Oil for Illegals? Mexico, and the Democrats, have a fit over House vote

National Review ^ | May 14, 2003 | Mark Krikorian

[madfly]

ping

[Budge]

Those folks sound just like our marxist/democRATS.

[sarcasm]

But the Democratic-party/Mexican-government position on amnesty for illegals appears to be all quid from the United States and no quo from Mexico.

How does this differ from the Bush position?

[Geezerette]

Bump!

g in AZ

[cake_crumb]

"After all, Mexico is asking us to start down the path of eliminating our southern border and embracing a European Union-style shared sovereignty — the least we can expect is for them also to eliminate barriers that are important to their nation."

I'm laughing so hard I'm in tears here. We can't seal our Southern border with Mexico unless we build a version of the Great Wall, and even THAT won't stop people from bailing over somehow. It's ABOUT TIME we got SOMETHING out of Mexico besides illegals and empty rhetoric.

Fox, the Saddam mini-me, is scared.

[Pubbie]

Increase Eastern European Immigration!

Why? Because it will dillute the future voting power of the Mexican Aztlaners, and hence make it much easier for the GOP to cut back on the Goodies that all those Mexican Baby boomers are going to want from the Gooooooooooobermint when they grow up and become loyal Rat voters.

[Reaganwuzthebest]

Increase Eastern European Immigration!

They have. Hundreds of thousands have immigrated here from Eastern Europe and Russia in the last decade. The problem is illegal immigration, if they would cut it off it would slow the Aztlan train down considerably.

Personally, I'd like to see a break in ALL immigration for a while, we've taken in over 35 million in the last 40 years, enough is enough.

[Pubbie]

"They have. Hundreds of thousands have immigrated here from Eastern Europe and Russia in the last decade. The problem is illegal immigration, if they would cut it off it would slow the Aztlan train down considerably."

Well ilegal immigration isn't a political problem for the GOP UNLESS they grant amnesty to a lot of these illegals.

Illegal immigration is more of an economic problem (see California).

However I advocate increasing East European immigration to a large level because it would be much easier for the GOP to just vote once to change legal immigration, than it would be deporting millions of illegals and spending billions to guard the border.

So increasing East European immigration is a lot less messier compared to the other alternatives, although I have not met a SINGLE Republican who knew that this was an option to them :(

[sinkspur]

How does this differ from the Bush position?

What is the "Bush position," and link to a delineation of it.

[sarcasm]

On a major immigration issue, Bush said he was hopeful the United States and Mexico will reach an agreement by early September that would pave the way to legalize the status of up to 3 million Mexicans and ``serve as a precedent for other nationalities.

``I fully recognize, particularly in Miami and a lot of other places, there are workers here from other nationalities,'' said Bush. ``But to me, it makes sense to deal with the Mexican issue first, simply because the numbers are so overwhelming.''

[Catspaw]

I don't think there'll be any consideration of amnesty until Bush's second term, maybe after the 2006 election.

[Reaganwuzthebest]

although I have not met a SINGLE Republican who knew that this was an option to them...

Chris Smith of NJ is a mass-immigrationist Republican as this article says, and he is largely responsible for the increase in East European immigration, which is fine in moderation. We're already taking in a million a year, how much more do you want to increase it to? By saying it's impossible to stop illegal immigration and deport the illegals so let's just balance the Aztlan train with other immigrants is not feasible in my opinion. We can't take in the world.

At some point, maybe when enough Americans shout from the rooftops the Republicans will finally grow a spine, close the border and start deporting illegals. It can be done, it was before in the fifties. The taxpayer can only build so many schools, so many hospitals, and so many prisons.

[Pubbie]

Well Bushs's amnesty proposal was a wreck in August of 2001 because:

1: The Republican House Leadership (God Bless them!) was ready to rebel against Rove because they correctly viewed Amnesty, as ensuring the Demographic destruction of the GOP.

2: The Democrats had out-manuevered the GOP by proposing that ALL illegals be given amnesty, not merely the 3 million Mexicans Rove had originally hoped for.

Of course the White House quietly abandoned the plan after 911 (and they probably would have abandoned the proposal even if 911 had not happened, due to House leadership resistance).

I'm not sure what they're current plan is, although the fact that the White House cancelled the Cinco De Mayo festivities, is a pretty strong indicator that There (Hopefully) will not be an amnesty proposal any time soon.

What the House is trying to do now, is trying to put a "Poison Pill" inside any Amnesty agreement, which is what the Oil Privitization scheme is.

The House GOP knows Mexico will never accept American influence over their oil, so the GOP put this proposal in to make sure there aren't enough votes to pass it.

So instead of just not taking up the amnesty issue, the GOP can say "Well we had a deal to give amnesty but Mexico rejected it therefore we had to withdraw the proposal".

[Pubbie]

We're takeing in 1 million East Europeans a year????

I'm pretty sure it's only 90,000 Eastern Europeans per year.

[monkeywrench]

The taxpayer can only build so many schools, so many hospitals, and so many prisons.

Not if we go to a mandatory 70 hour work week. Now, get back to work, slacker. :)

[sinkspur]

Well Bushs's amnesty proposal was a wreck in August of 2001 because

What was Bush's amnesty proposal in August of 2001?

Even back then, some of us asked for documentation of what Bush's policy was, and we got nothing but unsubstantiated leaks with no names attached.

There may have been a "trial balloon", but there has never been an official Bush policy to grant amnesty to anybody.

There wasn't going to be an amnesty then, and there's not going to be an amnesty now.

[StarFan]

Silvestre Reyes said the amendment was an "insult" to Mexico and indicative of an "insane and outofcontrol attitude on the part of a country [the United States] that believes that as a matter of public foreign policy bullying is acceptable."

What is insane and out of control Mr. Reyes, is our government turning a blind eye to the FIVE MILLION illegals living in our country. If we were truly bullies, we'd deport them all, tomorrow!

[Reaganwuzthebest]

We're takeing in 1 million East Europeans a year????

Actually I'm talking about all immigrants, 1 million a year. What do you want to do, lower immigration from other countries while increasing East European immigration, or add to the 1 million total we're already taking in annually?

[Pubbie]

"What was Bush's amnesty proposal in August of 2001?"

It was pretty clear INITIALLY what the plan was.

Originally the plan was to essentially give amnesty to 3 million illegal immigrants from Mexico, but the Democrats totally outmanuevered Rove by saying "That isn't good enough, ALL illegals should be given amnesty, not just Mexicans".

So by Spring, the White House started back tracking, and the House leadership said it was highly unlikely the proposal would pass in the House.

By Summer the deal was dead and Bush was looking for a way to withdraw the proposal without loosing face, but then 911 came and the rest is history.