Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Bush Faces Early Test on Immigration Policy
Reuters via The New York Times ^ | November 14, 2004 | Reuters

Posted on 11/14/2004 12:26:55 PM PST by primeval patriot

The New York Times


November 14, 2004

Bush Faces Early Test on Immigration Policy

By REUTERS

Filed at 10:28 a.m. ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush faces an early test on immigration policy this week as Congress considers legislation denounced by Latino groups as anti-Hispanic and anti-immigrant.

Several provisions that would affect the lives of immigrants and asylum seekers found their way into a bill passed by the House of Representatives to reform the nation's intelligence services.

The bill stems directly from recommendations by the bipartisan commission which investigated the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on New York and Washington. The Senate version of the bill does not contain these immigration clauses.

House and Senate conferees will try once again to reconcile their differing bills when Congress reconvenes for a lame duck session this week. The White House is on record as strongly opposing some of the House provisions but it remains to be seen whether Bush is willing to expend any political capital by putting pressure on Republican legislators to drop them.

``The House Republicans think they have a strong hand on this and seem ready to go to the mat. They seem to want to paint immigrants as the bad guys in the war on terror,'' said Angela Kelley of the National Immigration Forum, a pro-immigration group.

Opponents of the House bill say it would make it more difficult for refugees to obtain political asylum in the United States by raising the standards of proof required. It would also make it easier for the authorities to deport non-citizens, including legal residents.

``The bill is the biggest assault we have ever seen on political asylum. If passed, it would make it incredibly difficult for anyone to be granted asylum in this country,'' said Erin Corcoran of Human Rights First.

The bill also seeks to prevent illegal immigrants from obtaining drivers' licenses and would withdraw recognition of ID cards issued by Latin American embassies that many immigrants carry that now allow them to open bank accounts, obtain drivers licenses and even board aircraft.

Mexico has issued over 2 million of the cards, known as the ``matricula consular'' to its nationals, whether they are in the United States legally or illegally, and several other Latin American countries also issue ID cards.

LATINOS DENOUNCE BILL

Four major Latino organizations issued a joint statement last month denouncing the provisions as ``anti-Latino and anti-immigrant.''

``These provisions will have a profound, negative impact on Latinos and other immigrants communities. They will not make us safer and, in fact, may make us less safe by driving a wedge between American communities and law enforcement,'' they said.

Wisconsin Republican Rep. James Sensenbrenner, a leading advocate of the bill, said all its provisions stemmed directly from the report of the 9/11 Commission.

``The legislation enhances security around our borders, and reduces opportunities for terrorists to enter and stay in the United States,'' he said. ``Every provision in this bill that is within the Judiciary Committee's jurisdiction, is tied directly to a specific recommendation made by the 9/11 Commission.''

Dan Stein of the Federation for American Immigration Reform, which favors reducing immigration, said the provisions would close loopholes in the nation's defenses by making it easier to identify, track and deport illegal immigrants.

But the 9/11 Commission itself said the immigration clauses were not part of its report.

``We believe strongly that this bill is not the right occasion for tackling controversial immigration and law enforcement issues that go well beyond the Commission's recommendations,'' Commission chair Thomas Kean and vice chair Lee Hamilton said in a letter last month.

Bush won 44 percent of the fast-growing Hispanic vote in the Nov. 2 presidential election, up from 35 percent in 2000 according to exit polls. His administration has said it wants to make immigration reform a major focus of his second term.

However, there is a strong element in the Republican Party that opposes any concessions to illegal immigrants and would like to see restrictions placed on legal immigration as well.


Copyright 2004 Reuters Ltd. | Home | Privacy Policy | Search | Corrections | RSS | Help | Back to Top


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Foreign Affairs; Government; Mexico; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: aliens; bush43; bushamnesty; homelandsecurity; immigrantlist; immigrationplan
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 141-154 next last
To: primeval patriot

It would not be impossible to address the problem of American employers hiring Criminal Illegal Aliens in clear violation of our Immigration Laws; and assessing a stiff fine of say $25,000 and a mandentory Prison sentence of 10 Years with no parole! This would get sombody's attention and after reading this they would have no excuse for doing so. This is clear and wilful violation of our country's laws and statutes. The taxpayers would get the relief they need and we would not have to impeach those representatives for not enforcing our laws!


21 posted on 11/14/2004 1:24:10 PM PST by winker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JonDavid

The fact that you an d OBL would like it, makes it OK. COntrol, COntrol, Control. If we can't control our own border, we can't control anything.

The searching of goods is paramount to finding weapons, druga and people trying to get into the country. Making things more difficult for OBL is good for America. Look at the job potential. This could be very good for our economy.

This could be done with the coasts also.


22 posted on 11/14/2004 1:29:17 PM PST by 26lemoncharlie (Defending America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: viaveritasvita
You're welcome! Here's another good one with free fax services:

http://comments@citizenslobby.com/

23 posted on 11/14/2004 1:48:21 PM PST by janetgreen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Budweiser
So does the Canadian border, actually, but the Canadians aren't barking demands and encouraging their hordes to invade this country like the Mexican government is.

The illegal alien advocates always bring up Canada and the East/West coasts when anyone mentions the millions streaming in from Mexico.

It's just another tactic to avoid the issue.

24 posted on 11/14/2004 1:53:12 PM PST by primeval patriot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: primeval patriot
The barrier would not be on an even line. You would also need to build secondary barriers & multiple barriers. Also, think about repair & maintenance of barrier.
25 posted on 11/14/2004 2:12:31 PM PST by JonDavid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: JonDavid
You would need a large (Millions) standing army to monitor the barrier.

Where are you getting this number from? If we had a barrier that would be impossible to cross without some major engineering, along with motion sensors, then we could guard the border quite well even with the numbers we have (about 9000). Tripling that number (which could be done with very little cost, comparatively speaking), would make it that much more secure.

26 posted on 11/14/2004 2:18:07 PM PST by inquest (Now is the time to remove the leftist influence from the GOP. "Unity" can wait.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: 26lemoncharlie

OBL would like it because the concept is poor and could be defeated. We live in the 21st century. President Bush mentioned that we tract the borders with satellites & drones. You would use a draft, not hire people.


27 posted on 11/14/2004 2:19:09 PM PST by JonDavid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: JonDavid
The barrier would not be on an even line.

We have 6000 miles of border, total. That includes all the squiggles.

You would also need to build secondary barriers & multiple barriers. Also, think about repair & maintenance of barrier.

Wouldn't be much compared to the cost of the interstate highway system.

28 posted on 11/14/2004 2:20:43 PM PST by inquest (Now is the time to remove the leftist influence from the GOP. "Unity" can wait.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: inquest

If you want to secure the US border, the way that you want to, you need boots on the ground. This is not Hollywood


29 posted on 11/14/2004 2:22:05 PM PST by JonDavid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: JonDavid
That's not much of an answer.

If you want to make your point, you need facts to the screen. This isn't Cannes.

30 posted on 11/14/2004 2:30:46 PM PST by inquest (Now is the time to remove the leftist influence from the GOP. "Unity" can wait.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: JonDavid
Take a look at the concrete barrier Israel built. I would estimate its height to be at least 35 feet. Few if any Mexicans would attempt to scale that monster.
31 posted on 11/14/2004 2:34:59 PM PST by GarySpFc (Sneakypete, De Oppresso Liber)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: primeval patriot

Of course the Latinos are against the bill -- to the tune of ominous threats!
Well, the President doesn't need to concern himself with losing their votes. He does need to heed the mandate he was given.
How many have written him concerning our open borders? How many have FAXed him about "no amnesty for illegal aliens"? We kept him in office to do "the right thing" for the country, not to hand out social security cards to people who are here against the law.
We calmly let him know our wishes, but we do not threaten anyone.


32 posted on 11/14/2004 2:40:13 PM PST by Paperdoll (.........on the cutting edge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: inquest

Of course, no one said it was going to be easy! It van be done. Uneven topography and all. Bulldozers move mountains. if Boulder dam can be built with the technology of the 30's the border can be controlled with the technology of the 21st century. Building a wall/fence CAN BE DONE.

The knowledge that it exists with landmines between the wall/fences is a deterrent.


33 posted on 11/14/2004 2:40:53 PM PST by 26lemoncharlie (Defending America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: inquest
Wouldn't be much compared to the cost of the interstate highway system.

Also note Eisenhower justified construction of the interstates as necessary for our national security.

These cheap labor dopes toss aside our southern frontier as being too expensive too secure.

34 posted on 11/14/2004 2:51:12 PM PST by primeval patriot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: JonDavid
This is not Hollywood

Your posts read like a bad sitcom script.

Millions of miles border. Millions of troops to defend the border. We're all going to starve to death. There'll be a draft.

Nothing but baseless gloom and doom scaremongering.

35 posted on 11/14/2004 2:55:02 PM PST by primeval patriot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: primeval patriot
Four major Latino organizations issued a joint statement last month denouncing the provisions as ``anti-Latino and anti-immigrant.''

What ever happened to "pro-American?"

36 posted on 11/14/2004 3:38:29 PM PST by risk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JonDavid

The irony of it is, most of the people who want walls and troops on the border also demand reduced federal spending and smaller government.


37 posted on 11/14/2004 3:41:39 PM PST by CWOJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: CWOJackson

We we'll be seeing neither with this administration.


38 posted on 11/14/2004 4:02:58 PM PST by primeval patriot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: primeval patriot

>We'll<


39 posted on 11/14/2004 4:03:21 PM PST by primeval patriot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: CWOJackson

Ya think if GWB legalizes all these people we'll be seeing reduced federal spending?


40 posted on 11/14/2004 4:05:51 PM PST by primeval patriot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 141-154 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson