Posted on 03/23/2002 12:25:55 AM PST by sarcasm
Real interesting Bill, real interesting. Everyone should click on that link.
One thing about that claim and the post it links you to. THE ARTICLE IS ABOUT WHAT PAUL CELLUCI SAID WHILE HE WAS AMBASSADOR OF CANADA! THERE ISN'T A SINGLE QUOTE FROM BUSH IN THE ENTIRE ARTICLE! AND YOU ATTRIBUTE THE WHOLE THING TO BUSH!
More to come Bill!
Please proceed.
I doubt he'll shrink or find somewhere to be or someone to talk to.
If Bush changing his mind on an issue is a lie (CFR), then what will be call it when Bill credits Bush with statements made by others in order to place the President in a bad light?
Saying Bush said something when in fact it is clearly evident that he didn't is a lie.
The reason behind the lie is another subject altogether.
BTW, did you click on the link?
Is that sort of thing OK by you then?
Besides, you're missing a key disclaimer in the second paragraph:
Mr. Cellucci, the former governor of Massachusetts and a close friend of George W. Bush, the U.S. President, suggested the borders between Canada, the United States and Mexico be dismantled with the aim of achieving a more fully integrated economy
The "personal" dimension cannot be underestimated for this particular President. For example, listen to Tom Ridge ... another former Governor who is basing his dispatch of the gabillions we're handing Der Homeland Defense office on the purely personal.
Ridge said the administration might do some reorganizing of the federal government that would require new laws."We may make some recommendations about the integration or consolidation of some of these departments that will certainly need congressional approval," Ridge said.
The ex-Marine and former Pennsylvania governor predicted, however, that he would not seek legal authority for his own office because the president's personal support is enough for Ridge to do his job coordinating homeland security operations.
"I've got all the authority I need," Ridge said. "I've gotten $38 billion in (budget) authority in four months," Ridge said, referring to funds in Bush's budget proposal. "That is not so bad."
Ridge: Gov't Might Need Reorganizing
See? That's the beauty of it's being a folksy, down-home, Family sort of operation.
When a President's personal assurances are enough and positions of real responsibility and policy making are best-suited to "close friends" ... it's important you acknowledge the message they're sending right up at the top, Luis.
The article may not have a direct quote by Bush but indeed it bears the imprimatur of his express will.
President Promotes Secure and "Open Borders" in El Paso
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
March 21, 2002
Remarks by the President in El Paso Welcome
El Paso International Airport
El Paso, Texas
Policy in Focus: U.S. - Mexico Border Partnership Agreement
11:33 A.M. MST
To read the rest of the "open border" words in the day of the life of George W. Bush, please click the link below:
President Promotes Secure and "Open Borders" in El Paso
President Promotes Secure and "Open Borders" in El Paso - Free Republic
"Mexico is an incredibly important part of the futuro de los Estados Unidos. (Applause.) And the border, la frontera, is a very important part of our relationship."
Bush to Open Country to Mexican Truckers
I'm getting some sleep now. Thanks.
The illegal alien problem in the magnitude that the nation is experiencing it today has its roots in the late 70's to early 80's. As the economy boomed in the 80's and as employers sought out low wage labor from legal and illegal immigrants the huge inflow of illegals was stimulated to its present tidal wave proportions.
And what does it have to do with GW?
The topic at hand is GW and illegal aliens
I know GW gets blame for everything that goes wrong. But let's stay on topic, we are talking about "amnesty for illegals by Bush" and I got news for you, you know what? There is no amnesty for illegals by Bush because the bill wasn't about amnesty for illegals...
Amnesty, n 2.a deliberate overlooking as of an offense. Webster's new universal unabridged Dictionary
As 245(i) would overlook (amnesty) the fact that a person may have entered the U.S. illegally and that 245(i) would overlook (amnesty) provisions of the Federal Laws requiring such a person to return to their home country to wait for an adjustment of status, I think 245(i) qualifies as an amnesty.
....and it didn't even pass.
It passed the House thanks to a greater effort on the part of the White House than was expended on behalf of Federal Court nominee Pickering. (Which says something about the sentiments of the Bush White House). It hasn't yet come up for a vote in the Senate. We'll see what happens there.
It was never millions as most of "the sky is falling" types on these threads were screaming about.
I believe you will not find many if any quotes attributable to opponents of 245(i) on recent threads that allude to the millions who would receive amnesty under 245(i). Whether millions or thousands receive amnesty is not the entire point. The word amnesty resonates throughout the immigrant / illegal immigrant community like a lightning bolt. Amnesties (I believe that four amnesties have been enacted since 1986) draw illegal aliens to the United States like moths to a light. Calling opponents of 245(i) "Chicken Littles" screaming about an amnesty for millions is demagoguery and obfuscation.
Personally I don't hate President Bush. I know he has a great personal affinity for Mexico and Mexicans. I think his judgement gets clouded by these sentiments. I hope it is just a personal affinity and not a deeper desire to join the U.S. and Mexico more closely economically and culturally. I suspect that deep within himself he would look favorably a political union between the U.S. and Mexico. I hope I am wrong about this last point but I just don't know.
Also, if you think Bush (or anyone else)could have foreseen how this whole 245(i) scenario would have played out including the one vote margin in the House and Sen Robert Byrd's (!!??) one man stand against an amnesty, well as we say in NYC I have a nice slightly used bridge I'd like you to consider.
That's some of the most desperate spin I have ever seen.
Bill attributed a statement to Bush, and there is nothing on that page that supports his sensationalized headline.
Ninety-nine times out of one hundred, the simple explanation is the truth.
Bill lied, he did it to further his own agenda.
P.S. Clinton's A Liar we all know was an operative in Keyes campaign, working with him quite closely if I am correct. I should, according to your logic here, be able to dig up all of CAL's old posts and attribute them to Keyes, right?
Your interpretation of the definition of amnesty as it applies here is a bit off.
245(i) does not "pardon" anyone, it imposes a fine.
It doesn't grant legal status, individuals still have to go through the naturalization process, and may still be turned down for permanent legal status.
The Bill temporarily changes immigration law (one of the constitutional powers granted to the US Congress by the constitution) by extending the life of an already existing law.
Segment of speech by President Bushat El Paso, March 21, 2002:
"Mexico is an incredibly important part of the futuro de los Estados Unidos. (Applause.) And the border, la frontera, is a very important part of our relationship. It is essential that Americans understand the nature of this border. And that's why I'm going to be going to a border crossing point to make this point: On the one hand, we want the legal commerce, the people who travel back and forth on a daily basis, the brothers and sisters on both sides of the border, the relatives that have been coming back and forth for years, to be able to do so in an efficient and easy way. We want that kind of traffic, that kind of border crossing to be done in an expeditious way. It's good for Juarez and it's good for El Paso, Texas." (Applause.)
"On the other hand, we want to use our technology to make sure that we weed out those who we don't want in our country -- the terrorists, the coyotes, the smugglers, those who prey on innocent life." (Applause.)
Bush wants to stop he coyotes and smugglers, and wants to facilitate commerce between the two countries?
This is a bad thing?
You and others are busy pressuming what Bush MAY HAVE SAID through the mouths of others (what in legaleze would be considered to be hearsay, and inadmissible in a Court of Law), and twist what he does say to suit your agenda.
Bush is in favor of legal crossings at the border, he is against illegal crossings at the border.
If you speak about " border crossings, as he did, making direct reference to "weed(ing) out those who we don't want in our country..." , how could you interpret that to mean "open borders"?
Open borders would mean everyone gets in.
What is it about "deliberate overlooking" that is open to interpretation ? I stand by what I posted in #114
245(i) does not "pardon" anyone, it imposes a fine.
Compare paying a fine of $1,000 with returning to one's homeland and waiting years for an adjustment of status. 245(i) contains a very substantial waiving, pardoning or overlooking of a serious penalty.
It imposes a fine, but doesn't compel the lawbreaker to return to the status quo before his illegality. That status quo would be the physical presence of the lawbreaker in his country of origin, not in America.
When the criminal pays a fine but is allowed to get away with the crime, that fine is actually a fee. And that fee is a condition of his Amnesty, which occurs when our legal system allows a criminal to reap the benefits of his crimes
It doesn't grant legal status, individuals still have to go through the naturalization process, and may still be turned down for permanent legal status.
Technically correct. 245(i) itself is the process by which the INS determines whether or not particular Illegals can pay $1,000 to legally keep the ill-gotten gains of their criminality, which is their continued and unwanted presence in our country.
The Bill temporarily changes immigration law (one of the constitutional powers granted to the US Congress by the constitution) by extending the life of an already existing law.
True. Congress and the President are Consitutionally empowered to ignore the will of the American people and allow Illegals to have Amnesty. But Constitutionality isn't the issue.
The issue at hand is the wisdom of Bush's desire to grant Amnesty to certain Illegals.
Luis, let me ask you a question... there are estimates of anywhere from 5 million to 13 million Illegals in the United States. Whatever the number, what percentage of Illegals would you be willing to see deported?
- 90%?
- 50%?
- 10%?
- Some other %?
- Or none at all?
A better explanation of the obvious than I have thus far accomplished.
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.
