Posted on 05/17/2006 5:02:57 PM PDT by notes2005
WASHINGTON - Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, who has pushed a tough border security bill through the House, accused President Bush on Wednesday of abandoning the legislation after asking for many of its provisions.
"He basically turned his back on provisions of the House-passed bill, a lot of which we were requested to put in the bill by the White House," Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., angrily told reporters in a conference call. "That was last fall when we were drafting the bill, and now the president appears not to be interested in it at all."
Sensenbrenner chairs the House Judiciary Committee and would be the House's chief negotiator on any final immigration package for Bush's signature. He said it was the White House that had requested two controversial felony provisions in the bill the House passed last winter.
"We worked very closely with White House in the fall in putting together the border security bill that the House passed," he said. "... What we heard in November and December, he seems to be going in the opposite direction in May. That is really at the crux of this irritation," he said of Bush.
White House spokesman Alex Conant said Bush has been consistent in seeking comprehensive immigration reform. "He applauded the House's action to strengthen our borders and is now urging the Senate to pass a bill," Conant said.
Sensenbrenner spoke with reporters as the Senate worked this week on a broader bill that generally follows the approach Bush laid out Monday night in his nationally televised speech. That includes offering most of the nation's 12 million illegal immigrants an opportunity to eventually become citizens — an act that Sensenbrenner and other conservatives label as amnesty.
"I was very disappointed in the president's speech," Sensenbrenner said. "I think he doesn't get it."
Asked if Bush mollified conservatives in the speech by calling for sending National Guard troops to states along the Mexican border, Sensenbrenner said, "He failed in that completely."
And despite Bush's insistence that he was not calling for amnesty, Sensenbrenner said, "Well it is an amnesty, because it allows people who have broken the law to stay in the country."
"The president has repeatedly and forcefully rejected amnesty," Conant said. "Under his plan, you're going to have to pay stiff fines, follow the law, stay employed, learn English and — after achieving all those things — go to the back of the line."
Sensenbrenner did not attend a closed-door meeting between Bush political adviser Karl Rove and House Republicans, but said that some members complained to him that Rove didn't stay around for many questions or hear what lawmakers had to say.
"The overwhelming majority of those that I talked to who were at the conference believe that he dissed the House Republicans," Sensenbrenner said.
I'm sure you are...........just let those mean old attacks roll off and don't sink to their level.....Oh, and remember, failure is the first step in the learning process.
The way I read it, the quote is from King based on his impression of Rove's presentation, and not intended as a quote from Rove himself. Rove is not stupid; I doubt he would have said that either.
No passes for the states. Can we agree that immigration policy emanates from the federal government?
Great tagline!
I yell that I am an illegal, in a demonstration, for the hell of it. The police come up to me. I don't have my wallet with me. Now what? Or do you just send to interrogation all those without a driver's license?
Sen. Jeff Bingaman's (D-NM) amendment capping the number of new guestworkers at 200,000 per year was agreed to by voice vote after an attempt was made to table it. This removed the most out-of-control part of the bill, but still would lead to more than 60 million immigrants over the next 20 years.
(my note-not including anchor babies and their immediate relatives, IMO probably at least 20 million more)
http://www.numbersusa.com/hottopic/2454.html
It is the administration itself who has discouraged such cooperation.
well, what's your solution?
the employer needs something, he can't just ask every Mr Martinez for verification, and not Mr Smith - because alot of Mr Martinez's are as american as apple pie, and as american as Mr Smith is.
My rep was also on the radio recently and stated something to the effect of the President saying one thing and doing another. His exact words escape me but he could not understand why that happened. It makes you wonder if the House was set up as far as the felony part goes so they, the House, would look extreme and then the President could come in and save the day with the middle ground approach. Okay, I don't like what I am thinking, somebody help me get this notion out of my head.
Sorry, not interested. I still have the paper one I got when I went to work at 15. No reason at this stage to buy another when the cost is so high. Besides the feds already have my biometrics.
The Bush boys learned their fondness for "the New World Order" at their daddy's knee. We shouldn't be surprised that the apples didn't fall far from the tree.
Yes it does .. but the Feds can't enforce it all on their own .. the states also have to help
Whatever
Can't argue with that.
cost? they'll be free.
Feds have your biometric already? mine too. that will make it very easy for them to issue our cards. and not easy for someone who just walked across the arizona desert.
that's the idea.
that comment is so far right, it's meeting up with the left
By the way, your first move, might be to object to a compound question. :)
Stamping GW on the foreheads of temporary workers out of the question?
Even Cheney didn't sound 100% comfortable with this when he was on Rush yesterday.
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.