payrolls of what companies are left in America, the U.S. Treasury will go bankrupt during the next decade. When the Fed goes bankrupt, that means every factory in the world will go bankrupt...and the Depression of 1929 will look like a burp compared to the global devastation that mankind will experience, because when the Fed falls, the domino affect will take down every central bank in the world. Bush knows that the only way to add 10 to 15 million new taxpaying workers on the IRS's roster is to legalize the illegal aliens who are working under the table for cash. You might not like it. I certainly don't like it. But these are the realities ...and the consequences America must pay for the deaths of 49.3 million unborn babies. There is no conspiracy here. There is just this simple truth. A permissive society is always obligated to pay for license.
Jon Christian Ryter
Author of:
THE BAFFLED CHRISTIAN'S HANDBOOK
PRINCE ALBERT: PROPHET OF UTOPIA
WHATEVER HAPPENED TO AMERICA?
website: www.jonchristianryter.com
Jon Christian Ryter
old website: http://hometown.aol.com/baffauthor/jonchristianryter.html
Great post.
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.