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 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 141-154 next last
To: primeval patriot

I'll be dancing in the streets if this legislation makes matricula consular cards illegal.


61 posted on 11/14/2004 4:38:38 PM PST by dennisw (G_D - against Amelek for all generations.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fatalis
Such rants are quite counterproductive, because they feed the assumption that only wildeyed anti-immigrant yahoos are concerned about illegal aliens.

On this thread, the ranting and raving about walls wasn't brought up by an anti-immigrant yahoo.

62 posted on 11/14/2004 4:43:25 PM PST by primeval patriot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: CaptainAwesome2
By asking questions you concede that you don't know the answers. That's a good sign. Another good sign would be to wait until you've heard the answers before you start shooting.

First, if you start shooting illegal aliens they will seen as victims not only of the evil nuts who would shoot them, but also as victims of tragic circumstance. Shooting illegal aliens is not only murder, it would polarize the greater debate along emotional lines and cost considerable support among reasonable people for solving the problem of illegal aliens without legalizing them. There would not be a positive compromise, the entire position against illegal aliens would be compromised, and you would get an amnesty in short order.

Second, as with all forms of lawbreaking, diligent enforcement is an effective disincentive against breaking the laws being enforced. Start there, and provide the manpower and resources that would be wasted on snipers toward humanely but decisively enforcing our laws, especially in the vast American interior.

63 posted on 11/14/2004 4:46:08 PM PST by Fatalis (John Kyl in 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: primeval patriot
What I don't understand is that the gov't can envision a wireless get everything instantly to anyone in the field anywhere but cannot figure out that the same technology can effectively shut down the borders.

hmmmm priorities?
64 posted on 11/14/2004 4:47:04 PM PST by No_Doll_i (Proud Member of the VRWPP)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

Comment #65 Removed by Moderator

To: JonDavid

If there was no reason to sneak into America would they stop? No hiring, no welfare, no schools , no anchor babies, etc., and it stops on its own!

Is that too simple?


66 posted on 11/14/2004 4:53:44 PM PST by B4Ranch (The lack of alcohol in my coffee is forcing me to see reality!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: primeval patriot
On this thread, the ranting and raving about walls wasn't brought up by an anti-immigrant yahoo.

That's a bit of a dodge. One poster pointed out the our borders can't be sealed, and I count about a dozen who took the bait and disagreed. Several of them advocate thousands of miles of walls and fences, and even worse nonsense.

Securing the borders, while important, does not and should not require walls, and attempts to "seal the borders" are wasteful, hyperbolic overkill.

The problem of illegal aliens is systemic, and to set priorities on the borders is to misunderstand the problem. If a patient is suffering a systemic infection and one applies a topical antibiotic, the patient will not improve. The infection must be addressed internally. So it is with illegal aliens. Some enhancement of border enforcement is fine, but most of our efforts should be directed at interior enforcement. Crack down on employers, conduct sweeps at day-laborer sites, and use the IRS to track fraudulent tax documents. Illegal aliens in the interior will become discouraged and leave. Those not yet illegal will see the exodus and become less likely to cross. The numbers of illegal aliens coming into the country would start to diminish, and the resources we do maintain at the border could be used more effectively against those that still attempt to cross.

67 posted on 11/14/2004 5:02:02 PM PST by Fatalis (John Kyl in 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: primeval patriot

Is it really news when most of the article is devoted to smearing the legislation, instead of reporting its content?


68 posted on 11/14/2004 5:05:00 PM PST by IStillBelieve (G.W. Bush '04: Biggest popular-vote victory in history, and first popular-vote majority in 16 years!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fatalis
Why not be a NUT! We are fighting NUTS!. So we must fight FIRE with FIRE -- Nuts with Nuts !! We must speak to them in the language they understand. You may not agree with my suggestions now, but in the near future when our enemies are killing us in the streets of this country, you will and will probably want more stringent measures!!

Ask yourself this question. If you could go back and stand against abortion, knowing then how many innocents would be killed, how hard would you fight Roe v Wade.

If you could prevent thousand or even hundreds of thousands of Americans from being killed, why wouldn't you!
What are your limits.
69 posted on 11/14/2004 5:05:20 PM PST by 26lemoncharlie (Defending America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: B4Ranch

First of all you mis-red my sentiments I am for impeaching those representatives because they are not responding to the will of the people;sorry for the confusion!


70 posted on 11/14/2004 5:06:08 PM PST by winker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: CaptainAwesome2
i think more people will take the attitude of "if you dont want to get shot dont try to enter the country illegally." if it incites some kind of emotional debate thats fine. i think its worth a try. it would be a lot cheaper to shoot to kill them then it would be to have thousands of agents patrolling the border with expensive technology. you dont have to kill every one of them because once they see they could actually suffer a consequence there will be a lot less trying to come over.

It's a dumb and evil idea. So dumb I half suspect that you are a plant.

You are advocating the murder of illegal aliens. By doing so not only are you revealing yourself to be a truly creepy individual, you are assisting those who want to legalize illegal aliens by making the opposition to illegals appear to be a safe haven for evil lunatics.

71 posted on 11/14/2004 5:07:05 PM PST by Fatalis (John Kyl in 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Fatalis

I'm a NUT? Check it out!

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1279964/posts


72 posted on 11/14/2004 5:07:21 PM PST by 26lemoncharlie (Defending America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: JonDavid
It's impossible to seal our borders.

That's no reason to do nothing. We can at least slow it down considerably.

We have to TRY!

73 posted on 11/14/2004 5:08:36 PM PST by airborne (God bless and keep our fallen heroes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: 26lemoncharlie
I'm a NUT?

Your words:

Why not be a NUT! We are fighting NUTS!. So we must fight FIRE with FIRE -- Nuts with Nuts !!

74 posted on 11/14/2004 5:10:48 PM PST by Fatalis (John Kyl in 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: primeval patriot

If what I heard is correct, only about 5% of it actually a concrete wall. The rest is a fence.


75 posted on 11/14/2004 5:10:50 PM PST by airborne (God bless and keep our fallen heroes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: JonDavid

To put a 3-man team every mile along the entire Mexican border, working 24/7 in 3 shifts, capped at 200 days total work per man would require...

Total # shifts/mile = 3*365 = 1095 shifts/mile
Total number of miles = 2000 miles
Total shifts = 2,190,000
At 3 men per shift, total men = 32,850

Given that the Federal government employs 3 million people, requiring only 32,850 to secure the Mexican border is insignificant.

The logistics of securing the border are not the issue. It's strictly a matter of political will.


76 posted on 11/14/2004 5:16:57 PM PST by IStillBelieve (G.W. Bush '04: Biggest popular-vote victory in history, and first popular-vote majority in 16 years!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: B4Ranch
If there was no reason to sneak into America would they stop? No hiring, no welfare, no schools , no anchor babies, etc., and it stops on its own!

Bingo! Now if we can get the cheap labor-loving, big business-loving Republicans and Democrats to agree, the invasion will stop. Clinton loved illegal immigration, Bush loves illegal immigration, and then there's the campaign debts to pay off..., so to hell with American workers and taxpayers. We're up against some big anti-American guns.

77 posted on 11/14/2004 5:21:16 PM PST by janetgreen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Missouri
"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,''

My goodness chicken little, then by all means let's continue to do nothing. Fact is denial of services for Illegals is coming, state by state or at the federal level. Conservative Americans want it, and have the momentum to make it happen.
78 posted on 11/14/2004 5:21:38 PM PST by moehoward
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Fatalis

What you refer to and I agreed with the use of the Word NUT, is a Metphore for Patriotic Zealot!! As in Patrick Henery's "I know not what course other's may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death"!


79 posted on 11/14/2004 5:22:43 PM PST by 26lemoncharlie (Defending America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: SealSeven

Keep dreaming. When Bill O'Reilly was interviewing President Bush, the question of border security came up. O'Reilly asked him about putting the military on the border to seal it up; the President had a look as you got to be kidding. It's not like this country can't do it. Americans can do ANYTHING that we put our minds too. The question is it in the best interest of the country. If it were, I believe President Bush would have done it or committed the country to build barriers and station a border army. President Bush did mention in one of the debates that the US is using drones & satellites to monitor the border. By doing this and I assume other measures, the borders are secured. However, no amount of border security can deter a committed enemy from smuggling a nuke into this country. For example, Russia using a stealth airplane could parachute a commando unit into the US. This commando unit could do anything from surveillance to planting and detonating a nuke. That’s why we have to be on the offensive. Kill them before they kill us. That’s the main reason why I voted for President Bush.


80 posted on 11/14/2004 5:26:23 PM PST by JonDavid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 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