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.
That one caught my eye as well. It sure would be nice to know exactly WHO put in that poison pill.
Sensenbrenner does not lie.
Sensenbrenner is just another DU plant. </sarcasm>
If you want to send a message to Congress, then vote for pro-border security Republiicans. Keeping the US House in GOP hands will tell President Bush that border security is the way to go.
I agree.
Heather Mac Donald - Bush's "illegals-must-wait-at-the-end-of-the-line" line is a con: by remaining in the country and jumping into the citizenship line, rather than the visa line, illegals have catapulted way ahead of law-abiding intending immigrants waiting in their home countries for a visa.
snip
George Borjas: ...illegals being granted relief will have to "wait in line behind those who play by the rules." As of last night, some Filipinos have been waiting since November 1, 1983. Somehow, I suspect that Bush's amnesty does not include a 23-year queue. In short, an untrustworthy and depressing sales pitch.
snip
=== placemark ===
There is no way this makes sense from a political point of view, I agree. But it does make sense if those not in the news are pressuring the administration to act the way they are. As with all things in politics, as FDR said, "Nothing in politics happens by accident. If it happened, someone wanted it to happen."
So the main question is: How stands to gain from:
(1) allowing illegals to cross and stay out of the system; or
(2)who benefits from creating an immigration controversy so that there is a reaction to that controversy?
What reaction could be expected? If you can answer these questions, the reason for the open borders and the controversy at this time will be better understood.
Is this all a massive distraction?
The felony thing was not thought out, and just blew up, unexpectedly. Color me cynical, but the felony thing was just WH window dressing anyway, I suspect. Heck what zillions of employers are doing now is a felony. For the WH it is about body counts.
"We now have two contridicting stories.
Who is telling the truth President Bush or Sennensbrenner."
Bush will only respond if the MSM forces him with coverage on the issue. I suspect they won't.
Consider what happened. The proponents decided they needed a "crisis" as shown by the protests - which Bush oftens mention. This was game plan from the beginning. The protests were much organized by lobby money funneled through ethnic and socialist groups. What was the biggest complaint? The "felony" charges. How do you get them in? Tell Sessenbrenner the White House wanted them.
The preplanning was devious and brilliant. This whole charade has been stage managed from the start. I think the National Guard show was a later corrective, and they hit a bump the first time they tried to push this through, but Rove smartly made NG the talking point for last weekend.
Sessenbrenner's only revenge is to get this point out. The conservative radio will do it.
(You remember M.A.D. ... Mutually Assured Destruction...I.E. You nuke me I nuke you from the Cold War)
Well the pro illegals Republicans better think hard if that cheap labor is really worth it because if they sell out the country and past amnesty ...
The M.A.D. Republicans will nuke the pro illegals Republicans even if it means Mutually Assured Destruction...
It is coming to that point
Apparently the president considers the Senate bill the 'whole enchalada', which is what he's been after all along.
"a smug jerk" was what was said, btw.
If the line formed at the border near San Diego, "the back of the line" would be somewhere in Alaska.
I can't imagine what Rove had to do that was more important, than rounding up House Pubbies for the big WH push, and if there were something, Rove could and should have said, that he was very sorry about the conflict, and offer to reconvene the meeting at a later date. Rather, I think he thought he knew what the Congressmen had to say, and was not interested. Either his threats about the future without the bill passing would work, or they wouldn't. No, I am not giving Rove any slack. Apparently, he left a considerable number of Congresmen upset, if you believe the S man is faithfully repeating what he was told.
Color me cynical too... but I don't think it blew up unexpectedly.
****
Agreed.
I was not in the forefront of the immigration wing of FR, but I'm really beginning to get angry about it.
Sensenbrenner is not the kind of guy to say this in order to make political brownie points. If he says it, I believe it.
Bush has been going downhill ever since he was elected to his second term. I don't know what the hell has gotten into him. He talks about enforcing the laws of our country, but he's not doing it, and he's not using his bully pulpit to urge the states to do it or to persuade citizens that it ought to be done.
I'm not one of the conspiracy theorists who think that Vincent Fox is somehow blackmailing him, but it sure does look that way. In five years, Vincente Fox has done NOTHING for Bush. Bush panders to Fox, and Fox just kicks him in the teeth every time. Why the hell is Bush still trying to stroke this loser?
Ping! Thought this might interest you.
Sensenbrenner: "I was very disappointed in the president's speech," Sensenbrenner said. "I think he doesn't get it."
Neither do I, but why..
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.