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 ...
Also illegal immigration has hugely increased since Bush made giving amnesty to illegals a priority in his administration way back in 2001. Right now 10 to 15 percent of Mexico lives in the usa and another 25 to 30 percent would like to move here too. Think about that 20 million aready here and another 60 million want to come.
Blanket statements are almost never true. That's like saying every Republican is rich. Maybe many are. But certianly not all, and probably not even most.
If they were coming here to be Americans they would not have started out by breaking our laws. Being an American is not a piece of paper. They'd also learn English, pay taxes, not expect taxpayers to birth their babies...
They, even when granted citizenship, will retain their Mexican citizenship.
We should not allow dual citizenship. I'm not certian that we do, and if so, the law should be changed.
I don't think that WE do. It's not what WE allow, it's what Mexico and other countries allow. Javier Rodriguez, an organizer of the protests, was on Fox's "Day Side" yesterday, said he was a citizen of Mexico and the United States. I've read that Mexico, and I'm sure other countries, allow dual citizenship. We have no way of stopping them. Did you know that a few thousand Jews living in Israel, some of whom have not set foot in the States for twenty years, still hold citizenship here, so they can vote in our elections. I didn't until I read it on FR during the 2000 elections. There was concern that their votes would sway the election to Gore as so many claimed residency in FL.
They are coming here,as they have said, "to take back what was stolen from them."
The mouthy one's who get in front of cameras say that. Most just want a nice place to live and a job.
Those "mouthy one's" are the protest organizers. You'll never convince me they're not speaking for the group. A police officer told me, many years ago, "You are known by the company you keep."
We should believe people when they tell us what their intentions are.
If we allow them to be here legally, require them to learn english as a prerequiste to citizenship and voting, and disallow dual citizenship and mailing money to another country, then if their goal is "taking back what was stolen" it will have failed. This is the United States of America. We should welcome all good people here from all over the world, as long as they are willing to become Americans in language and culture. All others need not apply.
We will never require them to learn English, disallow dual citizenship and sending money back home. The A.C.L.U. and other lib groups will make sure of it.
I'm all for letting a good many of these people becoming citizens. First they have to go back and get behind their countrymen who are waiting and doing it by the book.
Our immigration system is supposed to have limits on how many people from each country/nationality come here. It was setup that way for fairness, and to make sure we don't have one nationality of unassimilated people trying to change our country into the cesspools they left.
I can tell by your words that you are a kind and trusting person. I once was. The Vaseline ran out when our government broke Reagan's promise allowing 12 + million illegals to invade us and my home was burgled by the two illegal invaders.
You likely think I'm dead wrong. What if I am? What happens if I get my way? What happens if you get yours? I try to take a logical approach to things. I've taken human nature, past behavior and information I've acquired studying this for twenty + years, and played both views out to the end. My conclusion is; I DO NOT WANT MY GRANDCHILDREN TO LIVE IN A COUNTRY RAN LIKE MEXICO. This is where we are heading if we don't stop. It has already become hard to recognize my hometown. Graffiti, drive by shooting of children playing in their front yards, disease, gun fights at flea markets, drugs, prostitution.....
You should do some soul searching, as I have over this. Ask yourself if you can live with the knowledge that you were instrumental in killing everything our forefathers fought so hard to give us. Remember these words; "We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and SECURE THESE BLESSINGS OF LIBERTY TO OURSELVES AND OUR POSTERITY, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
Articulately stating many Americans' concerns....well said.
"Doing a wonderful job"? The Minutemen weren't even on the border yet. Yet you want the President to comment on the Minutemen's activity at the border before it happens.
In any event, he made an accusation
No, the president gave his position on potential vigilantism.
The record speaks for itself to those who are objective about it.
March 2005 | Reporter:President Bush, I wanted to ask you about your opinion about those people who are hunting migrant people along the border.
March 2005 | President Bush: I'm against vigilantes in the United States of America. I'm for enforcing law in a rational way.
April 2005 Minutemen go to border.
August 2, 2005 | Reporter:We've got these groups on the border called the Minutemen. They think you've called them vigilantes. Do you think they are vigilantes?
August 2, 2005 | President Bush: Well, this was -- I was in Waco when I decried potential vigilantism. I want to make it clear that this is before they even showed up, as I recall, and I wanted to make it clear that it was intolerable for people to take the law in their own hands, because we didn't want people showing up with guns.
Thank you.
With our current immigration laws, there is no way they can be here legally.
They'd also learn English
We trap them in a Hispanic subculture limited to only a few jobs and living arrangements, so why should they? When they're legal, their options will be open, and we should then encourage them to break out of their third world culture and learn english. But for now, why should they bother? They're not welcome here. They're "illegal".
They, even when granted citizenship, will retain their Mexican citizenship.
And your crystal ball is where?
I don't think that WE do. It's not what WE allow, it's what Mexico and other countries allow.
And what's preventing us from revoking their US citizenship of they take up the citizenship of another country?
When people are naturalized as US citizens, I believe they must swear allegiance to the United States. If they break that oath, their citizenship should certainly be revoked.
Those "mouthy one's" are the protest organizers. You'll never convince me they're not speaking for the group.
It's in our power to remove the excuse for protest. And since they're not going anywhere, we may as well remove that excuse and make them legal and begin the english classes. We're wasting time now, and while we do, more are entering that will require assimilation. Let's get at it.
We will never require them to learn English, disallow dual citizenship and sending money back home.
You're probably right. Because to do that will require compromise, by giving them citizenship in return for their assimilation. That compromise is never likely to happen because of a mob of people screaming "no amnesty". Therefore the status quo will probably be maintained, while the problem grows worse.
Thanks.
I'm all for letting a good many of these people becoming citizens. First they have to go back and get behind their countrymen who are waiting and doing it by the book.
You don't get it. The "line" is longer than they're ever likely to live. What's the point?
Our immigration system is supposed to have limits on how many people from each country/nationality come here. It was setup that way for fairness,
It was set up that way to protect the union jobs of the Farm Workers in the 60's.
I can tell by your words that you are a kind and trusting person. I once was. The Vaseline ran out when our government broke Reagan's promise
Thank you for making my point. These people aren't going to be sent home this time either. We either "normalize" them somehow, and use that as a lever to push them into assimilation, or the status quo will be maintained until they actually *do* outnumber us and Aztlan is fulfilled.
. My conclusion is; I DO NOT WANT MY GRANDCHILDREN TO LIVE IN A COUNTRY RAN LIKE MEXICO.
I don't either. And since Reagan proved that not even a "law and order" Republican will have the brass to send these folks home, the only answer is assimilation. That won't happen unless we use their desire for normalization be the carrot to motivate their assimilation. That's what I think Bush has in mind, and I support him in it.
You should do some soul searching, as I have over this. Ask yourself if you can live with the knowledge that you were instrumental in killing everything our forefathers fought so hard to give us.
Am I the one being "instrumental in killing everything our forefathers fought so hard to give us"? Or are you?
This country has assimilated people from all over the world for centuries, yet we didn't get into a problem like this until we attempted to stop immigration. So why do you think that trying harder to stop immigration is the answer now? You're thinking like a liberal. Socialism has failed everywhere, so they believe they just need to try harder. Your "immigration limits" are failing like socialism, yet you want to try harder.
The efforts of the "no amnesty" crowd will merely prolong this, and the more it's prolonged the more powerful the mexican culture in the US becomes. It's time for a return to what succeeded a hundred years ago, assimilation. What we're doing now is failing.
Many Americans have those concerns. But the problem is what to do about them? We didn't have a problem in this country with non-assimilation for centuries, despite virtually unlimited immigration for most of that time. Now that we've limited immigration, we have a problem. That people believe that trying harder to limit immigration will work is no different than when socialists think that trying socialism harder will finally make a bad policy work.
Trying to stop immigration is bad policy. Assimilation is good policy. It's time to get back to what works.
Like enforcing the law?
That is inaccurate. We had pretty severe limitations from 1910 to 1967....and never anything comparable to the invasion of the past 10-15 years...not even early 1900s rival that.
And calling for unlimited immigration is nuts. Conservative estimates are that at least a half a billion would come here if they could get in. We already have what ..20% of Mexico since they have a logistical edge.
Just what we need. Where 1/2 or 2/3rds of the US is immigrant over night....in this minorities get to play victim and get special treatment idiocy culture we have created. (which is precisely what fuels this rollover policy, if these illegals were crackers, they'd get tossed listo)
I am unaware of any nation or culture in history that has withstood that.
We have had a 40% LEGAL increase in our nation's population (200 million to 288)in less than 2 generations directly due to increased immigration which is holy plenty and how well does it look like the Mexican and Salvadorans of that group are assimilating? Not great from here.
and that doesn't count the 12-25 million illegals.
Oh yeah....unlimited legal immigration is the answer...geez
Where 1/2 or 2/3rds of the US is immigrant over night....in this minorities get to play victim and get special treatment idiocy culture we have created.....I am unaware of any nation or culture in history that has withstood that....and that doesn't count the 12-25 million illegals.Oh yeah....unlimited legal immigration is the answer.
Insanity!! geez out!
Saying "we can't deport, we can't enforce" is a cop-out. Saying "we couldn't" and "we shouldn't" have immigration laws which are in the best interests of American and AMERICANS is the surest way to end the United States of America.
Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.
But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow -- this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.
Bump.....
Totally correct. I don't know if May 2nd will be any different than April 28th. But, I do believe that November 2 will be something quite different.
Amen to you both.
Fine the hell out of crooked employers, with prison for repeat offenders.
Eliminate "safe haven" cities.
Issue new SS cards with fingerprints and a holograph.
Do the above, and you won't need a wall. The idea that the aforementioned cannot be done is an insult to any American with an I. Q. over "idiot" range.
BTTT
Thank you M/r/s/ Howlin, good to know which side you're on.
Bump!
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.