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 think you're right.
What did I say to disgust you?
Tell that to all the RINO's in the REPUBLICAN PARTY that advocate the Murder of Babies. BTW, just about 100% of these RINOs also advocate open borders.
However, that's not my main point about using social security as a reason as to why we need immigration.
Here's the problem. You're operating on a pyramid scheme. In order for social security to work, it needs to have more workers in comparison to recipients. Now, social security wouldn't be a problem if the government didn't squandor everyone elses money. However, they did, and it has a created a dilemma of which is most likely never to bring about normalcy within the social security system. To outdo this normalcy, it requires more and more workers, for tax dollars are needed to pay for the already paid-into social security incomes that were blatantly stolen from our own government. The result is that this Pyramid Scheme is what will be needed, held up by a Socialized System, to keep Social Security alive.
Why is this bad? For one, a pyramid scheme only gets bigger and bigger. For example, allowing more immigrants into the U.S. creates a bigger pool of future recipients, of which more immigrants will be needed to support them. The cycle continues. Now, you might say, "well, if we can get through this time with more immigrants, we'll be all-right". This isn't so, for there will always be more income makers needed to provide for the recipients. You may not need any immigrants for a generation, but eventually you'll need more, for there will come a time when the amount of children born will equal the amount of parents. Thus, the only way for immigration to not continue is for people to continually have large families, producing around four children per family. Without it, immigration is the only way to provide for the a Social System that will inevitably implode as it always has. Whether through overpopulation, deteriorated schools, infrastructure, public health, loss of environment, etc., the negative effects of Social Security will eventually come, and I think that we've only seen the beginning.
What I think should happen? Eliminate social security for anyone newly entering the workforce. The rest of us, in a graduated system based on age, will receive ALL of our entitlements. However, the older the are, the longer you'll be able to continue to receive social security through paycheck deductions. The younger you are, the less longer you'll be able to receive the deduction. Under 35, you will no longer have social security deducted from your paycheck.
I wish I could get them all. But, that is the problem with INS. We are greatly under staffed. The average ER (Expedited Removal) takes two officers and last about two hours, and 90% of it is CYA paperwork. The top management tries to make it so hard as to discourage us from doing our jobs. The INS is a sad sad agency, and nothing has changed since 9/11.
Now that is one scary statement and after seeing Ziglar testify before congress this week on C-Span I can see why the INS has major problems. Ziglar is the last guy that should be in charge of the INS. We have the proverbial Fox (Vicente?) guarding the chicken coop situation with him.
FAIR is a left-wing "progressive" organization that was pushing "liberation" theology to bost the Sandanistas and other commie latino revolutionarys
Okay, time out here. People are getting confused. There are two organizations called FAIR.
One is Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting, a left-wing "progressive" organization; a FAIR representative shows up on, I think, one of Fox News' shows - I forget his name, Cohen or something, sitting next to Cal Thomas. FAIR is sort of the left-wing equivalent of AIM (Accuracy In Media, the right-wing media watchdog group).
Now, the other FAIR is the Federation for American Immigration Reform. It is this group which Danevogado has been misrepresenting. As usual, Danevogado's reasoning faculties are rather addled. He/she/it does not realize, apparently, that FAIR is a single-issue organization, devoted to the issue of immigration reform. As such, it takes no stand on such issues as abortion or euthenasia.
Danevogado thinks that people are so stupid here on FR that they will not notice the fact that just because a single member of FAIR supports abortion, it does not mean that any of the other members of FAIR support abortion. Since FAIR is a single issue group concerned only with immigration, it cannot, and does not, have any position on the abortion issue. I would wager a fair bet that most of the members of FAIR are against abortion or hold no strong views on the subject; but being for or against abortion is no impediment for supporting FAIR, since FAIR is about immigration, not abortion.
Similarly, gov. Lamm's opinions are his own, they are not the opinions of FAIR. Danevogado wants us to believe that a single comment by Lamm about old people somehow taints FAIR; this is pure Mcarthyism - guilt by association (and very tenous association, at that). I don't know what Lamm's opinions are on euthenasia; I don't know whether his comment was accurately quoted, was intended as a joke, or not. But regardless, it is irrelevent to evaluating FAIR.
Danevogado wants us to believe that a group is "tainted" because he says so; he wants us to believe that the statements or beliefs of a single person somehow represents the views of an entire organization.
Bullocks.
Danevogado is either a brain-dead sycophant of our existing ruling elite, or a paid disruptor. Or possibly a cleverly written AI program. He/she/it cannot reason him/her/itself out of a paper bag, cannnot engage in a discussion without resorting to name calling or using the race card. In short, he/she/it is best ignored.
Just so long as they're yours, and not, say, mine.
LOL!!!
Shall I hold a pic of Jorge Castaneda up to the monitor to stop your server from hiccupping?
And you have asked this question over and over and over.
Would you vote for such a person?
If we keep going along with non-conservative candidates just to keep the dems out of office, we will NEVER be able to elect any true conservatives. If the republican party lists any farther to the left, they will fall over.
I have not approached this thread with hostility. I am no ones "boy". However; it takes a hell of a lot more than just being forever pissed to get anything done. If those of you making this list have nothing but anger and are willing to defeat a republican president then it would behove you to get cracking with your alternative.
And will you join in the hunt for a candidate that is both conservative and electable, or will you defend the current non-conservative one, at any cost?
This concerns you...Yeah Right. When we have a population of 3rd world illegals in this country that is growing at an exponential rate and our treasonous politicians allow them to vote you can kiss any welfare reform goodbye. In fact, only a moron would expect anything other than more and more welfare and ever-higher taxes as their numbers grow.
This is a point which Danevogado and the rest of the apologists for the status quo who claim to be conservative do not understand: you cannot fight the negative effects of immigration by eliminating the welfare state. The welfare state was created when we had no immigration! As such, it worked okay; it was not a good thing but was manageable. All this changed when immigration was reopened. Welfare spun out of control, because finally the welfare bureaucrats and politicians had a growing market for their "services". As such, the more immigration is allowed to spin out of control, the more welfare spins out of control.
Here's were the open border/no welfare crowd loses it: public opinion is divided on the issue of eliminating the welfare state, but it is almost unanimous on the issue of restricting immigration. We have the public support to eliminate the primary foundation upon which the current welfare state power structure rests - immigration! Once the source for new welfare recipients dries up, support for the welfare state will also dry up, and getting rid of it or at least cutting it back will then become a real political possibility.
Keeping the borders open while trying to defeat the welfare state is a political impossibility. Defeating the open door immigration policy, on the other hand, is very possible, and once done, changes the political landscape in our favor for the long term.
As usual, the open borders "conservatives" have their cart before the horse, trying to fight for conservative policies whilst allowing their enemies to import an endless supply of new voters for anti-conservative agendas.
So, your answer is that you know of no one. That's what I thought. No I don't know of anyone either and that is the point. As tour your charge of "non-conservative" you have your own definition. My definition of conservative does not include helping to hand this country back to the democrats.
And mine does not include supporting RINO sellouts.
I guess we both know where the other stands.
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.