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.
The CEOs (like Tyson of Tyson Chicken fame) are importing a vast army of third world peasants who will work for peanuts....thereby increasing their profit margins. Thus, immigration doesn't add to his "woes".
The liberals who run DC are getting a vast new army of dependent welfare cases. Better yet, the new folks are not white, so they can be whipped up into a resentful hatred of evil republicans in the suburbs. No "woes" there.
Now...for Joe sixpack, who has to live with rising crime, higher taxes, overcrowded schools, etc.....those are woes. But, alas, this country is not run for the sake of Joe sixpack....so he might as well "put some ice on it".
Bush can't hand anything to Fox right now, because the Senate has not passed anything.
The fact does remain, that Bush does want to give Fox 245(i) and an Amnesty program for the rest. We hear allot more inside the walls of INS than you guys hear from the press.
Bush's public stance is no, but it is what he wants.
If the Senate votes down 245(i), Bush still wins. If it passes he gets the praise for it, but if it fails, he can blame the Dems. It's win - win for Bush.
The Wall Street Journal 3/18/02
The delayed mailings of visa approvals for two September 11 terrorists has the Immigration and Naturalization Service in dutch with everyone from President Bush on down. We won't waste your time piling on. The need for serious reform at the INS is obvious, but so is the need for lawmakers to distinguish between immigrants who bus tables and those who hijack airplanes.
Last week the House debated a sensible bill on immigrant residency that recognizes such a distinction. The measure ultimately passed in a 275 to 137 vote, despite strong objections from some in the GOP. It would allow mostly Mexican aliens who have entered the U.S. legally to remain here while they seek residency. An earlier version easily passed the House in a preliminary 336-43 vote last May. Last week's debate and lower margin are signs that a large clutch of Republicans are now bent on exploiting the terror attacks to advanc their anti-immigrant agenda.
Leading this brigade is Colorado's Tom Tancredo, who warned his colleagues that "people will be given amnesty under this plan who may in fact even be terrorists." Congressman Dana Rohrabacher of California agrees. Last week he told House Members that to "extend amnesty to these illegal aliens is unworthy of this body." To stop the next Mohammed Atta, this thinking goes, it is necessary to upend the lives of Mexican nannies in San Diego. Never mind that Atta and the other hijackers had all entered the U.S. legally.
The House bill, which Mr. Bush backs, would temporarily reauthorize a program that drew some 400,000 applicants before it expired on April 30. The program targets noncitizens who entered the U.S. on a valid visa that has now expired or is about to. These individuals are eligible for a permanent resident visa, but under existing law they must return to their country of origin to reapply, a process that could keep them out of the U.S. for up to 10 years. Extending the program allows these immigrants to remain in the U.S. while they reapply.
It's the humane course to take. Seventy percent of those eligible are children or spouses of American citizens or permanent residents. It also makes economic sense. Many of these workers are now settled in companies and communities where they make a large contribution.
There's always a chance that terrorist cells lie dormant among these folks, but it's hardly likely. There's also a chance that every person who enters the U.S. legally is a security risk, which is why the better way to enhance border security is to improve intelligence and information sharing among the INS, CIA and FBI.
Republican immigration opponents surely know this, but scapegoating our hard-working neighbors to the south seems to matter most to them. This is politically short-sighted, considering large immigrant voting populations. But it's also not likely to help the war effort. Sending Mexicans away now with the intention of readmitting them later needlessly burdens already overworked U.S. consular officials whose time would be better spent tracking down more legitimate threats.
The Senate will now consider the President's residency proposals, and Republicans must decide whether Mr. Bush or Mr. Tancredo is the voice of the party on immigration. The realities of migration in a global economy should make the choice obvious. Until Mexican wages reach a point where people don't see more opportunity here, nothing short of a Berlin Wall along the Rio Grande will break the human tide. For now, Mexico's loss is our gain
Well, I asked God to give me hope, and it's things like this that show me a glimmer.
It's an editorial. This article coneys the thoughts of the WSJ editorial board.
The editorial board has a meeting, discuss their position, and someone from the editorial board writes it and before publication it must go through the editorial board for approval.
The editorial is the position of a newspaper, in this case the WSJ.
With the WSJ it's all a one-sided debate. Paul Gigot and Co. rarely discuss the staggering societal costs that taxpayers must pay to provide the long list of freebie welfare benefits that many immigrants (mostly illegal) receive. Nor do they, for some strange reason, like to talk about how many Hispanics are voting illegally in our elections; or that their voting block is bolstering the Democratic Party and tilting the balance in a number of states that used to be solidly republican.
As the media Vanguard of unlimited immigration, the WSJ has ZERO credibility on immigration.
Who is the 'our' in our gain? The evil elite new world order multinational corporate traitors who control the media and both political parties.
"Indeed, during the immigration debate of 1984 we suggested an ultimate goal to guide passing policies--a constitutional amendment: 'There shall be open borders.'" --Wall Street Journal -- Robert Bartley, Editor -- July 2, 2001
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.
Well you have to give the Democrats credit; at least they KNOW what they are doing. They KNOW that unchecked illegal immigration encouraged on by Amnesties benefits the Democratic Party. A good percentage of Republicans however seem more than willing to help the democrats out in the destruction of their party. This is another case where we see that the "Stupid Party" name for Republicans is well deserved.
Hey -- after eating the remnants of St. Pat's "Day 2" corned beef and cabbage, who am I to fight Mother Nature? ;-)
As to referencing the Herald, there was indeed A debate between two spanish-speaking Democratic, um, er, candidates" of something or another....
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.