Privately, Bush Says He Favors Citizenship (for Illegals)

AP ^ | April 26, 2006 | DAVID ESPO

[West Coast Conservative]

President Bush generally favors plans to give millions of illegal immigrants a chance at U.S. citizenship without leaving the country, but does not want to be more publicly supportive because of opposition among conservative House Republicans, according to senators who attended a recent White House meeting.

Several officials familiar with the meeting also said Democrats protested radio commercials that blamed them for Republican-written legislation that passed the House and would make illegal immigrants vulnerable to felony charges.

Bush said he was unfamiliar with the ads, which were financed by the Republican National Committee, according to officials familiar with the discussions.

At another point, Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada and other members of his party pressed the president about their concern that any Senate-passed bill would be made unpalatable in final talks with the House.

Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, the second-ranking Democrat, said the lawmaker who would lead House negotiators, House Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner, had been "intractable" in negotiations on other high-profile bills in the past. Bush did not directly respond to the remark, officials said.

The Republican and Democratic officials who described the conversation did so Wednesday on condition of anonymity, saying they had not been authorized to disclose details.

Bush convened the session to give momentum to the drive for election-year immigration legislation, a contentious issue that has triggered large street demonstrations and produced divisions in both political parties. Senators of both parties emerged from the session praising the president's involvement and said the timetable was achievable.

"Yes, he thinks people should be given a path to citizenship," said Sen. Mel Martinez., R-Fla., a leading supporter of immigration legislation in the Senate.

[diogenes ghost]

"Plenty of people at this web site are working to make sure that happens." No, plenty of people here yearn for a principled conservative that earns their trust and belief he will uphold the things about the country they revere, and in many cases, have fought and spilled blood for. Whistling past the graveyard, perhaps, but just maybe Lucy won't jerk the football away next time.

[onyx]

Name them.
Name the people here who are FOR open borders.

[Howlin]

Howlin and you started the cracks, without reference to immigration

Can you link the rule that says we are FORCED to respond to you, period, much less discuss any one topic?

And don't discuss me again without pinging me.

[Mo1]

Again .. I didn't call you a name

I just made an observation

[CWOJackson]

It also has fewer calories then other sites, which doesn't change the actual comments and intentions, as stated by, the founder and operator.

[FreeReign]

Me:work-site enforcement is down....because....the president moved almost all such funding to border enforcement after 911.

You:Oh...We have secured our borders after 9/11?

Me:We haven't made any arrests at the border since 9/11?

I'll let my post #330 speak for itself as to whom it is making opinions and asking rhetorical questions rather than stating the facts.

You ask me a rhetorical question grounded in hyperbole that doesn't logically follow from my statement.

I respond in kind.

My statement remains unaddressed by you.

[Fledermaus]

Now, the fact that Jim himself has declared his personal belief we need to elect more Republicans does not conflict with the mission statement.

Everyone with half a brain knows the only way, albeit not very effective as of late, to advance the conservative position is only through electing Republicans. It's hard work and will take more time but if we can get some real leaders again we can succeed.

Frankly, the pickings for 2008 are looking bleak.

[Fledermaus]

Taste great!

[nicmarlo]

As I said, I'll let my post #330 speak for itself. Thanks.

[Jim_Curtis]

Were you one of those "support Harriet Miers or Pelosi will be Speaker Of The House" type posters back in the day?

I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess you were one and I wouldn't be surprised if some of the other non enforcement types posting in this thread were big supporters of hers.

Here's hoping they fail on amnesty like they failed on Miers and the principled conservatives will save the day again.

[CWOJackson]

"Everyone with half a brain knows the only way, albeit not very effective as of late, to advance the conservative position is only through electing Republicans."

You just called a lot of Freepers half-wits. Now that IS against the posted rules.

[FreeReign]

Free Republic is not affiliated with any political party, group, news source, government agency or anyone else.

The word "affiliated" has various meanings. How do you thing it is being used in the above statement?

[sinkspur]

Now you'll tell everybody you have never,never,never...broken a pledge

I never made a public pledge to 625,000 people, like Tancredo did.

Tom Coburn of Oklahoma was the only congressman who actually kept that pledge.

Term limits are stupid, and people who make term limit pledges on their own are super-stupid.

[tobyhill]

"It's their responsibility to show documentation. They are not citizens, the same rules don't apply. In practice, it isn't all that hard, if you barely speek English, you've got no papers, you can't site where your birthplace and birth certificate are, etc., etc. you are gone."

Yes, it is their responsibility to show documentation the same way it's anyones responsibility to show a drivers license when pulled over.

Correct, the same rules don't apply but all persons in this country, documented or undocumented, are afforded adjudication.

If you don't know where they're from or who they are, where are you going to deport them to?


"How about this question, say I'm an American who committed a crime, but refused to show any documentation."
Two different crimes, the crime its self and failure to provide name then a possibility of obstruction.


"Under your scenario, undocumentation would have greater privileges than documentation, we'd need a new trial for every crook who claimed to be John Smith."
Not greater privileges just more complexity. First you need proof of a crime then knowledge of whom you charge. The problem with illegal immigration is they're both in the same.


"In fact, that is the case now, but only for illegals."
No it's not, every single day someone gives a false name and B-Day then the police let walk away if there's no other proof of a crime.

"Why can't I tell the traffic cop I'm Jesus, give him a false address and skate indefinitely? The illegals do on a regular basis."
You can and if you have knowledge of other info. you walk. The illegals have info pools that they can draw a name, Drivers License Numbers, addresses, phone numbers, etc. from then give it to law enforcement. They'll get a ticket for failure to have a license on them but they walk.

[Prokopton]

"Name the people here who are FOR open borders."

Just read the posts of those who support President Bush's past and present open border policy.

[FastCoyote]

Neither of you have anything to say on immigration, just a bunch of innuendo. So, goodbye

[onyx]

Not good enough and a false assetion and accustion.

Not one poster on this thread is FOR open borders.

[Mo1]

Later dude!

[FreeReign]

As I said, I'll let my post #330 speak for itself. Thanks.

No problem.

Me:work-site enforcement is down....because....the president moved almost all such funding to border enforcement after 911.

You:Oh...We have secured our borders after 9/11?

Me:We haven't made any arrests at the border since 9/11?

As I said:

You asked me a rhetorical question grounded in hyperbole that doesn't logically follow from my statement.

I responded in kind.

My statement remains unaddressed by you.

Thanks.

[MaineVoter2002]

The only thing that can be done is to start replacing the liberal republicans with Tancredo republicans in the primaries in states where they have a chance, replace 'moderate' democrats with Tancredo-like conservative 3rd party that way the GOP does not gain power out of the democrat losses.