Posted on 06/16/2007 6:40:40 AM PDT by kellynla
During a speech last month to Georgia law enforcement officials, President Bush opined that opponents of the stalled immigration reform bill “don’t want to do what’s right for America.” If they only understood the bill’s provisions, he implied, they would see the light. But, alas, they hadn’t “read the bill” and could only “speculate” about its complex provisions. He warned them to stop trying “to frighten people.”
These unscripted remarks unleashed a torrent of criticism from the president’s political base. Conservative talk-show hosts, pundits, bloggers and grassroots activists seized on the criticism as an opportunity to educate Americans on the bill’s many flaws. Constituent mail and phone calls poured in. Ultimately, a hardy band of conservatives forced Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to pull the bill after two weeks of angry debate.
Last week, the president ventured to Capitol Hill to dine with Republican senators in a high-profile attempt to revive the bill. But he converted no one. With congressional leaders scheduled to consider other legislation guaranteed to further annoy and divide the president’s supporters (e.g., reauthorizing the No Child Left Behind Act and approving the sovereignty-stripping Law of the Sea Treaty), the question arises as to whether the president’s immigration dilemma -- having to thread the needle between openly hostile conservatives and the usual assortment of Bush-haters on the Left -- will be the norm for his remaining 18 months in office.
Several recent polls underscore the extent of his challenge.
According to a survey by the Pew Research Center, the president’s overall approval rating fell six points between April and June (from 35% to 29%). But the drop was most intense among Republicans (from 77% to 65%), including conservative Republicans (from 86% to 74%), and Independents (from 34% to 22%).
Another poll, conducted by Gallup after Bush’s Georgia speech, found a similar drop in his standing among GOP loyalists, where his positive rating hit a near-record low of 70% (alarms sound whenever a politician scores below 80% with his core supporters). According to Gallup, the only other time Bush’s GOP approval rating was so low was about a year ago when -- you guessed it -- the Senate was angrily debating comprehensive immigration reform. Hmmm.
“It was the debate over immigration,” pollster Scott Rasmussen confirmed last week, “that cost the president support among his base and pushed his approval ratings to new lows.”
Political operatives are well aware that the disenchantment over immigration has settled primarily on Bush and those lawmakers who have led the charge in the Senate. Sen. Reid’s approval rating sunk 7 points in a month, to a microscopic 19%. John McCain (R-Ariz.) fell in many presidential polls. Yet the national GOP emerged unscathed, and may even have benefited, from the turmoil.
A month ago, Rasmussen reports, Democrats enjoyed a 14-point advantage (47% to 33%) as the party best able to handle immigration. Following the Senate debate, however, the Democrats’ advantage shrunk to only five points (40% to 35%). “Immigration,” he concludes, “is now tied with taxes as the GOP’s strongest issue” and is “the only issue on which unaffiliated voters trust Republicans more than Democrats.”
What explains the intensity so many Republicans and Republican-leaning Independents bring to this issue? My guess is that this is yet another manifestation of the ideological divide that separates Red from Blue America. Because Republicans are more reflexively pro-American than their Democratic colleagues, they place a much higher value on U.S. citizenship and therefore are more likely to vigorously oppose policies they perceive as granting citizenship too freely, especially to lawbreakers.
For example, polls demonstrate that Republicans are more likely than Democrats to say they are “very patriotic” and more likely to see America as a place where “most people living in other countries would like to live.” Also, by a 2-to-1 margin, Republicans believe “we should be willing to fight for our country … right or wrong.” A majority of Democrats disagree. Finally, Republicans attach more importance to the rule of law than Democrats do. Republicans are much more likely to want to penalize employers who knowingly hire illegal aliens and banks that offer them credit cards.
The disenchantment with Bush can be summed up in an L.A. Times/Bloomberg poll, which asked Republican primary voters whether they want the next Republican nominee for president to continue Bush’s policies or move the country in a new direction.
They opted for a new direction by the overwhelming margin of 65% to 27%.
CALL! CALL! CALL! CALL! AND KEEP CALLING TILL THE LINES FRY!
WRITE! WRITE! WRITE! WRITE! TILL YOU RUN OUT OF INK IN YOUR PEN!
Bombard the Democrats as well, especially the ones that ran on an anti illegal immigration plank and the ones in marginal districts who could be vulnerable. keep pounding on them. This is a bipartisan issue not a Conservative or Liberal issue BUT AN AMERICAN issue.
Yes, I agree the amnesty bill will not be stopped, whoever the next civil war will stop it and it (unfortunately) is closer than we like or think!
Oh. OK. I see why you scurry to explain Bush’s motives; thereby trying to validate or bolster his view.
Bush’s views are yours also.
Some of us get sickened by such a contempt, or such a limited world view that we here in the U.S. won’t do certain jobs, or have no capacity to improve and find innovative ways other than slave labor imports to get by.
You and lame duck Jorge go on tip-toeing on with your fool’s errands of misappropriated self congratulatory random acts of kindnesses.
I differ. People who violate our laws should be deported. Illegals should be rounded up and deported.
Then you are in favor of the country being destroyed by criminals.
Again, laws must be enforced. Nothing I wrote before is supportive of criminal activity.
...by deporting all illegal aliens starting immediately.
I don't disagree. Immigration raids have spiked up in the last 2-3 years. Thousands are being rounded up and deported. Just look at all the cases in the Appeals courts challenging ICE deportation orders. What you want is being done already.
Actually, there is great need for new immigration laws. For example, how to punish liberal communities that forbid the Feds from rounding up illegal wetbacks? That is where Tancredo's legislation is useful. Also, the issue of anchor babies needs to be dealt with.
In addition, if you just leave the system as is, all these illegals will, over time, due to old age and disease, worsen the hospital and insurance markets. So there need to be new laws to break the logjam.
"All current laws work" is an indefensible position, taken by head-in-the-sand die hards.
“Bush never said amnesty was for all illegal aliens. But the propaganda screams that.”
Bush says a lot of things. On immigration, his words are about as honest as Bill Clinton.
YES, AMNESTY IS FOR ALL ILLEGAL ALIENS BECAUSE THEY INTEND TO DEPORT APPROXIMATELY ZERO ILLEGAL ALIENS.
Amnesty is even given to criminal aliens. You can commit multiple misdemeanors andhave court ordered deportations against you and still be given US citizenship. And when Sen Cornyn tried to stop it, the pro-amnesty Senators stopped his amendment.
1184
Cornyn
6/6/2007
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:SP1184:
To establish a permanent bar for gang members, terrorists, and other criminals.
+
Punishes violent criminals, sex offenders, deportation violators, gang members, IDD theft, etc.
FAIL (46/51/0)
Deportation is nearly impossible.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1851209/posts?page=3
The bush administration refuses to enforce the law in the workplace and at the border.
THE IDEA THAT HUMAN TRAFFICKING WILL BE LESSENED AFTER REWARDING ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION AND ITS ENABLERS SO MASSIVELY, IS, WELL, ABSURD.
“Somehow the debate reminds me of the bussing ussue long ago. Remember bussing to achieve racial intergration? People didn’t want it, it didn’t work but it was forced down people’s throats. If I can guess, we will get the Bush plan, like it or not.”
And just as bussing did nothing to improve education, amnesty does nothing to solve any problem, immigration or otherwise.
“In fact, I am supportive of the poor, hard-working Mexicans who come here to eke out a living.”
There people all over the world. Why should we have a baised favoritism towards
1) a single country which btw has treated our borders, laws etc. as something they have a right to trample on.
2) people who come here disregarding the laws of the country.
“A significant portion of the world’s population would rather be slaves in the US and make subsistence wages than die a sorry death in their homelands.”
There’s your patronizing moral relativism right there!
Exactly. How many hundreds of articles do we need to read to understand the overwhelming majority of Americans have had a belly full of D.C., Bush and their desire to destroy America's borders and our sovereignty, as they lead us (by force) to their world government.
Ultradude sounds completely ignorant of immigration law and the realities of the situation.
1) The border fence is very effective, it will stop 95% of border crossings. Anyone who opposes the fence is either (a) for open border or (b) not very knowledgeable about the issue.
2) “scrap Homeland Security (FBI, ATF, CIA)” is ignorant fringe-babbling.
3) “use the troops to naturalize citizens” is so ignorant on so many levels, where to begin. Let’s start with the fact that naturalization is a 10 year process and protecting national security is the army’s job, not being clerks for immigration.
WE ALL KNOW THE REAL ANSWER:
1. Secure the border by completing the border fence.
2. Enforce immigration law by sharing information between local, state and Federal law enforcement,
enforcing immigration law in the workplace, and vigorously deporting criminal aliens.
3. Pass NO OTHER LAWS until #1 and #2 are done completely and REALLY WORK.
And then, fix the legal immigration system with employer-based immigration changes to replace chain migration and end anchor babies, not with open-ended amnesty.
It started without you, unfortunately.
Ya see the other side has thousands of extreme radicals that are intent by taking this country, if not by shear numbers alone.
And yes, it's already become very violent, leaving about 20,000 dead and injured Americans victims per year as a direct result of robberies, burglaries, shootings, murders, gangs, drugs, rape, fraud etc all perpetrated by illegal aliens, not to mention what it's doing to our social services, over crowded jails, classrooms, resources, etc.
“U.S. Conference on Catholic Bishops, Washington, DC: $413,298
(For work in MD, DE, PA and NJ)
U.S. Conference on Catholic Bishops, Washington, DC: $372,237
(For work in OR)
Refugee Women’s Network, Inc.: $311,708
(For work in GA)”
Which use taxpayer money to turn around and lobby to undermine our immigration law further.
This is a scam and it ends up in one way ... THEY ALL GET TO STAY IN THE US EVEN IF THEY CAME HERE ILLEGALLY.
“Additionally, public service announcements have been issued in Spanish, Russian, Polish, Chinese, and Korean to inform victims of their rights.”
So we undermine the metling pot and the concept of English language in the Government as well. Oh Joy.
WHAT REALLY HAPPENS: THIS IS JUST BOONDOGGLE MONEY TO DISTRACT FROM THE REALITY THAT WE DONT ENFORCE IMMIGRATION LAW AT ALL, AND EVEN THE WORST PEOPLE CANNOT BE DEPORTED FOR YEARS.
” Look no further than New York, where four convicted criminal aliens — a child molester, two killers and a racketeer — just won a federal lawsuit to remain in the country after all being ordered deported. The stunning decision from the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, Blake v. Carbone, came down on June 1 as the “shamnesty” debate was bubbling in Washington.
The ruling, which hinges on convoluted due process arguments, will greatly expand the number of criminal aliens convicted of certain aggravated felonies who can now receive relief from deportation. This is happening despite the passage of two federal immigration reform laws in 1996 severely restricting deportation waivers for criminal aliens convicted of aggravated felonies.
The lead winning plaintiff, Leroy Blake, is a Jamaican national convicted of first-degree sexual abuse of a minor in 1992. The feds began deportation proceedings in 1999. An immigration judge ruled Blake deportable in 2000. Blake took his case to the federal Board of Immigration Appeals, which remanded the case back to the immigration judge, who granted him relief from deportation. The then-INS appealed the judge’s ruling. In 2005, the Board of Immigration Appeals sided with the INS and ordered Blake removed from the U.S. Blake filed a motion to reconsider, then took his case to the 2nd Circuit.
The other plaintiffs who’ve successfully gamed the system include:
c Aundre Singh, a native of Guyana, who was convicted of second-degree murder in 1986. In 1997, the then-INS moved to deport him. In 1998, an immigration judge ordered him deported. In 1999, the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissed Singh’s appeal. In 2003, Singh filed a motion to reconsider, which the appeals board denied. Singh filed for reconsideration of that ruling, which was denied in 2004. Singh tried again to appeal the board’s ruling in 2005 and was denied again before heading to the 2nd Circuit for relief.
c Errol Foster, a Jamaican national, who killed a man with a pistol in 1990. He pleaded guilty to first-degree manslaughter. He was released from prison in 2002. The feds began deportation proceedings while he was still in custody. An immigration judge ordered his removal in 2000, which Foster appealed. The Board of Immigration Appeals rejected his appeal in 2001. Four years later, Foster was still in the country — appealing the rejected appeal and filing three separate federal lawsuits before getting lucky with the 2nd Circuit.
c And Ho Yoon Chong, a South Korean national, who was sentenced in 1995 for racketeering related to his participation in a Korean crime ring. In 1998, the then-INS moved to deport him. In 2002, an immigration judge ordered him deported. In 2004, the Board of Immigration Appeals sided with the judge. Like his fellow criminal aliens, Chong didn’t give up, and now he has won the immigration litigation lottery.
Immigration lawyers representing criminal aliens like these four menaces have gummed up the court system with 11 years of litigation over the 1996 laws banning deportation relief for felons. Meanwhile, when all else fails, deportable aliens can appeal directly to their member of Congress to circumvent immigration laws through special legislation. “
http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20070615-091411-7674r.htm
MEANWHILE, A BORDER FENCE THAT WOULD CUT HUMAN TRAFFICKING AND DRUG TRAFFICKING SIGNIFICANTLY IS NOT GETTING BUILT BECAUSE BUSH WANTS IT AS A BARGAINING CHIP FOR AMNESTY.
“But of course, in the ego centric world of the hard core Right, everything is about their personal political dogmas.
Ah...a new tactic. Someone finally gave up on the race argument.
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.