Bush revives bid to legalize illegal aliens

Washington Times ^ | November 10, 2004 | Bill Sammon

[hedgetrimmer]

What is pushing him to this?

The FTAA.

The FTAA creates an entity like the EU – and leads to the abolition of meaningful national borders. Once ratified, the immigration problem is solved, because there will only migration of populations at will.

[Ghost of Philip Marlowe]

There are two points to the 'logic' on this issue.

1. They believe that there is no way to humanely prevent illegal immigration. Anything they do would look cruel and unusual (such as setting up military posts on the military or mass deportation). So, instead of trying to prevent it, they just 'legalize' it. The 'logic' runs along this line: "Why haven't you fixed the leaky pipes in your house? There's water everywhere and its ruining your home." "Why fix the leaky pipes? Doesn't everyone like an indoor pool?"

2. These 'pipes' are leaking votes. And don't underestimate the Mexican, Central, and South American (I've looked several times and have not found the country of Hispania) vote as being able to vote together as a bloc. And they are very vulnerable to swing for either party, Republicans on family, faith, and values issues, Democrat on jobs and minority preferences.

Either way, it's bad logic or logic based upon immoral decisions.

[Stu Cohen]

In terms of immigration, it was a lesser-of-two evils decision.

Shouldn't we be getting tired of the "lessor of two" evils every four years?

I mean, really ... should we have a "no evils" candidate at some point?

Do not Americans deserve that? Or do we get the Government we deserve?

[Spiff]

I guess you can go the Congress route, but one would be hard pressed to find a reason that the President need give a rat's ass about his base anymore. He just got a mandate. Didn't you hear?

You're right! And that is exactly who we need to target. We need to ensure that we're on record with Republican Congressman that this crap CAN'T go through! No way, no how!! We need to take a quick look to see what committees this legislation has to pass through and target that Republican members of that committee and its chairman.

Tancredo will likely be leading this fight and we'll want to take come of our cues from him. Tancredo won't succeed unless we're burning up the phones and faxes doing our thing so that he can point to the conservative groundswell of opposition while he does his thing.

[mudblood]

"losing me fast"

He got 42 percent of the latino vote, nation wide. Do you really want the republican party to just be a dwindling population of white men? Immigration enforcement isn't working, won't ever work perfectly, and in the meantime we have a real problem on our hands. I understand your anger, and at one time felt that way myself, but I really think legalizing their status is the way to go - while at the same time enforcing illegal border crossings. You can do both.

[Ghost of Philip Marlowe]

So his first week after a historic reelection and this is the first policy statement he releases?

Obviously, he is doing this as part of his reaching-across-the aisle effort.

Before we jump to conclusions, however, think about the 'strategery' that may be employed here. He knows that this effort will die in the Congress. He is doing it early in his second term. Presidents often put forth the 'gimmies' they know will fail early in their term so that it goes down in flames and people forget.

So how would that explain this as mere strategy? He proposes a form of amnesty (regardless of the wording, it's an amnesty) early in his term. It goes down in flames. He shrugs toward the Mexican, etc. vote and says, "I tried." His base forgets about by 08. By 08 the new Rep. candidate can appeal to the Mex, etc. vote and say, "We're the party that tried to give an amnesty to you. Vote us in and we'll try again."

Unfortunately, this is the same flawed thinking that destroyed the first Bush, placing reaching-across-the-aisle above your base and, most importantly, above the principles that the base represents.

[Paul Ross]

You're welcome. As you can see, opponents to open borders are not insensible to the plight of the oppressed. Quite the reverse. The concern is quite legitimate that U.S. being the social safety valve for Mexico perpetuates its continued Marxian refusal to reform its economics to promote upward mobility. Mexico's policies are so duplicitous. Masquerading under proletarian rhetoric...they create and enforce the class-divide.

[jpsb]

"I saw first hand the lazy, pathetic attitudes of whites towards aliens in Beaumont TX a few years ago when the Vietnamese refugees settled along the gulf coast. They DOMINATED the shrimp industry in a matter of years because they would work harder, longer, and for less money."

They did the same in my areas, Galveston Bay, Uncle Sugar daddy bought them all boats, American Shrimpers had to work and save for YEARS to get a boat, Uncle sugar daddy gave them all a license, American Shrimpers had to pay thousands and wait YEARS to get a license.

Now EVERYONE is poor, (could that be the plan?) cause the the bay has been over fished by to many boats, and to many cheaters shrimping at night in off limit areas.

I like the Vietnamese, friendly, hard working people but they have ruined our bay. Your example sucks. Also the Veitnamese came here as REAL immigrants, to stay and make a new life, illegals from the south are here to diss us, rob us and eventually kill us. They seem to think that this land really belongs to them and they want it back. There plan to take it back is to overwhelm us with illegal immigration.

The list of great nations that have either fallen or almost fell due to "illegal immigration" .

[Deport Billary]

Bush lost my vote when he was pushing this plan back in January. His approval rating went into the toilet during that fiasco, and he stopped talking about immigration. During the O'Reilly interview he made it clear that he had no interest in stopping the illegal alien invasion. Now that Bush has fooled conservatives into supporting him, he will enact his true agenda.

[PajamaTruthMafia]

Let me play devil's advocate here. Consider this:

No matter what happens Hispanics will continue to be a bigger part of the population.

Most Hispanics are devote Catholics and socially very conservative. They are against abortion (hence the high birth rate), Gay marriage, etc., etc.

Bush made huge inroads into the Hispanic community. They are not rubber-stamp democrats and could very well turn out to become staunch Republicans if they aren't pushed away. My experience is, like Italians, Latinos value family and family tradition above all else.

The general consensus is, these people genuinely come here to work - not simply to become part of the welfare state.

We need to think strategically about the future. If we can expand the base and tackle the bigger issues why would we push them away?

[international american]

I have just 2 things to say to our fellow freepers.

1) If you don't live in California or Arizona, you do not have a clue what illegal immigration has done to our states

2) If you do live in Cal or Arizona, and see no problem, you are a masochist!!

[Barlowmaker]

You guys put Randy Graf against Jim Kolbe and failed miserably. You can't even convince the Republicans in your own district of your great pain and betrayal.

[Stu Cohen]

Immigration enforcement isn't working, won't ever work perfectly

No, but it can work better. Much better. And I am pretty sure that you know this.

It is very hard to immigrate to other countries. Even countries with higher life-expectancies and better qualities of life (by most measures than we generally accept).

Try setting up shop in Switzerland, Iceland, or any Scandinavian country, and see how that works out for you. Higher life expectancy, lower infant mortality, better overall health (even with that awful socialized medicine that every other country with a tax rate even close to ours has).

And they hardly have militiaries.

A country of our resources CAN control the borders. It's just a matter of will.

If we can take over whole nations, we can control a 2,000 miles strip of land not more than half a mile wide.

If we want to.

[riri]

Every time I got a request for money from the RNC, I wrote CLOSE THE BORDERS with a big black Sharpie across the top and mailed it back empty

LOL. So, did I.

And the strange thing is--they stopped sending them after two or three.

And even stranger--I didn't get one call from the campaign the whole election cycle.

[Stu Cohen]

You guys put Randy Graf against Jim Kolbe and failed miserably. You can't even convince the Republicans in your own district of your great pain and betrayal.

Don't blame me, I voted for Sharpton!

(yes, it was a joke)

[kstewskis]

1) Crossing the border illegaly.

2) Driving without a licensse (estimated to be 40% of all LA drivers)

3) Driving without insurance

4) Obtaining a job without a work permit

Oh yeah, thanks for adding those.

btw, bump to your post #101. I'm an LA refugee, fortunately escaped out of there 13 years ago.

[Ghost of Philip Marlowe]

Well, the maxim is true. In a democracy, the people get the government they deserve.

Alexander Tyler's observation is also true, that all democracies are doomed to short histories because once the people realize they can vote themselves money from the public largess, the economies are bound to fail.

Unfortunately, where we are today is the Republicans and Democrats are both confident with their bases. Thus they appeal to the 'moderate' and 'undecideds', those that want the government to provide for them any other voting blocs that are up for grabs. I have a couple of other posts on this thread with more thoughts on this issue.

I agree with your point, though. I wish we weren't forced into a lesser-of-two-evils decision, but had candidates who offered a clear decision one way or the other on all of these top issues, but that's the reality.

As I've said before, when a strict Jeffersonian or otherwise true conservative constitutionalist can guarantee at least an equal three-way split, I'll vote for that candidate. Until then, voting for a third-party candidate who stands no chance of winning actually helps to elect the greater of the two evils. Between elections, we should be working hard to get those third-party candidates up and running so that the other two parties are forced to take a stand on the issues and stick to it.

[chris1]

I was thinking the plan should be to put these people to work for 5 years as earned citizenship.

They can work on the roads, painting bridges, etc. After 5 years, they get their citizenship.

If they don't like that, they can leave or be deported.

[chris1]

The result of this mess will be that illegals will hop to the front of the line and we will get more illegals and more employers who scam the system.

I have heard nothing about enforcement!