Posted on 01/27/2005 7:15:50 PM PST by neverdem
WASHINGTON, Jan. 26 - The battle within the Republican Party over immigration policy was joined Wednesday as President Bush vigorously promoted his proposal for a guest worker program and conservatives in Congress introduced an alternative proposal to tighten immigration restrictions.
At a news conference, President Bush said again that he considered his guest worker proposal "a priority" even though Senate Republicans left it off their list of top goals. "A program that enables people to come into our country in a legal way to work for a period of time, for jobs that Americans won't do, will help make it easier for us to secure our borders," Mr. Bush said, adding: "I know there is a compassionate, humane way to deal with this issue. I want to remind people that family values do not end at the Rio Grande border."
Party conservatives, however, have strenuously opposed a guest worker plan since Mr. Bush introduced the idea in 2001, even staging a losing revolt over its inclusion in the party platform at the 2004 Republican convention. Many conservatives call the president's ideas "amnesty" - a term Mr. Bush disputes - because his plan includes ways for currently illegal immigrants to obtain temporary worker permits.
On Wednesday afternoon, Representative F. James Sensenbrenner Jr., the Wisconsin Republican who is chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, again introduced a measure to block illegal immigrants from obtaining driver's licenses.
At a news conference, he said the committee would not consider other immigration proposals, implicitly including the president's, until his own measure passed. A similar measure was removed from a bill to enact the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission last year. Senator Jon Kyl, Republican of Arizona, is expected to introduce a driver's license restriction this year.
Mr. Sensenbrenner said his bill was primarily directed at border security, distinguishing it from other changes in immigration policy. "Immigrants are not terrorists, except a few of them," he said. "The legislation that was introduced today is designed to get the bad apples out of the barrel before the barrel was spoiled."
He said a group of House Republicans had written a letter to Mr. Bush urging him to provide full financing for provisions in last year's antiterrorism bill doubling the number of border patrol agents and tripling the number of beds for detaining illegal immigrants over the next five years. The Department of Homeland Security said recently that it was planning a smaller increase in financing, drawing the ire of advocates of tighter immigration laws.
Asked about the president's proposal, Mr. Sensenbrenner said his committee was "going to be plenty busy with other priorities, a lot of which are the priorities of the White House."
In an interview, Representative Chris Cannon, a Utah Republican who supports the president's plan, said a guest worker program would not amount to an amnesty because it would include a monetary penalty for currently illegal immigrants. "The people who want to kick them all out are not reasonable people," he said.
But Representative Tom Tancredo, Republican of Colorado and chairman of the Congressional immigration caucus, vowed to defeat any program that in his view would reward lawbreakers, even questioning the president's motives. "Could it be just the corporate interests, the money interests that rely so heavily on cheap labor?" he asked
No problem.
I couldn't disagree more. HLS is doing a good job as evidenced by arrested terrorist groups and no sucessful terrorist attacks. I agree terrorist need to be caught before they enter the US, but I do not consider the vast majority of illegals to be terrorists.
You know, there are people here on this board who assume that just because we're against sheltering lawbreakers, we are prejudiced against Latinos.
I'm sure that is true. It is also true that some posters on this board are against illegals because they hate Latinos.
We cannot absorb any more people, especially ones we know nothing about.
That is your opinion. I believe we have lots of room in America and illegal immigration fills a need for labor that is not being filled by legal immigration or citizen births. Many of the problems of illegal immigration would solve themselves if we had rational legal immigration.
We have human beings roasted to death in abandoned cargo containers. America once again has slavery...thanks to rampant illegal immigration, and the criminals who control it. This has to stop.
I agree and that is why I support Dubya's guest worker plan.
Since He was mentioned, God helps those who helps themselves.
This is what the illegals are doing when they come to America.
I still feel that there is something going on that Bush isn't telling us.
I think Dubya is an open book. He tells you what hes gonna do before he is elected. Once in office he promotes his legislation and then signs it when it is passed. Nothing confusing here.
Party before Constitution.
I don't believe CFR is good for the country and a lot of people on this forum would agree with me.
I didn't say CFR was good for the country I said it was good for the Republican Party. The country was gonna get Dubya's CFR or the rats CFR because the voters wanted it.
UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES WILL THERE BE ANY MORE AMNESTIES.
"Since He was mentioned, God helps those who helps themselves.
This is what the illegals are doing when they come to America."
So will you mind when someone helps himself to your car? Suddenly, I think the law will matter to you then.
That is a common misunderstanding of the right fringe. Representatives are suppose to act in the interests of their constituents. Leaders convince the people before acting or legislating. When a majority is convinced then action will have lasting impact. When the people are not convinced then future leaders will reverse the imprudent action. Take the AWB for example...Clinton did not convince voters and because of this when the ban was sunset there was no consequence to Dubya.
Leaders who do not heed the will of the people are called dictators. Wannabe dictators are the heroes of the fringe right because they defiantly reject the will of the people and instead promise to follow the echoing voices in their swelled heads with an iron fist. It is scary to read Freerepublic sometimes because rational thought is too often drowned out by the isolationist acolytes of Buchanan Tancredo and Keyes. They have lots of time and booze and no jobs or spell checkers.
And nothing is more dangerous.
That is an apples and oranges comparison. Speeding is a crime, downloading MP3s is a crime, women and blacks voting used to be a crime, and trespassing is a crime. Perhaps you mean to use the old tired rhetoric that illegals a purported to use a disproportionate amount of federal spending. By the same logic I should demand sanctions against overweight smokers like myself who aledgedly use a disproportional amount of healthcare dollars.
It is sad to see 40 years of rat rule has many people who call themselves conservative fretting over their teet on federal sow. I see it from at least one Freeper at every immigration thread I read. Many of the same fringers who complain about expansive government want government to restrict immigration to prop up inflates wages for unskilled Americans and raise taxes on imported goods. Unfortunately for the isolationist wing of the party the economy is doing well and I expect it to improve over the next 5 years. As the economy grows I expect Dubya and the congress to limit the growth of government. Psst, the Deficit’s Shrinking
The influence of anti immigration groups is at its zenith. They always come out when the economy takes a downturn. In 2 years the issue would fade no matter what action is taken to stem illegal immigration. I expect we will see a guest worker program that will register about 5-7 million illegals who can show a consistant work history, ties to the community, and good criminal records. They will be enticed to register with Social Security benifits. There will also be expansions of legal immigration. Then will come a comprehensive crack down on illegals and their employers...after the government has used necessary means to enable hard working illegals to volunterally register with the government.
If this works as I expect it should, good workers will be registered and make the job of removing the remaining illegal much easier. If immigration is expanded more Latinos will enter legally, and the isolationist wing of the party will have to go back under their rock for a long time.
I didn't say CFR was good for the nation I said it was good for the Republican Party. I didn't say CFR was a violation of the First Amendment, or in the (best) interest of the people. I said the people wanted CFR. Your's is an often effective, but dishonest debating technique. You accuse me of saying something I didn't, and then condemning me for your distortions? Better luck next time.
Do you seriously suggest that vetoing CFR would have made Bush either "an absolute ruler" or a "tyrant?"
I think my sentence "Leaders who do not heed the will of the people are called dictators," is perfectly understandable and I feel no desire to break it down so you can nitpick at it.
Do you seriously suggest that vetoing CFR would have made Bush either "an absolute ruler" or a "tyrant?"
Dubya doesn't have to obey the will of the people but they will throw him out and elect someone who will obey the people. The result is the same. Clinton had to sign welfare reform, Dubya had to sign CFR. To be a good steward of the people Dubya should VETO legislation that the people do not want. The Republicans have strengthened their majority by passing what the people want. There is no need to VETO it.
I understand your concerns with the 1st Amendment. Our Founding Fathers did not trust the Constitution to protect freedom. That is why they made it amendable. The Constitution is no guarantee against a corrupt people. The key to America's continued success lies in the people of the USA and the freedoms we cherish. The people don't always get it right the first time but eventually they get it right. There is nothing wrong with the people choosing to do the wrong thing as long as the retain the right to reverse it when they wise up. That may not be the best way to do things but it is the way we do things.
The CFR restrictions did not stop anyone from expressing their opinions through 527s. There were restrictions on individual contributions to a candidate before CFR of $1000. CFR expanded that to $2000. My point is on a scale of 1-10 1 being extremely destructive and 10 being extremely beneficial CFR is 5. It neither hurts nor helps. It is unconstitutional in the same manner that previous campaign contribution restriction violate the 1st Amendment. It is unconstitutional in the same manner that gun restrictions violate the 2nd Amendment and abortion violates the unalienable right to life proclaimed in the Declaration. And yet they are the law. They are reality.
Show me a strict constitutionalist and I will show you a man unable to get elected above Congressman. Who cares what they think? They ain't gonna get to do nothin about it.
My examples illustrate that there are degrees of crime and some laws (or policy) is. So the answer to your question would be yes.
If protective tariffs were good enough for the Founding Fathers, they're good enough for me.
Then from your response I gather we agree that "Many of the same fringers who complain about expansive government want government to restrict immigration to prop up inflates wages for unskilled Americans and raise taxes on imported goods."
You just said the economy was improving. Yet the immigration issue has never received so much attention as it has now. According to your formulation, this should not be so.
Yes, you are correct I said the economy is improving and the anti-immigration sentiment is at it's zenith. In science class we learned that some reactions require time.
Just like the one that happened after 1986?
no. Where has the administration been willing to comprehensively crack down on employers of illegals?
The Justice department went after Walmart last summer. It has increased money for border and instituted reform for verifying identification document. He has done what can be done with the resources and policy structure of previous administrations. Dubya wanted to resolve immigration earlier but political reality made logical long term reform impractical after 9-11. Now that we have assessed the situation Dubya is proposing his plan, a public debate is now occurring and will be followed with legislation and policy.
Will that desire just suddenly appear from the ether?
The desire is here now. What is preventing the crack down is the desire to minimize human suffering and economic upheaval. I expand on this point in post 224 if you still have trouble grasping it.
I take it the "good criminal record" will ignore the crime of illegally crossing our border and illegally working here?
yes.
Are there other laws that they can break and get a pass on?
Perhaps possession of forged identification, and other minor infractions that would be necessary to make purchases, find a job and a home. Think of it like a plea bargain. The illegal turns himself in and makes the job of apprehension and restitution simpler. The prosecution drops the penalty and throws out some charges. This allows investigators to focus on the illegals who are trying to hide. Does that make sense to you?
Secondly, what about their criminal records in their home countries?
I see no reason that can't be considered in deciding if the guest worker is suitable, but you say yourself that criminal records from Mexico may be suspect. These detail can be hammered out by experts.
I know, I know. The idea of corruption in Mexico is laughable, right?
What in the world would led you to make this comment? This statement tells me you have only skimmed my posts, looking for opportunities to contradict. I think Mexico is a hell hole that 15 million people have fled, and I thank God I was born here.
Do you honestly think that if the guest workers are less than sanguine about going home (and totally ignoring the problem of anchor babies that can tie the guest workers to this country), we will suddenly see a will deport these millions of people?
We will not deport guest workers who register and met the criteria for eligibility in the program. Those who do no register will be found and deported.
I did not say Dubya acted in the best interest of the people. I said he did what the people demanded. I further stated that the people don't always know what is in their best interest but the alternative to doing what the people want it do is totalitarianism.
I have answered all of your question in my last post to you. You do not like the answers and are asking the same questions. Read the post before responding next time.
"I said he did what the people demanded. I further stated that the people don't always know what is in their best interest but the alternative to doing what the people want it do is totalitarianism."
Again, you equate the veto to a dictatorship. It is not.
"Reagan and the Simpson half of Simpson/Mazolli called the 86 amnesty one of the biggest mistakes of the Reagan era"
I trust you've figured this out by now.
I thought so...Originally I thought you had a learning disability. I mean only a complete moron would use a quote from 84 to prove Reagan and Simpson claimed the 86 amnesty was a mistake.
The fact that you want to spotlight your comments again makes me think you must be a masochist who likes the hot flush of embarrassment on his cheeks. Thanx for the laugh.
I'll feel free to ignore your content-less 'squeeze' from now on.
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.