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 ...
Taken in totality, this info is a RESOUNDING indictment of illegal immigration!!
Thanks for the info.
"Raw numbers are irrelevant. If you have 10 people and all of them are Mexican, then they'll stay Mexican. If 1 out of 20 are Mexican, they *can* be assimilated, and that's about the percentage we've got."
If you really believe this, you are quite possibly the most uninformed FReeper I have ever read, vis a vis immigration. What the legal and illegal mexicans are ACTUALLY doing in California is take over one city at a time, change all the signs to spanish, and take over all the small businesses....hell they even run out the major supermarket chains, and turn them into Mexican Mega Markets. There is nothing "american" about these cities once they have taken them over. We are not talking about little villages here either. Oxnard, Ca. is close to 200,000 population, and it is being swallowed. I estimate the illegal population at over 40,000 there. The fact is that over the last 10 years, illegals have gone from pleasant to surly, and they are NOT assimulating in any way, shape or means. At least not in California, and California has over 10 % of the USA population. If you want the rest of America to go the way of California, just keep talking the way you are. It will happen in just one generation. I think you mean well, but you are horribly misguided if you think we need one more guestworker!
Narb is "somebody"
why he chooses to post on a conservative forum beats me....proselytizing the Euro view..his own
I wish there were just a few here at FR. Unfortunately, we have many : )
To argue that on March 23, 2005, President Bush did not call the Minutemen "vigilantes", that he was either ignorant of their formation or he had directed his comment to describe "lawless thugs" at the border is NOT credible and those types of arguments remain unconvincing.
As to his ignorance, this would mean that President Bush was uninformed as to current events and was unaware of Mexico's recent denouncement of the Minutemen. As to the existence of "lawless thugs" who were gaining notoriety at the border, there were none.
So, who could have been "those people" about whom the reporter inquired of the President? The reporter's phrasing of the question was an implication that "those people" [the Minutemen] to whom he referred was "common knowledge."
It was, in fact, common knowledge and conventional wisdom, that as of March 23, 2005, the President was fully aware of "those people". After the Minutemen's formation in January of 2005, they announced their intention to launch operations on April 1, 2005. Before that time, they were patrolling the area, making plans about where, specificaly, they would launch their operations.
By March 23, 2005, it was already known that the Mexican government was poised to take legal action against the Minutemen, as was announced by the Mexican government on March 1, 2005. By March 23, 2005, it was already known, but perhaps less commonly, that Secretary of State Condi Rice had visited Mexico two weeks earlier (March 10, 2005), and that the Mexican Government informed her of its impending legal action against and anger with the Minutemen.
One cannot assume that the Secretary of State would have neglected to inform the President that our southern "neighbor" was poised to take legal action the Minutemen. By March 23, 2005, it was common knowledge that the Minutemen were, and continue to be, referred to by other names, such as anti-migrant patrols.
To claim that the President was NOT referring to the Minutemen, who had so enraged the Mexican government, as "vigilantes" is beyond credible.
That is a fact.
It's ludicrous for you to say that it was my claim that the president was not referring to the Minutemen.
The statement was a clear-as-day warning about what he didn't want to see on the border. It wasn't an identification of what was on the border nor was it a prediction of what he thought would be on the border.
In short, he didn't call anybody a vigilante nor did he call any group(including the Minutemen) vigilantes. Instead he said people and groups(including the Minutemen) shouldn't act like a vigilantes.
Your calim has no credibility.
This situation has had many years in the making. I would not blame President Bush for a problem that will take time to correct. You have to admit that the illegals coming up from our southern border did not have an ocean to cross. As you will see as you read further, there is a huge attractiveness taking that walk across. We should have started building a physical wall long ago. Now we may have little time to do it.
One thing that few people think about is the huge advantage the illegal alien has by staying off the data system. Everything they make is tax free. They can save a larger share of their earnings which draws tax free interest in a bank. If they can save enough, they could live on their savings in Mexico for a long time. If one could save $10K every year for ten years, that would be a nice retirement for ten years worth of work. (I wish I could do the math here, but I need to get off the FR. I will do it later when I can.)
Another thing is these illegal aliens seem able to obtain health care. With health care no longer a cost, it frees up more of their wages for savings. A smart Mexican could work in America for a relatively short time and take his savings back home to Mexico for a good life where the cost of living is cheap at an age where they would really be young enough to enjoy it.
And said:
No, and the Minutemen weren't even on the border at the time....Most likely, the President not knowing who the reporter was talking about, gave his general philosophy of what he did not want to see at the border. Thanks for the transcript. (To hell with common knowledge and conventional wisdom)And said (post #787): Again looking at the transcript his most likely intent was to give his general philosophy of what he did not want to see at the border. He later confirmed that was his intent.
And said (post #794)...In short, he didn't call anybody a vigilante nor did he call any group(including the Minutemen) vigilantes. Instead he said people and groups(including the Minutemen) shouldn't act like a vigilantes.
And said (post #902): 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.
And said (post #980): It's ludicrous for you to say that it was my claim that the president was not referring to the Minutemen.
But here's what Scott McClellan said about what the President stated six days earlier, on March 23, 2005, about whom the President was speaking, and about which neither Scott McClellan, who speaks on behalf of the President, did not DENY the denouncements against the Minutement, nor to deny that the word "vigilantes" was addressed....he was asked "point-blank" the reporter, and he REFUSED to OUTRIGHT make a detraction by saying "NO." Instead, we get more evasive answers to direct questions.
Press Briefing by Scott McClellan, March 29, 2005.
March 29, 2005 | Reporter: Mexico's President Fox announced during his news conference that our border fence between San Diego and Tijuana, in his words, must be demolished. My first question: During their subsequent Waco summit, did President Bush in any way reply to this Fox demand, which Senator Kyl of Arizona called, downright insulting, other than Mr. Bush denouncing the American Minutemen as "vigilantes"?March 29, 2005 | MR. McCLELLAN: Les, a couple things. First of all, this goes to a much larger issue, this question, and the larger issue is making sure that we have a safe, orderly and humane migration system. We have worked closely with Mexico on issues relating to our borders. There is more that we can do to control our borders, and the Department of Homeland Security is working to do that every day. We have an increase in the number of agents along the border, they're working to address the situation in some of the areas where you're referencing, as well.
And the President put forward an initiative, his temporary worker initiative, to address some of these issues, because we have a problem in this country where now I think it's some 10 million undocumented immigrants working in this country. And they oftentimes are coming here simply to support their families back home. And they're also filling jobs that otherwise are not being filled by American citizens. So there is an economic need that we can address.
And there is also -- by addressing this situation, the President believes we can do a better job of enforcing our borders and going after those who are coming here for the wrong reason -- whether it's terrorists or people intent on criminal activity. This will free up our border patrol and border agents to go after those who should not be coming into this country in the first place.
March 29, 2005 | Reporter: The Washington Times has listed nine countries who have either built or are building border fences. Has President Fox, to your knowledge, condemned any border fence, beside our border fence? And why is denouncing the Arizona Minutemen any better than denouncing neighborhood crime watchers?
March 29, 2005 | MR. McCLELLAN: A couple of things. I mean, the President spoke to this issue last week and I think he addressed it very clearly for you all.
In terms of President Fox, I'm not going to try to comment for him -- you might want to direct those questions to his office. But I know that the Department of Homeland Security, regarding the question you're bringing up, tomorrow is going to be having an announcement in Tucson, Arizona, about an initiative they're undertaking along the Arizona border to better control the border there.
In terms of the issue of the Minutemen that you bring up, again, the President spoke to that issue last week. And it's one thing if people are working along the border, simply to report suspicious activity, and that activity should be reported to the proper authorities -- the Department of Homeland Security officials, who are there to enforce our borders. If people are operating outside of the law, that cannot be tolerated. That's a different --
March 29, 2005 | Reporter: Well, that's my point. That's what they're doing -- they're neighborhood crime watch.
March 29, 2005 | MR. McCLELLAN: Hang on. Hang on. That's a different matter. People cannot take things into their own hands. But if they see suspicious activity, they should report that suspicious activity to the proper authorities and --
March 29, 2005 | Reporter: And that doesn't make them vigilantes, does it?
March 29, 2005 | MR. McCLELLAN: Well, if you're talking about a group of armed, untrained individuals roaming around the desert [Amendment II : A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed], that would be something that would concern us and it would increase the chance that someone could get hurt. And we don't want people operating outside the law [ILLEGALS ARE "operating outside the law" and so is the government by not enforcing the law] -- the President made that very clear last week. So if you're talking about people reporting suspicious activity, that's one thing. If you're talking about people operating outside the law, that's another matter and it's one that cannot be allowed to happen.
It is very clear that the President has denounced the Minutemen more than once and referred to them as vigilantes. As a postscript, as of April 2006, there has not yet been an instance when the President has praised what the Minutemen have done or are doing: AMERICANS DOING THE JOB CONGRESS REFUSES TO DO.
Your posts say otherwise. You only respect the Constitution if you get to define what it says. If it stands for anything, the Constitution stands for the rule of law. When that rule of law goes against the illegal aliens, as it certainly does, then you revert to the words on the Statue of Liberty. Sorry, but that does not equate to your being a "Constitution respecting American".
"I say that trying harder at the same failed policy of the last 40 years is stupid."
Saying it doesn't make it true. Since our immigration policy has never been strictly enforced, it is total error to say it is "failed policy". But I am sure you believe it.
"The assimilation policy of 100 years ago worked well,..."
However well it did or didn't work, those were legal immigrants (not illegal aliens) who wanted to be Americans and therefore eagerly assimilated. We decided which ones to let in. The illegal aliens of today are not interested in becoming Americans, assimilate poorly or not at all, exploit the system at the expense of our taxpayers, and send the bulk of their earnings back to Mexico. Some assimilation.
"But the "original intent" of the people that formed this country was to be a welcome space for all the freedom loving hard working people of the world."
That was then, this is now. We welcome the immigrants we want here and who apply and enter legally. Don't try to tell me "original intent" means America wanted to be a doormat for every disaffected foreigner from any country who preferred to live in America. If that's your version of "original intent" you're not as bright as you would like us to believe.
"You would have them erase the words etched on the Statue of Liberty."
Those words are perfectly fine for people who apply legally and follow our immigration laws. Insofar as illegal aliens are concerned, those words do not apply.
"...and believe that if immigrants today are given the same options of assimilate or go home, then things will work out OK..."
Your faith in the illegal aliens is touching, but I have a more realistic view. They are not assimilating and they won't go home until we make it sufficiently uncomfortable for them. You may be willing to throw the dice that "things will work out OK" but loyal American conservatives require something much more substantial. Like a strict interior enforcement policy.
"Giving them an ultimatum of just go home has been demonstrated to be a non-starter,..."
Can't be a "non-starter" because it's never been enforced.
Let me put it this way. I have no interest in being inconvenienced in any way to accommodate your vision of how illegal aliens ought to be treated. They are lawbreakers and deserve no special treatment whatsoever. There are anywhere from 12 - 20 million of them in our country now, and tough measures are required to put a stop to this insanity.
"You and I merely disagree on how to bring that about."
Your disagreement is not only with me, but is also with every other loyal American conservative around here. Your posts are at odds with your claim to be a Constitution respecting American. But lets see how you feel about the values held by loyal American conservatives.
Those values are the defense of American sovereignty, the protection of our borders, and the preservation of American culture, customs, traditions and the English language.
Are they your values?
Yes or No. Any added conditions, qualifications, "buts", or lengthy explanations will mean that, whatever you really are, it isn't a loyal American conservative.
We'll all be waiting...
BTTT
Lets give joanie-f a look-see at #911.
That's your opinion. I disagree.
It's very clear that a statement of preference is not a statement of accusation.
For example;
Mother:How do you think he'll do.
Father: I don't want him to drive recklessly. I want him to drive carefully.
Simple statement of preference by the father not wishing to take a position about what the mother asked -- It isn't an accusation.
It can't get more simple than that and it's the same as what transpired when the president was asked about current and future volunteer activity at the border.
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.
Addressing your postscript: The Minutemen chose to go down to the border independent of the government and that's fine. But to expect that the government is going to certify something that they don't control isn't going to happen.
The president has not accused the Minutemen of being vigilantes and the president has not praised the Minutemen. Having no control over how the Minutemen will ultimately act, the president takes a neutral position, which by the way can be seen throughout all of McClellan's comments as well.
Neither he, nor his mouthpiece, Scott McClellan, have denied the President accused them of being so when asked that question, point-blank.
Neither he, nor his mouthpiece, Scott McClellan, have denied the President accused them of being so when asked that question, point-blank.
The president clarified to the reporter what he did say.
Simply stated, when the president was asked if he did "A", the president responded by saying he did "B".
Decrying potential vigilantism is not the same thing as making an accusation of vigilantism.
"A" does not equal "B".
The President is a Christian. As one, he would know words have meaning. And he would also know that Jesus said in Matthew 5:37, "But let your 'Yes' be 'Yes' and your 'No' be 'No.'"
And that is the whole point. Not answering a direct question with the direct answer it deserves tells a story (i.e., is spin) other than the truth.
Maybe in your world answering a direct question with a story is an answer, but that's not the case in the no-spin zone.
Maybe in your world, two things that are not equivalent are equivalent, but in the objective world that's not the case.
The President is a Christian. As one, he would know words have meaning. And he would also know that Jesus said in Matthew 5:37, "But let your 'Yes' be 'Yes' and your 'No' be 'No.'" And that is the whole point. Not answering a direct question with the direct answer it deserves tells a story (i.e., is spin) other than the truth.
To twist the president's words and accuse him of something he did not do is unchristian.
In plain English, the did not accuse the Minutemen of being vigilantes. Yet you can't even come straight out and say that.
Straight out:Decrying potential vigilantism is not the same thing as making an accusation of vigilantism.
That is simple logic. It's unchristian to say that he said something else.
He refuses to say "yes" or "no" when asked a direct question about something he said. That is unChristian. That I'm calling him on it is not.
Okay...
President:I ate an orange.
Nicmarlo:Mr. President, you didn't answer "yes" or "no", that's unChristian.
Nick, have a good night.
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.