BUSH TO ADDRESS NATION AT 8PM MONDAY 5/15/06

Listen Peach, I was on the hill lobbying against the 1986 IRCA and I know what took place and what didn't.

Now you tell me who was eligible for amnesty in 1986 and who would be eligible under Kennedy McCain and well see what a blanket is and isn't.

By the way how would you process 12 million or 20 million applications for amnesty? What linit is set on the nukmber of amnesties?

What will it cost taxpayers for the new amnesty?
What did the old amnesty cost taxpayers?

How much fraud was in the 1986 amnesty How much fraud do you think will be in the new amnesty?

How much time will be spent investigating 12 million applications? one minute? five minutes? a computer check? An interview? A rubber stamp?

Ok next if we grant a new amnesty how will that solve our poblem of more illegals coming here?

What benefit is it to taxpayers and citizens (who our government is supposed to represent) to grant amnesty and eventual citizenship to millions of people? Who benefits?

441 posted on 05/12/2006 9:23:00 AM PDT by rolling_stone

Spiff,
This argument has been going around for a while and has one major flaw- causation.

A Clinton era law (INA 274B) made it illegal for employers to ask an employee if the information they provided is 'valid', instead, as long as the employer has an I9, valid information or not, they cannot be prosecuted because they are not responsible for validating the information on the I9.

Basically, if an employer questions an employee 'if they are legal' or if they are providing false ID, they could be sued for 'unfair employment practices'

Sec. 274B. [8 U.S.C. 1324b] (1996)

(a) Prohibition of Discrimination Based on National Origin or Citizenship Status.-

(1) General rule.-It is an unfair immigration-related employment practice for a person or other entity to discriminate against any individual (other than an unauthorized alien, as defined in section 274A(h)(3)) with respect to the hiring, or recruitment or referral for a fee, of the individual for employment or the discharging of the individual from employment-

(A) because of such individual's national origin, or

(B) in the case of a protected individual (as defined in paragraph (3)), because of such individual's citizenship status.

http://www.uscis.gov/lpBin/lpext.dll/inserts/slb/slb-1/slb-20/slb-8468?f=templates&fn=document-frame.htm

Like Paul Harvey says, the rest of the story...
Do you want to know why immigration prosecutions dropped drastically in 1999-2000?

Clinton signed the following laws into place.

(INA § 203(b)(2)(B), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2)(B)) - This law allows foreign nationals- even those who entered illegally, to request/obtain green cards as soon as they are 'caught'. What does this mean? It means that if caught and if they haven't committed a felony (remember, entering the country illegally is only a misdemeanor), they can simply say they would like to apply for a 'green card'-
This law was originally intended to help 'highly qualified' foreign nationals who want to get work permits easier, but the loophole is that the alien (legal or illegal) must be given the opportunity to prove they meet the qualification.

No, most illegals don't qualify for this visa waiver, but, by the time this is 'proven' they have fallen off the radar.

Worst of all is the The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRAIRA). Under this law, deportation can be suspended if the illegal alien can prove that they have been in the US 'for a considerable period of time' and has 'good moral character'. Illegal aliens who fall under this are given the opportunity to apply for whatever work visa or asylum they may work for.

The trend is obvious, but the reason many attribute to it (President Bush) is incorrect. A lot of people are falling into the old statistical fallacy that correlation equals coordination (ie, Bush was elected in 2000 = drop in immigration enforcement). This is a fallacy of both logic and statistics.

Is this an excuse to why something hasn't been done legislatively- No? this is simply trying to clear up the real causation of this statistical drop in enforcement.

442 posted on 05/12/2006 9:23:46 AM PDT by mnehring (Those who advocate, and act to promote, victory by Democrats are not conservatives!)

SOURCES: BUSH PLANS NATIONAL GUARD ON BORDER...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1631146/posts

443 posted on 05/12/2006 9:24:29 AM PDT by Mo1 (DEMOCRATS: A CULTURE OF TREASON)

444 posted on 05/12/2006 9:24:50 AM PDT by kabar

Most illegal immigrants from Mexico can be returned to Mexico within 24 hours.

Good. Then he can start catching the ones all over the rest of the country, not just the new arrivals at the border.

445 posted on 05/12/2006 9:24:55 AM PDT by George W. Bush

Get out!!!

The left have to be ballistic!!!

446 posted on 05/12/2006 9:25:07 AM PDT by Peach

You don't sell out your country for cheap produce.

Exactly, as if a country that sent men to the moon decades ago can't devise machines to do agricultural work.

447 posted on 05/12/2006 9:25:31 AM PDT by Reaganwuzthebest

He hasn't been charged with anything

449 posted on 05/12/2006 9:25:55 AM PDT by Mo1 (DEMOCRATS: A CULTURE OF TREASON)

I've already answered you on that. And I don't think it's a baseless claim at all.

In fact, I'll repeat it.

This president has done more to attend to the illegal immigration problem than any president in my lifetime.

450 posted on 05/12/2006 9:26:05 AM PDT by Peach

The trend is obvious, but the reason many attribute to it (President Bush) is incorrect. A lot of people are falling into the old statistical fallacy that correlation equals coordination (ie, Bush was elected in 2000 = drop in immigration enforcement). This is a fallacy of both logic and statistics. Is this an excuse to why something hasn't been done legislatively- No? this is simply trying to clear up the real causation of this statistical drop in enforcement.

Come on. The numbers are obvious. The bottom line is that far less employers have been busted, far fewer illegals have been detained and deported from the interior. Period. Spin it all you want. The cause? I don't know. I can speculate. The effect is that we have a massive problem with illegal aliens in nearly ever sector of the country and something must be done. The trend must be reversed.

451 posted on 05/12/2006 9:26:15 AM PDT by Spiff ("They start yelling, 'Murderer!' 'Traitor!' They call me by name." - Gael Murphy, Code Pink leader)

also, the `bracero program' begun April 1943
http://www.farmworkers.org/benglish.html

452 posted on 05/12/2006 9:26:36 AM PDT by tumblindice

To: Oliver Optic

If there is a call to begin armed patrols by our military along the entire Mexican border, I will be shocked. If the military is used at all, I can only assume it will be a dog and pony show at select locations in an attempt to make us feel better.

Build a wall. Build it now. Screw Mexico and the opinions of the Mexican government and citizens. We need to stop being pansies about this issue and act to protect what's left of the sovereignty of the United States.

453 posted on 05/12/2006 9:26:39 AM PDT by SaveTheChief ("This one goes to eleven.")

Arizona and New Mexico have already declared states of emergency on the border.

454 posted on 05/12/2006 9:26:47 AM PDT by kabar

To: Mrs.Liberty; Rebelbase

I've read stories such as yours, and I'm not denying it's a problem. And a big problem.

But these things didn't start happening overnight. I read similar stories during the 90's, but everyone was focused on other stuff.

455 posted on 05/12/2006 9:27:12 AM PDT by Peach

This whole problem could be cleared up today with a few choice EOs & directives so that he could announce the new programs Monday night. But we won't see that, now will we?

So you want him to be a Clinton

456 posted on 05/12/2006 9:27:15 AM PDT by Mo1 (DEMOCRATS: A CULTURE OF TREASON)

"He's the one who brought this issue to the forefront,"

You're nuts. Immigration wasn't an issue on FR until Bush brought it up. Jim himself said it "wasn't important" and people were banned and threads pulled wholesale over the matter. For a very, very long time there was not an illegal immigration topic header on the main forum. It's a issue lily white $$ republicans would rather not have to deal with but now have to choose a side because it's been shoved into their faces and they can't ignore it any longer.

Coop, you don't profit from illegal labor do you? Employee's , maids, yard help, etc.?

457 posted on 05/12/2006 9:27:27 AM PDT by Rebelbase

No, they'll just find some flaw... I can see it now...

Well, sure he is sending troops to the border.. but why isn't he addressing ___________

458 posted on 05/12/2006 9:27:31 AM PDT by mnehring (Those who advocate, and act to promote, victory by Democrats are not conservatives!)

This president has done more to attend to the illegal immigration problem than any president in my lifetime.

That has been proven a lie. You looked at the stats. And ask any Border Patrol agent who works the line and he'll tell you that President Bush's promises of amnesty have made the numbers of intruders go up, not down. The claim you're making is ridiculous and unsupportable.

459 posted on 05/12/2006 9:28:25 AM PDT by Spiff ("They start yelling, 'Murderer!' 'Traitor!' They call me by name." - Gael Murphy, Code Pink leader)

Maybe you didn't hear:

1) The Pentagon is going to help with the border control.

2) The National Guard is being deployed to the border.

But guess what? That won't be enough to satisfy half of you whiners.

460 posted on 05/12/2006 9:28:29 AM PDT by Peach

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794