Posted on 03/08/2002 1:24:33 PM PST by sarcasm
Friday, March 08, 2002 - WASHINGTON - Rep. Tom Tancredo takes credit for thwarting the Bush administration's last effort to offer partial amnesty to thousands of illegal residents, but Thursday the outspoken immigration foe said he may have been outmaneuvered by the White House.
President Bush has struck a deal with the House leadership to place legislation that offers an extension of amnesty on its consent calendar before Bush heads to Mexico for a state visit next week, the Colorado Republican said. That action should ensure quick House passage of legislation that Bush has repeatedly sought from Congress. It would allow an undocumented person to receive legal standing, such as a valid green card, by filing a declaration with the Immigration and Naturalization Service. It presumably also would require the person to have been in the United States by a certain date and have filed a declaration with the INS from an appropriate sponsor, such as a relative or employer, and pay a $1,000 penalty. "The terms are still up in the air," said Dan Stein, executive director of the Federation for American Immigration, a group that has been allied with Tancredo. "We've heard to the effect that the president wants something to bring down to Mexico." The initial Bush proposal, designed exclusively for Mexicans, once was high on the president's legislative wish list, but it was delayed after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11. However, as the president noted Wednesday in a speech to the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, he now is pushing for the extension of the amnesty program known by the section of immigration law that covers it, Section 245I. The president hailed it as a way to reunite family, separated by the border. "If you believe in family values, if you understand the worth of family and the importance of family, let's get 245I out of the United States Congress and give me a chance to sign it," Bush told the chamber members. Tancredo, the head of a congressional caucus on immigration issues and proponent of halting virtually all immigration, said he had blocked a previous attempt by Bush to push an extension of the amnesty program through the House. But this time, he said House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., had agreed to place the issue on the suspension, or consent, calendar, making it difficult to defeat the proposal. The Senate might be more favorable to the bill than the House, expanding the numbers of individuals who can apply, Tancredo said.
That's what I'm doing, Dem Donor.
If you don't have the $20 you don't need to make excuses. Did an illegal take your job?
Nice logic.
You are the most honest of all the Propogangsters. Thanks, Newbie.
I suggest we all take a look to see who our "new" congress critters are.
The rep in my current district (Pombo) voted no on this.
My "new" rep (Ose) voted yes!
This link takes California Freeepers to the new district info.
They're all culpable and should incur our wrath come election time. Put them all out on the street. Let them get real jobs, so they can see, first hand, what we're talking about.
Then make me aware and show me his actual quote.
Reagan was not a sovereignty trading fool like what he have in the White House today.
I didn't realize that the bill President Reagan signed, or the one just passed by the House, gave outright ownership of the United States to these immigrants.
Now let me tell you what Reagan did believe: he believed that America, unlike places as the USSR or Red China didn't have to build walls, real or symbolic, to keep people in, or keep out those seeking economic liberty and freedom.
Reagan had confidence in the ideals of Americanism, and conservatism.
And FYI, those who will benefit from the most recent bill have already been here. The only 'law' being broken is the ineptness of a gov.'t bureaucracy, the INS.
BTW, I haven't been in a position to worry about an illegal taking my job since I was in my 20's. An illegal would have had to shut my business down somehow to "take my job".
We should have formed a new conservative party in the 60s instead of switching to the GOP. You aren't going to "reform" the GOP. It would be like trying to polish a turd.
Correlate to the number of employers who should serve time/pay confiscatory fines ( to pay the cost of apprehension ).
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.