Posted on 03/18/2002 5:35:27 AM PST by Tumbleweed_Connection
Someone forgot to tell Jorge Bush that he is not the president of Mexico. The leader of this nation is expected to protect our interests - not those of our neighbor to the south.
When Bush goes to Mexico on Thursday to meet with President Vicente Fox, he brings with him the gift of a House vote in favor of amnesty for tens of thousands of Fox's countrymen living here illegally.
Last week, the House voted 275-137 to allow illegals who are qualified - through marriage or employment - to apply for visas without going home. (Why should lawbreakers be inconvenienced?) It's estimated that 200,000 could take advantage of this get-into-the-country-legally card.
``This bill sends a message to the world that our country will be a beacon to all who love freedom and the opportunity to live, work and raise a family,'' House Republican leader Dick Armey of Texas proclaimed. Even if they thrash our laws to do so?
The latest amnesty sends an unmistakable message to hungry hordes huddled on our borders: ``America is a country of saps, whose leaders will trade national sovereignty for a little Latin lovin' at the polls. If you can make it past the Border Patrol and hang on for a few years, you too can be amnestied. Then you can send for the rest of your extended family.''
Why not just tear down barriers, build a one-way highway from Tijuana and have the Border Patrol hand out fruit baskets?
As it is, the Border Patrol annually apprehends 1.2 million people trying to infiltrate the country. It's estimated that there are between 6 million and 11 million illegal aliens within our borders. Each year, their number swells by 125,000.
But illegal immigration is only one facet of the problem. The foreign-born hover around 29 million - as a percentage of the population, double what they were in 1970.
The Census Bureau estimates that over the next 50 years, U.S. population will increase from 248 million to 400 million, with two-thirds of that growth attributable to immigration. We are importing poverty, ignorance and disunity.
The Center for Immigration Studies estimates that among immigrants who've been here 10 to 20 years, 34 percent lack a high school diploma, compared to 10 percent of the native-born. The former are 50 percent more likely to exist in or near poverty than the latter. It's reasonable to suppose that illegals are even less educated and more poverty-prone than long-time legal immigrants.
Americans never voted in favor of open borders. There was never a plebiscite on our becoming the welcome wagon of the world. No one ever said to us: ``How would you like to take in over half of the world's immigrants? You can educate their children, provide them with welfare benefits, lose your language, and watch as your national identity slowly fades away.''
In Texas last month, two Democratic Senate candidates debated in Spanish. Tony Sanchez, who won the nomination, said he was ``proud to be bilingual and bicultural.'' Does his divided loyalty extend beyond culture?
But a funny thing happened on the way to the latest amnesty. A majority of the president's party balked at the latest move toward balkanization. Republicans voted against the green-card giveaway by 123-92. It passed only with overwhelming Democratic support.
Except for Rep. John Sununu of New Hampshire, all of the House Republicans now running for Senate opposed the bill. While Bush does his Mexican hat dance, they march to a popular beat.
Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.), a leader of the GOP's nationhood wing, was scathing: ``Sept. 11th brought home in the sharpest way possible that we have no control over our borders. The White House is convinced this type of pandering will actually result in a higher percentage of votes from minority communities. I adamantly disagree with them.''
A former Democratic congresswoman, the late Barbara Jordan of Texas (who chaired a presidential immigration commission in the 1990s), put the matter in the proper context: ``Immigration is not a right guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution to everyone and anyone in the world who wishes to come to the United States. It is a privilege granted by the people of the United States to those whom we choose to admit.''
It's time for the American people to reassert their democratic right to control their fate. Immigration policy is national destiny.
It leaves the rest of us with nothing to assume except that the facts do not further your agenda, so you simply continue to post what you need to justify your posts.
This is an appeal to authority fallacy.
I've chosen to do my own homework.
It leaves the rest of us with nothing to assume except that the facts do not further your agenda, so you simply continue to post what you need to justify your posts.
At #10, I posted an INS memo about Section 245, and Section 245(i).
You're an intelligent woman, why do you choose to ignore the facts that I've presented?
Please demonstrate.
The White House and INS will tell you that 200,000+ missed out on 245(i) last time. 200,000 is ten's of thousands.
Now if you ask me, or anyone else inside INS, we will tell you this number is low. The INS has always under estimated the number of applicants. I'd bet the number will be around 350,000.
I'm working on that. In the meantime...
Do you acknowledge that Section 245(i) is about Illegals?
Shhh... One mountain at a time.
My problem isn't with Mexicans pre se, and I'm sure that wasn't what you meant.
If someone sat down with such a proposal for dealing with Illegals as you describe, I'd call that a good starting point for a serious conversation.
You won't believe this action will have negative consequences for our conservative candidates anymore than Bob Dornan thought voting for 'The Amnesty Act of '86' would cost him his seat in Congress. You'll find out you were just as wrong as he was.
OR at best, Quebec X 50. Already, as has been documented in this essay, two United States Democratic Senate candidates have debated in Spanish.
Imagine what happens to our superpower economy and ability to project power into the Pacific Rim if Kali is a civil war zone.
Think China isn't paying attention?
Immigration absent from Bush agenda for summit
Now, you ALL said that this bill was FOR Fox and that Bush had pushed it through FOR Fox.........and, of course, once again, you were wrong.
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.