President touts alien citizenship

The Washington Times ^ | October 7, 2006 | Stephen Dinan

[George W. Bush]

I hate me when I say things like this.

[MineralMan]

"You would perhaps have preferred Mr.Kerry?
"

Nope. Mr. Kerry is not running, in any case, in 2006. I'm not talking about what I want, either. I'm talking about Bush. Have I said anything that's incorrect?

[George W. Bush]

I've been watching the SCOTUS. So far, there hasn't been all that much change in their rulings.

It is the new session, just opening, that will tell the tale. No one expected the two new justices to come out guns blazing. If they are to budge the so-called conservative and more-Catholic-than-the-pope Justice Kennedy, it was important to move pretty slowly.

The docket for the Court makes it certain that we will know at the end of this term exactly where the new justices stand and whether they can persuade Kennedy, the new O'Connor (swing vote), to toe the conservative line. Given that our two new justices are formidably educated and devout Catholics, I wouldn't be surprised if they might wean him away from the liberal wing of the Court. The battle is about constructionism and how to derail the Court's past attempts to rewrite the Constitution and legislate from the bench. Alito and Roberts have their work cut out for them, a tremendous job for even such well-qualified jurists.

We shouldn't count our chickens before they hatch. We simply don't have a good test of the Roberts Court yet. No matter what, it's better than it was with the flaky O'Connor on board.

[MineralMan]

"We shouldn't count our chickens before they hatch. We simply don't have a good test of the Roberts Court yet."

Exactly what I said. We will see how the court rules. The SCOTUS is a funny thing. Just when you think you know what they'll do, they go and surprise the heck out of you.

A lot of folks don't think about issues in the same way SCOTUS justices tend to do. What may seem obvious often isn't, as the justices weigh the Constitution against the law.

Those who expect a wholesale rejection of Roe v. Wade, for example, are going to find disappointment from this court. They may allow a little more leeway to the states, but they aren't going to toss abortion into the garbage can.

Same with 2nd Amendment issues. They're not going to throw out the hundreds of restrictive firearms laws. It ain't gonna happen. The understanding of "a well-regulated militia" is pretty well established, and Bush's appointees aren't going to throw that out, I'm quite sure. They're going to leave the states to decide most firearms issues and simply avoid the question.

And that pretty much covers the two most fractious issues commonly discussed here. You can mark this post down, and refer to it later to see if I'm not right.

[Vigilanteman]

Virtually every country with a sane immigration policy assigns points to each applicant like the United States used to do.

Positive points are assigned for things like military service, paying taxes, learning our language and history, cooperating with the authorities in weeding out the less desireable among your group, genuine community service such as being a scout leader or cleaning highways as opposed to being a "community activist" pushing for more opportunities to enhance the status of your group at the expense of those less politically connected.

Negative points are assigned for criminal activity, getting public assistance, separatism disguied as community activism, etc.

You start be finding and deporting those with the most negative points and reward those with the most positive points. The negative points aren't that difficult to track-- systems are already in place to record criminal activities and public assistance.

[savedbygrace]

Here's the fence bill:

Secure Fence Act of 2006 (Engrossed as Agreed to or Passed by House)

HR 6061 EH

109th CONGRESS

2d Session

H. R. 6061

AN ACT

To establish operational control over the international land and maritime borders of the United States.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Secure Fence Act of 2006'.

SEC. 2. ACHIEVING OPERATIONAL CONTROL ON THE BORDER.

(a) In General- Not later than 18 months after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall take all actions the Secretary determines necessary and appropriate to achieve and maintain operational control over the entire international land and maritime borders of the United States, to include the following--

(1) systematic surveillance of the international land and maritime borders of the United States through more effective use of personnel and technology, such as unmanned aerial vehicles, ground-based sensors, satellites, radar coverage, and cameras; and

(2) physical infrastructure enhancements to prevent unlawful entry by aliens into the United States and facilitate access to the international land and maritime borders by United States Customs and Border Protection, such as additional checkpoints, all weather access roads, and vehicle barriers.

(b) Operational Control Defined- In this section, the term `operational control' means the prevention of all unlawful entries into the United States, including entries by terrorists, other unlawful aliens, instruments of terrorism, narcotics, and other contraband.

(c) Report- Not later than one year after the date of the enactment of this Act and annually thereafter, the Secretary shall submit to Congress a report on the progress made toward achieving and maintaining operational control over the entire international land and maritime borders of the United States in accordance with this section.

SEC. 3. CONSTRUCTION OF FENCING AND SECURITY IMPROVEMENTS IN BORDER AREA FROM PACIFIC OCEAN TO GULF OF MEXICO.

Section 102(b) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-208; 8 U.S.C. 1103 note) is amended--

(1) in the subsection heading by striking `Near San Diego, California'; and

(2) by amending paragraph (1) to read as follows:

`(1) SECURITY FEATURES-

`(A) REINFORCED FENCING- In carrying out subsection (a), the Secretary of Homeland Security shall provide for least 2 layers of reinforced fencing, the installation of additional physical barriers, roads, lighting, cameras, and sensors--

`(i) extending from 10 miles west of the Tecate, California, port of entry to 10 miles east of the Tecate, California, port of entry;

`(ii) extending from 10 miles west of the Calexico, California, port of entry to 5 miles east of the Douglas, Arizona, port of entry;

`(iii) extending from 5 miles west of the Columbus, New Mexico, port of entry to 10 miles east of El Paso, Texas;

`(iv) extending from 5 miles northwest of the Del Rio, Texas, port of entry to 5 miles southeast of the Eagle Pass, Texas, port of entry; and

`(v) extending 15 miles northwest of the Laredo, Texas, port of entry to the Brownsville, Texas, port of entry.

`(B) PRIORITY AREAS- With respect to the border described--

`(i) in subparagraph (A)(ii), the Secretary shall ensure that an interlocking surveillance camera system is installed along such area by May 30, 2007, and that fence construction is completed by May 30, 2008; and

`(ii) in subparagraph (A)(v), the Secretary shall ensure that fence construction from 15 miles northwest of the Laredo, Texas, port of entry to 15 southeast of the Laredo, Texas, port of entry is completed by December 31, 2008.

`(C) EXCEPTION- If the topography of a specific area has an elevation grade that exceeds 10 percent, the Secretary may use other means to secure such area, including the use of surveillance and barrier tools.'.

SEC. 4. NORTHERN BORDER STUDY.

(a) In General- The Secretary of Homeland Security shall conduct a study on the feasibility of a state of-the-art infrastructure security system along the northern international land and maritime border of the United States and shall include in the study--

(1) the necessity of implementing such a system;

(2) the feasibility of implementing such a system; and

(3) the economic impact implementing such a system will have along the northern border.

(b) Report- Not later than one year after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall submit to the Committee on Homeland Security of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate a report that contains the results of the study conducted under subsection (a).

SEC. 5. EVALUATION AND REPORT RELATING TO CUSTOMS AUTHORITY TO STOP CERTAIN FLEEING VEHICLES.

(a) Evaluation- Not later than 30 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall--

(1) evaluate the authority of personnel of United States Customs and Border Protection to stop vehicles that enter the United States illegally and refuse to stop when ordered to do so by such personnel, compare such Customs authority with the authority of the Coast Guard to stop vessels under section 637 of title 14, United States Code, and make an assessment as to whether such Customs authority should be expanded;

(2) review the equipment and technology available to United States Customs and Border Protection personnel to stop vehicles described in paragraph (1) and make an assessment as to whether or not better equipment or technology is available or should be developed; and

(3) evaluate the training provided to United States Customs and Border Protection personnel to stop vehicles described in paragraph (1).

(b) Report- Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall submit to the Committee on Homeland Security of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate a report that contains the results of the evaluation conducted under subsection (a).

Passed the House of Representatives September 14, 2006.

Attest:

Clerk.

109th CONGRESS

2d Session

H. R. 6061

AN ACT

To establish operational control over the international land and maritime borders of the United States.

________________________________________________________

But note that Sec 3 says: "Section 102(b) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-208; 8 U.S.C. 1103 note) is amended--".

The thing is, I've tried finding what Section 102(b) of that 1996 bill says, but there doesn't appear to be a (b) in Sec 102. So, I'm confused.

[imintrouble]

Just floating this idea for input if I may.

I like the immigrant group who have chosen service to our country to have earned benefits and the path to Naturalization.

For the ones who here are illegally but have been working without paying into any systems requiring then that we pay for educating their children, taking care of their health and medical needs, etc. etc....... I would suggest some kind of surety bond - which they put up to cover all their additional expenses to the country until such time as they actually become citizens - they can pay into the bond rather than sending money home to Vicente....

Money talks - maybe they will listen and commit by putting money where their illegality is.

[imintrouble]

I have been waiting to become naturalized four years now - prior to that I took all the paperwork and medical exams, fingerprinting, etc. to become a legal alien.

I hope they leave one line for the legal people - nothing hurts more than to do it the right way and have some felon step up ahead of you in the line....

I too have contributed to this country and speak fluent English because I am Canadian (for now)....I have never had a traffic ticket, purchased a total of four lovely homes, paid property taxes and insurances, been a good consumer, never been late on one bill I have incurred during my life here and have given much to charity and helping people on a personal basis without ever claiming special privilege for it.... I prefer anonymity.

Am I considered lesser by our President because I do not speak Spanish, have not broken any laws of this land, studied and passed my Citizenship Exam.... and wait and wait and wait.....

[A. Pole]

President Bush yesterday said immigration reform requires granting citizenship to current illegal aliens

Bumpy bump

[lone star annie]

Say what you want about Mark Foley, he voted against every bill that favored illegals. He was for the border fence and security first.

Bush needs to shut up and we all need to vote for the GOP so McCain and Kennedy don't get their amenesty bills.

[raybbr]

He also urged that the immigration debate not turn nasty. "We are a land of immigrants, and as we debate immigration policy, we must always keep that important fact in mind," Mr. Bush said.

What debate? Bush closed that in 2000 when he told us of his plan for a "new America".

We are now one of the largest Spanish-speaking nations in the world. We're a major source of Latin music, journalism and culture.

Just go to Miami, or San Antonio, Los Angeles, Chicago or West New York, New Jersey ... and close your eyes and listen. You could just as easily be in Santo Domingo or Santiago, or San Miguel de Allende.

For years our nation has debated this change -- some have praised it and others have resented it. By nominating me, my party has made a choice to welcome the new America.

As I speak, we are celebrating the success of democracy in Mexico.

George Bush from a campaign speech in Miami, August 2000.

You can read the speech here.

Here is an excerpt of a good critique of that speech:

In equating our intimate historic bonds to our mother country and to Canada with our ties to Mexico, W. shows a staggering ignorance of the civilizational facts of life. The reason we are so close to Britain and Canada is that we share with them a common historical culture, language, literature, and legal system, as well as similar standards of behavior, expectations of public officials, and so on. My Bush Epiphany By Lawrence Auster

The Path to National Suicide by Lawrence Auster (1990)

An essay on multi-culturalism and immigration.

Click the Pic!!!!

How can we account for this remarkable silence? The answer, as I will try to show, is that when the Immigration Reform Act of 1965 was being considered in Congress, the demographic impact of the bill was misunderstood and downplayed by its sponsors. As a result, the subject of population change was never seriously examined. The lawmakers’ stated intention was that the Act should not radically transform America’s ethnic character; indeed, it was taken for granted by liberals such as Robert Kennedy that it was in the nation’s interest to avoid such a change. But the dramatic ethnic transformation that has actually occurred as a result of the 1965 Act has insensibly led to acceptance of that transformation in the form of a new, multicultural vision of American society. Dominating the media and the schools, ritualistically echoed by every politician, enforced in every public institution, this orthodoxy now forbids public criticism of the new path the country has taken. “We are a nation of immigrants,” we tell ourselves— and the subject is closed. The consequences of this code of silence are bizarre. One can listen to statesmen and philosophers agonize over the multitudinous causes of our decline, and not hear a single word about the massive immigration from the Third World and the resulting social divisions. Opponents of population growth, whose crusade began in the 1960s out of a concern about the growth rate among resident Americans and its effects on the environment and the quality of life, now studiously ignore the question of immigration, which accounts for fully half of our population growth.

This curious inhibition stems, of course, from a paralyzing fear of the charge of “racism.” The very manner in which the issue is framed—as a matter of equal rights and the blessings of diversity on one side, versus “racism” on the other—tends to cut off all rational discourse on the subject. One can only wonder what would happen if the proponents of open immigration allowed the issue to be discussed, not as a moralistic dichotomy, but in terms of its real consequences. Instead of saying: “We believe in the equal and unlimited right of all people to immigrate to the U.S. and enrich our land with their diversity,” what if they said: “We believe in an immigration policy which must result in a staggering increase in our population, a revolution in our culture and way of life, and the gradual submergence of our current population by Hispanic and Caribbean and Asian peoples.” Such frankness would open up an honest debate between those who favor a radical change in America’s ethnic and cultural identity and those who think this nation should preserve its way of life and its predominant, European-American character. That is the actual choice—as distinct from the theoretical choice between “equality” and “racism”—that our nation faces. But the tyranny of silence has prevented the American people from freely making that choice.

[Wolfie]

I think you'll find that its the American Way - toe the line and get screwed, while our government caters to lawbreakers and malcontents.

[Scotsman will be Free]

Well, you fool! Serves you right for doing it the correct way. You should have snuck across the border, gotten free medical, food stamps, etc, free education for your illegal alien kids, and hatched a few anchor babies to boot. I suggest that you get a Canadian flag and march down the main drag of the town you live in demanding that you get citizenship and extra bennies NOW! This will impress Bush and his cohorts, and may propel you back to the head of the line.

[Nowhere Man]

[ZULU]

Bush needs some party leaders to take him to the woodshed and wise him up.

One of the reasons we are facing a Democrat take-over is because of his ridiculous, unpopular, illogical and indefensible statements about illegal invaders and their rights.

If he can't say anything helpful, he shouldn't say anything at all or he will find himself being impeached by a Democrat controlled Congress.

[William Terrell]

I don't think the new judges' appointments are so much about abortion or guns as about the rulings necessary to advance extra-national goals when contested global issues hit the court. Then they will perform.

[EternalVigilance]

I'll believe that the President is correct when he pulls down all the fencing around the White House and lets all the bums sleeping on grates along Pennsylvania Avenue come and live in the Lincoln Bedroom.

[janetgreen]

Sell out. Giant blunder. THIS is the true bush legacy.

Sad but true. No American president should work so hard to shove Mexico down our throats against our will, but he continues to try.

[thoughtomator]

Way to sabotage your own party's effort to win this election, Mr. President. If you end up with a Democrat House to deal with it's your own damned fault.

[netmilsmom]

.....that 66% of them are refused visas AFTER they paid the U.S. Embassy $110.00 per visit to the Embassy<<

Truth be told!!!!
I'm a member of a Slovak Catholic church. This is the biggest complaint of our parish.

And everyone should understand that a good wage in Slovakia is 4000.00 a year. That 110.00 per family member for nothing.