Bush says he won't legalize immigrants

The News Mexico ^ | Friday, March 15, 2002 | Stevenson Jacobs, The News Staff - 3/14/2002

[JohnHuang2]

U.S. President George W. Bush on Wednesday denied he was considering legalizing over three million undocumented Mexicans living in the United States, government news agency Notimex reported.

Speaking to reporters in Washington, Bush said he hoped to work with Mexico on the matter, but said he would follow the will of the U.S. people.

"I don't think the wish of Americans is for an amnesty," said Bush, who added he had spoken about the issue with President Vicente Fox.

Bush and Fox are to meet March 22 during the UN Conference on Financing Development in Monterrey, where they will discuss immigration and post-Sept. 11 border security.

Just days before the terrorist attacks, Fox reportedly had been close to inking a deal that would have granted legal status to an estimated 3.5 million undocumented Mexicans and worker visas to many more.

"We've been working very closely with Mexico," said Bush.

On Tuesday, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill that would allow thousands of Mexicans living in the United States to apply for visas without returning to Mexico. The bill now goes to the U.S. Senate.

Bush called the measure "a good step" and urged its fast approval as a show of good faith to its southern neighbor.

The hotel and restaurant industries had been pushing hard for the bill, arguing they would be short staffed if thousands of their Mexican employees were forced to return home to apply for visas.

"What we need to do is find a way to guarantee that the wishes of employers are in balance with those of the workers," said Bush.

Several Republican lawmakers, however, have voiced opposition to loosening any immigration laws before a top-to-bottom overhaul of the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the U.S. Border Patrol.

Bush reiterated his administration's priority of achieving a safe and orderly border, and said he was confident he and Fox could agree on a plan.

"We've had a good dialogue and I don't think it's something that requires a law," said Bush.

stevensonjacobs@hotmail.com

[abigail2]

I hope he remembers whaaat happened to his father when he lied "Read my lips..."

[Reaganwuzthebest]

Anyway, the point is, we, the people, have spoken loud and clear and apparently have gotten our message to Bush.

Someone in a previous post made reference to Chamberlain, and that's what Bush is doing here, appeasing the American population because they're not too happy right now. But when he thinks no one is looking, he and his Congress pals like Chris Cannon will try and slip through more of the this. At the very least, they will attempt to make life easier for the ones aready here, like giving them in-state college tuition and residency.

[MissAmericanPie]

You think this is bad you should look up our Political Insane Asylum policies.

[unamused]

Neat.

Push an amnesty bill through congress, and lie about it while you're doing it.

Now I'm really comforted....

[4Freedom]

The problem isn't industry. The problem is a million or more illegals can cross our unfenced, unmilitarized borders unmolested, every year.

That's the first thing that needs to be fixed. Spending the money to deport 1 million illegals is a waste, if they can just turn around and come back in, again.

[KC Burke]

Your specifics on this are very helpful. Thanks.

[Bernard Marx]

Good points. But whatever the number admitted, why is it that no one ever brings up the Trojan Horse aspect of migration/immigration in these threads?

The following quote is from the Federation for Immigration Reform (FAIR) website, and it shows that even urging citizenship for illegals results in greater numbers of illegals:

Chain migration happens because present U.S. immigration policy is based on the principle of "family reunification." Immigrants are able to sponsor their relatives back home to be admitted as immigrants here. In other words, most immigrants are admitted simply because they have a relative here, not because they might be able to contribute to our society. [Note: Four of the five admission categories for family immigration are reserved for U.S. citizens. This means that immigrants must become naturalized citizens to be able to sponsor relatives in those categories. An immigrant is eligible for naturalization five years after being admitted as a legal immigrant.]

Because of the "chain reaction" described above, immigration numbers continue to rise. A look at one immigration category, the "immediate relatives" category, shows the results of chain migration. Under the "immediate relatives" category, the parents, spouses, and children of U.S. citizens are admitted without limit. Five years after the 1965 Immigration Act, the number of immediate relative admissions had nearly doubled (from 32,714 in 1965 to 79,213 in 1970); ten years after, it had almost tripled (to 91,504 in 1975); fifteen years after, it was nearly five times higher (151,131 in 1980); twenty years after, it was nearly six times higher (204,368 in 1985); twenty -five years later, it was seven times higher (231,680 in 1990); and in 1994, less than thirty years after, it was eight times higher. This trend suggests that the number of immediate relatives could go up another 100,000 to 130,000 in the next five years.

Since most immigration categories have a limit to the number of people who can be admitted a year, immigrants' relatives back home must often wait to be admitted, anywhere from one to nineteen years. Because of chain migration, three and a half million aliens have been told they are eligible to immigrate, but have to wait. Many of them do not, figuring that, since they are eligible anyway, they should not have to wait for the U.S. government to get around to doing the paperwork. In this way, chain migration -- and the expectations and long lines it produces -- increases illegal immigration.

[4Freedom]

"It's not amnesty...."

Will any of these illegal immigrants be deported? No. It's amnesty by another name.

You're being duped by a big Texan dope.

No way I vote for Bush, again.

[SerpentDove]

>>Bush speaks with forked tongue. He denies he is considering an amnesty while his agents have been pressuring Congress for an amnesty.<<

I think he wised up and realized this was a VERY unpopular idea he tried to sneak past us.

[Reaganwuzthebest]

You're being duped by a big Texan dope.

Bush may live in Texas, but he's a Connecticut Yale boy, like daddy. He's a northeastern liberal like the rest of them up here. They know what's best for the children, or at least they think they do.

[sinkspur]

No way I vote for Bush, again.

Another one-issue hothead heard from.

[hattend]

Yes. We've gained nothing by changing administrations. We are still debating the meaning of is .

Boy, I have to disagree "big time" with you there. We could have Homer Simpson in there now and it would be magnitudes better than Al Gore with Bill Clinton's office down the hall in the White House and Janet Reno still AG.

Thank God for George W. Bush...even if I disagree with him on some things.

[4Freedom]

I believe I participate in the discussion of more issues, in this forum, than you do.

You have no right to call me a "hothead" or any other name.

Stick to the discussion and answer my question. Will any of these illegals be deported?

[Charles Martel]

I think he wised up and realized this was a VERY unpopular idea he tried to sneak past us.

Maybe he heard we were handing out the torches and pitchforks, who knows? Also, while the optimum solution to these problems to to simply toss out illegals, that would be a truly daunting task.

Does anyone else see this bill as possibly being a great big "fishing expedition"? "Go to an office in your area and apply for a visa extension..." - it sounds rather like those stunts that law enforcement agencies pull every now to round up a bunch of the area's "most wanted" criminals.

Taking that thought one step further, does anyone think that there would be the slightest hope of passing a bill that "says what it means", such as "The Illegal Immigrant Tracking Bill of 2002"?

Opinions?

[big gray tabby]

Quite a thread we've got here. Not one poster acknowledges the facts, which are that you could never deport all the illegals and they will remain undocumented and un-background-checked until we come to terms with the problem and try to fix it.

And not one realistic solution is offered.

[4Freedom]

I have to disagree with you "big-time". Four additional years of Democrat leadership under Gore would have galvanized conservative America into a force capable of electing a real conservative to lead our nation.

What we have now breeds complacency.

[scholar]

Bush reiterated his administration's priority of achieving a safe and orderly border, and said he was confident he and Fox could agree on a plan.

This sounds like the same double-speak that I got from Senator Lugar in response to my message to him. It says nothing and means nothing. Our elected officials think we are all dumber than a box of rocks.

[Sabertooth]

Quite a thread we've got here. Not one poster acknowledges the facts, which are that you could never deport all the illegals and they will remain undocumented and un-background-checked until we come to terms with the problem and try to fix it.

And not one realistic solution is offered.

I've heard this one before.

Reminds me of the Death Row lawyer who runs out of appeals and then claims execution after 15 years is "cruel and unusual."

Not to mention the implied false dilemma, "If we can't deport them all, then we can't do anything.

BTW, did you notice you offered "not one realistic solution?"

Doesn't matter, because I have offered a realistic partial solution here...

They Will
Deport Themsleves

It begins with total asset forfeiture for apprehended illegals.

Any "realistic solution" without deportation is at minimum a de facto Amnesty for illegals.

Click the link!

[Sabertooth]

Another one-issue hothead heard from.

Here's a question...

Is there an issue on which George W. Bush could take a position so outrageous that he'd lose your vote?

[Reaganwuzthebest]

And not one realistic solution is offered.

Here are two possibilities:

1.) Seal the borders, not just talk about it like they've been doing for the last 20 years, but do it, with the military if necessary.

2.) Deputize every police agency in the country to assist the INS in arresting illegal aliens. When any of them come upon illegals, the INS WILL respond, pick them up and deport them. Even now, they will tell police who do arrest illegals to let them go half the time. What kind of enforcement agency is that?

If the country is that desperate for low wage workers, then we can have some limited guest worker program. One that isn't just a backdoor immigration program where they have kids here then never go back. That means a simple rewrite of the Fourteenth Amendment that may not even have to be ratified, if they just change the "jurisdiction" meaning into law.

The status-quo is a disaster. We won't survive as a country at this rate.