Posted on 03/23/2002 12:25:55 AM PST by sarcasm
WASHINGTON -- In the weeks leading up to President Bush's trip to Latin America, including a stopover in Mexico, the White House was aggressively pushing Congress to approve a bill allowing undocumented immigrants to stay in the United States while applying for green cards.
The bill passed the House but never made it to the Senate floor for a vote.
The failure to get the bill signed into law in time for the trip abroad was a disappointment for Bush, who wanted to show Mexican President Vicente Fox that his administration was serious about helping the estimated 3 million to 4 million undocumented Mexican immigrants who live in the United States.
Bush, speaking to reporters the day before his Latin American trip, insisted that congressional approval of the measure is a friendly gesture to its southern neighbor.
"I want to show our friends, the Mexicans, that we are compassionate about people who live here on a legal basis, that we don't disrupt the families for people who are here legally," he said.
Passage of the bill would, in fact, allow certain undocumented immigrants to file residency applications without having to leave the country. Current law, covered by Section 245(i) of the U.S. immigration statute, requires such immigrants to return home for as long as 10 years.
To qualify, immigrants would need a family member or employer as a sponsor and need to prove the relationship existed before Aug. 15, 2001. They also would have to pay a $1,000 fine and prove that they were in the country on or before Dec. 21, 2000.
The Mexican government claims between 300,000 and 500,000 Mexicans could be eligible under 245(i).
But immigration experts said passage of 245(i) is a minor issue between the United States and Mexico, affecting a small number of immigrants.
"I think some people in the White House had hoped that this 245(i) bamboozle might fool Mexicans into thinking it was an extraordinary gesture, but the Mexicans understand this one is a minute gesture," said Demetrios Papademetriou, co-director of the Washington-based Migration Policy Institute. A change in 245(i) change "is to pretend as if we were doing something."
If the debate over 245(i) is any indication, that kind of legislation would be doomed.
Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle said objections to the 245(i) provision by Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va, and some Republicans made it difficult to bring the measure to a vote before the Senate left town.
Byrd is chairman of the powerful Appropriations Committee, which has a major say in how much the administration can spend each year.
In an angry speech on the Senate floor this week, Byrd said he opposed the measure because he thought it would encourage more illegal immigration and would reopen "another crack in the system through which a potential terrorist can crawl."
"Section 245(i) acts as an incentive, a lure, for illegal immigration by suggesting that it is quicker and more convenient to enter the country illegally than to wait outside the United States to complete the visa application process," he said.
This question is an acid test of someon's B.S. quotient vis-a-vis illegal immigration and the nation's immigration laws. If a person is not in favor of at least some deportations of illegals I don't see how they can be against illegal immigration. One who is agaist deportations advocates laws without penalties. Such laws are ignored. That is why we have 10,000,000 (who really knows how many?) illegals here now. Americaa's resistance to interior enforcement and deportations exacerbates the problem and has led us to the the national collective handwringing about what to do with all these illegals.
Two demurrals:
1. America doesn't resist interior enforcement and deportations, our bipartisan federal government does.
2. We don't have a national collective handwringing about what to do with the Illegals, we have an elitist collective handwringing.
That's accurate to me and also a mystery to me. I can't understand why so many Americans are neutral, uncommitted, disinterested and PC about this issue. Polls show that Americans oppose illegal immigration and amnesties yet they cannot transform that will into action through the Federal Government. Joe sixpack and the Soccer Moms just don't care enough about ten million illegals to get the Feds to act. The so called cultural elites can control the spin but they can't control the average American's mind.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A620-2002Mar22.html
Correct... Especially when that issue is the unswerving faith in a President, whether right or wrong, true or false, Republican or Democrat.
I'm not sure I follow the premise of your question. In any case, I posed to Luis a question of my own that you might be willing to answer for yourself:
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?
Yes, in an open forum... I don't see the problem.Would you like to answer the question I posed about Illlegals at #128?
The fine itself is the penalty for the violation of INS procedure, it changes the status quo of the person fined. Congress is changing the law, and along with it, they are changing the penalty for non-compliance. You yourself may not approve of the changes being considered by Congress, but they are empowered by the constitution to do what they are doing.
If indeed this ever passes, Congress can also reverse itself, and go back to sending these people back home to apply (or in many cases re-apply) for entry anytime they so desire, it’s their constitutional prerogative to do so.
"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."
That’s a load Saber. The fact that he pays a fine means that he didn’t get away with the crime! When you get a speeding ticket, does it mean that you got away with the crime of exceeding posted speed limits?
Again, you may not agree with the penalty, but it is a penalty nevertheless.
"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."
No, not technically correct, just correct. The rest of the sentence is just so much emotional claptrap from you.
"True. Congress and the President are Constitutionally empowered to ignore the will of the American people and allow illegals to have Amnesty. But Constitutionality isn't the issue."
Once again, you are descending into the depths of hormonal imbalance and getting all emotional on me. Congress is charged with establishing immigration laws, that’s what they are doing.
Coincidentally, the last poll that I read on the subject tells me that 72% of Americans are in favor of Bush signing the Campaign Finance Reform bill, so then, Bush should sign it and heed the will of the American people, right?
"The issue at hand is the wisdom of Bush's desire to grant Amnesty to certain illegals."
That’s all you have left now, the word itself is the only thing you got to hold on to, isn't?.
"…what percentage of illegals would you be willing to see deported?”
That’s a silly question! One hundred percent of those illegal immigrants that should not be here should be deported. That is why I support this initiative by President Bush to identify immigrants with a legitimate claim to an INS hearing, and a chance to become productive American citizens. The rest can go back.
Yo quiero Taco Bell!
That is: 100% of the Illegals who don't get an Amnesty should be deported.
You're really bold.
One entry found for amnesty.
Then I thought, well, I better define "pardon" too.
So here's is Webster's on the word pardon:
Main Entry: 1par·don
Pronunciation: 'pär-d&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from pardoner
Date: 14th century
1 : INDULGENCE 1
2 : the excusing of an offense without exacting a penalty
3 a : a release from the legal penalties of an offense b : an official warrant of remission of penalty
4 : excuse or forgiveness for a fault, offense, or discourtesy <I beg your pardon
"...the excusing of an offense without exacting a penalty..."
(in best Mexican accent)But, but, but señor! We pay mucho dinero in penalty! Theez eez no amnesty!
Ay! Chihuahua!
If the BATF was run like the INS, I could keep howitzers in my backyard and fire them across San Diego morning noon and night.
That says everything..
It's very insightful.
Bold? You don't agree that we should deport 100% of those aliens who are found to here ilegally?
Yo quiero Taco Bell!
"...those aliens who are found to here be ilegally?
Yo quiero Taco Bell!No kidding. I have to obey the law or be punished.
Then, an entire class of criminal is declared exempt?
It's an insult.. It's an insult to the intelligence of the listener.
You're absolutely right. You should address your concern to Twodees since he brought it up in reply #90. Don't blame me for responding in his own words:
"Observing that a sitting president isn't what his followers swear he is can hardly be called Chicken Little behavior."
We've been hearing the same dire apocalyptic warnings, the same wailing and gnashing of teeth about the threat of immigration since even before the country gained independence.
In 1753, Benjamin Franklin warned that the influx of German immigrants threatened to destroy the predominantly English culture and language in the colonies. It didn't happen. A century later, Senator Henry Cabot Lodge warned against the deadly influx of immigrants from Central and Southern Europe, whom he described as people of a different race with whom Americans have never assimilated. His warnings proved specious as well. Today, it is Pat Buchanan and the 21st century equivalent of the Know Nothings who issue apocalyptic warnings about illegal immigration, primarily from Mexico.
Everything people say about Mexicans on these threads -- that they refuse to assimilate or learn the language, that they are ignorant and lazy and inclined to criminality -- was said about each earlier generations of immigrants. The poor Irish who came penniless and hungry during the Irish potato famine were vilified in even worse terms than the Mexicans today. The Italians were ignorant, dirty and predisposed to crime. The Jews refused to assimilate - not that anyone wanted them to. The Poles were ignorant and unable to assimilate. Etc. etc.
Each time it was pointed out that the same arguments had been made before and proved to be unfounded, the anti-immigration crowd insisted that the current wave of immigrants was different from the earlier ones. They then proceed to describe the new wave in exactly the same unflattering terms as the previous group was described.
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).
What you believe is irrelevant. Let's look at the facts, shall we?
Which of course contradicts everything Bush said a few days ago when he purposely mislead Americans into thinking that he was going to drop Amnesties from his open border agenda. As some have pointed out, given that Bush twisted arms to get the 245I amnesty rammed through the House and only "specified" which amnesties he won't support he was in fact acknowledging that he is FOR "more" amnesties and FOR the legalization of millions of illegal aliens. Bush also admitted that his administration would not enforce federal laws against illegal immigration because the business community doesn't want him to. At least he was honest about that.Does this surprise anyone? Unless Congress can shut down Bush's insane open borders agenda our nation faces ever increasing perils to its sovereignty and security.
21 posted on 3/17/02 1:58 PM Pacific by Wrhine
_______________________________
There have been signals from the White House for months (since even before 9/11) that President Bush is looking at a bigger Amnesty proposal that would give green cards to 3.5 million to 5 million illegals.
100 ILLEGAL e-mails in 24 hours? Posted by Sabertooth - LINK.
_______________________________
Next time tell Mr President Jorge Bush that we voted for him in 2000 because we had to get rid of the vice traitor Al Gore. He needs us to get reelected. If he betrays us and gives amnesty to millions of illegals not only will we not vote for him but we will all get hundreds and thousands of other people to also vote against him. So just obey the constitution Mr President.
30 posted on 3/11/02 11:19 AM Pacific by majordivit
_____________________________
These are just a few examples out of many similar posts you will find on these threads. Unfortunately I don't have time to collect them for posterity. These posts should give you an idea how much hysteria and hyperbole this issue generates.
Pointing out irrationality and ignorance is not demagoguery and obfuscation.
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.