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.
I'm not going to congratulate your big hero. When I saw how Mexico responded to 21 people seeking refuge, I completely realized what type of man Fox is.
For one, the social welfare atmosphere DID NOT exist. Did you get that? It DID NOT exist. Thus, the motive to immigrate here, was left mostly to those who could sink or swim on their own. Hence, it meant that mainly people who wanted to be Americans came. That, and the fact that you had to get on a boat to come to America. That big ocean had a positive effect in getting immigrants who felt loyalty to this country.
On the other hands, illegals just hop over the border. Furthermore, they've got special interest groups at their hands to sue the American public if they're "discriminated" against. Furthermore, if they can't make it on their own, they've got the taxpayers to support them through all types of social welfare. Not only that, they don't have to worry about learning English, for everyone they work for, due to declining wages, speaks Spanish, as well as mostly everyone they live around. Furthermore, you have a president who caters to them, and who addresses the nation in Spanish. You have Spanish television and radio, and you have a movement to turn the southwest over to Mexico. Furthermore, this movement, known for Aztlan, is much more known in Mexico than it is in the United States. Most Americans are ignorant of this.
Thus, given the above examples, along with the fact that past immigrants came from countries that had much more in common with the current American stock than does today's Mexico, it is obvious that there is a huge difference.
How could you deny such a thing?
No, but I can understand why they come here. It is not a black and white issue to me.
2) Do you believe that rewarding illegal behavior is okay?
Getting deported becuase you are cleaning toilets and trying to make a living does seem extreme to me.
3) From where in the country do you reside?
Pittsburgh area, but lived in Florida for 6 years and actually lived in Atlanta for couple of months.
4) Do you profit from and, or, are you related to any illegal aliens?
No.
Is the inquisition over?
We need someone in this country that can rise to the level that Pauline Hanson did in Australia. We need a One Nation political party here in the US...which will force the Republicans to seal the borders or face losing elections from people like many on this thread that will cast a "protest" vote against their Republican congressman.
It worked in Australia...last year, PM John Howard had to adopt the One Nation policy towards illegal immigrants in order for his Labour Party to continue in power.
What I am doing is asking her to rectify an apparent conflict between her philosophy and that of our God's.
Another huge problem with the WSJ's open borders idiocy is that new immigrants vote these days (another outrage for another time) and they invariably vote for more socialism. Something directly at odds with the WSJ's economic views. In other words, unlimited immigration (especially 3rd world) is in direct conflict with conservative ideology. While this is so clear to most conservatives it is a point that is continually lost on the neo-con continent within the republican ranks. Though I suspect some of these open border neo-cons like Bush have different ideas about U.S. Sovereignty than most Americans have.
Uh anti-immigration people were saying the same rhetoric as you are saying now. That's a fact.
Oh BTW, most people come to this country to find a better life for themselves and their families and that hasn't changed since America's inception and is still true today.
I live in the Atlanta area, and I'm curious as to what part of town you lived in, and when did you live here. Furthermore, where in Florida did you live?
Jesus said to go out and teach all nations in the name of Christ. He did not say to give over your countries, become multicultural, multilingual, and forget your heritage.
There is a huge difference. I will agree that most people come here for a better life, but immigration needs to be checked. Unlimited immigration, illegal border jumping, socialized welfare, among many other things, is a recipe for national suicide.
It was 1990 and I lived in a house while trying to find a job in Atlanta and it was between North Druid Hills and Decater. That general area. Can't remember the street.
I lived in the Orlando area for six years.
Bingo.
You have a rather perverted view of God. Share with them the Word, your God, but not your goods nor your country? I don't think so. You're no better than the WASPs of the last century that wanted to keep the Irish out. Read your history and your bible.
My attention was drawn to her rather excessive hate for Mexicans. Haven't got to the passage in the Bible where God ok's that.
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.