Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: rintense
If he was as hell bent as some think to get this amnesty, he would have vetoed the bill.

Apparently, he desires a second term more than amnesty.

16 posted on 05/14/2002 2:55:54 PM PDT by NoControllingLegalAuthority
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: NoControllingLegalAuthority
If he was as hell bent as some think to get this amnesty, he would have vetoed the bill

Not when the bill described in Post #5 is on the table. If that passes, and he vetoes it, you can crow -- and I'll eat it.

Realistically, how could he have a vetoed a "border security" law and not damaged himself politically? 245(i) was attached to this originally so that he could minimize the amnesty provision under the mantel of "Border Security." Now it's out there, by itself -- which was politically smart of sleazy Little Tommy -- no more subterfuge -- either it's amnesty, or it ain't.

18 posted on 05/14/2002 3:09:12 PM PDT by browardchad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies ]

To: NoControllingLegalAuthority
I am just thankful there are intelligent people watching all this so I can get information... thanks!
105 posted on 10/27/2002 7:45:28 PM PST by TLI
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson