Posted on 08/08/2002 4:53:13 AM PDT by Under the Radar
Wall Street Journal Edit Page Leads GOP To Amnesty Debacle
By Steve Sailer
Recently Richard Gephardt did exactly what I predicted he'd do a year ago—he formally introduced legislation calling and raising Bush's bid to give amnesty to just Mexican illegal aliens. The House Minority Leader wants to extend amnesty to illegals of all nations.
Gephardt's absolutely predictable ploy has led the Wall Street Journal editorial board to lament (in "The GOP's Immigration Fumble: Gephardt Steals an Issue"),
“… if Mr. Gephardt is successful the Democrats will have politically outmaneuvered the GOP on an issue that could hurt Republicans in November."
Indeed.
As you'll recall, last summer, in the hopes of attracting the absolutely crucial Mexican-American vote (which in 2000 constituted an enormous 1.1% of all total votes cast in the 48 states other than the already locked-up states of California and Texas), Bush offered amnesty to millions of Mexican illegal aliens.
As I wrote a year ago,
"In the Uncle Remus version of the story, Br'er Fox and Br'er Bush would be implored by poor old Br'er Daschle and Br'er Gephardt to "Please don't throw us in the amnesty patch! No, not the amnesty patch!"
The only argument in favor of discriminating against non-Mexican illegals in granting amnesty was: "Support the Bush Plan—It's Only Half as Disastrous as the Counter Offer the Democrats' Are Sure to Make! "
This was a completely foreseeable political debacle for Bush-Rove and the WSJ. Of course, the WSJ can't figure out any response to that charge (there is none). So in their editorial they just go off on a red herring tangent about 245(i).
WSJ editorials are written by smart people who like to win arguments. On a personal level, they must be getting tired of making themselves into laughingstocks by trying to come up with reasons defending their traditional "There shall be open borders" dogma. It must be personally humiliating to them to constantly get thrashed in argument by the likes of little old VDARE.com.
You folks at the WSJ—there's an easy solution for your frustration. Just stop trying to defend the indefensible.
The good news for the GOP is that Gephardt's bill gives them a surefire election-winning strategy for November. We’ll put it in caps to help them get the message:
PUBLICLY DUMP BUSH'S AMNESTY PLAN AND MAKE ATTACKS ON GEPHARDT'S ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT AMNESTY PLAN INTO THE CENTRAL ISSUE OF THE MID-TERM ELECTIONS.
Is that clear?
Of course, the GOP would no doubt prefer to lose the House genteelly than to do anything that the public likes but that the respectable opinion (which includes the Wall Street Journal Edit Pagers) would tsk-tsk over.
[Steve Sailer is founder of the Human Biodiversity Institute. His website www.iSteve.com features site-exclusive commentaries.]
The Journal's editorial contains a huge lie at its crux in any case.
The Journal says:
Under the President's proposal, those who allowed their visas to expire would have to pay a $1,000 penalty before receiving the permanent residency status that they otherwise were eligible for.
Under current law, applicants cannot (or won't generally) be deported if their application is in process and is late due to INS problems. When an application is received by INS, a "receipt notice" is sent within a matter of weeks. Possession of this notice is proof that the application has been received by INS and is in process, and it effectively indemnifies one against deportation.
245(i) benefits only those illegal aliens who were unable to find a sponsor (legal spouse or employer) before their visa expired. No sponsor, no application, no receipt notice.
The crucial phrase "allowed their visas to expire" applies only to a category of illegal aliens who in fact had no legal basis for applying for permanent residency, stayed in the country anyway, and have searched dilegently for a shill sponsor in the hopes of crawling through another 245(i) amnesty window.
So no matter how you cut the cake, no matter how innocent the WSJ and GWB would like it to sound, illegal aliens are de facto criminals in the first instance, and are secondly desperately trying to meet 245(i) requirements through another criminal act known as visa fraud.
And hell'll freeze over before I waste a dime on the Merc.
This is a definate addition to your "one of a kind" posts.
I'm glad you brought that fact up. Bush too has deliberately misrepresented 245(i) by saying that this bill only covers those immigrants that would normally be processed by the INS if the INS weren’t so slow in their paper work. This is a bald face lie. 245(i) is a sham that undercuts the INS's own 245 provision by including Amnesty for immigrants who arrived in the U.S. WITHOUT INSPECTION and have NO application with the INS. Can you say "Border Jumpers"?
For the Democrats, that is. :-(
Absolutely correct.
INS is consistently accurate and timely (e.g., 4 to 8 weeks) in providing receipt notices for any and all applications they receive. It is perhaps the one thing they do without complication.
Once you get an INS receipt notice, you're indemnified against INS processing delays. It's the INS way of saying "We know things are slow, so we'll give you a piece of paper showing that you've properly filed."
Applicants are in NO DANGER WHATSOEVER of being harmed (let alone deported) if they have an INS receipt notice for any immigration application.
And, you're right, it is a patent and unmitigated lie for GWB to say that "legitimate applicants" are deported because of INS processing delays. That is simply, flatly, and egregiously false. GWB can propagate this wanton lie only because most Americans are unfamiliar with INS procedure. But even the most addlebrained illegal alien knows it.
Yet illegal aliens also know that 245(i) lets them completely off the hook.
Find yourself a green-card wife, or someone who will falsely sponsor an employment-based application, and 245(i) opens the door. You might even say that 245(i) encourages additional visa fraud.
Knowing what legitimate applicants must endure to arrive in the U.S., I'd say that 245(i) is a disgusting and ignoble affront to all Americans and certainly to the rule of law.
245(i) is a litmus test for political leaders, because it is rooted in criminality and fraud.
245(i) is a litmus test for political leaders, because it is rooted in criminality and fraud.
Well said!
Great Post angkor and very well said. I'm looking at 245(i) the same way and will vote accordingly. This illegal immigration madness has to stop right now if America is to survive as a unified country.
if you haven't had the time or money to visit the third world, don't fear, it will be here soon.
...to the planet's largest post-industrial welfare zone... [raises glass] cheers. [clink] bottoms up. [bohica]
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.