I don't claim anything. I said he comes off that way, and whether he is or not, that is the perception. I doubt he really IS, it's just hard to separate the rhetoric from the reality.
Bush did not support rewarding millions of illegal aliens. There is no evidence he was pushing for the Senate plan, vs a modified house plan. We'll never know, because the house didn't use it's power to modify the senate bill in committee. They just punted, hoping that the election would win them more anti-illegal-immigrant votes.
Well, it didn't work now, did it. Bush wanted a guest worker program that prohibited citizenship. He wanted to NOT preclude illegal immigrants from applying for citizenship, in the line with everybody else. That isn't "rewarding" them, it's simply not holding their illegal status against them when they apply.
They would still only get in if they were under the quota, and would be chosen based on desirability.
Where a lot of people get lost is that Bush believed that illegals that had been in the country for years, had assimilated, had jobs, families, houses, lives, and had proven that they were the kind if immigrant we WANTED, we shouldn't kick them out of the country while waiting in line for citizenship.
A lot of people disagree with that (I don't) but that is not the same as "granting amnesty" or making 20 million illegals legal.
There is a schism in the republican party over what to do with the millions of illegals already in the country. Tancredo wants every last one of them, what? Thrown out, or thrown in jail? A lot of people in the BP agent thread seem to think we should just round them up and shoot them all.
There are some republicans who don't care at all and would let them all be legal. But MOST of us are in the middle. We want them punished, we want them to pay taxes, we want them thrown out. We want them to have to speak english, we want them to wait in the back of the line so people who have been trying to come in legally aren't punished.
But we also realise that our policy has been bad for decades. We realise that it's hard to figure out which imimigrants will assimilate, and which will set up their own country in ours. We see illegal immigrants who have already become "americans" in all but the legal sense, and think these are exactly the kind of people we WANT in our country.
Well, I lied -- I'm not actually IN that group, but I fully understand their position, and won't call them unpatriotic, and defend them against those who say they just want all the illegals in the country.
Anyway, that's what I mean about Bush. He was in the middle group, and because the far-right group wanted NO compromise, the bill we are going to get, and Bush is going to sign, will be MUCH worse than what we could have had if we had held the conference committee.
And we probably wouldn't have lost so many seats. I'm certain Bonilla would still be in congress, as would Hayward. Don't know about anybody else, but those two definitely lost because of the focus on NOT HAVING DONE THE JOB on the immigration bill.
Here are your words: "I think Tancredo and company ARE anti-hispanic".
You didn't just say that he comes off that way. You said he is anti-Hispanic. After claiming that "Tancredo and company ARE anti-Hispanic", you can't name any other member of Congress that is anti-Hispanic.
President Bush supports allowing millions of illegal aliens that have deliberately violated this nation's federal criminal immigration laws being able to apply for legal status while they remain in the United States. he does support allowing those illegal aliens that would gain legal status to later enter into a path to citizenship.
Rep. Tancredo supported H.R.4437, the plan that was supported by an overwhelming majority of House Republicans.
With regard to "Hayward", you don't suppose that J.D. Hayworth's ties to the Abramoff scandal had anything to do with him losing do you?
As far as Bonilla, he was running in a district whose lines were redrawn in such a way that it became a Democratic district.
The Congress did not change to being controlled by the Democrats because the House would not buy into the Senate amnesty plan. The Congress changed hands for many reasons other than that including the public's dissatisfaction with President Bush, the public's dissatisfaction with the war in Iraq, the public's dissatisfaction with the out-of-control spending by the last Congress and the Foley scandal.
But... How, Mr. President? How?
Like this? We should establish a legal and orderly path for foreign workers to enter our country to work on a temporary basis...Let us have a serious, civil, and conclusive debate, so that you can pass, and I can sign, comprehensive immigration reform into law.
Grant an amnesty a la S.2611 and say it's NOT amnesty. That ought to "resolve" it.