Posted on 05/29/2007 10:15:03 AM PDT by Rb ver. 2.0
GLYNCO, Ga. (AP) - President Bush attacked opponents of an immigration deal Tuesday, suggesting they “don’t want to do what’s right for America.”
“The fundamental question is, will elected officials have the courage necessary to put a comprehensive immigration plan in place,” Bush said against a backdrop of a huge American flag.
He described his proposal—which has been agreed to by a bipartisan group of senators—as one that “makes it more likely we can enforce our border—and at the same time uphold the great immigrant tradition of the United States of America.”
Bush spoke at the nation’s largest training center for law enforcement.
He chose the get-tough setting as conservative critics blast a Senate proposal as being soft on people who break the law. Hoping to blunt that message, Bush emphasized that any new options for immigrants and foreign workers would not start until tougher security is in place.
The presidential stop came during a congressional recess, with senators back home and facing pressure from the left and right on the immigration plan. Bush’s aim is to build momentum for the legislation, perhaps his best chance for a signature victory in his second term. The Senate expects to resume debate on it next week.
“A lot of Americans are skeptical about immigration reform, primarily because they don’t think the government can fix the problems,” Bush said.
“And my answer to the skeptics is: give us a chance to fix the problems in a comprehensive way that enforces our border and treats people with decency and respect. Give us a chance to fix this problem. Don’t try to kill this bill before it gets moving,” Bush told students and instructors at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center.
Bush repeatedly cast the matter as one of political courage.
“Those determined to find fault with this bill will always be able to look at a narrow slice of it and find something they don’t like,” the president said. “If you want to kill the bill, if you don’t want to do what’s right for America, you can pick one little aspect out of it.
“You can use it to frighten people,” Bush said. “Or you can show leadership and solve this problem once and for all.”
The bill would give temporary legal status to millions of unlawful immigrants, provided they came forward, paid a fine and underwent criminal background checks. To apply for a green card, they would have to pay another fine, learn English, return to their home country and wait in line.
The plan also would create a guest worker program. It would allow foreign laborers to come to the U.S. for temporary stints, yet with no guarantee they can eventually gain citizenship.
Both the new visa plan and the temporary worker program are contingent on other steps coming first. Those include fencing and barriers along the Mexico border, the hiring of more Border Patrol agents and the completion of an identification system to verify employees’ legal status.
The legislation would also reshape future immigration decisions. A new point system would prioritize skills and education over family in deciding who can immigrate.
Georgia’s senators both played leading roles in producing Bush’s deal with the Senate. Yet they have also said they may not support the final bill, depending upon how it is amended.
Bush chastised those who say the proposal offers amnesty to illegal immigrants. He called it empty political rhetoric.
Our government has failed to build the fence and secure the border. There can be no mistake about that. The insecure border represents one wound which is bleeding in the nation. However, the current wound is this new bill (deal) and the path to citizenship is the bleeding in this bill. Although the new bill and the nation are related, they represent different patients. If the president wants a consultation on the bill, he must first stop the bleeding in the bill by removing the path to citizenship.
The ONLY candidate out there who WILL stop this is Duncan Hunter.
The damage the current incumbent has done to the Republican Party however, may be irreprable. His ability to create additional chaos is amplified by the the additional year he has to serve in office.
I’m not quite sure I feel as strongly as you do. I do think that Bush and Rove’s star is in the sunset. My point is that we should not be taking advice from someone who blew a mandate in 2004 and is a major reason for the GOP being in the minority now.
????
Most of the Americans who came here legally in the nineteenth and twentieth century and even now are an asset to America. The problem is with the few bad apples - the Muslims in particular.
George, you have proven you are not qualified to know what's right for America...And as such, I have lost all confidence in your war in Iraq...I believe it's a set-up to keep Americans preoccupied so you can get away with destroying America...
I'd welcome an impeachment...
“I doubt Bush has even read the bill.”
Sometimes I wonder if Bush can even read. He certainly has a problem speaking. Perhaps he is more comfortable in say, Spanish!
Seriously, most bill sponsors never read these giant bills in their entirety. If they do, they only read sections they are interested in, or ask their legislative aids to read them and summarize them. SInce they often are written by legislative aids, that leads to further confusion.
Omnibus Bills should be forbidden by the Rules of COngress. Its too easy to sneak crap in there, which, of course, is why they are created in the first place.
Your link was to the Second Amendment Foundation’s Press Release dated 5/1/07 which says:
“BELLEVUE, WA – Attorney General Alberto Gonzales’ troubling support of legislation that would allow him and future attorneys general the arbitrary power to block firearms purchases without due process is cause for him to step down as the nation’s highest ranking law enforcement officer, the Second Amendment Foundation said today.
The bill, S. 1237, was introduced last week at the Justice Department’s request by Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), one of the most extreme anti-gunners in Congress. Called the “Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2007,” this legislation would give the Attorney General discretionary authority to deny the purchase of a firearm or the issuance of a firearm license or permit because of some vague suspicion that an American citizen may be up to no good.
‘This bill,’ said SAF founder Alan Gottlieb, ‘raises serious concerns about how someone becomes a “suspected terrorist.” Nobody has explained how one gets their name on such a list, and worse, nobody knows how to get one’s name off such a list.
‘The process by which someone may appeal the Attorney General’s arbitrary denial seems weak at best,’ Gottlieb suggested, ‘and there is a greater concern. When did we decide as a nation that it is a good idea to give a cabinet member the power to deny someone’s constitutional right simply on suspicion, without a trial or anything approaching due process?
‘We’re not surprised that General Gonzales has found an agreeable sponsor in Frank Lautenberg,’ Gottlieb observed. ‘The senator from New Jersey has never seen a restrictive gun control scheme he did not immediately embrace, and S. 1237 is loaded with red flags. It would allow an appointed bureaucrat the authority to suspend or cancel someone’s Second Amendment right without even being charged with a crime.
‘Attorney General Gonzales has no business asking for that kind of power over any tenet in the Bill of Rights,’ Gottlieb said. ‘He took an oath to uphold the Constitution, not trample it. Perhaps it is time for him to go.’”
Post 274 by jamese777: “What can we do when the United States’ Chief Law Enforcement officer is an anchor baby.
That’s right, Alberto Gonzales’ grandparents snuck across the Rio Grande to Texas and if it wasn’t for an untested section of the 14th amendment, he wouldn’t be a citizen.”
Connecting the dots between these two posts makes me very nervous.
Yes it does.
They already call us “nativists” and “restrictionists”. How long before “suspected terrorists”?
The debate is being framed in ways that will be detrimental to true patriots. The words that are being chosen all have negative connotations. This is not accidental.
Maybe Bill, but NOT Hillary. It's as if President Bush wants to ENSURE that the Dems win the next election.
“The debate is being framed in ways that will be detrimental to true patriots. The words that are being chosen all have negative connotations. This is not accidental.”
Makes you wonder, doesn’t it?
“It’s as if President Bush wants to ENSURE that the Dems win the next election.”
He certainly wanted them to win the last election.
Of course not. They get the benefit of "The New Tone."
His base does not.
BUMP
Heh. This means we've got a shot at killing this bill...before it gets moving.
I don't know how he can look us in the face and talk about Iraq when he won't see to our borders, or shrugs and says "talk to the hand." If he can't be trusted with our borders, he can't be trusted with anyone's.
I read your post. Sounds like you live in my neighborhood!
I do believe it's all personal. He feels more obligation to Mexicans than to Americans, and thinks he can make a "gift" of America to soothe his anguished nobless oblige--and, who knows, his droit de seigneur/
I can’t stand it. I rarely go out anymore because I come home so danged angry. It is horrible to feel so trapped. Luckily I am self employed and do most of my work on the computer.
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.