Posted on 05/11/2006 11:04:48 PM PDT by Lancey Howard
Senate leaders reached an agreement yesterday on immigration reform legislation that would strengthen border security but also would allow millions of illegal aliens who have been in the U.S. for two years or longer to apply for citizenship. Derided by conservatives as "amnesty," the proposal could be amended but senators on both sides of the aisle say they doubt it will be dramatically altered. "Senate Republicans are united in their commitment to an open and full debate on multiple amendments," said a statement from seven Republicans who represent the full spectrum of positions on immigration reform. "We are willing to put differences aside so we can get on with the important work to be done securing our borders and grappling with the 12 million illegal immigrants currently living in our country," said the group that included Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee, Sen. John McCain of Arizona and Sen. John Cornyn of Texas. "We are also in agreement that efforts to curtail the debate prematurely will only derail this process. We call on Senate Democrats to allow an open debate and votes on this complex and challenging issue," the statement read. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, with whom Mr. Frist has been negotiating for weeks, said he "welcomed" the return of the thorny bill to the floor.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
This measure will fail by its total unenforceability -- akin to going down to the docks and anouncing amnesty for the rats that turn themselves in. It codifies the status quo. No fence, no solution.
Yeah, right.
The Republicans are going to commit political suicide with this one. If they grant amnesty, the new voters are not going to vote republican and the GOP will NEVER get power again peacefully.
In that case activate the Texas State Guard. 4th Brigade Texas State Guard is all Military Police.
I see all the usual whiners and complainers are here.
A good portion of them are paid opinion shapers and some are garden variety trolls.
I hear ya. I just think Washington would purposely stand in the way of any meaningful border security enacted by the states. There's money in it for them to be made in them thar illegals. Besides do you really expect our elitist elected to cook their own breakfast :>}
You're right.
:-)
Read the book for which Jim Robinson wrote the foreward -- Hillary's Secret War. It's detailed in there.
DustyMoment wrote: "Like I say, it's a waste of time and bandwidth, but I feel obligated to make my voice heard."
I'm going to keep saying it, because it's really that important. Don't give up, because giving up ASSURES our defeat. Frankly, I was incredibly naive to believe we could change Washington in one or two elections. I mean, what were we all thinking? This is a going to be a lifetime battle for conservatives, but it's one worth fighting.
Evaluate the situation carefully and do whatever gives you the greatest chance of getting what you personally think is most important. For example, I really like the Constitution Party, but the pragmatist in me believes they are DOA for several important reasons.
The key is to pick one of the two established parties (the Republican Party is the obvious choice). If 20% of your party members are truly conservative, you might actually still be able to swing a primary in your state. As you know, the turnout for those is typically pretty small. On the other hand, if you take that 20% and form an independent party, you'll only split the Republican Party and get Dems elected.
And, yes, if you end up getting a RINO, just remember the goal is to win as much as you can. The RINO might give you 5% or 10% of what you want, but he's STILL better than a Dem.
"We've got enemies on both sides of the aisle."
So precisely what's "irrational" about insisting that our laws be obeyed??
"The amnesty was limited to agricultrue workers - what 6 or 7 amnesties are you referring to?"
The 1986 amnesty was not limited to agriculture workers.
Until 1986, the United States had never forgiven the act of illegal immigration in other than individual cases and had never rewarded large numbers of illegal aliens with the opportunity for U.S. citizenship.
http://www.numbersusa.com/interests/amnesty.html
Congress has passed 7 amnesties for illegal aliens, starting in 1986.
1. Immigration and Reform Control Act (IRCA), 1986: A blanket amnesty for some 2.7 million illegal aliens
2. Section 245(i) Amnesty, 1994: A temporary rolling amnesty for 578,000 illegal aliens
3. Section 245(i) Extension Amnesty, 1997: An extension of the rolling amnesty created in 1994
4. Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act (NACARA) Amnesty, 1997: An amnesty for close to one million illegal aliens from Central America
5. Haitian Refugee Immigration Fairness Act Amnesty (HRIFA), 1998: An amnesty for 125,000 illegal aliens from Haiti
6. Late Amnesty, 2000: An amnesty for some illegal aliens who claim they should have been amnestied under the 1986 IRCA amnesty, an estimated 400,000 illegal aliens
7. LIFE Act Amnesty, 2000: A reinstatement of the rolling Section 245(i) amnesty, an estimated 900,000 illegal aliens
8. Nine current bills are vying to be Amnesty No. 8
No. 1- Immigration Reform and Control Act Amnesty of 1986:
The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) was enacted by Congress in response to the large and rapidly growing illegal alien population in the United States. The final bill was the result of a dramatic compromise between those who wanted to reduce illegal immigration into the United States and those who wanted to "wipe the slate clean" for those illegals already living here by granting them legal residence. As enacted, IRCA included a massive amnesty program for two main categories of illegal aliens:
1) those who could show that they had resided illegally in the United States continuously since at least January 1, 1982; and
2) those who had worked as agricultural workers for at least 90 days between May 1, 1985 and May 1, 1986.
As a "balance" to this huge amnesty, IRCA also included several provisions designed to: strengthen the enforcement of immigration laws (including sanctions for employers who knowingly hire illegal aliens); increase border controls; and create a program to verify the immigration status of aliens applying for certain welfare benefits.
The IRCA amnesty has been tied to terrorism. Mahmud Abouhalima, a leader of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, was legalized as a seasonal agricultural worker as part of the 1986 IRCA amnesty. This allowed him to travel abroad, including several trips to Afghanistan, where he received terrorist training.
NOTE: In the 1990 Immigration Act, an additional 160,000 spouses and minor children of aliens amnestied under IRCA were granted amnesty as well. These 160,000 aliens are not included in the total numeric impact of the amnesty.
In addition, another 350,000 illegal aliens who were initially disqualified from the 1986 IRCA amnesty because they had traveled abroad while in the U.S. illegally may qualify for amnesty under proposed settlements in lawsuits resulting after the 1986 amnesty.
Edgar3 wrote: "No! By voting for more of the same you are only going to make the situation worse."
I'm saying DON'T vote more of the same. Make sure you get active and vote conservative in your Republican primary. Give money directly to your guy--not the RNC. If he or she loses, then support the next best Republican in the election.
Perhaps I can't convince you this is the most reasonable approach, but I'm convinced it's the best hope we've got. The immigration issue is a call to action. We KNOW where the problem is...RINOs and Dems in the Senate and an open borders president. You won't change it by voting for a third party candidate who will be lucky to get on the ballot or by sitting at home grousing about it!
There ARE plenty of good Republicans already in office, but they are still the clear minority. Do you want to split the conservative vote and assure we remain irrelevant or do you really want to try and turn this country around?
seemoAR wrote: "Have you ever read Executive Order #12656, Section 101?"
No, I'm not familiar with it. What does it say?
In 2008, I would like someone more socially conservative than Bush and would never offer his legal secretary up as a SCOTUS nominee...(even you publicly scorned that move), someone who is proactive about securing our borders, has a plan somewhat short of total anchor amnesty.
And who listens to and doesn't neglect their base and waste precious political capital like he and the RINOs have.
That is what I want....I'm not sure that is yet. Allen worries me. The big names are uber-RINOs. Pence...low voltage. Your buddy Tancredo...lol...too volatile, doesn't show well.
McCaianiac...no way.
We shall see. I don't think they've reared their head yet though Allen is the Show Horse at this point.
Uncle Vlad wrote: "All of that is very nice, but if you can't secure the borders of your country, you have no country."
I agree. More importantly, if you can't get people who actually want to secure the borders into power, you'll never secure them.
Obviously, you deport them.
And decent less petty larger minded folks will have long left.
those soft on immigration tend to often be socially moderate anyhow....go to a South Bashing thread....the Open Borders and South Bashers often merge
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.