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.
So who are they going to vote for?
So who will you vote for?
Does this mean that you aren't afraid of the charge of "wasting your vote" and the charge that to vote for anyone other than the Republican nominee is a vote for Democrats? Aren't you scared to death of the Republican majority on this forum who will excoriate you and accuse you of helping the enemy? Aren't you afraid of being a traitor?
Makes you wonder where they will go. Also makes you wonder why they think your vote belongs to them if you are anything but a Democrat.
I was stunned to hear Ira Stoll say the other night that one of the pillars of the New York Sun's philosophy is immigration. Not illegal immigration, of course, but immigration. Someone called him on it during the q-and-a, and said that it didn't sound like a very conservative position. Ira said he never said it was conservative. His view seems to be based on the fact that if it were not for immigration, his family would still be stuck in Russia.
There's nothing wrong with this position, but one wonders why he did not say the Sun would be in favor of strict background checks, or a halt to illegal immigration, instead of saying it's in favor of immigration.
Death to 245(i)!
How about you? Who will you vote for?
I guess you haven't seen the attacks on that particular stategy all over this forum. The people who say hey will do that are called traitors to their country and worthless sloths who abdicate their resposibility to their couinrty. Of course it's nonsense, but then most of what we read around here can be called that as well.
In my opinion, the two beltway parties are worthless.
LOL, you can get in BIG BIG trouble for that around here too. Any tiny difference in scope or detail on any policy is held up as a clear choice between the two parties. Never mind that they agree in principle on the policy. Like social security for instance or tax policy. They differ on the details but stand in line to "save" them because they are good. LOL
How about you? Who will you vote for?
Time for an appointment, I'll check back later if you want me to expound on that question.
This is the motivating idea behind Jewish anti-restrictionism: that many people would still be stuck in the Pale of Settlement (Belarus, Ukraine) subject to Pogroms if not for the safe haven of the United States. Many Eastern Europeans who emigrated to the U.S. before 1924 had relatives who could not follow their family members after the 1924 law, and many ended up either being marched off to Siberia by Stalin or marched off to the death camps by Einsatzgruppen.
It was this idea that led to Immanuel Cellar pushing for 40 years in the U.S. congress for "family reunification" to become U.S. immigration law, and to end the National Origins quota formula embodied in the 1924 law. The amendment to the 1952 McCarran-Walter Act that was enacted in 1965 became known as Hart-Cellar, and it is the source of the mass immigration we are all fighting now.
But how anyone can equate the realities faced by pre-WWII Jews in Belarus and the economic reality faced by villages in Oaxaca is beyond me. Steven Seinlight's essay points out that even within Jewish intellectual discourse there is now a realization that blind acceptance of mass chain immigration from countries that have no other problem than bad economics is maybe not in the best interest of the United States: The Jewish Stake in America's Changing Demography: Reconsidering a Misguided Immigration Policy
Undoubtedly, the Sun's publisher goes straight down the line for the old idea. But perhaps with the help of articles like this, and a few choice pictures of people diving out of WTC windows on the morning of 9/11, he could be persuaded to reconsider.
I vote mostly Libertarian when given the chance. The ballot access laws in this country are rigged to keep any meaningful competition to the duopoly from appearing. The election laws concerning such things are conciderably freer in Russia and South Africa than here in the land of the free and the brave.
When not given a libertarian option (of any party) I usually vote for outsiders in Republican primaries. Those who run on freedom/rights type issues. I sometimes vote in primaries for people who will move the Republican party in a libertarian direction or who have a special issue that I hope to make mainstream, like eliminating the income tax or reworking social security into a private plan.
In most election races, I skip voting altogether when confronted with a non-choice between Republicans and Democrats who will do almost the same thing if elected. In those instances I usually only vote in a few contests ignoring the rest. Morons call this an "undervote".
I have even voted for Democrats on a very few occasions in elections of local interest when they opposed crooks who I wanted to dismiss.
Come on over.
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.