Posted on 04/26/2006 5:20:12 PM PDT by West Coast Conservative
President Bush generally favors plans to give millions of illegal immigrants a chance at U.S. citizenship without leaving the country, but does not want to be more publicly supportive because of opposition among conservative House Republicans, according to senators who attended a recent White House meeting.
Several officials familiar with the meeting also said Democrats protested radio commercials that blamed them for Republican-written legislation that passed the House and would make illegal immigrants vulnerable to felony charges.
Bush said he was unfamiliar with the ads, which were financed by the Republican National Committee, according to officials familiar with the discussions.
At another point, Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada and other members of his party pressed the president about their concern that any Senate-passed bill would be made unpalatable in final talks with the House.
Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, the second-ranking Democrat, said the lawmaker who would lead House negotiators, House Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner, had been "intractable" in negotiations on other high-profile bills in the past. Bush did not directly respond to the remark, officials said.
The Republican and Democratic officials who described the conversation did so Wednesday on condition of anonymity, saying they had not been authorized to disclose details.
Bush convened the session to give momentum to the drive for election-year immigration legislation, a contentious issue that has triggered large street demonstrations and produced divisions in both political parties. Senators of both parties emerged from the session praising the president's involvement and said the timetable was achievable.
"Yes, he thinks people should be given a path to citizenship," said Sen. Mel Martinez., R-Fla., a leading supporter of immigration legislation in the Senate.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
7%???
Looks to me like if I voided my vote {which I didn't} then by the outcome it didn't matter anyway because the liberals won either way in 2000 & 2004. They have a man in the Oval Office who agrees with much of their agenda most of the time. So much so he yet to write the letters VETO on any bill,
:-)
And needless to say, they're ALL posting on FR.
Boy, that just makes me want to know what the other 26% are worrying about. ; ).
I'll let my posts speak for themselves.
Maybe an RNC blog would fit in better with your decidedly nonconservative philosophy?
I am a conservative; just not a wrist slitter.
TAX CUTS
JUSTICES ALITO & ROBERTS
Wow .. the screamers sure are winning alot of people over
/ sarc of course >
ROFLMAO.....I thought the EXACT same thing........what could it be? Is there something WE don't know?
The most important thing for me at this point is that a guest-worker plan is not tied in, in any way, to the plan to secure the border and crack down on the hiring of illegals. Not at this point. Until some progress is made in those areas, we should not even be discussing what to do with the illegals that are here (whether that be to legalize them or deport them or whatever). I think there is a good argument to be made that with more stringent penalties against those that hire illegals; the incentive to enter our country illegally will fade; and many of them will essentially deport themselves.
Finally, with 4.9% unemployment, what steps can be taken to keep the economy from taking a monumental nose dive if they are forced to leave?
Not sure what you mean by this. If illegals were to be deported, of if they were to migrate back home, there's no way it could occur all at once, in one fell swoop. I don't think the economy would have any problem with this gradual process. I need to sign off until tomorrow though. It's getting too late. Nice talking to you though.
No it's one of these I'm a Constitution based conservative who votes GOP when they actually earn it rather than expect it, and not a Rockefeller Republican moments.
It is definitely easier to get rich in the United States than almost anywhere else (I'd have to say the exception is Hong Kong). It is also easier to blow it all in the United States than anywhere else. It's part of liberty, and it's a strength of yours - what I fear is that the Democrats and to a lesser extent Republicans are increasingly talking about security instead of liberty. Witness the discussions on Medicare, and inaction on Social Security.
You don't want to be like Europe because you're not Europe. That means no expansion of welfare, no to guest workers (and similar frippery) and every time a politician says that he's going to make things "secure", American eyebrows should be raised.
That said, the one area I'd have to say that America is definitely more socialistic than Europe is income taxes: we pay more tax in Europe, but it's far less complicated. The IRS is a socialist's wet dream. Also, in Britain anyway, it's been made clear to the public that we'd better get our own damn pensions sorted out - more so than in the States, I think.
Regards, Ivan
The thing is, they've been saying the same things to each other for six years; most of us tuned them out about two years ago.
Yes, that is the federal government's roll, but the whole problem starts with states waiving the carrots. Meaningful immigration reform needs to remove that carrot.
---Stay home.
Just shut up about it. Once you say it, there's no need to KEEP saying it over and over.
Just stay the hell home.---
Kinda takes the Free out of the Republic, doesn't it?
Posting a CBS poll? ROFLMAO Now I know your just an inhouse troll.
Goodnight.
Yep...and when I threw Rice's name in as VP is went crazy.
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.