Posted on 04/26/2006 5:20:12 PM PDT by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
LOL!
The question is NOT what Im for or not for. The question is your credibility when you claimed Bush never called the "Minutemen" vigilantes and then your proof of that only proved Bush did call them vigilantes.
Now you change to subject to whether or not I am for vigilantes.
Im being dumbed down replying to your posts. You're way too easy. Not a typical Freeper. That's for sure
If you want to defend the President on the issue of illegal immigration, you should stick to debating the facts around immigration itself, rather than trying to falsely portray the President as somebody who is in any way tough on illegal immigration, or as somebody who isn't contemptuous of those who try to fight it.
Bush:I'm against vigilantes in the United States of America...
Bush:I'm for enforcing the law in a rational way.
Thanks for the quotes.
They seem reasonable.
Let me know when you have something that contradicts my point.
Thanks!
Facts don't matter.
Haven't you heard there's not a dime's difference between the two parties?
Shirley you'll recall when Arnold made his statement about closing the borders, he came under intense media pressure, only to recant later and say that he only meant to suggest that we needed to keep track of the 'undocumented'.
It's the desire to get along with the leftists in the media and this state (California) that is a measures one's 'conservativeness'. Neither Arnold nor Bush have the cred to kick leftist ass.
The Left (by nature) is collective and cohesive on all things 'communitarian'. The right should be about the individual, the state, and the nation,--the sovereignty of each as defined by our laws.
"Good job finding that link...that shut him up."
"I doubt it."
You're right. See posts 441,450 and 468.
I can't deny that Bush did make his agenda clear. If you notice nobody is calling him a liar, because its clear hes not. But hes not a conservative, so naturally conservatives are going to complain about his leadership.
Oh, I've been through it on many threads, but it's nice of you to assume I haven't.
I've done plenty of googling on the subject.
You should do more of it yourself.
BTTT!
Gee, how I wish FACTS mattered.
LOL...that's what it's like responding to these folks. When your position ("Let's solve the illegal immigration problem by just calling them legal") is indefensible, your arguments will rarely sound intelligent.
I see.
So in an article written about the Minutemen,
"President Bush yesterday said he opposes a civilian project to monitor illegal aliens crossing the border, characterizing them as "vigilantes".
But that doesn't qualify in your book.
Whatever.
Benefits? Like welfare? Isn't the party line that they all come to work?
"are you for vigilantes in the United States of America ????"
The minute men aren't vigilantees, they look for crime then call the federal officers and report it.
Plus when our own government refuses to follow the law I would support vigilantes.
Then why are you playing dumb now? It's not like it's going to persuade anyone that Bush wasn't referring to the Minutemen.
Benefits? Like welfare? Isn't the party line that they all come to work?
Wow, they're watching this thread closely. I have no idea what post 492 was, but it lasted about 2 seconds.
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.