Skip to comments.Bush Pushes Bill Allowing Illegal U.S. Residents to Stay
Posted on 03/20/2002 8:17:05 AM PST by B. A. ConservativeEdited on 09/03/2002 4:50:09 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
WASHINGTON -- With a trip to Mexico set for later this week, President Bush on Tuesday urged the Senate to act quickly to allow thousands of foreigners to seek legal residence even though they are in the United States illegally, saying such action would demonstrate America's compassion.
But Senate scheduling conflicts and strong opposition from a senior Democrat make the chances appear slim that the Democratic-controlled chamber will comply with Bush's wishes. As a result, the president apparently will be deprived of a popular initiative to tout Friday while attending an international aid conference in Monterrey.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
Previous posted but thread pulled. I hope it was pulled because of copyright problems and not censorship to suppress opposition to Bush.
It would seem to me that people who have paid to express their opinions on this site should not be censored. While Jim Rob supported and owned the site, he had every right to impose his own standards. Since the goal is to be self supporting, things should change. Have they?
The most deadly aspect of huddle-and-cuddle is now staring us in the face. Our immigration policy favors family reunification over all other considerations, including national security. Once an immigrant gets in, we let him send for his family members, a policy that favors the very ethnic groups we should be leery of, but neurotic sentiment mitigates against leeriness. Show us a slew of Third World relatives Eldest Brother, Venerable Aunt, Honorable Uncle, and two dozen fifth cousins all named Mohammed and we will show you a visa, because an "extended family" is even more sacrosanct than the immediate kind.
You can read the rest at http://www.nationalreview.com/mc/misanthrope012802.shtml
Please tell me, Mr. Bush, how running roughshod over the rule of law demonstrates America's compassion. Tell me how turning a blind eye to blatant law breaking demonstrates strong, principled leadership.
About all your amnesty agenda demonstrates is your lack of a philosophical rudder.
Important Legal Notice:
Free Republic has been enjoined from allowing users to post full text articles from the Los Angeles Times (LAT) and Washington Post (WP). Please do not post full text from these sources until and unless we can get this order overturned on appeal. Any full text articles from LAT or WP will be deleted in compliance with this court order.
And besides this is a private website owned by Jim Robinson and run according to his ground rules. Again, you should know better. JimRob doesn't censor articles for political opinion. You step over the bounds of decency and enter into trash talk garbage, you will find your posting will be pulled. That simple!
I would like to think this is true, that come election time he could point and say, "The DEMOCRATS stopped me from helping you!"
Wishful thinking? I loathe the idea of going anti-Bush the minute he does something I disagree with.
Having said that, I am curious to hear something, RM. In all frankness, what portion of you reacted so rapidly because you felt the need to monitor such posting errors or misjudgements, and what part of you reacted because of your personal ideology on this illegal alien amnesty/regularization issue and towards Mr. Bush prompted you to want to immediately censor this important LA Times article this morning?
Care to comment? I would like to know.
They are known as "LEGAL IMMIGRANTS". They went through the correct Federal INS procedures, including health testing and legal background check, and waited in line, and spent the costs, and were awarded their visas.
They hail from Africa, Europe, Asia, Latin America and Australia. God Bless 'em. These we should reward. And these are the ones who should truly be outraged over President Bush, Karl Rove and the GOP House Leadership (along with plenty of Democrats who want illegal alien 'regularization', too).
Thank you for pointing out that this is not, as so many claim, complaint against immigration. It is about the rule of law. Plain and simple. I fear that there has been such blatant disregard for the rule of law by our "leaders" we have become too accustomed as a nation to even recognize that it is the basis of the issue here.They miss the point and seek some X factor for the protests.
It would be wonderful to see the LEGAL immigrants protest this. But I think it may be a case of "When in Rome..."
Nice prose but utter tripe. Under immigration laws, immediate relatives are defined as minor children and parents. Extended relatives are adult children and brothers and sisters. Visas are available for immediate relatives of US citizens. A limited number of visas are available for adult children of US citizens, spouses or children of relatives, or brothers and sisters of US citizens. Where the visas are limited, you have to wait your turn in line. As of April, they are now processing visas in some categories that were filed as far back as March 1, 1980. No visa categories are available for aunts, uncles and first cousins, much less fifth cousins. I already explained why this was not amnesty on a prior thread. It continues to amaze me how so many continue to spout the same mantra without knowing what they are talking about.
First off, my original intention was simple. I informed you, that by posting the full text of the LA Times article, you were breaking the ground rules set by Jim Robinson. You may consider that censorship, I do not. I've done it before and will do so again, if necessary. B.A. Conservative, then posted the article properly. No problem. His snide remarks though, about JimRob and censorship, I thought were uncalled for and out of line. You've also been on FreeRepublic long enough to know, what's acceptable and what's unacceptable.
Now, to help out with your curiosity. Where I stand on this issue of HR1885, specifically section 245(i), that's a little more complicated.
I've never supported illegal immigration and have no intention of changing my position on this subject. But I do support legal immigration. I believe HR1885 is a good bill, minus section 245(i). With America currently embroiled in military conflict against international terrorism, this is no time to rubber stamp legal immigration for anyone. I support a one year moratorium on all immigration into the US. Along with a freeze on legal immigration, I support a rebuild and restructure of the INS, from the bottom up. If that means placing additional military troops on borders, so be it.
While 245(i), isn't a blanket amnesty and only applies to some 200,000 foreigners, I don't believe this is the time to be expediting or qualifiying anyones legal immigration status. In a year or two, after we've sorted things out, we can revisit the issue of legal immigration.
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.