Replies

This is what President Bush said on March 25, 2006

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/03/20060325.html

"Comprehensive immigration reform begins with securing our borders."

"To keep the promise of America, we must enforce the laws of America."

"One thing the temporary worker program would not do is provide
amnesty to those who are in our country illegally."

Look for the Impeach Bush t-shirt in this post
by Ladycalif

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1603387/posts?page=3#3

This sets the stage for the Dim's to be defeated in
even more 2006 and 2008 elections!

Any REAL Conservative knows the success
of the 2006 and 2008 elections
is electing those who secure our borders
and enforce the law of the land!

President Bush has set the example and
ensured a sweep in '06 and '08!

Only the looney left and the wrong rino's
would support illegal immigration
and amnesty for those who are in our country illegally!

Time for the real conservatives on FR,
be it Republicans, Independents or Democrats
(like Zell Miller and John O'Neill) to band together
and oust the looney left and RINO's

President's Radio Address March 25, 2006

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/03/20060325.html

THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. On Monday, I will attend a
naturalization ceremony here in Washington. It's always inspiring to
watch a group of immigrants raise their hands and swear an oath to
become citizens of the United States of America. These men and women
follow in the footsteps of millions who've come to our shores seeking
liberty and opportunity, and America is better off for their hard
work and love of freedom.

America is a nation of immigrants, and we're also a nation of laws.
And our immigration laws are in need of reform. So at Monday's
ceremony, I will discuss my vision for comprehensive immigration
reform that will secure our borders, improve enforcement of our
immigration laws, and uphold our values.

Comprehensive immigration reform begins with securing our borders.
Since I took office, we've increased funding for border security by
66 percent, and the Department of Homeland Security has caught and
sent home nearly 6 million illegal immigrants. To improve security at
the border, we're hiring thousands more Border Patrol agents. We're
deploying new technology, like infrared cameras and unmanned aerial
vehicles, to help our agents do their job. And we're installing
physical barriers to entry, like fences in urban areas.

We're also working to end the unwise practice of catch-and-release.
For decades, many illegal immigrants were released back into society
soon after they were caught, because we did not have enough detention
space. So we're adding more beds so we can hold the people we catch,
and we're reducing the time it takes to send them back home. When
illegal immigrants know they will be caught and sent home, they will
be less likely to break the rules, and our immigration system will be
more orderly and secure. We're making good progress, but we have much
more work ahead, and we will not be satisfied until we have control
of our border.

Comprehensive immigration reform also includes strengthening the
enforcement of our laws in America's interior. Since I took office,
we've increased funding for immigration enforcement by 42 percent.
We're increasing the number of immigration enforcement agents and
criminal investigators, enhancing work site enforcement, and going
after smugglers and gang members and human traffickers.

Finally, comprehensive immigration reform requires a temporary worker
program that will relieve pressure on our borders. This program would
create a legal way to match willing foreign workers with willing
American employers to fill jobs that Americans will not do. By
reducing the number of people trying to sneak across the border, we
would free up our law enforcement officers to focus on criminals and
drug dealers and terrorists and others who mean us harm.

One thing the temporary worker program would not do is provide
amnesty to those who are in our country illegally. I believe that
granting amnesty would be unfair, because it would allow those who
break the law to jump ahead of people who play by the rules and wait
in the citizenship line. Amnesty would also be unwise, because it
would encourage waves of illegal immigration, increase pressure on
the border, and make it more difficult for law enforcement to focus
on those who mean us harm. For the sake of justice and for the sake
of border security, I firmly oppose amnesty.

In the coming days, the United States Senate plans to consider
proposals on immigration reform. This is an emotional debate. America
does not have to choose between being a welcoming society and being a
lawful society. We can be both at the same time. As we debate the
immigration issue, we must remember there are hard-working
individuals, doing jobs that Americans will not do, who are
contributing to the economic vitality of our country.

To keep the promise of America, we must enforce the laws of America.
We must also ensure that immigrants assimilate into our society and
learn our customs and values -- including the English language. By
working together, we can meet our duty to fix our immigration system
and deliver a bill that protects our country, upholds our laws, and
makes our Nation proud.

Thank you for listening.

re: "the success of the 2006 and 2008 elections is electing those who secure our borders and enforce the law of the land!"

Can you show any evidence for this? Cite one election, primary of general where this is true. From Pete Wilson and Buchanan to recent elections in CA and IL, the hardliners have lost.

Here recently in IL, there was a primary for governor. The #1 issue was corruption and a referendum on corruption supporter Toopinka, who won with 38% because the 62% against her were split 3 ways. The strongest of the 3 anti-Judy candidates was Oberweis. Solely because he was the strongest (had the most money, most name recognition, most friends and organization) there was a movement to unite behind Oberweis.

Polling by all sides showed that enough anti-Judy voters could be shifted from Brady to Oberweis for him to win.

But then some Oberweis spokespeople got on the most listened to local conservative radio show in Illinois and raised the divisive issue of immigration, charging the other anti-Judy candidates with supporting illegals (which they were). It is precisely because of that divisive rhetoric that Obie was unable to get more conservatives to unite behind him.

Two years ago, when he ran for the Senate and lost, I knocked door-to-door in precincts in 3 downstate towns and 4 suburbs. Consistently there were 2 comments volunteered by the hard-R pro-life, pro-2A, low tax, cut spending conservatives:
1) They loved Jack Ryan's ads on wasteful spending and that is why he finished first.
2) They ridiculed Oberweis for his ads on immigration.

Take Cannon in UT (please). He was way behind in the polls when the challenger ran on corruption. Then the challenger made the mistake of imitating Tancredo on immigration. Immediately the conservative Utah voters shifted back to Cannon.

I could go on with many other stories congressional by district or other district. In many multi-issue races, it would be hard to say exactly what the motivation was to vote for the winner over the loser.

But I'd like examples where the hardliner beat the conservative who was either a free market capitalist like me or compassionate conservative like Bush and my township committeeman, Paul Froehlich. He ran for committeeman and St Rep and whipped both of his well known opponents who had equally high name recognition. The sole difference between the winner Froehlich and his opponents was that Froehlich is a Bush style compassionate conservative on immigration who had the full support of us free market conservatives/libertarians while his opponents were imitating Tancredo and Buchanan.