LOL! It ain't Chris Cannon who is pushing "fast pass" for immigration,
It is tancredo/bay buchanan backed candidate, John Jacob who is doing that.
Posted on 06/18/2006 2:19:01 AM PDT by NapkinUser
Campaign Highlights Inconsistencies Between Record and Rhetoric
WASHINGTON, June 14 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Team America PAC has launched a radio campaign in Salt Lake City, Utah. The purpose of the campaign is to make Republican Primary voters aware of Representative Chris Cannon's support for illegal alien amnesties and other benefits for illegal aliens even though he represents his record as having been tough on illegal immigration.
On his website, Congressman Cannon claims he's never supported amnesty for illegal aliens and never will. In fact, Cannon has not only supported nine amnesties for illegal aliens, he's actually co-sponsored six amnesties himself. Cannon claims to be tough on illegal immigration yet he's co-sponsored two bills that would reward illegal aliens with in-state tuition. He's voted multiple times against aiding police officers in the apprehension of illegal aliens. Cannon is currently co-sponsoring a bill that protects illegal aliens from prosecution for social security fraud.
Team America' Chairman, Bay Buchanan commented, "Chris Cannon is one of the most pro amnesty congressman in Washington. It is certainly understandable why he would choose to hide his atrocious record on amnesty from his constituents but that in no way justifies the hypocrisy associated with doing so. Utah voters have a right to know if their congressman is deliberately deceiving them, especially on an issue as critical to the nation as illegal immigration."
Team America PAC launched the ad campaign earlier this week in the Salt Lake City market. The radio spots use humor to expose Cannon's claim of being tough on immigration. Throughout the spot the announcer repeatedly asks, "Chris Cannon tough on immigration?" followed by the announcer's description of Chris Cannon's support for an immigration bill that's completely out of synch with most American's views. Over the top crowd laughter then ensues. The radio spot concludes by asking GOP Primary voters to support Cannon's Primary opponent John Jacob "to begin cleaning up the immigration mess Chris Cannon helped make."
Thank you for putting that on the record. You have just allied yourself with the worst leftist lie spreading, race-baiting, conservative attacking whackjob on Free Republic. I'm sure that your credibility as a poster here will be enhanced by your alliance with Dane. Let me know how that works out for you.
And yet you support him for Congress(ala tancredo/bay buchanan).
JMO, you all are getting schizophrenic.
No one - I mean NO ONE - wants increased border security "by itself". They want increased border security coupled with actual enforcement of our interior immigration and employment laws. HR 4437, which was passed by the REPUBLICANs in the House of Representatives and opposed by the FRINGE DEMOCRATS puts border security first and then relies upon enforcement of our immigration laws in the interior. Further laws should be passed to strengthen interior enforcement but none of it will work if we don't first secure the border.
You ally yourself with the DEMOCRATS, not the conservative Republicans when you support amnesty and rewards for criminals who have violated our national borders, committed document fraud and identity theft, etc. You ally yourself with Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, and the rest of the Democrats in the Senate when you wish to excuse lawbreaking employers from their crimes. You ally yourself with the racist, leftist La Raza organization when you oppose enhanced border security. You are in OPPOSITION TO THE REPUBLICANS in the House and the Senate when you take the position you've taken. Yet, you want to say that WE are in the "fringe" on this issue. When, it is YOU and DANE and people like you who are the fringe leftist whackos on Free Republic who are attacking and opposing the conservative Republicans on this issue.
Free Republic is a CONSERVATIVE website. Not a Democrat, leftist, or moderate website. Maybe your views would be more acceptable on a moderate website that supports RINOs like McCain and Democrats like Kennedy. But this website is reserved for promoting the CONSERVATIVE view and your opposition here is opposition to the mission and purpose of this conservative forum. That you ally yourself with someone like Dane who daily abuses this website to continue his slanderous attacks against solid conservative Republicans is very telling. That you consider his constant leftist race-baiting and non-sequitur, red herring, illogic attacks against conservatives here to be worthy of "respect" is also very telling. I urge you to find a more appropriate "moderate" website that may be more to your liking. We FReepers will continue to promote the conservative position despite the trolls who come along and attempt to undermine our purpose here.
I stated clearly that even his FastPass plan, which will never see the light of day, is better than Cannon's support of amnesty for illegal aliens ala Kennedy.
Jacob's plan is no weirder than Pence's plan. I don't support Pence's plan and it, like Jacob's, will not be considered. Yet I support Pence for Congress and he is even my favorite for President in 2008. Both plans are well intentioned and far better than the amnesty plans offered by the President and the Senate Democrats, but both are no the best plans and will never be seriously considered.
"And yet you support him for Congress..."
And who do you propose I support? Chris "point man on the guest worker plan" Cannon? After his horrible record (post #5 of this thread)? Over John Jacob? Whose website makes it clear he is tough on border security?
LOL! I see that you and napkinuser have been taking "nuance" lessons from john kerry.
Like you, John Kerry supports the Senate amnesty legislation. Pelosi and Kennedy too. Jacobs and Tancredo oppose the amnesty plan passed by the Democrats and RINOs in the Senate. The conservative Republicans opposed it and earlier passed HR 4437 in the House that you appear to oppose. Which side are you on, Dane?
"ala tancredo/bay buchanan"
Better endorsed by conservative Tancredo (Jacob) than endorsed by chairman of the Utah hispanic democratic caucus, Tony Yapias (Cannon).
LOL! It ain't Chris Cannon who is pushing "fast pass" for immigration,
It is tancredo/bay buchanan backed candidate, John Jacob who is doing that.
Your total misrepresentation of Jacob's "FastPass" proposal aside, it is still better than the amnesty plan that you, Kennedy, Pelosi, Kerry, and Clinton support. And that's a fact.
Uh spiffy, maybe you should go back an hour ago and look at your reply #320, where you said you did not support Jacob's "fast pass" plan, and now you are saying it's "misrepresented".
Okay, which side of the kerry team are you on, john kerry's fetish with "nuance" or theresa heinz kerry's side of using gin and raisins to help arthritis.
I don't support the fast pass plan despite your gross misrepresentation of the plan.
I enjoyed writing it, and I'm happy you took the time to read it and respond.
It's well deserved. There are few people on FR who spend as much time addressing the issue of illegal immigration, and contradicting the simpleton sloganeer and agitators who have infected FR. I appreciate you calling them out.
Thanks for the link...what can I say? I'm amazed at the blind faith of Tancredo's acolytes
Of course they do. That is why the border security first crowd in the House refuses to take up our outdated immigration laws or the reality of 20 million illegals in the country right now. How is this problem solved by making it harder for them to leave?
Border security is a part of the solution almost everybody agrees on. I want border security to keep out criminals and terrorists. Others want border security to remove uneducated hardworking illegals who threaten to take their job cleaning toilets. Still others just hate Mexicans. These people don't even want qualified immigrants to enter the country.
If a border security only bill passes it will sap most all support for fixing the real cause of illegal immigration...the labor shortage. That is why border security must be first and only.
They want increased border security coupled with actual enforcement of our interior immigration and employment laws.
So trap them in the US and then try to remove them by force. That's a stupid solution. I addressed the problems of building a big fence in my last post. As far as enforcing our current laws...we are. Illegals are guaranteed a court hearing before deportation, and can't be held. The law says employers only have to show "good faith" in order to avoid charges of intentionally hiring illegals? You can't solve this problems by enforcing the current law...if we could it would have been done before. Did you see what happened last time the Government went after Tyson or Walmart? We got a boot in the ass. You are accusing every local state and federal law enforcer of dereliction of duty. It is laughable and sad.
HR 4437, which was passed by the REPUBLICANs in the House of Representatives and opposed by the FRINGE DEMOCRATS puts border security first and then relies upon enforcement of our immigration laws in the interior.
border security first Your words. Malkin's words. Tancredo's words. Buchanan's words. They directly contradict your first sentence.
The rest of your post is nearly incompressible rage and accusations. I shouldn't even respond to it. I am a pro-God, pro-life, pro-gun, pro-taxcut, and pro-conservative SCOTUS Republican. I worked for my state GOP for 10 years. I have donated to this forum. I love my country and want to make it better for my 3 children.
You say my allies are rats, but a quick perusal of my posts and yours show I support the GOP while you tear it down.
Have a nice day.
The exact reverse of what you wrote is more true for you, regardless of whether you want to believe it or not.
Good Job, little buddy. I thought I had you on the ropes with my well written, thought-out, and supported opinion, but I didn't expect you to pull out the ol' "I know you are, but what am I" argument. Touché.
There is not "border security by itself" bill or anyone supporting such a thing. Our outdatd immigration laws would work if we actually had border security and actually enforced them. You don't know what you're talking about when you say that enhanced border security would somehow make it hard for the criminal invaders to leave. There is no one challenging them as they leave through appropriate, LEGAL crossing points. They can leave whenever they want and they don't have to trudge through miles of deadly desert to do it.
So trap them in the US and then try to remove them by force. That's a stupid solution. I addressed the problems of building a big fence in my last post. As far as enforcing our current laws...we are. Illegals are guaranteed a court hearing before deportation, and can't be held. The law says employers only have to show "good faith" in order to avoid charges of intentionally hiring illegals? You can't solve this problems by enforcing the current law...if we could it would have been done before. Did you see what happened last time the Government went after Tyson or Walmart? We got a boot in the ass. You are accusing every local state and federal law enforcer of dereliction of duty. It is laughable and sad.
Enhanced border security doesn't trap anyone in the U.S. That's a stupid argument. As I said, fences and more border patrol agents prevent people from entering at anywhere other than LEGAL, controlled crossing points. There is NOTHING stopping illegal aliens from exiting at those crossing points, avoiding the deadly trek through the desert, except for their own desire to violate U.S. laws and stay here.
As far as enforcing our current interior immigration laws, WE AREN'T:
(Stats from the DHS 2004 Yearbook of Immigration Statistics, Analysis is mine.)Employer Investigation Efforts of U.S. Immigration Authorities:
Fiscal Year Worksite Arrests Notices of Intent to Fine 1993 7,630 1,302 1994 7,554 1,063 1995 10,014 1,056 1996 14,164 1,019 1997 17,554 865 1998 13,914 1,023 1999 2,849 417 2000 953 178 2001 735 100 2002 485 53 2003 445 162 2004 159 3 The average annual worksite arrests under Clinton was 9,329 arrests. The average annual worksite arrests under President Bush is 456. This is a 95 percent reduction in average annual worksite arrests under President Bush.
The average annual notices of intent to fine employers of illegal aliens under Clinton was 865. The average under President Bush is 79.5. This is a 90 percent reduction in average annual notices of intent to fine employers of illegal aliens.
And then there is 2004 where, under President Bush, only 3 notices of intent to fine employers of illegal aliens were done. 3!! But that was President Bush's worst year. Let's compare best years then.
Under Clinton his best year for Worksite Arrests was 1997 with 17,554 reported. President Bush's best year was 2001 with 735 worksite arrests reported. This is a 99.7 percent reduction in worksite arrests under President Bush when comparing best years.
Clinton Presidency, Total Aliens Expelled:
1993 1,285,952
1994 1,074,781
1995 1,364,688
1996 1,643,108
1997 1,555,116
1998 1,743,273
1999 1,755,754
2000 1,861,933
Total over 8 years: 12,284,605
Average Annual Total Aliens Expelled: 1,535,575Bush Presidency, Total Aliens Expelled:
2001 1,432,061
2002 1,084,661
2003 1,076,483
2004 1,238,319
Total over 4 years: 4,831,524
Average Annual Total Aliens Expelled: 1,207,881The average annual total of aliens expelled under President Bush is 327,694 LESS than the average under President Clinton. That is a 21.3 percent reduction in aliens expelled compared between Clinton and President Bush.
Deportable Aliens located in non-border sectors (interior enforcement):
Clinton presidency, last four years:
1997 44,246
1998 39,096
1999 42,010
2000 32,759
Total: 158,111Bush presidency, first four years:
2001 30,496
2002 25,501
2003 26,492
2004 21,113
Total: 103,602Total deportable aliens located in interior sectors during the first four years of the Bush presidency represents a 34.4 percent drop compared to the previous four years - the last four years of the Clinton presidency.
Deportable Aliens Located:
Clinton Presidency first four years:
1993 1,327,261
1994 1,094,719
1995 1,394,554
1996 1,649,986
Total: 5,466,520Clinton Presidency last four years:
1997 1,536,520
1998 1,679,439
1999 1,714,035
2000 1,814,729
Total: 6,744,723Bush Presidency first four years:
2001 1,387,486
2002 1,062,279
2003 1,046,422
2004 1,241,089
Total: 4,737,276Total deportable aliens located dropped by 29.7 percent in the first four years of the Bush Presidency compared to the previous four years - the last four years of the Clinton Presidency.
The rest of your post is nearly incompressible rage and accusations. I shouldn't even respond to it. I am a pro-God, pro-life, pro-gun, pro-taxcut, and pro-conservative SCOTUS Republican. I worked for my state GOP for 10 years. I have donated to this forum. I love my country and want to make it better for my 3 children.
I too am a pro-God, pro-life, pro-gun, pro-taxcut, and pro-conservative SCOTUS Republican. I've served as a Republican Precinct Committeeman for 5 years, served as a State GOP Delegate, Served as President of a conservative Republican Club where I'm currently serving as Vice President, and I've worked on conservative Republican congressional campaigns for the past 6 years. I have donated to this forum. I love my country and want to make it better for my 4 children.
You and I are a lot alike. However, on this issue, I ally myself with the conservative Republicans. You ally yourself with the Democrats and liberal Republicans. I stand with the conservative Republicans members of the House who passed HR 4437. You don't. I stand with the conservative Republicans in the Senate who voted against the liberal Democrat amnesty plan. You don't. I stand with one of the most conservative Republican members of the House of Representatives, Rep. Tom Tancredo, who founded and chairs the Congressional Immigration Reform Caucus who enjoys membership by one hundred of the most conservative Republicans in the House on this issue. You don't.
You say my allies are rats, but a quick perusal of my posts and yours show I support the GOP while you tear it down.
On this issue, your allies are the "rats". On this issue my allies are the conservative Republicans despite the liberal RNC's position. Maybe you should reconsider your position on this particular issue given where you stand on it compared to where you stand on other issues. Granting citizenship to millions of criminals (yes, every damned one of them is, by definition, a criminal) future Democrat voters is NOT a good thing for a conservative Republican to be supporting. The conservative Republicans in the House had the right idea to make it a felony to be here illegally as conviction would prevent these millions of Democrat voters from ever being able to vote. But if you want to coddle criminal aliens and their criminal employers, feel free. Just don't pretend that is the conservative Republican position on the issue.
Here is why internal enforcement has deteriorated. Yes, the law can be enforced, but will you like the result?
Consider a strategy tried in 1998, one that had all the makings of success. In Operation Vanguard, authorities focused on the meatpacking industry in Nebraska. After comparing records at every plant in the state against Social Security numbers, they notified the employers of about 4,700 suspect workers. The program worked so well that 3,500 workers disappeared.You don't know what you're talking about when you say that enhanced border security would somehow make it hard for the criminal invaders to leave. There is no one challenging them as they leave through appropriate, LEGAL crossing points.The long-range plan was to repeat the experiment industry by industry and state by state. This, immigration authorities logically concluded, would persuade employers that it's more economical to hire legal workers. With jobs drying up, illegal immigration would slow. All of this would be done without disruptive raids or wholesale deportations, such as those voted by the House of Representatives in January. But the plan worked too well.
Unions, immigration advocates, the industry and Nebraska's politicians stampeded to protest. Plants couldn't find workers. Livestock demand dropped. Nebraska's economy was disrupted, and immigrant families were torn apart. In a year, Vanguard was gone.
I have not crossed the Mexican border but I know some people who have and they tell me passports were required. A valid passport was necessary for my family to go to Niagara Falls last year. They asked us questions and looked over the car before we were allowed to enter.
If the Mexican government doesn't want the illegals back they can not enter through legal channels and would sent back likely be arrested on our side. Those with criminal records in the US would certainly be taking a chance returning to Mexico through legal channels.
My point was that while Clinton's interior enforcement numbers were pathetically low, President Bush's numbers are so bad that it made even Clinton look good. The point is that we aren't enforcing our immigration laws. The only thing "broken" or "outdated" about them is that they are not being enforced anymore.
I have not crossed the Mexican border but I know some people who have and they tell me passports were required. A valid passport was necessary for my family to go to Niagara Falls last year. They asked us questions and looked over the car before we were allowed to enter. If the Mexican government doesn't want the illegals back they can not enter through legal channels and would sent back likely be arrested on our side. Those with criminal records in the US would certainly be taking a chance returning to Mexico through legal channels.
You don't need a Passport to leave the U.S. Only to return.
I know of no instance where Mexico has refused to allow re-entry of an illegal alien. Name one.
Beside the fact that they are ALL criminals, those with a further criminal history should have more to worry about staying here then they should have being caught trying to return home. Why would we EVER want to be more welcoming to a criminal fugitive than their home country?
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.