Immigration bill's failure disappoints president

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 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.

University study in Arizona says half the illegals in Arizona are illegal because INS hasn't processed the paper to make 'em naturalized US Citizens. Nothing adverse about the paper, just slow feds.

Well, the University study is incorrect. To be a Naturalized US citizen, you must have been a Resident Alien for at least 5 years. So if they were Resident Aliens for 5 years, how can they be illegal?

As for being slow, that’s Congresses fault for not allowing INS to hire enough staff to do the job.

Well, the bill has failed anyway!

Well, temporarily, anyway.
We'll see what happens in the Senate.

Nevertheless, I think you deserve an award for your perseverance and constant criticism of GW!

Thank you... It's unfortunate that Bush apologists and Amnesty advocates had to be dragged kicking and screaming to the truth... those that have gotten there.
Everyone's fallible, even the President I voted for.

The innacurate screaming was done by those claiming that President Bush's proposed 245(i) extension wouldn't be an Amnesty in any form.

Read the article. As this article makes clear, this was Bush's intention all along. Let's try again.

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.
But immigration experts said passage of 245(i) is a minor issue between the United States and Mexico, affecting a small number of immigrants.

Get it? Section 245(i) was not going to create "amnesty for millions of illegal aliens" as the provocateurs on these threads were screaming. This was the proverbial mountain out of a molehill.

However, the paranoid "sky is falling" Bush-haters that inundate these threads couldn't see it. Even with this article, their blind unreasoning hatred prevents them from seeing that this was the game plan - politics.

So much bombast and vitriol over a bill that didn't even pass. What a waste of bandwidth.

Get it? Section 245(i) was not going to create "amnesty for millions of illegal aliens" as the provocateurs on these threads were screaming. This was the proverbial mountain out of a molehill.
However, the paranoid "sky is falling" Bush-haters that inundate these threads couldn't see it. Even with this article, their blind unreasoning hatred prevents them from seeing that this was the game plan - politics.

So much bombast and vitriol over a bill that didn't even pass. What a waste of bandwidth.

Frankly, the waste is trying to convince those who will never admit a fault in Bush.
Your ongoing misrepresentations and false charicatures of your opponents speaks more about your objectivity than theirs.
You fail, again, to address the known axiom:
Amnesty for Illegals encourages more Illegals.
I realize it's an easy problem to ignore when you don't have to deal with it and have never confronted it. You should consider your lack of adequate perspective when speaking of others' bombast.

I got news for ya ! The sky has been falling for a long time. The ten million illegal aliens (nobody knows how many for sure)now in the U.S. are the detrius of over twenty years of falling skies. And remember it was a few of those precious, deserving, hardworking, family value instilled, potential conservative GOP diehards, just looking for a better life illegal alien visa overstayers that actually caused four jets and several buildings to fall.

The battle over 245(i) is just one confrontation in a titanic struggle over amnesties for illegal aliens, reducing illegal immigration and enforcing our borders and immigration laws.

P.S. That last graphic was pretty neat.

There are Americans with Spanish surnames in all of the southwestern states whose families have been American ever since those states entered the union. IMO, it's disrespectful to call them hispanics or anything else other than Americans. They aren't immigrants and they aren't Mexicans and none of them that I ever met like the invasion from Mexico any more than I do.

I would be very surprised if Bush doesn't lose the votes of most of those folks who voted for him in 2000. There are a lot of conservatives among the old Southwestern families and they don't need for anyone to speak garbled broken Spanish to them or to promise to let invaders from Mexico take over the states their families played a large part in building.

If Tio Jorge really thinks he's going to please those folks, the oldest families in the Southwest, with this nonsense, he's even dumber than he looks. I don't think he's dumb though. I think he just doesn't care about anything except advancing the same agenda his daddy lived for.

Sorry, young lady, but that is really some starry-eyed nonsense. Your source is having some credibility probs right now as well, in case you didn't know.

Every treacherous move Bush makes can't be explained away as some brilliant "strategery" of his aimed at destroying the hapless dems. Anyone with both eyes open should be able to see that Bush is as Uncle Bill's post describes him.

Describing your elders as "the sky is falling types" is pretty disrespectful of you, too. Observing that a sitting president isn't what his followers swear he is can hardly be called Chicken Little behavior.

The sky has been falling for a long time. The ten million illegal aliens (nobody knows how many for sure)now in the U.S. are the detrius of over twenty years of falling skies.

LOL! You could argue with Sabertooth about that. But just tell me, OVER TWENTY YEARS huh? And what does it have to do with GW?

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 and it didn't even pass.

Your ongoing misrepresentations and false charicatures of your opponents speaks more about your objectivity than theirs.

Funny how everyone you debate is guilty of misrepresentation. A few weeks ago, your opponents were all dancing to the waltz of the strawmen. Now they're lying outright.
Of course you would never stoop to anything like that.

At last I have my very own self-indulgent and annoying moniker icon to highlight my posts.

There is no amnesty for illegals by Bush because the bill wasn't about amnesty for illegals and it didn't even pass.

Last first. It didn't pass, and it wan't defeated... it's being held up in Senate. The outcome is uncertain. In any case, while it's true that without passage, this is not Amnesty, that doesn't speak to the President's intent.
And now for this... "the bill wasn't about amnesty for illegals."
The bill is about many things, mainly: much needed Homeland Security measures. But there was a last minute ammendment to the bill, which extends a deadline for Illegal aliens to "change status" to legal. This ammendment was pushed by the Bush Administration. He could have pushed an ammendment which only extended the deadline for those foreign nationals who came here legally and had their paperwork screwed up by the INS. He didn't.
President Bush pushed an ammendment which was simply Amnesty by another name. Letting Illegals stay in America = Amnesty for those Illegals.
To suggest otherwise is reminiscent of those who said President Clinton didn't have sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky.
And do you know what's troublesome? We know all of this, but some don't want to believe it. It's been proven, but they don't want to hear it.
Proof doesn't seem to matter to Bush Apologists, if it would lead them to conclude something unpleasant about President Bush.
I voted for the man, but I'm honest enough to speak the truth when he's wrong.

A few weeks ago, your opponents were all dancing to the waltz of the strawmen.

No, while I haven't run across your posts since then, I did see a few of those fallacies last night.

Now they're lying outright.

Guess what? That's not what I said.
Straw man.

"I voted for the man, but I'm honest enough to speak the truth when he's wrong."

Depends what the meaning of truth is for you.

In any case, while it's true that without passage, this is not Amnesty, that doesn't speak to the President's intent.

You are now talking about the President's intent? Give me a break!

This ammendment was pushed by the Bush Administration. He could have pushed an ammendment

Could've, would've, should've. It's vital the next time GW consults the infallible master Sabertooth!

President Bush pushed an ammendment which was simply Amnesty by another name. Letting Illegals stay in America = Amnesty for those Illegals. And do you know what's troublesome? We know all of this, but some don't want to believe it. It's been proven, but they don't want to hear it.

And you are using your previous statement to prove your current statement. I see.

Proof doesn't seem to matter to Bush Apologists, if it would lead them to conclude something unpleasant about President Bush.

Which Bush apologists are you talking about? You wouldn't be talking about me, would you? I asked you to prove your comments regarding myself: "Your ongoing misrepresentations and false charicatures of your opponents speaks more about your objectivity than theirs."

And you failed to do so!

Guess what? That's not what I said.

Straw man.

The straw is between your ears.
To accuse Victoria of "ongoing misrepresentations and false charicatures (sic) of your opponents..." but claim you didn't say she was lying is Clintonian hairsplitting and pettifoggery at its finest.
Incidentally, a verbatim quote followed by an accurate paraphrase is not a strawman. I'm sure you knew that, but couldn't resist the ongoing misrepresentation and false caricature of your opponents.

"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.

Notice the spin in this article. They deliberately avoid the term "illegal", even though they used "legal" in the first instance. Instead they call them "undocumented immigrants".

To accuse Victoria of "ongoing misrepresentations and false charicatures (sic) of your opponents..." but claim you didn't say she was lying is Clintonian hairsplitting and pettifoggery at its finest.

Incidentally, a verbatim quote followed by an accurate paraphrase is not a strawman.

Correct on the latter, and I'm sorry paraphrasing accurately is such a struggle for you.
In the heat of the moment, even the best of folks can say things, misrepresent things, or make false caricatures of opponents, without being guilty of anything like outright lying.
Such distinctions are hardly hair-splitting.

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.