Ridge: Give illegal entrants 'status'

Ridge: Give illegal entrants 'status' A top Bush administration official suggests at a town hall meeting in Miami that illegal immigrants should be granted limited legal status. BY MICHAEL VASQUEZ mrvasquez@herald.com

Department of Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge said Tuesday that he believes the vast majority of illegal immigrants in the United States are not a threat to national security and should be given ``some kind of legal status.''

Ridge's comments came during a town hall meeting at Miami Dade College in response to a question from the audience about whether offering amnesty to illegal immigrants might make them easier to track and make the country safer.

While saying any changes in immigration laws would have to be approved by Congress, Ridge said he believed there was growing momentum to change the way the nation dealt with illegal immigrants.

''I'm not saying make them citizens,'' Ridge said. ``They violated our laws to get here. You don't reward that kind of conduct.''

Ridge provided no further explanation about how granting illegal immigrants limited legal status would work and what rights such a status would carry. A telephone call to a spokesperson for Ridge seeking further comment was not returned.

But the remarks by a key member of President Bush's cabinet suggests a shift in tone toward illegal immigrants.

Following the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, the Bush administration placed greater emphasis on protecting the nation's borders, enacting measures to thwart terrorists.

Efforts in Washington at reforming immigration policy essentially were put on hold. And immigrant advocates have said they perceive many of the Bush administration's national security measures to be anti-immigrant.

''I had no idea the [Bush administration] was seriously considering it,'' said Cheryl Little, executive director of the Florida Immigrant Advocacy Center.

Little said most antiterrorist initiatives adopted by the Bush administration jeopardize national security by making illegal immigrants distrustful of authorities.

Those supporting stricter U.S. immigration policy criticized Ridge's comments. Dan Stein, executive director of the Washington-based Federation for American Immigration Reform, said granting illegal immigrants additional rights would encourage more to head for U.S. borders.

''What security objective is accomplished by encouraging further lawbreaking?'' Stein asked. `

Stein said he believed that some illegal immigrants given limited legal status would provide authorities false biographical information.

The issue of granting illegal immigrants certain rights has proven volatile. Former California Gov. Gray Davis, citing post-Sept. 11 security concerns, vetoed a bill last year that would have allowed illegal immigrants to obtain California driver's licenses. A year later, facing a tough recall campaign, Davis signed a bill with fewer security safeguards. Some voters viewed Davis's turnabout as a political ploy to please the Democratic Party's Latino wing and the controversy contributed to Davis' defeat.

''I'm not saying make them citizens,'' Ridge said. ``They violated our laws to get here. You don't reward that kind of conduct.''

More bizarre behavior by Ridgie. If you don't reward law-breaking "conduct" with citizenship, why reward it with ANY kind of special "status"?

What on earth is this Adminitsration doing? Next they will give themselves enough rope to hang themselves. Soon Congress will pass a law granting "special status" to illegals. Bush will then sign, saying this will never be citizenship. Then Sandra Day and the Supremes will say the law makes them citizens (ignoring the 14th Amendment, or perhaps perverting it) and even allows them to run for President.

>> ''I'm not saying make them citizens,'' Ridge said. ``They violated our laws to get here. You don't reward that kind of conduct.''
Ridge: Give illegal entrants 'status'
Okay, Tom, let me see if I understand the logical syllogism here:
1. You don't reward illegal conduct.
2. Giving illegal entrants "status" is a reward.
3. Therefore, we should reward illegal conduct by giving illegal entrants status.

Hey, Tom, I have one for you:
1. Black is black.
2. White is white.
3. Therefore, black is white. <<

Simularly, the open-borders gang in congress has this logic: We should give blanket amnesty to illegal criminals, but ONLY to 'law abiding' illegal criminals, of course.

Perhaps someone will propose legislation to give amnesty to honest perjuriers and human cannibals who are vegetarians.

>> Ridge is a meathead who couldn't even deliver his own state to Bush in 2000. He is also an anti-gun nut. <<

But haven't you heard? The main reason to elect RINOs is they can MAGICALLY "deliever" their states to Republican Presidential Candidates. Just look at the results in 2000... George Ryan (IL), Ridge (PA), Almond (RI), Cellucci(MA), Whitman (NJ), etc. What a great track record!!! lol.

I'll be awaiting 2004 to see if the voters in California, New York, Hawaii, Connecticut, etc., rush to re-elect Bush due to their RINO governor giving a token endorsement. Unfortuanately, none of the RINO shrills here are willing to take up a bet with me and prove their little theory.

Oh well, they have to live with the "benefits" of electing those guys!

"But haven't you heard? The main reason to elect RINOs is they can MAGICALLY "deliever" their states to Republican Presidential Candidates."

Pennsylvania was a close thing last time around. The un-Americans in Philadelphis probably tipped the balance away from Bush. However, I really doubt that that Meathead will make a difference one way or the other in 2004.

As for New Jersey - Hell will freeze over before that state, flooded with illegal aliens and leftist refugees from their own soiled beds in New York City and Philadelphia goes for Bush.

As a matter of fact, the way things are going, I may not vote for Bush in 2004.

Yeah, he's been O.K. on the war against terrorism, and defending America is important - the Democrats don't do that.

BUT, WHAT is he ACTUALLY defending?? A man who supports the erosion of the First and Second Amendment, even as the best of two available alternatives for office, may not be an REAL alternative at all.

Yesterday the Supreme Court, led by that senile old b#tch O'Connor, together with the usual suspects - Souter, Breyer, Stevens and Bader-Ginsberg (who the Republicans in Congress never had the guts to filibuster and she should have been filibustered), undermined the First Amendment by making it illegal to criticize or attack office holders up to 30 days before a primary and 60 days before a general election. BUSH signed that bill. A Republican controlled Congress enacted it - and there was NO widespread public support for it. The ONLY people supporting it were the liberal news media, as they can continue to surreptitiously campaign for a candidate right up to the day of the election by carefully selected news articles, as we saw recently in california with the Los Angeles Times and the "groping" incident. And BUSH had the temerity to CONGRATULATE the Court on this monstrous, tyrannical, and unconstitutional decision!

When you have two parties as disparate as the NRA and the ACLU filing briefs against a law, you KNOW something is wrong with it.

Then there is Bush's statement supporting the extension of the Assault Rifle Bill.

We ALL know that the "Assault Rifle Bill" is a knee-jerk piece of legislation aimed at all types of semi-automatic long arms. The Second Amendment wasn't adopted to protect the right to hunt deer, collect guns, or target shoot. It was adopted as an assurance that average citizens were familiar with military style firearms so they could defend their country against attack by invaders from without, or tyrants from within.

Yet George Bush, despite his campaign promise to support EXISTING gun laws only, supports an EXTENSION of a BAD law, an unconstitutional one, which is due to EXPIRE.

Add to that Mr. Bush's failure to STOP immigration from Islamic countries, his failure to STOP illegal aliens from invading America, and his continual mouthings about Islam being a "peaceful" religion, lead me to question his suitablity to hold the highest office in the land.

Perhaps a few decades of rule under some real Bolsheviks like the Democratic left is really what the American public needs to awaken an interest in politics, and how the politicians and attorneys in BOTH parties are stealing their rights. It might even awaken in them the realization that is a very critical need for a third political party - one which provide a REAL alternative to the socialist Democrats since the Republicans have increasingly demonstrated their total ineptitude in providing an effective party of opposition, and can't even use their VICTORIES to adavantage, let alone recover from defeats - as the Dems seem so very able to do.

Republicans appear to equal Democratic Light.

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.