Your conclusion just isn't logically necessary. Bush signed this bill because it needed signing. He still wants Amnesty, and he'll try again... Like I said on another thread, use that SAME argument for CFR and see how far it gets you. Bush signed CFR because it needed to be signed, and yet, he was viciously maligned by the usual suspects.
He may try again, but it won't be in it's current form. And, anything remotely more liberal than the one that got shot down will get shot down again. Sorry, but I think extended amnesty is dead. But keep the crow warm just in case... ;)
Like I said on another thread, use that SAME argument for CFR and see how far it gets you. Bush signed CFR because it needed to be signed, and yet, he was viciously maligned by the usual suspects.
How is CFR possibly analogous to Homeland Security?
There is strong public sentiment for Homeland Security, and it makes ethical sense. Neither is true of CFR... It was a bad bill from top to bottom with gossamer public support.
He may try again, but it won't be in it's current form. And, anything remotely more liberal than the one that got shot down will get shot down again. Sorry, but I think extended amnesty is dead. But keep the crow warm just in case... ;)
Would Old Crow do?
I just don't see how you can make this leap of faith... Bush has given no indication that he doesn't want Amnesty in some form and appeasement of Vicente Fox.
Bush's questionable history on Illegals goes back to his badmouthing of Prop. #187 in 1994.
What makes you think he's changed?
"Sorry, but I think extended amnesty is dead."If it is dead why does it keep being brought back up and as the Dems said today...at the request of the President? Why do they keep trying to sneak it through?
"But keep the crow warm just in case... ;"
Unlesss you mean dead as in.. to never be brought up again.....Your the one that better keep it warm.
Oh BTW does it still mean it is a dead issue if Bush keeps asking for it?