Posted on 12/27/2006 8:58:23 AM PST by presidio9
Retooled immigration legislation that could get a vote in Congress by spring amounts to "amnesty" for millions of undocumented workers, Rep. Peter King (R-L.I.) fumed yesterday.
"I just have no support for this at all," King told The Post. "This is clearly amnesty."
King was responding to word that a bipartisan bill is being prepared for consideration by the new incoming Congress.
According to a Senate Democratic aide, Sens. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) have already opened "preliminary" discussions with two House members over the revised legislation. Negotiators are considering scrapping a complicated proposal that would require an estimated 7 million illegal immigrants now living in the United States to jump across the border before returning to apply to become citizens.
That provision would also mean that illegals in the country for less than two years would not be guaranteed a slot in a guest-worker program.
Congress also may nix a border fence that many conservatives say is needed to stop the flow of illegals.
Legislation to build the fence passed Congress and signed by President Bush this year. But it hasn't been fully funded, and can be amended by a new law.
Most Democrats oppose the fence, as does Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, who prefers a "virtual" fence in some areas.
But conservative Republican opponents of easing the path to citizenship for illegals lost major clout in the elections. "The fact that the Democrats are controlling Congress will definitely make it easier" to pass, said King.
But Democrats in conservative districts won't be "enthused" about supporting a bill that could be a political liability, he said. "The dynamics have certainly changed for the better!" crowed the Senate Democratic aide.
Critics said the original Senate bill is unworkable because of its provisions based on how long illegal
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
I am afraid it is a bipartisan policy. Republican congressmen got "interested" in this issue just before the elections. What a coincidence.
btt
Long Island in New York State.
Not having a fence along the border to stop more illegals from entering our country is even worse than amnesty.
As the article indicated, the fence hasn't been funded completely, and a new amendment by a new lib Dem Congress can nix the legislation for a fence.
No deal.
Peter King is a RINO jerk. He is right on a handful of issues like abortion and illegal immigration, but a stopped clock is always right twice a day. Peter King generally votes the "party line" because he has to, but will happily side with the Dems whenever his vote is not needed. For example, his record on guns and government spending is extremely poor. He adores government handouts and even votes with the NAACP about 40% of the time.
Peter King is a media whore and loves whoever is "popular" at the time. When Clinton had sky-high approval ratings, Peter King came on TV and defended Slick Willie tooth-and-nail, even gloating he would find "35 to 40" Republicans to stop impeachment (the actual number of RINOs who sided with him turned out to be four) When Bush had sky-high approval ratings, Pete King came on TV and defended HIM tooth-and-nail. Once Bush's "popularity" began to fault, King quickly reversed course and stabbed Bush in the back ("They'll be sorry they did this to New York."), attacking the Bush administration for "corruption" and promising to launch a congressional Probe into "orgies" at the CIA ( BTW, there have been NO allegations that ANYONE at the CIA ever engaged in "orgies.") if he didn't get additional pork barrel spending for NYC.
Peter King is unabashedly a long-time terrorist sympathizer... as long as the terrorists are Irish instead of Muslim. A terrorist is still a terrorist.
He is a condescending and arrogant jerk who should have been taken out in the primary over six years ago. We'd do a lot better in that district if we had a Republican who wasn't so obnoxious and shallow. Peter King has proven the only person he is loyal to is Peter King.
The RATs did takeover all the local offices in the area in 2006, but this is not indicative that the area now "leans Democrat" because the GOP their butts whupped EVERYWHERE in 2006, even in some "safe" Republican areas. Otherwise, King's district is a swing area that is marginally Republican. Dems win 2/3rds of New York State as a whole, but in King's region, Hilderbeast lost both Nassau and Suffolk to Rick Lazio. Bush essentially tied Kerry, 49%-49% in the area, and George Pataki won both Nassau and Suffolk in all three of his Governor's races, and in 2006, Jeanine Pirro won in Suffolk in her A.G. race while getting her butt kicked in the rest of the state.
If the GOP ran a decent, likeable candidate with crossover appeal, they could rid themselves of RINO scumbag Peter King and keep this district in GOP hands for the foreseeable future. An example to look at is when backstabbing RINO leach Amo Houghton was succeeded by the generally faithfully conservative Randy Kuhl in New York's 29th. Kuhl is very low key and quietly conservative. He won handily and even survived the Dem onslaught of 2006. Clearly we did not "need" backstabbing Houghton to "hold the seat for the GOP"
Our constitution is as formidable and concrete as WE THE PEOPLE say it is, and our options under it are: CEASE and DESIST.
Many Thanks! Makes me feel a lot better about that part of the country (especialy Long Island).
That number would about cover the illegal aliens in California alone. How about the millions of them in other states? What a crock!
Not accurate. Kerry won Nassau, Suffolk, Queens and Kings (Brooklyn) Counties in 2004, and Gore won all four in 2000.
20 years is a long time in politics...I mean 20 years ago the GOP was poised to control everything in NJ!!!
22 years ago the republican candidate won every state except Minnesota.
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.