Mr. President, please don't stop the surge in Iraq.
Mr. President, please DO stop the surge into America!
Mr. President, please READ MY TAGLINE!
Posted on 05/12/2007 10:04:28 AM PDT by NormsRevenge
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The White House is endangering bipartisan support of a broad overhaul of immigration policy by going too far to please a few conservative Republicans, Senate Democrats said on Thursday.
Democrats said they were not giving up on the immigration talks but several were disappointed with President George W. Bush's handling of the discussions, which have included top administration officials and Republican and Democratic senators.
Richard Durbin (news, bio, voting record) of Illinois, the assistant Senate majority leader, said the White House was "moving to satisfy two or three Republican senators" who opposed last year's Senate-passed bill. By doing so, Durbin said, "they are leaving behind a lot of mainstream Democrats and Republicans."
Last year's Senate bill, which was never considered by the U.S. House of Representatives, combined tough border security and work place enforcement with a plan to give millions of illegal immigrants a chance to become U.S. citizens. It also would have created a guest worker program that would have allowed some those workers to eventually become citizens.
A new effort likely would provide a much tougher path to legal status and citizenship for illegal immigrants and delay the legalization program until border security and workplace enforcement programs are in place.
White House spokesman Scott Stanzel dismissed complaints from the Democrats, who have a slight majority in the Senate.
"The president has met with many members on this issue, recently meeting with the House Hispanic Caucus and the House Hispanic Conference," Stanzel said.
Despite Republican objections, Democrats said next week they plan to bring up the bill that passed the Senate last year.
Negotiations have been going on behind closed doors for weeks. Republicans, who until now have been deeply divided on the issue, are worried that a premature debate could inflame political passions and blow up the talks.
"We don't want that arbitrary deadline to stand in the way of getting it done," said Sen. Jon Kyl (news, bio, voting record), an Arizona Republican who voted against last year's bill.
He said the group was unlikely to reach agreement by early next week when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (news, bio, voting record) plans to start debate.
Democratic lawmakers said immigration groups are complaining some of the changes under consideration will be difficult to support and Bush and his fellow Republicans need to give some ground.
"Democrats have shown a willingness, perhaps even more than I would like, to make strides towards the White House proposal," said Sen. Robert Menendez (news, bio, voting record), a New Jersey Democrat. "But even so, there are certain issues where too much bend would create an impractical and ineffective immigration system."
A few conservative Republicans?
The President has been moving rightward.
This article contains much that is encouraging. Enforcement first — maybe for a matter of years. End of the line for illegals. Fines to punish them for breaking the law.
I suspect about all that the conservative side wants that the President has not embraced is deportation and then re-admission if they have a job. I suppose many would like deportation and never allow re-admission, but that runs into the problem of fathers being sent back to Mexico when they have 10 yr old US citizen kids to support. The whole deportation and no re-admission preference is probably something that cannot occur or all those US citizen kids will become taxpayer liabilities.
Yes, you can decry the anchor baby provision of the Constitution, and ask to undo it, but you can’t undo it retroactively or none of us are citizens.
I like headlines that say “Democrats frustrated.”
What kind of father would not take his children along?
Smoke and mirrors to keep conservatives and 75% of Americans shut up. The sell outs running this country refuse to enforce the laws, if your from south of the border. Don’t turn your back for long. That’s what their hoping for. It’s always about “reforming” immigration laws, not enforcing them. Smoke and mirrors is all we get.
It’s get a bit more interesting at least. The radio address including the President actually had words to the effect that we don’t want amnesty included. I have paraphrased very loosely, mind you.
At least the attention at the highest levels of office has been brought to bear that a lot of Americans don’t want to just let it rip when it comes to immigration legal or otherwise.
Here’s hoping if nothing else stalemate will prevail... and the current enforcement , long overdue, continues at the current pace and increases as the next 18 months unfold.
Bush vows new attempt to overhaul U.S. immigration (before summer recess)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1799911/posts
“It’s get a bit more interesting at least. The radio address including the President actually had words to the effect that we don’t want amnesty included. I have paraphrased very loosely, mind you.”
He said that last year too.
Then he and staff spent months explaining why their amnesty wasn’t an amnesty.
Bush is a very dishonest person in this matter.
I think like his father he’s counting on big time speaking fees after leaving office. Dad got $6 million from Kuwait for liberating it. What kickbacks will George Jr. get from the depression lobbies’ 2009 speaking tour?
I have little confidence in President Bush on the illegal issue.
Round up ALL ILLEGALS and send them back from where they came. Let them apply to come here legally.
Not at all willingly, I can assure you and I believe he is only superficially making this move right now because he, Karl Rove, and whomever is advising him, has heard the pleas of the elected GOPers, who see the handwriting on the wall, that they are going to be "spending a lot more time at home with their families" come '08 because the electorate have begun to turn up the heat and scream louder at them that there will be no money, and no vote in the future for them, should they pass this bill or anything like it.
President Bush (much as I like his tough stance on terror) is a "true believer" when it comes to making illegal aliens "welcome" as "good people who only want to support their families." He has had many supporters in big business behind him on this before 2000 and he fully intended to make it a "fait acompli" long before this, had 9/11 not happened. That slowed him down quite a bit and also he had too many conservatives in the house and yes, even a few in the Senate who would have not voted for such a bill.
Sadly, we are fewer and fewer in Congress and even a few Congresscritters were drinking the Kool Aid of Rove and other "consultants" telling them that those who lost races, did so because of a tough stance on immigration. This, of course, had nothing to do with the truth. A few lost because they were weak on other important issues or never made them a part of their campaigns, i.e. the Marriage Amendment, as well as others.
Believe me, people like Brownback who would dearly love to gain the party's nod for '08, who also spoke at the La Raza gathering in LA last summer, had an earful from his KS constituents (even those pro-lifers) who have determined that giving away our country, not to mention allowing terrorists walk across our borders, is not the way to win our support.
Each and every national Republican letter I get for money or to even extend my membership, gets one message from me, "Not another dime, vote, etc. from me until you secure the borders, gather up illegals who are committing crimes such as stealing our identities and using them to get jobs, cars, buy homes, etc. and punish the businesses that are flaunting the laws hiring as many illegal aliens as they desire!"
>>
Each and every national Republican letter I get for money or to even extend my membership, gets one message from me, “Not another dime, vote, etc. from me until you secure the borders, gather up illegals who are committing crimes such as stealing our identities and using them to get jobs, cars, buy homes, etc. and punish the businesses that are flaunting the laws hiring as many illegal aliens as they desire!”
>>
Yes, that sounds as it sounds, but what is the metric? If arrests and deportations increase 10%, will you send them $X? If they increase 20% will you send them X + 10%? The way you have phrased it you won’t support the administration if it increases enforcement. You would withhold support until every last illegal is out, and how can anyone prove to you that every last illegal is indeed out?
You need to do this on a percentage basis. If they increase arrests and deportations by 10%, send some money. You have to use both the carrot and the stick. If they increase deportations 20%, they get even more money.
You’ll find this is more effective.
End of the line is a euphemism for AMNESTY. The end of the line is really in their home countries. Legalizing their status and allowing them to stay and work here puts them at the front of the line. Paying a fine shouldn't be the price of US citizenship and the price of admission into the US. Announcing that these people can stay without securing the border, including visa overstays will bring a flood of illegals into the country trying to beat the deadline.
I suspect about all that the conservative side wants that the President has not embraced is deportation and then re-admission if they have a job. I suppose many would like deportation and never allow re-admission, but that runs into the problem of fathers being sent back to Mexico when they have 10 yr old US citizen kids to support. The whole deportation and no re-admission preference is probably something that cannot occur or all those US citizen kids will become taxpayer liabilities.
First of all, there is no reason to link border security to "comprehensive immigration reform." No conservatives of any note are advocating mass deportation by the governement. We want enforcement of the current laws on the books. We can deport the parents. I seriously doubt that the parents will leave their children behind. The children cannot sponsor anyone until they are 21. We should push for the passage of H.R. 938: Nuclear Family Priority Act
Yes, you can decry the anchor baby provision of the Constitution, and ask to undo it, but you can’t undo it retroactively or none of us are citizens.
The fact that Bush continues to push a position the vast majority of his party in Congress doesn’t agree with makes me think that this may be some sort of quid pro quo to get the Dems to soften their position on funding the supplemental. Why else would he continue to jab us with a sharp stick to divide and demoralize the Republican Party? If anything like this passes, not only will it divide the Rep party in 2008, it will mark the end of this country as we know it. I would welcome a third party candidate if this bill passes. We can’t allow the political elites of both parties sell us down the river.
Only people with educations and marketable skills and provable jobs and family members who have same vouch to take care of any financial needs when you come, need to be applying for "work permits" after they have submitted to complete background checks.
If they used false identity papers to live, work and otherwise in the U.S. they ought NEVER to be permitted back in.
That crime IS A FELONY and if a U.S. citizen, does it, you are not slapped on the wrist, that is if the politically correct bunch don't run to offer support to you as "disadvanted."
“The President has been moving rightward.”
That would have been considerably more helpful had he moved that way when we controlled congress.
I don’t think you are thinking this through. You probably cannot deport parents of a US citizen who is a minor. That may be against some law.
As for taking the kids with them . . . how can the US government allow US citizen children to be forcibly taken from their home country to a country where their education will be inferior, their health potential inferior and their futures inferior. That would not be safeguarding the best interests of the citizenry at all.
No, if a child is a US citizen, you don’t deport its parents. This would be the converse of the Cuban kid that wanted to stay in the US, and conservatives wanted to help him do so.
It is not a matter of thinking through, it is settled law. The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 stipulates that:
"Under section 240A(b), an alien who has been physically present in the United States for a continuous period of at least 10 years, who has been a person of good moral character, and who has not been convicted of a criminal offense that could result in the alien's removal from the United States may seek cancellation of removal and adjustment of status, provided the alien has a spouse, parent or child who is a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident. Cancellation under section 240A(b) may only be granted if aliens demonstrate that their removal from the United States would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a spouse, parent or child who is a lawful permanent resident or U.S. citizen. The Attorney General may not adjust the status of more than 4,000 aliens under section 240A(b) in any fiscal year."
As for taking the kids with them . . . how can the US government allow US citizen children to be forcibly taken from their home country to a country where their education will be inferior, their health potential inferior and their futures inferior. That would not be safeguarding the best interests of the citizenry at all.
I don't think you are thinking this through. Are you saying that the non-US citizen parents of a US citizen who is a minor must obtain permission from the USG to take their child out of the country? LOL. That is ridiculous.
No, if a child is a US citizen, you don’t deport its parents. This would be the converse of the Cuban kid that wanted to stay in the US, and conservatives wanted to help him do so.<
You can under our law. i.e., Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996. The suggestion that the courts offer blanket amnesty to the illegal immigrant parents of U.S.-born children is the recent case of Elvira Arellano, an illegal immigrant residing in Chicago who has fought a deportation order on the grounds that her 7-year-old U.S.-born son, Saul, would suffer hardship if she were deported. As the Associated Press reported on September 30, U.S. District Judge Amy St. Eve dismissed a lawsuit to block the deportation because, the judge ruled, "although the 7-year-old would face hardships, they weren't of constitutional magnitude."
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.