Posted on 07/04/2006 7:38:49 PM PDT by nj26
On the eve of nationwide hearings that could determine the fate of his immigration bill, President Bush is signaling a new willingness to negotiate with House Republicans in an effort to revise stalled legislation before Election Day.
Republicans both inside and outside the White House say Mr. Bush, who has long insisted on comprehensive reform, is now open to a so-called enforcement-first approach that would put new border security programs in place before creating a guest worker program or path to citizenship for people living in the United States illegally.
"He thinks that this notion that you can have triggers is something we should take a close look at, and we are," said Candi Wolff, the White House director of legislative affairs, referring to the idea that guest worker and citizenship programs would be triggered when specific border security goals had been met, a process that could take two years.
The shift is significant because Mr. Bush has repeatedly said he favors legislation like the Senate's immigration bill, which establishes border security, guest worker and citizenship programs all at once. The enforcement-first approach puts Mr. Bush one step closer to the House, where Republicans are demanding an enforcement-only measure.
"The willingness to consider a phased-in situation, that's a pretty big concession from where they were at," said Representative Tom Cole, Republican of Oklahoma, whose closeness to Mr. Bush dates to his days as a top Republican National Committee official. "It's a suggestion they are willing to negotiate."
In a sign of that willingness, the White House last week invited a leading conservative proponent of an enforcement-first bill, Representative Mike Pence, Republican of Indiana, to present his ideas to Mr. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney in the Oval Office.
Ms. Wolff said the president found the Pence plan "pretty intriguing."
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Damn that RINO!
ENFORCE FIRST!!!!
LOL! You people are so funny.
And Hastert will not conference on S2611 either. Many consider Pence's proposal no better then the original McCain-Kennedy-Bush, or was that Hagel-Martinez-Bush? Whatever. In fact, some provisions of the Pence plan are considered worse then those in S2611. If anything passes before the election, its gonna be an enforcement ONLY bill. The only enforcement ONLY bill that exists today, is HR4437. Among House members like Sensenbrenner, Hayworth, King and others, Tancredo is still the top dog on immigration reform.
Nah it is just my opinion and you know what the say about opinions.
Thanks. So, what is your own view? Do you view illegal immigration as a problem?
Appears that way.
I'm really trying to understand, though, after years they still have failed to grasp this tactic doesn't work. I'm not going to fall in line no matter what happens. Good or bad. And amnesty is very bad for them even if they can't understand it. BTW, I'm still not voting for my amnesty (guest worker) shilling Congressman this fall either. Whether people follow my lead, who knows? It's still not happening. And that position drives them literally up the wall.
And what about the selective service registration....?
All males 18 to 26 supposed to register...
And is an instant barrier to citizenship for legal immigrants.
So this should exclude about 30% of the illegals right there....
Or am I missing something...?
On the other hand, is it possible for borderbots to be PRO-illegal immigration as well, e.g. Dane lol?
Pre-Utah you would have been correct. Now is a very different story. Pence is getting a hell of a lot of support, I look for Senesenbrenner to come out for it soon and that will be the final straw. Tancredo really blew it with Cannon. Sensenbrenner took him to the woodshed over that one.
Not under my definition.
The guest workers will be allowed to renew their visas every two years for up to six years and then, "At that point, the guest should decide whether to return home or enter the separate process of seeking citizenship. We cannot have people coming to America as permanent guest workers."This means amnesty allowing the illegals to apply for citizenship without leaving the country.
During the first three years of the program, there will be no limits on the number of W visas issued, but rather, US employers would set the limits. "After three years of the program, a reasonable limit on the number of W Visas will be determined by the Department of Labor based on employment statistics, employer needs and other research." Thus, the numbers during the first three years could be huge.
Besides being amnesty, i.e., granting illegals currently in the country legal status, going to the front of the line and return to the US in less than a week while over 6 million people are in line today waiting in line to come into the US under various categories, which have caps.
There are also some very real practical problems in processing these people. Background checks will take far more than a week and what do we do with people who have not only entered the country illegally, but also, used bogus SS numbers and engaged in identity theft? What is they can't pass their physical examinations? Approximately 60 of the illegals are from Mexico, but many others are from Central America, China, Europe, etc. Going back to the home countries may be difficult and expensive with no guarantee of return. Why would an illegal self-deport in these circumstances?
The Pence plan takes care of the problem.
I didn't state he was a RINO. I did state he supports amnesty. BTW, last we spoke weren't you about ready to tell me how this article...
http://www.slate.com/id/2145017/
Supports your position exactly? That was what you allegded. I know, you are getting around to it. Still haven't exhausted your reportoire of insults yet. Priorities after all. LOL
It shows that the Tancredo national referendum went down in total defeat and did little to phase Congressman Cannon. It's really a very simple concept.
CWOJ
see post 100..Does the Pence plan touch on that?
Ginrich is opposed to amnesty.
That isn't what the article says. Reading comprehension problem? Try again, I'll make it easy for you, I'll post it here...
The Cannon Con
When immigration-legalization backers pose as something else.
By Mickey Kaus
Updated Tuesday, July 4, 2006, at 6:17 AM ET
GOP Rep. Chris Cannon has a clear interpretation of his 56-44 primary victory over a Tancredo-like border-enforcement challenger:
Rep. Chris Cannon said his solid victory in Utah's Republican primary is good news for President Bush and those seeking a consensus on immigration policy this year. Cannon supports President Bush's proposal for a guest-worker program ... . [Emphasis added]
Hmmm. It's certainly tempting to describe a reversed-image, bookend-like parallelism between Cannon's primary victory and Brian Bilbray's victory in California's recent open seat election. And that seems to be the CW approach: a) The California race showed that the anti-GOP wave wasn't big enough to displace a veteran Republican in a Republican district. Utah showed the conservative anti-legalization wave wasn't big enough to displace a veteran Republican in a Republican district. b) California demonstrated that opposition to legalizing illegal immigration is a strong force. Utah demonstrated it's not that strong. c) The Sensenbrenner "enforcement-only" approach wins one (CA). The Bush "comprehensive" approach wins the other (Utah). d) In both races, last-minute gaffes hurt the challengers, muddling the contrasting take-home lessons.
But wait: there's a deeper lack of contrast. Bilbray ran on a platform of opposition lto illegal immigration. Meanwhile, Cannon ... also ran on a plaform of opposition to illegal immigration. Here's the text of a last-minute Cannon TV ad, as reported in the Salt Lake Tribune:
"I'm Congressman Chris Cannon and I approve this message." Female announcer: "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free." Male announcer: "But Congressman Chris Cannon says only if they come here legally. That's why Chris Cannon is fighting to pass legislation to strengthen our borders and toughen penalties on illegal immigration. And why Chris Cannon would require all immigrants to carry a tamper-proof ID card, or be deported. Fighting to stop illegal immigration. (Because it matters). Re-elect Congressman Chris Cannon." [Emphasis added]
I would guess that voters who responded to this TV message were not sending rousing message of support for the Bush/Kennedy/McCain "path to citizenship" approach. This impression is reinforced by President Bush's recorded message on Cannon's behalf, in which Bush seemingly doesn't mention immigration:
"Chris Cannon is an effective leader for Utah in congress. He's a strong Republican, a proven defender of traditional family values," says the president's recorded message. "And in the War on Terror, Chris Cannon has stood shoulder to shoulder with our troops as they fight to defeat the terrorists abroad so we do not have to face them here in America. The people of Utah need and deserve the leadership Chris Cannon provides."
Cannon's victory is even harder to interpret as a rejection of the Sensenbrenner enforcement-only approach because Cannon's campaign featured a ringing endorsement from one James Sensenbrenner. Here's the Deseret Morning News:
In a recorded message, Sensenbrenner said Cannon is "a major force in Congress."
"And long before it was fashionable, Chris Cannon was working with me to stop illegal immigration. Just about everybody in Congress is talking about immigration, but Chris Cannon is one of the few doing the heavy lifting to actually solve the problem."
It's all eerily reminiscent of the welfare debate, in which anti-welfare candidates sincerely bashed welfare and pro-welfare candidates insincerely bashed welfare. We know how that turned out. This could be why House Republicans don't seem to be interpreting Cannon's win as a reason to abandon their enforcement-only position. It's also why, when you encounter the quotes from Democratic leaders in WaPo (Sample: "Republicans want to use this like Willie Horton in 1988 and gay marriage in 2004"--Sen. Schumer) you can smell their fear. 2:22 A.M.
I havent followed all this that closely ...should they move ahead with the Pence Bill what will the Democrats do?
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.